A Historical Survey of Pragmatic Studies of Politeness

Abstract:Politeness is a universal phenomenon. It has become the focus of pragmatic study since almost forties years ago. The study on language use has brought up some important politeness theories. The paper conducts a historic survey of these theories in detail so as to better understand politeness and enjoy a successful cross-cultural communication.

Key Words:politeness pragmatic studies Leech's PP Brown Levinson's FT Gu's politeness maxims

I Introduction

Politeness is indispensable to human interaction. As a universal phenomenon， politeness can be observed in all languages and cultures， and it has long been made an important area of language study.

With the development of modern linguistics， politeness has been studied from multidimensional and cross-disciplinary perspectives. In particular， the rapid movement toward pragmatics in the past thirty years or so has brought the issue of politeness into the focus of the study on language use. This paper reviews and discusses the relevant politeness theories with the purpose of understanding the pragmatic meanings of politeness better. That is， the writer will focus on three important politeness theories-Leech's PP， Brown Levinson's FT and Gu's Chinese politeness principle， which all contribute to the understanding of linguistic politeness in their own way.

II Studies of Politeness in the West

The study of politeness in the Western linguistic circles did not begin until the late 1970s. Many early works in this area took politeness out of context to establish a \"hierarchy of politeness\" in terms of the linguistic form alone. For example， the various forms of requests (Would you X? Could you X? Can you X? Do X!) can be rated for politeness regardless of context (Thomas 1996:155-159). Recently， in line with the development of pragmatics， more and more works have focused on politeness as a pragmatic phenomenon， which interprets politeness as a strategy or series of strategies employed to achieve the speaker's goal(s). The following will deal with the two most influential politeness theories concerned-Leech's PP and Brown Levinson's FT. These two theories share the same theoretical basis， Grice's Cooperative Principle (CP)， but they are posited in totally different spirits.

2.1 Leech's PP

Leech agrees with the Gricean CP in principle， saying that there exists a set of maxims and sub-maxims that guide and constrain the conversation between people but he suggests that the CP should be expanded because， according to him， Gricean framework in itself cannot give a sufficient explanation of why people so often convey their meaning indirectly and /or people do not always observe the CP. Thus， Leech proposes his PP to rescue the CP from this serious trouble. \"It is for this reason that the PP can be seen not just as another principle to be added to the CP， but as its necessary complement\". (Leech 1983: 80) Hence， politeness is seen as a main pragmatic phenomenon for indirectness and one of the reasons for the non-observation of the CP.

The PP can be stated in a general way: Other things being equal， minimize the expression of impolite beliefs and maximize the expression of polite beliefs (Leech 1983:81). Patterned on the CP， the PP is analyzed in terms of maxims. Under each maxim of the PP， there are two sub-maxims that tend to go in pairs as follows:

(I)TACT MAXIM (in impositives and commissives)

(a) Minimize cost to other [(b) Maximize benefit to other]

(II)GENEROSITY MAXIM (in impositives and commissives)

(a) Minimize benefit to self [(b) Maximize cost to self]

(III)APPROBATION MAXIM (in expressives and assertives)

(a) Minimize dispraise of other [(b) Maximize praise of other]

(IV) MODESTY MAXIM (in expressives and assertives)

(a) Minimize praise of self [(b) Maximize dispraise of self]

(V) AGREEMENT MAXIM (in assertives)

(a) Minimize disagreement between self and other

[(b) Maximize agreement between self and other]

(VI) SYMPATHY MAXIM (in assertives)

(a) Minimize antipathy between self and other

[(b) Maximize sympathy between self and other] (Leech 1983: 132)

