POLITENESS 1 AND 2

COMPILED BY

GROUP J

DEPARTMENT: ENGLISH AND LITERTURE

COURSE: PRAGMATICS

LECTURER: PROF. FELIX .N. OGOANAH

MEMBERS MAT. NO

OGUGO GIFT ART1900539

EFENUDU MERCY ART 1900440

OWIN IRIKEFE ART1900575

ISIBHAKHOMEM IDIATA ART 1900475

BLESSING OSAMUDIAMEHN EDOBOR ART 19004381

ISAAC KINGSLEY

ART1900490

ENOGHEGHASE VICTORIA ART 2010631

SUNMONI MARY OLUWABUKOLA ART 1900587

AYENOR-OYAWIRI EUNICE ART 1900414

EDUVIE EMUOGHOKUGHENE VICTORY ART 1910031

1 Introduction

In Pragmatics, the essay of Politeness refers to how language is used to foester

social interaction. it has become a major study in linguistics and in this essay we

will dwell on Politeness 1 and Politeness 2.

This essay, will explained what is meant by Politeness, Face and Face Want to give

a proper background to what is meant by Politeness 1 and Politeness 2. It will go

further by giving our everyday conversation as examples and how individuals tend

to employ face strategies to forster social behavior and interaction using Geoffrey

Leech's Principles of Politeness model.

2 Concept of Politeness

According to Brown and Levinson (1983), politeness is social phenomenon that

involves strategies and behaviours used to maintain or enhance social harmony and

minimize potential threat to face, which refers to an individual public self-image or

social identity.They propose a theory of Politeness that consists of two main

concepts; which are positive politeness and negative politeness.

According to Geoffrey Leech (1987) , Politeness is a pragmatic principle that

regulates communication and social interaction. He proposed a politeness theory

that includes six Maxims or principles of Politeness; which are Tact maxim,

Generosity maxim, Approbation maxim, Modesty maxim, Agreement maxim,

Sympathy Maxim. According to Leech, these maxins serve as guidelines for

achieving Politeness in communication and promoting harmonious social

interaction.

According to sociologist Erving Goffman, Politeness is a social ritual that

individuals perform in order to maintain sense of dignity and social order in their

interaction with others. Goffman's perspective on politeness is closely associated to

his concept of "face" which refers to the positive social value that individuals claim

for themselves in a given interaction. Goffman also emphasised the importance of

face saving strategies or face threatening acts in Politeness.

According to sociolinguist Richard Watts, Politeness is a complex and dynamic

social phenomenon that involves the negotiation of interpersonal relationships and

management of social expectations or norms.

Politeness refers to how speakers use language to maintain their self-image and to

foster 'polite social behavior within a culture's. it refers to how an individual or a

social group puts others emotions, self-esteem or self - image into consideration

when communication is on. This connects pragmatics with both social behaviour

and how language is used to gain peaceful communication in society.

Lakoff developed the "Politeness Principle," in which she devised three maxims

that are usually followed in interaction. These are: Don't impose, give the receiver
options, and make the receiver feel good. She stated that these are paramount in

good interaction

To Yule, Politeness in an interaction, can then be defined as the means employed

to show awareness of another person's face (1996:60).This brings us to the concept

of Face.

2.1 Meaning of Face and Face Want

Generally, the idea of Politeness is hinged on the notion of face, which stems from

Goffman's ( 1967, p.5) statement that 'face is the public self-image that everyone

members wants to claim for her himself or herself'. Therefore, face had become a

universal and hence important concept in the of (im)politeness, in the sense that

virtually all ( first or second order ) theories of politeness have a connection.

Face simply, refers to how a speaker in interaction wants others to appreciate their

self-image, emotions, perspectives and values which they want others to respect.

Face is derived from Goffman (1967) ,from the folk term which ties face with the

notion of being embarrassed, humiliation, or losing face. It is emotionally vested,

can be lost or maintained and needs to be attained in social interaction. Face want

refers to how people generally behave, and wants their expectations concerning

their self-image to be respected. This means that people interact based on their
closeness or distance. This leads to what we mean by face threating act and face

saving act.

Face threatening act, refers to how the addressee perceives the interaction to be a

threat to his or her self esteem. This is achieved by the linguistic choices of the

speaker. Face saving act refers to how the speaker tries to gain social relationship,

not wanting his words to feel as a treat to the addressee. For instance, in a class

room two best friend are busy but gets disturbed by another class mate and a

conversation broke out:

A: I will tell him right now to stop that noise , he is disturbing the whole class

room.

B: You could just tell him that, he should reduce his voice for the mean time,

because everyone is busy.

What speaker A has just done is referred to as Negative Face, which means that

this communication involves independence, freedom or distance between the

interactants. Speaker B strategy is referred to as Positive face, which means that

there is a sense of social belonging, connectedness and the other person view point

is put into consideration.

According to Yule, in simple term Negative Face is the need to be independent and

Positive Face is the need to be connected. In both cases, there is a common goal,
which is to communicate in a polite way not to interfere with the addressee and the

right linguistic choices to forster social interaction which Brown and Levinson

referred to as Positive Politeness (Politeness 1) and Negative Politeness

( Politeness 2).

The concept of Politeness 1

Politeness 1 refers the common notion of the term, that is, the way Politeness is

manifest itself in communicative interaction: Politeness-as-practice in everyday

interaction. It is a layperson' concept , something that individuals talk about in

everyday situations and have an everyday understanding of. The first- order

Politeness (Politeness 1) as " the various ways in which polite behaviour is

perceived and talked about by members of sociocultural groups" Watts et al

(1992,p.3).

