Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and

politeness
Molay Ismail University
Faculty of Letters Meknes
Master: Applied Linguistics

Cross-Cultural
variation in
politeness and speech
acts

Supervised by:

Prepared by:
DAHMANI Hicham

Prepared by: DAHMANI Hicham

Prof. Mostapha
TALAY

Page 1
Academic
year 2012/2013

Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and

politeness

1)

introduction:

Leech(1983) defines politeness as a type of behaviour that

allows the participants to engage in a social interaction in an
atmosphere of relative harmony. Thus, the speaker should know
how to phrase an utterance at the moment of speaking in a
particular context. So, to be polite is to behave in accordance with
situations and specific rules or norms regarding appropriate
linguistic behaviour.
This work is going to shed lights on politeness theory from the
perspective of Leech theory. It is going, of course, to explain
Leechs maxims of politeness with examples from both Moroccan
Arabic context and English context. However, before dealing with
Leach politeness, it is so important to give a hint about its history.
Then, the work will deal -into some extent- with (im)politeness and
cultural variation; that is polite in Morocco can be impolite in other
cultures. The work will end with cross-cultural variation of speech
acts.

Prepared by: DAHMANI Hicham

Page 2

Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and

politeness

2)

History of politeness:

The pragmatic approach to politeness starts to appear in 70s

of last century with some experts who put a hand in theorizing to
social science where the acts of speech meet. It is crucial for us as
beginners in the field of applied linguistics to know more about the
history of socio-pragmatics, that follows is an attempt to make a
picture clear for you - even if it is not enough - to have at least an
idea about the emergence of pragmatics. For sure I will focus on
Leechs maxims to politeness since it is my purpose behind this
work.
2.1.
Robin Lakoff (1973) linked rules of politeness - dont
impose; give options; make the other person feel good, which
means be friendly - to Grices cooperative principle to explain why
speakers do not always conform to maxims such clarity.
2.2.
Brown and Levinson (1978) propose another model of
politeness the face. It is the basic notion of their model. Brown
and Levinson defined face as the public self-image that every
member of society wants to claim for himself. In their framework,
face consists of two related aspects, positive face and negative
one. negative face wants freedom of action and freedom from
imposition; not to constraint behaviors by others, and a positive
face wants approval and appreciate; self-image have the desire of
being appreciated by at least some other people. The social
context prohibits people from their freedom, it is exemplified in the
principle of social authority; order and apologize are imposed
models of behaving. In both situations we try to avoid things that
may make the hearer uncomforted or embarrassed. However, such
face threatening acts (FAT) infringe the hearers need to be
respectful. Politeness strategies are developed for the sake of
dealing with FAT. It should be avoided, or redressed by means of
polite (verbal strategies).

Prepared by: DAHMANI Hicham

Page 3

Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and

politeness
2.3.
Leech (1983) in his model discussed the politeness
differently from Gricean conversational maxims. He was motivated
by international goals, and posited a parallel politeness principle
exhibit in many different maxims such as tact, generosity,
approbation, modesty, agreement and sympathy. As human face
differs in situations along his/her life which absolutely requires
different levels of politeness such as authority, social distance,
optionality, directness and indirectness.
2.4.
Sperber and Wilson (1995) developed new theory of social
communication called relevance theory. It is a cognitive theory
of human communication. This theory based on the assumption
that the human beings are endowed with biologically rooted ability
to maximize the relevance of incoming stimuli (including linguistics
utterances and other communicative behaviour). Relevance theory
is not only a typical property for external stimuli but also for
internal representations and thoughts, all of them may become
inputs for cognitive processing.
3) Leechs politeness principles:
Leechs politeness principles (PP) tend to account for the way
people use speech while communicating either in formal or
informal situations taking into account the context of performing
an utterance. According to Leech(1983) PP contains six maxims
which are formulated in general way; minimize the expression of
impolite beliefs and maximize the expression of polite beliefs. (p.
83)
Speech acts as usual have a negative and positive face; some
illocutions (order) are in fact impolite, while some others (offers)
are for sure polite. Leech in his book principles of pragmatics
talks about negative politeness by which the speaker minimizes
the impoliteness of impolite illocutions, and positive politeness by
which the speaker maximizes the politeness of polite illocutions.
For example:
Prepared by: DAHMANI Hicham

