linguistic politeness

THEORIZING LINGUISTIC POLITENESS IN INDONESIAN SOCIETY

(the original article writer: E Aminudin Aziz, UPI)

Highlighted by I.G.A. Lokita Purnamika Utami

The problem posed in this research is what kind of politeness principle can be used to explain comprehensively the language usage phenomena in Indonesian context. In theorizing the linguistic politeness In Indonesia the researcher did some comparison among some theories on politeness proposed by Goffman, Brown and Levinson, Grice, and Leech in terms of how they comprehensively explain Indonesian linguistic phenomenon.

Goffman’s face-work sees each individual must respect others’ right as he does his own right. Goffman believed in saving face conduct (in disharmony situation) is as evidence of an individual’s expression of self-respect and consideration of others. Goffman’s notion of face-work rest on two strategies of expressing politeness. First, the avoidance strategy used before an encounter occurs, and is aimed mainly at preserving the face of interactants. Second, the correction strategy used after an encounter occurs and is mainly aimed at saving the face of interactant. This theory underlies all theories of politeness, although its realization varies from culture to culture.

Brown and Levinson developed politeness strategies -from Goffman’s face-work notion- in the most detailed studies to date (1987). They offer strategies for expressing politeness at the time an encounter is occurring- one that Gofman failed to offer. While Brown and Levinson claimed that their politeness strategies are universally applicable to any communication transaction in any culture, some recent studies have shown that politeness realization is culture specific (Matsumuto 1988, 1989; Ide 1989; and Hill et al 1986 in their discussion of politeness in Japanese culture; and Gu 1990; Mao 1994 with reference to modern Chinese.) These researchers have contended that Brown and Levinson’s claim rest on western culture where the underlying interactional focus is centered upon individualistic relations. This research also found out that Brown and Levinson’s politeness strategies is too individualistic and western-oriented, to be able to explain Indonesian linguistic politeness phenomena.

Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP) is characterized by four maxim, Quantity ( concerned with the amount of information to be provided), Quality (dealing with the genuines and sincerity of providing the information, Relation (dealing with the relevance of information provided), and Manner (concerned with the way how people have to provide the information.

However, in contrast, to the principle of efficient communication implied in CP, an Indonesian speaker seemed to always have to violate one or more maxims of Grice’s CP. The maxim of quantity, for example, which says “make your contribution as informative as is required, and do not make your contribution more informative than it is required” often had to be violated, as the data on Indonesian refusal responses tends to contain lengthy expression and to be stated very indirectly. The way how Indonesian speaker refuse something with indirect and lengthy expression also violates the other maxim, Manner, which says ’avoid obscurity of expression, avoid ambiguity, and be brief.” This research found out that CP is too rigid, in the sense that violations to one or more maxims are always possible.

It appears that the data collected in this research are best examined by using politeness perspectives (PP) proposed by Leech (1983) instead of CP from Grice. PP has a number of sub-maxims, including maxim of Tact, Generosity, Approbation, Modesty, Agreement and Sympathy. However, these sub-maxims are not equally important, and it appears that the Tact Maxims is the most powerful. In Leech’s PP, the general law of politeness should focus ‘more strongly on other than on self.’ Leech’s PP appears to be concerned about the maintenance of social harmony as well as togetherness, taking into account the normative values in which given language operates. Therefore, PP is able to explain in a more comprehensible manner the language usage phenomena found in Indonesian context. For instance, Indonesian indirect refusal responses are common and apparently completely acceptable. This seems to constitute an attempts maintain the existing interpersonal harmony as well as minimize the level of infringement and insult potentially caused by direct response.

Although the Leech’s PP is more comprehensive and more able to explain linguistic politeness phenomena in Indonesia, its complexities in its formulation and its tautological nature have made PP too ‘heavy’ and ‘limping’ due to the imbalance treatment on each maxim (emphasis is on Tact maxims).

Taking all the fact into account, the researcher proposes a more general politeness principle which he calls prinsip tenggang rasa or the Principle of Mutual Consideration (PMC). PMC requires both speaker and hearer observe and behave according to the norms of appropriateness, in the sense that each participant would place himself in the other’s shoes. PMC operates under a number of sub-principles: harm and favor potential (an expression has the potential to harm as well as favor the hearer), Shared-feeling principle (consider the interlocutor’s feeling as you would consider your own), (first impression determine interlocutor’s evaluation on your politeness), Continuity principle (continuity of your relationship is partly determined by the current communication). PMC comes to offer a principle for doing politeness in all stages of communication (precommunicative politeness, in the spot politeness, and post-communicative politeness.) Compared to Leech’s PP, PMC looks simpler, though not simplistic. Unlike PP, which tautologizes its principles, and also other principles of linguistic politeness PMC operates more in cause and effect logic.