1. Suhartini Syukri (2003512142)POLITENESS

2. 1. Delimiting the concept of politeness
2. Politeness Explained in terms of Principles and
Maxim
3. Politeness and Management of face
4. Politeness viewed as a conversational contract
5. Politeness measured along pragmatic scales
Content

3. (Brown and Levinson: 1987)
• “The human personality is sacred thing; one dare not violate
it nor infringe its bounds, while at the same time the greatest
good is in communion with others.” (Durkheim 1915:299).
• Terms relate to politeness:
• Cooperation
• Indirectness
DEFINITION OF POLITENESS (Thomas: 1995)
Genuine desire to be pleasant to others.

4. •Politeness as a real-world goal
•Deference vs politeness
•Register
•Politeness as a surface level phenomenon
•Politeness as a pragmatic phenomenon
1. Delimiting the concept of politeness

5. • Politeness has no place within
pragmatics. It is difficult to access to the
speakers‟ real motovation for speaking
as they do, and discussion as to whether
one group of people is „politer‟ that
another. We only can curiously to what
speakers say and to how their hearers
react.
Politeness as a real-world goal

6. DEFERENCE, GESTURE, POLITENESS
DEFERENCENON
INTENDED
RESPECTS
GESTURE
CODE
SWITCHING
DUE TO
SOCIAL
SITUATION
POLITENESS
INTENDED
RESPECT
SOCIOLINGUISTICS PRAGMATICS

7. e.g.
a. - The cadet responds to the Academy Sergeant Major :
“Yes, Sir!”
- Show politeness by holding a door open to allow someone else to
pass through
e.g.
b. French, German and Russian,
Choice of a second person pronoun
T/V system
Tu/vous,
Du/Sie
TbI/BbI
Deference,
a. The speaker has no choice as to whether to use deferent
form or not.
b. It is built into the grammar of languages

8. GESTURE
A lecturer of a University asks question
to his student:
“I wonder if I might ask you to
answer the last question!”

9. POLITENESS
A student is answering to his respected
lecturer:
“Yes, Sir”

10. • Register refers to “systemic variation in relation to social
context” (Lyons 1977) or the way in which the language we
speak or write varies according to the type of situation
(Halliday, 1978, in Thomas 1995, p. 154)
• It is primarily a sociolinguistic phenomenon : a description of
the linguistic forms which generally occur in a particular
situation.
e.g. If you decided to disrupt a stuffy meeting by using
language not normally associated with that particular type of
event, such as cracking jokes or making fun of the person
chairing the meeting
Register

11. POLITENESS AT UTTERANCE LEVEL OF PHENOMENON
• Much early work in the area of politeness focused on utterance
level realization (Walter, Rintell, Fraser)
• Investigate how much politeness could be squeezed out of
speech act alone.
• Investigate by using a standard lexical context.
---------------------------------------------------------------
e.g. Listing the proper forms of request:
(would you.., could you..); this way is more sociolinguistics
PRAGMATICS : look at how a particular form in a particular
language is used strategically in order to achieve the speaker‟s
goals. It requires context.

12. THE WEAKNESSES OF PREVIOUS APPROACH
E.g. 7 (Thomas, p. 156)
A married couple are trying to decide a restaurant. The
husband says:
“You choose”.
E.g. 8 (Thomas, p. 156)
(The other context),
Husband: „will you be kind to tell me what time is it?‟
the wife says to the husband:
“If you‟ll be kind enough to speed up a little?”
E.g. (Thomas, p. 157)
(i) I wonder if I might respectfully request you to stop
picking your nose?
(ii) Stop picking your nose!
These examples are artificial
to be recognized as a
politeness. There is no
necessary connection
between the linguistic form
and the perceived
politeness of a speech act in
context.

13. POLITENESS AS A PRAGMATIC PHENOMENON
CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS VIEW
FACE MANAGEMENT VIEW
CONVERSATIONAL CONTRACT VIEW
Politeness : a strategy employed by a speaker to achieve a variety of goals
To promote and maintain harmonious relations.
conventional, non-conventional indirectness
HOW..?

14. Politeness is as crucial in explaining „why people are often so
indirect in conveying what they mean‟ and rescuing the
Cooperative Principle (CP) in the sense that it can satisfactory
explain exception to and apparent deviations from the CP
(Leech (1980 [1977] 1983a)). He introduces Politeness Principle
(PP). There are two concepts dealing with the principles, namely
ambivalence and politeness.
2. Politeness explained in terms of principles and maxims
Leech defines politeness as a type of behaviour that allows the
participants to engage in a social interaction in an atmosphere of
relative harmony.

