Politeness theory
Politeness theory examines the ways in which individuals navigate social interactions to avoid offending others and to gain their favor. Central to this theory is the concept of "face," which refers to a person's self-image and social identity rather than their physical appearance. The theory highlights that all interactions have the potential to threaten face, making politeness a universal concern across cultures, though specific interpretations of politeness can vary significantly. Developed by linguists Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson in the 1980s, the theory differentiates between positive face—concerned with validation and social acceptance—and negative face, which focuses on autonomy and the desire to avoid imposition. Effective communication often involves managing these two types of face, with speakers employing strategies to protect themselves and their listeners. Techniques to reinforce positive face include demonstrating interest in the other person, while safeguarding negative face may involve indirect requests or phrasing that minimizes imposition. Overall, politeness theory provides a framework for understanding the complexities of interpersonal communication and the delicate balance of maintaining social harmony.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Politeness theory
Politeness theory explores the different ways people use speech and other forms of communication when interacting with others. It details methods people use to try to avoid upsetting or imposing on others, and methods they use to gain others' favor and respect. It is strongly related to the idea of "face." In this context, face does not refer to the physical part of a person, but the idea of a person's image. It is a way of describing how people perceive themselves and their sense of self-worth, as well as what image people present to others. Many cultures have concepts that are comparable to face, with most linguists agreeing that the oldest known references to it came from China. Erving Goffman, Geoffrey Leech, and Paul Grice are key figures in the modern understanding of politeness and communication. Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson developed politeness theory.
Background
In the fields of linguistics, language, and communication, it is commonly accepted that concepts of face and politeness have existed in some form throughout human history. While specific actions or communicated intentions may be considered differently across different cultures—what is polite to modern Americans may be offensive in Brazil, for instance—and there may be different reactions to polite or impolite statements, most cultures share the concept of politeness as a whole.
The idea of face as a representation of dignity or reputation exists in many different languages. Nations that refer to face this way in their languages include China, Korea, the United Kingdom, Persia, India, Thailand, and the United States. In many of these cultures, it is possible to both save and lose face. Many nations, such as China, place far more emphasis on losing face, rather than considering it an equal opposite to saving face. The idea of a tarnished reputation can be devastating to social status and extremely difficult to recover from.
In the mid-twentieth century, sociologist Erving Goffman contributed significantly to the subject, becoming regarded as one of the most influential social scientists of all time. Among his studies was the concept of face work. This involved the idea that people in a polite conversation have a tendency to help each other keep as much face as possible.
Paul Grice, a man who published many works on language and people's interactions, discussed several different maxims, or common ideas, that came up when people talked together to make conversations go more smoothly. Geoffrey Leech considered Grice's ideas and developed a politeness principle, listing six maxims that people use to attempt to develop polite conversation. These are tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy.
Overview
In the 1980s, linguist Penelope Brown and social scientist Stephen Levinson collaborated on several studies of politeness. In 1987, they put forward their politeness theory. This theory suggested that politeness was universal across cultures.
According to Brown and Levinson, every interaction between people has the potential of threatening face. Politeness theory details the efforts people will go through to prevent or at least lessen the threat. These attempts can be intended to protect face of both parties in a conversation.
The concepts of positive and negative face are essential to the theory. Positive face centers on validation and a desire to be liked. A subject's concerns with popularity, approval, and others' appreciation for the subject's goals or interests are all part of positive face. Negative face is about issues that people do not want in their lives. The desires to avoid others bothering them, violating their privacy, or wasting their time make up people's negative face.
When people communicate with each other, they can influence each other's positive and negative face in different ways. Politeness theory details different categories of speech, actions, and expressions people can make, sorted by whether they appeal to or damage positive or negative face. Acts that can damage the positive face of someone they are directed toward include embarrassing them, belittling them, interrupting them, bringing up a sensitive topic, or using the incorrect title or pronoun to address them.
A speaker can threaten his or her own positive face as well. This is often unintentional, such as misspeaking, stuttering, or saying something that proves to be incorrect or embarrassing. However, it can also be done deliberately, threatening positive face immediately to achieve a larger goal. These often involve apologies or confessions, since admitting wrongdoing and regret involves sharing mistakes with someone. The benefits of these statements often outweigh the loss of face, however, since it prevents these issues from weighing on the speaker's mind, and allows relationships with others to progress past the wrongdoing in question.
A speaker can threaten a listener's negative face by saying or implying that the listener should do something differently than he or she was already doing or planned to do. Advice, requests, offers, promises, orders, and threats all fall under that category, although some are more intense than others. A speaker's negative face is threatened when he or she accepts some form of obligation that the other party imposed upon him or her.
A speaker may use various techniques to reduce threats to face. Techniques that protect positive face include showing interest in the listener and his or her goals. A speaker can try to reach out to the listener. If there is a task that the speaker wants the listener to perform, the speaker can phrase it as something that they are in together. Jokes can also help lighten the mood and enforce a bond between them.
Methods of preventing damage to negative face include making requests indirectly. The use of passive voice makes the speaker seem less forceful. Phrasing requests or commands in questioning form is another way to be less imposing toward the listener.
Bibliography
Bond, Michael Harris. Beyond the Chinese Face: Insights from Psychology. Oxford UP, 1991.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge UP, 1987.
"Face." Oregon State University, oregonstate.edu/instruct/theory/face.html. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017.
"Grice's Maxims." University of Pennsylvania, www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017.
Leech, Geoffrey. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford UP, 2014.
"Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson's Politeness Theory." ELLO, www.ello.uos.de/field.php/Pragmatics/PragmaticsPolitenessTheory. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017.
"Politeness Theory." Universal Class, www.universalclass.com/articles/business/communication-studies/politeness-theory.htm. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017.
Spiers, Judith Ann. "The Use of Face Work and Politeness Theory." Qualitative Health Research, vol. 8, no.1, 1998, pp. 25–47.
"Why Do We Say 'Sorry' So Much?" MENAFN, 8 Dec. 2017, menafn.com/1096205715/Why-do-we-say-sorry-so-much. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017.