Politeness 1 comprises of three types of Politeness:

Expressive politeness1 refers to politeness encoded in speech reflecting speakers'

polite intentions and may be realized in the use of specific terms of address,

honorifics, conventional formulaic expression ( 'thank you' 'excuse me') and

various linguistic devices, such as those employed to mitigate the direct

illocutionary force of request or to reduce the negative effects of a refusal

response, the use of the word 'please' or the use of the conditional to express

Politeness in situationally appropriate context.

Classifactory Politeness 1 refers to Politeness as a categorical tool: it

encompasses the hearers' judgement of other people's polite behaviour.

Metapragmatic politeness 1 refers to how people talk about Politeness as a

concept in everyday interaction and what people perceive politeness to be in

different interactional practices.

In general, Politeness 1 has an evaluative character, involves social norms and

covers different aspects of the lay notion of Politeness an how Politeness is

intentionally encoded in language by the speaker in various communicative

practices as well as how Politeness is perceived or evaluated by the hearer.

Concept of Politeness 2

Politeness 2 is the technical or theoretically oriented use of the term such as is

found, for example Brown and Levinson's model of Politeness as the avoidance or

mitigation of face threat or Leech's model of Politeness as seeking and maintaining

social Concord by means of PP( Politeness Principles).

Politeness 2 refers to the scientific conceptualization of Politeness 1, and as a

theory of Universal principles governing human interaction . The construction of

the theory of Politeness 2 may helps us envision how Politeness 1 works in social

interaction, what its function is in society, how polite behaviour is distinguished

from impolite behaviour, and what the characteristics of (im)politeness behaviour

are. In it may help establish the existence linguistic universals in politeness and

provide us with a better understanding of what (im)politeness is and is not during

various communicative practices. Generally, Politeness2 arelargely theoretical and

scientific, in that they focus more on a universal understanding of politeness

concepts and rules that should guide language users to be polite, without

considering the specificity of situational use of language. This gives it its etic

language-independent property.

Overall, Politeness 2 has been presented in various theoretical models that mainly

examine politeness as a theoretic construct, as the universal model of linguistic

politeness proposed by Brown and Levinson(1987) and also the model proposed by

Leech (1983

politeness 2 was initiated and shaped by publications such as Lakoff (1973), Leech

(1983), and most prominently Brown and Levinson (1978, republished in 1987).

Lakoff (1973), for example, proposed specific “Rules of Politeness”, which he

claims guide language use; namely, a. “don’t impose”, b. “give options”, and c.

“make A [OTHER] feel good, be friendly” (p. 298). In a similar fashion, Leech

(1983) proposed a set of ‘politeness principles’ with six maxims, viz. tact,
generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy. He specifically

focused on ‘indirectness’, claiming that “indirect illocutions tend to be more

polite…” (p. 108). Brown & Levinson’s (hereafter, B&L)(1987) is hinged on the

notion of ‘face’, ‘face threatening act (FTA)’ and ‘mitigation’. They recognize

power, social distance, and level of imposition as the factors that determine the

‘weightiness’ of FTAs on interlocutors. The major focus of B&L’s model is on

mitigation, since politeness in brought into play when interactants notice each

other’s face has been threatened, and hence has to be redressed through relevant

strategies of mitigation.

Geoffrey Leech's Model Politeness

As it has been discussed that Politeness 2 is the theoretical model of how to

ascertain what Politeness 1 is, in our communicative practices so as to establish

harmonious atmosphere in our interactions, we shall be focusing on Geoffrey

Leech's Principles of Politeness model in this essay.

According to Geoffrey Leech, there is a politeness principle with conversational

maxims similar to those formulated by Paul Grice. He lists six maxims: tact,

generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy. The first and second

form a pair, as do the third and the fourth. These maxims vary from culture to
culture: what may be considered polite in one culture may be strange or downright

rude in another.

The 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 minimising the imposition, and the second part reflects the positive politeness

strategy of attending to the hearer's interests, wants, and needs. For example:

Could I interrupt you for a second?

If I could just clarify this then.

The generosity maxim

Leech's generosity maxim states: "Minimize the expression of beliefs that express

or imply benefit to self; maximize the expression of beliefs that express or imply

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 relax and let me do the dishes.

You must come and have dinner with us.

The 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 euphemisms),

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:

I heard you singing at the karaoke last night. It sounded like you were enjoying

yourself!

Gideon, I know you're a genius – would you know how to solve this math problem

here?

The modesty maxim

The maxim of modesty is one of the six maxims proposed by Leech (1983) in his

PP (politeness principle) meaning to minimize praise or to maximize dispraise of

self. 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?

The 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:

A: I don't want my daughter to do this, I want her to do that.

B: Yes, but ma'am, I thought we resolved this already on your last visit.

The sympathy maxim

The sympathy maxim states: "minimize antipathy between self and other;

maximize sympathy between the 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

Conclusion

This essay has explored the concept of Politeness 1 and Politeness 2 from different

perspectives. But center focus is on Leech's model principles of politeness on how

addresser and addressee in social interaction have to know in order to maintain

their self-image in communication.

 Works Cite

Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. Pragmatics: Some Universals in Language

Use. 1978

Yule, George. Pragmatics. 1967

Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social

interaction.

Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes.

Lakoff, R. T. (1973): The logic of politeness, or minding your p's and q's. Chicago
Linguistics Society, 9, 292-305.

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

Ononye, C. F. (2020). The concept ofpoliteness: First/second order distinction. A

lecture delivered

on the Telegram platform of the Pragmatics Association of Nigeria (PrAN), on

Apri 17, 2020.

Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wikipedia