SS/  2015  
English  Linguistics  
HS:  Intercultural  Linguistics  
Prof.  Dr.  Markus  Bieswanger    
 
 
 
 
 
 
Politeness  in  Intercultural  Communication    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jesús  Omar  Serrano  Muñoz  
Exchange  Semester  
Partner  University:  University  of  Guadalajara  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  1  
  
 
Table  of  Contents  
 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction  ..........................................................................................................................              3  

2. Intercultural  communication  ........................................................................................              3  

2.1. Conceptualizing  culture  .........................................................................................                4  

2.2. Major  topics  in  intercultural  communication  ...............................................              7  

3. Theories  of  politeness  ......................................................................................................              10  

3.1.  A  concept  in  a  sociolinguistic  theory  ..............................................................                11  

3.2. The  problem  of  universality  ................................................................................              13  

4. Refusals  in  Mexico  and  the  United  States  ................................................................            14  

5. Conclusion  ..............................................................................................................................        16  

6. Bibliography............................................................................................................................        17  

  2  
1. Introduction  
 
In   this   paper   I   attempt   to   illustrate   the   role   that   different   politeness   systems  
play   in   intercultural   communication.   I   discuss   how   culture   affects   the   choices   that  
speakers   make   concerning   strategies   for   the   managing   of   face,   and   how   these   differ  
across  cultures.  It  is  my  purpose  to  highlight  that  speakers  pay  attention  to  different  
components   of   the   communicative   situation,   and   that   these   are   influenced   by   the  
culture  of  the  speaker.  The  paper  is  structured  as  follows:  after  giving  an  overview  of  
the   major   themes   in   intercultural   communication   and   the   main   theories   of   politeness,  
I   intend   to   illustrate   with   an   investigation   (Félix-­‐Brasdefer   2008)  the   main   arguments  
presented  in  the  literature  review;  I  will  summarize  them  and  explain  what  is  its  place  
in   intercultural   communication.   Finally,   I   will   conclude   the   paper   by   pointing   at  
research  possibilities  and  answering  the  questions:  what  aspects  of  culture  influence  
politeness?  And  how  can  these  affect  communication  in  an  intercultural  setting?  
 
2. Intercultural  Communication  
 
In   order   to   talk   about   culture,   a   working   definition   for   it   must   be   offered.  
Experts   from   different   fields   have   put   forward   definitions   that   have   to   focus   on  
different  aspects  of  it  for  the  sake  of  using  it  as  an  established  concept.  Hall  says  that  
“[c]ulture  is  man’s  medium;  there  is  not  one  aspect  of  human  life  that  is  not  touched  
and  altered  by  culture”  (1976:  16).  With  such  an  all-­‐encompassing  term,  the  challenge  
is   to   zoom   the   microscope   of   culture   if   we   want   to   focus   on   specific   phenomena.  
Likewise,   communication   is   interpreted   differently   depending   on   what   perspective  
one  is  adopting.  In  the  following  sections  a  distinction  will  be  drawn  between  terms  
such   as   intercultural   and   cross-­‐cultural   communication,   and   a   definition   will   be  
suggested   so   that   it   becomes   possible   to   compare   the   relevant   components   of   a   target  
culture   and   another,   especially   the   elements   that   affect   most   distinctly   the  
communication  process.  
 
 

  3  
 2.1. Conceptualizing  culture  
 
Keesing  (1974)  talks  about  culture  as  “the  game  being  played”  or  “the  theory  of  
the  code  being  followed”  of  the  society  in  which  an  individual  was  born.  He  says  that  
culture   is   a   person’s   “theory   of   what   his   [or   her]   fellows   know,   believe   and   mean”  
(Keesing  1974:  89).  The  metaphors  follow  to  show  a  member  of  a  cultural  group  as  a  
“native  actor”,  and  he  compares  culture  to  language,  both  of  which  “might  be  in  large  
measure  unconscious”.  From  this  figurative  language  we  learn  that  culture  is  shared  
with   the   other   members   of   a   group,   and   that   the   codes   they   share   are   unconscious.  
Hall  (1976:  16)  emphasizes  “the  nonverbal,  unstated  realm  of  culture”  in  his  theory,  
and  he  points  out  that  anthropologists  agree  on  three  aspects:  
 
• It  Is  not  innate,  but  learned;  
• The  various  facets  of  culture  are  interrelated–  you  touch  a  culture  in  one  
place  and  everything  else  is  affected;  
• It  is  shared  and  in  effect  defines  the  boundaries  of  different  groups.  
 
