Examining Brown and Levinson`s Theory of Linguistic

Politeness Primarily Findings in the Indonesian Context

Posted on June 9, 2011by Halili
INTRODUCTION
Particular groups of people have different ways of speaking. In social settings, most
people usually use a variety of linguistic expressions to show politeness and
deference to those they know well or even to colleagues they are familiar with.
Linguistic politeness accounts for the type of linguistic behaviour that people use to
express concern for, and interest in others. The present study aims to investigate
politeness strategies in Indonesian cultures. Specifically, I wish to examine Brown
and Levinson`s influential theory in the area of linguistic politeness. Basically, the
Brown and Levinsons theory is based on three principle notions: face, face-
threatening act (FTA), and politeness strategies (Bowe and Martin 2009, p. 27).
In fact, Brown and Levinson conducted their research in three different languages
and cultures: English, Tamil (a Dravidian language) and Tzeltal (a language of the
Mayan family of Central America). This notion of politeness offered by Brown and
Levinson may be contentious because it claims universal applicability. Therefore, the
objective of this study is to explore the validity of the Brown and Levinsons theory in
the Indonesian context, particularly in relation to request patterns (direct and
indirect strategies) which are influenced by sociocultural variables: social distance
(D), power (P), and ranking of the imposition (R) between the speakers.
The significance of politeness strategy research in the Indonesian context is to make
a positive contribution practically and theoretically. In practice, this investigation
may provide contextualisation cues on how to deal with Indonesian people in a wide
range of social activities. It also aims to contribute positively to the academic
discussion in order to inform people from different cultural backgrounds so as to
they are properly informed about what is considered to be socially polite or impolite
in the Indonesians settings.
Politeness strategies refer to behaviour that can preserve a persons positive self-
image and avoid imposing on a persons freedom (Bowe and Martin 2009, p. 28). In
term of familiarity, for instance, we are expected to show our politeness by avoiding
a direct request from people with whom we lack of degree of familiarity. By this
research as a result, communication across culture can be better achieved, or at
least, potential personal friction and misunderstandings in intercultural
communication can be minimised.
I will investigate the linguistic politeness (request patterns) through a series of
Indonesian films; Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? (AADC mentioned further) and Berbagi
Suami (BS mentioned further). The appropriate and relevant data will subsequently
be collected and analysed using the tool of Brown and Levisons linguistic politeness
theory. Since the Brown and Levinson theory applied in this investigation, however,
I also applied the Leechs and Kulkas theories in approaching politeness issues. Both
Leech and Kulkas theories are also concerned about the notion of request related to
the politeness. Based on my observation as a social actor, I hypothesis that Brown
and Levinsons theory may be relevant to sociocultural context in Indonesia.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Politeness means having or showing good manners and respect for the feelings of
others (Wehmeier 2000, p. 976). Brown and Levinsons theory of linguistic
politeness construes the formulation of an individuals face as a public self-image.
According to Brown and Levinson, peoples faces are human properties that are
broadly comparable to self-esteem (Grundy 2008, p. 195). According to Kitamura
(2000, p. 1), Brown and Levinson classified two notion of face: positive and
negative face. Positive face indicates the similarities among interactants and
appreciates the interlocutors self image.
On the other hand, negative face can be expressed by preserving personals right of
freedom of action and freedom from imposition. Socially inappropriate behaviour is
a potential threat to peoples faces as they may be risk being humiliated or
embarrassed. Holmes (2006, p. 685) argues that we can never know what people are
actually feeling or thinking in a conversational situation. Consequently, all people
can do is to attempt to interpret what speakers or listeners wish to convey through
verbal or non-verbal communication.
In order to avoid conflict and respect peoples freedom of thought, and thus
maintain the harmonious relations with others, politeness strategies can be
implemented in conversation. For example, people can soften a request by avoiding
bare imperatives to maintain a positive or negative face in a conversational situation.
Therefore, it is suggested that behaving appropriately, that is assuming to match the
speakers and addressees need or wish, can preserve either positive or negative self-
image of the speaker or the hearer. This is because, according to Bowe and Martin
(2007, p. 28), face is something that can be lost, maintained or enhanced in which it
can be monitored during the interaction.
According to Brown and Levinson (in Bowe and Martin 2009, p. 28), the seriousness
of face-threatening that is caused by an inappropriate behaviour can be assessed.
The factors that influence to that face-threatening involve three fundamental
sociocultural variables: the social distance (D) between the participants, the power
(P) that the addressee has over the speaker, and the ranking of the imposition (R)
expressed in the utterance in the relevant culture (Holmes 2006, p. 687). Based on
this standpoint, Brown and Levinson (1987, p. 74 cited in Bowe and Martin 2009, p.
28) firmly believe that through these variables, the seriousness of a face-threatening
act (FTA) within the speaker and listener can be assessed or measured.
The so-called universality of Brown and Levinsons theory does not go without being
unchallenged. It has been the subject of much subsequent research and of some
criticism. One of the reasons is that the Brown and Levinsons theory is only based
on three countries; English, Tamil, and Tzeltal (Bowe and Martin 2009, p. 27 and
Holmes 2006, p. 689). Meanwhile, it is a fact that there are other cultures in the
world, such Asian and Polynisian cultures, among many others. To account for
language and cultural diversities for instance, Holmes (2006, p. 685) believes that
different cultures have different ways of expressing considerations for others.
Based on the wide range of cultural diversity in the world, the notion of individuals
face as a public self-image proposed by Brown and Levinson reflects the culturally
biased conceptual framework to evaluate the politeness more objectively and
empirically (Mao 1993, p.452). Matsumoto (1989, in Mao 1993, p.452) argues that
the interactional focusing on non-western countries, for example the Japaneses
concept of etiquette is oriented towards group agreement, not towards
individualism. In another word, the notion of the rules of politeness is a collective
knowledge that is shared by the members of society.
Much comment on the Brown and Levinsons theory suggests numbers of alternative
approaches to politeness. Some linguists such as Grice and Leech dedicated their
research on the complexity of politeness issues. Grice proposed the conversational
maxim as normative rules of interaction: quantity, quality, relevance and manner.
Maxim means a well-known phrase that expresses something that is usually true or
that people think is a rule for sensible behaviour (Wehmeier 2000, p. 791). Leech,
after elaborating Grice`s maxims, sets a politeness principle that offers the more
general model than Grices maxims. Leech identifies the maxims of tact, generosity,
approbation, modesty, agreement and sympathy (Bowe and Martin 2009, p. 33 &
Holmes 2006, p. 690).
What makes Leechs principle of politeness somewhat different from Grice and
Brown and Levinson theories are that he more addressed the issue of why people
are often so indirect in conveying what they mean (Holmes, 2006, p. 690). For
example, my niece asked me if I like her new shoes bright pink plastic sandals,
decorated with glitter. Even though they were so ghastly, I would still reply, They
look really cool rather than saying I think they`re awful.
Another theory, aside from Leechs politeness principle that I used in this
investigation, is Kulkas framework. Kulka re-examined the notions of indirectness
and politeness applied in request. Accordingly, the two notions, indirectness and
politeness, do not represent parallel dimensions. Kulka (1987, p. 1) argues that
indirectness does not necessarily imply politeness. Indirect pattern in request that is
assumed to entail the degree of politeness seems to be associated with the former but
not necessarily with the later. Kulka (1987, p. 1) firmly believes that the essential part
of politeness is the need of pragmatic clarity and non-coerciveness.
(Taken from: http://spotcorner.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/examining-brown-and-levinsons-
theory-of-linguistic-politeness-primarily-findings-in-the-indonesian-context/)