Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory revisited: Rejection or acceptance?

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University

Abstract

In the present study, I have briefly revisited Brown and Levinson’s (1987) universal theory which has attracted the attention of many linguists to the notion of politeness as an essential feature of communication. Although in studies on politeness Brown and Levinson’s model is more or less considered the standard model, it seems that there is not an agreed-upon consensus that the complex concept of politeness can be simply captured through this linear and static model. In addition, there is a paucity of investigations into the applicability of this model in various cultures. Therefore, I analyzed and identified the strategies found in Iranian English speakers’ requests and apologies following this theory. To this end, adopting a qualitative research approach, data was collected through a multiple-choice discourse completion test and think-aloud protocols. The results of the study revealed that Brown and Levinson’s model can account, to a large extent, for people’s choice of politeness strategies in making both requests and apologies. In particular, the findings pointed to the ubiquitous presence of three influential factors in the degree of politeness; that is, power relations, social distance, and rank of imposition in the participants’ choice of politeness strategies. However, the findings of the study indicated that there are a few shortcomings associated with Brown and Levinson’s model. The study suggests that the weight of politeness cannot be simply measured based on a linear, static basis. The findings supported that for the individuals who participated in this study, politeness was a heavily context-bound and highly dynamic concept. On this basis, I hypothesize that a systematic model of politeness can better explain the variations of individuals’ choice of politeness strategies.

Keywords

References

Brown, J. D. (2001). Pragmatics tests: Different purposes, different tests. In K. Rose , & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 301-325). Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics. Oxford University Press. Ellen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. St. Jerome Press.
Eshghinejad, S., & Moini, M. R. (2016). Politeness strategies used in text messaging: Pragmatic competence in an asymmetrical power relation of teacher–student. SAGE Open, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244016632288
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N
Hayashi, R. (1988). Simultaneous talk from the perspective of floor management of English and Japanese speakers. World Englishes, 7, 269-288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1988.tb00237.x
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routines: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 157-185). Mouton.
Kitao, K., Munsell, P., Kitao, S., Yoshida, S., & Yoshida, H. (1987). An exploratory study of differences between politeness strategies used in requests by Americans and Japanese. Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Document No. ed. 284426.
Leech, G. (2007). Politeness: Is there an East-West divide? Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 167–206. https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.009
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 9-33. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
Mao, L. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: “Face” revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3
Mir-Fernandez, M. (1994). The use of English requests by native Spanish Speakers and its relation to politeness values.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson, & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18-35). Newbury House.
Rudy, D., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Authoritarian parenting in individualistic and collectivistic groups: Associations with maternal emotion and cognition and children’s self-esteem. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 68-78. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.68
Saito, J. (2010). Subordinates’ use of Japanese plain forms: An examination of superior-subordinate interactions in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3271-3282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.014
Sankoff, D., & Laberge, S. (1978). The linguistic marketplace and the statistical explanation of variability. In D. Sankoff (Ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods (pp. 239-250). Academic Press.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
Vinagre, M. (2008). Politeness strategies in collaborative e-mail exchanges. Computers & Education, 50, 1022–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.10.002
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politenes. Cambridge University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Mouton de Gruyter.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 05 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 05 October 2022
  • Accept Date: 27 December 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics