Politeness Strategies

Why This Matters

Politeness strategies sit at the heart of pragmatics—they reveal how speakers navigate the tension between what they want to say and how they need to say it to maintain social relationships. You're being tested on your ability to recognize how context, power dynamics, and social distance shape linguistic choices. This isn't just about memorizing strategy names; it's about understanding the underlying mechanisms that drive speakers to choose indirect requests over direct commands, or formal address over casual greetings.

These concepts connect directly to broader pragmatic principles like implicature, speech acts, and context-dependent meaning. When you analyze a politeness strategy, you're really analyzing how speakers calculate social risk and manage face—the public self-image everyone wants to protect. Don't just memorize the strategy types—know what social variables trigger each one and how Brown and Levinson's framework explains the "why" behind polite (and impolite) language choices.

---

The Foundation: Face and Face-Threatening Acts

Before diving into specific strategies, you need to understand the core mechanism: all politeness strategies exist because communication inherently threatens face. Every request, criticism, or even compliment carries potential social risk that speakers must manage.

Brown and Levinson's Politeness Theory

• Universal framework for analyzing politeness—proposes that all speakers across cultures navigate interactions by protecting two types of face: positive face (desire to be liked) and negative face (desire for autonomy)
• Face-threatening acts (FTAs) are central to the theory—any speech act that potentially damages the hearer's or speaker's face requires strategic mitigation
• Strategy selection depends on three variables—power distance, social distance, and degree of imposition combine to determine how much politeness "work" a speaker must do

Face-Threatening Acts

• Any behavior that challenges someone's self-image or autonomy—includes requests, criticisms, disagreements, and even compliments (which can imply the speaker is in a position to judge)
• Threatens either positive or negative face—criticism attacks positive face (wanting to be approved of), while requests attack negative face (wanting to be unimpeded)
• Severity determines strategy choice—the more face-threatening the act, the more elaborate the politeness strategy required to soften it

Face-Saving Acts

• Repair work that protects or restores face—includes apologies, justifications, accounts, and disclaimers that minimize damage from FTAs
• Can be preventive or corrective—speakers either soften FTAs before delivering them or repair damage afterward
• Essential for maintaining social equilibrium—without face-saving mechanisms, routine communication would constantly damage relationships

---

The Social Variables: What Triggers Politeness Choices

Speakers don't randomly select politeness strategies—they calculate based on measurable social factors. Understanding these variables helps you predict and explain why speakers make the linguistic choices they do.

Power Distance

• The perceived difference in status or authority between interlocutors—employees speak differently to bosses than to peers, students differently to professors than to classmates
• Greater power distance triggers more formal strategies—speakers "punch up" with deference and indirectness to acknowledge the hearer's higher status
• Asymmetrical relationships require asymmetrical politeness—the person with less power typically does more politeness work in the interaction

Social Distance

• Degree of familiarity or closeness between speakers—strangers require more politeness than friends; acquaintances fall somewhere in between
• Affects both strategy type and elaborateness—close relationships permit bald on-record strategies that would be rude between strangers
• Can shift within a single conversation—speakers may use politeness strategically to increase or decrease perceived social distance

Imposition

• The burden or cost a request places on the hearer—asking someone to pass the salt differs dramatically from asking them to lend you money
• Greater imposition demands more elaborate mitigation—"Could you possibly, if it's not too much trouble..." signals a speaker recognizes the request is significant
• Culturally variable—what counts as a major imposition differs across speech communities and contexts

---

The Strategy Spectrum: From Direct to Indirect

Brown and Levinson propose a hierarchy of strategies based on how much face risk they address. The more threatening the act, the further speakers move toward indirectness—or toward avoiding the act entirely.

