中西方礼貌原则及其差异分析

1. Introduction
Politeness as a social phenomenon can be observed in all languages and cultures, and it has long been made an important object of study in linguistics. The really serious study of politeness in the Western linguistic circles can be traced back to the German Romantic Movement in the early 1920s. In recent years, along with the rapid movement towards pragmatics, politeness has become the central theme. The two most influential and successful theories are Brown and Levinson‟s Face Theory and Le ech‟s Politeness Principle.
In China, however, the real study of politeness only began in the 1980s when pragmatics was introduced into China. The most worth-mentioning figure in this area is Gu Yueguo. He puts forward his own set of politeness maxims in his “Politeness Phenomena in Modem Chinese” (1990). Later, based on traditional Chinese cultural values, Gu has formulated a different set of politeness maxims, which he thinks are more suitable to the Chinese environment.
As a common social phenomenon, politeness is not only a universally highly valued virtue, but also a widely employed strategy to realize tactful and effective communications. Despite its universality of politeness, the ways to realize politeness and the standards of judgment differ in different cultures. Being unaware of such differences would probably lead to trouble or failure in cross-cultural communication. Therefore, it is necessary and important to study different concepts and manifestations of politeness in different cultures, so as to reduce the possibility of misunderstanding between the two sides and achieve a satisfactory result.
2. Concept of Politeness
Politeness is a universal phenomenon in human society, but it is not existent until the process of socialization and civiliz ation. The English term “polite” derives from late Medieval Latin “Politus” meaning “smoothed”, “accomplished”. Therefore“polite” was usually associated with concepts such as “polished”, “refined”. However different linguists and scholars give their different interpretations of politeness.
Leech (1983: 82) sees politeness as a regulative factor in interaction in order to maintain “the social equilibrium and the friendly relation”.
Brown and Levinson view politeness as a redressive action taken to counter-balance the disruptive effect of face-threatening acts.
Yule (2000: 106) maintains that politeness is “a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human in terchange”.
For Kochman, politeness has a protective mission exercised in putting things in such a
way as to take account of the feelings of others:
Polite conversation is...a way of showing consideration for other people‟s feelings, that is, not saying or doing anything that might unduly excite or arouse. The
…gentleman‟s agreement‟ (though, hardly just confined to adult males) is and was …you
don‟t do or say anything that might arouse my feelings, and I won't do or say anything
that might arouse yours‟... (Kochman，1984: 204).
He Zhaoxiong, a Chinese scholar (1995), holds that politeness can be understood as a social phenomenon, a means to achieve good interpersonal relationships, and a norm imposed by social conventions, and therefore politeness is phenomenal, instrumental, and normative by nature.
Therefore, we might say politeness is showing courtesy, respect and consideration to other people, acknowledging them, and not imposing unnecessarily on them.
3. Chinese Politeness Theories-Gu Yueguo’s Politenes s Principle
Gu Yueguo is among the few who have studied Chinese politeness. He argues against Brown and Levinson‟s face approach and favors Leech‟s principle and maxim framework. Gu holds that there are basically four essential notions underlying the Chinese conception of limao(礼貌): respectfulness, modesty, attitudinal warmth, and refinement. “Respectfulness” is self‟s positive appearance or admiration of other concerning the latter‟s face, social status and so on. It is, to a large extent, identical with t he need to maintain the hearer‟s positive face. “Modesty” can be seen as another way of saying “self-denigration”. To a large extent, modesty is universal, but to interpret it as self-denigration is uniquely Chinese. “Attitudinal warmth” is self‟s demonstration of kindness, consideration and hospitality to other. It bears a strong Chinese trait and according to B & L, the speaker runs the risk of infringing on the hearer‟s personal freedom, thus threatening his negative face. It shows the speaker‟s concern for the hearer, and is regarded as completely polite. Finally, “Refinement”refers to self‟s behavior to other which meets certain standards. It represents the normative character of politeness and the social conventions that the member of the community must abide by. People should live up to the conventionally recognized social standards in order not to be accused of being rude or ill mannered (Gu Yueguo, 1990: 239). Based on traditional Chinese cultural values, Gu has formulated a different set of politeness maxims, which he thinks are more suitable to the Chinese environment:
3.1 Self-Denigration Maxim:
The maxim consists of two clauses or sub-maxims (a) denigrate self and (b) elevate other. This maxim absorbs the notions of respectfulness and modesty. For examples: A: Your boy was really great in that play!
