Interpersonal Pragmatics Conclusion

We have surveyed various approaches to politeness, and also briefly considered impoliteness. As we have identified the phenomena that pertain to (im)politeness, we have shown how they are culturally variable and, in particular, pointed to some distinctive aspects of British politeness. Readers may be wondering how exactly we conceive of politeness. So we will recap and clarify. We see politeness as an interpersonal attitude. Attitudes, of course, are well established in social psychology, and especially in language attitude research. An attitude involves a favorable or unfavorable reaction to stimuli, and has cognitive, affective and behavioral elements (see Bradac et al. 2001, and references therein). Note that conceiving of politeness as an attitude accommodates the frequently stated point that politeness is subjective and evaluative (e.g. Eelen 2001; Watts 2003; Spencer-Oatey 2005; Ruhi 2008). However, it should be noted that simply referring to “positive” evaluative beliefs is not sufficiently specific. It is unlikely that politeness involves any positive belief. For example, amusing somebody is an interpersonal activity that is generally viewed positively, but it is not at all clear that it would normally be considered a matter of politeness. A key objective for researchers is to understand the subset of positive evaluative beliefs that count as politeness on a particular occasion. The concept of face (Goffman 1967) is one mechanism for trying to doing this. However, we are not convinced that face easily accommodates all politeness-relevant positive beliefs. People also have such positive evaluative beliefs about social organization and behaviors within social organizations – how people should be treated; what is fair and what is not; and so on. Some of these morality-related beliefs are associated with politeness. Spencer-Oatey’s (e.g. 2008) Rapport Management framework does a good job of accommodating this array of evaluative beliefs, incorporating as it does the notion of sociality rights, although it will perhaps inevitably require further adjustments as our understanding of politeness continues to evolve in light of work that further teases out alternative emic perspectives on politeness.

Linguistic politeness refers to linguistic or behavioral forms that are (conventionally) associated with contexts in which politeness attitudes are activated (this view is consistent with, for example, Terkourafi e.g. 2001, outlined above). We acquire linguistic politeness from our experience of social interactions (e.g. Ervin-Tripp et al. 1990; Escandell-Vidal 1996; Snow et al. 1990). It involves the use of expressions that are both contextually appropriate and positively evaluated by the target (cf. Locher and Watts 2005). Remember the use of please, as discussed towards the beginning. It is not used by anybody to anybody, or in any context, and when it is used it is generally considered interpersonally positive. The point about politeness routines/markers is that knowledge of both their appropriate context and their positive social meaning has become conventionally associated with the form. Of course, this does not mean that simply using a politeness routine/marker will result in politeness being achieved. Politeness always involves a contextual judgement; as is frequently pointed out, politeness is not solely determined by forms alone (e.g. Watts, 2003: 168; Locher and Watts, 2008: 78). Not only this, politeness is not some fixed value waiting to be retrieved. It emerges dynamically in interaction, and different participants may make different judgements. So, how do we tap into these judgements? It makes sense to examine the interaction in which they are mediated, as well as the broader societal milieu in which these interactions are situated, as, for example, happens in the interactional approach to politeness.

Impoliteness has been accommodated by recent frameworks designed more with politeness in mind. In fact, it is also accommodated by Leech’s (1983) Politeness Principle, which has a “negative” side to it. It clearly has some connections with politeness, as evidenced not least by the phenomena of mock politeness and mock impoliteness. But it is also obvious that it is not the same as politeness. The interesting issue is to specify in what ways. A key feature is that impoliteness involves emotion – especially emotions such as hurt and anger – in a much more intense way than politeness. Impoliteness obviously has its own set of conventionalized formulae and pragmatic strategies. It is also the case that the social contexts that give rise to impoliteness are not the same as those that give rise to politeness. As far as at least some British cultures are concerned, perceived abuses of power relations, resulting, for example, in patronizing behaviors, are key to many instances of impoliteness.