POLITENESS

In a common sense, being polite is showing good manners and consideration for other people. e.g. Open the
door for a lady, give your seat to an elderly person in public transport.In Linguistic, politeness is the way people
choose to speak and how the hearers react to their speech.
Brown and Levinson (1978) have concluded that, in order to enter into social relationships, all people must
acknowledge the face of other people. As a technical term, face means the public self-image of a person. It
refers to that emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize.
Politeness is best expressed as the practical application of good manners or etiquette. It is a culturally defined
phenomenon, and therefore what is considered polite in one culture can sometimes be quite rude or simply
strange in another cultural context. It is a strategy employed by a speaker to achieve a variety of goals e.g.To
promote and maintain harmonious relations. Example of politeness:
1. A student to teacher Excuse me Mr. Buckingham, but can I Friend totalk to you for a minute?
2. Hey Bucky, got a minute?Friend.

FACE WANTS -People generally behave as if their expectations concerning their public self-image, or their
face wants, will be respected.

Face Threatening Act: If a speaker says something that represents a threat to another individuals expectations
regarding self-image, it is described as a face threatening act.

Face Saving Act: The speaker can say something to lessen the possible threat. This is called a face saving act.
The FSA which most common, uses a Negative Politeness . It typically uses a modal verb
1. Im sorry to bother you, but can I ask you could you lend me a pen?
2. I know youre busy, but might I ask you a pen or something? If you happen to have an extra pen for
me?

KINDS OF FACE SAVING ACT :55555

One influential model of politeness is based on the notion of face (Brown and Levinson 1987) Face refers to a
speakers sense of linguistic and social identity. There are two kinds of face

Negative face is your desire to be unimpeded in your actions. the need to be independent to have a freedom of
action and not to be imposed by others. Example: Your friend asks for a ride to the airport Negative face needs:
You think this is not favorable; I dont feel like driving this guy to the airport. I have other stuff that I could be
doing, like sleeping, or saving the gasoline in my car. He can find his own ride (Goffman: 1967).

Positive face is your desire for identification with the community. the need to be accepted, even liked by others,
to be treated as a member of the group and to know that his or her wants are shared by others. Example: Your
friend asks for a ride to the airport. Positive face needs: You think, I better take him because I want him to like
me, and I want the reputation of being a reliable person (Goffman: 1967). In conclusion, we can say that
negative face is the need to be independent and positive face is the need to be connected.

Politeness strategies for avoiding FTA:

A. ON RECORD SUPERSTRATEGY
1) Bald-on record
2) Positive Politeness
3) Negative Politeness
B. OFF RECORD SUPERSTRATEGY
1) Bald-on record: it is directly address the other person to express your needs using imperative forms is
known as bald on record e.g.: I want some beer. (Bald on record: direct)
2) Positive politeness: A face saving act concerned with the persons positive face will tend to show solidarity,
emphasize that both speakers want the same thing and have a common goal. e.g.: hey buddy, is it OK for me to
have a beer? (Positive politeness: somewhat direct)
3) Negative politeness: A face saving act oriented to a persons negative face tends to show deference,
emphasizes the importance of the others time or concerns and may include an apology for the imposition e.g.: I
hope its not too forward, but would it be possible for me to have a beer? (Negative politeness: somewhat
indirect)
B. Off record: statements not directly addressed to another person, e.g.: Its so hot. It makes you really thirsty.
(Off record: indirect)

Felicity conditions
These are conditions necessary to the success of a speech act. They take their name from a Latin root -
felix or happy. They are conditions needed for success or achievement of a performative. Only certain
people are qualified to declare war, baptize people or sentence convicted felons. In some cases, the speaker
must be sincere (as in apologizing or vowing) and external circumstances must be suitable.

Sentences can go wrong in a number of ways: words might be mispronounced (for example, we might say "No bout
adout it" instead of "No doubt about it"), or we might make an irregular verb regular even though we don't normally do
so (for example, we might say "he swimmed" instead of "he swam.") Speech acts can go wrong, too, by being
situationally inappropriate.