B: Thank you, actually he needs more practices, I think your boy was amazing.
3.2 Address Term Maxim:
The maxim reads: address your interlocutor with an appropriate address term. This maxim is based on the notions of respectfulness and attitudinal warmth. For examples: A: You should think about your future now！(Uncle)
B: Yes, uncle, I have the same feeling.
3.3 Refinement Maxim:
The maxim refers to self‟s behavior to other which meets certain standards. With regard to language use, it means the use of refined language and a ban on foul language. The use of euphemisms and indirectness is also covered in this maxim.
For example: when you are having a dinner party with your friends, if you want to pee, you should pay attention to your language use:
a.Excuse me, ladies; I have to answer the call of nature.
b.I have to wash my hands.
c.I have to go somewhere.
3.4 Agreement Maxim:
The maxim refers to the efforts made by both interlocutors to maximize agreement and harmony and minimize disagreement. For examples:
A: I think the movie, the dinner and the party are all great tonight! Don‟t you think so, Tom?
B: Yeah! It is a fantastic night, I like the movie too, I mean it is funny, and the dinner, the yummy foods. The party is also amazing! We do have a lot of fun tonight.
3.5 Virtues-Words-Deeds Maxim:
The maxim refers to minimizing cost and maximizing benefit to other at the motivational level, and maximizing benefit received and minimizing cost to self at the conversational level. For instance, when your boss ask you to get a thing done, you should think about the cost and the benefit to your boss, then, try your best to minimize the cost and maximize the benefit to your boss when you are getting things done. After that, when you and your boss are having a conversation about the thing he told you to do .You should maximize benefit received and minimize cost to self. For example:
A: You really did a great job，Jackson！
B: Thank you, boss, I got a fair enough pay, actually I should have expanded more time doing that job.
4. Western Politeness Theories
4.1 Cooperative Principle (CP)
The cooperative principle (CP) is a principle of conversation that was proposed by Grice. According to Grice(1975：45), in ordinary conversation, speakers and hearers understand and share a cooperative principle. Speakers shape their utterances to be understood by hearers, in communicating with each other, people should obey four maxims:
1.The Maxim of Quantity：
Give the right amount of information:
a. Make your contribution as informative as is required.
b. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
(For example: A: How many courses do you have this semester? B: Five. )
2. The Maxim of Quality:
Try to make your contribution one that is true:
a. Do not say what you believe to be false.
b. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
(They are genuine and sinc ere, speaking “truth” or facts.)
A: Do you think he is suitable for the job?
B: Yes, absolutely.
3.The Maxim of Relation:
Be relevant (Utterances are relative to the context of the speech.)
A: When did you hear from him?
B: Two days ago.
4.The Maxim of Manner:
Be perspicuous:
a. Avoid obscurity.
b. Avoid ambiguity.
c. Be brief.
d. Be orderly.
(Speakers try to present meaning clearly and concisely, avoiding ambiguity)
A: Let‟s have a walk, shall we?
B: Lovely idea.
From above we can see these maxims specify what participants have to do in order to conduct communication in a maximally efficient, rational, cooperative way. To do so, they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly, while providing sufficient information. Otherwise, the communication cannot go on smoothly.
