A critic of politeness theories (Gino Eelen)

Review of Gino Eelen, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2001, viii+280 pages,
paperback, ?7.99
"To ignore politeness
studies entails running the risk of miscommunication,conflict and friction
，among other things. In other words, where there is communication, there is
politeness studies."
This book will probably sparks and inspires a new surge of debate and discussion as to how to account
for politeness and that, all the more significantly, it will draw renewed attention paid to ontological(实体论
的), epistemological(认识论的) and methodological(方法论的) bases on which a coherent, if not all-
inclusive theory of politeness could be possibly built.
1. The presuppositions many politeness theorists have about the conceptualizations of politeness do not
come from empirical data.More serious, some if not many of them naively infer that their own views on
politeness, which may turn out to be wrong or inaccurate, can represent the views of their people if not the
whole of human culture, assuming the universality of human nature, taking little into consideration such
things as individual differences, regional divergences, and contexts of social interaction.
2. The nine major theories of politeness under discussion. These nine perspectives on politeness are
those advocated by Robin T. Lakoff, Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson, Geo?rey Leech, Yueguo
Gu, Sachiko Ide, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Bruce Fraser and William Nolen, Horst Arndt and Richard
Janney,and Richard Watts.
All those nine theories share one common feature: they all view politeness as ‘con-fict-avoidance’ and
as ‘social indexing’ (pp. 21–23).
The choice of a specific address form is called social indexing.
3. Future orientation: The marriage of relevance theory and the theory of politeness (potential yet
unresearched topic so far)
4. Turner(1993: 61) argument that ‘‘pragmatics should not be defined and then done but done and then
defined’’ is also true of the definition of politeness. After all, the act of defining something itself has in a
sense limited the extent to which this very something can be studied.
5. Politeness 1 refers to politeness notions of the outsiders (ordinary speakers) or emic accounts, while
politeness 2 refers to those of the insiders (researchers and scholars)or etic accounts.
Eelen distinguishes three different kinds of politeness 1: expressive politeness 1, classificatory
politeness1 and metapragmatic politeness 1, which are mainly characterized by evaluativity,
argumentativity, and normativity. Politeness 2 is ‘‘the scientific conceptualization of politeness100 (p. 45),
seeking to expound everyday politeness phenomena.
Eelen argues that researchers should take an inductive reasoning process in accounting for politeness.
For more details, Please download the PDF materials from the above.

A Critique of Politeness Theories (Book Review)

SILVIE VÁLKOVÁ

2008-09-08
 The article reviews the book A Critique of Politeness Theories by Gino Eelen, a study based on
detailed explanation of the existing politeness theories with suggestions for further research.

EELEN, G. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2001. ISBN 1-9006-
5040-1, 280 pp.

Although politeness as a research area of pragmatics and sociolinguistics was initiated by Brown
and Levinson more than 30 years ago, it seems to be a topic which still offers enough space for
new definitions and theoretical frameworks within which researchers concentrate on various
politeness strategies and also language devices used for their manifestations, often in different
languages and cultures.

The already established theories reflect different scope of coverage of the multifaceted notion of
politeness, the diversity of models by which to approach this cognitive space by linguistic or rather
socio-linguistic means, and the consequent diversity of a partly redundant and partly overlapping
terminological apparatus, very often giving the impression of adding the air of newness to the
already existing terms. The diversity of theoretical frameworks contributes to the gradient of their
acceptance: while some of the theories - namely those promising dynamic and flexible tools for
applicability, and operating within clines or scales rather than binary yes/no decisions - have
become good theoretical tools for a wide spectrum of application, those, prescribing fixed, single-
culture-based generalisations, are accepted, or rather approached, with mixed feelings, if not
subjected to apparent criticism. In this climate of partly inherited and partly innovative
conceptions, a book critically surveying the status quo of politeness theories is a promising
invitation to a guided quality-based selection, namely if its very title explicitly offers a critical
standpoint.

What makes Eelen´s critique of politeness theories different from other studies is his ability to
capture the nexus of the existing theories which he considers representative and foreground their
distinctive aspects as well as their common characteristic features. The critique, based on very
detailed explanation of the existing theories, enables readers to get effortlessly a detailed
overview.

Chapter 1 introduces an overview of theories whose universal connections are conceptualizing

politeness as strategic conflict-avoidance and politeness as social indexing, i.e. “…what is socially
appropriate depends on the speaker’s social position (in relation to hearer).” (Eelen 2001: 21). The
core theories studied are those of R. Lakoff, P. Brown and S.C. Levinson, G. Leech, Y. Gu, S. Ide,
S. Blum-Kulka, B. Fraser and W. Nolen, H. Arndt and R. Janney, and R. Watts. Although other
names and theories are mentioned, the author considers the above listed scholars representative
of current scientific thinking about politeness.

