'pre-request', allowing the receiver to say that she's busy or that

she has to be somewhere else. In this context, the response 'Sure'

is taken to be an acknowledgement not only of having time available, but a willingness to perform the unstated action. The analysis of speech events is clearly another way of studying how more
gets communicated than is said.
The usefulness of speech act analysis is in illustrating the kinds
of things we can do w i t h words and identifying some of the conventional utterance forms we use to perform specific actions.
However, we do need to look at more extended interaction to
understand how those actions are carried out and interpreted
within speech events.

Politeness and interaction

In much of the preceding discussion, the small-scale scenarios

presented to illustrate language in use have been populated by
people with virtually no social lives. Yet, much of what we say,
and a great deal of what we communicate, is determined by our
social relationships. A linguistic interaction is necessarily a social
interaction.
In order to make sense of what is said in an interaction, we have
to look at various factors which relate to social distance and
closeness. Some of these factors are established prior to an interaction and hence are largely external factors. They typically
involve the relative status of the participants, based on social values
tied to such things as age and power. For example, speakers who
see themselves as lower status in English-speaking contexts tend
to mark social distance between themselves and higher status
speakers by using address forms that include a title and
a last name, but not the first name (for example, Mrs Clinton,
M r Adams, Dr Dang). We take part in a wide range of interactions (mostly w i t h strangers) where the social distance determined by external factors is dominant.
However, there are other factors, such as amount of imposition
or degree of friendliness, which are often negotiated during an
interaction. These are internal to the interaction and can result in
the initial social distance changing and being marked as less, or
more, during its course. This may result, for example, in participants moving from a title-plus-last name to a first-name basis
within the talk. These internal factors are typically more relevant
to participants whose social relationships are actually in the
process of being worked out within the interaction.

S U R V E Y

P O L I T E N E S S

A N D

I N T E R A C T I O N

59

Both types of factors, external and internal, have an influence

not only on what we say, but also on how we are interpreted. In
many cases, the interpretation goes beyond what we might have
intended to convey and includes evaluations such as 'rude' and
'inconsiderate', or 'considerate' and 'thoughtful'. Recognizing
the impact of such evaluations makes it very clear that more is
being communicated than is said. The investigation of that
impact is normally carried out in terms of politeness.

Politeness
It is possible to treat politeness as a fixed concept, as in the idea of
'polite social behavior', or etiquette, w i t h i n a culture. It is also
possible to specify a number of different general principles for
being polite in social interaction within a particular culture. Some
of these might include being tactful, generous, modest, and sympathetic toward others. Let us assume that participants in an
interaction are generally aware that such norms and principles
exist in the society at large. Within an interaction, however, there
is a more narrowly specified type of politeness at work. In order
to describe it, we need the concept of face.
As a technical term, face means the public self-image of a person. It refers to that emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize. Politeness, in an
interaction, can then be defined as the means employed to show
awareness of another person's face. In this sense, politeness can be
accomplished in situations of social distance or closeness.
Showing awareness for another person's face when that other
seems socially distant is often described in terms of respect or
deference. Showing the equivalent awareness when the other is
socially close is often described in terms of friendliness, camaraderie, or solidarity. The first type might be found in a student's
question to his teacher, shown as [ i a . ] , and a second type in the
friend's question to the same individual, as in [ i b . ] .
[ i ] a. Excuse me, M r Buckingham, but can I talk to you for a
minute?
b. Hey, Bucky, got a minute?
It follows from this type of approach that there will be different
S U R V E Y

kinds of politeness associated (and marked linguistically) w i t h the

assumption of relative social distance or closeness. In most
English-speaking contexts, the participants in an interaction
often have to determine, as they speak, the relative social distance
between them, and hence their 'face wants'.

Face wants
In this discussion, let's assume that the participants involved in
interactions are not living in a context which has created rigidly
fixed social relationships. Within their everyday social interactions, people generally behave as if their expectations concerning
their public self-image, or their face wants, w i l l be respected. If a
speaker says something that represents a threat to another individual's expectations regarding self-image, it is described as a face
threatening act. Alternatively, given the possibility that some
action might be interpreted as a threat to another's face, the
speaker can say something to lessen the possible threat. This is
called a face saving act.

Imagine a late night scene, where a young neighbor is playing

his music very loud and an older couple are trying to sleep. One of
them, in [2], proposes a face threatening act and the other suggests a face saving act.
[2] H i m : I'm going to tell him to stop that awful noise right
now!
Her: Perhaps you could just ask him if he is going to stop
soon because it's getting a bit late and people need to
get to sleep.
Because it is generally expected that each person will attempt to
respect the face wants of others, there are many different ways of
performing face saving acts.

