Minster of Higher Education and Scientific Research

University of Babylon
Department of English
M.A Students

Politeness Theory

By:
Hawraa Kareem & Souad Hafed

2020-2021

1.Historical Background

Politeness gains a great deal of interest in the past twenty-five years. Much has
been written on politeness principle and theories. The politeness theory postulated by
Brown and Stephen C. Levinson which was originally published in 1978 is considered the
most important theory that almost all the linguists depend on in their writing on this
subject.

Crystal (1997: 297) believes that politeness, in Sociolinguistics and Pragmatics, is a

term that signifies linguistic features associated with norms of social behavior, in relation
to notions like courtesy, rapport, deference and distance. Such features involve the usage
of specific discourse markers (please), suitable tones of voice, and tolerable forms of
address (e.g. The choice of intimate v. distant pronouns, or of first v. last names).

Eelen (2001: 1) clarifies that politeness, according to the Anglo-Saxon scientific

tradition, is investigated from the pragmatic and sociolinguistic perspective. It is agreed
that theories of politeness are involved in what belongs to either of these linguistic
subfields for politeness is specifically concerned with language use that is connected with
pragmatics-and it is a phenomenon that represents a link between language and the social
world.

There are many attempts to define and conceptualize politeness by the researchers
like Leech, Lakoff and many other politeness investigators.

Lakoff (1975:64) defines politeness as ''the form developed by societies in order

to reduce friction in personal communication''. Leech (1983:19) views politeness as
''strategic conflict avoidance'' that can be measured in terms of the degree of effort put
into the avoidance of a conflict situation. Brown and Levinson (1987:61) the linguistic
modal of politeness was put forward by Brown and Levinson. They define politeness as
''forms of behavior used to maintain and develop communication between potentially
aggressive partners''. They maintain that positive and negative strategies are employed to
minimize threat and to accomplish linguistic politeness.

2. Politeness theory by Lakoff (1973)

Through his innovative analysis of politeness, Lakoff (1973) gave the politeness
theory a new perspective in terms of sociopragmatic investigation. Depending on the
cooperative principle, she (ibid.) put politeness within the pragmatic rule framework,
showing whether it is a pragmatically well-formed utterance or not. Though the
cooperative principle is based on the communicative rationality of communication,
cooperative principle seems almost un-followed or disobeyed. In order to consider this

2
failure of cooperative principle, Lakoff (1973) confirmed the pragmatic rules of
politeness.

Thus, when dealing with politeness, as the rules assume, it must be treated under
basic rules of a given language system. On the other hand, considering politeness in terms
of strategies reveals that politeness is an individual user’s strategy chosen in advance or
determined by the situation. Lakoff as a formalist linguist tries to establish language as a
system through adopting pragmatic rules.

Lakoff (1973, 1975) defines the politeness phenomena as a set of strategies

preferred by the language users. This shows that the term, ‘strategies,’ implies variability
and choice in context, i.e. there is a repertoire of strategies from which some are selected
according to addressee and context.

Polite speech act means that the utterance performed is governed by pragmatic
rules of politeness, while non-polite speech act is an utterance performed out of politeness
norms. This can occur in a context when politeness is not expected as opposed to rude
speech act which appears when politeness is required.

Furthermore, politeness was argued by Lakoff to be ‘a system of interpersonal

relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and
confrontation inherent in all human interchange’ (1990:34). From this, we can observe
that there is a focus on the addressee’s part. Having proposed the pragmatic rules, she
claimed that such rules are greatly affected by three pragmatic factors including the
relationship with the addressee, the real world situation, and the degree of imposition
he/she may have on the addressee. It is then indicated that formulating politeness manners
is reinforced by the needs and concerns of the addressee, which the speaker should take
into account.

Two pragmatic rules are proposed by Lakoff for minimising the conflict between
the speaker and his/ her addressee. These rules are outlined as follows (2011):

1- Be clear

1.1 Maxim of Quantity [state as much information as is needed in the conversation, but
not more]. 1.2 Maxim of Quality [Only say what you believe to be true based on your own
knowledge and evidence].

3
1.3 Maxim of Relations (be relevant)

1.4 Maxims of Manner

1.5 Be concise, avoid confusing and ambiguous statements The first rule “Be clear” is
included and derived from the cooperative principle as stated above.

