Politeness theory

Social and linguistic theory of politeness

Politeness theory, proposed by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, centers on the notion of politeness, construed as efforts to redress the affronts to a person's self esteems or face (as in "save face" or "lose face") in social interactions. Notable concepts include positive and negative face, the face threatening act (FTA), strategies surrounding FTAs and factors influencing the choices of strategies. Though Brown and Levinson proposed their model as universally applicable, “Face” conceptualized as an individual's positive claim of social values in socializing contact was introduced into academia by Erving Goffman through his theories of "face" and "facework". Whereas positive face involves a desire for connection with others, negative face needs include autonomy and independence. Positive face refers to one's self esteem, while negative face refers to one's freedom to act. These two aspects of face are the basic wants in any social interaction; during any social interaction, cooperation is needed amongst the participants to maintain each other's face. A face threatening act is an act that inherently damages the face of the addressee or the speaker by acting in opposition to the wants and desires of the other. Face threatening acts can be verbal (using words/language), paraverbal (conveyed in the characteristics of speech such as tone, inflection, etc. ), or non verbal (facial expression, etc.). Based on the terms of conversation in social interactions, face threatening acts are at times inevitable. At minimum, there must be at least one of the face threatening acts associated with an utterance. It is also possible to have multiple acts working within a single utterance. Often using such a strategy will shock or embarrass the addressee, and so this strategy is most often utilized in situations where the speaker has a close relationship with the listener, such as family or close friends. Brown and Levinson outline various cases in which one might use the bald on record strategy, including: have explored the role politeness theory plays in general practice consultations. The preparatory phase is when the favor seeking is preceded by elaborate precautions against loss of face to both sides. It often involves signals of openings and markers to be used to clarify the situation (e. g. 'You see,' or 'so,'). The request is often softened, made less direct, and imposing (e. g. past continuous 'I was wondering'; informal tag 'What d'you reckon?). The speaker must also reduce his own self importance in the matter and exaggerate the hearer's (down scaling compliments). The focal stage is subdivided into elements such as asker's reasons or constraints (e. g. 'I've tried everywhere but can't get one'), the other's face (e. g. 'You're the only person I can turn to'), and more. The third stage is the final stage which consists of anticipatory thanks, promises, and compliments (e. g. 'I knew you would say yes. You're an angel.'). McCarthy and Carter The speaker can get credit for not imposing on the hearer or give the hearer a chance to be helpful and generous. Brown and Levinson use this argument in their politeness theory by saying that rational agents will choose the same politeness strategy as any other would under the same circumstances to try to mitigate face. They show the available range of verbal politeness strategies to redress loss of face. Face threatening acts have the ability to mutually threaten face, therefore rational agents seek to avoid face threatening acts or will try to use certain strategies to minimize the threat. In certain situations, an over application of any particular strategy may actually achieve the opposite of the intended effect, as "certain speakers consistently evaluate polite behavior as unnecessary and offensive." Employees were taught the company's definition of politeness; they were expected to incorporate these beliefs into their day to day behavior, such as "kindness," "consideration for others," and "deference and respect". The study focused on art reviews in Lithuania in the early and mid 1970s and analyzed the different strategies used by the art reviewers as they attempted to critique pieces of art while maintaining their face as well as the face of the artists. In fact, many instances of humor usage can negatively affect face for a number of reasons: the hearers ability to understand the joke is tested, the hearer may interpret verification of the willingness to hear a joke as aggressive, and the hearer can be threatened even by non aggressive humor if it tests their ability to understand the joke or their emotions. In a study conducted by Marta Dynel, in 2016, different occasions of humor used in the television show, House, were assessed and analyzed as polite or (im)polite. The study conducted required people to communicate bad news to a friend regarding two scenarios. In the first scenario the subjects had to communicate a 50% probability that their friend's new car was going to break down, and in the second scenario the subjects communicated a 50% chance that their friend's stock were going to lose their value. In his article he recalls one of the first experiences in which he had to tell a young woman that she has malignant terminal cancer. He said to her, "Claire, with this disease, a remission would ordinarily last three to six months. A person could expect to survive between one to two years." He uses numerous examples of black box recordings in which the first officer hints at a problem instead of addressing it outright. He introduces the linguistic term, mitigated speech, and states, "We mitigate when we're being polite, or when we're ashamed or embarrassed, or when we're being deferential to authority." Japanese researcher Kawai found that there is a lack of “cultural learning” in English education makes the Japanese student weak in effectively using politeness strategies in English, such as the reliance on context understanding in Japanese may cause face threatening acts when in inter cultural communication with western cultures. Two qualities in particular stand out:

Good Heuristic Value: This theory has motivated scholars to implement more research into grasping these ideas or finding alternatives to this way of thinking. Some of this intracultural difference is, in part, due to diverse "knowledge and values" within a particular society, Ide et al. shows that the roughly equivalent term in Japanese, teneina, has different sets of connotations associated with it from the English term "politeness".

Some claim that a few of these techniques may be used in more than one type of situation or more than one at a time. The concept of ingratiation has helped spur further investigation into how its power dynamics play into Brown and Levinson's politeness theory. The claim has been made that Brown and Levinson's theory does not take into account the effect unique dynamic power relations and rankings has on the way people interact with one another (i. e. ingratiation). An article written by Akio Yabuuchi argues a case for a new trichotomous politeness system to replace politeness theory's dichotomous politeness system; hierarchy politeness The proposed system is made up of fellowship politeness (similar to Brown and Levinson's positive politeness), autonomy politeness (similar to Brown and Levinson's negative politeness), and hierarchy politeness. Hierarchy politeness recognizes ingratiation as a way to communicate within power dynamics.