Gudykunst   and   Kim   (1997:   17)   observe   that   we   “learn   to   be   members   of   our  
culture   from   our   parents,   from   teachers   in   schools,   from   our   religious   institutions,  
from   our   peers,   and   from   the   mass   media”.   The   interesting   fact   to   be   noticed   is   that  
culture  is  being  talked  about  in  singular.  One  is  born  in  a  culture,  but  I  would  argue  
that   just   like   a   child   can   be   born   and   raised   with   two   languages,   a   person   could  
interact   since   his   or   her   birth   in   more   than   one   culture.   Johnson   proposes   in   this  
respect  that:  
 
 
In   differing   degrees,   we   all   participate   in   multiple   cultural   systems  
ranging   from   our   native   culture   of   origin,   to   the   local   cultures   in  
which   we   interact   in   daily   life,   to   the   global   culture   created  
through  mobility,  mass  communication,  and  technology.  
 (Johnson  2003:  186)  

  4  
  
The  way  Gudykunst  and  Kim  address  this  issue  is  to  describe  different  levels,  in  
which  the  term  “culture”  concerns  ordering  at  the  societal  level,  while  lower  levels  of  
social  ordering  are  traditionally  termed  “subcultures”,  which  these  authors  define  as  
“a   set   of   shared   symbolic   ideas   held   by   a   collectivity   within   a   larger   society”   (1997:  
18);  they  include  in  this  level  not  only  racial  and/  or  ethnic  groups,  but  also  student  
subculture,   medical   subculture,   lower-­‐   and   middle   class   subculture,   as   well   as  
business   subculture.   Johnson   warns   in   this   respect   that   sociolinguistics   leans   towards  
standard   notions   of   societal   groupings   at   the   expense   of   minimizing   more   complex  
notions   of   how   culture   shapes   language   (2003:   185).   She   suggests   that   the   analysis   of  
language  variation  should  be  repositioned  as  a  more  complex  and  analytical  endeavor,  
and   this   will   begin   with   the   assumption   that   “multiple   cultures   exist   in   complex  
societies”   [emphasis   mine]   (Johnson   2003:185),   consequently   she   suggests   the   term  
“co-­‐cultures”  rather  than  “subcultures”  in  order  to  acknowledge  this  complexity.  
With  the  previous  statement  in  mind,  the  definition  of  culture  at  societal  level  
will   be   kept,   because   a   culture   should   not   be   considered   an   isolated   monolith   but   a  
grouping  in  interaction  with  other  collectivities.  By  conceptualizing  culture  this  way,  it  
is  possible  to  describe  a  larger  societal  culture,  while  being  careful  not  to  forget  that  
its   members   might   also   belong   to   other   groups   as   a   result   of   the   “human   contact  
between  and  across  groups  and  time”  (Johnson  2003:  185)  in  addition  to  the  already  
mentioned  mobility,  mass  communication,  and  technology.  
The   issue   at   this   point   is   to   describe   what   is   it   that   differentiate   one   culture  
from   another.   Hall   (1976:   14)   points   to   different   levels   of   behavior   that   are   taken   into  
account  by  anthropologists:  overt  and  covert,  implicit  and  explicit,  things  people  talk  
about   and   things   they   do   not.   The   surface   level   is   what   we   can   observe   and   discuss  
overtly,   the   other   aspect   is   obscured.   This   characteristic   is   best   summarized   in   the  
following   statement   “[c]ulture   hides   much   more   than   it   reveals,   and   strangely   enough  
what  it  hides,  it  hides  most  effectively  from  its  own  participants”  (Hall  1976:  30).  For  
Chen  and  Starosta  (2003:  348),  there  are  two  categories  of  cultural  components:  
 
 

  5  
  
1) Basic  factual  information  
 
2) Deep  structured  cultural  values.  
 