In Chapter 2 the author stresses the importance of distinguishing between the commonsense
notion of politeness and its scientific conceptualization, in other words distinguishing between
politeness 1 and politeness 2. The clear distinction between the two is confused by most of the
theorists, their position in relation to the distinction is often ambiguous, implicitly present but not
explicitly stated. According to Eelen, the main features of politeness 1 are evaluativity (both
politeness and impoliteness are evaluative in nature – impoliteness involves negative evaluation,
while politeness can be both positive and negative); argumentativity (politeness 1 is aimed at
some social effect, associated with situations where there is something to lose or gain); polite-
ness (politeness refers to the polite end of the polite-impolite continuum, it does not cover impolite
behaviour);normativity (it involves social norms, the normativity of politeness 1 is connected to its
association with ´appropriateness´); modality and reflexivity (refers to the optionality of polite
interactional strategies for the actor). Politeness 2 as a scientific conceptualization should describe
how politeness 1 works, what it does for people. Politeness 2 should avoid being evaluative in
nature, should be non-normative and should cover the whole range of the polite-impolite
continuum.
 Chapter 3 deals with the distinction between politeness and impoliteness. While the current
theories remain centred on the polite side of the distinction (only four of them explicitly incorporate
impoliteness), Eelen argues that the theory of politeness should take into account both sides of the
coin – politeness and impoliteness. Another critique is that the theories in their conceptualizations
of politeness are biased towards the speaker in the interactional speaker-hearer dyad and towards
the production of behaviour rather than its evaluation.

Chapter 4 focuses on normativity as one of the politeness 1 features. According to Eelen, norms
in some form appear in various politeness theories and their common features are appropriateness,
sharedness and norm-ality. “The commonsense idea that politeness is a matter of socially shared
norms is retained in the scientific models, where those norms are translated into social/cultural
principles that guide language behaviour. Norms are thus not relative to the individual, but become
absolute, objective entities operating on the level of society/culture. Politeness is seen as a system
of such absolute norms that needs to be internalized by the individual through socialization.” (Eelen
2001: 187). The critique of the theories concerning the inclusion of norms into politeness
conceptualization is based on a sociological theory, although culture is not theoretically defined in
terms of particular social characteristics. (Eelen 2001: 164).

In Chapter 5 the author, influenced by the works of sociologists Talcott Parsons and Pierre
Bourdieu, presents a social-psychological model of human reality underlying the politeness
theories, stressing the fact that in all the theoretical frameworks the social level is “prior to the
individual, which leads to the unidirectional determination of the individual by the social level…”
(Eelen 2001: 246) – an obvious reminiscence of Halliday’s (1978) conception of language as social
semiotic. Based on Bourdieu´s notion of “habitus”, Eelen introduces suggestions for an approach in
which the social and the individual are more in balance. To reach such balance, researchers should
concentrate on the processes of social production rather than on the product of these processes.
The main characteristic features of politeness perceived from this perspective are variability,
evaluativity, argumentativity, and discursiveness. The suggested approach enables researchers to
capture both politeness and impoliteness by the same concepts; empowers the hearer and the
individual in general; covers more data as it also includes statistically marginal and contradictory
data and gives a richer view on politeness itself.

The last chapter of the book summarizes the findings of previous chapters together with the
consequences that the findings can have for the conceptualization of politeness. The shortcomings
of the theories under investigation can be generalized by the author´s own words “By taking many
aspects of politeness 1 at face value, generally mimicking its procedures and unquestioningly
accepting its representation of reality, politeness theory becomes largely based on the very
commonsense commonplaces it sets out to examine, and thus fails to provide any original insights
beyond those already available on the intuitive level.” (Eelen 2001: 246). However excellent the
book seemed to be at the beginning, showing impressive knowledge and insight into politeness
theories, it became rather breathless towards the end, offering no balance between criticism and
Eelen’s own contribution by which to push the research forward and provide a workable model of
analysis. His own definition of politeness is missing, giving politeness the status of a nowhere
defined but everywhere present assumption. The vagueness of this status is amplified by the
vagueness of some of the terms he suggests. What Eelen, however, gives us at the end of his book
is a battery of suggestions for further discussion and research in the field of politeness.

In spite of the above mentioned shortcomings, the book should definitely become an
inseparable part of a bookcase of those interested in pragmatics and sociolinguistics, namely those
focusing on linguistic politeness.

1. Gino Eelen, A Critique of Politeness Theories, Manchester: St. Jerome's Press, 2001,
ISBN: 1-9006-5040-1, 280 pp., £17.99.

Reviewed by Abdurrahman Hamza

For about more than fifteen years, politeness has been one of the most important and
productive areas of research in pragmatics and sociolinguistics. Its importance in cross-
cultural communication is obvious, and comparative studies of the conceptualisation and
manifestations of politeness in different cultures must therefore be regarded as vital in an era
of growing internationalisation.