Page 4

Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and

politeness
1) (a) Brit atay - (b) teni atay (I want tea)
2) (a) teni wahd lkas datay, llah yxellik. (b) wash ymklli
naxud shi kas datay?
(Give me a cup of tea, may God keep you (safe)). (Can I
have a cup of tea?).
In the first two utterances the speaker (S) uses imperative
(order). The imperative according to Leech is impolite since S
maximizes the cost to Hearer (h) as well as s/he maximizes benefit
to S. it is clearly noticed that politeness concerns two participants
whom may call self and other (leech, 1983:131). Speaker also
shows politeness to third party which may or may not be present in
the speech situation.
3.1.
Maxims of politeness:
3.1.1.
Tact maxim.
Tact maxim refers to some actions to be performed
respectively by the self or the other. These actions may be thought
of in terms of what S pretend to be its cost or benefit to S or H.
For example:
4) Open the door
5) Hand me a cup of tea
6) Look outside
7) Enjoy your meal
8) Have another sandwich.
9) ash dher lik fshi kas datay? (how about a cup of tea?)
The examples (1-6) show the cost to hearer which seem to be
less polite in the first three examples and more polite in the last
two examples. The first two of course maximize cost to H while the
last three maximize benefits to H.
3.1.2.

Generosity maxim:

In this maxim S minimizes benefit to self seen in I can lend

you some money. And maximizes cost to self seen in Wllah htta
tshrb kas datay (In the name of God, you must drink a cup of tea).
The first is polite since it implies benefit to H, and the second
Prepared by: DAHMANI Hicham

Page 5

Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and

politeness
implies cost to S. whereas this example we must come and have
dinner with you reverses the fact that minimizing benefit to self
which, of course, seems to be impolite. It is possible to apply
Generosity maxim without referring to Tact maxim say you can
get them for less than half the price most of the time we hear like
this expressions in some markets. It is, for sure, beneficial to H but
does not imply any cost to S.
3.1.3.

Approbation maxim:

Generally imply the rule that being polite implies minimizing

dispraise of others and maximizing the praise of other. This maxim
says avoid saying unpleasant things about others, especially about
H. this examples clarify that mentioned above llah ala riht tajin!
and what a marvelous meal you cooked, it is highly valued
according to approbation maxim, however riht lahrik and what
an awful meal you cooked! is not.
3.1.4.

Modesty maxim:

Modesty maxim is like the other maxims of politeness which

tends to maximize dispraise to self as well as to minimize praise to
self. This maxim is over used in Moroccan situations - to some
extent - depends on the context such as interacting with parents
and elder relatives in addition to elder people to S. it is used also
between friends. For instance, our classmate was so kind to us
implies modesty to third party where S minimizes praise to self,
and how stupid of me which also implies maximizing dispraise to
self. Both of the examples show the modesty of S towards the third
part where S minimizes him/herself and maximizes the others.
Whereas, the next example breaks the maxim of modesty since S
maximizes the praise to him/herself.
10) You were kind to us.
11) Yes, I was, wasnt I?

9.1.4Agreement maxim:

Prepared by: DAHMANI Hicham

Page 6

Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and

politeness
This maxim minimizes disagreement and maximizes
agreement with other. In other words, S tend to exaggerate
agreement and to mitigate disagreement with others by
expressing regret, partial agreement, etc. For instance:
12)
13)
14)
15)

It was an interesting trip, wasnt it?

Yes, it was.
Morocco is a wonderful country, isnt it?
Yes, except it is full of thieves.