According   to   them,   the   first   category   represents   the   “what”   of   culture   and  
comprises   the   profile   of   a   certain   society   in   terms   of   history,   geography,   family   and  
social   organization,   art,   or   political   system.   The   second   category   represents   the   “why”  
aspects  of  a  culture  and  “are  a  set  of  explicit  or  implicit  conceptions  that  distinguish  an  
individual  or  characteristic  of  a  group  from  another”  (Chen  and  Starosta  2003:  348).  
According   to   these   authors,   our   communication   patterns   are   determined   by   our  
“cultural   values”.   The   “what”   of   culture   is   observable,   while   the   “why”   can   only   be  
hinted  at  through  indirect  analysis.  As  an  example,  they  point  to  a  previous  research  
where   they   analyze   conflict   management   and   resolution   in   Chinese   culture   and   find  
that  “harmony“  in  this  culture  leads  its  members  to  display  public  emotion  minimally  
and  avoid  saying  “no”  in  interactions  (Chen  and  Starosta  1997).  
These   “cultural   values”   are   not   part   of   the   “surface   level”   of   culture.   For   an  
adequate  description  of  culture,  the  following  systems  are  suggested  to  be  significant  
to  account  for  action  and  meaning  within  a  culture:  
 
• System  of  cultural  abstractions  
• System  of  cultural  artifacts  
• System  of  cultural  language  and  communication  
(Johnson  2003:  188-­‐9)  
 
The   first   system   refers   to   ideational   concepts,   for   example   values,   ethics,  
conceptions  of  right  and  wrong  or  good  and  evil  in  addition  to  ideas  with  no  material  
reality,   namely   “honesty”,   “responsibility”,   and   “kindness”   among   others;   cultural  
values   would   belong   to   this   system.   Conversely,   culture   as   a   system   of   cultural  
artifacts   is   more   tangible   and   has   a   more   enduring   nature.   Here   products   such   as   fine  
and   plastic   arts,   crafts,   music,   architecture,   tools   and   other   material   articles   can   be  

  6  
listed.   Johnson   says   in   this   respect   that   “[a]rtifacts   have   systematicity   through   the  
rules   and   patterns   underlying   their   production,   distribution,   and   placement”   (2003:  
190),  and  she  adds  that  artifacts  can  carry  meanings,  as  an  illustration  she  points  out  
that  jewelry  can  have  a  gender-­‐related  meaning  referring  to  the  difference  of  its  use  
regulated   by   gender   in   a   particular   society.   Finally,   culture   as   a   system   of   cultural  
language  and  communication  focuses  on  the  fact  that  every  culture  has  its  particular  
discourse   patterns,   and   these   convey   differing   worldviews.   Johnson   emphasizes   that  
the  way  languages  are  structured  through  their  “rules  of  use”  encode  culture,  and  that  
an   individual   is   provided   through   culture   with   shared   cognitive   schemas   that   shape  
language   use   and   broader   communicative   conduct     (2003:191-­‐2).   This   last   aspect   is  
further   explored   in   the   next   section,   especially   in   the   context   of   intercultural  
communication.  
At  this  stage  it  should  be  clear  that  the  components  of  culture  are  various,  and  
that   a   person   is   not   necessarily   aware   of   the   most   intangible   aspects   of   his   or   her  
culture.  We  understand  culture  at  different  levels,  although  the  focus  of  the  rest  of  the  
paper   is   culture   at   the   societal   level   as   a   system   of   cultural   language   and  
communication  and  the  role  of  cultural  values  encoded  in  conversation.    
 
2.2. Major  topics  in  intercultural  communication  
 
Johnson  (2003:  184)  proposes  that  “[a]ll  communication  bears  cultural  origins,  
conveys   cultural   meanings,   and   is   interpreted   through   cultural   frameworks”.   In   the  
broadest  understanding  of  communication  as  the  transmission  of  a  message,  it  could  
be  argued  that  people  from  the  same  culture  have  access  to  the  necessary  information  
to   interpret   their   messages.   Nonetheless,   it   is   possible   that   communication   among  
people  from  the  same  culture  breaks  down,  or  that  communication  among  members  
of   other   cultures   is   more   successful,   however,   there   are   potential   difficulties   when  
individuals   from   different   cultures   interact.   Especially   when   they   do   not   share   the  
same  language  or  if  their  cultural  values  differ  to  a  great  extent.  
Myers-­‐Scotton  (2006:  176)  writes  about  “inter-­‐cultural  communication”  as  the  
interactions   that   take   place   in   a   language   that   is   not   the   first   language   (L1)   of   the  