From the statement of politeness maxims， we can see that Leech's PP concerns a relationship between two participants， self and other. Leech refers to self as the speaker (S) and other as the hearer or a third party (H). According to him， the first four maxims， namely， the generosity maxim with the tact maxim and the approbation maxim with the modesty maxim form two pairs of \"bipolar scales， the cost-benefit and praise-dispraise scales\" respectively， while the other two maxims deal with\"unipolar scales: the scales of agreement and sympathy\" (Leech 1983: 131-132). He contends that not all the maxims are equally important: it appears that TACT MAXIM is a more powerful constraint on conversational behavior than GENEROSITY MAXIM， and APPROBATION MAXIM than MODESTY MAXIM. Hence， he suggests that \"politeness is focused more strongly on other than on self\" (Leech 1983:133). Similarly， Leech states that within each maxim， sub-maxim (a) is more important than sub-maxim (b)， which reflects a more general law that negative politeness (avoidance of discord) is more important than positive politeness (seeking concord) (Leech 1983:133). However， all these assumptions seem to be culturally dependent， since different cultures may place different values on each maxim and vary in their assessment of each sub-maxim. For example， Chinese culture values the modesty maxim most while Western culture stresses the tact maxim most. Although Leech himself acknowledges the possibility of cross-cultural variations on these points， his theoretical framework remains unchanged. Thus， without appropriate understanding of how the politeness maxims operate cross-culturally， it will be impossible to apply them to the cross-cultural study (Reiter 2000:10).

Leech (1983:83) distinguishes between relative politeness and absolute politeness. The former emphasizes the fact that politeness is relative to specific cultures and situations. The latter refers to the degree of politeness inherently associated with certain speech acts. Thus， he holds that certain speech acts such as orders are inherently impolite and others like offers are inherently polite. As the previous discussion indicates， Leech's PP primarily focuses on the study of absolute politeness， which leads to its great problem， that is， the PP cannot empirically account for the occurrence of some speech acts in certain situations and cross-cultural contexts as the case of orders in a military or an educational context. Furthermore， Leech proposes that each maxim has an associated set of pragmatic scales， which help establish the degree of tact， generosity， etc. in a particular speech situation. Therefore， for the tact maxim， the following scales are relevant:

1.Cost-benefit Scale: Represent the cost or benefit of an act to S or to H.

2.Optionality Scale: Represent the amount of choice S allows H.

3.Indirectness Scale: Represent the amount of inference involved in the action.

4.Authority Scale: Represent the status relationship between S and H.

5.Social Distance Scale: Represent the degree of familiarity between S and H.(Leech 1983: 123，126)

According to these scales， if S perceives an increased cost and social distance， the greater the effort will be made by him/her to provide H with more options and correspondingly the greater the need for indirectness.

In sum， Leech approaches politeness in terms of principles and maxims and， views politeness as a pragmatic factor regulating interpersonal interaction so as to maintain \"the social equilibrium and the friendly relations\" between people. However， his PP falls under general pragmatics， which leads to its focus on the study of \"absolute politeness\" and consequently， his claimed universality of his politeness theory is problematic in cross-cultural context.

2.2 Brown and Levinson's FT

To date， the most influential politeness model is Brown Levinson's FT， whose fundamental assumption is that human communication is rational， effective and purposeful. The authors see politeness as a deviation from the CP， which is motivated by the desire to preserve face. The notion of \"face\"， adopted from Goffman， is central to Brown Levinson's politeness theory. According to Goffman， \"face\" is \"a sacred thing for every human being， an essential factor all communicators have to pay attention to， and face wants are reciprocal\" (He 1995:3). In their theory， Brown Levinson define \"face\" as an \"individual's self-esteem\" or \"the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself\" (1987:60). And the authors claim that \"face\" is something that can \"be lost， maintained， or enhanced， and must be constantly attended to in interaction\". Face is so sensitive to each participant that it is in the mutual interest of both parties to maintain each other's face. They distinguish two aspects of \"face\"， which they claim are universal and refer to two basic desires of any person in interactions， \"negative face\" and \"positive face\". The former is a person's desire to be unimpeded by others， to be free to act; the latter is a person's wish to be liked or approved of (BL 1987: 61-62).

According to Brown and Levinson， most speech acts are \"face-threatening acts\" (FTAs)， as they intrinsically threaten the face needs of H and/or S and thus require softening. Some threaten H's negative face by imposing on H (e.g. orders， requests); other FTAs threaten H's positive face by indicating S's lack of concern for H's self-image (e.g. disagreement and criticism)， and some acts even threaten S's own negative face (e.g. thanking) or positive face (e.g. apologies) (BL 1987: 65-68).

