See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267948289

An Overview of Politeness Theories: Current Status, Future Orientations

Article · January 2013

DOI: 10.5923/j.linguistics.20130202.02

CITATIONS READS

9 3,413

2 authors, including:

Mohsen Shahrokhi
Shahreza Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran
50 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Impoliteness in complaint speech acts View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohsen Shahrokhi on 08 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

American Journal of Linguistics 2013, 2(2): 17-27
DOI: 10.5923/j.linguistics.20130202.02

An Overview of Politeness Theories: Current Status,

Future Orientations
Mohsen Shahrokhi* , Farinaz Shirani Bidabadi

Department of English, Shahreza Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahreza, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract This paper is an endeavour to depict a holistic image o f theories of politeness ranging from classic theories of
politeness to the most up-to-date theories. To this end, the reviews of the social norm view, the conversational maxim v iew,
the conversational-contract view, Brown and Levinson’s face-saving view, Arndt and Jannaey’s Supportive face-work and
interpersonal politeness, Spencer-Oatey’s view of rapport management, Ide’s notion of discernment and volition, Sco llon
and Scollon’s intercultural co mmun ication, and Watt’s politeness view are p rovided and the main tenets of every theory are
explained crit ically. The explanation of the current status of theories of politeness would be followed by conclusions that
provide some orientations for future studies conducted on politeness.
Keywords Politeness, Face, Face-threat, Verbal Interaction

would result in a peaceful and brotherly relat ionship among

1. Origins of Politeness people.
[15] states that during renaissance period not only upper
As a socialization process competent adult members in class people but also the rest of people were concerned with
every society learn how to behave politely, linguistically and the amelioration of social manners and social tact as well as a
otherwise. Hence, politeness has not been born as an civilized society. The consideration that a person owes to
instinctive mankind property, but it is a phenomenon which another one was of great importance to maintain and balance
has been constructed through sociocultural and historical social relation; moreover the reciprocal obligations and
processes. duties among people of all walks of life needed to be
Historically, t races of the English term ‘polite’ can be determined.
found in the 15th century. Etymo logically, however, it
derives fro m late Medieval Latin politus meaning ‘smoothed
and accomplished’. The term 'polite' was synonymous with 2. Politeness: Preliminary Remarks
concepts such as ‘refined’, ‘polished’ when people were Developing theories of politeness or investigating norms
concerned. In the seventeen century a polite person was of politeness in different cultures as well as presenting the
defined as ‘one of refined courteous manners’, according to definit ion of politeness have been the focus of attention by
the oxfo rd dictionary of ety mology. most studies on politeness[5, 28, 17, 7, 55, 57].
[14] believes that in French, Spanish, German, and Dutch The status que in politeness studies reveals “numerous
courtesy values such as ‘loyalty’ and ‘recip rocal trust’ were definit ions of politeness”[57] that indicates “varied
used by upper class people in the Middle Ages to distinguish conceptualizat ions of politeness”. Several factors have given
themselves fro m the rest of people. According to[14] the rise to the current states of affairs among wh ich[57] calls the
primary purposes behind follo wing courtesy values were lack of a clearly d ifferentiation and a thoroughly
achieving success, winning honors and behaving examination of the relationship between commonsense and
appropriately at court. scientific notions of politeness as one of the important
In Persian, adab (politeness) is defined as the knowledge factors.[55] uses the term “first-order politeness” and
by which man can avoid any fault in speech, according to “second-order politeness to clarify the commonsense and
Dehkhoda dictionary (1980). Jorjani, however, extends the scientific notions of politeness. They state that:
realm of politeness to the knowledge of any affair through First-order politeness corresponds to the various ways in
which man is ab le to abstain fro m any kind of fau lt which which polite behavior is perceived and talked about by
members of socio-cultural groups. It encompasses ...
* Corresponding author:
[email protected] (Mohsen Shahrokhi) commonsense notions of politeness. Second-order politeness,
Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/linguistics on the other hand, is a theoretical construct, a term within a
Copyright © 2013 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved theory of social behavior and language usage[55].
18 M ohsen Shahrokhi et al.: An Overview of Politeness Theories: Current Status, Future Orientations

First-order politeness covers the common notion of have a better understanding of politeness definitions,[12]
politeness as realized and pract iced by members of a also argues that a distinction between commonsense and
community in everyday interactions.[16] d ivides first-order scientific notions of politeness is necessary. He observes that
politeness into three co mponents, namely “exp ressive, when researchers talk about politeness they “somehow never
classificatory, and metaprag matic” politeness. Expressive seem to be talking about ... those phenomena ordinary
first-order politeness is the polite intention that the speakers speakers would identify as ‘politeness’ or ‘impoliteness’”.
man ifest through speech. The use of politeness markers such Moreover, the presuppositions that these researchers adopt
as ‘please’, and such conventional formu laic exp ressions as when discussing politeness “do not come fro m their talk with
‘thank you’ are instances of expressive first-order politeness. ordinary speakers asking what these ordinary speakers ...
Classificatory first-order politeness involves the have to say on this matter”[57]. As a result, scholars elevate
classification of behaviors as polite and impolite based on “a lay first-order concept ... to the status of a second-order
the adreessee’s evaluation. This evaluation derives from concept”[55]. Put another way, they “qualify certain
metaprag matic first-order politeness, that is, the way people utterances as polite or impolite, where it is not always clear
think of politeness and the way it is conceptualized in various and sometimes doubtful whether ordinary speakers
interactional contexts. Altogether, first-order politeness is an do[so]”[12].
evaluation of ordinary notion of politeness with regards to With regard to the above remarks, in the following section
the norms of society; the way politeness is realized through a thorough introduction of notions of politeness and different
language in daily interactions by speakers as well as the conceptualizat ions of this notion proposed through different
hearer’s perception and assessment of politeness. The study theories will be dealt with. However, introductory remarks
of linguistic politeness as one of the aspects of interaction will be presented below first. As for the man ifestation of
has been considered as first-order politeness by researchers politeness,[22] puts forward a categorization by wh ich he
(e.g.[13, 25]) and has been the topic of investigation. states that politeness can be expresses through
At the level of second-order politeness, it is attempted to communicat ive and non-communicative acts. In spite of the
develop a scientific theory of politeness. The theory can fact that there is no “unanimous agreement as to what is
elaborate the functions of politeness in interaction and interpreted as commun icative” as[41] believes, but the
provide the criteria by wh ich im/polite behavior is categorization might be of help as a starting point to classify
distinguished. The second-order politeness also can present various manifestation of politeness.
universal characteristics of politeness in different According to figure 1, acts that are only realized
communit ies. Accordingly, various models of politeness instrumentally can be categorized as non-communicative
have tried to account for politeness universal characteristics politeness. The case can be observed, for instance, when
as a theoretical construct (e.g.[6]). students stand up as a professor enters the classroom.
As[55] call for a clear d istinction between commonsense
and scientific notions of politeness to prepare the ground to

Figure 1. Politeness Manifestation[41]

 American Journal of Linguistics 2013, 2(2): 17-27 19

Co mmunicat ive politeness consists of linguistic and relevant investigation and explorat ions of politeness.
non-linguistic form as depicted in figure 1, with the latter As a point of departure, therefore,[17] four perspectives
form manifested as paralinguistically or namely, the social norm v iew, the conversational maxim
non-paralinguistically. Gestures along with simu ltaneous view, the face-saving view, and the conversational-contract
verbal signs are called paralinguistic type of politeness, e.g. view as the most classic perspectives on the treatment of
bowing and greeting as it is customary among the Japanese. politeness are discussed first. In the subsequent section then,
The use of such prosodic features as intonational contours, other relevant views and conceptualizat ions will be
stress and tone of voice are sign of paralinguistic form of elaborated as well.
politeness. The prosodic features function either as
mitigating o r as aggregating the force of message; because 3.1. The Social Norm View
as[46], cited in[41] states “the illocutionary force of an According to Fraser “the social norm v iew of politeness
utterance may not be signaled by the mood of the verb or by assumes that each society has a particular set of social norms
its word order, but also by prosodic features”. The consisting of mo re or less explicit rules that prescribe a
expression of the other kind of non-linguistic politeness, that certain behavior, a state of affairs, or a way of thinking in a
is non-paralinguistic, is just through gestures without any context”[17]. One example o f these rules is the difference
verbal signs accompanied. An examp le of the type of between a formal address ‘vous’ and an informal ‘tu’ in
politeness is when someone nods his/her head to indicate French.[24] was one of the first to express this view in her
interest in what is being said or to direct attention to the study of politeness phenomena in the Japanese society.
speaker. According to[44], within the social norm v iew politeness is
Metalinguistic politeness as a type of linguistic politeness “seen as arising from an awareness of one’s social
prepares the ground to establish and maintain social contact obligations to the other members of the group to which one
and keep any kind of social tension off as well.[41] classifies owes primary allegiance.”
“phatic commun ion together with conversational etiquette” According to Held[23] the social norm view consists of
as a type of expressing metalinguistic politeness.[39] points two factors:
out continuing talking, avoiding silence, and talking about Status conscious behavior which is realized by showing
stereo typical topics as instances of phatic communion. deference and respect to others’ social rank.
Drawing on figure 1, non-metalinguistic politeness is what Moral co mponents and decency which involves a concern
commonly understood as linguistic politeness and has been for general hu man dignity (by protecting others from
explored fro m different perspective in many studies and is unpleasant intrusion, and respecting taboos and negative
going to be investigated here too. topics) as well as the maintenance of others’ personal sphere
(by reducing or avoiding territorial encroach ment).
The social norm v iew has been corresponded to a type of
3. Politeness: Notions, politeness called “discern ment” (wakimaei) by some
Conceptualizations, and Theories researchers like[55]. Ide states that wakimae is “the practice
Politeness research ranged from developing theoretical of polite behavior accord ing to social conventions”[24].
notions of politeness and claiming universal valid ity across Wakimae is a behavior according to “one’s sense of place or
diverse cultures and languages to investigate politeness in role in a given situation”.[24] believes that this is helpful in
individual cu ltures to discover cultural slant on order to have a frict ion free co mmun ication which runs
commonsense notions of politeness. However, relevant smoothly.
literature o f the field lacks a consistency of definit ions of Socio-cultural conventions have also been regarded by[26]
politeness among researchers. In additions to inconsistency as one of the frameworks which shape politeness as “social
of politeness definitions, there are cases in which the writers politeness” which is akin to the social norm conventions.
even fail to define politeness explicitly due to their blurry “Social politeness” gives prominence to in-group
comments of the term. conventions to organize the interaction among members of
[17] crit ical overview of the way researchers approach groups smoothly. Such conventions as “conversational
politeness, leads him to co me up with four major models by routines”, “politeness formulas”, and “co mpliment formulas”
which researchers can treat the term politeness more are among strategies that prepares the ground for members of
systematically and conduct their research based on the model a group to get “gracefully into, and back out of, recurring
of their taste. He explains the models and provides a social situations such as: in itiating ... maintaining ... and
characterizat ion of every model to shed light the major terminating conversation”[26].
pillars of each one. Although Fraser just classifies the past
3.2. The Conversati onal Maxim View
research literature treat ment of politeness, his classification
is a point of departure for many researchers of the field since The second politeness model, i.e. the conversational
the date of publication onward to base their theoretical maxim view, relies principally on the work of[20]. The
framework on a systematic model of politeness; and his work cornerstone of politeness studies is based on Cooperative
has been one of the most frequent sources referred to in the Principle (CP) and according to[16] Grice’s Cooperative
20 M ohsen Shahrokhi et al.: An Overview of Politeness Theories: Current Status, Future Orientations

