Published on March 21, 2009
Discussion on the Notion of Politeness in a Cross - Cultural Context By Yusuf Kurniawan I. Introduction In our daily life we interact with people in our surrounding. It is one of the basic characteristics of human beings that they are created as individual and social creatures. As social beings, humans may not abide the custom and manner in their environment. The norms and orders are usually conventions which are not explicitly written like laws or acts but they are believed and approved as social conventions. And one of the conventions is politeness. Politeness can be in the form of behaviour as well as verbal language. In every country and place, politeness has its own form and application. Something that is considered polite in a country or in an area has not certainly been considered polite too in the other country or place. For example, the behaviour of Arabian of holding someone else’s beard is considered an honour for the Arabians themselves. But, for other people from different country with different cultural background, such cultural form can be considered very impolite. So is a language. In English it is very common to call the name of someone who is older than the speaker/caller without preceding the name with certain attribute. For instance, a sister speaks to her older brother. She
could call him with his name directly. Or another example, in our daily interaction in the university milieu. I would call the Senior Clerk of the Institute of Communications Studies, Christine Bailey by her first name without any attributes even though she is much older than I. I would not call her Mrs. Christine or Mrs. Bailey. Probably it is alright but it will sound unfamiliar and too formal. In English it is more familiar if I call her Christine. However, in Indonesian it will be considered very impolite. A speaker who calls the name of someone else who is older than him/her usually must precede with attribute ‘Mas’ for male and ‘Mbak’ for female. Or, in formal situation we should call a person with attribute ‘Pak’ or ‘Bu’(Mr or Mrs). So, in Indonesian context if I should call Christine Bailey, I will call her ‘Bu Christine’. The examples are merely a few of many examples that we may find in comparative study of two languages or more. By applying Brown and Levinson theory I would find out the application of politeness in its use in cross-cultural context within English and Indonesian. II. Analysis According to Brown & Levinson, ‘in order to make sense of what is said in an interaction, we have to look at various factors which relate to social distance and closeness (1987:59). I agree with what is stated by Brown here, that actually we can not neglect the factors around us that may relate with or influence the interaction of our daily interaction with people. When it is Page | 2
related with politeness, there are many factors that might influence the degree of politeness applied by two people or more involved in an interaction or conversation. They will consider the relative status of the participants based on for example age and power (Brown & Levinson,1987:59). Interaction between two participants of different age can cause difference in their way of communicating and the degree of politeness. Moreover, power can also cause the interaction between two participants much more different even though the distance of age between them might be afar. For example when a boss speaks to his people. Although he is still younger than his people he may speak to them who are older than him with rather impolite way. Might be like someone talks to his close friend. Moreover, the politeness are actually not merely determined or influenced by the social distance and age of the participants. Politeness may also be influenced by other factor like degree of friendliness (Brown & Levinson, 1987:59). Two people who have close relationships and two people who are not familiar to each other will be interacting differently in term of politeness. We may look at the following examples. Both of them are asking what someone else said. In the example (a) the speaker has been familiar with the addressee/hearer. While in example (b) the speaker is not familiar with the addressee. (a) ‘What did you say?’ (b) ‘Excuse me, could you repeat what you said? Page | 3
In Indonesian politeness is also connected with social distance and age of the participants of interaction. However, there is a difference in English and Indonesian in applying politeness. As it has been stated before in the Introduction that Indonesian considers much the attribute put before the name of someone we call. Even though we have known the person very much, and we have a close relationship with her/him, still we have to put ‘Mas’ or ‘Pak’ for men and ‘Mbak’ or ‘Bu’ for women. II.a Politeness Theories There are many politeness theories. Among others are proposed by Leech, Brown and Levinson, Grundy, Grice and Fraser. However, this essay is only going to focus on Brown and Levinson’s theory since it is the most influential one. a. Leech’s Theory According to Leech (1980  and 1983a in Thomas, 1995:158) ‘politeness (and the related notion of ‘tact’) is crucial in explaining “why people are often so indirect in conveying what they mean”’. Leech introduces the Politeness Principle (PP) which principally minimizes the expression of impolite beliefs; and maximize the expression of polite beliefs. b. Brown and Levinson’s Theory Page | 4