4.2 Lakoff’s Theory of Politeness
Lakoff was among the first to deal with …politeness‟ as a complementary element to
Gricean Maxims of Cooperation (Grice, 1975：33). She interprets politeness as forms of behavior which have been developed in societies in order to avoid offense and reduce friction in personal interaction. Lakoff proposes two simple rules of pragmatic competence that is designed to take into accoun t “the speaker‟s assumptions about his relation with his addressee, his real-world situation as he speaks, and the extent to which he wishes to change either or both, or not to reinforce them”. The two rules of pragmatic competence go like this:（1）Be clear, and（2）Be polite. The first rule, …be clear‟, is in observation of Grice‟s maxims in conversation, while the latter, …be polite‟, explains why speakers regularly and intentionally refrain from saying what they mean, solving the problem that the Cooperative Principle (CP) cannot explain. Lakoff develops her politeness theory further into three rules of politeness as follows:
Rule 1: Don‟t Impose
(used when Formal / Impersonal Politeness is required)
Rule 2: Give Options
(used when Informal Politeness is required)
Rule 3: Make One Feel Good
(used when Intimate Politeness is required)
The first rule entails the feeling of being distant. The participants are possibly not in equal social power and position, such as an employee and an employer. The second rule is applicable to the conversations between participants who are in similar social power and position but are not familiar with each other, such as two people living in the same room in a hotel. And the third is applicable to the conversations between friends, intimates and relatives. Each of these rules is oriented to make the hearer “feel good”. Lakoff suggests (1973: 301): “In fact, one might try to generalize and say that this was the purpose of all the rules of politeness. But they all do i t in different ways”.Lakoff also argues that “unlike the rules of conversation, they are to some extent mutually exclusive: different ones are applicable in different real-world situations, and applying the wrong one at the wrong time may cause as much friction as not applying any. Speakers must assess their relationship with their addressees, as well as their communicative goals and intentions, in order to determine which of the rules should take precedence in the formation of a given utterance.”
4.3 Leech’s Politeness Principle (PP)
Based on the maxims of conversation proposed by Grice and the fact that there are occasions when people do not follow the Cooperative Principle (1983:104), Leech proposed the Politeness Principle to “rescue” Grice‟s CP. He defines politeness as forms of behavior that are aimed at the establishment and maintenance of comity, i.e. the ability of participants in a socio-communicative interaction to engage in interaction in an atmosphere of relative harmony. In his proposal, he suggests that politeness concerns a relationship between two
participants whom we may call “self” and “other”. In conversation, “self” will normally be identified with a speaker, and “other” will typically be identified with hearer. Leech divides the PP into six maxims，each consisting of two sub-maxims:
1. Tact Maxim
a. Minimize cost to other;
b. Maximize benefit to other.
2. Generosity Maxim
a. Minimize benefit to self;
b. Maximize cost to self.
3. Approbation Maxim
a. Minimize dispraise of other;
b. Maximize praise of other.
4. Modesty Maxim
a. Minimize praise of self;
b. Maximize dispraise of self.
5. Agreement Maxim
a. Minimize disagreement between self and other;
b. Maximize agreement between self and other.
6. Sympathy Maxim
a. Minimize antipathy between self and others;
b. Maximize sympathy between self and others.
According to Leech (1983:133), not all the maxims and sub-maxims are equally important. Of all the maxims, Tact Maxim appears to be a more powerful constraint on conversational behavior than Generosity Maxim, and Approbation Maxim more powerful than Modesty Maxim, because politeness is focused more strongly on …other‟ than on …self‟. Moreover, within each maxim, sub-maxim (b) appears to be less important than sub-maxim (a), because negative politeness (avoidance of discord) is a more weighty consideration than positive politeness (seeking concord) in English-speaking cultures.
4.3.1 The Tact Maxim
The Tact Maxim means that the speaker tries not to express beliefs that suggest or imply cost or harm to the hearer. It is the most important maxim in the PP, since it is used in impositives, which need politeness most in various speech acts. In fact, …tact‟ is essential in politeness, for using language politely means using language tactfully.
