1. UNIT 3 - POLITENESS

2. POLITENESS PHENOMENA
As many other concepts in Communication, the concept of politeness is not easy to define.
There is a surprising amount of disagreement as to the criteria used to define it. Nevertheless, it has become an essential part of the knowledge required to analyze discourse.
Watts (2003) notes that, when people are asked what they imagine polite behavior to be, their usual way out of the dilemma is to resort to giving examples of behavior which they, personally, would consider “polite”, such as “He always shows a lot of respect towards his superiors” or “She’s always very helpful and obliging.”
Watts also remarks that “there are even people who classify polite behaviour negatively, characterising it with such terms as ‘standoffish’, ‘haughty’, ‘insincere’, etc.” (2003:1). But politeness as a linguistic phenomenon has been researched by looking at it from wider perspectives than those attached to the everyday use of the term. Notwithstanding, there is not a uniform criterion to define and identify politeness phenomena.

3. THEORIES OF POLITENESS
We can start our discussion and study of politeness phenomena by considering Georgia Green’s view, who explains that when we talk about politeness within pragmatic studies we refer to strategies for maintaining or changing interpersonal relations (1989). The goals of the speakers when using these strategies may be ends in themselves (purely social conversation or “small talk”) or they may be a link in a chain of goals whose ultimate end is to influence someone’s behavior or attitude.

4. Consider the following situation: Your wife/husband/partner tells you that s/he will not be in town tomorrow because s/he has to go on a business trip. So you immediately could ask any of the following questions:
Where are you going?
Again?? Where are they sending you this time?
When will you be back? I need you to be here by Friday.
Now imagine your boss says the same to you (that s/he will be out of town tomorrow on a business trip). Would you ask him/her the same questions? The most probable answer is that you would not dare ask your boss the same questions you would ask your partner, and if you wanted to know where s/he is going you would have to find a different (polite and appropriate to this new situation) way of asking, such as:
I don’t want to interfere with your travel plans, but let me remind you that we have a meeting with the Attorney General the day after tomorrow at 11:00 a.m.

5. But… can we say that the response given to your boss is more polite than the possible ones given to your partner? Definitely no!! Both are polite but in different ways, because the distance between you and your partner has a different value than that between you and your boss. Therefore, both responses are appropriate and polite, considering the interlocutor and other aspects of the context in each of the situations depicted.

6. APPROACHES TO POLITENESS
In his famous article “Perspectives on politeness”, Bruce Fraser (1990) points to the fact that there is not a common understanding of the concept of politeness, and he reviews four of the best-known approaches to the phenomenon: 1) the social-norm view; 2) the conversational-maxim view; 3) the face-saving view; and 4) the conversational-contract view. As the third one is the most influential study on politeness phenomena, let us now look into it.

7. The face-saving view: Brown & Levinson’s Theory of Politeness
Undoubtedly, the most influential study on politeness phenomena so far is that of Brown & Levinson’s (1978 and 1987 ) in their book Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, which is based on a particular interpretation of the work of E. Goffman (1967, 1971) about the role of face in social interaction. With respect to this concept, Brown & Levinson (herinafter B & L) explain that: “Central to our model is a highly abstract notion of “face” which consists of two specific kinds of desires (‘face-wants’) attributed by interactants to one another: the desire to be unimpeded in one’s actions (negative face), and the desire (in some respects) to be approved of (positive face). This is the bare bones of a notion of face which (we argue) is universal.” (1987: 13)

8. B & L argue that there is a direct relationship between the face of the speaker and certain variables which they call Sociolinguistic Variables. These variables are: 1) The social distance (D) of S [speaker] and H [hearer] (a symmetric relation). 2) The relative power (P) of S and H (an asymmetric relation). 3) The absolute ranking (R) of impositions in the particular culture. (1987: 74)

9. According to B & L, all the speakers of a language have both a positive and a negative face. There are acts that intrinsically threaten the interlocutor’s face, which these authors call Face Threatening Acts (hereinafter FTAs). In general, speakers try to minimize the face threat of these acts by using a series of strategies summarized and illustrated in the following figure (1987: 60):

11. The more an act threatens S’s or H’s face, the more S will want to choose a higher-numbered strategy, given the fact that these strategies afford payoffs of increasingly minimized risk. This means that, if what the speaker has to say could in some way be offensive or impolite to the hearer, it is very likely that the speaker will use an off record strategy, characterized by the use of mitigating elements which convey certain meanings indirectly. If, on the contrary, S wants his/her utterance to be effective (because, for example, there is an urgency or the situation is task-oriented), it is most likely that S will use an on record strategy. When going on record, S may do it baldly or by using positive or negative politeness. Positive politeness strategies are oriented towards the positive face of H; they show S’s desire for or approval of H’s wants. Negative politeness strategies aim at H’s negative face, i.e. his/her basic desire to maintain his/her terrain and self-determination.

12. B&L’s politeness strategies: Examples (taken from Alba-Juez, 2009)
If S uses an on record strategy, there is only one interpretation of his/her intention and there is no room for ambiguity. Bald on record strategies are considered to be in conformity with Grice’s Maxims and they are used when maximum efficiency is required. Consider these examples:
• Help!! (Urgent, desperate situation. Compare to the non-urgent and non-desperate Could you help me with the washing-up, please? )
• Don’t move!! ( If S sees a Boa Constrictor approaching H)
• Hands up!! (When the police find a criminal)

13. If the situation is not desperate, does not call for urgency or does not require maximum efficiency, S can still go on record but with either positive or negative politeness. Here are some examples:
• What a beautiful hat you’re wearing! (On record with positive politeness)
• Can you pass the salt? (On record with negative politeness –conventionally indirect request–).

14. If S wants to do an FTA, but for some reason wants to avoid the responsibility for doing it, s/he will most probably go off record and leave the interpretation to the addressee. By going off record S will always be flouting one or more of the Gricean Maxims, as can be seen in the following examples:
• What a beautiful dress! = Please, buy me that dress. (Off record strategy: Give hints, which flouts the Relevance Maxim).

15. • John is a bit silly
(= John is very silly)
(Off record strategy: Understate, which flouts the Quantity Maxim).

16. •John is a real genius (= John is stupid)
(Off record strategy: Be ironic, which flouts the Quality Maxim).

17. • I’m going you-know-where
(= I’m going to the toilet)
(Off record strategy: Be vague, use euphemisms, which flouts the Manner Maxim).

18. Analyzing politeness
Watch the following videoclips of the British comedy series “Yes, Minister”, and try to find examples of the different politeness strategies (following Brown & Levinson’s taxonomy). Pay attention to the floutings of Grice’s maxims: (Who reads the papers?) (Complete confidence)

19. You have now enough information to try Unit 3 activities.