Abstract: Since the late 1970s, politeness study has been receiving increasing attention and been researched widely. This study tends to reach a general review of present existing studies about politeness both at home and abroad. Through extensive literature review, this study mainly presents, introduces and exemplifies politeness study from the perspectives of Leech’s PP, Brown and Levison’s Face Theory, Verschueren’s Adaptation Theory and Theory of Territory of Information from cognitive pragmatics and some other social-cultural theories. It is aimed that scholars who are interested in politeness study can be more or less enlightened by this study and further study on politeness can be felicitated.
　　Key Words:Politeness theory;Language use;General review
　　
　　1.Introduction
　　Politeness is a universal phenomenon that exists in any language use in any culture over the world. It seems that politeness is so popular, universal and penetrating in people’s practical use of language in communication that it is likely to be regarded as generationally-inherited or daily-acquired and thus, to some extent, it receives less attention than is expected. Fortunately, it became a major concern in pragmatics in the 1970s, especially in the late 1970s. What’s more, politeness has been drawing more and more attention from many sociolinguists, psychologists, cognitive linguists and even some anthropologists, leading politeness to become a multidisciplinary issue receiving increasing focus and research. However, there exist very few studies that investigate the issue of politeness in a highly general manner to summarize the different views towards the issue from comprehensive perspectives of so far existing theories.
　　This study tentatively aims at exploring the different views on politeness from different theories, comparing related western theories and eastern theories to have a better realization of the divergent ideas on politeness in language use and ultimately, offering a relatively comprehensive picture of politeness in communication from not only the perspective of pragmatics, but also that from other disciplines such as cognitive linguistics. To achieve these set purposes, several theories on politeness as follows are considered: Leech’s PP Theory; Brown and Levinson’s Face Theory; Gu Yueguo’s Politeness Theory; Adaptation Theory; Theory of Territory of Information and some other theories. By doing this preliminary study, it is expected that students who focus on the politeness theory can be more or less enlightened by gaining a more thorough and comprehensive understanding on politeness in communication, better use of language in terms of politeness can be ensured and a bit further studies on the issue of politeness can be facilitated and benefited.
　　2.Discussion
　　2.1. Identifying Politeness
　　What is politeness? Various concepts of it are easily available in extensive literatures both in China and overseas. He and Ran (2002) cited in Ran and Zhang (2006) summarized definitions of politeness as five categories: (1) Politeness is a purpose to achieve in communication process; (2) Politeness is a kind of honorific language; (3) Politeness is a linguistic style; (4) Politeness is a kind of surface utterance phenomenon; (5) Politeness is a kind of pragmatic phenomenon. In accordance with this point of view, politeness in this study refers to the last category.
　　However, “politeness is a kind of pragmatic phenomenon” is defined in a too general way. To be more specific and explicit, politeness in this study stands for “the appropriate choice of social conduct and verbal strategies aiming at showing considerations for others and avoiding interpersonal conflicts” (Liu, 2007, p.58) or “modest and respectful manners shown in language expression and behavior (Modern Chinese Dictionary, 1999 in Liu, 2007, p.58). What is worth mentioning is that politeness in this discourse emphasizes its focus on forms of behavior that are in contrast to rudeness, that is, “deviation from whatever counts as polite in a given social context, is inherently confrontational and disruptive to social equilibrium” (Kasper, 1990 in Liu, 2007, p.58). Using politeness as an abstract concept or a kind of evaluation, which is carried by some scholars (Brown&Levinson, 1987), is not the focus of politeness in this paper.
　　2.2. Analyzing Politeness from Different Perspectives
　　There exist numerous literatures and various theories on politeness study both at home and abroad. In the following parts, politeness is analyzed from these theories and perspectives of some divergence: (1) Leech’s PP Theory; (2) Brown and Levinson’s Face Theory; (3) Gu Yueguo’s Politeness Theory; (4) Adaptation Theory; (5) Theory of Territory of Information and (6) some other theories. For each perspective, the main advocated ideas of the theory are primarily presented and explained, and then some examples to illustrate this theory if necessary are followed.
　　2.2.1. Leech’s Politeness Principle (PP)
　　Politeness principle (PP), which was originally put forward by Leech in 1983, can be thought as a great development, improvement and complement to Grice’s Conversational Principle (CP). CP describes what actually happens in conversation and interlocutors in conversation are guided to say what are true, informative enough, relevant and in a clear manner under the directions of the four specific maxims of CP in terms of quality, quantity, relevance and manner. However, in most cases, interlocutors habitually and purposefully flout some maxims to imply certain meanings that are far beyond the expressed literal meanings. “In a sense, the theory of conversational implicature may be seen as an attempt to explain how communication succeeds in the face of violation of the maxims” (Jiang, 2006, p.43). So, here comes a question: Why do not people asset their implicatures directly but do it by flouting some maxims of CP? PP gives a relatively satisfying answer. He (1987) stated that PP could be used to explain reasonably why people disobey maxims of CP on purpose in communication.