For example:
a. Could you shut the door?
b. Can I help you?
4.3.2 The Generosity Maxim
The Generosity Maxim, which is …self-centered‟, is the other aspect of the same matter as the …other-c entered‟ Maxim of Tact. It conveys the idea that a speaker should try to diminish his own benefit and maximize his own cost.
For example:
a. Do have another cake, please.
b. A: “I‟m going to spend my summer vacation in Shanghai.”
B: “I can lend you my key.”
4.3.3 The Approbation Maxim
Not surprisingly, saying something good about the other person is much more polite than saying something bad. A compliment like …What a marvelous meal you cooked!‟ is highly valued according to the Approbation Maxim. Similarly, it is polite to say:
a. You are the best coach in my mind.
b. A: “Her performance was remarkable!”
B: “Yes, wasn‟t it!”
4.3.4 The Modesty Maxim
Like the Tact Maxim and the Generosity Maxim, the Modesty Maxim is also a counterpart to the Approbation Maxim. The Approbation Maxim deals with how to evaluate …other‟, while the Modesty Maxim with how to evaluate …self‟. The Modesty Maxim says that self-dispraise is regarded as quite benign.
For example:
a. A: “What a clever boy you are! You have done a good jo
b.”
B: “Thank you. I have a very good partner.”
b. A: “Thank you very much for what you‟ve done for me.”
B: “Not at all. This is the least I could do.”
4.3.5 The Agreement Maxim
We talk in terms of the Agreement Maxim, which means that we should exaggerate agreement with other people, and to mitigate disagreement by expressing regret, partial agreement, etc. See the following examples:
a. A: “That skirt she is wearing is beautiful, don't you think?”
B: “Well, I like the color.”
b. A: “How do you like my painting?”
B: “I don‟t have an eye for beauty, I'm afraid.”
c. A: “English is a difficult language to learn.”
B: “True, but the grammar is quite easy.”
4.3.6 The Sympathy Maxim
The Sympathy Maxim accounts for why congratulations and condolences are courteous speech acts, even though condolences express the beliefs that are negative with regard to the hearer. See the following examples:
a. A: “We lost the game.”
B: “Never mind. Better luck next time.”
b. A: “My father was sick last week.”
B: “Oh, I‟m sorry to hear that.”
4.4 Brown and Levinson’s Face Theory
The concept of …face‟, central to the theory of politeness proposed by Brown and Levinson, is claimed to be drawn primarily from the work of the noted American sociologist Erving Goffman (1967: 5), who defines face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact”. According to Goffman, face is a sacred thing for every human being, and it is an essential factor that all communicators have to pay attention to, if one wants his face cared for, he should care for other people‟s face.
Based on the face notion raised by Goffman in the late 1950s, Brown and Levinson (1987: 2,216) put forward the face theory. They define face as the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, which consists of two related aspects: “negative face” and “positive face”. Negative face is a person‟s desire to be unimpeded by others, to be free to act without being imposed upon, while positive face is a person‟s wish to be desirable to at least some other who will appreciate and approve of one‟s self and one‟s personality.
In the face theory, Brown and Levinson believed that keeping our face is the most important thing in social interactions. If we want to keep our face, we shall be very careful to keep others‟ face. Otherwise, all face is lost. (何自然,1997:102). In other words, one‟s face in communication can be given and saved by the other party, so people in communication should cooperate in caring for others‟ face. When one‟s face is under threat, he will try to save it, while saving his own face, the other‟s face would be threatened. According to Brown & Levinson (1987:67-68), nearly all speech acts are face-threatening acts (FTAs), requests, orders, threats, suggestions and advice are examples of acts which represent a threat to “negative face”, because the speaker will be putting some pressure on the addressee to do. Apologing and accepting compliments are seen as FTAs to speaker‟s positive face, since in the first case, the speaker will be indicating that she / he regrets doing a prior FTA and thus she / he will be damaging his / her own face; in the second case the speaker might feel that she / he has to reciprocate the compliment in one way or another. Therefore, one should employ certain strategies to try to avoid or minimize threats to face when one has to do an FTA. According to the face-threatening degree of speech acts, the five strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson are (from the least polite to the most polite): a. bald on record without
redressive action; b. positive politeness; c. negative politeness; d. off-record politeness, and e. don't do the FTA, among which positive and negative politeness are prominent .
