ENL 420: An Introduction to Pragmatics

Topic: Discuss Politeness from a Pragmatic Point of

View

Group N Members
Ekwem Oluchi ART1900447

Yakubu Sophia ART1900604

Joseph Rejoice ART

Asein Glory ART1900411

Offinson Comfort ART1900533

Okuta Ichieayame ART1900552

Iyoha Comfort ART1900497

Don Ofuegbe ART1900543

Ekong Favour ART1900446

Jemifor Roland ART19005001.1

Introduction to Politeness
Politeness, a crucial aspect of human communication, goes beyond surface-level courtesies. This chapter
aims to explore the multifaceted nature of politeness, delving into its intricate dynamics and varied
expressions in diverse linguistic and cultural contexts.

1.2 Scope of Study

This study focuses on the discourse approach to politeness, specifically examining how individuals
navigate politeness in their everyday conversations. By analyzing real-life interactions across a spectrum
of situations and languages, the scope extends to understanding the universal and context-specific
aspects of politeness.

1.3 Purpose of Study

The primary purpose of this research is to unravel the layers of politeness, moving beyond the
conventional understanding of compliance-gaining strategies. Through the discourse approach, we seek
to identify patterns, variations, and commonalities in politeness behaviors across different languages.
Ultimately, the goal is to contribute to the development of a more comprehensive and culturally
sensitive universal theory of politeness at the discourse level.

1.4 Objectives
To achieve a deeper understanding of politeness, the study aims to:

- Analyze politeness behaviors in real-life discourse across diverse situations.

- Contrast politeness expressions in different languages within a common framework.

- Minimize cultural biases to develop a more inclusive theory of politeness.

1.5 Significance of the Study

This research holds significance in unraveling the complexities of politeness, shedding light on its subtle
nuances. By exploring politeness within the realm of everyday conversations, the findings aim to enrich
our comprehension of human interaction, fostering cross-cultural understanding and effective
communication.

2.1 An introduction
The apparently simple, everyday act of asking a favor, when done effectively, is the product of complex
communicative skills. From one point of view, asking a favor can be thought of as an attempt to exert
social influence; but getting the hearer to comply with the request is only one among a potentially
tangled network of goals and constraints that the skillful speaker is able to manage. Thus a recent study
of compliance-gaining strategies in requests concluded that the compliance-gaining analysis, although it
was informative, accounted for only a small part of what was most interesting in message. This study
attempts to combine these strengths. The politeness theory is assessed by applying it to actual discourse
in a large variety of situations.This approach is an attempt to enable researchers By applying it to actual
discourse in a large variety of situations.to contrast politeness behavior in different languages with and
without respectful language within the same framework while minimizing cultural biases and develop a
more comprehensive universal theory of politeness at the discourse level.

Politeness, often viewed as a routine aspect of social interaction, involves a nuanced interplay of
communication skills. Requesting a favor, seemingly straightforward, reveals a complex web of goals and
constraints that adept communicators navigate. While compliance-gaining strategies provide valuable
insights, they capture only a fraction of the intricacies inherent in effective communication.

This study aims to delve into the discourse approach to politeness, particularly from a pragmatic
standpoint. By applying politeness theory to real-life conversations across diverse situations, the goal is
to contrast politeness behaviors in various languages. This approach seeks to minimize cultural biases,
fostering the development of a more comprehensive and universal theory of politeness at the discourse
level.

Examining the contributions of notable authors in the field, including Penelope Brown, Stephen C.
Levinson, Geoffrey Leech, Deborah Tannen, Teun A. van Dijk, Suzanne C. Herring, James R. Martin,
Francesca Bargiela, and Richard Watts, this essay will explore the rich tapestry of politeness theories and
their practical implications in our daily interactions.