　　Leech believed people flout some maxims of CP to express conversational implicatures for the sake of politeness and he raised PP that is composed of six maxims with two sub-maxims for each maxim:
　　(1)Tact Maxim:
　　(a)Minimize cost to others;
　　(b)Maximize benefit to others;
　　(2)Generosity Maxim:
　　(a)Minimize benefit to self;
　　(b)Maximize cost to self;
　　(3)Approbation Maxim:
　　(a)Minimize dispraise to others;
　　(b)Maximize praise to others;
　　(4)Modesty Maxim:
　　(a)Minimize praise to self;
　　(b)Maximize dispraise to self;
　　(5)Agreement Maxim:
　　(a)Minimize disagreement between self and others’
　　(b)Maximize agreement between self and others;
　　(6)Sympathy Maxim:
　　(a)Minimize unsympathy between self and others;
　　(b)Maximize sympathy between self and others.
　　Maxims (1) and (2) are relative. For example, if someone says “Lend me your book!”, he is regarded as impolite because the utterance brings more cost to the addressee and at the same time, brings more benefit to the address. Therefore, according to PP, the speaker should say “Would you like to be kind to borrow me your book, please?”. Maxims (3) and (4) are also in a relative sense because at the same time when one maximizes praise to others, minimization of praise to self is inevitably resulted in. For instance, “Your handwriting is great but mine needs much improvement.” Maxim (5) requires interlocutors to express their disagreement very indirectly, e.g.: A: Do you think this film is interesting? B: Yes, but it would be better if it lasts shorter. In this conversation, B states his disagreement indirectly because of the maxim (5). In addition, “I am sorry to hear that.” uttered when one gets some bad news from others stands as a perfect embodiment of maxim (6).
　　2.2.2. Brown and Levinson’s Face Theory
　　Although Brown and Levinson focus politeness study on saving face, it is well known that “Brown and Levinson (1978/1987) conduct the most ambitious and comprehensive study of politeness to date” (Liu, 2007, p.81). In their opinion, a speech act is a potentially face threatening act (FTA) and politeness means using some strategies to satisfy both self and others’ needs to save face. Furthermore, Brown and Levinson distinguish positive face from negative face. Positive face refers to people’s wish to get good evaluation and understanding from others and to be accepted as confidant. Besides, negative face means people’s desire to do acts freely, be independent and free from others’ imposition.
　　Brown and Levinson put forward five strategies on politeness that is illustrated as the following figure:
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　5. Don’t do the FTA.
　　Possible Strategies for Doing FTAs (Brown&Levinson, p.69 in Liu, 2007, p.81)
　　Notes: 1 means adopting the most direct and explicit manners to do an FTA. (e.g.: Close the door.)
　　2 means adopting manners showing wish and interest in common of the hearer (H) and the speaker (S) and showing understanding of the other’s needs and pleasure to satisfy the need. (e.g.: Let’s do the task together, shall we?)
　　3 means doing an act and explaining to H that it is done without any other options and H is free from imposition. (e.g.: I’m quite sorry to interrupt you, but could you spare me a minute?)
　　4 means doing an act without any relation to face but just implying something and leaving it to H to infer. (e.g.: Oh, dear, I’m short of cash and don’t bring any bank card. But the dress is unbelievably pretty.)
　　5 means completely giving up doing FTA. Even though one has a request, he does it by himself because requiring brings threat to others’ face.
　　In this figure, as the scale of strategies goes down from 5 to 1, the risk of losing face increases and the less the risk, the more polite the strategy. However, how to measure the degree of risk or weight of imposition of a FTA? Brown and Levinson offered a formula:
　　Wx=D(S, H)﹢P(H, S)﹢Rx
　　Here, Wx stands for the weightiness of the FTAx; D (S, H) refers to the social distance between H and S; P (H, S) means the power that H has over S and Rx is the degree of an FTAx as an imposition in a certain culture. The three variables interact and work together, contributing to determining the degree of the risk of an FTAx to loss face and thus measuring the extent of politeness of an act.