5. Differences between Chinese and Western Politeness Principles
5.1 Differences b etween Chinese “Face” and B & L’s “Face”
In the Chinese culture, face goes beyond Brown and Levinson‟s description of a “public self-image” that is satisfied, preserved, enhanced, or threatened in interactions; rather, face is social cap ital and can be either “thick” or “thin”, borrowed, given,augmented, diminished and so on. Face goes deep to the core of a Chinese person‟s identity and integrity. And, since a Chinese person‟s identity and integrity are entwined with others, face then becomes “collective property”. People in China are encouraged to avoid acts that stir up jealousy, affront authority or incur ill-will things that can damage face.
But in the English culture face exists only in the immediate time and place that involves the two conflict parties. Brown & Levinson‟s Face-Saving Theory is for defending individual‟s freedom of actions whereas Chinese politeness focuses on self-restraint. It would be difficult for Chinese to treat these acts as FTAs (Face-Threatening Acts): suggestions, offerings, expressions of admiration, self-humiliation, etc. To Chinese, these acts are just on the contrary polite and can actually be termed as “face-enhancing act” to the hearer, and they have nothing to do with face-threatening in the Chinese culture.
It‟s true that Americans care for their own faces and care for whether to keep faces for themselves, while Chinese care for others‟ faces and care for whether to keep faces for others.
5.2 Modesty and Self-denigration
It is universally acknowledged that to show modesty is a way to be polite. English modesty is a strategy of minimizing praise of self, but in Chinese culture, modesty is the most outstanding feature of politeness, people tend to make negative answer or self-denigration to show their modesty. Modesty is reflected in every aspect of Chinese life. It has become the habit of the majority of the Chinese to belittle themselves and respect others. For instance, in Chinese culture, in order to show our modesty we often turn “I” into “fool”, “small potato”, “lonely man”（愚兄，愚弟 ,敝人，鄙人，不才，寡人）and so on. While in English most of us may have noticed that “I” is always capital, but “we”, “you”, “they”, “he” and “she” are not. From this we can infer “I” is more important than “we”, “you”, “they”, “he” or “she” in English culture.
Denying other‟s praise is a proper language behavior in China. It is a Chinese convention to decline other‟s invitation for at least one time to show modesty. In a word the Chinese are ready to show modesty all the time. Here is such a case:
American: You did a good job.
Chinese response:
That‟s the result of joint efforts.
There‟s still much room for improvement.
No, no, there are many defects.
No, no, not at all. You are joking.
It is good manners in the English culture to accept a compliment by saying something like “thank you” to show acknowledgement of self-worth and achievement as well as appreciation of the praise, because this is the English convention. But it is not only polite but also a virtue in the Chinese culture to respond to a compliment by saying something like “哪里，哪里，还差得远呀。

”“不，不，做得不够好。

”or claiming that he (she) is not worthy of the compliment, that what he (she) has done is far from enough or that the success is merely a matter of luck, etc. That is why it tends to be hard for native speakers of English to understand many negative comments in Chinese, which are expressed out of modesty.
