Universität Rostock

Philosophische Fakultät

Institut für Anglistik/Amerikanistik

HS Contrastive Linguistics - German and English

SS 2007

A Contrastive Analysis of Politeness -

Requests and Refusals in German and English

Juliane Behm

6. Semester

Datum: 19.03.2008

---

Table of Content

1. Introduction - why politeness is crucial for the linguistic analysis of English and German .. 3

2. Theoretical approaches to the linguistic analysis of politeness 4

2.1. Grice′s

Cooperative Principle

4

2.2. Lakoff′s Rules of Politeness 5

3. Brown and Levinson′s

Theory of Politeness

9

3.1. Goffman′s face concept as the basis for the

Theory of Politeness

9

3.2. Politeness Strategies 10

3.3. Determinants for the choice of politeness strategies 12

4. Contrastive analysis of politeness in English and German 14

4.1. Dimensions of cross-cultural difference (German - English) 15

4.2. Contrastive analysis of the speech act of request 16

4.3. Contrastive analysis of the speech act of refusal 18

4.3.1. Refusals as dispreferred actions and compliance-resisting speech acts 19

4.3.2. Contrastive analysis of refusals between Americans and Germans 20

5. Conclusion 22

6. Bibliography 24

2

---

1. Introduction - why politeness is crucial for the linguistic analysis of

English and German

Social interaction, especially in the form of verbal communication, constitutes one of the most

important parts of human life by influencing conversations between individuals and shaping

their interpersonal relationships. During the development of civilized societies people have

established norms and values describing socially appropriate behaviour as well as specific

conversational strategies and linguistic formulae which are generally considered to be `polite′

in a particular culture and context. When being asked to judge a person as `polite′ almost

everyone has his own concept of politeness in mind, ranging from showing good manners,

such as allowing women to go ahead, to politely asking other people for a favour such as

lending lecture notes, by using specific linguistic formulae. Therefore, politeness cannot only

be shown in people′s way of behaviour towards each other but particularly in the use of

language and specific linguistic devices in speech acts like requests, refusals, apologies,

thanking as well as greeting and parting. On the basis of a general understanding of polite

behaviour people consider their fellow-beings as being either well-behaved and respectful or

rude and ill-mannered in social interactions. However, people do not assess other people′s

behaviour in the same way since their individual understanding of politeness varies quite

considerably. Depending on factors like the situation and their relationship with the

conversational partner people evaluate polite behaviour differently from being socially

appropriate, considerate, and respectful to even hypocritical and insincere when they feel that

some people overdo their friendliness.

But besides this general understanding of polite behaviour "politeness is also a well-

established scholarly concept"1 which has attracted not only the attention of sociologists,

philosophers, and anthropologists but especially that of sociolinguists and linguistic

pragmatics. It is their concern and the aim of this paper to analyse how what Watts calls

linguistic politeness

is conveyed through the use of specific linguistic forms and expressions,

how it is expressed in different speech acts and how it is determined by social and cultural

factors. In addition to these issues, it is also important to investigate the reasons and

incentives which motivate interlocutors to apply polite language in conversations which will

discussed here in the framework of Brown and Levinson′s

Theory of Politeness

and their

notion of politeness as face work.

Another aspect which is of great importance within the linguistic analysis of politeness is the

cultural aspect and the culturally varying perceptions of politeness. Even though speech acts

1 Eelen, Gino (2001),

A Critique of Politeness Theories

, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, p. i.

3

---

seem "to operate by universal pragmatic principles" they simultaneously "vary in

conceptualization and verbalization across cultures and languages"2 since the underlying

social values and norms, especially those defining politeness, differ from culture to culture in

the same way as the linguistic devices and formulae to express politeness differ from

language to language. As a result, a cross-cultural analysis of speech acts including politeness

can shed light on the differences between different languages and speech communities in

expressing politeness and contribute partly to the prevention or at least the reduction of

intercultural misunderstandings which are caused by different expectations of politeness in

behaviour and language use.

After explaining different theoretical approaches to politeness from a conversational-maxim

view which is supported by Grice, Lakoff, and Leech, the paper at hand will focus on the

face-saving view advocated by Brown and Levinson and their

Theory of Politeness

. Finally,

the paper will analyze two different cross-cultural studies on speech acts of requests and

refusals in English and German in order to compare how politeness is conveyed through the

use of language by both speech communities. By doing this it is the aim of the paper to

uncover the reasons for most of the cultural misunderstandings which occur in encounters of

Americans and Germans.

2. Theoretical approaches to the linguistic analysis of politeness

Politeness is an important issue in the sociolinguistic and pragmatic field of study which has

been highly debated about. Brown and Levinson claim a universal politeness theory, others

like Watts, however, argue that "a theory of politeness should not attempt to `create′ a

superordinate, universal term that can then be applied universally to any socio-cultural group

at any point in time" since such a term would fail to conceptualize the people′s notion of

politeness and their controversial dispute about its assessment and significance in everyday

life.3 Therefore, the current research on politeness still misses a universal definition of the

term and seems to remain controversial about this issue.

