1

POLITENESS AS A SOCIAL VARIABLE

POLITENESS
“It is best expressed as practical application of good manners or etiquettes”.
“The actions taken by competent speakers in a community in order to attend to possible social or
interpersonal disturbances”. It is a culturally defined phenomenon and what is considered polite
in one culture can often be quite rude or simply strange in another.(Meyerhoff) While the goal of
politeness is to make all the parties relaxed and comfortable with one another. (George Yule)
when we speak we must constantly make choices of many different kinds: what we want
to say, how we want to say it and the specific sentence types and sounds that best unite” what
with “how. Whenever we speak we make careful choice of words according to the relationship
with listener. We will also see that many languages vary in the choice of words and expressions
regarding politeness. in modern world, much interaction takes place at both personal and
professional level. that is why one has to be polite. (Ronald Wardhaugh)
WHY TO BE POLITE
Dealing with people is not easy. Business deals, personal interactions, workplace
intermingling all require certain conversational skills. All this requires a person to be polite. if
one is polite, one can build up friendly ties. Now-a-days man has become entirely social and for
this socialism, he has to come across people of different temperaments. So, politeness is
inevitable. (Amitabh Shukla, 2000)

MAXIMS OF POLITENESS
Leech proposed these maxims in 1983,which are given below
1. TACT MAXIM
The tact maxim states:
“Minimize the expression of beliefs which imply cost to other; maximize the
expression of beliefs which imply benefit to other”.
The first part of this maxim fits in with Brown and Levinson's negative politeness
strategy of minimizing the imposition, and the second part reflects the positive politeness
strategy of attending to the hearer's interests, wants, and needs.
For example “I need a little bit of advice here”.

2. GENEROSITY MAXIM
Leech's Generosity maxim states:
“Minimize the expression of benefit to self; maximize the expression of cost to self.”
Unlike the tact maxim, the maxim of generosity focuses on the speaker, and says that
others should be put first instead of the self. For example “You must come and have dinner
with us”.
3. APPROBATION MAXIM
The Approbation maxim states:
“Minimize the expression of beliefs which express dispraise of other; maximize the
expression of beliefs which express approval of other”.
It is preferred to praise others and if this is impossible, to sidestep the issue, to give some
sort of minimal response (possibly through the use of euphemism), or to remain silent. The first
part of the maxim avoids disagreement; the second part intends to make other people feel good
by showing solidarity.
For example “Well”.
2

4. MODESTY MAXIM
The Modesty maxim states:
“Minimize the expression of praise of self; maximize the expression of dispraise of self”.
For example ' Oh, I'm so stupid - I didn't make a note of our lecture! Did you? It is found
mostly in European countries.
5. AGREEMENT MAXIM
The Agreement maxim runs as follows:
“Minimize the expression of disagreement between self and other; maximize the
expression of agreement between self and other. It is in line with Brown and Levinson’s positive
politeness strategies of 'seek agreement' and 'avoid disagreement,' to which they attach great
importance. However, it is not being claimed that people totally avoid disagreement. It is simply
observed that they are much more direct in expressing agreement, rather than disagreement.
For example, “Yes, but I thought we resolved this on our last visit”. 
6 SYMPATHY MAXIM
The sympathy maxim states:
“Minimize antipathy between self and other; maximize sympathy between self and
other.”
This includes a small group of speech acts such as congratulation, commiseration, and
expressing condolences - all of which is in accordance with Brown and Levinson's positive
politeness strategy of attending to the hearer's interests, wants, and needs. For example, “I am
sorry to hear about your father”. (Miriam Meyerhoff)

TECHNIQUES TO SHOW POLITENESS

1. Expressing Uncertainty Through INDIRECTNESS AND HEDGES

Hedge is defined as a mitigating device to lessen the impact of an utterance. These are
normally adverbs and adjectives. For example “He is a slightly stupid person”.
“There might be just a few insignificant problems, we need to settle”
2. POLITE LYING
It is a lie that a politeness standard requires and which is usually known to be untrue by
both parties .It is culture dependent. For example “A polite lie to decline invitations because
of scheduling difficulties”.
3. USE OF EUPHEMISM (WHICH MAKES USE OF AMBIGUITY AND
CONNOTATION)
Euphemism is the substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression in place of
one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the listener. Euphemism requires skill to
sugar-coat a bitter pill to swallow. There are some superstitious euphemisms based on the idea
that words have the power to bring bad fortune. For example, not speaking the word
“CANCER”.
Connotation: It has different meanings in other fields but here we will define it as
“A subjective cultural or emotional coloration in addition to the explicit meanings of any
specific word or phrase in a language”. (Emotional association with a word.).
For example a stubborn person may be described as strong-willed or pig-headed.
Although both have same literal meaning but strong-willed connotes for the level of someone’s
will while pig-headed connotes frustration in dealing with someone.
4. PREFERRING TAG QUESTIONS
To direct statements, such as "You were at the store, weren't you?"
3