　　2.2.3.Gu Yueguo’s Politeness Theory
　　Gu Yueguo’s theory on politeness exists as the most representative and influential politeness study in China. Unsatisfied with the western theories on politeness raised by Leech, Brown and Levinson, in 1992, Gu put forward his own Politeness Theory suiting Chinese situation. His politeness theory is made up of five maxims:
　　(1).The Self-denigration Maxim:
　　(a).Denigrate self;
　　(b).Elevate others; (e.g.: 寒舍—貴府;拙见—尊意)
　　(2).The Address Maxim: Address the interlocutors with an appropriate and respectful address terms by age, social position, degree of familiarity, etc. (e.g.: 阁下,夫人,教授,书记…)
　　(3).The Refinement Maxim: Be courteous by using refined, euphemistic words to the interlocutors. (e.g.: 对不起,我失陪片刻。---- 我离开一会儿。)
　　(4).The Symmetry-seeking Maxim: Keep the symmetrical relationship between one’s identity and one’s social status to keep the harmony in communication.
　　(5).The Moral, Conduct and Speech Maxim: Bring maximum benefit to others and maximum cost to self in moral, conduct and speech.
　　Among the five maxims above, the first one represents the core of Gu’s theory. If someone flouts it, denigrating others, he will be thought as rude or impolite; if one elevates self, he is said to be arrogant and self-conceited.
　　There appear both similarities and divergences between western theories and eastern theories on politeness. To some extent, the maxim of moral, conduct and speech by Gu Yueguo is similar to Leech’s tact maxim and generosity maxim, both emphasizing maximizing cost to self and minimizing cost to others. In addition, Gu’s symmetry-seeking maxim requires interlocutors to conduct politeness in accordance to their social status and positive social values. By doing so, the interlocutors save their face—to some degree, it is the desire to be praised, accepted and well evaluated which holds the similar ideas with Brown and Levinson’s positive face.
　　However, just as Gu (1992) pointed out that “there was no phenomenon of denigrating self and elevating others in any European culture but only in south-eastern Asian Chinese culture” (p.15). Besides, some rules of address maxim which are polite in Gu’s theory are actually not so in western politeness theories. For instance, in Chinese, people usually use “xiao” such as Xiao Li, Xiao Wang to show intimacy and friendliness but in western countries, it is regarded as impolite. What’s more, it is extremely hard to find the equivalent concept of negative face in Chinese politeness theories.
　　2.2.4. Verschueren’s Adaptation Theory
　　Adaptation Theory, exactly pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation or Adaptability, was originally posed by Belgium linguist Jef Verschueren in 1987 and gradually improved until his Understanding Pragmatics in 1999 which is the token of the maturity of this theory. It is a great achievement in politeness study because it takes context into consideration, which is neglected by Leech, Brown, and Levinson, Gu and others.
　　In some sense, Adaptation Theory is the evolution theory of language. As is shown in the following graph, language adaptation is a process that involves interaction of four pragmatic perspectives: context, structure, dynamics and salience of the adaptation processes.
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　(From Verschueren, 1999, p.67 in He, 2007, p. 98)
　　Context entails physical world, mental world, social world and the interaction between the three and linguistic context. Structure of adaptation happens in hierarchy from words, phrases, and sentences to style, code, communication means and so on. Dynamics states that adaptation process is a changing one that calls for consideration of its linearity, extent, function, etc. Salience means the degree of the participants’ consciousness in adaptation process. Besides, language users set their adaptation locus by the effect of the interaction between context and structure. Adaptation process is dynamic and adaptation status is the different state of salience.
　　He (2007) stated that language in communication is a process of language choice and its essence is adaptation. People in communication need to adapt to context and choose the appropriate structures from the possibly several ones to achieve the purposes of communication. In other words, language use is a process of adaptation between context and structure. The idea is much suitable to explain politeness in communication. In order to be polite and make communication successful, people make more or less adaptation from several structures for one communication situation. If A wants to borrow a book from B, he adapts his language structure by the specific context:
　　(1)Lend me your book.
　　(2)I want you to lend me your book.
　　(3)Will you lend me your book?
　　(4)Can you possibly lend me your book?
　　(5)Would you mind my borrowing of your book?
　　(6) Could you possibly lend me your book?
　　If A is a student, B is his teacher. The context requires A to adapt structure (5) or (6) to show his politeness, but (1) is unacceptable. However, if A and B are confidant, A chooses (1) to express his requirement is still acceptable. Besides, if A and B are couple, A utters (6) sounds too polite and even a little threatening. Perhaps, B will be afraid and doubt if there is something strange in his book. Therefore, it comes to the conclusion that politeness is a kind of adaptation between language structure choice and context during people’s process of communication.
　　2.2.5. From Some Other Perspectives
　　There are still some other perspectives to study politeness. In this section, several multidisciplinary theories, namely, Theory of Territory of Information from cognitive pragmatics and some relevant ideas from social-cultural facet are entailed.
