d. Be orderly
For example: [4] a. This may be a bit confused, but I remember being in a car.
b. I’m not sure if this makes sense, but the car had no lights.
25
3. The Politeness Principles
Research on linguistic politeness has seen enormous in its development in line with the need to achieve an effective, cross cultural communication. In oxford
dictionary use, ‘politeness’ refers to show good manners and respect for the feelings of other
26
. Politeness as a pragmatic notion refers to ways in which linguistic action is carried out, more specifically, ways in which in relational
function in linguistic action is expressed. Leech sees cultural rules are at work in expressions of politeness and he
attempts to categorize some of the underlying intent behind these forms in more detail by articulating a set of rules or “politeness maxims” in polite dialogues.
Leech’s view of politeness maxims is analogue to Grice maxim. In general Grice’s concept of the cooperative principle was supported, but it is necessary to
give some explanations why the cooperative principle is needed, and why it is not sufficient as an explanation of the relation between sense and force. In brief we
need the cooperative principle to help to account for the relation between sense and force; and this kind of explanation is particularly welcome where it solves
puzzles which arise in a truth-based approach to semantics. However, the cooperative principle in itself cannot explain why people are often so indirect in
25
George Yule, 1996, Loc.cit.
26
A.S Hornby, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. p.1017.
conveying what they mean; and what is the relation between sense and force when non declarative types of sentence are being considered. Because of that, Leech
shall be more interested in a broader, socially and psychologically oriented application of pragmatic principles. This is where politeness becomes important.
27
The maxims of the politeness principle tend to go in pairs as follows:
I The Tact Maxim
The tact maxim is the most important kind of politeness in English speaking society. The Tact maxim applies to Searle’s directive and commisive
which is only applicable in illocutionary functions classified as ‘impositive’, e.g. ordering, requesting, commanding, advising, recommending, etc., and
‘commisive’, e.g. promosing, vowing, offering, etc. Tact maxim, according to Leech, involves minimizing the cost and maximizing the benefit speakerhearer:
28
The tact maxim focuses more on the hearerrecipient. The tact maxim criteria are:
a. Minimize cost to other
b. Maximize benefit to other
[1] You know, I really do think you ought to sell that car. It’s costing more and more money in repairs and it uses up far too much fuel.
29
The tact maxim is adhered to by the speaker minimizing the cost to addressee by using two discourse markers, one to appeal to solidarity, you know,
and the other as a modifying hedge, really, one attitudinal predicate, I do think, and one modal verb, ought. On the other hand, the speaker maximizes the benefit
27
Geoffrey Leech, 1983, Op.cit, p.80.
28
Ibid. p.107
29
Ricahard J Watts, Politeness Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. p.66.
to the addressee in the second part of the turn by indicating that she save a lot of time and money by selling the car.
[2] Can’t you shut up? impolite
30
The tact maxim is not adhered, which suggests extreme irritation with others behavior, so it is impolite.
II The Generosity Maxim
The generosity maxim involves minimizing the benefit and maximizing the cost to self. Generosity maxim only applicable in impositives and
commissives:
31
Generosity maxim focuses more on the speakersender. The generosity maxim criteria are:
a. Minimize benefit to self
b. Maximize cost to self
For examples: [3] You can land me your car impolite
[4] I can lend you my car [5] You must come and have dinner with us
[6] We must come and have dinner with you impolite
32
The offer [4] and invitation [5] are presumed to be polite for two reasons: firstly, because they imply benefit to other, and secondly less crucially, because
they imply cost to self. And in [3] and [6], the relation between self and other on both scales is reversed. Benefit to other but doesn’t imply any cost to self apart
from the verbal effort to giving the advice itself.
30
Geoffrey Leech, 1983, Op.cit, p.108.
31
Geoffrey Leech, 1983, Op.cit, p.133.
32
Ibid
III The Approbation Maxim
The approbation maxim involves minimizing dispraise and maximizing praise to speakerhearer. The approbation maxim is only applicable in
illocutionary functions classified as ‘expressive’, e.g. thanking, congratulating, pardoning, blaming, praising, condoling, etc., and ‘assertives’ e.g. stating,
boasting, complaining, claiming, reporting, etc.:
33
Approbation maxim is closed to politeness strategy of avoiding disagreement.
The approbation maxim criteria are: a.
Minimize dispraise of other b.
Maximize praise of other The examples [7] and [8] will serve to illustrate the illocutionary functions
of thanking and complaining, in which the speaker maximizes praise of the addressee in [7] and minimizes dispraise in [8]:
[7] Dear Aunt Mabel, I want to thank you so much for the Christmas present this year. It was so very thoughtful of you.
[8] I wonder if you could keep the noise from your Saturday parties down a bit. I’m finding it very hard to get enough sleep over the weekends.