To avoid or mitigate the potential threat of the FTAs， the speaker can adopt certain strategies， which are termed as \"politeness strategies\" by the authors. They distinguish a number of major politeness strategies， ranging from avoiding the FTAs altogether (i.e. saying nothing) to carrying them out in different guises (i.e. doing \"off-record\" FTAs and \"on-record\" FTAs). The way to do \"off-record\" FTAs is to perform the FTAs indirectly by primarily using \"hints\". \"On-record\" FTAs can be performed without redressive action (\"baldly\") or by adopting either or both of two kinds of redressive action: positive politeness and/or negative politeness strategies. \"Positive politeness strategies\"， which are addressed to H's positive face wants， emphasize closeness and solidarity between S and H by claiming common ground， or by using in-group identity markers， or by referring to desirable attributes in H. \"Negative politeness strategies\"， which are oriented to H's negative face wants， suggest distance and non-imposition by using conventional politeness markers， or by being indirect or by showing deference (BL 1987:68-69). Additionally， Brown and Levinson point out that the choice of politeness strategies depends on S's assessment of the size or severity of a FTA， which is based on the cumulative effect of the three social parameters: (a) the social distance (D) between S and H， (b) their relative power (P) and the ranking of imposition (R) entailed by the FTA. The combined values of D， P and R determine the overall \"weightiness\" of the FTA， which in turn affects the strategy used (BL 1987:76-79).

In short， Brown Levinson's framework provides a very detailed description of the specific manifestations of politeness strategies， which serve as antidotes to FTAs. However， this theory， like Leech's PP， is problematic cross-culturally due to its disregard of contextual influence on conceptualizing the fundamental concepts， \"face\"， a \"FTA\" and \"politeness strategies\". The claimed universality of their theory has received much criticism since its publication. In comparison， according to Mey， the FT and the PP converge in basically perceiving politeness as communicative strategies and suggest certain speech acts are intrinsically face-threatening or inherently impolite. Besides， they regard politeness as a continuous phenomenon and thus provide a scale or set of scales to evaluate the degree of politeness in a given situation. Furthermore， the two theories agree that \"negative politeness\" is more important than \"positive politeness\". But they diverge in approaching the object: the former views politeness from a socio-psychological perspective while the latter primarily examines it from a social point of view， exemplified by the conceptualization of \"face\" and the emphasis on interpersonal relationships respectively. That is， the FT views politeness as \"essentially addressing members' individual needs' ( wants'). It is through the reciprocal attribution of face wants and their symbolically exchanged appreciation in the form of politeness strategies that cohesive social ties are maintained and indeed reinforced\". In contrast， the PP highlights \"the enhancement of interpersonal relationships\" through abiding by the socially sanctioned behavior norms (Mey 1998: 679).

In spite of its universal invalidity， the face-saving view on politeness is the only one that satisfies the criteria for empirical theories since its data is mainly from three unrelated languages， English， Tamil (of South India) and Tzeltal (of Mexico). The FT still remains an invaluable source for the concept of politeness. Its distinction between positive and negative politeness strategies can shed very considerable light on cultural differences of politeness when examining cross-cultural data.

III Studies of Politeness in China

In China， the real study of politeness in linguistics began in the 1980s when pragmatics was introduced into China. The past two decades has witnessed the progress of Chinese politeness research， which consisted mainly of attempts at testing the validity of the claimed universality of Western politeness theories， exploring the features of Chinese politeness and formulating its own theories. Some scholars (e.g. Liu Runqing 1987 and He Zhaoxiong 1989) have introduced the findings of politeness study in the West; several other scholars (e.g. Gu Yueguo 1990 and Xu Shenghuan1992) have made some modifications of the Western politeness theories.