Bald On-Record Strategies

• Direct, unmitigated communication with no politeness softening—"Close the door," "Give me that," or "You're wrong"
• Appropriate when efficiency outweighs face concerns—emergencies, close relationships, or when the speaker has clear authority
• Maximum clarity, maximum face threat—the speaker prioritizes getting the message across over protecting the hearer's face

Positive Politeness Strategies

• Approach-based strategies that emphasize connection and approval—the speaker signals "I like you, we're similar, I'm on your side"
• Common tactics include compliments, in-group markers, and showing interest—"Hey buddy, you know how it is, could you help me out?"
• Addresses positive face wants—satisfies the hearer's desire to be liked, appreciated, and included

Negative Politeness Strategies

• Avoidance-based strategies that minimize imposition and show deference—the speaker signals "I respect your autonomy and don't want to intrude"
• Common tactics include hedging, apologies, and indirect language—"I'm sorry to bother you, but would you mind possibly..."
• Addresses negative face wants—satisfies the hearer's desire to be unimpeded and free from obligation

Off-Record Strategies

• Indirect communication that leaves meaning implicit—hints, rhetorical questions, understatement, or irony that require inference
• Allows speaker to deny intended meaning if challenged—"It's cold in here" (hint to close window) can be dismissed as mere observation
• Maximum face protection, minimum clarity—the speaker avoids direct responsibility for the FTA but risks being misunderstood

---

Linguistic Tools: How Strategies Get Realized

Abstract strategies become concrete through specific linguistic devices. These are the actual words and structures speakers deploy to accomplish politeness goals.

Hedging

• Language that reduces the force or certainty of statements—words like sort of, maybe, I think, possibly, and kind of
• Softens assertions and requests to avoid sounding imposing—"I was sort of wondering if you might possibly have time" versus "Do you have time?"
• Key marker of negative politeness—hedges signal the speaker recognizes they're making a claim on the hearer's attention or agreement

Indirectness

• Avoiding explicit statement of intent or meaning—conventional indirect forms ("Can you pass the salt?") and non-conventional hints ("The salt is way over there")
• Requires pragmatic inference from the hearer—the literal meaning differs from the intended meaning, relying on context and implicature
• Trades clarity for face protection—the more indirect, the more deniable, but also the more likely to be misunderstood

Apologizing

• Explicit acknowledgment of imposition or offense—"I'm sorry to bother you," "Excuse me," "I apologize for the inconvenience"
• Functions as negative politeness by recognizing the FTA—the speaker admits they're imposing before or after doing so
• Effectiveness depends on sincerity and context—formulaic apologies differ from genuine expressions of regret

Complimenting

• Positive evaluation of the hearer or their possessions—"That's a great idea," "You look nice," "I love your work"
• Builds solidarity and enhances positive face—signals approval and creates positive social atmosphere
• Can itself be face-threatening—implies the speaker is in a position to judge, and may create obligation to reciprocate

Honorifics

• Grammaticalized forms that encode social relationships—titles (Dr., Professor), pronouns (T/V distinction in many languages), and special verb forms
• Signal respect, deference, or social hierarchy—choosing vous over tu in French marks formality and distance
• Highly variable across languages and cultures—some languages have elaborate honorific systems while others rely more on lexical strategies

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. A student emails a professor: "I was wondering if you might possibly have a moment to look at my draft, if it's not too much trouble." Identify at least three negative politeness devices in this request and explain what social variables likely motivated this strategy choice.

2. Compare and contrast positive politeness and negative politeness strategies. What type of face does each address, and in what contexts would each be more appropriate?

3. Which two concepts—power distance or social distance—would most influence your politeness choices when asking a favor from (a) your close friend who is also your boss, and (b) a stranger on the street? Explain your reasoning.

4. A speaker says "It's getting late" instead of "You should leave." What strategy type is this, and why might a speaker choose this approach despite the risk of being misunderstood?

5. Using Brown and Levinson's framework, analyze why asking someone to lend you money requires more elaborate politeness strategies than asking someone to pass the salt. Which of the three social variables is most relevant here?