(a) Modal Tag request information of which the speaker is uncertain. "You didn't go to the
store yet, did you?"
(b) Affective Tags indicate concern for the listener. "You haven't been here long, have
you?"
(c) Softeners reduce the force of what would be a brusque demand. "Hand me that thing,
could you?"
(d) Facilitative Tags invite the addressee to comment on the request being made. "You can
do that, can't you?" (World Linguistics council, 2001)
Some studies (Lakoff, 1976; Beeching, 2002) have shown that women are more likely to use
politeness formulas than men, though the exact differences are not clear. Most current research
has shown that gender differences in politeness use are complex, since there is a clear association
between politeness norms and the stereotypical speech of middle class white women, at least in
the UK and US. (Linguist List, England)
FACE THEORY
Before proceeding towards politeness theory, it is essential to be familiar with Face Theory
by Erving Goffman, An American Sociologist. The basic idea of this theory is that we lead
unavoidably social lives as we depend on each other but as far as possible, we try to lead our
lives without losing our own face. Our face is a very fragile thing which other people can very
easily damage. So we should lead life according to Golden Rule:
“Do to others as you would like them to do to you”. (Hudson)
British Social Anthropologists, Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson describe two types of
face: Solidarity Face, Power Face.
Solidarity Face
Solidarity Face is respect as in “I respect you for …..”i-e, the appreciation and approval that
others show us for the kind of person we are, for our behavior for our values etc. If someone
threatens our solidarity face, we feel embarrassment or shame.
Power Face
Power face is respect as in “I respect your right to ……”.This is the basis of most formal
politeness; such as standing back to let someone else pass. When our power face is threatened,
we feel offended. Now we move towards politeness theories. (English Research Centre,
Yorkshire.)

THEORIES OF POLITENESS
There are a number of different ways in which linguists can analyze politeness. The various
approaches differ primarily in the emphasis placed on the speaker, the addressee (or both), and
the emphasis given to accounting for behavior that would be considered polite or behavior that
would be considered impolite. Most of the frameworks proposed to account for politeness that
are accessible to readers of English or other European languages have made the speaker central
to the analysis rather than the addressee, and though they have tried to take into account the
relationship between speaker and hearer, this has been limited by the focus on the speaker as a
linguistic agent planning and evaluating their next move in a conversation. More recently, work
by Japanese, Chinese, African and Middle Eastern scholars has begun to make more of an impact
on the field of politeness studies. As a general rule, most of these researchers have emphasized
the empirical and theoretical importance of seeing politeness and impoliteness as acts which
involve consideration of the addressee’s wants and desires as well as the speaker’s own, and acts
that involve consideration of the demands of the larger social group in which both the speaker
and addressee have grown up and been socialized. Now we analyze politeness theory across
different cultures. (Miriam Meyerhoff)
4

Politeness Theory and Arabs

Being polite is important but it is quite simple to be polite in Arab. Just learn some of their
typical words used to show politeness at different occasions and use them at at the right time.
Nelson, Bakary, and Batal (1993) report that for Arabs, compliments function to contribute to
interpersonal or group solidarity. Nelson et al. suggests that this may be in part due to the Arab
belief in the “evil eye,” or the potential for compliments to bring bad luck. Arabs use a large
number of similes, metaphors, and preceding ritualized phrases such as “Eeh l-Halaawa di!”
(What is all this beauty!). In addition, Nelson et al. suggests that Arabs prefer a direct approach
to giving compliments while they exercise indirect approaches for negative feelings as a mature
way to save face. (Wiki Books Publishers, New Zealand)
Politeness Theory and Chinese
China is known as the nation of the etiquette. China has formed the characteristic Chinese
moral rules and politeness principles during several thousand years. Generally, Chinese culture’s
politeness principles include the following several aspects.
1. Appellation Maxim
Namely one sends regards to the other side with the suitable name. Generation and age
play an important role in Chinese appellation. It may be the unique decision element
especially to relatives, neighbors and elders. It has manifested in the Chinese culture among
people’s social relations. It means “There are differences between the higher and the longer;
there are distinctions between the rich and the poor; there are orders between the elder and
the young . Using the appropriate appellation is considered the most minimum politeness
principle.
2. Modest Maxim
Namely you belittle yourself and the thing which is related with you, but you respect
other people and their things. China’s culture politeness tends to belittle oneself and respect
others and this is regarded as a phenomenon of typical characteristic of Chinese culture. It
has manifested “The person who is polite always belittles himself and respects others in
Chinese traditional culture. It also has embodied modest character.
3. Elegance Maxim
Namely one uses lofty language, “thick language” is forbidden. This principle has
reflected a speaker’s language training and cultural accomplishment.
4. Common Maxim
Namely communication of both sides reduces differences by keeping harmony, satisfying
the other side’s requests, and approving the other party as much as possible,. It has manifested
“You are ready to agree with other people, or You’d better obey one’s orders as well as revere
him” in Chinese culture etiquette.
5. Integrity Maxim
Namely one not only should have noble ideas and beautiful words, but also put them into
practice. This principle has reflected “The gentleman feels ashamed of having beautiful words
instead of noble ethics; and the gentleman feels ashamed of having noble ethics instead of
noble behavior” in Chinese culture.
While Greg Bissky says that Chinese decide what is polite in China. He says Chinese
culture has followed two kinds of fundamental modes:
First: As much as possible, reduce impoliteness strategies.
Second: As much as possible, increase politeness terminology.
Let us have an example of politeness of Chinese culture. If the conductor of the train is
talking with passengers in anger, they will think that the conductor lacks occupational ethics
instead of behaving impolitely with him. (Yan Yan, Mandarin University, China)
5

