Linguistic politeness in English and Russian culture

KEY WODS: politeness, theoretical and analytical paradigms, context, behaviour.

There is a scarcity of academic literature about Russian politeness. It was difficult to get a broad range of data on Russian language use. It appears that Russia does not attract researchers and some seem not to consider Russia to be part of Europe, for example Hickey and Stewart.

According to Sara Mills, ‘Much research on linguistic politeness remains at the level of the utterance. She argued that since Brown and Levinson’s early work on this subject, most research has remained within their theoretical and analytical paradigms, and little has been attempted which would make for a pragmatic, context based analysis of linguistic politeness and impoliteness. For example she states that Holmes simply assumes that politeness is a set of behaviours which can be clearly and indisputably defined: ‘In everyday usage the term “politeness” describes behaviour which is somewhat formal and distancing, where the intention is not to intrude or impose….Being polite means expressing respect towards the person you are talking to and avoiding offending them…Politeness is behaviour which actively expresses positive concern for others, as well as non-imposing distancing behaviour’ [14, p. 140].

Mills argues that when people converse it might not be clear whether they are being aloof towards each other or showing concern in some way. She says that theorists such as Holmes, Coupland, Grimshaw tend to assume that most people would normally consider an act to be either clearly polite or impolite; ‘any utterance which could be interpreted as making a demand or intruding on another’s autonomy can be regarded as a potential face- threatening act’. Even suggestions, advice and requests can be regarded as face threatening acts, since they potentially impede the other persons freedom of action.’

The Cross Cultural Speech Act Realisation Patterns (CCSARP) research project, carried out by an international group of researchers headed by Shoshana Blum-Kulka and others in the late 1980s, set out to determine the realisation patterns of two important speech acts, apologising and requesting, in a range of different languages, including English and Russian. The results were published in Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies.

The project’s conclusions showed that speakers of some of the sample languages researched choose to make apologies and requests in a more direct manner than in others. However, in all language groups the nature of the whole utterance determined whether certain kinds of speech acts would be realised directly or indirectly, without any feeling of impoliteness being used to achieve a desired result of the request or apology.

Blum-Kulka noted that ‘on a theoretical level … the systems of politeness manifest a culturally filtered interpretation of the interaction between four essential parameters: social motivations, expressive modes, social differentials and social meanings … Cultural notions interfere in determining the distinctive features of each of the four parameters and as a result significantly effect the social understanding of ‘politeness’ across societies in the world’. These notions can be further confused by stereotyping, eg. Russians are not very polite, which can harm communications. However, stereotyping should not necessarily be regarded as a negative thought as it can give the basis for research, and pose questions to be answered as to perceptions of another’s manners or politeness. Blum-Kulka does not define culture but says that, ‘it is deviations from the cultural norms which arouse attention’ [1, p. 270].

The Russian researcher, Larina, who conducted empirical research about politeness in Russia around the year 2000, proposes that a lot of problems in intercultural communication emerge from different ideas about politeness. She defines the Russian concept of politeness as, ‘strategic behaviour, a system of culturally specific and highly ritualised communicative strategies which functions to maximise harmonious interaction and minimize the possibility of conflict.’ In this she agrees with Holmes, quoted above, who expresses the need to avoid causing offence.

Larina points out that when people of different cultures mix it is not sufficient to simply have knowledge of linguistic forms, as politeness is not always directly translatable and misunderstandings can result. Politeness is not a set of etiquette formulas, but a set of communicative strategies which vary in different cultures. People of different cultures can find it very difficult to be polite, and to do so is a complex skill needing nonverbal as well as verbal culturally specific skills. Professor Joseph Sternin of Voronezh State University advises non-Russians on the Russian smile. He warns that Russians do not smile without good reason and a constant smile is known as a ‘smile on duty’ showing insincerity, unfamiliar closeness and an unwillingness to show real feelings. The Russian smile is a sign of personal attraction and interaction, not a favour for strangers. He tells how a Russian schoolteacher would say to her pupils, ‘Why are you smiling? Stop it and start writing.’ And a Russian parent would tell their child not to smile but to ‘be serious at school and when adults are talking to you.’ Sternin makes the point that even if the correct linguistic forms are used, a smile can cause the communication to be misunderstood.