15. To be more politeness, ambivalence has more than one potential
pragmatic force. It is possible to convey messages which the hearer is
liable to find disagreement without causing undue offence. It is left the
reader to decide;
(a) What the precise force of the message is
(b) Whether or not it applies to them
E.g. 9. (Thomas, 1995, p. 159)
In relation to potentially very offensive speech act (Requesting people
not to steal!)
Notice in the Junior Common Room, Queens College, Cambridge.
These newspaper are for all the students, not the privileged few who
arrive first.
Ambivalence and Politeness

16. • The principles explain ‘the relationship between sense and force in
human conversation’
The main maxims are:
 tact,
 generosity,
 Approbation,
Modesty,
Agreement and
Sympathy
Pragmatic Principles
Minimize (all things being equal) the expression of
impolite beliefs; Maximize (all things being equal)
the expression of polite beliefs.

17. 1. CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS VIEW
PRAGMATIC PRINCIPLES:
THE POLLYANNA PRINCIPLES
To put the best possible gloss on what we have to say
“ I assure
you,..parts of it
are excellent”.e.g.
Finding something positive to
say about rotten egg (but I had
to look back 100 years to find
it!)
Situation:
A young curate is having
breakfast with his Bishop

18. 2. CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS VIEW: PRAGMATIC PRINCIPLES:
IMPOSITION
OPTIONALITY
BENEFIT SCALE
THE TACT MAXIM
a. Minimize the expression of beliefs
which imply cost to other
b. Maximize the expression of
beliefs which imply benefit to other
- Hang on a second!
- I’ve got a bit of a
problem.
Chinese host chose
dishes without
consulting you.
Have a
chocolate!
Tact Maxim aspects are
e.g. a. minimizing to
reduce the implied cost
to the hearer by saying:
a. Mitigating the effect of a
request
b. If something is perceived as
being to the hearer’s benefit, it
can be expressed without
employeng indirectness

19. THE MODESTY MAXIM
a. Minimize the expression of praise of self
b. Maximize the expression of dispraise of self
B: “This coffee is very good”
A: “Not bad, is it?”
CONT.
Situation:
A and B were giving a series of lectures in a foreign country where decent
coffee was uncertain comodity. At the airport A had bought a good supply of
ground coffee and a gadget for percolating it. She makes a first attempt as
using it. Firstly, (A) minimize the expression of prise her gadget, then she
maximize the expression of adore her ground coffee.
A: “This isn’t bad, is it?”
B: “The coffee? It’s very
good”
A few hours later she makes
some more:
e.g.
a.
e.g.
b.

20. THE APPROBATION MAXIM
a. Minimize the expression of beliefs
which express dispraise of other
b. Maximize the expression of beliefs
which express approval of other
b. “Well”, “I enjoyed your lecturer”.
a. In contrary
just keep quite
or
Remain silent
All things being equal we prefer to praise others
and if we cannot do so, to sidestep the issue, we
can give sort if minimal response,
e.g. in commenting a process of lecturing, we
maximize in approve someone, or minimize the
expression dispraise
CONT.

21. CONT.
THE AGREEMENT MAXIM
a. Minimize the expression of disagreement
between self and other
b. Maximize the expression of agreement
between self and other
e.g. 18, (Thomas, 1995, p. 165)
A: … I don’t want my daughter to do CSE, I
want her to do ‘O’ level.
B: Yes, but Mr Sharma, I thought we
resolved this on your last visit
e.g. 19, (Thomas, 1995, p. 165)
A: Nehemulla is ideally suited to the class
she’s in and this class will do CSE in two
years’ time.
B: No, my dear, no, no, it’s wrong!
Situation: Example of (a) e.g. 18 & 19
Speaker A is Mr. Sharma, the Indian-born father of
one of the pupils attending school.
Speaker B is Mrs. Green, the deputy head teacher
of a school (a British woman). They are involved in
a major disagreement concerning the courses Mr.
Sharma’s daughter will take the following year.
e. g. Of (b) Mrs. Sharma allows her
daughter to join her preference of
extra class
A: So.. Should I let my daughter to
choose her interest?
B: Yes, of course you’re right, your
decision might make her very
overwhelmed .

22. CONT.
THE GENEROSITY MAXIM
a. Minimize the expression of benefit to self
b. Maximize the expression of cost to self
For indicating generosity, sometimes it is fine to
directly expressed invitation even obviously
regard as a force to maximize the benefit to
other or somehow in generally speaking in your
own party or peculiar home we do unmodified
imperative to minimize benefit to self, allowing
other as if the part of us (owner)
e.g. b. “You must come
and have dinner with
us”.
e.g. a. “Help yourself!”