It is noticed that the latter is different than the former. The

latter expresses partial agreement to S which is always preferable
to complete disagreement.

9.1.5Sympathy maxim:
Sympathy maxim explains the reason behind being wellmannered in speech acts like congratulations and condolences,
even though the latter expresses negative beliefs regardless to the
H. for instance:
16) I am terribly sorry to hear that your car is damaged.
17) I am pleased to hear that your car is damaged.
The first, for sure, is polite in contrast to the second which
maximizes antipathy between self and other. The example (16) is
interpreted as condolence as an expression of sympathy but it
might be preferable to say it as in (18). However, the example (19)
is interpreted as congratulation.
18) I am terribly sorry to hear about your car.
19) I am delighted to hear about your newborn.
3) Negative and positive politeness as culture-bound.

Prepared by: DAHMANI Hicham

Page 7

Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and

politeness
Sociopragmatics studies demonstrate that politeness is a
culture-bound, people typically using polite relative to some norm
of behaviour which for a particular setting they regard as typical
(leech, 1983). According to leech, this norm differs from society to
another and from culture to another. Brown and Levinson (1987)
divide politeness into four strategies (positive politeness, negative
politeness, the bald on-record, Off-record indirect) which depends
on a number of factors reduced to a simple formula:
-Distance (D) of the speaker and hearer. (social distance)
-The relative power (P) between the speaker and the
hearer.
-The absolute ranking (R) of the imposition in a particular
culture.
Positive politeness strategy shows you recognize that the H
has a face to be respected. It insists on that the relationship is
friendly and expresses group reciprocity. In Moroccan culture
people tend to use this kind of politeness with strangers; it is
meant by stranger the H who is unknown to the S. Mostly happens
in first time meeting.
For example:
20)
21)
22)
23)

May I have a cup of tea?

Can I possibly have a cup of tea?
Could I have a cup of tea?
Was it possible for me to have a cup of tea?

Negative politeness strategy recognizes the Hs face. But it

also admits that the S is in some way imposing on the H. This
strategy is used in Morocco in broad sense; especially, among
friends in particular cultural context. This means, each cultural
context demands particular way of behaving which is drawn clearly
in manners of speaking in a given context.
For instance:
24) Teni atay (Give me (some) tea).
25) Bxit atay (I want tea)
Prepared by: DAHMANI Hicham

Page 8

Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and

politeness

4) Cross-cultural (im)politeness.
All are agree that each culture has its own norms that show the
boundaries which actually the S should respect. Impoliteness
occurs due to culture differences where negative transfer of
politeness takes place in communication with the users of second
language. At this level, we can talk about cross-cultural
miscommunication (Thomas, 1983). Thomas (1983) divides crosscultural miscommunication into pragmatic failure which may
result from inappropriate transfer of speech act strategies through
a misconception of their illocutionary force in the second language,
and socio-pragmatics failure which may result from cross-cultural
differences in the social condition places on language in use.
The transfer of cultural norms of a non-native speaker to other
culture may lead to misusing of language, which itself will
absolutely lead to misunderstanding. For instance, if a native
speaker is a Moroccan, the H will be introduced to the following
state of being in considering greeting:
26) Hello, hello, hello! How are you? Its been such a
long time since I last saw you. Where have you been
all this time? How is the family, the wife, the
children, your parents? Are they alright? My
regards to all of them (Alaoui, 9).
This is a natural greeting that one has to go through in
Moroccan society, which may be understood differently by
foreigners. They absolutely would consider it impolite to ask these
types of questions.
5) Cross-cultural variation of Speech Acts.
Culturally speaking, many speech acts are culture-specific.
That is, its practice defers from one culture to another. In the case
Prepared by: DAHMANI Hicham