Politeness Theory and Japanese

Unlike most western languages, Japanese has an extensive grammatical system to express
politeness and formality. Broadly speaking, there are three main politeness levels in spoken
Japanese:
The plain form = (kudaketa), the simple polite form = (teinei) and the advanced polite
form (keigo).
Since most relationships are not equal in Japanese society, one person typically has a
higher position. This position is determined by a variety of factors including job, age, and
experience. The person in the lower position is expected to use a polite form of speech, whereas
the other might use a more plain form. Strangers will also speak to each other politely. Japanese
children rarely use polite speech until their teens, at which point they are expected to begin
speaking in a more adult manner.
The difference between honorific and humble speech is particularly pronounced in the
Japanese language. Humble language is used to talk about oneself or one's own group (company,
family) whilst honorific language is mostly used when describing the interlocutor and his group.
For example, the -san suffix ("Mr.", "Mrs." or "Ms.") is an example of honorific language. It
should not be used to talk about oneself. Nor should it be employed when talking about someone
from one's own company to an external person, since the company is the speaker's "group".
Most nouns in the Japanese language may be made honorific by the addition of “o” or
“go”, as a prefix“o”. is generally used for words of native Japanese origin, whereas “go”, is
affixed to words of Chinese derivation. In some cases, the prefix has become a fixed part of the
word and is included even in non-honorific speech, such as gohan, or rice. Such a construction
usually indicates deference to either the item's owner or to the object itself. For example, the
word tomodachi ("friend"), would become o-tomodachi when referring to the friend of someone
of higher status. On the other hand, a female speaker may sometimes refer to mizu (water) as o-
mizu merely to show her cultural refinement, compared to more abrupt male speech patterns.
Many researchers report that since the 1990s, the use of polite forms has become rarer,
particularly among the young, who employ politeness to indicate a lack of familiarity. That is,
they use polite forms for new acquaintances, but as a relationship becomes more intimate, they
speak more frankly. This often occurs regardless of age, social class, or gender. Just as speakers
of Chinese indicate the use of self-denigration, according to Daikuhara (1986) speakers of
Japanese (JS) exhibit a similar pattern in their employment of compliments and responses to
compliments. In her study, JSs used compliments in pursuing a communicative strategy of
politeness achieved by downgrading oneself or comparing oneself negatively, a negative
politeness approach that also created distance (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Daikuhara also found
some similarity between JSs and AESs in terms of the primary function of compliments: to
generate harmony or solidarity. The Japanese tend to compliment both appearances as well as
abilities, which is also the case among Americans. In addition, they indicate formal attributions
such as the status of schooling. The response to compliments, on the other hand, differed greatly
between these two groups. Of the responses, 95% were “self – praise avoidance” and only 5%
showed appreciation, while “thank you” was the most frequent response among Americans.
These results are consistent with Chen’s study among CEs. Daikuhara also found that JSs very
seldom compliment their own family, while this was not the case among Americans. This also
might be another indication of the function of downgrading oneself, since in Japan the family is
often considered to be a part of one ’s self. (Atsushi Fukada, University of Nebraska)

BROWN AND LEVINSON’S POLITENESS THEORY

Under Brown and Levinson’s framework for analysing politeness, it is important to
realize that both a deferential response and a joking response (as with Ellen’s reply asking for
6

whipped cream on her coffee) can be analyzed as forms of politeness. Most people associate
‘politeness’ just with ways of speaking that avoid causing offence. (Miriam Meyerhoff)
Now let us have an introduction of the concept Deference.
DEFERENCE is simply defined as an overuse of respectful words. For example. If Ellen
had replied ‘Well, if it’s not too much trouble, I would be terribly grateful’. Such extreme
deference would have also been peculiar, and perhaps even been interpreted as snobbish and
uppity. In other words, under these circumstances, showing lots of deference would have seemed
impolite and rude. U.S.A. and U.K. do not make use of deference while its very much use is
evident in Pakistan.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE POLITENESS; POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE
FACE
Brown and Levinson suggested that it was useful to distinguish two types of politeness.
They called the strategies that avoid offence by showing deference negative politeness
strategies and the strategies that avoid offence by highlighting friendliness positive politeness
strategies. They also suggest that whether we consider a strategy polite or impolite depends on
how much attention or what kind of attention a speaker pays to their own and their addressee’s
face wants. This technical use of the term ‘face’ is very similar to the way the word is used
metaphorically in many varieties of English. If, for example, someone comes to a meeting
unprepared and attention is drawn to their lack of preparation, you could say that person had ‘lost
face’. Similarly, if I do something embarrassing in public, and you distract attention or say
something to minimize the seriousness of what I did, you could say that you had ‘saved my
face’. (I’m told this use of the term may be less common in North American English than it is in
other varieties). (Miriam Meyerhoff)
Positive and Negative Face
Face is the public self image that every adult tries to project. Brown and Levinson
(1987) defined positive face two ways: as "the want of every member that his wants be desirable
to at least some others", or alternately, "the positive consistent self-image or personality '
(crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by
interactants.
While negative face was defined as "the want of every 'competent adult member' that his
actions be unimpeded by others", or "the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to
non-distraction--i.e. the freedom of action and freedom from imposition". (George Yule)

