Summary of the Politeness Theory - Essay Example

?Introduction Throughout an individual’s life, they invariably communicate with other people in day-to-day situations with the interest of gaining knowledge about a given topic or fulfilling any one of the many communication goals that exist. However, for one to be successful in their interactions, they need must adhere to a set of rules; one of the most popular communication principles in contemporary communication practice is the politeness theory by Brown and Levinson (1987). Under the politeness theory, it is assumed that various speech acts such as requests and orders tend to jeopardize the antecedents face needs, these needs are categorized as either concerned with the upholding of a positive or negative self-image (Brown and Levinson, 1978). Primarily, the theory focuses on the sequential context of utterances, which is deemed critical for the comprehensive message interpretation; this is nevertheless examined alongside other conversational factors such as tone and volume. This theory can be applied to a diverse range of social and professional or academic situations including but not limited to classroom pedagogy and language teaching. This paper will critically examine the politeness theory by carrying out a critical analysis several journal articles dedicated to various aspects of the concept with particular attention to its application in a pedagogical context as well as an analysis of the various disputations that have been directed towards challenging it. Summary of the politeness Theory The fundamental notion behind Brown and Levinson politeness theory is the face, which they defined as the public self-image that each individual in a society desires to claim for him/herself. They created a binary framework in which the face was categorized as two divergent albeit related aspects namely the negative and positive face. The positive face is characterized with the self-image, which holds, and it encapsulates their inherent desire to gain approval and appreciation from other people. The negative face is characterized by one’s not wanting to have their actions inhibited or constrained by or for the sake of others; in the context of this theory politeness refers to the steps that individuals take in the interests of preservation of both their face and that of their audience. The term has been explicitly defined as the redressive action through which individual’s counterbalance the effects of face threatening facts (FTAs) redressive is contextually applied in reference to actions that give or reinforce face to the audience of the message (Johnson, Roloff & Riffee, 2004). It is suggested that in communication, whether written, face-to-face of through other media, human beings perpetually attempt to maintain each other’s face. This is manifested in the fact that they often try their outmost to avoid creating through discourse, embarrassing or humiliating situations for each other in order to preserve self-esteem. FTAs are defined as action that infringes on the need of the patient of the information to maintain their self-esteem; therefore, one can say that there are acts that intricacy poses a threat to face (Foley, 1997). According to the theory, orders, suggestions advises reminders, threats or warning and similar acts pose a threat to one’s negative face, on the other hand, positive face is threatened when they incorporate elements of disapproval, ridicule contempt or accusations and insults. Under the positive strategy, politeness is inclined toward the positive self-perception of the speaker has for himself and the listener as well. This confirms that the speaker takes cognizance of the listeners need to be respected and this often happen among close friends or otherwise intimate people (Wilson et al., 1998). The negative politeness on the other hand is based on respect but in a different format as the speaker seeks to respect the negative face wants of the addressee by not interfering with their inherent autonomy of freedom. For example, one may start a request by saying “I don’t want to inconvenience you but…” (Fraser, 1990). The off the record politeness is also called the indirect strategy and it uses subtle and hints to initiate requests or communicate, for example one may say ‘ Damn am I left my wallet in the house” indirectly, this individual may be trying to communicate the fact that he will presently borrow money or expect perhaps a ride home. One can also use vagueness and a humorous or sarcastic tone (Johnson, Roloff & Riffee, 2004). Brown and Levison propose that each individual in a conversation has a degree of understating of FTA; therefore, they are expected to analyze the situations based on the sociological distance between strategies and the relative power between the speaker and hearer (Culpeper 2002, p.91). Johnson, Roloff & Riffee (2004), in an article titled, “Politeness Theory and Refusals of Requests: Face Threat as a Function of Expressed Obstacles”, attempt to apply the politeness theory in pedagogical situation. They rightfully justify the connection by claiming that; some of the examples of human interactions involving threats to face are tutorial situations where tutors and leaners interact as former render instructions to the latter. They present a hypothetical cases study between a student who has not completed their assignment and a teacher. They examine the general relationship between teachers and students in which, the teachers threaten the learners negative and positive faces; in giving those instructions on how to solve problems they directly threaten their negative face or want for autonomy. Conversely, by correcting them and pointing out instances in which they made mistakes or did something wrong, they threaten their positive face or desire for approval (Johnson, Roloff & Riffee, 2004). For instance, a tutor can tell a student, “You did not complete the assignment, complete it now”. In these instructions, there are two levels of face threat that the teacher uses to motivate the student, the first part is a criticism to the learner’s positive face by pointing out what they failed to do and the instructions threaten the negative one (Wang et al, 2008). In a study carried out between teachers and their supervisors, Robertson further elucidates on the pedagogical implication of the politeness theory is through