Politeness Theory in English Literature

Politeness Theory: Etymology and Concept      

Etymology of Politeness Theory

Politeness theory, a cornerstone of pragmatics, emerged in the late 20th century, primarily attributed to the seminal work of Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson in 1978 and 1987. The term “politeness” itself, derived from the Latin “politus” meaning “refined” or “smoothed,” has a long history in social and linguistic discourse. However, Brown and Levinson’s framework solidified it as a theoretical construct, exploring the intricate ways individuals navigate social interactions to maintain face, a concept borrowed from Erving Goffman. The theory’s etymology thus reflects a convergence of linguistic, sociological, and psychological perspectives, highlighting its interdisciplinary nature.

Concept of Politeness Theory

Key Concepts	Description
Face	The public self-image that individuals strive to maintain. It has two aspects: positive and negative face.
Positive Face	The desire to be liked, appreciated, and approved of by others.
Negative Face	The desire for autonomy, freedom from imposition, and the ability to act according to one’s own will.
Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs)	Actions that potentially harm or threaten an individual’s positive or negative face.
Politeness Strategies	Verbal and nonverbal tactics employed to mitigate or redress FTAs, thus maintaining social harmony.
Positive Politeness Strategies	Strategies that emphasize solidarity, friendliness, and appreciation of the other person.
Negative Politeness Strategies	Strategies that respect the other person’s autonomy and avoid imposing on them.
Bald On-Record Strategy	Direct and unambiguous communication, often used in situations where efficiency is prioritized over politeness.
Off-Record Strategy	Indirect communication, often used to avoid directly threatening someone’s face.
Factors Influencing Politeness Strategy Choice	Social distance, power relations, and the degree of imposition of the FTA all influence the choice of strategy.

Politeness Theory: Theorists, Works and Arguments

• Erving Goffman (1955, 1967)
  • Works: On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction (1955), Interaction Ritual (1967)
  • Argument: Introduced the foundational concept of “face” as the desired self-image presented in social interactions. Argued that individuals engage in “face-work” to manage their own and others’ face, maintaining a smooth flow of interaction and avoiding embarrassment or conflict.
• Robin Lakoff (1973, 1975)
  • Works: Language and Woman’s Place (1973), Language and Woman’s Place: Text and Commentaries (1975)
  • Argument: While not explicitly focused on politeness theory, Lakoff’s work on language and gender laid the groundwork for understanding the role of politeness in social interactions. She argued that women are socialized to use more polite language than men, reflecting and reinforcing power imbalances.
• Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (1978, 1987)
  • Work: Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (1987)
  • Argument: Developed the most influential framework for politeness theory, introducing the concepts of face-threatening acts (FTAs) and politeness strategies. They proposed that politeness is a universal phenomenon with cross-cultural variations and that individuals use different strategies to mitigate FTAs depending on social distance, power relations, and the degree of imposition.
• Geoffrey Leech (1983)
  • Work: Principles of Pragmatics (1983)
  • Argument: Integrated politeness into a broader framework of pragmatics, proposing the Politeness Principle as a fundamental conversational maxim. He argued that politeness operates alongside Grice’s Cooperative Principle, guiding speakers to maintain social harmony and avoid conflict.
• Shoshana Blum-Kulka (1987)
  • Work: “Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different?” (1987)
  • Argument: Conducted cross-cultural research on politeness, challenging the universality claims of Brown and Levinson. She argued that politeness norms and strategies vary significantly across cultures, emphasizing the need to consider cultural context in understanding politeness phenomena.
• Richard Watts (2003)
  • Work: Politeness (2003)
  • Argument: Critiqued the individualistic and rationalistic assumptions of traditional politeness theory. He proposed a more social and contextualized approach, emphasizing the dynamic nature of politeness and its role in constructing social identities and relationships.
• Jonathan Culpeper (1996, 2011)
  • Works: “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness” (1996), Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence (2011)
  • Argument: Expanded the scope of politeness theory by focusing on its opposite: impoliteness. He argued that impoliteness is not simply the absence of politeness but a strategic use of language to achieve specific social goals, such as challenging authority, expressing disapproval, or creating humor.