In Japan, students would usually address a university professor by his or her last name
and then they will add the honorific suffix -sensei (meaning ‘teacher’). By emphasizing the
social distance between the student and the professor, it attends to both parties’ negative face
wants.
While the situation in Germany is analogous. There, students and more junior faculty
members almost invariably address university professors by their full professional titles. This
means that if you are addressing a full professor who has a Ph.D., and who has also been
awarded an honorary degree from another university, you are expected to use all those titles
when you greet them: Guten Tag, Frau Professor Doktor Doktor Nussbaum (‘Good afternoon Ms
Professor, Doctor, Doctor Nussbaum’).
Contrasting with this are societies where interactions between strangers are expected to
be more personable and friendly (that is, where they often attend more directly to positive face
wants), and it would be considered rude to talk in ways that emphasise or draw attention to the
social distance between the interlocutors. (Miriam)
7

CHOOSING POLITENESS STRATEGIES: POWER, DISTANCE, COST OF

IMPOSITION
Brown and Levinson identify three specific factors. We consider how great a power
difference there is between the speaker and the addressee; we consider how great the social
distance is between the speaker and the addressee; and we evaluate the cost of the imposition.
Let us discuss them one by one.
Power:
A vertical relationship between speaker and hearer in Brown and Levinson’s theory of
politeness along with distance and cost of imposition. Power determines what kind of redressive
action; the speaker might take with FTA. We generally put more effort into being polite to
people who are in positions of greater social power than we are. For instance, I am more polite to
the government official processing my passport application than I am to the telemarketer who
rings me during dinner. That is because I want the official in the passport office to do me a favor
and speed up my application, but when the telemarketer rings me I am the one with the power
and they need something from me. That is the effect of power on politeness. (Routledge)
Social Distance
The social distance between speakers has a tremendous impact on how they speak to each
other. We are generally more polite to people who we don’t know very well, and we generally
feel we can be more abrupt with people who are close friends. If you are cooking a meal with a
close friend or family member, you might simply say ‘You’ve got the butter’ instead of ‘I think
the butter is closer to you than it is to me, so could you pass it to me’. However, if you are
working on a task with someone you are not so close to, you might ask in a less direct way,
showing more attention to their negative face wants – ‘Excuse me, are those the telephone
accounts? Could I have them for a second?’ (Miriam Meyerhoff)
Many languages have a distinction corresponding to the TU – VOUS (T/V) distinction in
French, where grammatically there is a ‘singular you’“ TU”(T) and a ‘plural you’ “VOUS”(V)
but usage requires that you use VOUS with individuals on certain occasions. The T form is
sometimes described as the ‘familiar’ form and the V form as the ‘polite’ one. Other languages
with a similar T/V distinction are Latin (TU/VOS), Russian (TY/VY) Italian (TU/LEI), German
(DU/SIE), Swedish (DU/M),and Greek (ESI/ESIS). English, itself, once had such a distinction,
the THOU/YOU distinction. (Ronald Wardhaugh)
Cost Of Imposition
The third factor that Brown and Levinson believed was important in order to understand
the different politeness strategies people use was how big the social infraction is. This was what
they meant by the cost of the imposition. So, to continue the example of requests that we have
been looking at, different requests have different social weight. Asking someone for the time is
generally considered a minor imposition. As a consequence, you can ask complete strangers for
the time and the politeness strategies we use pay relatively little attention to face wants.
For example, ‘Sorry, do you have the time?’ or even just ‘What’s the time?’
However, asking for money is generally considered a greater imposition, and usually you
would only do this with someone you are fairly close to. And the more money you want to
request, the better you will probably want to know them. For example, in the last few months I
have found myself needing 5 pence so I can get the bus home and I borrowed this from an
acquaintance, but the day when I left my credit cards at home I had to ask a very close friend to
lend me enough money to buy my groceries. So under this framework there are three social
variables that shape how people choose which politeness strategies they will use. Their attention
to others’ positive and negative face wants will be determined by the relative power and social
distance of the interactants, and by the social cost of the imposition. As a number of people
8

