politeness, but rather that they lend themselves to individual interpretation as ‘polite’ in instances of ongoing verbal interaction.
2.3.1. Formulaic and Semi-Formulaic Expressions of Linguistic
Politeness
In order to show that there is no linguistic structures which are inherently polite; Watts first defines the first new term which he calls the
ritualized, formulaic expressions: Highly conventionalized utterances, containing linguistic
expressions that are used in ritualized forms of verbal interaction and have been reduced from fully grammatical structures to the
status of extra-essential markers of politic behavior. They have little or no internal syntactico-semantic structures. Watts 2003:
168
In other words, it can be said that ritualized, formulaic expressions are those expressions formulated and agreed to be used in certain ritual circumstances.
As the examples of this first type of structure, Watts Watts 2003: 169 gives three examples of ritualized, formulaic expression as following:
1 terms of address including first name Bill, David; deferential titles Sir;
first name + surname Richard Wells; title + surname Dr. Weber. 2
Formulaic expressions of specific speech act types like thanking very many thanks; thank you; thank you very much indeed or apologizing
excuse me 3
Ritualized expressions of leave-taking bye; bye-bye
Universitas Sumatera Utara
The second term, semi-formulaic expression, which is the majority of linguistic expressions, then by Watts defined as below:
Conventionalized utterances containing linguistic expressions that carry out indirect speech acts appropriate to the politic behavior of
a social situation. They may also be used, in certain circumstances, as propositional structures in their own right. Watts 2003: 169
As Watts names it semi-formulaic expression, the expressions formulated and agreed to be used by members of certain circumstances are
much different from formulaic, ritualized utterances. If the first type of structure carries out direct speech act, the second type carries out indirect
speech acts. The following examples belong to semi-formulaic expression:
1 hedges of different kinds, i.e. linguistic expressions which weaken the
illocutionary force of a statement: by means of attitudinal predicates I think, I don’t think, I mean or by means of adverbs actually
2 Solidarity markers, i.e. linguistic expressions which appeal to mutual
knowledge shared by the participants, or support and solidarity from participants you know
3 Boosters, i.e. linguistic expressions enhancing the force of the illocution
in some way of course, clearly, etc. 4
Sential structures containing specific modal verbs may I ask you to accept
Universitas Sumatera Utara
As has previously been mentioned, structures such as these are generally not perceived by participants as overt expressions of politeness,
even though they all make supportive contributions toward the facework being negotiated among the participants and thus contribute towards the
politic behavior of the interaction. Because of their frequent lack of salience for the participants, they structure that form part of the politic behavior
rather than expressions of politeness. However, if they are used in excess of what is necessary to maintain the politic behavior of an interaction, they are
open to evaluation as polite.
2.3.2. Expressions of Procedural Meaning EPMs
