Politeness in communication

Since politeness is crucial to the construction and maintenance of social relationships, politeness in communication goes to the very heart of social life and interaction; indeed it is probably a precondition for human cooperation in general. Politeness phenomena have therefore commanded interest from theorists in a wide range of social sciences. It has been observed three various kinds of theoretical approach to the analysis of politeness in communicative language namely politeness as social rules, politeness as adherence to politeness maxims and politeness as face management. When we analyze the first one to the layman, it is a concept designating “proper” social conduct, rules for speech and behavior stemming generally from high-status individuals or groups. In literate societies such rules are often formulated in etiquette books. These “emic” (culture specific) notions range from polite formula like “please” and “thank you”, the forms of greetings and farewells, and so more, elaborate routines for table manners, deportment in public, or the protocol for formal events. Politeness is conventionally attached to certain linguistic forms and formulaic expressions, which may be distinguished in different languages and cultures. This is how the “person on the street” tends to think about politeness, as inhering in particular forms of words. For example, in Uzbek culture, for instance, a kiss on cheek among females who have a close relationship is a sign of politeness and respect. Among heterogeneous members of society, however, it is a taboo in social places as it is highly connected with keeping religious rules among members of society. In English culture, they may use a handshake or hug in greetings or in introducing to each other. During the 1970s this perspective was formulated in linguistic pragmatics in Gricean terms, with politeness seen as a set of social conventions coordinate with Grice’s Cooperative Principle for maximally efficient information transmission (“Make your contribution such as required by the purposes of the conversation at the moment”), with its four “Maxims” of Quality, Quantity, Relevance, and Manner. Another famous scholar Lakoff suggested that three “rules of rapport” underlie the choice of linguistic expressions, rules which can account for how speakers deviate from directly expressing meanings. Choice among these three pragmatic rules namely, “Don’t impose,” “Give options,” “Be friendly” gives rise to distinct communicative styles. Leech’s more detailed proposal is in the same vein. Complementary to Grice’s Cooperative Principle, Leech postulates a Politeness Principle – “Minimize the expression of impolite beliefs,” with the six Maxims of Tact, Generosity, Approbation, Modesty, Agreement, and Sympathy. As with Grice’s Maxims, deviations from what is expected give rise to inferences. Cross-cultural differences derive from the different importance attached to particular maxims. The conversational maxim approach shares with the social norm approach the emphasis on codified social rules for minimizing friction between interactors, and the view that deviations from expected levels or forms of politeness carry a message. In the last approach to politeness known as face management, face work is at the core of politeness. According to Goffman politeness is an aspect of interpersonal ritual, central to public order. He defined face as an individual’s publicly manifest self-esteem, and proposed that social members have two kinds of face requirements as mentioned above like positive face, or the want for approval from others, and negative face, or the want not to offend others. Attention to these face requirements is a matter of orientation to Goffman’s “diplomatic fiction of the virtual offense, or worst possible reading”, the working assumption that face is always potentially at risk in communication, so that any interactional act with a social–relational dimension is inherently face-threatening and needs to be modified by appropriate forms of politeness. A face threatening act is an act which challenges the face wants of an interlocutor. Well-known linguists Brown and Levinson considered face threatening acts may threaten either the speaker’s face or the hearer’s face with positive or negative face in communication. For example, “I think your report was not concise enough” here the hearer’s positive face is threatened because he is blamed for having done something badly and his self-image is negatively evaluated, while in another example like “Please give me that book” the speaker expresses an anticipation of some future action of the hearer and thereby restricts his personal freedom with a negative face.

Conclusion

After observing the importance of politeness in social interactions, it can be understood that people must constantly make various linguistic choices of what they want to say, how they want to say it and the specific sentence types, words or sounds that best unite the what with the how. Right choice of appropriate linguistic forms must be used to achieve politeness in communication. Being on the receiving end of politeness affects both the speaker and addressee differently because polite utterances establish correct relationship between the speaker and the addressee. If we do not see the relationship between ourselves and the person who addresses us as they do, we will be upset by the strategies they employ since these strategies imply the nature of our relationship which is the heart of linguistic politeness. From the strategies that have been observed above, it is discovered friendly and peaceful co-existence is obtained by means of using positive politeness in social interaction. Negative or face threatening acts must be avoided as they lead to impolite responses misunderstanding, friction and conflict among people in their communication. Therefore, it is vital for people to know how politeness is important in communication and the using the accurate choice of its strategies, together with cultural norms of politeness in various nations while having a communication.