International Behaviors with Strangers

Travelling to a foreign country can be exciting, but also frustrating. Many people will encounter difficulty adjusting to a new culture. Speaking each day in a new language can be difficult, even if one has studied it for years. This is because in order to communicate effectively, it is necessary to know more about a language than grammar and vocabulary. One must understand, among other things, the formulas and conventions that make up polite discourse. This paper will examine the principles of Politeness Theory and consider how, and if, they can be applied across cultures.

Linguists and sociologists have been considering the �science’ of politeness. The seminal work in this field was conducted by Brown and Levinson in 1978. Their aim was to “develop an explicit model of politeness which will have validity across cultures” (Fasold 160). They base their work on the premise that people use polite forms in order to maintain �face’ - either that of the speaker or the listener. Brown and Levinson define �face’ as “something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction” (Fasold 160). The idea of �losing face’, embarrassment or humiliation, is probably one of the few cross-cultural politeness universals. Brown and Levinson define two kinds of face. One is termed �negative face’, which basically means “the want that your actions be not impeded by others” (Fasold 160) and �positive face’ , or “the positive consistent self-image that people have and want to be appreciated and approved of by at least some other people” (Fasold 160 - 161). Brown and Levinson are asking us to accept that the concept of wanting to maintain a positive self-image while at the same time not demeaning the self-image of others is a cross-cultural universal.

Many acts of speaking, whether it is a request or a comment, have the potential to threaten the face of the speaker or hearer. These are referred to as �Face Threatening Acts’ or FTA’s. Politeness theory states that we use polite forms as a strategy to deal with these threats to our sene of sense, or to alter the way in which we threaten the face of others. So, the principles are general and don’t address any culturally specific situations, such as how low to bow when an American businessman meets a Japanese businessman.

Using these ideas of positive and negative face, Brown and Levinson developed the following four principles. Examples are given in English, and are restricted to polite context in English-speaking societies.

Bald On-Record - provides no effort to minimize threats to someone’s face.

“Close the window.”

Positive Politeness - tries to minimize the distance between people by expressing friendliness and solid interest in the hearer's need to be respected (minimize the FTA).

“Do you mind if I close the window?”

Negative Politeness - assumes that you may be imposing on the hearer, and intruding on their space. Therefore, these automatically assume that there might be some social distance or awkwardness in the situation.

“I’m terribly sorry to bother you, but I wondered if I might close the window?”

Off-Record (indirect): You are removing yourself from any imposition whatsoever.

“Isn’t it cold in here?”

(http://logos.uoregon.edu/explore/socioling/politeness.html)

The examples listed under these headings were appropriate distinctions in a specific culture. In order to apply these ideas to any culture, a knowledge of specific cultural mores is necessary. If one is not aware that a subject is taboo, or that certain forms of honorific address are required, one cannot possibly hope to apply Brown and Levinson’s rules effectively. Thus, I contend that, when applied, these features manifest themselves in two ways in actual communication. First, politeness is exhibited both in what we say and how we say it.

Let us consider some of the different ways in which various cultures use politeness. We will examine a set of speech acts considered “universal” which “differ greatly in terms of the politeness strategies used to mitigate their face-threatening force” (Bergelson 2004). While there are a list of speech acts that might fall into the category of �universal’,