working within this framework have noted, the three factors are by no means independent. You
are often not very close to someone. (Miriam Meyerhoff)
Brown and Levinson (1987: 76) propose a specific formula for assessing the weightiness
(W) of a face-threatening act, which involves three essential components: power (P), social
distance (D) and the rating of impositions to the extent that they interfere with an individual’s
face wants within a particular culture/ society (R):
Wx = D (S, H) + P (H, S) + Rx
(S = speaker, H = hearer).
Brown and Levinson maintain that, as a consequence, these three ‘dimensions’ (D, P, R)
contribute to the seriousness of a face-threatening act (FTA), and thus to a determination of the
level of politeness with which, other things being equal, an FTA will be communicated (Brown
and Levinson 1987: 76). Thus the greater the social distance and the power hierarchy between
speaker and hearer the more weight becomes attached to a face-threatening act, particularly one
which also involves a relatively high level of imposition (for example, many requests,
accusations, some offers, and so on). Brown and Levinson further argue that these dimensions
subsume all other relevant factors in any particular context and, importantly, that their formula
thus predicts further that individuals will choose a higher level of linguistic mitigation as the
weightiness of an FTA increases proportionately.
Brown and Levinson (1987: 77) conceptualize power (P) as ‘an asymmetric
social dimension of relative power’, i.e. ‘P (H, S) is the degree to which H [hearer] can impose
his [sic] own plans and his self-evaluation (face) at the expense of S’s [speaker] plans and self-
evaluation’. This definition thus views power primarily as an individual attribute, vested in the
hearer: it is the hearer’s ‘power’ relative to his/her own which the speaker must take into account
when uttering a potentially face-threatening act. The purpose of Brown and Levinson’s formula
is thus to enable us to predict (both as interactants and researchers) the scale and number of
redressive strategies and mitigating linguistic forms a speaker is likely to use in particular
interactions by calculating the variability of the social distance and relative power of the
participants along with the weightiness of the imposition.
Thus one of the important aspects of Brown and Levinson’s work is, for them, its
predictive power. The formula would seem to apply most obviously to ‘requests’ (nearly all
Brown and Levinson’s own examples of its application involve ‘requests’), predicting that the
greater the power (and distance) between speaker and hearer the more redressive strategies will
be used by the less powerful interactant, particularly when making a weighty request of a more
powerful one. (Ronald Wardhaugh)
INHERENTLY FACE THREATENING ACTS (FTAS)
Speech acts which threaten the positive/ negative face are called face threatening acts.
Brown and Levinson suggest that some conversational events are inherently face threatening
acts. That is, once you undertake one of these acts, it is impossible not to have somebody’s
positive or negative face wants threatened (sometimes it will be the speaker’s, sometimes it will
be the hearer’s). This means that whenever one of these acts happens in a conversational
exchange, the participants have to make a decision about how polite they will be. (Meyerhoff)
Acts like Promises, Apologies, and Expressing Thanks are considered to threaten
primarily the speaker’s face, whereas Warnings, Orders, Requests etc. are viewed to threaten
primarily the hearer’s face.
According to Brown and Levinson, since we try to save each other’s face, so we either
avoid FTAS, or use different strategies to soften the FTAS. The strategies are given below.

1. Bald-on record: It is the most direct strategy. A technical term in Brown and Levinson’s
theory, referring to an inherently FTA made without softening through positive/ negative
9

politeness strategies. FTA is performed in bald-on-record, in a direct and concise way

without redressive action.
For example,. imperative form without any redress:
“Wash your hands”.
“What is the time”
“It is not ready yet”.
“Pass the salt”.
2. Positive Politeness: This is oriented towards positive face of the hearer. Positive
politeness strategies seek to minimize the threat to the hearer’s positive face. They are used
to make the hearer feel good about himself, his interests or possessions, and are most usually
used in situations where the audience knows each other fairly well. FTA is performed with
redressive action. It has nothing to do with imposition.
This strategy seeks common ground or co-operation. Such as in jokes or offers .
For example,
“Don’t you want some dinner now?”.
“Help me with the bags, will you?”.
In addition to hedging and attempts to avoid conflict, some strategies of positive
politeness include statements of friendship, solidarity, compliments, and the following examples
from Brown and Levinson:
 Attend to H’s interests, needs, wants
You look sad. Can I do anything?
 Use solidarity in-group identity markers
Heh, mate, can you lend me a dollar?
 Be optimistic
I’ll just come along, if you don’t mind.
 Include both speaker (S) and hearer (H) in activity
If we help each other, I guess, we’ll both sink or swim in this course.
 Offer or promise
If you wash the dishes, I’ll vacuum the floor.
 Exaggerate interest in H and his interests
That’s a nice haircut you got; where did you get it?
 Avoid Disagreement
Yes, it’s rather long; not short certainly.
 Joke
Wow, that’s a whopper!
3. Negative Politeness:
FTA is performed with redressive action. It is oriented towards negative face of the hearer.
These strategies presume that the speaker will be imposing on the listener and there is a higher
potential for awkwardness or embarrassment than in bald on record strategies and positive
politeness strategies. It focuses on minimising the imposition by attempting to soften it. It is done
by hedging or indirectness.
Examples from Brown and Levinson include:
 Be indirect
Would you know where Oxford Street is?
 Use hedges or questions
Perhaps, he might have taken it, maybe.
Could you please pass the rice?
 Be pessimistic
You couldn’t find your way to lending me a thousand dollars, could you?
10

 Minimize the imposition

It’s not too much out of your way, just a couple of blocks.
 Use obviating structures, like nominalizations, passives, or statements of general rules
I hope offense will not be taken.
Visitors sign the ledger.
Spitting will not be tolerated.
 Apologize
I’m sorry; it’s a lot to ask, but can you lend me a thousand dollars?
 Use plural pronouns
We regret to inform you.
For example: “Would you mind washing your hands?”
“Can you open the window?”.
4. Off-record: When the cost of imposition becomes very high or when the distance and
power differential between speaker and addressee is very great, then even more linguistically
complicated redressive action is required. This strategy uses indirect language and removes
the speaker from the potential to be imposing. For example, a speaker using the indirect
strategy might merely say “wow, it’s getting cold in here” insinuating that it would be nice if
the listener would get up and turn up the thermostat without directly asking the listener to do
so. FTA is performed in off-record. This strategy may consist of all types of similes,
metaphors, hints, suggestion etc.
For example, “Is that the salt”.
“Shut down the window, Sam”.
“Gardening makes your hands dirty”.
5. Avoidance: FTA is not performed in this strategy. İt is marked as the most indirect
strategy and is employed when there is maximum face threat. (Leyla Marti, Bogzici University
Turkey)