Negative and positive face

When we attempt to save another's face, we can pay attention to
their negative face wants or their positive face wants. A person's
negative face is the need to be independent, to have freedom of
action, and not to be imposed on by others. The word 'negative'
P O L I T E N E S S

A N D I N T E R A C T I O N

here doesn't mean 'bad', it's just the opposite pole from 'positive'.
A person's positive face is the need to be accepted, even liked, by
others, to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know
that his or her wants are shared by others. In simple terms, negative face is the need to be independent and positive face is the
need to be connected.
So, a face saving act which is oriented to the person's negative
face w i l l tend to show deference, emphasize the importance of the
other's time or concerns, and even include an apology for the
imposition or interruption. This is also called negative politeness.
A face saving act which is concerned w i t h the person's positive
face will tend to show solidarity, emphasize that both speakers
want the same thing, and that they have a common goal. This is
also called positive politeness.

Self and other: say nothing

One way to see the relevance of the relationship between these
politeness concepts and language use is to take a single speech
event and map out the different interpretations associated w i t h
different possible expressions used within that event. For example, you arrive at an important lecture, pull out your notebook to
take notes, but discover that you don't have anything to write
w i t h . You think that the person sitting next to you may provide
the solution. In this scenario, you are going to be 'Self, and the
person next to you is going to be 'Other'.
Your first choice is whether to say something or not. You can,
of course, rummage in your bag, search rather obviously through
your pockets, go back into your bag, without uttering a word, but
with the vague intention that your problem will be recognized.
This 'say nothing' approach may or may not work, but if it does,
it's because the other offers and not because the self asks, as in [3].
[3] Self:
(looks in bag)
Other: (offers pen) Here, use this.
Many people seem to prefer to have their needs recognized by
others without having to express those needs in language. When
those needs are recognized, as in [3], then clearly more has been
communicated than was said.
S U R V E Y

Say something: off and on record

Even if you decide to say something, you don't actually have to
ask for anything. You can (perhaps after your search through
your bag) simply produce a statement of the type in [4a.] or [4b.].
[4] a. Uh, I forgot my pen.
b. H m m , I wonder where I put my pen.
These, and other similar types of statement, are not directly
addressed to the other. The other can act as i f the statements have
not even been heard. They are technically described as being off
record. In casual descriptions, they might be referred to as 'hints'.
Once again, an off record statement may or may not succeed (as a
means of getting a pen), but if it does, it w i l l be because more has
been communicated than was said.
In contrast to such off record statements, you can directly
address the other as a means of expressing your needs. These
direct address forms are technically described as being on record.
The most direct approach, using imperative forms such as those
in [5], is known as bald on record. The other person is directly
asked for something.
[5] a. Give me a pen.
b. Lend me your pen.
These bald on record forms may be followed by expressions like
'please' and 'would you?' which serve to soften the demand and
are called mitigating devices.

It is tempting to equate the bald on record approach w i t h all

direct command forms (i.e. imperatives). This would be misleading
because imperative forms are often used by close familiars without
being interpreted as commands. Examples would be a friend offering something to eat, as in [6a.], or trying to help you, as in [6b.].
[6] a. Have some more cake,
b. Gimme that wet umbrella.
Emergency situations also occasion the use of direct commands,
regardless of who is being addressed, as when danger prompts use
of the expressions in [7].
[7] a. Don't touch that!
b. Get out of here!
P O L I T E N E S S

A N D I N T E R A C T I O N

There are, consequently, some social circumstances where using a

direct command as a bald on record expression is considered
appropriate among social equals.
However, generally speaking, bald on record expressions are
associated with speech events where the speaker assumes that he
or she has power over the other (for example, in military contexts) and can control the other's behavior with words. In everyday interaction between social equals, such bald on record
behavior would potentially represent a threat to the other's face
and would generally be avoided. Avoiding a face threatening act
is accomplished by face saving acts which use positive or negative
politeness strategies.

Positive and negative politeness

A positive politeness strategy leads the requester to appeal to a
common goal, and even friendship, via expressions such as those
in [8].
[8] a. How about letting me use your pen?
b. Hey, buddy, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me use your
pen.
These on record expressions do represent a greater risk for the
speaker of suffering a refusal and may be preceded by some 'getting to know you' talk, of the kind presented in [9], designed to
establish the necessary common ground for this strategy.
[9] H i . How's it going? Okay if I sit here? We must be interested in the same crazy stuff. You take a lot of notes too,
huh? Say, do me a big favor and let me use one of your
pens.
However, in most English-speaking contexts, a face saving act is
more commonly performed via a negative politeness strategy. The
most typical form used is a question containing a modal verb such
as [10a.].
[10] a. Could you lend me a pen?
b. I'm sorry to bother you, but can I ask you for a pen or
something?
c. I know you're busy, but might I ask you ifemif you
S U R V E Y

