Politeness Literature Review

Literature review

In cross-cultural interactions the importance of politeness awareness is most evident. And this is in these types of interactions that the need for politeness education is felt. Many researchers have examined the importance of such instructions (Alcón Soler, 2005; Gu, 2011; Halenko & Jones, 2011; Koike & Pearson, 2005); however, in studies it is usually forgotten that language learners are already socialized into politeness conventions of their l1 and this knowledge can affect their linguistics and pragmatic choices in L2. This effect weather positive or negative can be used in educating learners to have smooth communication in target language. Also it is noted that one of the problematic areas which need special attention

Bald On-record politeness: Bald on-record politeness though might paradoxically seem impolite and direct, in fact is appropriate in certain contexts like: In cases of great urgency or desperation, to maximum efficiency, in case an attempt to be heard in noisy environment, and etc.

2. Off-record: This strategy can be pinned out in communicative acts which are done in such a way that we can 't attribute only one clear communicative intention to them. In other words it is when speakers chose to mitigate face-threat by being indirect. Proposed strategies for this type of politeness are: giving hint or association clues, being ambiguous or vague, use of ellipsis, and etc.

3. Positive Politeness: This strategy is an attempt to save hearer 's positive face by giving importance to addressee 's wants and needs to be part of the group. This can be done by seeking agreement, hedging opinions, avoiding disagreement, using jokes or asking for reasons, and etc.

4. Negative Politeness: This strategy 's aim is to reduce threats to the addressee 's negative face. For example requiring something is a face threatening act and speaker tries to maintain the addressee 's right to refuse by applying negative politeness strategies like: indirectness, usage of question hedge, giving deference, minimizing imposition, and

One which is "lay" or "folks" interpretation and evaluation of politeness that he calls "first order (im)politeness " and the other a concept in sociolinguistic theory of (im)politeness which he refers to as "second order (im)politeness". He also tries to make it clear that any politeness theory shall be based on a politeness model which is taken from real world use of language. He also emphasizes that there in no way to divorce first order (im)politeness from" of the social world in which it realizes various social values" (Watts, 2003). Following the lead of Eelen (2001) he takes discursive approach in politeness studies and believes that there are no universalities and what counts as polite or impolite is contextually and socially decided and negotiated within groups and between interlocutors. He also doesn’t believe that structures and linguistic patterns have intrinsic (im)politeness within them; however, as being stated in his book, he takes ‘consultative devices’, ‘play-downs’, ‘politeness markers’, ‘hedges’, ‘understaters’, ‘downtoners’, ‘committers’, ‘forewarnings’ and a like as "important clues to interpret whether the interactant remains within the scope of politic behaviour or violates