2.1. Grice′s Cooperative Principle

Despite the theoretical debate about a universal definition of politeness it remains evident that

politeness plays a significant role in all civilized societies since it founds the basis for a

respectful interaction between human beings and for successful conversations. When people

communicate with each other they try to achieve particular goals such as maintaining or

2 Blum-Kulka, S.; House, J.; Kasper, G. (1989),

Cross-cultural pragmatics. Requests and apologies,

Norwood:

Ablex, p. 1.

3 Watts, Richard J. (2003),

Politeness

, Cambrigde: University Press, p. 9.

4

---

extending personal relationships which, however, can only be accomplished by cooperation.

Therefore, Grice′s

Cooperative Principle

,

introduced in his publication "Logic and

Conversation" in 1975, served as a starting point for the development of different theoretical

approaches to the pragmatic and sociolinguistic study of politeness in language use.

According to Grice′s theory, people inherently seek to be as cooperative and informative as

possible in verbal communication by adapting themselves to universal norms of conversation.

In other words, people follow certain maxims and simultaneously expect that they are

followed by their conversational partners as well in order to be provided with as much

information as is needed for the correct understanding of utterances and the appropriate

interpretation of messages.4 Therefore, Grice formulated his general

Cooperative Principle

as

follows:

"Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by

the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged."5

Moreover, he divided this universal principle into four maxims determining human

conversation:

1.

Maxim of

Quantity

- the speaker should make his/her contribution only as informative

as is required, i.e. the message should not be more informative as necessary.

2.

Maxim of

Quality

- the speaker should make his/her contribution one which is true

and one which the speaker has adequate evidence for.

3.

Maxim of

Relation

- the utterances should be relevant.

4.

Maxim of

Manner -

the speaker should be clear and intelligible, avoid obscurity of

expression and ambiguity, and be brief and orderly.6

2.2. Lakoff′s Rules of Politeness

In reality, however, people do not necessarily obey to the rules of the

Cooperative Principle

and they formulate their utterances differently from their actual meaning, particularly in order

to be less direct and polite. As Beckers points out, "politeness is one of the forces working to

cause flouting of the maxims of the Cooperative Principle in all languages."7 Since human

communication is not merely directed to the providing of clear information but mostly to the

dealing with interpersonal relationships and the expression of ideas, people articulate their

4 Eelen 2001: 2.

5 Grice, H.P. (1975), "Logic and Conversation", in: Cole, P.; Morgan, J.L. (eds.),

Syntax and Semantics

, vol. 3,

NewYork: Academic Press, p. 45.

6 Grice 1975: 46-47.

7 Beckers, Astrid M. (1999), "How to Say No Without Saying No - A Study of the Refusal Strategies of

Americans and Germans", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Mississippi, p. 32.

5

---

utterances not literally as they are supposed to be according to the

Cooperative Principle

.

In

fact, they tend to formulate their messages less clearly and consequently less offending in

order to show more respect and appreciation towards the addressee and maintain a personal

relationship based on mutual esteem and harmony. Owing to the fact that "if a conflict arises

between the actor′s attempt to be clear and his or her attempt to be polite, it is more important

for the actor to be polite and avoid offending the target than achieve clarity in

communication", Lakoff saw the existence of an additional principle, in particular in informal

conversations in which the actual talk is more important than the content. Therefore, she

introduced a `politeness rule′ which is connected with Grice′s

Cooperative Principle

and

combines the principles of human conversation with social issues, such as the effect an

utterance has on the relationship between the conversational partners.8 In contrast to Grice′s

conversational principles, which are only "guidelines for the `rational′ use of language in

conversation"9 and of relative importance, Lakoff′s

Rules of Pragmatic Competence

and her

Rules of Politeness

should be pursued in order to avoid offense and interpersonal conflicts and

to maintain harmonious social relationships. She established the following

Rules of Pragmatic

Competence

:

1.

Be clear.

2.

Be polite.

These two rules, however, are contradictory because being clear is not often considered as

polite at the same time and can cause offense and impoliteness. Since Lakoff′s

Rules of

Pragmatic Competence

conflict with each other in most of the everyday speech situations,

Lakoff created three additional sub-rules, the

Rules of Politeness

:

1.

Don′t impose.

2.

Give options.

3.

Make A feel good - be friendly.10

The first principle `Don′t impose′ is applied when social distance and formal or impersonal

politeness is required, i.e. in conversations in which the illocutionary partners seek to keep

formal distance and their freedom in order not to be too personal, especially when it comes to

8 Strohmetz, David Brian (1992), "Politeness Theory: Beyond Please and Thank you"

,

Ph.D. Dissertation,

Temple University, p. 4.

9 Fraser, Bruce (1990),

Perspectives on Politeness,

Journal of Pragmatics, p. 222.

10 Lakoff, Robin (1973), "The Logic of Politeness; or, Minding Your P′s and Q′s",

Papers from the Regional
Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society

, p. 298.

6

---