　　Theory of Territory of Information. This theory that was originally advocated by Japanese scholar Kimio in 1997, believes that human beings have their own territory in terms of conduct and cognitive structure just the same as other animals do. Language of human beings involves many different territories. The theory hypothesizes two scales of psychological status. One belongs to the speaker and the other is to the hearer. Accordingly, as is shown in the follow figure, the territory of the speaker and that of the hearer are classified.
　　
　　information
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　The territory of information (from Peng, 2005, p.179)
　　This theory states that any information on the scale can carry a value between 1 and 0. For any information, if it falls nearer than the set value “n” to the hearer, it comes to the territory of the hearer and vise versa. According to this theory, if a piece of information falls into the territory of the speaker (S), S can employ a direct and confirmed way of speaking. The nearer the information falls into the hearer, the more indirect and doubtful manner of speaking S uses. Therefore, this theory requires information falls into the territory of the hearer (H) possibly and S speaks as indirectly as possible to seem polite. For example, S is supposed to say “It seems that you have forgotten to do your homework yesterday.” Instead of “You must have forgotten to do your homework yesterday.” because the information falls into the territory of H and the former is much more indirect and thus more polite than the latter one.
　　Social-cultural Perspective. Up to date, much work on politeness has been discussed and no one can deny that politeness varies among society and culture for the reason that it is widely acknowledged that cultural differences tend to result in miscommunication and there is no universally inherent politeness.
　　Just take face as an example to illustrate the culturally and socially varying politeness. Negative face in Brown and Levinson’s theory do not fit for Chinese situation and Chinese face is not in complete agreement on western positive face. “Face work then is a symbolic front that members in all cultures strive to maintain and uphold, while the modes and styles of expressing and negotiating face need would vary from one culture to the next.” (Gudy-Kunst&Ting-Toomey, 1988, p.86 in Mey, 2003, p. 269). Mey (2003) also exemplified that the polite term “sorry” varies from nation to nation. He mentioned that a newly appointed teacher was on her way to school in Nigeria. But her bike was knocked over by a big hole on the pavement. When she was picking up her books and bike, a Nigerian passerby apologized to her by saying “sorry”. Uttering “sorry” in English often implies that one somewhat feel guilty, while it is not necessarily the case in Nigerian context” (Mey, 2003, p.263).
　　Conclusion and Limitations
　　This paper tentatively probes into offering a whole and general picture of politeness studies at home and abroad to date. Leech’s PP, Brown&Levinson’s Face Theory, Gu Yueguo’s Politeness Theory, Verschueren’s Adaptation Theory, Kimio’s Theory of Territory of Information from cognitive pragmatics and some social-cultural facets are respectively discussed. The discussion demonstrates that Leech’s PP, consisting of tact maxim, generosity maxim, approbation maxim, modesty maxim, agreement maxim and sympathy maxim, is a great improvement and complement to Grice’s CP and it solves the problem that why people utter some implicatures indirectly by flouting some maxims of CP; Brown&Levinson have made immense contribution to politeness study in west by distinguishing positive face and negative face and posing five strategies to deal with FTAs; Gu’s theory plays an important place in Chinese politeness study. His five maxims stand as the most representatives of Chinese traditional politeness; Verschueren’s theory receives less attention, but offers a new perspective to politeness study. In addition, theory of territory of information and social-cultural ideas on politeness study make politeness in language communication study more comprehensive.
　　However, many limitations exist in this study. Because it aims at offering a general picture of politeness study, each theory or study facet is only simply introduced, presented and exemplified in a highly general way. If more details, illustration with specific examples are followed, this study will be much better. At the same time, many issues that are worthy of studying such as the relationship between CP and PP are left as questions. Finally, some other theories on politeness in language use may have been overlooked. Valuable suggestions, advice and instruction from professors, scholars and my peers are urgently and sincerely expected.
　　
　　References:
　　[1]Liu Guohui. (2007). A Contrastive Study of Request Strategies in English and Chinese.—— from the perspective of politeness pragmatics. Beijing:Higher Education Press.
　　[2]Jiang, W.Q. (2000). Pragmatics: Theories and Applications. Beijing: Peking University Press.
　　[3]Mey, J.L. (2003). Pragmatics: An Introduction. (2nd edition). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
　　[4]顧约国礼貌,语用与文化.“外语教学与研究”1992,(4),10—17.
　　[5]何自然.(1987).语用学概论.湖南:湖南教育出版社.
　　[6]何自然.(2007).语用三论:关联论,顺应论,模因论. 上海:上海教育出版社.
　　[7]彭建武(2005).认知语言学研究.青岛:中国海洋大学出版社.
　　[8]冉永平,张新红.(2006).语用学纵横.北京:高等教育出版社.