Overview
Politeness theory is a framework in sociolinguistics and pragmatics that explains how speakers manage social relations through linguistic strategies intended to preserve each participant’s “face,” an individual’s public self-image. The theory was originally formulated by Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson in their 1987 monograph Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. It posits that interpersonal communication is guided by universal constraints to avoid or mitigate face-threatening acts (FTAs).
Historical Development
- 1970s–early 1980s: Brown and Levinson built on Erving Goffman’s concept of “face” (1971) and on earlier politeness research by sociologists such as Erving Goffman and linguists like Dell Hymes.
- 1987: Publication of Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage presented the core model, introducing the distinction between positive face (the desire to be liked and approved) and negative face (the desire to be autonomous).
- 1990s–2000s: The model spurred extensive cross‑cultural research, leading to refinements such as the “politeness strategies” typology (e.g., bald on‑record, positive politeness, negative politeness, off‑record).
- 2000s onward: Scholars such as Geoffrey Leech, Dale Blount, and Jun‑ichi Abe have proposed alternative or complementary models (e.g., the “politeness as a social strategy” approach, the “face negotiation theory” in intercultural communication).
Core Concepts
| Concept | Description |
|---|---|
| Face | Derived from Goffman; two components: • Positive face: desire to be approved, admired, or appreciated. • Negative face: desire for autonomy and freedom of action. |
| Face‑Threatening Acts (FTAs) | Any communicative act that potentially diminishes either the speaker’s or the hearer’s face. Examples include criticism, requests, refusals, and blunt statements. |
| Politeness Strategies | Methods to mitigate FTAs, classified by Brown & Levinson as: 1. Bald on‑record: direct, unmitigated expression. 2. Positive politeness: expressions that emphasize solidarity, intimacy, or common ground. 3. Negative politeness: expressions that respect the hearer’s autonomy (e.g., hedges, indirectness). 4. Off‑record (indirect): ambiguous or indirect utterances that allow plausible deniability. |
| Weightiness | The degree of threat an act poses, determined by factors such as social distance, relative power, and the magnitude of the imposition. These factors guide the choice of strategy. |
Applications
- Cross‑cultural communication: Comparative studies have examined how politeness strategies vary across languages (e.g., English vs. Japanese vs. Korean).
- Computer-mediated discourse: Researchers have applied the theory to email, instant messaging, and social media to understand tone and perceived politeness.
- Second language acquisition: Pedagogical materials incorporate politeness norms to help learners produce pragmatically appropriate utterances.
- Discourse analysis: Analyses of political speeches, business negotiations, and courtroom interactions often reference politeness theory to interpret power dynamics.
Criticisms and Developments
- Cultural Relativism – Critics argue that the “universals” posited by Brown & Levinson are overly Eurocentric; subsequent research (e.g., Ting-Toomey, 1999) emphasizes culture‑specific face notions.
- Over‑formalization – Some scholars claim the model’s categorical strategy list is too rigid to capture fluid, context‑dependent politeness practices.
- Gender and Power – Feminist and critical discourse scholars have highlighted that the theory insufficiently addresses how gendered expectations shape politeness behavior.
- Alternative Models – Leech’s politeness principle (1983) and the “politeness as social identity” perspective (e.g., Holland, 1990) propose different mechanisms for managing face.
Related Concepts
- Face (sociology)
- Speech act theory
- Pragmatics
- Conversation analysis
- Intercultural communication
Key References
- Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
- Goffman, Erving. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Pantheon Books, 1967.
- Leech, Geoffrey. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, 1983.
- Ting-Toomey, Stella. “Communicating across cultures.” The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Communication, 1999.
- Holmes, Janet, ed. Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice. Routledge, 1995.
See also
- Face (sociology)
- Speech act theory
- Pragmatics (linguistics)
- Conversational implicature
This entry reflects the consensus in peer‑reviewed literature up to the knowledge cutoff of 2024.