Principle is “the foundation of models of politeness”. Among the following sub-rules as the sub-rules of her second rule, i.e.
the main contributors to this view[31, 33] and[37] have been “be polite”. These sub-rules aim at “making one’s addressee
the majo r figures, although[11] and[30] are also among think well of one” and accordingly “imparting a favorable
adherents to this view though to a less extent. feeling” as far as the content of commun ication is
Grice argues that “conversationalists are rational concerned[31]. She put forward the sub-rules of politeness as
individuals who are, all the other things being equal, follows:
primarily interested in the efficient conveying of 1) Don’t impose
message”[17]. The superior princip le according to Grice is 2) Give options
Cooperative Princip le (CP) that is to “make your 3) Make a feel good – be friendly
conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at The first sub-rule, according to[32], is concerned with
which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the “distance and formality”, the second rule is concerned with
talk exchange in which you are engaged”. To put it mo re “hesitancy” and the third one with “equality”.
simp ly, Cooperative Princip le calls for what one has to say, [31] states that speakers employ the above-mentioned
at the time it has to be said, and in the manner in wh ich it has rules to either express politeness or avoid offence as a
to be said. In[3] term CP means ‘operating together’ when consequence of indicat ing speaker/addressee status. Rule 1
the creation of a verbal interaction is expected. (Don’t impose) is realized once a sense of distance is created
Grice bases the cooperative principle on four maxims, between the speaker and hearer by the speaker. The
which he assumes speakers will fo llo w. The maxims are realization of ru le 1 would result, according to[32], in
termed, as[32] reports, maxim of quantity (say as much and “ensuring that status distinctions are adhered to, that no
no more than is necessary), maxim of quality (say what is informality develops, that the relationship remains purely
true), maxim of relevance (say what is relevant), and maxim formal.” The use of title+last name as a form of address, the
of manner (say in a non-confusing way). Grice believes that preference of the passive to the active, and the use of
in order for the speakers to produce utterances which are technical terms to avoid the unmentionable in such situations
informat ive, true, relevant, and non-confusing they have to as medical, business, legal, and academic ones are examples
adhere to CP. However, Grice also exp lains situations in of the imp lementation of this rule.
which one or more of the maxims are violated in an attempt As for Rule 2 (Give options) as “the rule of hesitancy”
for ext ra meaning. That is to say, the speakers lead the in[32] term, the speaker gives the addressee options to
addressee’s attention to making an inference, ‘conversational express uncertainty over the speech act he, i.e. the speaker, is
implicature’ in Grice’s term[3] suggests that conversational performing. Lakoff states that in realizing rule 2 “the speaker
implicature happens when an inference is got fro m what the knows what he wants, knows he has the right to expect it
speakers say; conversational imp licature is triggered through fro m the addressee, and the addressee know it”[32]. Rule 2 is
the violation of one or mo re of maxims by the speaker and is also used as a sign of true politeness i.e., “the speaker knows
elicited by the hearer relying on the assumption that the what he wants, but sincerely does not wish to force the
speaker is still adhering to the CP. People who do not follow addressee into a decision”. The use of “please”; particles like
the maxims in co mmun ication but still seem cooperative, “well”, “er”, and “ah”; euphemis ms; hedges like “sorta”, “in
resort to another set of rules to communicate that according a way” and “loosely speaking” can be considered as some of
to[31] are called “the ru les of politeness”.[37] uses the term linguistic realizations of rule 2.
“the politeness principle” to refer to the same rules.[31] “the Rule 3 (make a feel good) is concerned with “the equality
rules of politeness and[37] “the politeness principle” can be rule” which expresses that although the speaker is superior
covered by the umbrella term of conversational maxim view or equal in status to addressee, but the speaker implies that
of politeness. s/he and the addressee are equal to make addressee feel good.
Despite frequent adoption of Grice’s CP, however, it has This sense of camaraderie or solidarity can be verbally
been encountered some crit iques.[37] states that Grice’s expressed by the use of first names or n icknames which g ives
“framework cannot direct ly exp lain why people are often the impression of an informal relationship between speaker
indirect in conveying what they mean” .[29] also questions and addressee; particles such as “I mean”, “like” and “y"
the universality of Grice’s maxims, because according to know” which enable speaker to show with it his feelings
Keenan achieving politeness through CP is not observed in about what he is talking about[32]. The linguistic
all cultures. man ifestation of rule 3 can be achieved through giving
compliments and using explicit terms for exp ressing taboo
3.2.1. Lakoff's Ru les of Politeness
terms.[34] considers modern A merican culture as a cu lture in
Although Cooperative Principle fails to account for which “the appearance of openness and niceness is to be
politeness directly, but as a reference it gave rise to the sought”.
formulat ion of the other theoretical and empirical work such Lack of sufficient empirical evidence for cross-cultural
as Lakoff’s rules of politeness.[31] integrated Grice politeness strategies has been named as one the criticisms
conversational maxims with her own taxonomy which addressing Lakoff’s notion of politeness. She also does not
consisted of two rules: “be clear” and “be polite”. She distinguish clearly polite behavior fro m appropriate behavior.
summarized Grice’s maxims in her first rule and proposed According to[16] “what is considered appropriate during
 American Journal of Linguistics 2013, 2(2): 17-27 21