CONSEQUENCES OF POLITENESS
(a) One is more popular.
(b) People are friendlier towards you.
(c) Business transactions can be settled more easily.
(d) One develops an attractive personality.
(e) One is more likable.
(f) Less chances of developing enemies.
Politeness indeed pays off in many ways. Others are impressed by the manner you
conduct yourself. They reach out to you. You can communicate better. Differences can be settled
easily. There are several institutes which train a person in how to be polite.
Today’s professional life is highly competitive. Even in personal life it has become
necessary to have a wide circle of friends. One has to socialize a lot, interact with all kinds of
people and sell one’s ideas. Be it any profession, salesmanship is essential to excel in one’s field.
Even a doctor has to communicate well with his or her patients and win them over in order to
have a thriving practice.
HOW TO WIN OVER PEOPLE?
 One must change one’s undesirable behavior for positive reinforcement. Losing one’s
cool, being rude can put off a person.
 Develop an amicable personality. A friendly disposition can win over many people. Most
people like to interact with cheerful and bright people.
11

 Be courteous. Politeness pays. Use words such as “please”, “I am sorry” wherever

required. If a man be a gentleman and if a woman, be a lady.
 Try to be as sincere and truthful in your utterances. A person who deceives others and
tells a whole lot of lies is shunned.
 Dress up appropriately. One must dress up according to the occasion. In formal situation
one must go in for formal wear. Be in informal dress where it is permissible.
 One must not try to control people. Do not tell them what to do. Convince them in such a
manner they control themselves to do things that you would like them to do.
 Make a person feel comfortable in a relationship. They should feel wanted and secure.
Financial and emotional security are essential for people. The other person must be made
to feel he or she is gaining from the relationship.
 Know what you want. You must be very clear about your goals.
 Be clear about what the other person expects of you. After all, the person who your
dealing with also expects something in return for interacting with you.
 Be persistent. Do not give up so easily. It takes time to achieve your goal. One has to
work hard at it.
 Use first names if possible. Initially, be formal with a Mr. or Ms. After you buildup a
good rapport start using first names as then the relationship would become more
amicable. You transcend barriers.
 Pay attention to what the other person is saying. By not being attentive, you lose out on
the person.
 Have high expectations. When you expect a lot you achieve a lot.
 Be a good listener. You will win over people easily. Communicating with the other
person is easy if you he or she feels you pay more attention to what he or she is saying.
 Do not appear domineering. See the other person’s point of view.
 Be sure of your facts. You need to be well versed in your respective field in order to
convince the other person.
 Respect the sentiments and feelings of the other person. Make him or her feel you care
for him or her. Do not appear to be indifferent.
 Get rid of distractions while conversing with a person. Your full concentration will be on
what the other person is saying. The flow of conversation will be smooth and easy.
 The questions you ask require specific purpose or else you will lose out on credibility.
 Your message has to be well understood. Avoid ambiguities. Message with benefits are
more appealing. The other person must gain by interacting with you. (Journal Of
Pragmatics,vol 39)

APPLICATION OF POLITENESS THEORY: INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

We have noted on several occasions that there are significant differences in how the basic
elements of the system – power, social distance, and cost of the imposition – are calculated in
different groups. The differences can account for a good deal of variation in how politeness is
realized. This raises the interesting question of whether Brown and Levinson’s framework can be
used to better understand what happens when speakers from different social or cultural
backgrounds interact. Some researchers have found this framework useful for deconstructing
problems and misunderstandings in how politeness is expressed in cross cultural situations.
For example, we briefly considered the differences in how students address university
professors in English-speaking universities and in German universities. What happens when
people who have acquired the politeness norms of one community find themselves in a
completely different community? At a superficial level, such intercultural contact often
12

reinforces stereotypes about groups, e.g., New Zealanders’ and Australians’ perceptions that the
English are distant and unfriendly can perhaps be reduced to a difference in what the
conventional assumptions are about the social distance between new acquaintances. These
differences can lead to misunderstandings between individuals: an Australian working in
England may interpret English social distance as indicating that coworkers don’t like them as a
person. Intercultural contact can create some quite interesting day-to-day dilemmas for
individuals. What happens, for instance, when Japanese students who are used to attending
overtly to the negative face wants of their professors move to the US or New Zealand, where the
norms are more geared towards attention to positive face wants – e.g., through reciprocal use of
first names? This can present them with a clash between their own sociolinguistic norms and the
norms of the community they are now studying in. They can respond to this dilemma in a
number of ways. One would be to remain true to the politeness norms they grew up with, and to
continue to use the most respectful address forms available to them in English.
Along the way to resolving this issue there can be a stage in which there is some
uncertainty, and these points are particularly interesting for the sociolinguist because they
highlight both the enormous creativity of language users and the ways in which their creativity
can be constrained by the systems that they are most familiar with issue. One example was the
way that Japanese students in linguistics at the University of Hawaii converged on a short-term
solution that satisfied both US and Japanese sociolinguistic norms. The Japanese norms for
interacting with professors are to use deferential forms of address, such as (Last Name) + Title,
as Tanaka does when he calls his professor Sensei (‘teacher’). At the University of Hawaii’s,
however, most graduate students would call professors by their first name, especially a younger
professor. For a period, the Japanese students in linguistics took to calling the youngest professor
by her first name, but they would add the respectful address term sensei to it at the end. For
example, instead of the canonical Japanese form, Yoshimi-sensei (‘Professor Yoshimi’), they
used Patricia-sensei (roughly, ‘Professor Patricia’). In this way, they ended up with something
that satisfied the US norms of positive politeness (based on reciprocal first naming) and their
own Japanese negative politeness norms based on respect and social distance (achieved through
the use of titles). (Miriam Meyerhoff)
Researchers such as Gabrielle Kasper have looked at a number of kinds of FTAS that are
central to Brown and Levinson theory. They have observed different social and linguistic skills
across cultures. For example if you want a drink in a bar in English, you will say
“Could I have a glass of red wine, please?”
However in German, you will say like “I’ll get red wine, without any please”.
In some cases, situations like these can cause a lot of problems for learners. (Bourdieau, Pierre
(1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge)