Politeness Theory: Principles

Principle	Definition	Literary Example
Concept of Face	The public self-image every individual strives to maintain.	Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice (“I certainly have not the talent…of conversing easily with those I have never seen before.”) – Desire for negative face (autonomy, freedom from imposition).
	* Positive Face: The desire to be liked, appreciated, and approved of.
	* Negative Face: The desire to be autonomous and free from imposition.
Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs)	Speech acts that potentially harm or threaten another person’s face (positive or negative).	Hamlet’s insult to Ophelia in Hamlet (“Get thee to a nunnery…”) – Threatens Ophelia’s positive face (desire to be liked).
Politeness Strategies	Redressive actions taken to counterbalance the disruptive effect of FTAs.
	* Positive Politeness: Showing solidarity, emphasizing common ground, using in-group markers.	Tom Sawyer’s invitation to Huck in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (“Say, Huck—maybe you’d like to go with us, hey?”)
	* Negative Politeness: Being indirect, using hedges, minimizing imposition.	Gatsby’s cautious inquiry in The Great Gatsby (“I thought you might be here. I wondered if you wouldn’t mind…”)
	* Bald On-record: Direct speech acts without any attempt to minimize the FTA.	Iago’s accusation in Othello (“Look to your wife; observe her well with Cassio.”)
	* Off-record (indirect): Indirect speech acts where the intent is not explicitly stated.	Alice’s self-deprecating remark in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (“But that’s just the trouble with me. I give myself very good advice, but I very seldom follow it.”)
Factors Influencing Strategy Choice	The choice of politeness strategy depends on:
	* Social distance between the speaker and hearer.
	* Relative power of the speaker and hearer.
	* Absolute ranking of impositions in a particular culture.	Jane Eyre’s use of “sir” when addressing Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre – Reflects the power differential and social distance between them.

Politeness Theory: How to Use in Critiques

1. Identify Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs): Look for instances where characters’ words or actions threaten the positive or negative face of other characters. Pay attention to insults, criticisms, requests, disagreements, or any situation that could cause embarrassment or loss of autonomy.
2. Analyze Politeness Strategies: Examine how characters respond to FTAs. Do they employ positive politeness (showing solidarity, offering compliments), negative politeness (apologizing, being indirect), bald on-record (being direct and blunt), or off-record strategies (using hints or ambiguity)?
3. Consider Contextual Factors: Analyze the relationship between the characters involved in the FTA. Are they friends, enemies, family, or strangers? What is their social status relative to each other? How does the setting and situation influence their communication?
4. Evaluate Effectiveness: Assess how successful the politeness strategies are in mitigating the FTA. Do they restore harmony, escalate conflict, or lead to misunderstandings? Consider the cultural context of the novel and the intended audience.
5. Interpret the Author’s Intent: Based on your analysis, what do you think the author is trying to communicate about the characters, their relationships, or the social norms of the world they inhabit? How does the use of politeness (or lack thereof) contribute to the overall themes and messages of the novel?

Example: Applying Politeness Theory to “Lessons in Chemistry” by Bonnie Garmus (2022)

1. FTA: In a scene, a male colleague undermines Elizabeth Zott’s research by claiming credit for her work. This is a threat to her positive face (professional recognition) and negative face (autonomy over her research).
2. Politeness Strategy: Elizabeth responds with a bald on-record strategy, directly confronting her colleague and asserting her ownership of the research.
3. Contextual Factors: The relationship between Elizabeth and her colleague is one of professional rivalry. The setting is a male-dominated scientific field in the 1960s, where women’s contributions are often dismissed or undervalued.
4. Effectiveness: Elizabeth’s direct confrontation is effective in the short term, as she reclaims credit for her work. However, it also creates tension and potential long-term consequences for her career in a hostile environment.
5. Author’s Intent: Garmus uses this scene to highlight the challenges faced by women in STEM fields and to critique the systemic sexism that often undermines their achievements. Elizabeth’s use of a bald on-record strategy reflects her determination and refusal to be silenced, but it also underscores the risks associated with challenging the status quo.