2- Be polite

2.1 Don’t impose

2.2 Give options

2.3 Make others feel good

The second rule “Be polite” refers to the maxim of distance, deference, and camaraderie
(Johnstone, 2008). These three maxims, according to Lakoff, should have a balance in
interaction since all the three maxims cannot be available at the same time. Once the
balance of such maxims is violated, the social behaviour could be perceived as impolite.

3. Politeness theory by Goffman (`1967)

The traditional approach to examining politeness can be seen in the work of

Goffman (1967), when investigating the concept of face in human conversation. He tried
to set a universal framework for politeness through face. This universality comes from his
definition of face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by
the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” Goffman (1967: 213).
However, face could be defined as the self–image of a person’s negotiating and/or
renegotiating throughout an interaction. The main reason behind such universality as he
claimed is that face is an image found in every society since societies change their
members. He (Ibid.44) notes that “societies everywhere, if they are to be societies, must
mobilize their members as self-regulating participants in social encounters”. Thus, the
concept of face functions as a self-regulator within two processes: avoidance and remedial
process. The former indicates that an interlocutor avoids being a part of an interaction by
escaping from getting a negative face. On the other hand, the latter involves one who is
effectively involved in keeping face. By this way, a social harmony can be established.
Thus, face seems to be the public image that depends on the presence of interlocutors who

4
 are involved in an interaction. Face refers to the social value of not only the speaker and
the hearer, but also the value of others. In order for a social interaction to move happily,
there should be a mutual relationship between the interlocutors, at least temporarily,
which requires respect and acceptance of others. Goffman (1967) differentiates between
defensive and protective image of face. In terms of defensive face, the speaker tries to
save his/her own face, while protective image involves saving someone else’s face.
Hence, these two images are combined at the same time for showing respect ‘politeness’
in terms of mutual construct.

4. Politeness theory by Leech ( 1983)

Leech (1983:7) proposed the Politeness Principle (PP), which is a way or procedure to
explain how politeness works in social interactions. This principle, which gives rise to six
maxims, is motivated in respect to pragmatic scales of cost-benefit for the addressee as well as
the indirectness scale of politeness. The six maxims; Tact maxim, Generosity maxim,
Approbation maxim, Modesty maxim, Agreement maxim, and Sympathy maxim.
1.Tact and Generosity Maxims
Tact maxim states :
a. Minimize cost to other [ Maximize benefit to other]
Generosity maxim states :
b. Minimize benefit to self [ Maximize cost to self] (Leech, 1983:132)
For example,
1- a- Hand me the newspaper.
b- I will hand you the newspaper.
2- a- I can visit you whenever I like.
b- you can visit us whenever you like.
These two examples are presumed to be impolite for the reason that they demonstrate cost to
other but benefit to self, respectively.
2. The Approbation and Modesty Maxims:
 Approbation maxim states:
a- Minimize dispraise of other [ Maximize praise of other]
 Modesty Maxim states:
b-Minimize praise of self [ Maximize dispraise of self] (Leech, 1983: 132)for instance:
3-a- How kind you are?
b-How inconsiderate you are?

5
 4-a- How kind I am with you?
b- How inconsiderate I am with you?
5. a. What a marvelleous meal you cooked!
b. What an awful meal you cooked!
In comparing (3-a) to (4-a), it is manifested that (3-a) represents greater politeness than (4-a). The
same thing is correct with (3-b) and (4-b). In consequence, praising others or obtaining praising
by others is more polite than praising ourselves or sending unpleasant and uncomfortable
message to others. (Ibid)
3.Agreement and Sympathy maxims:
 Agreement maxim states:
a-Minimize disagreement between Self and other.
b-Maximize agreement between self and other.
 Sympathy maxim states:
a-Minimize antipathy between Self and other.
b-Maximize sympathy between self and other. (Ibid: 134) . For instance,
6- Linguistic topics are rather difficult, aren't they?
Consider the following answer for this tag question:
a-No, they are straightforward topics.
b-Yes, they are.
c-Yes, but pragmatics is very interesting.
(a)displays obvious and direct disagreement with the addresser. While, (b) exhibits agreement
with the addresser. The third answer (c) reflects a partial disagreement with the addresser.
Accordingly (b and c) are more polite than (a).
Although Leech’s model of politeness has made an important contribution to politeness
theory, his theory and his claim of universality have also been called into question.
Numerous scholars observed that the major problem in Leech’s model is that without an
empirical description of politeness phenomenon and more constrained theory, the number
of maxims could be extended (Cesar-Brasdefer,2008:16).