CRITIQUES OF POLITENESS THEORY

Although politeness as a research area of pragmatics and sociolinguistics was initiated by
Brown and Levinson, it seems to be a topic which still offers enough space for new definitions
and theoretical frameworks within which researchers concentrate on various politeness strategies
and also language devices used for their manifestations, often in different languages and culture
The already established theories reflect different scope of coverage of the multifaceted notion of
politeness, the diversity of models by which to approach this cognitive space by linguistic or
rather socio-linguistic means, and the consequent diversity of a partly redundant and partly
overlapping terminological apparatus, very often giving the impression of adding the air of
newness to the already existing terms. Its very title explicitly offers a critical standpoint.
(EELEN, G. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester)
13

THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF POWER, DISTANCE, COST OF IMPOSITION

As we have seen, power in this framework is essentially a vertical measure – a relation of
superiority and subordination – and distance is essentially horizontal – how well people know
each other. We have already noted that this provides a tidy theoretical distinction but that
representing power and distance as independent factors is misleading. In practice, power and
distance are very often heavily dependent on each other. This can make it difficult to keep them
separate. Generally the people we know best – that is, the people where there is least social
distance – are also roughly our equals, neither our superiors nor our subordinates. When there is
a relatively big power differential between individuals, it is also likely that they will be less close
to each other socially. So in many cases, if you know the relative distance between interactants,
you can fairly reliably predict the relative power between them as well (and vice versa).
Moreover, social distance can be simultaneously measured in different ways. When there are
multiple dimensions on which distance can be calculated it can be difficult to predict whether
interactants will orient themselves to one dimension or another. For example, some students
from Hawaii’s were trying to organize and systematically describe the decisions they make about
whether to use Standard American English or Pidgin They felt that they were aware of two very
important dimensions for evaluating social distance. The students all agreed that power and
social distance are relevant factors in determining whether they will use Standard American
English or Pidgin with an interlocutor, but they also agreed that the first and most salient
question was whether or not their addressee was Local, too (in Hawaii’s, people talk about those
born there as Locals). Many of the students felt that Localness overrides any other constraints
there might be on using a language. If their interlocutor was clearly Local, they reported that they
would always start out using Pidgin, no matter how formal the context or how little they knew
the other person. They reported that even if they were discussing formal matters to do with their
enrolment at university or getting a driver’s license, their first concern would be with whether or
not their addressee was Local or not. If the addressee was, they said they would start out using
Pidgin, and then adjust as necessary, depending on other cues their addressee might
give about the social distance or power differential in that setting. (Miriam Meyerhoff)

THE EMPHASIS ON A SPEAKER’S CHOICE

A number of researchers on politeness have criticized the Brown and Levinson model for
focusing too heavily on the speaker. Sachiko Ide, a Japanese sociolinguist, has suggested that
this reflects Western values of individualism and does not fit well with societies like Japan where
a person’s identity is perceived to be bound up in their group membership, with all the collective
rights and responsibilities associated with the group, rather than with the exercise of rational self-
interest that is at the heart of Western theories of identity (Ide 1989).
Some work on intercultural communication has tried to group societies according to how
individualistic (a society that emphasizes and celebrates the individual over relationships) or
how collectivist (a society that emphasizes the relationships and interdependence of the
individuals, it is comprised of) they are. It might be appropriate to describe politeness primarily
in terms of the concerns of the speaker and addressee as individuals in prototypically
individualistic societies, such as Australia or the US. Setting a high value on autonomy and
having choices are attributes that cluster together and help define individualistic societies.
But in societies with collectivist values, such as Japan, Thailand and China, this misses
key features organizing the social order, including requirements for polite behavior. In these
societies, Ide argues that Japanese society (and other collectivist communities) values attention
to people’s interdependence and to reciprocal relationships (see also Ting-Toomey 1988). In this
context, the importance of discerning social behavior appropriate to the social situation is
emphasized. The Japanese word for this discernment is Wakimae(a Japanese term introduced to
14

