Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Politeness Research

Language, Behaviour, Culture

Ed. by Grainger, Karen

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.652
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.667

CiteScore 2018: 1.24

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.785
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.150

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Politeness: Is there an East-West divide?

Geoffrey Leech
Published Online: 2007-07-31 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.009


Brown and Levinson (1987 [1978]) has remained the most seminal and influential starting point for studying cross-cultural and interlinguistic politeness. Yet it has also provoked countervailing arguments (e. g., Ide 1989; 1993; Matsumoto 1989; Gu 1990; Mao 1994), claiming a Western bias in Brown and Levinson's model, particularly in their construal of the concept of ‘face’, in their overemphasis on face-threat and their assumption of individualistic and egalitarian motivations, as opposed to the more group-centred hierarchy-based ethos of Eastern societies. This leads to the question: Is there an East-West divide in politeness?

This article presents a pragmatic framework for studying linguistic politeness phenomena in communication: a common principle of politeness (Leech, 1983; 2005) and a Grand Strategy of Politeness (GSP), which is exemplified in common linguistic behaviour patterns in the performance of polite speech acts such as requests, offers, compliments, apologies, thanks, and responses to these. The GSP says simply: In order to be polite, a speaker communicates meanings which place (a) a high value on what relates to the other person (typically the addressee), and (b) a low value on what relates to the speaker. It is clear from many observations that constraint (a) is more powerful than constraint (b).

The following hypothesis will be put forward, and supported by evidence from four languages: that the GSP provides a very general explanation for communicative politeness phenomena in Eastern languages such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean, as well as in Western languages such as English. Since politeness deals with scalar phenomena, this is not to deny the importance of quantitative and qualitative differences in the settings of social parameters and linguistic parameters of politeness in such languages. A framework such as the GSP provides the parameters of variation within which such differences can be studied.

Hence this article argues in favour of the conclusion that, despite manifest differences, there is no East-West divide in politeness.

Keywords: politeness; pragmalinguistics; socio-pragmatics; face; Chinese; Japanese; Korean

About the article

Geoffrey Leech

Geoffrey Leech is Emeritus Professor of English Linguistics at Lancaster University, UK. He has published extensively in the areas of pragmatics, stylistics, semantics, English grammar, and corpus linguistics. His main contribution to politeness research so far has been in his book Principles of Pragmatics (1983), especially Chapters 5 and 6. He has recently lectured on politeness in China, Japan, Korea and other countries.

Published Online: 2007-07-31

Published in Print: 2007-07-20

Citation Information: Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 167–206, ISSN (Online) 1613-4877, ISSN (Print) 1612-5681, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.009.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Weihua Zhu
Acta Linguistica Academica, 2019, Volume 66, Number 2, Page 165
Reza Khany, Mohammad Aliakbari, and Saeedeh Mohammadi
Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2019, Volume 4, Number 1
Hiroko Itakura
International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 2017, Volume 3, Number 1, Page 23
Michael Hoppmann
Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2017, Volume 6, Number 2
Ming-Yu Tseng
Journal of Pragmatics, 2010, Volume 42, Number 7, Page 1982
Jonathan Culpeper
Journal of Pragmatics, 2010, Volume 42, Number 12, Page 3232
Nana Okura Gagné
Language & Communication, 2010, Volume 30, Number 2, Page 123
Hiroko Itakura and Amy B.M. Tsui
Journal of Pragmatics, 2011, Volume 43, Number 5, Page 1366
Kathrin Siebold and Hannah Busch
Journal of Pragmatics, 2015, Volume 75, Page 53
Hiroko Itakura
Pragmatics, 2015, Volume 25, Number 2, Page 179
Winnie Shum and Cynthia Lee
Journal of Pragmatics, 2013, Volume 50, Number 1, Page 52
Joseph Nkwain
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 2015, Volume 47, Number 1, Page 33
Xiangping Jiang
Journal of Pragmatics, 2012, Volume 44, Number 13, Page 1888
Vijay K. Bhatia and Stephen Bremner
Language Teaching, 2012, Volume 45, Number 04, Page 410
María Jesús Barros García and Marina Terkourafi
Pragmatics, 2014, Volume 24, Number 1, Page 1
Songthama Intachakra
Journal of Pragmatics, 2012, Volume 44, Number 5, Page 619
Hiroko Itakura
Journal of Pragmatics, 2013, Volume 45, Number 1, Page 131

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in