ENGLISH PRAGMATICS

Politeness and Interaction

HANRI ANGGARIAWAN
1252041040

PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN BAHASA INGGRIS

JURUSAN BAHASA INGGRIS
FAKULTAS BAHASA DAN SASTRA

UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MAKASSAR

TAHUN AKADEMIK 2014

A. INTRODUCTION
A linguistics interaction is necessarily a social interaction. Interaction occurs when
speaker and listener are active. Factors which relate to social distance and closeness are
established prior to an interaction. Typically, social distance and closeness involve the
relative status of the participants, based on social values tied to such things as age and
power.
However, there are other factors, such as amount of imposition or degree of
friendliness, which are often negotiated during an interaction. These are internal to the
interaction and can result in the initial social distance changing and being marked as less,
or more, during its course. These internal factors are typically more relevant to
participants whose social relationships are actually in the process o being worked out
within the interaction.

B. DISCUSSION
a. Politeness
Politeness theory is the theory that accounts for the redressing of the affronts
to face posed by face-threatening acts to addressees. First formulated in 1978
by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, politeness theory has since expanded
academias perception of politeness. Politeness is the expression of the speakers
intention to mitigate facethreats carried by certain face threatening acts toward
another (Mills, 2003, p. 6). Another definition is "a battery of social skills whose goal
is to ensure everyone feels affirmed in a social interaction". Being polite therefore
consists of attempting to save face for another. This definition reflects a limited
conception of (im)politeness. Indeed, it may reflect a hegemonic construction. Face is
not endemic to all human cultures when displaying politeness or impoliteness.
Face means the public self-image of a person. Ace refers to that emotional and
social sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize. In term
of interaction, politeness can defined as the means employe4d to show awareness for
another persons face. Showing awareness for another persons face when that other
seems socially distant is often described in terms of respect or deference. Politeness
occurs in interaction. Politeness is different in some culture particularly to each local
culture. Politeness happen when we are respected to the listener.
1

Some factor determined the politeness:

1. Lexical choice: Use the word could, would, or etc.
2. Sentence structure: We can use command sentence by using asking sentence.
3. Gesture and Posture: Use our part of body to support to our speech. We cannot
use freely all part our body to support our speech act.
4. Intonation
Example of Politeness
[1]

a. Excuse me, Mr. Buckingham, but can I talk to you for a minute?
b. Hey, Bucky, got a minute?
Politeness is correlated to degree of relation The more we act politely then our

relation must be far close. On the contrary, the less we act politely then the relation
must be close. When the relation is not close, we can call someone by its title, Degree,
(Mr, Sir, Prof. or etc)
Face Wants
In face wants, people generally behave as if their expectations concerning their
public self-image will be respected within their everyday social interaction. Face
threatening act: speaking of speakers that represents a threat to another individuals
expectations regarding self-image. Face is image of a person in a social community or
public. Politeness is use to keep persons face.
Face Saving Act
In face saving act given the possibility that some action might be interpreted
as a threat to anothers face, the speaker can say something to lessen the possible
threat.
2]

Him

: Im going to tell him to stop that awful noise right now!

Her

: Perhaps you could just ask him if he is going to stop soon

because it's getting a bit late and people need to get to sleep.

There are many different ways of performing face saving acts, since each person will
attempt to respects the face wants of others.

Negative and Positive Face

Negative face is the need to be independent and positive face is the need to be
connected.
Negative Face: The need of the person to be independent, to have freedom of action,
and not to be imposed of by others.
Positive Face: The need of the person to be accepted, even liked, by others, to be
treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her wants are shared
by others.
Negative politeness: a face saving act which is oriented to the person's negative face
will tend to show deference, emphasized the importance of the others time or
concerns, and even include an apology for the for the imposition or interruption.
Positive Politeness: a face saving act which is concerned with the persons positive
ace will tend to show solidarity, emphasize that both speakers want the same thing,
and that they have a common goal.
Self and Other: Say Nothing
[3]

Self

: (looks in bag)

Other : (offers pen) Here, use this.

When we need to express our speak by say nothing, then we should express our
sentence by do something related our sentence.
Say Something: Off and On Record
[4]

a. Uh, I forgot my pen.

b. Hmm, I wonder where I put my pen.