social interaction (e.g., greeting, leave-takings, and other of “a particular culture or language community” and context
routine formu las) may not always be interpreted as polite or speech situation is influential on its variations. This
behavior”. relativ ity is a matter of the difference of language speakers in
the application of the politeness principle.
3.2.2. Leech's Po liteness Princip le and Maxims of [37] establishes a set of maxims to form the PP
Interaction as stated below:
Relying on a Grician framework,[37] proposed the (I) TACT MAXIM (in impositives and commissives)
Politeness Principle (PP) and elaborated on politeness as a (a) M inimize cost to other
regulative factor in commun ication through a set of maxims. (b) Maximize benefit to other]
Politeness, as[37] found out, is a facilitating factor that (II) GENEROSITY MAXIM (in impositives and
influences the relation between ‘self’, by wh ich Leech means commissives)
the speaker, and ‘other’ that is the addressee and/or a third (a) M inimize benefit to self
party. To Leech politeness is described as “min imizing the (b) Maximize cost to self]
expression of impolite beliefs as the beliefs are unpleasant or (III) APPROBATION MAXIM (in expressives and
at a cost to it”[37]. Leech attached his Politeness Princip le assertives)
(PP) to[20] Cooperative Principle (CP) in an attempt to (a) M inimize d ispraise of other
account for the violation of the CP in conversation. The (b) Maximize praise of other]
author regarded politeness as the key prag matic phenomenon (IV) M ODESTY MAXIM (in exp ressives and assertives)
not only for the indirect conveying of what people mean in (a) M inimize praise of sel f
communicat ion but also as one of the reasons why people (b) Maximize d ispraise of self]
deviate from CP.[37] exp lains the relation between his own (V) A GREEM ENT MA XIM (in assertives)
Politeness Princip le and Grice’s Cooperative Principle as (a) M inimize d isagreement between self and other
follows: (b) Maximize agreement between self to other]
The CP enables one participant in a conversation to (VI) SYM PATHY MAXIM (in[exp ressive])
communicate on the assumption that the other participant is (a) M inimize antipathy between self and other
being cooperative. In this, the CP has the function of (b) Maximize sy mpathy between self and other]
regulating what we say so that it contributes to some The degree of tact or generosity appropriate to a particular
assumed illocutionary or discoursal good(s). It could be speech act can also be determined by a set of pragmatic
argued, however, that the PP has a higher regulat ive ro le than scales proposed by[37]. The scales have been termed the
this to maintain the social equilibriu m and the friendly optionality scale (“the amount of the choice of addressee to
relations wh ich enables us to assume that our interlocutors perform a p roposed action”)[38], the indirectness scale
are being cooperative in the first place. (“how much inference is involved in the proposed
[37] proposed a pragmatic framework consisting of two action”)[48], the authority scale (“which describes the
components: textual rhetoric and interpersonal rhetoric degree of distance between the speakers in terms of power
which are constituted by a set of principles each one over each other”)[41], and the social distance scale(which
respectively. Politeness Princip le as a subdivision is describes the degree of solidarity between the participants” ).
embedded within the interpersonal rhetoric domain along The Tact Maxim is used for impositives (e.g. ordering,
with two other subdivisions, that is, Grice’s Cooperative commanding, requesting, advising, recommending, and
Principle (CP) and Leech’s Irony Principle (IP).[37] as cited inviting) and co mmissives (e.g. pro mising, vowing, and
in[41] regards the IP as “a secondary principle wh ich allows offering). These illocutionary acts refer to some action to be
a speaker to be impolite wh ile seeming to be polite”, in other performed by either the hearer (i.e. impositives) or the
words, the speaker seems ironic by vio lating the cooperative speaker (i.e. co mmissives). Under this maxim, the action
principle. “The IP then overtly conflicts with the PP, though “may be evaluated in terms of its cost or benefit to S or H”
it enables the hearer to arrive at the point of utterance by the using a cost-benefit scale[37]. Using this scale, an action
way of implicature, indirectly”. which is beneficial to H is more polite than one that is at a
One very important characteristic in Leech’s theory is the cost to H.
distinction he makes between “absolute politeness” and The Generosity Maxim, which works most of the t ime
“relative politeness” with an emphasis on the former, in his together with the Tact Maxim, concerns impositives and
attitude. “Absolute politeness” is brought into play in an commissives too. However, the hypothesis that the Tact
appropriate degree “to minimize the impoliteness of Maxim receives greater emphasis than the Generosity
inherently impo lite illocution” and “maximizing the Maxim results in impositives that omit reference to the cost
politeness of polite illocution”[37]. “Absolute politeness” to H of an action and that describe the intended goal of the
involves the association of speech acts with types of act as beneficial to S.
politeness and has a positive and negative pole, since some Approbation Maxim requires people to avoid talking
speech acts, such as offers, are intrinsically polite whereas about whatever unpleasant, especially when the subject is
others such as orders are intrinsically impo lite. related to the hearer. The strategies of indirectness included
“Relat ive politeness”, as[37] states is relative to the norms in Politeness Principle, however, let speakers balance the
22 M ohsen Shahrokhi et al.: An Overview of Politeness Theories: Current Status, Future Orientations