  7  
speakers.  According  to  her,  these  conversations  can  also  be  considered  “cross-­‐cultural  
communication”.  Gudykunst  and  Kim  (1997:  19)  claim  “intercultural  communication  is  
a   transactional,   symbolic   process   involving   the   attribution   of   meaning   between   people  
from   different   cultures”   [author’s   emphasis].     They   differentiate   this   from  
“intracultural  communication”,  which  takes  place  with  people  from  the  same  culture,  
and   unlike   Myers-­‐Scotton   consider   the   term   “cross-­‐cultural”   as   involving   a  
comparison   of   a   phenomenon   across   cultures.   Another   distinction   between   both  
definitions   is   that   contrarily   to   Myers-­‐Scotton,   Gudykunst   and   Kim’s   definition  
comprises  non-­‐verbal  messages  and  does  not  make  a  distinction  whether  the  medium  
is   the   first   or   an   additional   language   of   the   speaker;   therefore,   communication   of   a  
Spanish   speaker   from   Mexico   and   another   from   Spain   is   also   intercultural  
communication  even  though  they  share  the  same  language.  As  mentioned  before,  their  
cultural   values   and   rules   of   use   of   the   language   might   differ,   and   consequently,   the  
communication   process   might   go   under   similar   difficulties,   although   probably  
excluding  language  proficiency.  
Gudykunst   and   Kim’s   (1997)   conceptualization   of   communication   comprises  
eight  assumptions  about  what  it  is  and  how  it  takes  place.  I  will  list  them  as  follows:  
 
Assumption  1) Communication  is  a  symbolic  activity  
Assumption  2) Communication   is   a   process   involving   the   transmitting   and  
interpreting  of  messages.  
Assumption  3) Communication  involves  the  creation  of  meaning.  
Assumption  4) Communication  takes  place  at  varying  levels  of  awareness.  
Assumption  5) Communication   makes   predictions   about   the   outcomes   of   their  
communicative  behavior.  
Assumption  6) Intention  is  not  a  necessary  condition  for  communication.  
Assumption  7) Every   communication   message   has   a   content   dimension   and   a  
relationship  dimension.    
Assumption  8) Communication  imposes  structure  on  their  interactions.  
(Gudikunst  and  Kim  1997:  7-­‐13)  
 

  8  
 In   order   to   delimit   it,   we   can   say   that   communication   is   a   symbolic   activity  
involving   the   transmitting   of   messages,   which   can   happen   at   varying   levels   of  
awareness;  it  is  not  necessarily  intentional,  and  has  a  content  dimension  as  well  as  a  
relationship  dimension  in  which  speakers  assess  various  aspects  of  the  context.  This  
relationship  dimension  will  be  the  focus  of  the  forthcoming  discussion  of  politeness.  
In   intercultural   communication,   speakers   might   face   problems   because   they  
might  not  be  aware  of  “the  game  being  played”  in  their  own  culture  or  the  one  of  their  
interlocutor.   Myers-­‐Scotton   (2006:   179)   talks   about   “the   markedness   model”   to  
explain   that   while   “unmarked   choices”   are   expected   in   communication   and   seen   as  
appropriate,  other  choices  might  be  seen  as  “marked”,  and  therefore  unexpected.  Our  
ability   to   recognize   these   choices   as   one   or   the   other   is   what   according   to   this   author,  
constitutes   our   “communicative   competence”,   and   while   a   person   might   be  
communicatively  competent  in  a  culture,  since  the  choices  vary  in  markedness  across  
cultures   and   languages,   this   person   might   be   interacting   inappropriately   in   the  
expectation  that  his  or  her  interlocutors  follow  the  same  pattern.  
Myers-­‐Scotton   discusses   three   classifications   of   cultures   that   are   relevant   to  
intercultural  communication.  They  take  the  form  of  questions  and  are:  
 
1. Do  cultures  favor  individualism  or  collectivism?  
2. Do  they  expect  messages  to  be  indirect  or  direct?  
3. Do  they  expect  relationships  to  be  based  on  hierarchy  or  equality?  
(Myers-­‐Scotton  2006:  179)  
 
Within   the   first   question,   issues   about   equality   and   personal   freedom   arise.  
Members   of   individualistic   cultures   focus   on   individuals   and   their   personal  
achievements,   but   collectivistic   cultures   focus   on   cooperation,   shared   activities   and  
belonging   to   groups.   The   degree   of   indirectness   will   also   vary   across   cultures   which  
belong   to   a   more   individualistic   or   collectivistic   side   of   a   scale.   Edward   Hall   (1976)  
divides   cultures   as   “high-­‐“   or   “low-­‐context”.   In   the   former   there   is   a   great   deal   of  
information  in  the  context  of  the  interaction,  whereas  in  the  latter  interactants  focus  
more  on  the  message  itself  and  not  on  the  listener’s  power  of  interpretation.  The  third  