Politeness Theory: Criticism Against It

• Overemphasis on Individualism: Some critics argue that the theory focuses too much on individual face needs and neglects the role of social and cultural context in shaping politeness norms.
• Universalism vs. Cultural Relativism: The universality of Brown and Levinson’s model has been questioned, with researchers pointing out significant cultural variations in politeness norms and strategies.
• Limited Scope: The theory primarily focuses on linguistic politeness and overlooks other forms of politeness expressed through nonverbal behavior, gestures, and actions.
• Neglect of Power Dynamics: Critics argue that the theory does not adequately address the role of power relations in shaping politeness behavior, particularly in asymmetrical relationships where one party holds more power than the other.
• Oversimplification of “Face”: The concept of face has been criticized for being too simplistic and failing to capture the complex and multifaceted nature of self-image and identity.
• Lack of Empirical Evidence: Some critics argue that the theory lacks sufficient empirical evidence to support its claims, particularly regarding the universality of politeness strategies.
• Neglect of Impoliteness: The traditional focus on politeness has led to a neglect of impoliteness, which is equally important for understanding social interaction and conflict.

Politeness Theory: Key Terms

Term	Definition
Face	The public self-image that individuals strive to maintain. It has two aspects: positive and negative face.
Positive Face	The desire to be liked, appreciated, and approved of by others.
Negative Face	The desire for autonomy, freedom from imposition, and the ability to act according to one’s own will.
Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs)	Actions (verbal or non-verbal) that potentially harm or threaten an individual’s positive or negative face.
Politeness Strategies	Verbal and nonverbal tactics employed to mitigate or redress FTAs, thus maintaining social harmony.
Positive Politeness	Strategies that emphasize solidarity, friendliness, and appreciation of the other person (e.g., compliments, offers).
Negative Politeness	Strategies that respect the other person’s autonomy and avoid imposing on them (e.g., apologies, indirect requests).
Bald On-Record	Direct and unambiguous communication, often used in situations where efficiency is prioritized over politeness (e.g., commands, orders).
Off-Record	Indirect communication, often used to avoid directly threatening someone’s face (e.g., hints, jokes).
Social Distance	The degree of familiarity or intimacy between individuals, which influences the choice of politeness strategies.

Politeness Theory: Suggested Readings

1. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper, eds. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1989.
2. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
3. Culpeper, Jonathan. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
4. Goffman, Erving. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Anchor Books, 1967.
5. Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Lives. Basic Books, 1990.
6. Leech, Geoffrey N. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, 1983.
7. Watts, Richard J. Politeness. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
8. Werkhofer, Konrad T. “Traditional and Modern Views: The Social Constitution and the Power of Politeness.” Journal of Politeness Research, vol. 1, no. 1, 2005, pp. 155-199.

Articles:

1. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman. “Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies.” Language in Society, vol. 18, no. 2, 1989, pp. 159–212. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4168029. Accessed 21 July 2024.
2. HARRIS, SANDRA. “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society, vol. 12, no. 4, 2001, pp. 451–72. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42888379. Accessed 21 July 2024.
3. Park, Jung-ran. “Western Politeness Theory and Non-Western Context.” Discourse as Cultural Struggle, edited by Shi-xu, Hong Kong University Press, 2007, pp. 123–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1xwbkz.12. Accessed 21 July 2024.
4. Terkourafi, Marina. “POLITENESS.” Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language, edited by Siobhan Chapman and Christopher Routledge, Edinburgh University Press, 2009, pp. 157–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1g09vvm.61. Accessed 21 July 2024.