Suppose that two people in a bar who have had too much to drink decide to get married and go up to the bartender
and ask him to marry them. Suppose that the bartender used to be a court clerk and remembered exactly what must
be said and done to marry people. Suppose, finally, that they go through the whole ceremony in front of witnesses, and
that the bartender concluded by saying, I hereby pronounce you husband and wife. Saving this, in this context, would
not effect a marrying of these two people, and not necessarily because they are drunk or they are in a bar, but simply
because the bartender doesn't have the official social and legal status required to marry people. The marriage
pronouncement is, therefore, situationally inappropriate, and we say in such cases that the speech act in question is
infelicitous - has gone awry.
Another situation:
Suppose You see a man snatch a ladys bag and run. You chase the man and when you catch him you hold his
hands behind his back and say, You are under arrest.

Would the man consider himself under arrest? Why?

Or, you are standing by the entrance to Ameenee Building, waiting for a friend. Someone comes and parks a
huge truck in front of the building, blocking the entrance completely. The driver gets out and walks away.
When the security guard comes out you are the only one standing near the truck. The Guard says to you, Please
move the truck.

Obviously there are conditions for speech act to be effective.

Only certain people (often in certain circumstances) under particular conditions can say something and expect it
to have an effect. These conditions that need to be met in order for a speech act to be effective are known as
felicity conditions .e.g. felicity conditions for an order are:
1. The speaker believes the action should be done.
2. The hearer has the ability to do the action
3. The hearer has the obligation to do the action
4. The speaker has the right to tell the receiver to do the action
If any one of these conditions is not fulfilled, the utterance will not function as an order.
Loosely speaking, felicity conditions can be divided into 3 types:
1. Preparatory conditions,
2. Conditions for execution
3. Sincerity conditions.
Preparatory conditions
Preparatory conditions include factors such as the status or authority of the speaker to perform the speech act,
the situation of other parties. The situation of the utterance is important.
e.g. A qualified referee can caution a player, if he or she is officiating in a match. The referee's assistant (who, in the
higher leagues, is also a qualified referee) cannot do this.qualified referees) cannot do so.

Conditions for execution

Conditions for execution are often exaggerated. Ritual or ceremonial actions accompanying certain speech act
are so ingrained in our minds that we sometimes believe the act is invalidated, if the action is lacking but there
are few real examples of this. Take refereeing of association football. When a referee cautions a player, he (or
she) should take the player's name, number and note the team for which he plays. The referee may also display a
yellow card, but this is not necessary to the giving of the caution:
The mandatory use of the cards is merely a simple aid for better communication.
Sincerity Conditions

Simple speaking these show that the speaker actually intends what s/he says. Like in the case for apologizing or
promising, it is often impossible for others to determine whether or not sincerity conditions are fulfilled.
However there are some speech acts (e.g. finalizing a contract/deal) where this sincerity is determined by the
presence of witnesses; so that one (or more) of the parties cannot later claim that they didnt really mean it.

The co-operation principle

Grice (1975) set Four Maxims which say that in conversational exchanges the participants are in fact co-operating with
each other.
The maxims of Quantity:
Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). Giving only the necessary
amount of information - not too much or too little. Example:
A: are you at the office: yes, I am. You will see me at room 12 of Halley building.
The maxims of Quality:
Only speaking the truth - not knowingly giving false information.
Do not say what you believe to be false.
Do not say that for which you lack evidence.
Example:
A: Do you think that smoking is good for health?
B: No, I think its not good for our health.
The maxim of Relevance:
Being relevant to the current topic of conversation, Example:
A: why do you learn English? B; Yes, I learn it because of my hobby.
The maxims of Manner:
Avoid obscurity of expression, Avoid ambiguity, be brief, Be orderly ,example:
A: what do you think about Ha Long Bay?
B: I like Ha Long Bay, it has a lot of beautiful caves.

Much pragmatic research goes into instances when theses maxims are broken which can be done in one of two
ways:
Flouting - overtly (obviously) breaking a maxim.
Violating - covertly (secretly) breaking a maxim.
Both of these are done to achieve something in the course of the conversation.
Flouting a maxim: the speaker blatantly fails to observe the maxim, because he wants to the hearer to find
additional meaning to the one expressed. This is called conversational implicature. For example: How are you
getting there? We are getting there by car (meaning you are not coming with us maxim of quantity flouted
because it would have been enough to say by car). Violating a maxim speaker wants to mislead the listener
intentionally. Infringing a maxim not observing the maxim because of lack of linguistic knowledge (e.g. L2
learners). Opting out of a maxim the speaker is unwilling to abide by the maxims (e.g. withholding
information). Suspending a maxim in certain situations it is not necessary to observe the maxims (e.g. poetry)

Implicature is defined as "the implied meaning generated intentionally by the speaker [1] These meanings are
often made covertly, hidden using politeness strategies (See Example Research: Politeness Theory).

Example:
John: Do you want to come to the pub?
Fred: I'm washing my hair.

Conventional implicature: Conversational implicatures are such components of an utterance that are not
expressed semantically but are understood by communicants in the process of communication: Was it you who broke the
cup? Conversational implicatures are universal , they do not depend on the language used.
Conventional implicatures are derived from a definite lexical or grammatical structure of an utterance: I saw only John
(conventional implicature I didnt see anyone else ), Even Bill is smarter than you ( Everybody is smarter than John,
1. not based on the cooperative principle or the maxims.-
2. not have to occur in conversation-
3. Not depend on special contexts for their interpretation.
4. Associated with specific words and result in additional conveyed meanings when those words are5used.
5. Some words are expressions for conventional implicature:-
-but: A but B will be based on the relationship between A and B and an implicature of contrast between the
information in A and B.
Example: Mary is crying but she is happy. =>Mary is crying is contrast to she is happy
-even: implicature of contrast of contrary to expectation
Example:
David even helped the old woman to go home.=>David is not expected to help the old woman but he did.
-yet: the present situation is expected tobe different, perhaps the opposite, at a latertime.
Example: Mum has not gone homeyet.=>negation of this sentence is Mum wenthome. So mum went home is
expectedto be true later.
1. Conversational implicature:
Derives from the cooperative principle of conversation and a number of maxims expected to be followed by participants
in a speech event.
Example:
A: Would you prefer coffee or tea?
B: I like coffee.

Conversational implicature

Paul Grice identified three types of general conversational implicatures:

1. The speaker deliberately flouts a conversational maxim to convey an additional meaning not expressed
literally. For instance, a speaker responds to the question "How did you like the guest lecturer?" with the
following utterance:

Well, Im sure he was speaking English.

If the speaker is assumed to be following the cooperative principle,[2] in spite of flouting the Maxim of Quantity,
then the utterance must have an additional nonliteral meaning, such as: "The content of the lecturer's speech was
confusing."

2. The speakers desire to fulfill two conflicting maxims results in his or her flouting one maxim to invoke the
other. For instance, a speaker responds to the question "Where is John?" with the following utterance:

Hes either in the cafeteria or in his office.

In this case, the Maxim of Quantity and the Maxim of Quality are in conflict. A cooperative speaker does not
want to be ambiguous but also does not want to give false information by giving a specific answer in spite of his
uncertainty. By flouting the Maxim of Quantity, the speaker invokes the Maxim of Quality, leading to the
implicature that the speaker does not have the evidence to give a specific location where he believes John is.

3. The speaker invokes a maxim as a basis for interpreting the utterance. In the following exchange:

Do you know where I can get some gas?

Theres a gas station around the corner.

The second speaker invokes the Maxim of Relevance, resulting in the implicature that the gas station is open
and one can probably get gas there.

Scalar implicature

According to Grice (1975), another form of conversational implicature is also known as a scalar implicature.
This concerns the conventional uses of words like "all" or "some" in conversation.

I ate some of the pie.

This sentence implies "I did not eat all of the pie." While the statement "I ate some pie" is still true if the entire
pie was eaten, the conventional meaning of the word "some" and the implicature generated by the statement is
"not all".