Revisiting the conceptualisation of politeness in English and Japanese

Abstract

The issue of what in fact constitutes politeness remains a source of considerable debate amongst researchers. There is mounting evidence that although there may be common underlying elements, politeness is conceptualised differently across cultures. A comparison of the notions of politeness in English and teinei, reigi tadashii and keii hyoogen in Japanese indicates that these respective terms encompass somewhat different conceptual ranges. Politeness in English refers to showing consideration for others, and demonstrating a polished self-presentation. In Japanese, on the other hand, it encompasses showing respect (with a strong nuance of vertical respect involved) and consideration towards the position and quality of character of others, and modesty about oneself. While politeness in both English and Japanese involves showing one thinks well of others (other-oriented politeness) and showing one does not think too highly of oneself (self-oriented politeness), differences in the underlying conceptualisation of politeness give rise to different ways of expressing politeness. It is thus difficult to maintain the assumption that politeness can be defined in the same way across different cultures, although this does not necessarily preclude the identification of common elements of politeness across cultures.

Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research

“…While it is common to search for translations of im/politeness and face in different languages (e.g., lĭmào or kèqi for 'polite' in Chinese; mal élevé or impoli for 'rude' in French; kao, menboku or taimen for 'face' in Japanese), and to treat these various concepts as first-order instantiations of im/politeness or face, the conceptual scope of these various terms is not usually synonymous. In fact, what we find is that various concepts embody a whole set of assumptions about personhood, relationships, and social structure that deserve much closer attention (Haugh and Hinze 2003;Haugh 2004). Indeed, I would suggest that rather than treating the metalanguage which we use to describe and analyze interpersonal or relational phenomena simply as a given, and masking complex semantic issues behind "operational" definitions, we need to make more serious attempts to tease out the worldviews that are inevitably intertwined with our analytical metalanguage.…”

Speaking politely, kindly, and beautifully: Ideologies of politeness in Japanese business etiquette training

“…Business manners training also emphasizes a third theme, namely that speech and other aspects of self-presentation be 'beautiful.' Drawing on dictionary definitions, Haugh (2004) argues that the 'polished presentation of self' is part of conceptualizations of politeness in English, but not in Japanese. Yet Pizziconi (2007) suggests that the contrast between displaying affective concern for others versus a focus on the speaker's own demeanor is an important semantic dimension of politeness in both languages.…”

“…A number of scholars have carried out semantic analyses of the concept of teinei in Japanese, frequently in contrast to politeness in various national dialects of English (Ide et al 1992;Obana & Tomoda 1994;Haugh 2004;Pizziconi 2007). These studies use various forms of elicited data such as questionnaires and interviews to compare Japanese concepts of teinei with English-language concepts of polite and to map out the relationship of teinei to other similar con- cepts.…”

“…They are, however, based on decontextualized semantic analysis, whether drawn from dictionary definitions (Haugh 2004) or semantic judgments elicited by the researchers (Ide et al 1992;Pizziconi 2007). Although these studies provide an initial starting point for the analysis of Japanese conceptualizations of teinei behavior, they cannot provide us with an understanding of how speakers deploy these concepts for their own ends in naturally-occurring metapragmatic discourse.…”

Politeness

“…By emphasizing that politeness or impoliteness is a matter of moral judgment, we are shifting the analytical focus from the speaker to the hearer because it is the latter that assesses and evaluates the politeness or impoliteness of discourse (Haugh 2004). This may partly account for why some people propose to distinguish speaker politeness and hearer politeness (Locher 2004).…”