  9  
question   refers   specifically   to   whether   relationships   are   vertical   or   horizontal,   and  
how   this   is   shown   in   the   linguistic   forms   such   as   honorifics   and   forms   of   address  
among   others.   Finally,   Myers-­‐Scotton   (2006:   186-­‐204)   derives   from   these  
categorizations   five   areas   of   potential   differences,   that   is:   silence,   difference   in   the  
ideas   of   “good”   conversational   routines,   the   faces   of   politeness,   how   to   ask   for  
something   in   different   cultures   and   ideas   about   power   differentials.   Triandis   (2003:  
18)   calls   the   degree   of   difference   among   cultures   “cultural   distance”,   and   he   argues  
that   a   potential   for   conflict   is   greater   the   more   cultural   distance   there   is,   which  
increases  when  there  is  a  difference  in  languages,  social  structures  (as  in  the  family),  
religion,  or  standards  of  living.  
In   order   to   see   more   specifically   these   potential   difficulties   our   attention   will  
turn   to   politeness.   Many   of   the   categorizations   of   culture   have   overlapping   names  
across  disciplines,  so  when  an  author  uses  “equality  and  personal  freedom”,  another  
author   would   use   “involvement   and   independence”   with   a   slightly   different   focus.  
These   concepts,   although   pointing   sometimes   at   different   phenomena,   are   not  
incompatible.   I   expect   to   illustrate   the   connection   more   clearly   in   the   ensuing  
discussion.  
 
3. Theories  of  Politeness  
 
Politeness   is   difficult   to   define   because   there   is   a   tendency   to   adhere   to   the  
everyday  connotations  of  the  concept.  As  a  common  term,  people  use  expressions  to  
describe   when   someone   is   polite   or   impolite,   and   just   like   with   manners,   it   can   be  
prescribed  how  to  conduct  oneself  in  certain  situations  in  order  to  be  more  pleasant,  
respectful,   etc.   Thomas   maintains   that   it   has   been   intended   to   define   politeness   as   a  
pragmatic/   communicative   phenomenon   as   opposed   to   associating   it   with   moral   or  
psychological   dispositions   towards   being   nice   to   one’s   interlocutor   (Thomas   1995:  
178).   In   this   regard,   Watts   (2003)   distinguishes   between   interpretations   of   politeness  
as   folk   interpretations   (also   first-­‐order   (im)politeness)   or   as   a   concept   in   a  
sociolinguistic   theory   (second-­‐order   (im)politeness),   termed   by   Ellen   (2001)  
politeness1   and   politeness2   respectively.     Folk   interpretations   of   the   term   include  

  10  
personal   assessments   of   the   interactants,   describing   behavior   as   (dis)respectful,  
(dis)courteous,   (in)considerate,   civil,   well-­‐mannered,   refined,   rude,   etc.   The   more  
formal  definition  as  part  of  a  sociolinguistic  theory  will  be  explained  next.  
 
3.1. A  concept  in  a  sociolinguistic  theory  
 
As   Thomas   (1995:   168)   has   pointed   out,   the   most   influential   theory   of  
politeness  was  proposed  by  Brown  and  Levinson  in  1978,  and  then  revised  in  1987.  A  
key  aspect  to  understand  their  theory  is  that  of  “face”  developed   by  Goffman,  in  which  
he  claims  that  face  is:  
...the   positive   social   value   a   person   effectively   claims   for   himself  
[herself]   by   the   line   others   assume   he   has   taken   during   a   particular  
contact.  Face  is  an  image  of  self  delineated  in  terms  of  approved  social  
attributes—albeit   an   image   that   others   may   share,   as   when   a   person  
makes   a   good   showing   for   his   profession   or   religion   by   making   a   good  
showing  for  himself  [herself].  
(Goffman  1967:  5)  
 
There  are  two  aspects  of  face,  in  the  words  of  Brown  and  Levinson  (1987:  62)  
both  represent  the  speaker’s  wants  of  every  “competent  adult  member”  on  one  hand  
“that   his   actions   be   unimpeded   by   others”,   known   as   “negative   face”,   and   on   the   other  
hand   “that   his   wants   be   desirable   to   at   least   some   others”,   also   known   as   “positive  
face”.   In   order   to   avoid   the   evaluative   connotation   of   the   words   positive   and   negative,  
other  authors  have  suggested  alternative  names  for  these  aspects  of  face.  Scollon  et  al.  
(2003:   48)   distinguish   between   aspects   of   “independence”   and   “involvement”,   also  
referred   to   as   “solidarity   politeness”   and   “deference   politeness”   respectively.  
According   to   them,   the   first   aspect   is   realized   through   strategies   where   the   speaker  
asserts   that   he   is   closely   connected   to   the   hearer,   whereas   the   second   depends   on  
strategies   that   give   or   grant   independence   to   the   hearer.   These   authors,   unlike   the  
original   theory   which   sees   both   aspects   of   face   as   mutually   exclusive,   also   propose  
that  “...both  aspects  of  face  must  be  projected  simultaneously  in  any  communication”  