[5]

a. Give me a pen.
b. Lend me your pen.

Positive and Negative Politeness

[6]

a. How about letting me use your pen?

b. Hey, buddy, Id appreciate it if you'd let me use your pen.

The politeness principle

The politeness principle is a series of maxims, which Geoff Leech has proposed as a
way of explaining how politeness operates in conversational exchanges. Leech defines
politeness as forms of behaviour that establish and maintain comity. That is the ability of
participants in a social interaction to engage in interaction in an atmosphere of relative
harmony. In stating his maxims Leech uses his own terms for two kinds of illocutionary acts.
He calls representatives assertives, and calls directives impositives.

Each maxim is accompanied by a sub-maxim (between square brackets), which is of less

importance. These support the idea that negative politeness (avoidance of discord) is more
important than positive politeness (seeking concord).

Not all of the maxims are equally important. For instance, tact influences what we say
more powerfully than does generosity, while approbation is more important than modesty.

Note also that speakers may adhere to more than one maxim of politeness at the same
time. Often one maxim is on the forefront of the utterance, with a second maxim being
invoked by implication.

If politeness is not communicated, we can assume that the politeness attitude is absent.

Leech's maxims

Tact maxim (in directives [impositives] and commissives): minimise cost to other;
[maximise benefit to other]

Generosity maxim (in directives and commissives): minimise benefit to self; [maximise
cost to self]

Approbation maxim (in expressives and representatives [assertives]): minimise dispraise

of other; [maximise praise of other]

Modesty maxim (in expressives and representatives): minimise praise of self; [maximise
dispraise of self]

Agreement maxim (in representatives): minimise disagreement between self and other;
[maximise agreement between self and other]

Sympathy maxim (in representatives): minimise antipathy between self and other;
[maximise sympathy between self and other]

Face and politeness strategies

4

Face (as in lose face) refers to a speaker's sense of linguistic and social identity.
Any speech act may impose on this sense, and is therefore face threatening. And speakers
have strategies for lessening the threat. Positive politeness means being complimentary and
gracious to the addressee (but if this is overdone, the speaker may alienate the other party).
Negative politeness is found in ways of mitigating the imposition:
Hedging

: Er, could you, er, perhaps, close the, um , window?

Pessimism

: I don't suppose you could close the window, could you?

Indicating deference : Excuse me, sir, would you mind if I asked you to close the
window?
Apologizing

: I'm terribly sorry to put you out, but could you close the
window?

Impersonalizing

: The management requires all windows to be closed.

A good illustration of a breach of these strategies comes from Alan Bleasdale's 1982
TV drama, The Boys from the Black Stuff, where the unemployed Yosser Hughes greets
potential employers with the curt demand: Gizza job!
Perhaps the most thorough treatment of the concept of politeness is that of Penelope
Brown and Stephen Levinson, which was first published in 1978 and then reissued, with a
long introduction, in 1987. In their model, politeness is defined as repressive action taken to
counter-balance the disruptive effect of face-threatening acts (FTAs).
In their theory, communication is seen as potentially dangerous and antagonistic.
Strength of their approach over that of Geoff Leech is that they explain politeness by deriving
it from more fundamental notions of what it is to be a human being. The basic notion of their
model is face. This is defined as the public self-image that every member (of society)
wants to claim for himself. In their framework, face consists of two related aspects.

One is negative face, or the rights to territories, freedom of action and freedom from
imposition - wanting your actions not to be constrained or inhibited by others.

The other is positive face, the positive consistent self-image that people have and their
desire to be appreciated and approved of by at least some other people.
The rational actions people take to preserve both kinds of face, for themselves and the

people they interact with, add up to politeness. Brown and Levinson also argue that in human

communication, either spoken or written, people tend to maintain one another's face
continuously.
In everyday conversation, we adapt our conversation to different situations. Among
friends we take liberties or say things that would seem discourteous among strangers. And we
avoid over-formality with friends. In both situations we try to avoid making the hearer
embarrassed or uncomfortable. Face-threatening acts (FTAs) are acts that infringe on the
hearers' need to maintain his/her self-esteem, and be respected. Politeness strategies are
developed for the main purpose of dealing with these FTAs. Suppose I see a crate of beer in
my neighbors house. Being thirsty, I might say:

I want some beer.