Among them， the most worth mentioning is Prof. Gu Yueguo， who has gained considerable insights into Chinese politeness. His two articles concerning the study of politeness in modern Chinese， one in English (1990) and the other in Chinese (1992)， have proved to be most cited both at home and abroad. He argues against Brown and Levinson's FT and favors Leech's PP and its maxims. Tracing the origin of the modern notion of Chinese politeness and based on modern Chinese data， Gu models himself on the PP and formulates his own politeness principle and a different set of maxims， which he thinks are more suitable to Chinese culture. Through a thorough study of and comparison between ancient and modern Chinese polite behaviors， Gu (1990:239) holds that in the long course of Chinese history， China has undergone dramatic changes in her social system， values， etc.， but the essential elements of politeness in Chinese have remained nearly intact. And he summarizes four essential elements of Chinese politeness， that is， \"respectfulness\"， \"modesty\"， \"attitudinal warmth\" and \"refinement\". These four essentials are elaborated into politeness maxims:

(1)Self-denigration Maxim: (a) denigrate self; (b) elevate other.

(2) Address Term Maxim: Address your interlocutor with an appropriate address term.

(3)Refinement Maxim: Use refined language， including the use of euphemisms and indirectness， and avoid foul language.

(4)Agreement Maxim: Maximize agreement and harmony between interlocutors， and minimize disagreement between them.

(5) Virtues-words-deeds Maxim: Minimize cost and maximize benefit to other at the motivational level， and maximize benefit received and minimize cost to self at the conversational level.(Gu 1992: 11-14)

Gu's statements of politeness maxims clearly manifest their relation to the four notions: the self-denigration maxim absorbs the notions of \"respectfulness\" and \"modesty\". Hence， this maxim is more than Leech's modesty maxim. This is the most important politeness maxim in Chinese， consisting of two sub-maxims， (a) and (b). If a person， whose speech act breaks sub-maxim(a)， i.e.， denigrate other， will be perceived as being impolite or rude; if the person violates sub-maxim(b)， i.e.， elevate self， s/he will be construed as being arrogant， boasting， or self-conceited. This maxim bears the strongest Chinese trait to the extent that it is uniquely Chinese. Address Term Maxim is based on the notions of \"respectfulness\" and \"attitudinal warmth\". To address one's interlocutor is not simply a matter of uttering some words to draw the interlocutor's attention. Rather， it involves S's recognition of H as a social being with a specific social status and S's definition of his social relation with H. It helps establish and/or maintain social bonds， strengthen solidarity， and control social distance. One's failure to use an appropriate address term is a sign of rudeness， or a signal of breakdown of established social relationships in Chinese culture. Gu's third maxim， Refinement Maxim reflects the normative character of linguistic politeness， which， though universal， has not been mentioned in any important politeness theory raised by Western scholars so far (He 1995:6). The agreement maxim overlaps with Leech's but it also covers Leech's approbation maxim. This maxim involves the consideration of S's and/or H's face wants. Gu's last maxim， originally termed as \"the tact maxim and the generosity maxim\" altogether， is based on Leech's original ideas but has been modified effectively and greatly， which can save Leech's Tact and Generosity Maxims from some embarrassment.

IV Conclusion

Through the literature on the pragmatic studies of politeness above， we can readily find Western linguists tend to consider politeness as a means of avoiding offenses and maintaining social distance as well as social lubricant of reducing interpersonal friction， while Chinese scholars tend to emphasize the association of politeness with social and moral values. This difference is due to their different cultural backgrounds. Integrating certain universal features of politeness and the Chinese-specific features into politeness theory in Chinese，Gu's politeness model in Chinese shows that he has a deep insight into the Chinese language and its culture.It is the derivative of li (social hierarchy and order in Confucius sense) and echoes its spirit. Thus， it is essentially different from Leech's PP and Brown Levinson's FT: the former emphasizes \"distinctions\" and largely signals social hierarchies by language use， while the latter stresses \"solidarity\" or \"equality\" in interpersonal relationships.

References：

[1]Brown， P. and Stephen Levinson. Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press， 1987.

[2]Gu Yueguo.“Politeness Phenomenon in Modern Chinese.”Journal of Pragmatics 14， 1990.237-257.

[3]He Zhaoxiong.“Study of Politeness in English and Chinese Cultures.\" Foreign Language，1995.2-8.

[4]Leech， G. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman， 1983.

[5]Mey， Jacob， L. (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics.Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.，1998.

[6]Reiter， Rosina Marquez. Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Com.， 2000.

[7]Xu Shenghuan.\"New Perceptions on Politeness Principles.\" Journal of Foreign Language Research， 1992.