Cross Cultural Differences In Ways Of Expressing Politeness

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

UOW ID No: 4225995

Subject Code: ELL210

Essay topic: [Topic 3: Theoretical evaluation or Critical Response to Readings]

Tutor Name: Dr Carol Chan

Total Words Count: 2086

"I declare that this assignment is entirely my own work, and is original except for the limited material, if any, drawn from acknowledged sources. I also declare that this work has not been submitted in whole or in part for assessment elsewhere, and that I am aware of the University’s "Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy" (http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/UOW058648.html). I further acknowledge that the assessor of this assignment may, for the purpose of assessing this assignment: a) reproduce this assignment/ and provide a copy to another member of academic staff; and/or b) communicate a copy of this assignment to a plagiarism checking service (which may then retain a copy of this assignment on its database for the purpose of future plagiarism checking)."

Introduction

The politeness theory that is construed by Brown and Levinson (1987) has given a great impact on the awareness of politeness that an individual has shown. It has attracted different critic’s view and discussion about the issues reflected upon it especially in collectivist or eastern cultures (Matsumoto, 1988; Gu, 1990; Pan, 2000). Since, Brown & Levinson (1987) has suggested that in order to be polite, we should take into consideration of other’s "Face Wants" and reduce "Face threatening act".

The approach had raised questions in regards to cross-cultural variation that could lead to miscommunication when it comes to intercultural interactions. Therefore, this paper would be focusing in re-evaluating the linguistic politeness concept in regards to intercultural occurrences and obtain a greater insights on how different cultural back ground have their own perspective on politeness.

The following part of the paper would follow a pattern that focuses on the review of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) concept of face, as well as the assumptions and strategies involved in the approach. The concern that has been addressed will be as follow, (1) cross-cultural differences in ways of expressing politeness (2) cross-cultural usage of politeness system in terms of relationship between participants and (3) the degree of extent in value of using politeness strategies. Lastly to conclude, recommendations for further improvements of the politeness approach has been identified.

In order to have a greater understanding of the politeness theories issues, it would be necessary to provide a brief summary. Firstly, the notion of face was first proposed by Goffman (1967) which was then defined by Brown and Levinson (1987) as an individual’s public self-image or self-esteem. According to them, people are rational agents that have positive face and negative face; it is used to achieve a certain goal that satisfies their wants (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

With these, Brown and Levinson (1987) have derived the politeness strategies (Negative, Positive, Bald-on record and Off-record indirect) in order to reduce face-threatening acts (FTA). FTA happens when behavior or acts has threatened the face of Speaker (S) or Hearer (H) (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

Concern 1: Cross-cultural differences in ways of expressing Politeness

From the ideas that have been proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987), it can be seen that, issues could have risen if S and H are from different cultural background and perspective on portraying politeness. Firstly, the concept of face that has been proposed states that it could be apply universally (Brown & Levinson, 1987), which brings in more doubts about its value in applicability in Asian languages by many scholars (Ide; 1989, Gu, 1990; Pan, 2000).

The subdivided concept of face, (a) Positive face would be the desire to be in a group and recognized as wanted, while the (b) negative face would refer as the want to be free from imposition and the need to be independent (Brown & Levinson 1987). With this claim, it emphases on the biasness towards an individual who came from an individualistic or equalitarian culture (Western) rather than a collectivist or group culture (Eastern).

Moreover, this concept does not resemble any traditional Eastern culture (Chinese, Japanese or Korean), because each individual has obligations and follows cultural norms that show differing politeness in regards to the hierarchy order in group. Therefore, Brown and Levinson’s concept of face is less applicable to Chinese cultural concepts of "mianzi and lian" (Mao, 1994) and the communally reserved politeness in Japanese concept of "wakimae" (Ide, 1993). With the lack of comprehensiveness of the concept of face (Brown and Levinson, 1987), it can subsequently leads to the misunderstanding of strategies involve in dealing with FTA.

By using Chinese people as an example, it can be seen that they perceived politeness in a different way. Such as, they view negative politeness being in restriction zone of hierarchical order due to their cultural and social norms (Pan, 2000). Thus, explaining their indirectedness and of politeness markers. On the other hand, Americans view negative politeness as desire for independence (Pan, 2000), thus, explaining their values on the directedness of speech.

Furthermore, the definition given by Brown and Levinson (1987) approach points towards a device for western culture to regulate face work, whereas the Chinese cultures is direct towards a set of moral norms that regulates people’s acts (Gu ,1990). Therefore, this approach does not explain the cross-cultural differences but would increase the risk of wrong evaluation of S or H speech act.

An example of a dialogue between westerner and chinese,

Westerner: Your shirt looks very nice today

Chinese: oh no, it has a very plain looking color.

From this dialogue of compliment and response, the westerner might evaluate what the Chinese is saying as the lack of aesthetics and taste for fashion in the westerner. To the Chinese, it is a cultural norm to express self-depreciation to show self-abasement and an approach to politeness, whereas, the westerner would accept compliment and interpret dialogue above as a FTA.

An example of a common statement from Japanese culture,

Japanese: douzo yoroshiku onegaishimasu (Please take care of me)

This statement is typically used in Japanese common greeting when an initial encounter is being placed upon. The dialogue "Please take care of me" expressed by the Japanese imposed the meaning of respect to the other parties in a hierarchical society in which juniors acknowledged their dependence to the seniors (Matsumoto, 1989). In contrast, it could be seen as a threat of imposition towards freedom to the westerner or English speaker.