34
[9] What an awful meal you cooked
35
In [9], A fall of the approbation maxim, because A say unpleasant things to others. So, it is impolite.
33
Geoffrey Leech, 1983, Op.cit, p.135.
34
Ricahard J Watts, 2003. Op.cit, p.67.
35
Geoffrey Leech, 1983, Loc.cit.
IV The Modesty Maxim
The modesty maxim involves minimizing praise and maximizing praise of self. The modesty maxim is only applicable in expressives and assertives:
36
modesty maxim is found in self deprecating expression. The modesty maxim criteria are:
a. Minimize praise of self
b. Maximize dispraise of self
For examples: [10] A: They were so kind to us
B: Yes, They were, weren’t they?
[11] A: You were so kind to us impolite B:
Yes, I was, wasn’t I? As [10] shows, it is felicitous to agree with another’s commendation
except when it is a commendation of on self. But [11] fault maxim of modesty, it is to commit the social transgression of boasting.
V The Agreement Maxim
The agreement maxim involves minimizing disagreement and maximizing agreement between self and other. The agreement maxim is only applicable in
assertives:
37
Agreement maxim seeks agreement and avoids disagreement. The agreement maxim criteria are:
a. Minimize disagreement between self and other
b. Maximize agreement between self and other
36
Ibid, p.136.
37
Ibid, p.138.
For examples: [12] A: A referendum will satisfy everybody
B: Yes, definitely
[13] A: It was an interesting exhibition, wasn’t it? B: No, it was very uninteresting
As [12] shows, it is agreement maxim because agreement was happened between self and other, in [13] partial disagreement happened so agreement
maxim was fault but it is often preferable to complete disagreement.
VI The Sympathy Maxim
The sympathy maxim involves minimizing antipathy and maximizing sympathy between self and other. The sympathy maxim is only applicable in
assertives:
38
sympathy maxim can be found in polite speech acts as to congratulate, commiserate of express condolence.
The sympathy maxim criteria are: a.
Minimize antipathy between self and other b.
Maximize sympathy between self and other For examples:
[14] I’m terrible sorry to hear about your cat [15] I’m terrible sorry to hear that your car died impolite
Can be interpreted that [13] as a condolence, an expression of sympathy for misfortune, and it might be preferable to say, instead of [14].
39
38
Ibid
39
Ibid. pp. 131-139
In Leech politeness model, each of the six interpersonal maxims has an associated set of scales which help establish the requisite degree of tact,
generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement and sympathy. The following scales
obtain:
• Cost benefit scale: representing the cost or benefit of an act to speaker and hearer.
40
The cost or benefit scale made up of two distinct scales, costbenefit to speaker and costbenefit to hearer. In general, these two measures vary inversely,
but it is possible for them to vary independently. For example, speaker may purpose a course of action which is, in speaker’s estimation, at a cost himself and
beneficial to hearer. So, it is assumed polite. This is appropriately described as an offer.
16 Would you like to use my electric drill? In the other hand, the speaker may purpose a course of action which is
beneficial himself will be assumed impolite, 17 I’d use an electric drill if I were you.
This would be more appropriately described as a piece of advice. • Optionality scale: Indicating the degree of choice permitted to speaker and or
hearer by a specific linguistic act.
41
The optionality scale on which illocutions are ordered according to the amount of choice which speaker allows to hearer. For example:
[18] You may go now, Smith
40
Ibid pp.123-126.
41
Ibid
The speaker is apparently being polite in offering the hearer the choice of doing something.
• Indirectness scale: Indicating the amount of inferencing required of the hearer in order to establish the intended speaker meaning.
42
The indirectness scale on which, from speaker’s point of view, illocutions are ordered with respect to the length of the path connecting the illocutionary act
to its illocutionary goal. The indirectness scale can also be formulated from hearer’s point of view, in terms of the length of the inferential path by which the
force is derived from the sense. This scale subjects to rank of directindirect meaning in conversation.
Direct meaning is polite, indirect meaning is impolite. For example: [19] Would you mind having another sandwich?
• Authority scale: representing the status relationship between speaker and hearer.
43
This is an asymmetric measure, so that someone in authority may use a familiar form of address to someone who, in return, uses the respectful form. For
example: [20] the Chief demanded that I lend him my phone.
• Social distance scale: Indicating the degree of familiarity between speaker and hearer.
44
42
Ibid
43
Ibid
44
Ibid
The overall degree of respectfulness, for a given speech situation, depends largely on relatively permanent factors of status, age, degree of intimacy, etc., but
also, to some extent, on the temporary role of one person relative to another. For example:
[21] Get that essay to me by next week.
D. Defining Dialogue