  11  
(Scollon  et  al.  2003:  48)  and  that  “[t]here   is   no   faceless   communication”  (Scollon  et  al.  
2003:  49)  [author’s  emphasis].  
Brown   and   Levinson   argue   that   tied   to   the   term   “face”   are   notions   of   being  
embarrassed   or   humiliated,   and   they   add   that   face   is   emotionally   invested,   and   can  
therefore   be   lost,   maintained,   or   enhanced,   so   it   must   constantly   be   attended   to   in  
interaction   (1987:   61).   Watts   et   al.   (2005:   xi)   refer   to   Brown   and   Levinson’s   theory   as  
“the   realisation   of   face   threat   mitigation”,   which   includes   the   notion   that   certain  
illocutionary   acts   are   inherently   threatening   to   the   interlocutor’s   face.   These   “face-­‐
threatening   acts”   (FTA’s)   can   damage   either   side   of   the   hearer’s   face,   so   speakers  
might   adopt   particular   strategies   to   reduce   the   damage,   based   on   the   parameters   of  
power   (P),   distance   (D),   and   rating   of   imposition   (R).   These   values   in   combination  
regulate  the  choice  of  strategy  adopted.  Following  is  a  diagram  showing  the  possible  
strategies  according  to  the  estimation  of  risk  of  face  loss:  
 

 
(Brown  and  Levinson  1987:  60)1  
 
If   we   take   the   illocutionary   act   of   “requesting”,   the   options   range   from  
abstaining  to  do  it,  to  just  give  a  hint  as  in  “I’m  hungry”  or  the  balder  “give  me  food”.  
This  model  assumes  that  the  greater  the  degree  of  face-­‐threat,  the  more  indirect  will  
                                                                                                               
1  Image  taken  from:  [Link]    

accessed  25.08.2015.  

  12  
the   utterance   be.   However,   some   counter-­‐examples   can   be   seen   especially   in   long-­‐
term  relationships  and  different  sub-­‐groups  (Thomas  1995:  176).  Pomerantz    (1984)  
analyses  the  preferred  and  dispreferred  turn  shapes  in  assessments  and  according  to  
his  data,  disagreement  is  the  preferred  response  after  a  self-­‐deprecating  assessment.  
Disagreement   is   therefore,   realized   with   no   mitigation   strategies,   and   face   loss   does  
not  take  place,  as  Brown  and  Levinson’s  model  would  suggest.  This  raises  the  criticism  
that  their  model  focuses  only  at  the  utterance  level  of  the  interaction  instead  of  speech  
sequences  as  a  whole.  
Finally,  we  shall  address  another  criticism  more  fully,  namely  the  universality  
of   the   theory   of   politeness   in   sociolinguistic   theory.   This   will   have   a   section   of   its   own  
because  it  is  the  most  relevant  for  intercultural  situations.  
 
3.2. The  problem  of  universality  
 
Matsumoto  (1988)  argues  that  “face”  as  a  universal  concept  is  not  appropriate  
to   understand   its   constituents   in   Japanese   culture.   She   argues   that   Brown   and  
Levinson’s  theory  provides  wrong  predictions  for  phenomena  in  Japanese  politeness  
and   draws   her   examples   from   formulaic   expressions,   honorifics   and   the   verbs   of  
giving  and  receiving  to  show  that  a  theory  of  politeness  must  take  into  account  a  more  
fundamental   level   of   cultural   variability.   The   division   of   positive   and   negative   face  
seems   not   to   be   appropriate   to   those   cultures   in   which   a   person   in   the   capacity   of  
individual   is   less   significant   than   the   social   group   to   which   he   or   she   is   affiliated  
(Watts  2003:  82).  
In   order   to   address   this   and   other   criticisms,   alternative   models   have   been  
suggested   to   integrate   cultural   variability   in   politeness   theory.   One   of   such   models  
was  put  forward  by  Spencer-­‐Oatey  (2000)  and  is  founded  on  the  concept  of  “rapport  
management”,   understood   as   the   handling   of   harmony/   disharmony   during   social  
interaction.   It   is   composed   of   “the   management   of   face”   and   “sociality   rights”   (social  
expectancies).  Added  to  the  concept  of  face  defined  by  Goffman,  Spencer-­‐Oatey  adds  a  
second  dimension  to  it  by  including  the  desire  for  people  to  acknowledge  their  social  
identities   and   roles,   an   important   factor   in   more   collectivistic   societies.   The   second  

