Page 117 - 6688

117
LECTURE NINE

POLITENESS AND INTERACTION

In much of the preceding discussion, the small-scale scenarios presented to illustrate
language in use have been populated by people with virtually no social lives. Yet, much of what
we say, and a great deal of what we communicate, is determined by our social relationships. A
linguistic interaction is necessarily a social interaction.
In order to make sense of what is said in an interaction, we have to look at various
factors which relate to social distance and closeness. Some of these factors are established
prior to an inter-action and hence are largely external factors. They typically involve the relative
status of the participants, based on social values tied to such things as age and power. For
example, speakers who see themselves as lower status in English-speaking contexts tend to
mark social distance between themselves and higher status speakers by using address forms
that include a title and a last name, but not the first name (for example, Mrs Clinton, Mr Adams,
Dr Dang). We take part in a wide range of interac-tions (mostly with strangers) where the social
distance deter-mined by external factors is dominant.
However, there are other factors, such as amount of imposition or degree of
friendliness, which are often negotiated during an interaction. These are internal to the
interaction and can result in the initial social distance changing and being marked as less, or
more, during its course. This may result, for example, in partici-pants moving from a title-plus-
last name to a first-name basis within the talk. These internal factors are typically more relevant
to participants whose social relationships are actually in the process of being worked out within
the interaction.
Both types of factors, external and internal, have an influence not only on what we say,
but also on how we are interpreted. In many cases, the interpretation goes beyond what we
might have intended to convey and includes evaluations such as 'rude' and 'inconsiderate', or
'considerate' and 'thoughtful'. Recognizing the impact of such evaluations makes it very clear
that more is being communicated than is said. The investigation of that impact is normally
carried out in terms of politeness.

Politeness
It is possible to treat politeness as a fixed concept, as in the idea of 'polite social
behavior', or etiquette, within a culture. It is also possible to specify a number of different
general principles for being polite in social interaction within a particular culture. Some of these
might include being tactful, generous, modest, and sym-pathetic toward others. Let us assume
that participants in an interaction are generally aware that such norms and principles exist in
the society at large. Within an interaction, however, there is a more narrowly specified type of
politeness at work. In order to describe it, we need the concept of face.
As a technical term, face means the public self-image of a per-son. It refers to that
emotional and social sense of self that every-one has and expects everyone else to recognize.
Politeness, in an interaction, can then be defined as the means employed to show
awareness of another person's face. In this sense, politeness can be accomplished in
situations of social distance or closeness. Showing awareness for another person's face when
that other seems socially distant is often described in terms of respect or deference. Showing
the equivalent awareness when the other is socially close is often described in terms of
friendliness, cama-raderie, or solidarity. The first type might be found in a student's question to