Watts notes that in the 16th century politeness in western Europe referred to strategies for constructing, regulating and reproducing forms of cooperative social interaction, but politeness also became closely associated with forms of displaying respect, deference, obedience, currying favour, and increasing the opportunities for self advancement. Shaftsbury adopted the terms of politeness which became the hallmark of the British gentry.

More recent comment on the same theme comes from Hofstede who notes that politeness is closely connected with social standing and organisation, and social and power distance must be considered when looking at the differences between manners in different cultures. Wierzbicka states that linguistic differences are due to ‘aspects of culture much deeper than mere norms of politeness.’ In addition, Langford notes the historical passion for copying the manners and morals of the upper classes. However, Watts points out that current usage of politeness does not indicate class consciousness or elitism or discrimination.

When entering a Russian restaurant a customer would be greeted with the words, ‘Zdravstvyitye, prohoditye pozhalyista, sadites’. Vot menu.’ How do you do, come through please, sit down, here is the menu [translation mine]. The Russian waiter would not add any title as classes were not distinguished in

Russian society. It would be seen as too familiar and the Hearer would not take the waiter seriously. In contrast an English speaking waiter would greet with the title Sir or Madam, and smile. The smile would not be given by a Russian waiter.

Hofstede states, ‘Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty’.

Different cultures can be defined as either individualistic or collectivistic. Different degrees of these definitions can be found within countries as well as between them. And each can exist within the other’s group. Whilst at the same time the general definition can dominate. Foley says that western Europe is essentially individualistic. Hofstede’s research ascribes the third highest individualistic index in the world and the first in Europe to Great Britain, while Larina insists that in contrast, Russia has a collectivist culture.

Wierzbicka notes that, ‘in Anglo-Saxon culture distance is a positive cultural value, associated with respect for autonomy of the individual’. Larina points out that in Russian culture such distance is often seen as indifference to someone and they usually ignore those who they do not know. While getting in touch Russians prefer to shorten the distance rather than maintain it.

Watts describes the Russian understanding of politeness. The Russian word vezhlivost’ means politeness, courtesy, and civility. Watts draws on the work of Rathmayr, who discovered that Russians describe a polite person as ‘likeable, calm, harmonious, attentive, cultivated, well-wishing, amicable, warm, well brought up, reserved, disposed towards recognising her or his mistakes, not gross, not insolent, not rude, positive, someone who always answers letters, and who is prepared to listen to the same thing several times’. Although this suggests that the Russian idea of politeness is one of good-natured affability, the term ‘reserved’ is more in line with Rathmayr’s observation that non-Russian commentators see Russians as speaking with straight forward frankness which goes against the English tendency to show distance, reserve and polite formality.

Social distance in England emphasises privacy. This is one of the most important social values and regulates social relationships with no regard for age, gender or status. Jeremy Paxman calls privacy ‘one of the defining characteristics of the English’ even relating to the buildings in which the English live. English privacy is illustrated in proverbs such as, An Englishman’s home is his castle; Come seldom, come welcome; He travels the fastest who travels alone ; Every man for himself.

Triandis observes that cultures have one word to describe their most important values and that when another language requires many words to describe that value the value is most likely to be of the one-word culture. Larina states that there is no Russian truly comparable word for privacy. The word privacy would be translated by Larina into Russian as , Strangers are forbidden to enter.

In the same way there is no truly comparable word for the root word tovarisch which could be translated into English to include friend, comrade, companion, and colleague, amongst others. This word could be seen as one which could only come from a strongly collectivist, in this case Russian, society which has such proverbs as, It is better to have a hundred friends than a hundred roubles (Ne imey sto dryzei, a imey sto rublei); Even death could be nice while you are among people (Na miru i smert’ krasna); Without a friend one is an orphan, while having a friend one is a member of the family (Byez dryga sirota, s drugom semyanin; Die yourself, rescue your friend (Sam pogibai, a dryga virychai).