the study of politeness by Sachiko Ide ,refers to the attention paid to people’s interdependence
and to the reciprocity of relationships, and, specifically, the discernment of appropriate behavior
based on this). Ide argues that wakimae is a much better basis for formulating models of
politeness in Japan. (Meyerhoff)
It should be noted that the clusters of social attributes and the contrast between
individualistic and collectivist cultures are derived from a study of one multinational corporation.
Hofstede presented his findings in terms of the national origin of the employees surveyed, but his
research was neither intended nor designed to thoroughly probe the values and behavioral norms
of the nations themselves. This means sociolinguists should be a little cautious (or self-critical)
about incorporating the distinction between collectivist and individualistic cultures into their
research. Moreover, work by Morales and his associates suggests that when these constructs are
brought down to the level of individuals, the associations between politeness and
collectivist/individualistic attitudes become very shaky. They found that classifying an individual
as individualistic or collectivist did not allow them to make reliable predictions about what
politeness strategies they would choose under different circumstances (Morales et al. 1998).
MIXED MESSAGES: SHOWING ATTENTION TO BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE
FACE
In some examples, we saw that attention to positive and negative face wants can be
bundled into a single utterance, and we noted that it is not clear how such examples should be
analyzed. They certainly don’t cancel each other out, but would we want to categorize the
utterance as an example of positive politeness, or negative politeness? The problem can be
extended beyond the individual to the group: there are no groups of speakers who solely use
positive or negative politeness strategies or that are wholly collectivist or individualistic. I have
relied on national stereotypes in a number of illustrations of how politeness works, but by
definition a stereotype simplifies and abstracts away from complexity and diversity. An
American reader might justly object that the valorization of individualism in the US should be
offset against the strong sense of a community that is manifested in the large number of
hyphenated group identities: Italian-Americans, African- Americans, Polish-Americans, etc.
Likewise, a Japanese reader might object that Japanese society is just as well known for the
celebration of highly idiosyncratic expressions of individual difference in personal fashion as it
is for its emphasis on discernment.
One of the criticisms of Brown and Levinson’s framework is that it very easily leads
analysts towards overly simplistic categorizations, such as Thai society attends to deference and
negative face, while Australian society attends to familiarity and positive face. Such
generalizations are especially unwarranted if they depend on studies of only one or two FTAs
(e.g., requests or orders). (Miriam Meyerhoff)

FURTHER CRITICISM ON POLITENESS THEORY

The idea that politeness is involved in social indexing may be interpreted as the idea that
politeness is socially appropriate behavior and what is socially appropriate depends on the
speaker’s social position in relation to the hearer. This idea, too, appears in some form or other in
most works on politeness. Liisa Vilkki will now focus on briefly considering Brown &
Levinson’s (1978, 1987) theory of politeness and work criticizing some fundamental
assumptions of this theory. It has been the most influential framework of politeness so far, and it
provides an important basis for the discussion of the notions of politeness and face in this paper.
In the classification of Fraser (1990), Brown & Levinson’s theory represents the face-saving
view, as it builds on Goffman’s (1967) notion of face and on English folk term, which ties face
up with notions of being embarrassed or humiliated, or ‘losing face’. The face is understood as
something that is emotionally invested, and that can be not only lost, but also maintained or
15

enhanced. Brown & Levinson state that every individual has two types of face, positive and
negative. They define positive face as the individual’s desire that her/his wants be appreciated in
social interaction, and negative face as the individual’s desire for freedom of action and freedom
from imposition. The theory assumes that most speech acts, for example requests, offers and
compliments, inherently threaten either the hearer’s or the speaker’s face-wants, and that
politeness is involved in redressing those face threatening acts (FTA). On the basis of these
assumptions, three main strategies for performing speech acts are distinguished: positive
politeness, negative politeness and off-record politeness. Positive politeness aims at supporting
or enhancing the addressee’s positive face, whereas negative politeness aims at softening the
encroachment on the addressee’s freedom of action or freedom from imposition. The third
strategy, off-record politeness, is based on the assumption that the addressee is able to infer the
intended meaning. (Bourdieau, Pierre (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press)

CONCLUSION
A number of very important contributions to the continuing debate about politeness
theory are made, and while there has been a movement in recent times to reject Brown and
Levinson’s approach in its entirety, in particular by those who advocate the discursive approach
to analysing politeness (Eelen 2000; Mills 2003; Watts 2003), this work illustrates that such a
move might result in the neglect of crucial insights from research that is based in some way on
Brown and Levinson’s approach.
Some work on intercultural communication has tried to group societies according to how
individualistic or how collectivist they are. It might be appropriate to describe politeness
primarily in terms of the concerns of the speaker and addressee as individuals in prototypically
individualistic societies, such as Australia or the US. Setting a high value on autonomy and
having choices are attributes that cluster together and help define individualistic societies.
Morales and his associates suggests that when these constructs are brought down to the
level of individuals, the associations between politeness and collectivist/individualistic attitudes
become very shaky. They found that classifying an individual as individualistic or collectivist did
not allow them to make reliable predictions about what politeness strategies they would choose
under different circumstances (Morales et al. 1998).
My personal opinion is that, whether you follow individualistic approach or collectivistic
approach, relevance of speaker in choice of politeness strategies can not be negated at
all.Tracy(1990)says that only negative politeness is similar to what people in everyday life mean
by “Being Polite”. So it depends on speaker which politeness strategy to choose. This choice of
politeness strategy depends on following factors:
(a) The social distance between speaker and hearer.
(b) The relative power of speaker and hearer.
(c) The absolute cost of imposition.