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

Journal of Politeness Research

Language, Behaviour, Culture

Ed. by Grainger, Karen

2 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.522
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.824

CiteScore 2016: 1.00

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.562
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.229

Online
ISSN
1613-4877
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

Abstract

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, 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.

[1]
Michael Hoppmann
Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2017, Volume 6, Number 2
[3]
Ming-Yu Tseng
Journal of Pragmatics, 2010, Volume 42, Number 7, Page 1982
[4]
Jonathan Culpeper
Journal of Pragmatics, 2010, Volume 42, Number 12, Page 3232
[5]
Nana Okura Gagné
Language & Communication, 2010, Volume 30, Number 2, Page 123
[7]
Hiroko Itakura and Amy B.M. Tsui
Journal of Pragmatics, 2011, Volume 43, Number 5, Page 1366
[9]
Kathrin Siebold and Hannah Busch
Journal of Pragmatics, 2015, Volume 75, Page 53
[10]
Hiroko Itakura
Pragmatics, 2015, Volume 25, Number 2, Page 179
[12]
Winnie Shum and Cynthia Lee
Journal of Pragmatics, 2013, Volume 50, Number 1, Page 52
[13]
Joseph Nkwain
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 2015, Volume 47, Number 1, Page 33
[14]
Xiangping Jiang
Journal of Pragmatics, 2012, Volume 44, Number 13, Page 1888
[15]
Vijay K. Bhatia and Stephen Bremner
Language Teaching, 2012, Volume 45, Number 04, Page 410
[16]
María Jesús Barros García and Marina Terkourafi
Pragmatics, 2014, Volume 24, Number 1, Page 1
[19]
Songthama Intachakra
Journal of Pragmatics, 2012, Volume 44, Number 5, Page 619
[20]
Hiroko Itakura
Journal of Pragmatics, 2013, Volume 45, Number 1, Page 131
[22]

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in