  13  
component   comprises   equity   and   association   rights.   The   former   consists   of   two  
opposing   scales,   one   of   “cost-­‐benefit”   and   the   other   of   “autonomy-­‐imposition”.   The  
latter   set   of   rights   also   includes   two   elements:   one   in   the   interactional  
association/disassociation  and  the  other  of  affective  association-­‐disassociation  scale.    
Scollon   and   Scollon.   (2001)   develop   three   different   face   systems   to   analyze   the  
negotiation  of  face  relationships  in  intercultural  communication.  Scollon  et  al.  (2012)  
argue  that  face  relationships  among  participants  consist  of  an  unmarked  set  of  initial  
assumptions   and   later   develop   in   a   series   of   negotiations   in   which   those   opening  
assumptions  are  either  ratified  or  altered  in  different  ways.  They  define  face  systems  
as   “...general   and   persistent   regularities   in   face   relationships”   (2012:   52).   Following  
Brown  and  Levinson’s  parameters,  three  different  face  systems  are  suggested:  
 
Deference  (-­‐P,  +D)  
•
o Participants  are  considered  to  be  equals  or  near  equals  but  treat  each  
other  at  a  distance  
• Solidarity  (-­‐P,  -­‐D)  
o Exemplified  by  a  conversation  between  friends;  there  is  a  high  level  of  
involvement  polite  strategies  
• Hierarchical  face  system  (+P,  -­‐D)  
o Recognize  and  respect  the  social  differences  that  place  one  in  a  super-­‐
ordinate  and  the  other  in  a  subordinate  position.  
(Scollon  et  al.  2012:  54-­‐5)  
 
These  models  add  important  components  to  the  main  theories  of  politeness  as  
a  sociolinguistic  concept.  Watts  (2003:  27)  also  argues  for  a  politeness  theory  to  focus  
on   how   members   of   a   social   group   conceptualise   (im)politeness.   In   the   following  
study   these   three   models   play   a   central   role   to   understand   the   phenomena   of   refusals  
from  a  cross-­‐cultural  perspective.  
 
4. Refusals  in  Mexico  and  the  United  States  
 
Félix-­‐Brassdefer   does   a   cross-­‐cultural   examination   of   “the   similarities   and  
differences   in   the   realization   patterns   and   the   perceptions   of   refusals   by   educated,  
male   native   speakers   of   Mexican   Spanish   and   U.S.   English   in   formal   and   informal  
situations”   (2008:1).   He   focuses   on   what   Mexicans   and   Americans   do   in   social  

  14  
interaction,  how  face  relationships  are  negotiated  and  how  perception  on  the  notions  
of   politeness,   social   distance   and   power,   and   directness   and   indirectness   change  
during   a   refusal   response   by   each   culture   in   order   to   understand   cross-­‐cultural  
communication  more  sensibly.  He  argues  that  there  are  aspects  of  face  that  take  on  a  
major   importance,   the   United   stated   oriented   towards   “Independence”   and   Mexico  
towards  “involvement”,  and  he  explains  that  this  notion  of  self  projected  by  Mexicans  
is  collectivistic  and  more  oriented  to  membership  in  a  group  (2008:  4).  
The   study   was   carried   out   through   open   role-­‐plays   supplemented   by  
retrospective  verbal  reports.  There  were  20  participants  in  each  group,  and  both  had  
in   common   that   they   were   male   university   students   of   the   age   group   from   18   to   26  
years   old,   and   that   they   were   native   speakers   of   their   corresponding   language  
(Spanish   and   English),   the   difference   was   in   their   residence,   cultural   affiliation   and  
native  language.  
The  role-­‐plays  consisted  of  3  formal  and  3  informal  situations  where  different  
face  systems  were  at  play.  Following  there  is  an  illustration  of  one  scenario:  
 
• Bookstore:  An  employee  refuses  a  boss’  request  to  stay  late  at  work  (+D.  +P)  
 
There  are  two  extracts  of  the  recordings  showing  the  different  strategies  that  
speakers  used  in  this  situation:  
 