and examination of the nature of teacher learner communication when the former is giving feedback, for effectiveness, the teacher must have both cognitive and motivational goals (Roberts, 1992). Politeness strategies can be used in such situations so the teacher can effectively criticize, propose action and explain a concept, all while preserving the students face to keep them motivated. When as teacher suggests and action, they potentially threaten the student’s face and this is in direct contravention with the teachers secondary goals as a motivator to the student. These conflicts can only be resolved if the teacher successfully manages to select a politeness strategy that will allow them to make corrections and encourage students while at the same time inflicting minimum damage to face. While their summation is on the large logical and in tandem with what one would expect of an integration of the politeness theory in education, they have altogether neglected the critical factor that is cultural variation and how it affects politeness. The Brown and Levison model of face evaluation is dependent on a variety of factors; dominant among these are the underlying cultural considerations. At the end of the day the weight and intensity of the different face threats is relatively circumstantial based on the cultural standing of the parties involved in the interactions (Glick, 2006). The cultural dependency can be described as the ranking of imposition based on their extent to which they are considered to be interfering with an individual’s want of autonomy or approval. On a positive face, the FTAs rank on a basis of several aspects as accomplishment, kindness generosity etc. On the other hand, the evaluation rights, customs and obligations from a particular culture, the cultural specification also the determiners for the relativity of power between the discoursing parties, determine negative face, implication. In a paper titled “The politeness effect: pedagogical agents and learning outcomes the classroom situation” Wang proposes that teachers traditionally have considerable albeit varied power over students therefore they need not apply strong politeness strategies. Learners on the students on the other hand are likely to apply strong politeness strategies owing to their inferior power position (Wang et al, 2008). Politeness is influenced by the social distance between two communicating parties, this tends to reduce and they interact with time and ultimately reduce the intensity of face threating acts. Alternatively ,Wang suggest the inculcation off the record face saving strategy, this way they avoid designating responsibility to the student, borrowing from Danatte et al’s example, this can be demonstrated by the teacher asking the student if he wanted to complete assignment. The off the record phasing makes the student feel they have the option of not doing the work and even when they do it they will feel a greater sense of autonomy than they would have if a direct instruction was issued. The corollary is that teachers can intrinsically motivate their learners through the off record instructions, this is important since by giving them autonomy the bolster the student’s attitude and confidence. In a similar scenario, a teacher can also apply positive politeness to create and impression of common ground between him and the student thereby enhancing the student’s sense of comfort and increasing his propensity for corporation. For instance, the teacher could say, “Why dont we save the file now? “By inserting “we”, the teacher elicits a sense of loyalty and reduces the intimidation on the learner who will feel they are not being ordered but being asked to participate in something. Their positive face is preserved since any negative implications they may have about not saving the file is dispelled or justified by the teachers’ collaboration (Danette et al., 2004, p.234). The teacher student discourse can also be enhanced by using overt approval as a positive politeness strategy, this works like positive reinforcement in the motivation theory, which involves rewarding the subject, possibly with complements. To further understating in relations to the hierarchical relationship between tutors and learners the hypothetical situation can be elevated to an interaction between the teacher and a supervisor. Roberts is a study carried out on teacher-supervisor meetings conjectures that in this context, one will expect the teacher will have greater cause for politeness owing to his subordinate position in the discourse; largely this is true but is subject to a certain factors (Roberts, 1992). For example, the degree of politeness exhibited by the teacher may reduce if he feels he is superior to the supervisor in some way, possibly by virtue of training or experience. The levels of threat will also be varied based on the extent to which the teacher appears to require guidance, if they need prove ineffectual enough to call for serious intervention; the threat face will be considerably higher than if they prove relatively well off. Read alongside Danett et al, and Wang’s articles and in view of the theory as postulated by Brown and Levison, Robert’s summation seems a fairy accurate one and it allows for a more comprehensive discourse since it shows the face saving strategies from both the teacher and students which Danett et al, and Wang avoid. Ever since the Brown and Levison proposal of the Brown and Levison politeness theory, several scholars have come out to question, its universality and they have used empirical evidence to justify their opposition. Fukada and Asato (2002) examine some of the criticism that have been proposed on the theory, among the predominant themes on which opposition is based is the accusation that the model was only applicable in Anglo Saxon cultural space and it does not allow for universality suggested by its entomology (Wierzbicka, 1985). Matsumoto, a Japanese linguist specifically addresses the incongruity that exists between Japanese culture and the theory to object to the theory’s universality. She emphasizes the unique nature of Japanese politeness which is deeply entrenched in the language system, and contends that Japanese is particularly sensitive to social context and honorifics (relation acknowledging devices) which although they serve to indicate the social difference between the