Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
POLITENESS, MAXIMS and FACE IN COMMUNICATION - Coggle Diagram
POLITENESS, MAXIMS and FACE IN COMMUNICATION
GRICE'S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE (4 Maxims)
Core Idea: Effective communication requires cooperation
Speakers and listeners work together toward mutual understanding
Maxims guide how we produce and interpret utterances
MAXIM OF QUALITY (Truthfulness)
"Try to make your contribution one that is true"
Do not say what you believe to be false
Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
Practical application:
Use hedging when uncertain: "I think", "maybe", "as far as I know"
Signal uncertainty to maintain trust
Violation = lying, misleading, exaggerating
Example: Saying "I didn't smoke" when you did -- violates Quality
MAXIM OF QUANTITY (Information Amount)
"Make your contribution as informative as required"
"Do not make your contribution more informative than required"
Practical application:
Answer "How are you?" with "Fine" (not a life story)
In coffee shop: "For Mikhail" not full name + address
Violation (too much): Over-sharing unprompted details
Violation (too little): Vague answers that frustrate listener
• Strategic flouting: Saying less to imply more (advertising slogans)
MAXIM OF RELATION/RELEVANCE
"Be relevant" — stay on topic
Contributions should connect to the ongoing discourse
Practical application:
Student asking about grades shouldn't start with weather talk
Answering "Where's the cat?" with "He went to the rainbow" -- irrelevant
Violation: Changing topic abruptly without signaling
Strategic flouting: Apparent irrelevance that implies deeper meaning
MAXIM OF MANNER (Clarity)
"Be perspicuous" — avoid obscurity and ambiguity
Be brief, orderly, avoid unnecessary prolixity
Practical application:
Use clear structure in academic writing
Avoid jargon when speaking to non-experts
Violation: Deliberately confusing language to mislead
Strategic flouting: Using metaphor, irony, or poetic language for effect
FLOUTING vs VIOLATING MAXIMS
VIOLATING: Breaking a maxim secretly to deceive
Lying (Quality), hiding info (Quantity), misleading (Relation)
Listener usually doesn't recognize the breach
FLOUTING: Openly breaking a maxim to convey implied meaning
Sarcasm: "Wow, what great weather!" (during rain) -- flouts Quality
Understatement: "You're a genius" (after mistake) -- flouts Quality ironically
Listener recognizes the breach and infers the intended meaning
Requires shared context and pragmatic competence
SCOLLON'S THREE POLITENESS SYSTEMS
Framework for cross-cultural pragmatic variation
DEFERENCE POLITENESS SYSTEM
Cultures: British, Japanese
Core value: Maintaining social distance and boundaries
Features:
Clear status markers (honorifics, titles, formal pronouns)
Emphasis on negative politeness (avoiding imposition)
Indirectness valued to preserve autonomy
Examples:
Japanese: Complex keigo system reflecting status/age/gender
British pub etiquette: Standing at bar = openness to talk; sitting = privacy
Invisible queue: Mental ordering without physical line
Eye-contact rule: Order placed when bartender makes eye contact
SOLIDARITY POLITENESS SYSTEM
Cultures: Chinese, Korean
Core value: Emphasizing positive face and group harmony
Features:
Focus on inclusion, shared identity, mutual support
Positive politeness strategies dominate
Status still matters but expressed through in-group bonding
Examples:
Korean speech levels: -yo, -nida endings show respect while maintaining connection
Emphasis on collective well-being over individual autonomy
High stakes for losing face: Academic failure may be perceived as family shame
EGALITARIAN POLITENESS SYSTEM
Cultures: USA, Australia, Spain, Italy
Core value: Minimizing status differences, maximizing openness
Features:
Informal address common even across status lines
Directness valued as honesty, not rudeness
Personal topics acceptable in formal contexts
Examples:
American workplace: Boss and employee may socialize after work
Spanish/Italian: Physical contact (kisses, hugs) even with acquaintances
First-name basis common in professional settings
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Misunderstandings arise when politeness systems clash
Example: Direct American request may seem rude to Japanese listener
Example: Japanese indirectness may seem evasive to American listener
Pragmatic competence requires awareness of cultural norms
BROWN and LEVINSON'S FACE THEORY
Core Concept: "Face" = public self-image everyone wants to maintain
Derived from Goffman's dramaturgical approach
Face is dynamic, context-dependent, culturally variable
TWO TYPES OF FACE
POSITIVE FACE
Desire to be liked, appreciated, included
Wanting our wants/desires to be valued by others
Examples: Compliments, group membership, shared interests
Threatened by: Criticism, rejection, ignoring, disagreement
NEGATIVE FACE
Desire for autonomy, freedom from imposition
Wanting to act without interference
Examples: Personal space, time, freedom of choice
Threatened by: Orders, requests, advice, pressure
FACE-THREATENING ACTS (FTAs)
Any utterance that potentially damages speaker's or hearer's face
Examples:
Criticizing - threatens hearer's positive face
Ordering "Bring me a marker" - threatens hearer's negative face
Apologizing - threatens speaker's negative face (admits fault)
Accepting thanks - threatens speaker's positive face (implies obligation)
Public emotional outburst - threatens speaker's own positive face
POLITENESS STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE FTAs
BALD ON-RECORD (No redressive action)
Direct, unmitigated speech: "Close the window"
Used in emergencies, with close friends, or when power difference is clear
POSITIVE POLITENESS (Addresses positive face)
Show solidarity, friendship, common ground
Strategies: Use in-group markers, offer promises, seek agreement
Example: "Hey buddy, could you maybe close that window? It's freezing!"
NEGATIVE POLITENESS (Addresses negative face)
Show deference, minimize imposition
Strategies: Apologize, hedge, use indirectness, give options
Example: "I'm so sorry to bother you, but would it be possible to close the window?"
OFF-RECORD (Indirect hints)
Imply rather than state directly
Strategies: Rhetorical questions, metaphors, understatements
Example: "Is it just me, or is it cold in here?" → hint to close window
Allows plausible deniability if request is rejected
DON'T DO THE FTA (Avoidance)
Choose not to perform the face-threatening act at all
Used when risk to face outweighs benefit of communication