unpleasant side of criticism. Modesty Maxim wh ich works since Japanese mores make it impossible to agree with praise
closely with Approbation Maxim involves both by others of oneself. However, this model is not yet
self-dispraise and avoidance of other people dispraise due to supported by sufficient emp irical research cross-culturally
impolite nature of dispraising others. Observing the Modesty and needs to be tested in various cultures for further
Maxim is a matter of relativ ity, that is to say, it is effective corroboration.
when one avoids being tedious and insincere as a result of
continuous “self-denigration” in any situation[37]. The 3.3. The Conversati onal-Contract View
Approbation Maxims along with the Modesty Maxim are In this approach, when entering into a conversation, each
concerned with expressives and assertives. party “brings an understanding of some init ial set of rights
The next two maxims of politeness, namely the and obligations that will determine, at least for preliminary
Agreement Maxim and Sy mpathy Maxim, concern stages, what the participants can expect fro m the others”[17].
assertives and expressives respectively. The Agreement These rights are based on parties’ social relationships and
Maxim seeks opportunities in which the speaker can during the process of interaction there is always the
maximize “agreement with other” people fro m one hand, and possibility for part ies to renegotiate the initial rights and
can “mitigate disagreement by expressing regret, partial obligations on which the parties have agreed. The rights and
disagreement, etc.” fro m the other hand[37]. Concerning the obligations define the interlocutors’ duty as a Conversational
Sympathy Maxim, it is best instantiated in condolences and Contract (CC).
congratulation speech acts when speakers make an attempt to Politeness here means operating within the terms and
minimize antipathy with others and maximize sympathy conditions of the existing Conversational-Contract and as
with others. long as the interlocutors respect the terms and rights agreed
[37] believes that all his maxims are not of the same upon at the primary stages, they are interacting politely. Due
importance. He points out that the Tact Maxim and the to the possibility of negotiation and readjustment of terms
Approbation Maxim are more crucial co mpared to the and rights, there is always the opportunity of negotiating the
Generosity and Modesty Maxims, since in his idea the intentions and behaving politely for the interlocutors.
concept of politeness is more oriented towards the addressee Accordingly,[17] regards politeness as “getting on with the
(other) than self. As[37] considers two sub-maxims for every task at hand in light of the terms and conditions of the CC”.
one of maxims, he regards sub-maxim (a) within each maxim Conversational-Contract view is similar to Social Norm
to be more important than sub-maxim (b). As such,[37] view in that politeness involves conforming to socially
claims that “negative politeness (avoidance of discord) is a agreed codes of good behavior. It is different fro m Social
more weighty consideration that positive politeness (seeking Norm view because in Conversational-Contract view the
concord)”. rights and obligations are negotiable.
Leech’s politeness principle has been welco me by both Universal applicab ility is a remarkable feature of this
criticis ms and praise.[27] as one of the crit ics believes that model. Socio-cu ltural norms and patterns are the determinant
Leech’s theory is problemat ic as far as the methodology is factors in applying conversational-contract model of
concerned, since a new maxim can be introduced to account politeness.[28] believes that conversational-contract cannot
for the regulatory of any language use. Hence the number of be manifested regardless of members of “specific speech
maxims is infinite and arbitrary. This view has been shared communit ies”. However, conversational-contract model
by several researchers as[10, 50, 6, 35, 17, 51, 38, 13, and as[50] reports is not empirically applicab le due to the lack of
53]. model details.
A second criticism of Politeness Principle theory concerns [53] questions the terms and rights as it is not clear what
Leech’s equation of indirectness with politeness. This idea social conditions may prepare the ground for the
has found many counterpoint cases where a d irect utterance readjustment and renegotiations of rights and terms. He also
can be the appropriate form of politeness in a speech believes that the nature of the terms and rights are open to
situation[38]. question. Furthermore,[16] calls for further emp irical
Leech’s theory also seems “too theoretical to be applied to application of Fraser’s model of politeness in cross-cultural
real languages”, as[38] states, but “the maxims can be used context in order to determine the validity of CC.
to exp lain a wide range of motivations for polite
3.4. Brown and Levinson's Face-Saving View
man ifestation”.[45] points out that Leech’s maxims do not
contribute to the universality of politeness, but they can be The most influential politeness model to date is the
used to account for many culture-specific realizat ion of face-saving view proposed by[6, 55, 28]. Th is model is based
politeness. Leech’s Po liteness Princip le can also be on constructing a Model Person (MP) who is a fluent speaker
emp loyed to account for the cross-cultural variability of the of a natural language and equipped with two special
use of politeness strategies, as[50] pointed out.[6] expresses characteristics, namely ‘rationality’ and ‘face’. Rationality
that cross-cultural variability will then “lie in the relative enables the MP to engage in means-ends analysis. By
importance given to one of these maxims contrary to reasoning from ends to the means the MP satisfies his/her
another.”[37] suggests that in Japanese society, for instance, ends. Face, as the other endowment of the MP, is defined as
the Modesty Maxim is preferred to the Agreement Maxim the public self-image that the MP wants to gain.[6] claims
 American Journal of Linguistics 2013, 2(2): 17-27 23

that face has two aspects: the authors confidence cues, positive-negative affect cues,
● Positive face’ which is the positive consistent and intensity cues make up the emotive aspect of interaction.
self-image or ‘personality’ claimed by interactants (in other [16] rewrites confidence cue as “the degree of
words, the desire to be approved of in certain respects). (in)d irectness or certainty to which an interlocutor
● ‘Negative face’ wh ich is the ‘basic claim to territorial approaches or avoids a topic in the presence of another
personal preserves and rights to non-distraction’ (in other interlocutor, and confidence may be exp ressed or reinforced
words, the desire to be unimpeded by others). verbally, vocally, or kinesically. The next cue, namely
Drawing upon the “rational capacities” the MP is able to positive or negative affect cue is defined as “the verbal, vocal,
decide on the linguistic behavior necessary for the kinesic activit ies employed to support interpersonal
maintenance of face. In short, the emphasis on addressing communicat ion by means of supporting (positive support) or
social members’ face needs results in politeness strategies; contradicting (negative support) the interlocutor’s point of
polite behavior is basic to the maintenance of face wants. view” . These cues all together function as maintain ing and
Face wants consists of “the wants of approval” (i.e. positive balancing the course of communication.
face) “the wants of self-determination” (i.e. negative Drawing on Goffman’s notion of face and Brown and
face)[28]. Levinson’ positive and negative face,[1] believe ‘personal
Bro wn and Levinson’s model received many crit icis ms autonomy’ and ‘interpersonal support’ are man ifested
among which the individualistic nature of social interaction through negative face and positive face respectively.
is the most important one.[56] describes the rational model Accordingly, they propose four supportive strategies in their
person presented by Brown and Levinson as a model “who is, model in o rder for the interlocutors to negotiate face-work.
during the initial phase of generating an utterance at least, The strategies, namely supportive positive messages,
unconstrained by social considerations and thus free to non-supportive positive messages, supportive negative
choose egocentric, asocial, and assertive interaction”. messages, and non-supportive negative messages can be
However, in non-western cultures, where group norms and realized both verbally and non-verbally.[16] concludes that
values is the framework in which the interaction forms, the for[1] “politeness is viewed as interpersonal supportiveness
model speaker proposed by Brown and Levinson is not and consists of supportive face-work strategies that express
considered polite.[36] fo r instance, reports Japanese culture positive or negative feelings without threatening the
as collective, where the interaction context is influenced by interlocutors emotionally.”
rules representing social group attributes. This also holds The lack of politeness research in cross-cultural context
true for Chinese culture in which one’s face is highly for supporting the validity of this model is the criticism
affected by the group reputation to which one belongs[40]. encountering this theory of politeness.
Another crit icis m addressing Brown and Levinson’s
theory, concerns the politeness strategies proposed by the 3.6. Spencer-Oatey’s View of Rapport Management
authors. Since no utterance can be inherently interpreted as Based on previous models of politeness, for instance those
polite or impo lite, consequently any assessment of polite or of[19],[6],[37] and inspiring fro m Conversational Contract
impolite verbal interaction must be performed with regard to view developed by[17],[46] proposed her rapport
“the context of social pract ice” as suggested by[53]. As management as a framework for politeness studies. Rapport
such,[16] find the term “prag matic strategies” more management, as reported by[16] is “the management of
appropriate than Brown and Lev inson’s label “politeness harmony-disharmony during social interaction”. Rapport
strategies” for describing “the expressions used during the management is realized through two alternatives, namely
negotiation of face in social interaction”. face management and sociality right management[49]. Face
As for social variables namely, social d istance, social management consists of two dimensions, namely quality and
power, and ran king of imposition,[6] have also been identity.[16] rewrites quality of face as “the desire for people
criticized. They consider the social variables as constant. to evaluate us positively (i.e., Bro wn and Lev inson’s positive
However,[17] believes the social variab les presented by[6] face) according to our qualities (i.e., co mpetence,
can be changed in a short time span. Therefore, such appearance)”. Identity of face is “the desire fo r people to
variables as power and social distance must be treated as acknowledge our social identities and roles as, fo r examp le, a
constantly changing variables according to the context of the group leader or close friend”. The sociality rights suggested
interaction. by[49] are made up of equity rights and association rights.
The equity rights reflect the idea that everybody deserves fair
3.5. Arndt and Janney’s Supporti ve Face-work and
behavior and it is realized when the cost and benefits
Interpersonal Politeness
between the interlocutors is balanced. The second
Fro m the point of psychological research,[1, 2] consider component of sociality rights, namely association rights is
politeness as emotive co mmun ication and interpersonal one’s right to have a harmonious relationship with others
politeness. Emot ive communication as reported by[16] both internationally and affectively.
“refers to transitory attitudes, feelings and other affective [16] su mmarizes Spencer-Oatey’s theory as “an
states”. According to[1] emotive commun ication is realized alternative for analy zing sociocultural behavior in social
through verbal, vocal, and kinesic abilities. According to interaction”. Rapport management view “excludes Brown
24 M ohsen Shahrokhi et al.: An Overview of Politeness Theories: Current Status, Future Orientations

and Levinson’s original notion of negative face in which the providing the interlocutors with options, all are instances of
individual is seen as an independent member of society; independence realizat ion.
instead, group identity captures the notion of an indiv idual Face system proposed by[47] consists of three
who desires to be perceived as a member o f the group”. The components namely Deference face, Solidarity face, and
model, however, awaits sufficient applications Hierarchy face primarily based on both the difference and
cross-culturally. the distance between participants[8]. The deference face
system is an “egalitarian system in wh ich the participants
3.7. Ide’s Notions of Discernment and Voliti on maintain a deferential distance fro m each other”. In this
Inspiring fro m non-western societies such as Japan and system, consequently, the interlocutors had better use
China where the formality in language used in social independence strategies to minimize the possibility of
interaction would provide appropriate levels of politeness, threatening face or losing face. The solidarity face is “also an
[24] proposed discernment and volition as two notions egalitarian system in which the participants feel or express
constituting linguistic politeness.[184] report “the volit ional closeness to each other”[8] and consider one another equal in
type is governed by one’s intention and realized by verbal social position; the interlocutors, consequently, use
strategies, and the discernment type is operated by one’s involvement strategy to provide a sense of friendliness and
discernment (or the socially prescribed norm) and is closeness. On the contrary, the last co mponent, hierarchy
expressed by linguistic form”. The use of linguistic form in face, is “a system with asymmetrical relationship, i.e., the
which the interlocutors’ differences in terms of rank or ro le participants recognize and respect the social differences that
are clearly exp ressed is the way discernment can be realized. place one in a supperordinate position and the other one in a
As such, formal fo rms such as honorifics are different fro m subordinate position”. The do minant interlocutor may use
verbal strategies to[24] and she does not consider honorifics involvement strategy in hierarchy face system; however, the
among negative politeness strategies as proposed by[6]. dominated interlocutor employs independence strategies to
Verbal strategies are the mediu m for the exp ression of avoid any face threat addressed to the other interlocutor in
volitional politeness according to[24]. Vo lit ional politeness the superordinate position.
aims at saving face, as the purpose of[6] theory is to save [16] believes that the model proposed by[47] “offers an
face. alternative fo r examining cross-cultural communication
Altogether volition and discernment help the interaction taking into account the face needs of each group”. He adds
flow smoothly as discernment indicates the speakers “Scollon and Scollon’s face systems are instrumental for
contribution to the interaction as far as socially prescribed analyzing the negotiation of face in symmetric (-P) and
forms are concerned and volit ion indicates the speaker’s asymmetric (+P) systems”. Although the model lacks
intention as how polite s/he wants to be in a given sufficient empirical research, however, it best suits studies
situation.[16] points out that “if honorifics or pronouns of adopting a cross-cultural approach.
address are used appropriately in a particu lar situation, that is,
according to the social norms of a given culture, a person 3.9. Watts’s Politeness View
may be perceived as being impolite”. Adopting a dynamic approach[53] in his book Politeness,
The applicability of Ide’s model in non-Asian languages is makes an attempt to distinguish the common sense or lay
still waiting for further research to provide supporting notion of politeness fro m the theoretical notion as
evidence for the valid ity of this model. emphasized in[13]. As explained in the preliminary remarks
section, the former is referred to as first-order politeness or
3.8. Scollon and Scollon’s Intercultural Communicati on
politeness 1 and the latter notion is termed as second-order
In their book Intercultural Communication,[47] accounts politeness or politeness 2. As[52] reports “politeness 2 is a
for face in intercultural context. The terms positive and socio-psychological notion that is used for the various ways
negative applied by[5, 6] to explain t wo aspects of face in in wh ich members of socio-cultural group talk about polite
their theory of politeness is replaced in[47] by the terms language usage, whereas politeness 2 is a theoretical,
involvement and independence in an attempt to avoid any linguistic notion in a sociolinguistic theory of politeness”.[53]
misunderstanding of the terms positive and negative as good introduces politic behavior as appropriate behavior verbal or
and bad respectively. To[47] the term involvement refers to non-verbal in any social interaction and adds polite behavior
group needs and emphasizes the interlocutors’ “right and as the surplus of politic behavior.[53] believes that the
need to be considered a normal, contributing, or supporting evaluation of verbal and non-verbal behavior as inherently
member of society”. Such strategies as attending to others’ polite or impo lite is inaccurate and this evaluation must be
interests and wants, using in-group identity marker, asserting subject to the interlocutors’ interpretation of a given context
reciprocity and closeness to other members of the society are The notion of face is treated by[53] as “a socially
instances through which involvement can be realized. attributed aspect of self that is temporarily on loan for the
The other term, independence, highlights the individual duration of interaction in accordance with the line or lines
nature of interlocutors. Formality, indirectness, and that the individual has adopted”.
 American Journal of Linguistics 2013, 2(2): 17-27 25

[53] treats face-work fro m a new perspective, namely developed in future orientations of theories of politeness.
relational work. To h im relational wo rk “encompasses First, there should be some universal p rinciples and rules
various aspects of social interaction such as (in) direct, (im) considered to be polite for taking into consideration, when
polite, or (in) appropriate behavior”[16]. people fro m different cultural background are going to
According to figure 2, both politic and non-politic interact politely. This framework could be an intercultural
behaviors are included in relational work. There are no framework of politeness. Second, within every culture, the
discrete divisions as unmarked polit ic behavior and interaction of people belonging to the same cultural
positively marked behavior although they are separated by background should follow the rules and principles of the
dotted line; they are of the same nature and there is the shared norms of interaction within that part icular culture,
possibility of overlapping in part icular context as well. that is, intera-cultural framework. The consideration of
culture-specific norms of interaction can contribute to
intra-cultural interactions to be polite.
Although, the development of a universal framework of
politeness for intercultural interactions seems demanding
and depends on a number of cultural characteristic, the
framework seems plausible, as there are frameworks such as
political conventions which are taken into account in
international relations. Therefore, the consideration of polite
interaction among people co ming fro m different cultural
background calls for a universal intercultural framework
shared globally.

REFERENCES
[1] Arndt, H. & Richard J. Politeness revisited: Cross-modal
supportive strategies. International Review of Applied
Linguistics 23:281-300. 1985.

[2] Arndt, H. & Richard J. Verbal, prosodic, and kines ic emotive

Figure 2. Rlational work[54] contrasts in speech. Journal of Pragmatics 15:521-549. 1991.

[3] Arundale, R. Pragmatics, implicature and conversation. In

[54] relational work reflects the idea that depending on Handbook of language and social interaction, edited by K.
social and contextual variab les the interpretation of polite Fitch & R. Sanders. M ahwan: Lawrence Erlbaum. 2005.
and impolite behavior is different fro m culture to culture.
[4] Bharuthram, S. Politeness phenomena in the Hindu sector of
the South African Indian English. Journal of Pragmatics
4. Conclusions 35:1523-1544. 2003.
[5] Brown, P. & Levinson, S. Universals of language usage:
This study made an attempt to introduce the principles of
Politeness phenomena. Pp. 56-324 in Questions and
the most well-known theories of politeness critically. As it Politeness, edited by E. Goody. Cambridge: Cambridge
was indicated the earliest theories of politeness (e.g., University Press. 1978.
face-saving theory of[5]) were seeking universal principles
[6] Brown, P. & Levinson, S. Politeness: Some Universals in
of verbal interaction based on which they can provide a
Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
universal framework for polite verbal behavior on the one 1987.
hand.
On the other hand, the theories (e.g., face-saving theory [7] Chen, R. Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of
politeness strategies between American English and Chinese
of[6];[47]) accounted for the variat ion of such social factors
speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 20:49-75. 1993.
as distance, power, and weight of imposition respectively
and the consequent influence of these variables on the [8] Daniliuc, R. Review: Scollon & Scollon, Intercultural
formulat ion of politeness strategies. Communication. Linguist List. 2001.
Moreover, it was pinpointed that depending on social and [9] Dehkhoda, A. A. Dehkhoda Dictionary. Iran: Tehran. 1980.
contextual variables the interpretation of polite and impolite
behavior is different fro m culture to culture. [10] Dillon, G L., Coleman, L., Fahnestock, J. & Agar, M . Review
article. Language 61:446-460. 1985.
In this regard, it seems that with the ever-increasing
number of interactions among people co ming fro m different [11] Edmondson, W. Spoken Discourse: A model for analysis.
cultural backgrounds, two different frameworks should be London: Longman. 1981.
26 M ohsen Shahrokhi et al.: An Overview of Politeness Theories: Current Status, Future Orientations

