Ling 131 - Topic 12 (session A)

Task E – Politeness Theory politeness / impoliteness and social (‘ordinary language’) politeness / impoliteness

It is important to bear in mind that the way in which the terms ‘polite’, ‘impolite’ etc are used in Politeness Theory is not exactly the same as their use in ‘ordinary language’. In other words, in Politeness Theory they are being used as technical terms. So if we are not careful we can be caught out by running together the technical and ordinary language uses.

In ordinary language, when we talk of someone being polite or impolite we are referring to the overall social effect of the linguistic and non-linguistic behaviour involved. But in politeness theory the notions of politeness and impoliteness are being applied to detailed factors one at a time. It is only when all the factors are seen together, and in some particular context, that the social or ‘ordinary language’ meaning of politeness comes into play.

Let us look at a few examples to help distinguish the ordinary language (social) and Politeness Theory notions of politeness and impoliteness from one another.

For each of the examples below, work out whether you think (a) social and (b) Politeness Theory politeness and/or impoliteness are involved, and compare your observations with ours.

1. Imagine that you are in a lecture and someone says:

‘We are getting a bit hot in here. Could we have the window open?’

Is this request impolite?

2. You realise that a fire has started and you yell at your companions: ‘Fire! Get out now!’

Is this utterance impolite? Compare your answer with ours.

3. You are trying to read, but your flatmates are horsing around in the flat.
You yell, ‘I’m trying to read. Get out now!’

Is this utterance impolite?

In social terms it is very unlikely that anyone would think this request to be impolite. But in Politeness Theory terms the request for the window to be opened threatens the negative face of the lecturer, who will have his/her lecturing goals interfered with while getting the window opened. This Politeness Theory impoliteness is mitigated by the hedging use of ‘a bit’, the use of an interrogative rather than an imperative, for example, and the inclusive use of ‘we’ which includes the lecturer.

This kind of example does not feel impolite in ordinary language terms because (a) the size of the imposition is pretty small and (b) there is plenty of mitigation for the Face Threatening Act (FTA).

In Politeness Theory terms, the second sentence is a bald on record FTA, threatening the addressees’ negative faces. You have used a direct command and specified that the command must be obeyed immediately. But in social terms the size of the imposition is small compared with the danger of getting trapped in a burning building, and the ‘Fire!’ of the first sentence constitutes an explanation, and therefore mitigation, of your face-threatening behaviour. So no one would accuse you of being impolite, in spite of your use of an FTA.

In Politeness Theory terms, the second sentence is a bald on record FTA, threatening the addressees’ negative faces. The first sentence mitigates the FTA somewhat by giving a reason for your behaviour.

In social terms the size of the imposition is fairly large, and you could have acted on a more polite way yourself, by going to read in another room, for example. So your flatmates may well think that you have been impolite or unreasonable, even though their own behaviour was inconsiderate in the first place.

	skip main nav Ling 131: Language & Style
	Home ¦ Introduction ¦ Contents ¦ Glossary

Topic 12 - Meaning between the lines (Session B) > Politeness and impoliteness > Task E


	Next: Task F – Getting a few more terms straight

Home ¦ Outline ¦ Contents ¦ Glossary

Politeness and impoliteness

Task E – Politeness Theory politeness / impoliteness and social (‘ordinary language’) politeness / impoliteness