8.3 Politeness Theory and Cross-cultural Pragmatics

Politeness Theory explores how we maintain social harmony through language. It delves into face-saving strategies and cultural norms that shape our interactions. Understanding these concepts is crucial for effective communication across diverse cultural contexts.

Cross-cultural Pragmatics examines how cultural differences impact language use and interpretation. It highlights the challenges of navigating diverse communication styles and the importance of developing intercultural competence to avoid misunderstandings in global interactions.

Face and politeness theory

Concept of face and its components

Top images from around the web for Concept of face and its components

• 

  Frontiers | A False Trail to Follow: Differential Effects of the Facial Feedback Signals From ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Eight Cultural Forces - The lens & the lever — The Learner's Way View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | Cross-Cultural Differences and Similarities in Human Value Instantiation View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | A False Trail to Follow: Differential Effects of the Facial Feedback Signals From ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Eight Cultural Forces - The lens & the lever — The Learner's Way View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Concept of face and its components

• 

  Frontiers | A False Trail to Follow: Differential Effects of the Facial Feedback Signals From ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Eight Cultural Forces - The lens & the lever — The Learner's Way View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | Cross-Cultural Differences and Similarities in Human Value Instantiation View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | A False Trail to Follow: Differential Effects of the Facial Feedback Signals From ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Eight Cultural Forces - The lens & the lever — The Learner's Way View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Face denotes public self-image individuals claim in social interactions
• Manifests differently across cultures while remaining universal
• Comprises two aspects according to Brown and Levinson's politeness theory
  • Positive face involves desire for appreciation and approval
  • Negative face entails desire for autonomy and freedom from imposition
• Face-threatening acts (FTAs) jeopardize speaker's or hearer's face
  • Understanding FTAs crucial for social interaction navigation (refusing invitations, criticizing)
• Face work encompasses verbal and non-verbal strategies maintaining or enhancing face
  • Complimenting someone's appearance
  • Avoiding direct disagreement

Significance in politeness theory

• Explains why individuals employ politeness strategies in communication
• Predicts linguistic behavior across different contexts and cultures
• Forms foundation for face negotiation theory
  • Explores how people from different cultures negotiate face in conflict situations
• Influences choice of politeness strategies based on cultural norms
  • Western cultures may prioritize negative face (individual autonomy)
  • Eastern cultures may emphasize positive face (group harmony)

Positive vs Negative politeness

Characteristics and strategies

• Positive politeness orients towards hearer's positive face
  • Shows solidarity, friendliness, and in-group membership
  • Uses in-group identity markers (nicknames, shared slang)
  • Seeks agreement and common ground
  • Shows interest in hearer's wants and needs
• Negative politeness targets hearer's negative face
  • Demonstrates respect for autonomy and minimizes imposition
  • Employs indirect requests ("Would you mind...?")
  • Uses hedging ("I was wondering if...")
  • Incorporates formal politeness markers (honorifics, formal titles)

Factors influencing strategy choice

• Social distance between interlocutors affects strategy selection
  • Close friends may use more positive politeness (casual language, direct requests)
  • Strangers or superiors may warrant negative politeness (formal language, indirect requests)
• Perceived power dynamics impact politeness strategy
  • Subordinates may use more negative politeness with superiors
  • Peers may employ a mix of positive and negative strategies
• Cultural preferences shape strategy use
  • Some cultures favor positive politeness (Latin American countries)
  • Others lean towards negative politeness (Japan, Korea)
• Complex social situations may require simultaneous use of both strategies
  • Balancing solidarity and respect in professional settings

Cultural norms on pragmatics

Influence on language use and interpretation

• Cultural norms significantly shape pragmatic language use
  • Affects interpretation of speech acts (requests, apologies, compliments)
  • Influences use of politeness strategies
  • Impacts understanding of conversational implicatures
• High-context vs low-context communication styles (Edward T. Hall's theory)
  • High-context cultures rely more on implicit communication (Japan, China)
  • Low-context cultures prefer explicit, direct communication (USA, Germany)
• Power distance (Geert Hofstede's dimension) affects language use
  • High power distance cultures use more formal language and honorifics (India, Malaysia)
  • Low power distance cultures have less rigid linguistic hierarchies (Scandinavian countries)

Theoretical frameworks and concepts

• Pragmatic transfer occurs when speakers apply L1 pragmatic rules to L2
  • May lead to miscommunication or perceived rudeness
• Cultural scripts (Anna Wierzbicka's theory) provide insight into culture-specific norms
  • Explain appropriate linguistic behavior in various social situations
  • Help understand cultural differences in pragmatic norms
• Universality vs culture-specificity debate in pragmatics
  • Explores extent of shared pragmatic principles across cultures
  • Examines culturally determined aspects of pragmatic competence

Challenges of cross-cultural communication

Pragmatic failures and misinterpretations

• Pragmatic failure leads to unsuccessful conveyance or understanding of intended meaning
  • Misinterpreting indirect requests as statements
  • Perceiving polite refusals as acceptance
• Differences in speech act realization patterns cause misunderstandings
  • Varying levels of directness in making requests across cultures
  • Different expectations for apology formulations
• Interpretation of non-verbal cues varies significantly
  • Gestures may have different meanings (thumbs-up sign, head nodding)
  • Acceptable physical distance during conversation differs (proxemics)

Navigating cultural differences in communication

• Turn-taking norms and silence interpretation vary across cultures
  • Some cultures value longer pauses between turns (Finnish culture)
  • Others prefer rapid turn-taking with minimal gaps (Mediterranean cultures)
• Politeness systems and face-saving strategies differ
  • May result in perceived rudeness or over-formality
  • Example: Direct communication style in German culture vs indirect in Japanese culture
• Translating culturally-bound expressions presents challenges
  • Idioms may lose meaning or become inappropriate in other contexts
  • Humor and sarcasm often do not translate well across cultures
• Developing intercultural pragmatic competence essential for effective communication
  • Requires awareness of cultural differences
  • Involves acquiring knowledge of diverse pragmatic norms
  • Necessitates skills in adapting communication style to different cultural contexts