To sum up, “modesty” in English culture stresses other-elevating, but not necessarily and very rarely self-denigrating where as Chinese “modesty” emphasizes both self-denigrating and other-elevating, but with a more stress on self-denigrating. (He Zhaoxiong 1995: 20)
5.3 Politeness in English-speaking Cultures and Chinese Culture
The phenomenon of politeness is “not a natural entity, but one which has evolved historically, one that has been constructed historically. Concepts of politeness are thus an integral part of politeness itself, of its history, its evolution, its development and its historical implementation.”(Ehlich, 1992：32)
As discussed in Chapter three, Lakoff (1973:238) concentrates on its supportive features and says that politeness is for “reaffirming and strengthening relationships”. According to her, “Politeness is a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange”. Leech (1977: 19) goes for the protective side of politeness and proposes that it is used to “avoid strategic conflict”. From the view of Brown and Levinson, politeness can be defined as the means employed to show awareness of another person‟s face. Hill (1986: 347) points out: “Politeness is one of the constraints on human interaction, whose purpose is to consider others‟ feelings, to establish levels of mutual comfort, and to promote rapport”. This definition indicates that politeness is seen as a constraint on human behavior, not only to “reduce friction” as Lakoff suggests, but also to enhance rapport and harmony.
The Chinese concept of politeness is different. Chinese see politeness as a virtue instead of a strategy, and the purpose of politeness is not to avoid discord but to seek harmony. In Chinese culture, politeness is an expression of a person‟s moral character and the core of it is mutual respect and mutual accommodation (Bi Jiwan, 1997：55).
The most approximate equivalent of the English word “politeness”, in modern Chinese,
is “礼貌”，which morphemically means “polite appearance”. “礼貌”is believed to have evolved in history from the classical notion of “礼”，which was formulated by the ancient Chinese philosopher and thinker Confucius (511B.C. - 479 B.C.). “礼”as one measure advocated by Confucius to restore social order, didn‟t mean “politeness”at that time. It referred to the social hierarchy and order of the slave society of the Zhou Dynasty (dating back to 1100 B.C.). About two hundred years after Confucius, the word “礼”seemed to have been used in a sense very close to its derivative in modern Chinese, i.e.礼貌. It was first found in a book entitled《礼记》supposed to be written by Dai Sheng sometime during the West Han Dynasty. The book opens with:“Speaking of li (礼), humble yourself but show respect to others”. It has ever since become an essential feature of the Chinese notion of politeness. Even today, denigrating self and respecting others still remain at the core of the modern conception of “礼貌”. For example, in the most authoritative Dictionary of Modern Chinese，the explanation of the word “礼貌”goes as modesty and respectfulness in speech and behavior. In short, the social function of politeness in modern Chinese is to seek harmony, mitigate contradiction, and facilitate cooperation between people.
Politeness is, in fact, strategies to establish and maintain a certain kind of relation with others, but different societies usually have different norms. With the direction of the norm, we know whether we should be polite to certain people in certain circumstances. For instance, respecting the old and caring the young is traditionally regarded as a virtue in China, in which there are special seats for the old, the weak, the sick, the disabled and the pregnant on buses. But such an expression is not welcome by English-speaking people at all. Therefore it is a good manner in China to offer your seat to an old man on the bus, but the same act may make the old man confused or even annoyed if it happens in America. For their concept of value is quite different from ours. They want to be treated as young and healthy. So even an old man over sixty would not like to be addressed “old people” or even “the elderly”. He would prefer the terms such as “senior citizen” or “golden aged”. As the result of such cultural psychology, no one would like to be classified into the old and the weak. Therefore, in western countries, they prefer to choose the term “courtesy seats” to avoid hurting the passengers‟ honor and self-respect. Happily as far as I noticed, in Shanghai the expression of “Offer seats to the old, the weak, the sick, the disabled and the pregnant” has been changed into “Offer seats to the people who need h elp” on the Metro.
6. Conclusion
Politeness is a very important issue of study in modem linguistics, especially in pragmatics. Despite its universality, politeness is to some extent culture-specific. Based on the analysis of cultural differences between English and Chinese, we can easily find that problems in communication between Chinese and the Westerners occur rather frequently because of the differences of basic cultural values. With the development of cross-cultural。