interlocutors they do not function as redress for FTA as claimed by the politeness theory. She claims that the several elements of the theory are inapplicable to Japanese as the Japanese’s sentences co not convey the politeness in counterpart’s English ones (Matsumoto, 2009). While this criticism is plausible to some extent, it is not easy to prove empirically since the examples used to demonstrate it are subject to different interpretations making the issue more linguistic than social cultural. Further criticism of the politeness theory is postulated by Ide (1989), claims that the politeness theory overlooked two types of linguistic politeness namely the volitional and discernment politeness, the volitional one is driven by verbal strategies while discernment is operated by the socially prescribed norms (Ide, 1989). By defining politeness as a means through which to save face, Ide argues that the politeness model precludes the discernment politeness, which is a crucial part of Japanese social intercourse. Ides, analysis is by far superior to Matsumoto as it is directed By focusing exclusively on the face saving element of politeness, the Brown and Levison model assumes that all linguistic forms such as honorific exist for the same purpose which is from a logical point of view is a social cultural and linguistic misconception. By categorizing politeness into negative and positive, the Brown and Levison model automatically make honorifics a part of negative politeness and like Matsumoto, she decries this because honorifics apply even when there is no FTA (Ide, 1989) and that they are social pragmatically obligatory linguistic forms. Politeness and technology based instructional tools Wang et al, 2008 (2008) suggests that the universal theory of politeness captures many of the strategies individuals apply in discourse even without being aware that they are using it, nevertheless, the theory is not cast in stone and therefore subject to cultural variations (Wang et al, 2008). Notwithstanding this, based on the contention of the linguists who challenge its universality, one must concede that although their arguments are not particulate erudite, they raise valid points that warrant further research on the theory. Its application in pedagogy has been discussed here coupled with the theories of motivation and others education facilitating theories it is a crucial tools that any tutor would be wise to study and apply within and without the realm of formal instruction. Technology aided learning is one of the emerging issues in education world-wide and to facilitate it several computers and softwares have been developed so they can communicate directly with students and aid them in learning. Bearing in mind the crucial role that politeness has been seen to play in the educational discourse, it is of paramount importance that those tasked with developing tech-based educational tools not only familiarize themselves with incisive workings of the theory but also inculcate its principles into the tools whenever possible. This especially applies to interactive tools that will give feedback to learners; the feedback should be thoroughly examined from a politeness point of view. Existing technologies should also be evaluated and adjusted to ensure they maximize on practice of the theory to enhance effectiveness and by extension the learner’s motivation and altitude. Based on the argument and the interceptions it make with other theoretical frameworks in education such as motivation, Wang’s ideas potentially provides a viable and practical solution in improving the discourse between the teacher and student in class. The interaction of the three face saving strategies is a brilliant way to ensure that the teachers are constantly aware of the student’s level of motivation as well as which tool work best under specific circumstances. Nevertheless, Wang’s argument despite its progressive nature does not pay much attention to the reaction of the students to the usage of the tools and whether they, like the teachers need to be taught how to apply the tools or respond to them. From a behaviorist point of view, one could reasonably be justified in claiming that utilizing the techniques in pedagogy is somewhat manipulative to the students especially if they aware not aware of it. Bibliography Fukada, A and Asato, N. 2004. “Universal politeness theory: application to the use of Japanese honori?cs”. Journal of Pragmatics Volume 36, Issue 11, PP. 1991–2002 Brown, P.. and Levinson, S, C., 1978. “Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena”. In: Goody, E. (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–311. Culpeper, J. 2002. “Politeness in dramatic dialogue. In In Culpeper J, Short M and Verdonk P. (eds.) Exploring the Language of Play: From Text to Context”. New York: Routledge, pp. 83-95. Johnson, D.I. Roloff, M.E. & Riffee, M.A. 2004, "Politeness Theory And Refusals Of Requests: Face Threat As A Function Of Expressed Obstacles", Communication Studies, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 227-238. Foley, W. 1997. Anthropological Linguistics: An introduction. Hoboken, N J. Blackwell. Fraser, B.1990. “Perspectives on politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 219-234. Glick, D.J. 2006, "Miriam A. Locher, Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication", Language in Society, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 729-733 Ide, S., 1989. “Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness”. Multilingua 8 (2/3), 223–248. Matsumoto, Y., 2009. “Politeness and conversational universals—observations from Japanese”. Multilingua. 8 (2/3), 207–221 Roberts , J. 1992. Face threating act and politeness theory; contrasting speeches from supervisory conferences. Journal of curriculum and supervision. Vol. 7 .No 3 289-301. Wang, N., et al. 2008. “The Politeness Effect: Pedagogical Agents and Learning Outcomes”. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. Volume 66, Issue 2, pp.98–112. Wierzbicka, A., 1985. “Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts: Polish vs. English”. Journal of Pragmatics 9, 145–178. Wilson, S. R., Aleman, C. G., & Leatham, G. B. 1998. “Identity implications of influence goals: A revised analysis of face-threatening acts and application to seeking compliance with same-sex friends”. Human Communication Research, 25, 64-96. Read More