According to Brown & Levinson (1987) the theory of politeness here is based on assumption that all competent adult members of a society have (and know each other to have): [I] Face, namely the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects: a. Negative face b. Positive face [II] Certain rational capacities, in particular consistent modes of reasoning from ends to the means that will achieve those ends (Brown & Levinson, 1987:61-62). Brown and Levinson in this case work with Goffman’s notion’s of ‘face’, namely a properti that is owned by all human beings and comparable to self-esteem (Grundy, 2000:156). The term ‘face’ here is in the sense of ‘reputation’ or ‘good name’. It has actually been used in English initially in 1976 within the phrase ‘Arrangements by which China has lost face’(Thomas. J, 1995:168). Within politeness theory ‘face’ is comprehended as every individual’s feeling of self-worth or self-image. This image can be damaged, maintained or even enhanced through interaction with others. And the face itself has two faces: positive and negative. And what is meant by negative face is the need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others. Or it is defined as “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction – i.e freedom of action and freedom from imposition” (Coulmas, 1997:378). Page | 5
The word ‘negative’ here is not intended to be bad or having improper meaning. For instance: Example 1 Would you please do me a little favour to carry my suitcase in? Would and please show euphemism to the addressee. And little minimizes the quantity of help that might be given by the addressee to the speaker/addresser. All of these are oriented to the addressee’s negative face and seek to compensate for and play down the imposition and potential loss of face. It is an example of negative politeness. But it is the opposite of ‘positive’. Positive face is the need to be accepted, even liked, by others, to be treated as a member of the same group, as a friend, confidant and to know that his or her wants are shared by others. As in the following example: Example 2 Want a help buddy? The sentence is straight without any attributes that create a ‘distance’ between the speaker and the addressee. ‘buddy’ is used instead of ‘Mr/Miss’ to lessen the formality. And the sentence sounds very friendly, as though the speaker had been quite close to the addressee. The speaker wants to be accepted as a friend, even though he might have not been familiar with the addressee. The face itself is classified into two kinds, namely ‘face threatening act’ (FTAs) and ‘face saving act’ (FSAs). Face threatening act is an act or utterance Page | 6
that is spoken by a speaker which represents a threat to another individual’s expectations related with self-image. Certain illocutionary acts can damage or threaten another person’s face. While face saving act is to describe an action or utterance that might be interpreted as a threat to another’s face, but the speaker then can say something to lessen the possible threat (Brown & Levinson, 1987:61). b.1 Strategies to perform face-threatening acts. First thing first to be decided in this theory is whether to perform face- threatening acts (FTA) or not. If the answer if yes then there are four possibilities: ‘three sets of ‘on record’ superstrategies (perform the FTA on- record without redressive action (bald-on-record), perform the FTA on-record using positive politeness, perform the FTA on-record using negative politeness and one set of ‘off-record’ strategies’ (Thomas J, 1995:169). I would discuss these strategies one by one. Let’s look at the following example of asking a neighbour not to play his stereo too loudly because you are going to sleep. a. Performing an FTA without any redress (bald on-record) ‘Don’t play your noisy stereo any more, I want to sleep.’ The speaker said straightforward to the addressee without performing face saving acts. In this case, the addressee is threatened by the speaker’s words. On this occasion the addressee might be offended by the speaker’s request since he uses ‘noisy’ and ‘any more’. As though the speaker did not want to hear Page | 7
the sound from the stereo any further and it is like a warning to the addressee for not to play his stereo any more. b. Do the FTA on record with redress (positive politeness) ‘My friend Jim, I know you want to stay up late to listen to your new stereo. But how if you turn it down so you could also enjoy it more.’ In this case the speaker is more polite in asking his neighbour to stop playing his stereo. He uses positive politeness ‘My friend Jim’, ‘how about’. These words shows solidarity and friendliness, that they both need to sleep and take a rest. Compared to the previous expression, this one is more acceptable. In the sense that the addressee is not much threatened by the speaker’s request. c. Performing an FTA with redress (negative politeness) ‘I’m awfully sorry to request you, but could you please turn your stereo little bit down?’ In this sentence the speaker perform an FTA but in negative politeness. It sounds formal because he uses ‘could’, ‘little bit’. These words show euphemism and minimization of quality and quantity of the request. It is polite but formal, especially for English people. However, in Indonesian the expression is more appropriate and much more acceptable among people who are involved in the interaction. Because basically in Indonesian context, the more formal of the words used the more polite it will be. If it is seen from Brown and Levinson’s theory, performing an FTA with negative politeness is even appropriate in Indonesian context, in terms of the familiarity and formality. Page | 8
d. Do the FTA off-record ‘Are you okay so you play your stereo so loudly?’ Performing off-record politeness include: ‘give hints’, ‘use metaphors’, ‘be ambiguous or vague.’ e. Do not perform FTA It is Brown and Levinson’s final strategy. Not to perform FTA is chosen if a speaker is afraid of threatening an addressee. It means that he/she prefers to be speechless. And there is nothing much to discuss about saying nothing. After learning Brown and Levinson’s strategies at a glance, I would like to compare the application of Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness in cross-cultural context with Indonesian. I want to use two cases, namely in responding a compliment and making a request in the following examples. In responding a compliment - It is very common in English to respond a compliment from someone else is by saying ‘Thank you’. Or in other words if someone is complimented he/she will tend to receive the compliment instead of denying it. For example: Example 3 A: ‘You look very beautiful!’ B: ‘Really? Well, thank you.’ It has been very common to say ‘thank you’ for responding a compliment. It does not have any hidden meaning that means boastful. According to Brown Page | 9