Politeness theory by Brown & Levinson. ( 1987)

The most well-known and dominant theory on linguistic politeness is that of
Brown and Levinson (1987). This theory consists of three basic notions face ,face

6
threatening acts and politeness strategies . According Brown and Levinson (1987: 61-2),
everyone has a face, “the public self-image” that they want to maintain. The term face is
divided into two different categories: negative and positive face. Negative face is, in
essence, the want to preserve one’s own independence, and positive face the want to be
liked by others and cooperating with them.

Nevertheless, it has been hugely criticised. Their theory focused on speakers’

communicative intentions. Thus, the nature of communication was the primary focus of
their theory. A new perspective was adopted in their model for achieving and understanding
politeness principle in terms of many speech acts being basically threatening to face
(1987:7). Threatening refers to speech acts which are not beneficial to the speakers’ and/or
the addressee’ face desires. The face is divided into two types: positive face and negative
face. Therefore, they define these two terms as follows: Negative face: the desire of every
competent adult member for his actions to be unimpeded by others. Positive face: the
desire of every member for his wants to be desirable to, at least, some others (Brown and
Levinson, 1987:62). Consequently, the concept of face-threatening act (FTA) is argued by
Brown and Levinson (Ibid.67) as a social behaviour threatening speakers’ and/or addresses’
face desires, either positively or negatively. The interactional activity according to them is
well appropriate if the face image is given or maintained by one of the participants. Thus,
the interaction between the interlocutors can be evaluated as polite if normal behaviour is
given. Also, it is evaluated as over polite if more politeness is involved. However, if less or
no politeness is given, it would be assigned as rudeness. For this, Brown and Levinson
(1983) established three scales for measuring the degree of politeness. These scales are:
(a) Relative power which refers to the different relation between the addresser and the
addressee. The more relative power possessed by one interlocutor, the more the face threat
would be. (b) Ranked imposition which refers to the illocutionary act itself. Certain
illocutionary acts involve more face threatening potential than others. (c) Social distance
which refers to the type of relationship between the interlocutors (speaker and hearer).

Brown and Levinson (1987) politeness theory is guided by three primary assumptions
.First, they assume that all individuals are concerned with maintaining face which has two
dimensions: positive and negative .Positive face includes a person’s need to be liked,
appreciated, and admired by select persons. Negative face assumes a person’s desire to act
freely, without constraints or imposition from others .Both dimensions can not be achieved
simultaneously. Second, politeness theory assumes that human beings are rational and goal

7
oriented seeking to avoid FTAs at least with respect to face needs .It means that you have
choices and make communicative decisions to achieve your goals, within the context of
maintaining face. Brown and Levinson posit that face management works best when
everyone involved helps to maintain the face of others. .A polite manner of behavior is
expected as both interactants cooperate in maintaining face in interaction, and such
cooperation is predicated on the notion of “mutual vulnerability of face”. That is both
individuals need to cooperate to maintain face. The final assumption is that some
behaviours are face threatening, they are called face-threatening.

Conclusion

polite language is a way of expressing ourselves, which makes it easier for us to deal with
other people because through politeness we build trust. Politeness is necessary in our
society, we have to fit to the social norms , otherwise we would not be accepted.
There is a politeness principle with conversational maxims similar to those formulated by
Grice. Leech lists these six maxims : tact, generosity, approbation,, modesty, agreement and
sympathy. The first and second form a pair, as do the third and fourth. These maxims vary
from culture to culture because what may be considered polite in one culture may be
strange or rude in another.

8
Reference

Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language.The United Kingdom
Cambridge University Press.

Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome.

Lakoff, R. (1975) Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper & Row.

Leech, G . (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman

Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 2 (01), pp. 45-79.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness some universals in language use. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.