Politeness and honorifics I

Abstract

Introduction This chapter continues the discussion of the relationship between politeness and honorifics. It begins by introducing Brown and Levinson’s highly influential politeness theory as well as the main objections to it, and then addresses three problems surrounding the theory when applied to the Japanese honorific system. At that point, I propose some modifications to enhance its analytical framework in addition to an alternative conceptualization of politeness. Brown and Levinson (1978/1987) contend that speakers choose to manifest politeness to minimize the risk of incurring a face-threatening act (FTA). They posit two types of face as universal notions: negative and positive. Negative face is defined as “the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his actions be unimpeded by others,” and positive face as “the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others” (p. 62). Orders and requests, for instance, are inherently intrusive and, therefore, they potentially threaten the addressee’s negative face, whereas disapproval and criticism are unfavorable reactions to the addressee’s ideas or deeds and, consequently, are likely to threaten the addressee’s positive face. Brown and Levinson propose five politeness strategies: (i) not to do an FTA; (ii) to go off the record (i.e. giving only a hint); (iii) to use negative politeness(showing deference); (iv) to use positive politeness (appealing to intimacy, friendliness, and/or camaraderie); and (v) to do an FTA without redressive action (i.e. to say straightforwardly what one wants to accomplish). Based upon the social distance between speaker and addressee, the relative power difference between them, and the rank of imposition intrinsic to the FTA itself in a particular culture, the speaker chooses one of these options according to his/her calculation of the seriousness of the FTA. The riskier the FTA, the lower the number of the politeness strategy the speaker tends to employ (see Figure 21.1).