Is it OK for me to have a beer?

I hope it's not too forward, but would it be possible for me to have a beer?

It's so hot. It makes you really thirsty.

Brown and Levinson sum up human politeness behavior in four strategies, which

correspond to these examples: bald on record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and
off-record-indirect strategy.

The bald on-record strategy does nothing to minimize threats to the hearer's face

The positive politeness strategy shows you recognize that your hearer has a desire to
be respected. It also confirms that the relationship is friendly and expresses group
reciprocity.

The negative politeness strategy also recognizes the hearer's face. But it also
recognizes that you are in some way imposing on them. Some other examples would
be to say, I don't want to bother you but... or I was wondering if...

Off-record indirect strategies take some of the pressure off of you. You are trying to
avoid the direct FTA of asking for a beer. Instead you would rather it be offered to you
once your hearer sees that you want one.
These strategies are not universal - they are used more or less frequently in other

cultures. For example, in some eastern societies the off-record-indirect strategy will place on
your hearer a social obligation to give you anything you admire. So speakers learn not to
express admiration for expensive and valuable things in homes that they visit.

Examples from Brown and Levinson's politeness strategies

Bald on-record

An emergency : Help!
Task oriented : Give me those!
Request

: Put your jacket away.

Alerting

: Turn your lights on! (while driving)

Positive Politeness

Attend to the hearer

: You must be hungry, it's a long time since breakfast. How about some

lunch?
Avoid disagreement

A: What is she, small?

B: Yes, yes, she's small, smallish, um, not really small but certainly not very big.
Assume agreement

: So when are you coming to see us?

Hedge opinion

: You really should sort of try harder.

Negative Politeness

Be indirect

: I'm looking for a pen.

Request forgiveness : You must forgive me but....

Minimize imposition : I just want to ask you if I could use your computer?
Pluralize the person responsible: We forgot to tell you that you needed to by your plane ticket
by yesterday

Off-record (indirect)

Give hints

: It's a bit cold in here.

Be vague

: Perhaps someone should have been more responsible.

Be sarcastic, or joking: Yeah, he's a real Einstein (rocket scientist, Stephen Hawking, genius
and so on)!

C. CONCLUSION
Politeness is usually associated with respect towards other people. We may pay
respect to other peoples feelings, opinions, their present social situation etc. Moreover,
the social distance between speaker and addressee highly determines our choice of
language and our attention we pay to ways of politeness. Strangers are certainly treated
more politely than a close friend. If you think of the kind of language you would choose
in order to make a polite impression you might come up with strategies like formality,
deference, apologies or indirectness.
However, politeness is perceived differently around the world and different norms
of politeness obviously influence the use of language, as well. Thus, whereas deference
might be a proper way of using politeness among strangers in one society, this might not
be the case in another. It might even be considered as impolite to emphasize the social
distance in a society like for example North America, Australia or Italy, where people are
accustomed to a more direct and open way of politeness.
Politeness is based on conventions. What is considered to be polite or impolite
depends on norms both speakers and addressees are accustomed to. Our awareness of
certain social conventions leads us to choose a particular way to address other people. To
agree on these conventions is necessary for a successful use of different politeness
strategies in language.

REFERENCES
Cameron, Deborah. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. Sage Productions
Coulmas, Florian. 1998. The handbook of sociolinguistics. Wiley-Blackwell.
Dunn, C. D. (2011). Formal forms or verbal strategies? politeness theory and Japanese
business etiquette training. Journal of Pragmatics.
Foley, William. 1997. Anthropological Linguistics: An introduction. Blackwell.
Goldsmith, D. J. (2006). Brown and Levinsons politeness theory. In B. Whaley & W.
Samter (Eds.) Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and
exemplars (pp. 219-236). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goffman, Erving. 1955. On Face-Work: An analysis of ritual elements in social
interaction, Psychiatry: Journal of Interpersonal Relations 18:3, pp. 213231
[reprinted in Interaction Ritual, pp. 546].
Lakoff, R. 1973. The logic of Politeness; or minding your p's and q's. Papers from the
9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago
Linguistics Society.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Wiley-Blackwell.
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.