Gino Eelen, in his critique of politeness theories is very critical of the theoretical assumptions
of the major politeness theorists, Brown and Levinson, and that of many other theorists
influenced by their work, for example, Gu, Lakoff, Leech, Blum Kulka, Fraser and Nolen,
Ide, and Arndt and Janney. He is critical of them on a number of counts: because of their
reliance on Speech Act theory, they all focus too closely on the speaker, at the expense of the
hearer; they also assume that all politeness is strategic. For him, these theorists reify
politeness, characterising it as something which hearer and speaker can unproblematically
recognise. He discusses two perspectives on politeness which he argues most theorists of
politeness confuse: politeness1 (the common-sense notion of politeness) and politeness2 (the
scientific conceptualisation of politeness). He argues for the importance of the distinction
between the two perspectives on politeness in research: ‘politeness 2 concepts should not just
be different from politeness 1 concepts, or given different names, but rather the relationship
between both notions should be carefully monitored throughout the entire analytical process-
not only at the input stage.' (Eelen 2001:31). He discusses politeness1 and classifies it to
include two aspects: the action-related side which refers to the way politeness actually
manifests itself in communicative behaviour; and the conceptual side which refers to
common-sense ideologies of politeness. He extends the discussion to involve, as
characteristics of politeness1 a) evaluativity, where he argues that politeness and impoliteness
are connected to social values and always evaluative in nature; b) argumentativity, where it is
always associated with situations where there is something to lose or gain; c) ‘polite’-ness,
where each individual considers themselves and their cultural group as polite, where only
others are impolite; d)- normativity, where politeness is the result of the pressure of social
norms; and e) modality and reflexivity, which refers to optionality of polite interactional
strategies for the actor. For him, politeness2 is the scientific conceptualisation of the social
phenomena of politeness; in that sense it is the theory of politeness1. Politeness2, he argues,
describes how politeness1 works, and also what it does for people. He argues unlike
politeness1 which is restricted to the polite end of the polite-impolite continuum, politeness2
should cover the whole range of the continuum. Eelen claims that the core politeness theories
fail to distinguish between what he calls politeness one and politeness two because of the
normative nature of most of the theories. He argues that impoliteness becomes not only a
matter of speakers' producing behaviour, but also of hearers' evaluating that behaviour. He
argues that the norms that govern appropriateness are social norms. They are not individual
norms held only by the hearer, but rather pertain to situations and cultures, and norms are not
individual but shared by all.

In sum, for Eelen, his critique of the theoretical frameworks are: (1) that they involve a
conceptual bias towards the polite end of the polite-impolite distinction: (2) that they
conceptualise politeness and impoliteness as opposites; and (3) that their conceptualisations of
politeness are biased towards the production of behaviour, or towards the speaker in the
interactional dyad.

Eelen’s critique is based on the work of Pierre Bourdieu which involves a different way of
looking at politeness. On the basis of Bourdieu' s sociological thinking, Eelen suggests a
possible alternative conceptualization of politeness. Bourdieu’s notion of 'habitus' is used as a
guide in the development of such a theoretical framework where the social-cultural is the
result of human interaction rather than the opposite.. Depending on Bourdieu, Eelen considers
the issue of culture as the core issue in the field of politeness. Eelen asks the question ‘how do
these theories handle the normativity of commonsense politeness and the situation of
culture?" He argues that politeness is subject to cultural expectations arising from cultural
norms.

Eelen considers the notion of politeness differs from culture to culture and that cultural norms
reflected in speech acts differ not only from one language to another, but also from one
regional and social variety to another. Probably this is why he chooses to base his critique on
a sociological theory, even though culture is not explicitly theoretically defined in terms of its
particular social characteristics. (Eelen 2001:164) He claims that his approach inspired by
Bourdieu’s notion of ‘habitus’, takes full account of the hearer’s position and the evaluative
moment; deals with both politeness and impoliteness; and provides a more dynamic, bi-
directional view of the social-individual relationship. He believes that the driving force behind
the system of politeness is the socioculturally shared norms. He considers that norms belong
to the level of culture and part of the sociolinguistic system of which politeness is subsystem:
‘communicative success depends on the right amount and kind of politeness applied at the
right time to the right speech act, as determined by social norms that stipulate what is
appropriate for a specific interactional situation" (Eelen, 2001:128)

Eelen considers the aspects politeness and impoliteness on the same level, and claims that
they are captured by the same concept: the empowerment of the hearer and of individual in
general in spite of the belief that only polite behaviour can ever be culturally appropriate,
while impoliteness is somehow non-cultural in nature. ‘The most important characteristics of
the notion of 'culture' as employed in theories of politeness are its vagueness and its
transformation form an observational into an explanatory notion". (Eelen 2001:169)

However, although this book is an excellent and provocative critique of politeness theory, it
does not offer us a workable model of analysis. There are still some issues insufficiently
investigated, in spite of his criticism of previous theories for failing to provide adequate
explanation for them, for example, he does not give a clear definition of politeness on which
we could base future analysis. He also claims that the core theories of the book fail to make a
clear distinction between what he calls politeness one and politeness two, but his model is not
clearly identifying its principles and leaves many elements vague and ill-defined, for example
the definition of the terms `norm’ and `culture’. However, this book provides a thorough
critique of the main theories of politeness and their major findings. Whilst not providing a
clear theoretical framework for the analysis of politeness, he does provide suggestions for
further discussion and research in the field. This book then will prove to be a of value to
social scientists and linguists and for those interested in understanding the relationship
between language culture and society.