Cross Cultural Communication

SUMMARY

INTERPERSONAL POLITENESS AND POWER

Communicative Style or register

Hayat M. Ohorella

P0600208015

“Communicative style” is the term we prefer on interpersonal

politeness and power because it is more general term than
“register” used by most sociolinguists to refer to either personal
identities or interpersonal relationships among participants. We
would not say, for example, that Rebecca has an interesting register
but we might say that she has an interesting communicative style.
On other hand we could say that Fiona is very good at choosing the
appropriate register or communicative style for any situation. In
other words, the term “communicative style” is less restrictive and
can include the concept of register.

One of the most important ways in which we reduce the

ambiguity of communication is by making assumption about the
people we are talking to. As the simplest example, when we begin
talking to someone we try to speak to them in a language we know
they will understand. In monolingual speech community that is
rarely a problem, but in the increasingly multilingual international
business community it is becoming a major issue, to be solved right
at the outset of communications.

Within sociological and sociolinguistic studies face is usually

given the following general definition: “Face is negotiated public

1
Cross Cultural Communication

image, mutually granted each other by participants in a

communicative event”.

The “Self” as Communicative Identitty

One reason the term “face” is attractive in communicative

studies is that it leaves open the question of who is the “real”
person underneath the face which is presented in communication.
That deeper question is ultimately a question of psychology or,
perhaps, philosophy, and we will not go further into it. The idea of
“self” which underlies western studies of communication is highly
individualistic, self-motivated, and open to ongoing negotiation.
There is reason to believe that the “self” projected by Asians is a
more collectivistic “self”, one which is more connected to
membership in basic groups such as the family or one’s working
group and which is taken to be more strongly under the influence of
assumed or unmarked cultural assumptions about face.

The paradox of Face: Involvement and Independence

Face is really a paradoxical concept. By this we mean that

there are two sides to it which appear to be in contrast. On the one
hand, in human interactions we have a need to be involved with
other participants and to show them our involvement. On the other
hand, we need to maintain some degree of independence from
other participants and to show them that we respect their
independence. These two sides of face, involvement and
independence, produce an inherently paradoxical situation in all
communications, in that both aspects of face must be projected
simultaneously in any communication. The involvement aspect of

2
Cross Cultural Communication

face is concerned with the person’s right and need to be considered

a normal, contributing, or supporting member of society. This
involvement is shown through being a normal and contributing
participant in communicative events.

The independence aspect of face emphasizes the individuality

of the participants. It emphasizes their right not to be completely
dominated by group or social values, and to be free from the
impositions of others. Independence shows that a person may act
with some degree of autonomy and that he or she respects the
rights of others to their own autonomy and freedom of movement
or choice.

Politeness Strategies of Involvement and Independence

The most extreme contras between involvement and

independence is the difference between speaking (or
communicating) and silence (or non- communication). Any form of
communication at all is somewhat on the side of involvement. In
order to communicate at all, the participants must share some
aspects of symbolic systems which they can interpret in shared
ways. If I speak to you and you are able to answer me, we have
already shared some small degree of involvement, and silence on
the side of independence.

Psychological studies of conversational exchange and formal

interviews have shown that the more talk there is, the more these
exchanges are perceived as “warm” or “affiliate”. In contrast, the
less talk there is, the more they perceive as “cold” or “non-
affiliate”. On the basis of this designation of “affiliative”, we believe

3
Cross Cultural Communication

that it is best to consider more talk, volubility, to be an involvement

strategy, and less talk, taciturnity, to be an independence strategy.

Politeness (or Face) Systems

There are three main factors involved which bring such a

politeness (or face) system into being: power, distance, and the
weight of the imposition.

Power (+P, -P)

“Power” refers to the vertical disparity between the

participants in hierarchical structure. In other words, Mr. Hutchins is
above Bill in the Hierarchical structure of their company. We would
describe their relationship as +P (plus power) because Mr. Hutchins
has special privileges (and, of course, responsibilities) over Bill owes
certain duties to Mr. Hutchins.

Close friends generally share a –P share relationship, since

neither one is considered above the other. But the relationship does
not have to be among close friends. Two people who have
equivalent ranks in their own companies/organizations might have a
–P relationship even though they do not know each other at all. In
international protocols in both business and government, most
communications are attempted at the same level so that –P
relationship can be achieved. Company presidents talk to company
presidents, assistant sales managers deal with other assistant sales
managers, ambassadors talk to ambassadors, and clerks talk to
clerks.

4
Cross Cultural Communication

The distance between two participants should not be

confused with the power difference between them. Distance can be
seen most easily in egalitarian relationship (-P). For example, two
close friends would be classified as –D because of the closeness of
their relationship. On the other hand, two government officials of
different nations are likely to be of equal power within their system
but distant, + D.

Weight of Imposition ( +W, -W )

The third factor that will influence face strategies is the

weight of the imposition. Even if two participants in a speech event
have a very fixed relationship between them, the face strategies
they will use vary depending on how important the topic of
discussion is for them. In other words, when the weight of
imposition increases, there will be an increased use of
independence strategies. When the weight of imposition decreases,
there will be an increased use of involvement strategies.

Three Politeness Systems: Deference, Solidarity,

and Hierarchy

Three main types of politeness system can be observed in

many different contexts. These are based primarily on whether
there is a power difference (+P or –P) and on the distance between
participants (+D or –D). These three types are called the deference
politeness system, the solidarity politeness system, and the
hierarchical politeness system.

Deference Politeness System (-P, +D)

5
Cross Cultural Communication

A deference politeness system is one in which participants are

considered to be equals or near equals but treat each other at a
distance. Relationship among professional colleagues who do not
know each other well is one example. The characteristic of this
system are that it is:

1. symmetrical (-P), that is, the participants see themselves as

being at the same social level;

2. distant (+D), that is, each uses independence strategies

speaking to the other

Solidarity Politeness System (-P, -D)

When two close friends have a conversation with each other

they exemplify a solidarity face system. There is a high level of
involvement politeness strategies. There is no feeling of either a
power difference (-P) or distance (-D) between them. The
characteristic of this solidarity face system are:

1. symmetrical (-P), that is, the participants see themselves as

being in equal social position;

2. close (-D), that is, the participants both use the politeness
strategies of involvement.

Hierarchical Politeness System (+P, +/-D)

In such a system the participants recognize and respect the

social differences that place one in super-ordinate position and the
other in a subordinate position. This is the system of face in which
Mr. Hutchins speaks “down” to his employee Bill and Bill speaks

6
Cross Cultural Communication

“up” to his superior, Mr. Hutchins. The main characteristic of this

system is the recognized difference in status, for which the
designation is +P. It is considered that this system to be either
close or distant, +P or -P, and the characteristic are:

1. asymmetrical (+P), that is, the participants see themselves

as being in unequal social position;

2. asymmetrical in face strategies, that is, the “higher” uses

involvement face strategies and the “lower” uses
independence face strategies.

Miscommunication

Miscommunication often arises especially across the

boundaries of discourse or discourse systems, because it is difficult
to know in a new group, in a new language, or in a new culture how
to express these rather subtle difference in face values. This
analysis of face also tells us what sort of miscommunication arises.
We can state it as a general: “When two participants differ in their
assessment of face strategies, it will tend to be perceived as
difference in power”. That is because any difference in sense of
hierarchy gives rise to difficulties in selecting face strategies, and
any miscalculation in face strategies gives rise to feelings of power
differences.

It is for the reason that this chapter has been entitled

“Interpersonal Politeness and Power”. The characteristic of the
communication of face make it inevitable that power (that is,
hierarchy) is interrelated to politeness levels.