[12] Eelen, G. Ideology in Politeness: A Critical Analysis/ [31] Lakoff, R. The logic of politeness; or minding your p's and q's.
Ideologie on Politeness: Een Kritische Analyse. Ph.D. Thesis Pp. 292-305 in 9th Regional M eeting of the Chicago
Thesis, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. 1999. Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
1973.
[13] Eelen, G. A critique of politeness theories. M anchester: St.
Jerome Publishing. 2001. [32] Lakoff, R. What you can do with words: Politeness,
pragmatics and performatives. Pp. 79-106 in Proceedings of
[14] Ehlich, K. On the historicity of Politeness. Pp. 71-107 in the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and
Politeness in Language: studies in its History and Practice, Implicatures, edited by R. Rogers, R. Wall, & J. M urphy.
vol. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and M onographs, edited by Arlington, Va.: Center for Applied Linguistics. 1977.
R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich. Berlin: M outon de Gruyter.
1992. [33] Lakoff, R. The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and
courtroom discourse. M ultilingua 8:101-129. 1989.
[15] Elias, N. politeness/impoliteness in Language: Studies in its
History and Practice, edited by R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. [34] Lakoff, R. Talking power. New York: Basic Books. 1990.
Ehlich. Berlin: M outon de Gruyter. 1969.
[35] Lavandera, B. The social pragmatics of politeness forms. In
[16] Felix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar. Politeness in M exico and the Sociolinguistics, edited by U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, & K.
United States. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. M atthreier. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 1988.
2008.
[36] Lebra, T S. Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu:
[17] Fraser, Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14. University of Hawaii Press. 1976.
B. 1990.
[37] Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics. Essex: Longman. 1983.
[18] Fukada, A. & Noriko, A. Universal politeness theory:
application to the use of Japanese honorifics. Journal of [38] Locher, M . Power and politeness in action: Disagreement in
Pragmatics 36 1991-2002. 2004. oral communication. Berlin: M outon de Gruyter. 2004.

[19] Goffman, E. Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face [39] M alinowski, B. Kinship. M an 30:9-29. 1930.
behavior. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. 1967.
[40] M ao, L. Beyond politeness theory: 'Face' revisited and
[20] Grice, P. Logic in conversation. in Syntax and Semantics: renewed. Journal of Pragmatics 21:451-486. 1994.
Speech Acts 3, edited by P. Cole & J. M organ. New York:
[41] M arquez-Reiter, R. Linguistic politeness in Britain and
Academic Press. 1975. Uruguay: a contrastive study of request and apologies.
[21] Gu, Y. Politeness in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2000.
14:237-257. 1990.
[42] M atsumoto, Y. Reexamining of the universality of face:
[22] Havekate, H. Dialogos Hispanicos de Amsterdam No. 6: La politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics
Semiotica del Dialogo. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 1987. 12:403-426. 1988.

[23] Held, G. Politeness in linguistic research. Pp. 131-153 in [43] M atsumoto, Y. 1989. Politeness and conversational
Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and universals-observations from Japanese. M ultilingua
practice, edited by R. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich. Berlin: 8:207-221.
M ount De Gruyter. 1992. [44] Nwoye, O. Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations
of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics 18. 1992.
[24] Ide, S. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects
of universals of linguistic politeness. M ultilingua 8:223-248. [45] O'Driscoll, J. About face: a defence and elaboration of
1989. universal dualism. Journal of Pragmatics 25:1-32. 1996.
[25] Ide, S. Preface: The search for integrated universals in [46] Scollon, R & Scollon, S. Intercultural Communication.
linguistic politeness. M ultilingua 12:7-11. 1993. M alden: Blackwell. 2001.
[26] Janney, R W. & Ardnt, H. Interactional tact versus [47] Searle, J R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of
intercultural tact. Pp. 21-41 in Politeness in language: studies Language. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. 1969.
in its history theory and practice edited by R. J. Watts, S. Ide,
& K. Ehlich. Berlin: M outon de Gruyer. 1992. [48] Sifianou, M . Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. A
Cross-Cultural Perspective. Oxford: Clareondon Press. 1992.
[27] Juker, A. The relevance of Politeness. M ultilingua 7:375-384.
1988. [49] Spencer-Oatey, H. Rapport M anagement: A framework for
analysis. in Culturally speaking: M anaging rapport through
[28] Kasper, G. Interlanguage pragmatics. Pp. 183-208 in learning talk across cultures, edited by H. Spencer-Oatey. London:
second and foreign languages, edited by H. Byrnes. New Continuum. 2000.
York: The M odern Language Association of America. 1998.
[50] Thomas, J. M eaning in interaction: An introduction to
[29] Keenan, E O. The universality of conversational postulates. Pragmarics. London: Longman. 1995.
Language in Society 5:67-80. 1976.
[51] Turner, K. The principal principles of pragmatic inference:
[30] Krashen, S. We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: politeness. Language Teaching 2:1-13. 1996.
Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. M odern
Language Journal 73:440-464. 1989. [52] Vilkki, L. Politeness, Face and Facework: Current Issues. Pp.
 American Journal of Linguistics 2013, 2(2): 17-27 27

322-332 in A M an of M easure Festschrift in Honour of Fred [55] Watts, R. Ide, S. & Ehlich, K. Politeness in language: Studies
Karlsson, edited by M . Suominen, A. Arppe, A. Airola, O. in its history, theory and practice. Berlin: M ount De Gruyter.
Heinämäki, M . M iestamo, U. M äättä, J. Niemi, K. K. 1992.
Pitkänen, & K. Sinnemäki. Turku: The Linguistic Association
of Finland. 2006. [56] Werkhofer, K. Traditional and modern review: The social
constitution and the power of politeness. in Politeness in
[53] Watts, R. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press. language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, edited by
2003. R. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich. Berlin: M ount De Gruyter.
1992.
[54] Watts, R. Linguistic politeness research. In Politeness in
language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, edited by [57] Xie, C. A Critique of Politeness Theories: Review of Gino
R. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich. Berlin: M ount De Gruyter. Eelen. Journal of Pragmatics: 811-818. 2003.
2005.

View publication stats