Samovar said that proverbs can be passed on from one generation to the next and are ‘a compact treatise on the values of culture and a part of the belief system’.

Larina pointed out the styles of communication and feelings of what is polite or impolite are explained by the feelings about privacy, or lack of need for it.

Russian social distance is emphasised in the use of personal pronouns representing you, singular and plural but also informal and formal. There are two ways of addressing people in Russian, ti and vi . Grammatically ti is always singular and is used when parents address their children and amongst relatives and intimate friends, while vi can be plural to address a group of people, regardless of the relationship, or in the singular when speaking to a stranger or a person who is older, does not belong to the speaker’s society or in formal circumstances and imply or recognise some social or hierarchical distance. This contrasts with English where the pronoun ‘you’ can be used in both ways, as singular or plural regardless of status or relationship. The second person singular personal pronoun ‘thou’ has been replaced by ‘you’ except when addressing God or in Quaker or dialect speech and in poetry and archaic use.

In the Russian inappropriate choice of the pronoun is seen as impolite as it suggests the speaker has the wrong attitude towards the hearer and Larina points out that many problems in intercultural communication are caused due to the difficulty of transmitting attitude to the hearer. Such apparent misunderstanding as the use of ti instead of vi could lead to a hearer having negative feelings towards the speaker who appears to be too familiar for the hearer’s liking. When talking between foreigners produces such errors they can be seen as lexical mistakes rather than intentional rudeness. However, in English vi and ti are both translated as ‘you’ so avoiding the difficulty of correct usage.

Every Russian has a first and patronymic name in addition to the surname, or family, name. For example: Alexei Ivanovitch Garin. The patronymic is derived from the father’s first name. Russians call children and close friends by their first names. The personal pronoun and the verb which follow the name are in the singular. Eg. Alexei, gdye ti bil? (Alexei, where have you been?)

[translation mine].The usual formal form of address includes the patronymic as well as the first name.

The personal pronoun and verb would be in the plural, even when addressing one person. Eg. Alexei Ivanovitch, gdye vi bili? (Alexei Ivanovitch, where have you been?) [translation mine].

On occasion someone may address friends or family using vi and patronymic name as a form of jocular imposition of authority such as when a brother can call his younger sibling. For example, Gdye vi bili, Alexsai Ivanovitch? (Where have you [plural form] been) thereby hinting that the younger boy would be punished by his parents. In general it is advisable to use vi in order not to offend the hearer if the speaker has any doubt as to the correct form. It is then up to the hearer if they wish to be addressed as ti.

Mindrul notes that forms of introduction are complicated because of social, professional and interpersonal factors and these have to be taken into account. Former sovietisms such as tovarishch , translated above, have been replaced. The replacements are considered to be either very informal, vulgar or old fashioned, for example, barishnya , a rich man’s daughter, young lady or mistress.

It is necessary for the students to know the culturally acceptable values of the In England, native English people have one or more first, or Christian names, followed by a surname, or family, name. For example, Peter David Smith. The first name(s) does not necessarily bear any relation to the name of either the father or mother of the child. Within families the English, and Russian, modern tendency is to use family titles such as Mum or Granddad when addressing someone of a previous generation, but use first names when addressing descendants. In such cases diminutives are in very common use in Russia. For example Natasha can become Natashka, Natashin’ka, Natasheshka, Natysin’ka, Natalyushka, in some of the diminutive forms. Choice of diminutive is often circumstance or attitude dependant. In Anglo-Saxon English the first letter is often changed to create the diminutive. For example William can become Will,

Bill and finally Billy. Until recently it was usual to use last name or title plus last name in British formal circles but cultural barriers have changed and it can now be quite common for people of different social backgrounds to use first names within a very short time of meeting For example, it is quite common for staff and students in British universities to use first names when addressing each. Strangers also address each other with first names in radio and television interviews.