2.2 Discourse Approach to Politeness, generally from

the pragmatic point of view and contributions of
various Authors
1. Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson

2. Geoffrey Leech

3. Deborah Tannen

4. Teun A. van Dijk

5. Suzanne C. Herring

6. James R. Martin
7. Francesca Bargiela

8. Richard Watts

a) Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson: Penelope Brown and

Stephen Levinson's main contribution to the discourse approach to politeness is the concept of
politeness as a face-saving mechanism. In their view, politeness is about protecting the self-image of the
speaker and the hearer, and avoiding face-threatening acts, such as criticism, insults, and
embarrassment.

b) Geoffrey Leech: Leech's major contribution to discourse approach to politeness is the

concept of politeness maxims. He proposed that politeness is governed by six maxims, similar to the
Gricean maxims: tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy. These maxims
provide a framework for understanding polite communication in different cultures and situations.

c) Deborah Tannen: Deborah's work focuses on gender and politeness. She argues that
women and men often use different communication strategies to express politeness, which can lead to
misunderstandings and conflict. Tannen's work has been influential in the field of communication
studies, and has helped to explain why men and women can often have different perceptions of
politeness.

d) Teun A. van Dijk: Van Dijk's work focuses on the relationship between discourse,
cognition, and society. He argues that the way we use language is shaped by our social and cultural
context, and that this can have an impact on politeness. Van Dijk's work has influenced the field of
discourse analysis, and has helped to explain how politeness can be influenced by social factors such as
power, status, and identity.

e) Suzanne C. Herring: Herring's work focuses on computer-mediated

communication, and how politeness is expressed in online settings. She argues that online
communication has its own unique set of politeness norms, which can be different from those used in
face-to-face interaction. Herring's work has been influential in understanding how politeness is changing
in the digital age.

f) James R. Martin: Martin's work focuses on the pragmatics of conversation, and how
politeness is expressed through the turn-taking system. He argues that politeness is not just about
words, but also about how turns are managed in conversation. Martin's work has helped to explain the
role of politeness in conversation, and how it can be used to maintain social harmony.
g) Francesca Bargiela: Bargiela's work focuses on politeness in a cross-cultural
context, and how it is influenced by culture-specific values and norms. She argues that politeness is not
a universal concept, but is shaped by the specific cultural context in which it is used. Bargiela's work has
helped to explain how politeness can vary across cultures, and how misunderstandings can occur when
cultures have different expectations around politeness.

h) Richard Watts: Watts' work focuses on the sociolinguistics of politeness, and how it is
related to power, status, and social identity. He argues that politeness is not just about being nice, but is
a complex social phenomenon that is shaped by our relationships and the social context. Watts' work
has helped to explain why politeness is so important in social interaction, and how it can be used to
maintain or challenge social hierarchies.

While we've attempted to provide a concise overview of politeness from different scholars' viewpoints,
we'll now zero in on three key authors: Geoffrey Leech,Penelope Brown and Stephen c. Levinson,
and ,Teun A. Van Dijk.

2.3 Geoffrey Leech

Geoffrey Leech defines discourse politeness from a pragmatic standpoint as the use of language to
maintain social harmony and avoid causing offense or discomfort to others during communication. This
involves strategies such as politeness markers, indirectness, and mitigating language to soften potential
face-threatening act

Discourse politeness, as conceptualized by Geoffrey Leech within the framework of pragmatics, refers to
the strategic use of language to uphold social harmony and preserve individuals' positive face during
communication. This concept is grounded in the understanding that language serves not only as a
means of conveying information but also as a tool for managing social relationships and interpersonal
dynamics.

At its core, discourse politeness revolves around the notion of "face," a term borrowed from sociologist
Erving Goffman. Face can be understood as an individual's public self-image or sense of identity, which
they seek to maintain and protect during interactions with others. Face can be further categorized into
positive face, which encompasses one's desire to be liked, respected, and included, and negative face,
which pertains to one's desire for autonomy and freedom from imposition.

In order to mitigate potential threats to face and foster harmonious communication, individuals employ
various politeness strategies within discourse. These strategies include politeness markers, such as
honorifics, polite forms, and expressions of gratitude or deference, which serve to convey respect and
deference towards the interlocutor. Additionally, indirectness is often utilized to cushion potentially
face-threatening acts, allowing speakers to convey their intentions in a more tactful manner. Indirect
speech acts, such as making requests or giving directives indirectly, enable individuals to minimize the
imposition on the interlocutor's negative face while still achieving their communicative goals.

Furthermore, Leech identifies the concept of "conventional indirectness" as a key aspect of discourse
politeness. This refers to the use of conventionalized linguistic formulas or formulaic expressions that
have become established within a particular speech community for the purpose of politeness. These
formulas often serve as face-saving devices, allowing speakers to navigate potentially sensitive topics or
situations without causing offense.

In addition to linguistic strategies, Leech also emphasizes the importance of contextual factors in
determining appropriate levels of politeness in discourse. Cultural norms, social roles, power dynamics,
and the specific situational context all play crucial roles in shaping individuals' perceptions of what
constitutes polite behavior.

Overall, discourse politeness, as outlined by Geoffrey Leech, involves a nuanced understanding of

language use as a social tool for managing interpersonal relationships and preserving individuals' face.
By employing a range of linguistic and pragmatic strategies, speakers navigate the complexities of social
interaction while striving to uphold mutual respect, harmony, and goodwill.

2.4 Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson

Politeness theory, conceptualized by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson in the 1970s, delves into
how and why individuals engage in politeness behaviors, drawing heavily from Erving Goffman's face
theory. According to this theory, individuals possess two types of 'face': Positive face, reflecting the
desire to be liked and appreciated, akin to self-esteem, and Negative face, representing the desire to
maintain personal rights and freedom of action.

When people are polite, they either appeal to Positive face by making individuals feel good about
themselves (Positive politeness) or to Negative face by ensuring they don't feel imposed upon (Negative
politeness). Face-threatening acts occur when individuals are rude or impede personal freedoms, while
cooperation during social interactions is necessary to uphold both parties' face.
Positive face involves the desire to be positively regarded and validated, requiring individuals to
maintain a positive self-image. Strategies such as complimenting, congratulating, and agreeing with
others appeal to Positive face, while avoiding criticisms, insults, and disagreements protects it.

Negative face, on the other hand, is about avoiding imposition on personal rights and freedoms.
Negative politeness strategies, like hedging and indirectness, are employed to mitigate feelings of
imposition, ensuring autonomy for the individual.

examples illustrating both positive and negative face in politeness theory as proposed by Penelope
Brown and Stephen Levinson:

Positive Face:
1. Positive Politeness: "Your presentation was outstanding! I was truly impressed by your thorough
research and confident delivery." In this example, the speaker compliments the individual's
presentation, boosting their self-esteem and positive face.

Negative Face:
1. Negative Politeness: "I understand it's inconvenient, and I hope it's not too much trouble, but could
you possibly assist me with printing these documents?" In this instance, the speaker uses indirect
language and acknowledges the inconvenience, aiming to mitigate any feelings of imposition on the
listener's negative face.

In essence, politeness theory highlights the intricate dynamics of human interaction, where individuals
navigate between Positive and Negative face to maintain social harmony and uphold personal dignity
and autonomy.

2.5 Teun A. Van Dijk:

Teun A. van Dijk's perspective on politeness centers around the intricate interplay of discourse,
cognition, and societal dynamics. He contends that our language usage is not isolated but intricately
molded by the social and cultural context in which it operates. In this context, he emphasizes the
profound influence of these contextual factors on politeness.

According to van Dijk, politeness is not solely a surface-level courtesy; rather, it is deeply entwined with
the structures of society. His work underscores that power dynamics, social status, and individual
identity significantly shape the way politeness manifests in communication. For instance, individuals
may employ specific politeness strategies based on their perceived power relations or social standing
within a given context.

Van Dijk's contributions have been instrumental in advancing the field of discourse analysis. By
highlighting the connection between language use and broader social factors, he provides a framework
for understanding the nuanced variations in politeness. His insights illuminate how politeness is not a
static or universal concept but a dynamic phenomenon influenced by the complex tapestry of social
relationships.

In essence, van Dijk's work encourages us to view politeness as a manifestation of broader societal
structures, shedding light on how power, status, and identity dynamics intricately contribute to the
diverse ways in which individuals express politeness in their communicative interactions.

3.0 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, examining politeness from a pragmatic perspective reveals its intricate role in human
communication. Through the frameworks proposed by scholars like Geoffrey Leech, Penelope Brown
and Stephen Levinson, and Teun A. van Dijk, we see that politeness is not merely about manners but
about managing social interactions effectively. Politeness strategies vary across cultures and contexts,
reflecting the dynamic nature of human interaction. Understanding politeness in this pragmatic light
enables us to navigate social situations with sensitivity and adaptability, fostering harmonious
relationships and effective communication. As we continue to explore the complexities of language and
social interaction, the study of politeness remains a crucial avenue for understanding human behavior
and fostering mutual understanding in diverse communities.