23. Cont.
THE SYMPATHY MAXIM
a. minimize antipathy between self and other
b. maximize sympathy between 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
e.g. (b) In maximizing sympathy of someone whose father has already passed
away by saying ”I am sorry to hear about your father. “
The speaker makes an effort to minimize the antipathy between himself and the addressee.
E.g. (a). Despite very serious disagreement with you on a technical level, we have done our best to
coordinate our efforts in reaching on agreement. But have so far not been able to find any common
ground

24.  There appears to be no motivated way of
restricting the number of maxims, it would be
possible to produce new maxim to explain every
tiny perceived regularity in language use,
 The theory is at worst virtually unfalsifiable,
 There is no explain cross-cultural differences in
the perception of politeness and the use of
politeness strategies.
Problem with the Leech’s Approach

25. “FACE”

26. 2. FACE MANAGEMENT VIEW
(Thomas pp. 168)
“They’ve got to safe face.
Saving face is the strongest
motive in the world”
General idea of politeness: fixed concept of social
behavior/etiquette within a culture, involves certain general
principles as being tactful, generous, modest, sympathetic towards
others. (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987)
Narrower concept of politeness within an interaction:
face = the public self-image of a person (emotional and social
sense of self one has and expects everyone else to recognize)

27. Negative face : need to be
independent, to have freedom of
action, not be imposed on by others
Positive face : need to be
accepted/liked, to be treated as a
member of the same
group, to know that
wants are shared by others.

28. FACE WANTS!
• Within everyday social interaction people generally behave as if
their expectations concerning their face wants (i.e. public self-
image) will be respected
• face threatening act (FTA)-Brown and Levinson
: speaker says something that represents a threat to another
individual's expectations regarding self-image
• face saving act
: speaker says something to lessen a possible threat
Situation: Young neighbor is playing loud music late at night. Older
couple cannot sleep.
A: I'm going to tell him to stop that awful noise right now!
B: Perhaps you could just ask him if he's going to stop soon because it's getting a bit late
and people need to get to sleep.
http://ifla.uni-stuttgart.de/~jilka/index.html

30. PARAMETER OF FTA :
- POWER (P)
- DISTANCE (D)
- IMPOSITION RATING (R)
Politeness STRATEGIES for avoiding FTA:
A. ON RECORD SUPERSTRATEGY
1) Bald-on record
2) Positive Politeness
3) Negative Politeness
B. OFF RECORD SUPERSTRATEGY

31. What would you do if you saw a cup of pens on
your teacher's desk, and you wanted to use one,
would you say…
Ooh, I want to use one of those.
Hmm, I sure could use a
blue pen right now.
So, is it O.K. if I use one of those
pens?
I'm sorry to bother you but, I just wanted to ask
you if I could use one of those pens?

32. Politeness Strategies for Avoiding ‘FTA’
A. 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

33. Cont.
A. 2) positive politeness
A face saving act concerned with the
person's 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

34. Cont.
A. 3) Negative politeness
A face saving act oriented to a person's negative
face tends to show deference, emphasizes the
importance of the other's time or concerns and may
include an apology for the imposition
e.g: I hope it's not too forward, but would
it be possible for me to have a beer?
negative politeness: somewhat indirect

35. Cont.
B. Off record:
statements not directly addressed to another person
e.g: It's so hot. It makes you really thirsty.
off record: indirect

36. ('How about letting me use your pen?’) ( 'Could you lend me a pen?’ )
Politeness and Interaction
Ex. Yule (1996, pp. 64-66) (How to get a pen from someone else)
say somethingsay nothing
(but search in bag)
off record on record
('I forgot my pen')
face saving act bald on record
('Give me a pen!')
positive politeness negative politeness

37. • FTA implies act is threatening to the face of either the
speaker or the hearer in fact, many acts can be seen
to threater the face both S and H simultaniously.
e.g. An apology, threatens the speaker‟s face in
obvious way, but can also be the source of
considerable embrassment to the hearer
• Brown and Levinson claim that positive and negative
politeness are mutually exclusive, but in practice, a
single utterence can be oriented to both positive and
negative simultaneously (e.g. Ex 27-29 in
Thomas, 1995, p. 171)
Criticism Brown and Levinson

38. Fraser (1990),
• People are constrained in interaction by „conversational
contract‟ (CC)
… Being polite constitutes operating within the.. Terms of
the CC
… Negotiable in light of the participants‟ perception and/or
acknowledgements of factors such as the status, the
power, and the role of each speaker and the nature of the
circumstances.
(in Thomas, 1995, p. 177)
4. Conversational Contract View of Politeness

39. • Spencer-Oatey (1992 in Thomas, p. 178) proposes sets
of dimensions to overcome the problem of cultural-
specificity, as follows:
5. Politeness measured along pragmatic scales
Spencer-Oatey’s Scale (1992:30)
1. Need for Consideration Autonomy Imposition
2. Need to be Valued Approbation
Interest/ concern
Criticism
Disinterest
3. Need for Relational Identity Inclusion
Equality
Exclusion
Superordination/subordination

40. REFERENCES
• Houpte Seminar, Introduction to Pragmatics.
http://ifla.unistuttgart.de/~jilka/index.html. Downloaded on
April 21, 2013
• Thomas, J. 1996. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to
Pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Limited.
• Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press

41. - THANK YOU -