Politeness strategies can be understood in terms of culture specific social relations, values and attitudes. As already mentioned English culture respects the privacy of the individual. This can result in keeping a distance between Speaker and Hearer in what can be defined as negative politeness strategies. Brown and Levinson say that negative politeness is a mainstay of respect from one person to another and shows desire for freedom of action and from imposition. Negative politeness in English culture is a complex set of linguistic manoeuvres to reduce the feeling by the Hearer of being imposed upon by the Speaker. This balances with Watts’ suggestion that polite language might be, ‘the language a person uses to avoid being too direct’ or, ‘language which displays respect towards or consideration for others.’ A request can be made and at the same time give the Hearer the ability to refuse without appearing to give offence. For example, ‘You can come to my house, but you don’t have to if you don’t want to’. Fasold says that such a request or invitation suggests that the Speaker feels to be in a superior position for the Hearer to be obliged to carry out the request or that they will be willing to carry out the request for the Speaker’s benefit [5, p. 58]. If the Hearer turns down the offer in the example they can do so without appearing to be impolite, and the Speaker would not feel that they have been let down, having minimized the threat of refusal by softening the request. According to Larina a Russian speaker sees no requirement to reduce the threat as the social distance between interlocutors in Russian is shorter and so such a complex system is not needed to minimize what an English interlocutor would see as a threat to privacy. Larina gives the example where a Russian Speaker making the same request would say ‘Come to my house, please’ This is due to the fact that imperative form plus please changes an order to a request and is preferable for Russians as the imperative with please does not sound too demanding or threatening. In order to formalise this request the Russian Speaker would prefix the request with a modal, Could you come to my house, please. This would not be necessary between equals, nor from someone in power, such as teachers, in Russia, addressing pupils. In order to sound polite the plural pronoun vi and its verb form can be used with the imperative.

However, the Russian would still expect the Hearer to come to the house. The Hearer would know that he or she was expected to go and only a very good reason to decline would be socially acceptable and not cause offence to the Speaker.

In invitations Russians are again more direct in their approach than the English who often use negative politeness. Larina takes the example from Scollon ‘It would be nice to have tea together, but I am sure you are busy’. In this example the option to decline, complete with excuse, has been given to the Hearer. Larina says that a Russian would see this invitation as being false or hollow and would sound as impolite or even mocking to a Russian. Such an invitation would most likely receive a negative response.

Larina gives Russian examples of invitations, translated literally, Let’s go out for coffee. Do you want?

I’m having a birthday party on Saturday. I’d like you to come. Come to my birthday party.

as showing that Russians would rather intensify the pressure on the Hearer than give any choice and reduce the pressure to respond positively.

Larina says that a Russian speaker could say, ‘Let’s go out for coffee. Stop working. Relax. It’s time to have a break’. In the circumstances of the example taken, above, from Scollon [13, p. 234].

In conclusion the essay has shown how cultures differ in their approaches and reasons for linguistic structures to convey polite communication. When translating from one language to another, in this case Russian and English, it is not always appropriate to simply translate literally, as this may cause misunderstanding between interlocutors who come from different cultural backgrounds.

English has a complex system of polite inviting and requesting and it is important that the Russian learner understands this system in order to understand that he or she is not actually being invited to refuse an offer made but more often that not simply being allowed to save face if he needs to refuse. In the same way the English student must appreciate that the Russian native speaker is not being aggressive or rude but simply avoiding any unnecessary language and being straightforward

The forms of address are important in Russian language speech and must be learned by the student of Russian in order not to cause offence at this basic level.

The use of nonverbal language, such as a smile, is just as important. When such a communication, or lack of it, can cause misunderstanding it is vital that students should be aware of this relevance.

In addition, politeness includes avoiding taboo subjects, which may differ in different cultures, intonation patterns, and idiomatic expressions, but these are beyond the length of this essay.

From a pedagogical point of view while learning a second language it is vital for teachers to understand and convey to students the differences of cultural requirements as they can effect the communication and render it ineffective if the cultural differences are not taken into consideration and understood target language in order to communicate successfully with an interlocutor. Although this essay is written with teachers and students in mind it may also be useful for others who would like to bridge the gap between Russian and English and both nationalities would benefit from knowing the peculiarities of each other’s forms of politeness.

Neither system is more polite than the other, they are simply different, something that must be appreciated, especially in such contrasting cultures as the collectivist Russian and the individualistic English.