and Levinson’s theory such answer is considered negative politeness since the speaker does not apply face threatening act to the addressee. On the contrary, in Indonesian context if someone receives a compliment he/she tend to be modest or denying the compliment. Look at the example 4 Example 4 A: ‘Kamu cantik sekali dengan gaun itu.’ (You look very attractive with that dress) B: ‘Ah kamu bisa saja, wajah pas-pasan begini dibilang cantik.’ (You’re kidding, I’m not beautiful) Based on Example 4 we can actually acknowledge that B (the addressee) is actually beautiful. But she does not want to acknowledge it. And the addresser (A) did mean to say that she is beautiful. In Indonesian context, such scene or conversation is very common. One who receives a compliment tends to be modest or even sometimes he/she vilifies himself/herself. But this is the way Indonesian people respond to compliments. It is intended to be polite toward the speaker who compliment him/her. In this case Brown and Levinson’s theory is not applicable. In making requests - In requesting someone else to do something it is different in cross-cultural context. In English context (particularly) and in western societies’ context Page | 10
(generally) people most likely use certain strategy to request someone else to do something. They tend to use indirect language. Example 5 A: ‘Would you mind opening the door for me, please?’ B: ‘Absolutely not.’ In Example 5 the speaker uses would you mind instead of direct expression such as Open the door! It is because the speaker does not want to threaten the addressee’s face. He tends to use positive politeness. It is different from Indonesian. In Indonesian most of requests are performed in direct sentence. Let’s have a look at the following example: Example 6 ‘Tolong bukakan pintu!’ (Please open the door) It is very rare in Indonesian we use indirect sentence to make a request. It will become unfamiliar to Indonesian if they should say in indirect sentence like: ‘Would you please not to smoke?’ Literally, if it is translated into Indonesian will be: ‘Maukah anda tidak merokok?’. The sentence will be very unfamiliar for Indonesian. Even it will be misinterpreted by hearer to quit smoking. They never make or receive requests in such a way. So, if such request is interpreted into Indonesian will be: ‘Please do not smoke.’ Or ‘Mohon tidak merokok’. It is the most common request. Page | 11
III. Conclusion Based on the analysis I could draw some conclusions that: - Power, (social) distance and imposition determine the strategy of applying politeness within an interaction with people. The greater the distance and the imposition, the lesser intimation between the participants. - Social value for Indonesian society seems to be more forwarded than individual one. Moreover, one thing that might make a difference between the application of theory of politeness in Indonesia and in western societies is that Indonesian society has been accustomed to be helpful and social to each other. So when one need a help he/she will be willing to help without any feelings of being threatened. - Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness tend to use face threatening act. In the sense that they are too afraid of being refused by someone else. And their theory could not be guaranteed to be applicable in other nations or other societies. Because every society has their own value or measurement and concept of politeness. We can not make a judgement that Indonesian people or society is more polite than British, and on the contrary wise. Or in a larger scale, we can not judge that western people are more polite than Asian people. This is not a parameter or measurement to measure the politeness or impoliteness in different cultures and societies. I think it is more appropriate to say that politeness will merely be mostly acceptable where it comes from. Page | 12
REFERENCES Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1987) Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coulmas, F. (1997). The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Davies, B. Discourse Analysis Lecture: Lecture 10. Lectured on 2 November 2000. Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics (Second Edition). London: Arnold Publishers. Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman. Page | 13
Discuss the notion of politeness in the context of cross-cultural communication. Based on your lecture readings and tutorial discussions, discuss Brown and ...
... politeness in the context of cross-cultural ... Context of Cross-Cultural Communication Essay. ... notion of politeness in the context of cross ...
The implications of studying politeness in Spanish-speaking contexts A discussion. ... notions calls for a socio-cultural ... cross-cultural study of ...
... A Critique of Politeness Theories, ... (the common-sense notion of politeness) ... The socio-cultural context of Greek politeness’, ...
Reexamining the notion of negative face in the Japanese Socio linguistic politeness of request. Nana Okura Gagné
RE-EXAMINING POLITENESS, FACE AND THE JAPANESE ... of Japanese and to the larger discussion on cross-cultural ... The notion of Politeness revisited ...
... hence providing cross-cultural data ... In most theoretical discussions, politeness is analysed ... Impoliteness in a Cultural Context’ by ...
We use language differently in formal and casual contexts. ... SPEECH FUNCTIONS, POLITENESS AND CROSS ... linguistic politeness is ...
their model of politeness (e.g., notion of politeness, ... and how it differs from politeness in context ... Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural ...