3rd YEAR PRAGMATICS - POLITENESS THEORIES Politeness can be defined as a means of minimizing confrontation in discourse both the possibility

y of confrontation occurring at all, and the possibility that a confrontation will be perceived as threatening (Lakoff 1989: 102). The face-saving view (Brown & Levinson 1987) revolves around Goffmans (1967) notion of face: Face is an image of the self delineated in terms of approved social attributes (1967:5). Face= the public self-image that every member [of society] wants to claim for himself. (Brown & Levinson 1987). A persons concern for their positive face includes the desire to be ratified, understood, approved of, liked or admired (1987:62) e.g. you want me to acknowledge your existence (greet you), approve of your opinions (Youre right about fast foods) or express admiration ( You did a terrific job). A persons concern for their negative face revolve around the want of every competent adult member that his actions be unimpeded by others (1987:62) (i.e. you want me to let you say and do what you want. Facework = the actions taken by a person to preserve/save their face. (also called remedial work) Facework relies on the interactants mutual interest in cooperating to maintain their respective faces. Since a threat is likely to lead to a counterthreat or even to escalate and turn into physical violence, the S has a vested interest in maintaining the Hs face reciprocal concern for the face The positive evaluation of reputation, prestige, (self)-esteem, involves preventing ones public image from suffering damage, i.e. from losing face. Potential damage to ones face simultaneously engenders face protection or facework / remedial work, destined to restore ones allegedly damaged face. Potential face threat involves 3 sociological variables : 1) social distance 2) relative power 3) size of imposition, affect : more politeness is associated with greater liking (Brown & Gilman);

presence of a third party mood (anger == decrease in politeness; joy == increase in politeness) Any act that impinges upon a persons face to some extent (typically insults, criticisms, insults) is a Face-threatening act (FTA). - potential threats to the positive face: criticism, disagreement, apology, confession - potential threats to negative face : orders, requests, threats/ thanks, unwilling promises or offers. Brown & Levinson propose 5 superstrategies that are systematically related to the degree of face threat :
1)

Bald on record : The FTA is performed in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible (B&L 1987: 69), in other words in compliance with Grices maxims. Emergencies: HELP!! Task- oriented commands: Give me that! Requests: Put your coat away. Alerting: Turn your headlights on! (When alerting someone to something they should be doing)

2)

Positive politeness : the use of strategies designed to redress the Hs positive face wants Attend to the hearer: "You must be hungry, it's a long time since breakfast. How about some lunch?" Avoid disagreement: A: " What is she, small?" B: "Yes, yes, she's small, smallish, um, not really small but certainly not very big." Assume agreement: "So when are you coming to see us?" Hedge opinion: "You really should sort of try harder."

Typical Positive Politeness Output Strategies : Notice, attend to H : Youve had your hair cut. Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy for H): That was so awful, my heart bled for you Use in-group identity markers : Joey, pal, come over here Seek agreement (select a safe topic on which agreement is expected) : Nice weather today

Avoid disagreement (white lies, hedging opinions): Yes, its kind of nice. Joke (meant to put H at ease): So youre free to do me a favour tomorrow. Assert knowledge of Hs wants : I know you re looking for a good dentist, heres his address. Offer, promise : Come over for a cup of coffee. Include S and H in the activity : Lets have a drink Negative politeness : the use of strategies designed to redress the Hs negative face wants (not interfering with the Hs freedom of action,compensating for potential interfering or transgressing the Hs personal space) Be indirect: "I'm looking for a comb." In this situation you are hoping that you will not have to ask directly, so as not to impose and take up the hearer's time. Therefore, by using this indirect strategy, you hope they will offer to go find one for you. Forgiveness: "You must forgive me but...." Minimize imposition: "I just want to ask you if I could use your computer?" Pluralize the person responsible: "We forgot to tell you that you needed to by your plane ticket by yesterday." Typical Negative Politeness Output Strategies Be conventionally indirect: Do you mind opening the window? Q, hedge: I was wondering, could you help? Be pessimistic (use subjunctive, negative and remote possibility markers): I dont suppose there would be any remote chance for a nice quiet date? Minimize the imposition: Could I borrow your pen for only one second? Apologize: I dont want to trouble you, but... Impersonalize S and H: It would be great if this job were done. Go on-record as incurring a debt: Id be forever grateful if you helped me with my exam. Off-record : The FTA is performed in such a way that there is more than one unambiguously attributable intention so that the actor cannot be held to have committed himself to one particular intent performed by means of an implicature Give hints:"It's cold in here."

3)

4)

Be vague:"Perhaps someone should have been more responsible." Be sarcastic, or joking:"Yeah, he's a real rocket scientist!"
5)

Withhold the FTA : An option any communicator has is not to talk (Craig 1986)

Impoliteness The notion of inherent impoliteness irrespective of context only holds good for a minority of acts, ore specifically those when H is engaged in some anti-social activity (picking nose or ears, belching,). No change of context can remove the impoliteness from an U such as Do you think you could possibly not pick your nose? (the offence is not amenable to politeness work) If politeness pursues the preservation of social harmony, impoliteness deals with the use of strategies meant to create social disruption. Such strategies are oriented towards attacking/damaging face. Mock impoliteness / banter = surface impoliteness, not intended to cause offence but to reinforce in-group solidarity. e.g. Eat beef you bastards (ad slogan of an Australian meat retailer) Howre you doing, motherfuckers? ( Metallica on opening their concert) Impoliteness strategies (Culpeper 1996, 2003) Bald on record impoliteness : the FTA is performed in a direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way in circumstances where face is not irrelevant or minimized. 2. Positive Politeness : the use of strategies designed to damage the Hs + face wants e.g. ignore the other exclude the other from activity; be unsympathetic, unconcerned;use inappropriate identity markers;use obscene or secretive L, taboo words;seek disagreement;call names 3. Negative impoliteness ; the use of strategies designed to damage the Hs negative face wants e.g. frighten, condescend, scorn or ridicule; not treat the other seriously; condescend, belittle the other (use diminutives); curse (wish for action detrimental to other); invade the others space (physically or metaphorically); put the others indebtedness on record
1.

Sarcasm or mock politeness : the FTA is performed with the use of politeness strategies that are obviously insincere, and thus remain surface realisations 5. Withhold politeness : the absence of politeness work where expected.
4.

Criticisms of B&L :
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

B&Ls approach to politeness underestimates the impact of context, since both positive and negative face wants and face threats cannot be assumed to apply in the same way across, individuals, cultures, situations. B&L assume that the autonomy of negative face is always the desired option, leaving out of the picture people who would rather be told what to do, and who do not always enjoy being independent. Face does not involve all aspects of the self equally. The self consists of layers of components with the most face-laden closest to the ego (Liu 1999). For instance, an insult directed at the colour of my carpet will hurt less than a derogative remark about my lecture in pragmatics. With a compulsive cleaner, the same remark may sound outrageously offensive. Many acts that potentially threaten the Hs face can have ramifications for the Ss face. Orders, threats or criticisms reveal a potentially unfavourable, hence face-threatening image of the S. Cooperative and polite behaviour does not solely arise out of the need for reciprocity and exemption of mutual vulnerability. Polite behaviour promotes an image of kindness and friendliness which may be an important identity claim of the self.