Next, major concern can be found regarding the three factors, Power (P), Social Distance (D) and Ranked sized of imposition (R) that was being proposed to explain the strength of the FTA (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Due to the cultural differences, it can be assume that easterner would tend to view P and D differently from westerners. Similarly, from the Japanese example given above, Japanese culture has specifics verb to be used to show the differences in ranks. An example would be the English language word "give" or "receive, can be seen as different forms in Japanese language. Also, it has been shown that Chinese students interpret the relationship with their tutors as a closer D but a higher order of P as a comparison to British students (Spencer Oatey, 1993).

Likewise, the differences in western and eastern cultural backgrounds and its perception towards P and D could have cause an impact through intercultural communication because of the simplicity of the formula that explains the strength of FTA. This proves further research needed in order to investigate the cross-cultural factors that affect the degree of politeness performed.

Concern 2: Cross-cultural usage of politeness system in terms of relationship between participants

As discussed, Chinese people tend to place importance on the group cohesion and hierarchical solidary to portray politeness (Pan, 2000). From this, it can be assumed that politeness strategies are use only when S and H know the hierarchical relationship towards each other. In other words, politeness strategies is applicable when either parties know their social statues and from there, choses the correct politeness strategies to imply. This phenomenon could be supported by a study that shows 75% of Chinese customers do not practice any politeness markers such as, "Please" when purchasing in a state-run stamp store in mainland china (Pan, 2000).

In contrast, westerners tend to use politeness strategies, even in situations where there are no hierarchical levels such as friends, family and intimates (Wierzbicka, 1996). This could again, causes a discomfort between intercultural communications. An example would be the different addressing terms between westerner and Chinese. The westerner would call an ordinary friend (Chinese), his/her given name whereas the Chinese would prefer to be called using the family name ((Deng, yanchang & Liu, Runqing, 1989). Thus, the Chinese would perceive the westerner as being rude and impolite.

Concern 3: The value of using politeness strategies

According to Ide (1989), Japanese uses formal forms which are grammatically and socio-pragmatically necessary, thereby, defeating the approach that Brown and Levinson’s (1987) has stated due to its lack of comprehensiveness to explain this happening.

Example by Matsumoto (1988) that shows three different ways of using copulas to address the degree of formality,

Context: Informal setting, with family or intimate friends

Kyou-wa doyoubi da (Today is Saturday)

Context: Formal setting, with higher position authorizes, strangers and acquaintances

Kyou-wa doyoubi desu (Today is Saturday)

Context: A extremely formal situation

Kyou-wa doyoubi degozai masu (Today is Saturday)

*kyou-wa as the topic, copula as the bold and underline word.

The above explains the Japanese system of formal language that involves a lot of complexity of honorific language and chances of coming across the usage of politeness strategies. In addition, it could be seen that face-threatening actions might not cause a larger amount of worries in Japanese politeness as the speaker would not be seen as posing face threatening act if the correct forms of statements are being apply in the context (Ide, 1989).

As a result, an individual who is from different culture does not need to take much consideration about redressive solutions to maintain politeness in conversation. Although that individual would often need to acquire a high level of grammatical competence of the language, with the knowledge of correct usage of forms in situations.

Oppositely, it can be expected that in the western society its value of implying politeness strategies would be widely seen. This is because of the less constrained formality in language (English) and its belief in equalitarian values that poses a greater value on the politeness strategies. Thus, intercultural communication between the two cultures would lead to having either one culture using more politeness strategies or least in order to maintain a harmonious relationship.

Improvements

As discussed throughout the paper, it can be seen that improvements are needed in order to obtain a more complete review of its concept and strategies of politeness cross-culturally and provide a wider understanding towards differing perception of politeness.

The major re-evaluation that is important would be its applicability biasness towards western languages. This could be solved by doing more research on politeness in Asian languages that includes examining the following:

Definition of face cross-culturally

How does each culture differs in ways of expression of politeness through language?

The determinants that result in face threatening acts?

Re-invention of strategies for Face threatening act in each culture.

With this goal in mind, it would definitely provide a clearer framework and lessen misunderstanding when it comes to intercultural communication due to its risen awareness of the individual. Thus, it leads to a more open mindset if miscommunication occurs. Nonetheless, it has to be kept in mind that by performing more research, it would be a tedious effort and a long duration of time is required, in order to examine specifically into the major cultures politeness system.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper has examined the approach and concepts that have been proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) in its relation towards politeness cross-culturally and the major concerns that were associated with the assumption provided. Although the strategies proposed were useful in examining language in general but it cannot fully deliver explanations to every languages. The three major concerns that have been discussed was, firstly, cross-cultural differences in ways of expressing Politeness that examine the issues in the concept of face and the factors that contribute to FTA, with the aid of drawing Chinese and Japanese (Asian Cultures) to show its weaknesses involved.

Secondly, the different usage of system is being affected by the relationship between the participants, that has shown that Chinese uses the politeness strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) only when there is an "known" status solidary involved (Pan, 2000) which is in contrast to the western culture where politeness strategies are use in almost all situations.

Furthermore, the paper examines the extent of value in using politeness strategies in Japanese cultures to show the lack of justifications in Brown and Levinson's politeness concept (1987). This is being form by the fact that Japanese language has formal forms including grammatical and socio-pragmatically usage (Ide, 1989).

The three issues that have been stated would create misunderstanding in intercultural events as either participant would perceived politeness differently and leads to judgmental thoughts, if it doesn't met the criteria of politeness in its own culture. Thus, it is important to conduct more research in exploring and solving the major issues involved and creates a more flexible approach to improve cultural knowledge of the population.