Page 9

Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and

politeness
of institutionalized speech acts, which typically use standardized a
set of formulas and are, of course, performed in public ceremonies.
A good example is provided by the speech act of divorcing. In the
Muslim world divorce takes certain conventional procedures or
norms to be culturally acceptable under the appropriate
circumstances, the uttering of a sentence I herby divorce you
three times consecutively by a husband to his wife will really
constitute a divorce. In the western world, we find different way of
dealing with this state of being. This utterance no more obtain a
divorce, in other cultures than Muslims.
Concerning non-institutionalized speech acts. First of all,
speech act can be cultural-specific as it is described above. Such
speech acts like promising is performed in some areas of the world
while it has no place in some others. For instance, Rosaldo (1982)
observed that in Ilongost (tribal in Philippines) speech act of
promising is absent. Similar example can be found in Australian
aboriginal language Yolngu. It is cited by Harris (1984: 134-135)
that speech act of thanking does not exist in their repertoire.
On the contrary, some speech acts may be presented only in a
certain cultures. In Islamic culture, for example, couple should
pronounce a precise correct words zawwaj-tuka nafsi. Without
uttering these correct words marriage seems to be not fulfilled.
Secondly, speech acts are carried out differently according to
each culture in a given particular situation. Again, if we take the
example of marriage in Islamic culture, exactly the way couple
divorce is totally different. Saying three times the utterance I
herby divorce you by the husband carries out the divorce. While
in western culture the divorce should be carried out through the
court of appeal.
Thirdly, the same speech act may meet with different typical
responses in different cultures and languages. We can take the
example of compliment. Compliment meets acceptance and
thanking in Moroccan culture where people feel proud of
themselves, but self-denigration in Chinese and Japanese.
According to Misutani (1987), the Japanese will never accept a
compliment without saying no.
Prepared by: DAHMANI Hicham

Page 10

Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and

politeness
Fourthly, the same speech act may differ in its directness and
indirectness in different cultures. Cross-Cultural Speech Act
Realization Patterns Project (CCSARPP) conducted a research
across some countries in the late of 1970s on how particular kinds
of speech acts, especially face threatening acts as request,
apologies, and complaints. The findings were that Argentinean
Spanish speakers are the direct whilst the least direct are the
Australian English speakers. This findings show that there is an
extensive cross-cultural variation in directness and indirectness in
speech acting, especially in the realization of face-threatening acts
(FTA). Since not all speech acts are directly addressed which serve
FTA such as keep your voice down. In fact, the most of them are
expressed indirectly in every day communication for some social
reason such as I would be grateful, if you could keep your voice
down.

Prepared by: DAHMANI Hicham

Page 11

Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and

politeness
6) conclusion

All agree that cultures differ from each other world wild, but no
one denies that there are norms where some cultures meet.
According to the preceded illustration of the culture and its relation
to the notion of politeness and speech acts, it is observed that
each culture has its own way of dealing with certain situation say
apologizing as an example. Apologizing is obligatory for some
cultures if one steps on other persons toes, but in other cultures it
calls for sympathy, take the example of West African culture as
cited by Y Huang (2006).

Prepared by: DAHMANI Hicham

Page 12

Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and

politeness

7) Refrences:

Alaoui, M. S. (2011). Politeness principle: A comparative study

of English and Moroccan Arabic requests, offers and
thanks. European journal of social sciences, 20 (1), Pp. 715.
Hickey, L., & Orta, V.L. (no date). Politeness as deference: A
pragmatic view.
Mey, L. J. (2009). Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (2nd ed.).
United kindom: Elsevier Ltd.
Meyerhoff, M. (2006). Introducing sociolinguistics. New York:
routledge.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of politeness. New York: Longman

Group Limited.

Pop, A. (2009). An analysis of politeness as functional of

speech acts and target reader in print medical advertising.
Language at the university of Essex. Pp. 94-106.

Prepared by: DAHMANI Hicham

Page 13

Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and

politeness

Prepared by: DAHMANI Hicham

Page 14