happen to have an extra pen that I could, you knoweh

maybe borrow?
Using this strategy also results in forms which contain expressions of apology for the imposition, of the type shown in [10b.].
More elaborate negative politeness work can sometimes be heard
in extended talk, often with hesitations, similar to that shown in
[ioc.].
It is worth noting that negative politeness is typically expressed
via questions, even questions that seem to ask for permission to
ask a question (for example, 'Might I ask ...?') as in [10c.]. O n the
surface, such questions present an opportunity for the other to
answer in the negative to the question without the same refusal
effect of responding w i t h a negative to a direct, bald on record
imperative. (This distinction is an important motivation for the
distinction between direct and indirect speech acts, discussed
already.)
Even more relevant for our concern w i t h the pragmatics of language in use, the availability of the bald on record form, as well as
off record forms, means that the use of a face-saving on record
f o r m represents a significant choice. The choice of a type of
expression that is less direct, potentially less clear, generally
longer, and with a more complex structure means that the speaker
is making a greater effort, in terms of concern for face (i.e. politeness), than is needed simply to get the basic message across
efficiently.
These observations are summarized in Figure 7.1 overleaf.

Strategies
The tendency to use positive politeness forms, emphasizing closeness between speaker and hearer, can be seen as a solidarity strategy.
This may be the principal operating strategy among a whole group
or it may be an option used by an individual speaker on a particular occasion. Linguistically, such a strategy will include personal
information, use of nicknames, sometimes even abusive terms
(particularly among males), and shared dialect or slang expressions. Frequently, a solidarity strategy w i l l be marked via inclusive
terms such as 'we' and 'let's', as in the party invitation in [11].

P O L I T E N E S S

A N D

I N T E R A C T I O N

H o w to get a pen from someone else

say something
I

o n record

face saving act

positive politeness
( ' H o w about letting me use your pen?')

say nothing
(but search i n bag

off record
('I forgot my pen'

bald o n record
('Give me a pen')
negative politenesss
( ' C o u l d y o u lend me a pen?')

F I G U R E 7.1
How to get a pen from someone else (following
Brown and Levinson 198-7)

[11]

Come on, let's go to the party. Everyone will be there.

We'll have fun.

The tendency to use negative politeness forms, emphasizing the

hearer's right to freedom, can be seen as a deference strategy. It
can be the typical strategy of a whole group or just an option used
on a particular occasion. A deference strategy is involved in what
is called 'formal politeness'. It is impersonal, as if nothing is
shared, and can include expressions that refer to neither the
speaker nor the hearer (for example, 'Customers may not smoke
here, sir'). The language associated w i t h a deference strategy
emphasizes the speaker's and the hearer's independence, marked
via an absence of personal claims, as in [12], an alternative version of the party invitation in [11].
[12]

There's going to be a party, i f you can make it. It w i l l be

fun.

These general types of strategies are illustrated here via utterances which are actually central to the speech event (for example,
invitation). Face saving behavior, however, is often at work well
before such utterances are produced, in the form of pre-sequences.

S U R V E Y

Pre-sequences
As already suggested, the concept of face saving may be helpful in
understanding how participants i n an interaction inevitably
understand more than is said. The basic assumption, from the perspective of politeness, is that face is typically at risk when the self
needs to accomplish something involving other. The greatest risk
appears to be when the other is put in a difficult position. One way
of avoiding risk is to provide an opportunity for the other to halt
the potentially risky act. For example, rather than simply make a
request, speakers w i l l often first produce what can be described as
a pre-request. We already noted one example in discussing speech
events earlier, at the end of Chapter 6. Another is presented as [ 13 ] ,
along with one analysis of the structure of this interaction.
[13] Her:
Him:
Her:
Him:

Are you busy?

N o t really.
Check over this memo.
Okay.

(= pre-request)
(= go ahead)
(= request)
(= accept)

The advantage of the pre-request element is that it can be

answered either w i t h a 'go-ahead' response, as in [13], or w i t h a
'stop' response, as in [14].
[14] H i m : Are you busy?
Her: O h , sorry.

(= pre-request)
(= stop)

The response in [14] allows the speaker to avoid making a request

that cannot be granted at the time. Understanding that it is a
response to a pre-request also allows us to interpret the expression 'sorry', not only as an apology about being busy, but also as
an apology about being unable to respond to the anticipated
request.
There is, however, a general pattern of pre-requests actually
being treated as requests and being responded to, as in [15], w i t h
the (unstated, hoped for) action being performed.
[15] Her: Do you have a spare pen?
Him: Here, (hands over a pen)
This 'short-cut' process of going from pre-request to granting of
request helps explain the literal oddness of the common pattern in
[16].
P O L I T E N E S S

A N D

I N T E R A C T I O N