• Uh,  what  if  I  stay  ‘til  8:00?  (American  #19)  
• Pero   ¿qué   le   parece   si   nos   quedamos   a   hacer,   digamos,   la   mitad   y   el   lunes  
tempranísimo   estaría   yo   aquí   para   continuar   con   lo   que   falta?   Podría   ser   una  
posibilidad  (Mexican  #2)2  
(Félix-­‐Brasdefer  2008)  
 
These   examples   illustrate   two   one   preferred   strategy   of   giving   alternatives,  
other  ones  were  request  for  information  or  mitigated  refusals.  It  was  found  that  “…the  
                                                                                                               
2  Author’s  translation:  ‘well,  how  about  if  we  stay  and  do,  let’s  say,  half  and  then  I’d  be  

here  really  early  on  Monday  to  finish  what’s  left?  That  might  be  a  possibility’  

  15  
Americans   showed   a   strong   preference   for   alternatives   and   requests   for   additional  
information,   whereas   the   Mexicans   frequently   resorted   to   mitigated   refusals   and  
indefinite  replies”  [author’s  emphasis](Félix-­‐Brasdefer  2008:  87).  
Concerning   the   evaluations   of   speaker   in   the   retrospective   verbal   reports   it  
was   found   that   the   Mexican   group   associated   indirectness   with   values   of   “respeto”  
(respect),   formality,   tentativeness,   and   a   concern   for   helping   the   interlocutor;  
directness   on   the   other   hand   can   convey   “confianza”,   that   is,   values   of   informality,  
openness,   camaraderie   and   closeness.   In   contrast   the   American   group   associated  
directness   with   clarity,   fairness,   honesty,   and   straightforward   responses   that  
communicated   the   speaker’s   true   feelings,   as   well   as   for   the   speaker’s   own   wants  
(Félix-­‐Brasdefer  2008:  156-­‐7).  
 
5. Conclusion  

In  this  paper  I  draw  on  the  work  of  several  theorists  from  different  disciplines  
to   make   my   argument   that   politeness   plays   a   major   role   in   intercultural  
communication.  With  the  investigation  by  Félix-­‐Brasdefer,  I  illustrate  the  points  that  
different  cultures  encode  their  cultural  values  in  interaction,  and  these  are  consistent  
with  the  communication  patterns  that  they  share  with  other  members  of  their  culture.  
The  problems  that  could  arise  from  intercultural  communication  are  due  to  different  
causes,   one   of   them   being   the   conceptualizations   of   the   self   in   relation   to   other  
members   of   the   group.   In   some   theories   in   anthropology   this   is   referred   to   as  
collectivistic/   individualistic   cultures,   a   dimension   that   is   missing   in   the   leading  
theory   of   Brown   and   Levinson   but   reconsidered   in   different   models   in   the   form   of  
different  face  systems,  sociality  rights,  etc.  

Other  studies  can  be  analyzed  in  which  the  language  of  communication  is  not  
the  first  language  of  the  speakers,  and  in  which  other  ilocutionary  acts  are  analyzed.  
Comparing  the  theories  of  different  disciplines  was  very  satisfactory  in  the  sense  that  
drawing   connections   helped   for   a   better   understanding   of   politeness,   and   how   it   is  
affected  by  the  culture  of  an  individual.    

  16  
6. Bibliography  
 
 
Brown,   Penelope   and   Levinson   Stephen.   1987.   Politeness:   Universals   in   language  
usage.  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press.  
Chen,  Guo-­‐Ming  and  Starosta,  William  J.  2003.  “Intercultural  awareness”.  In  Samovar,  
Larry.  A  &  Porter  Richard  E.  (Eds.).  Intercultural  communication:  A  reader.  10th  
edition  (pp.  18-­‐28).  Belmont,  CA:  Wadsworth.  
Chen,   Guo-­‐Ming   and   Starosta,   William   J.   1997.   “Chinese   conflict   management   and  
resolution:   Overview   and   implications”.   Intercultural   Communication   Studies  
(1):  1-­‐13.  
Félix-­‐Brasdefer,  J.  Cesar.  2008.  Politeness  in  Mexico  and  the  United  States:  A  contrastive  
study  of  the  realization  and  perception  of  refusals.  Philadelphia:  J.  Benjamins.  
Goffman,  Erving.  1967.  Interaction  ritual;  essays  on  face-­‐to-­‐face  behavior.  Garden  City,  
N.Y.:  Doubleday.  
Gudykunst,   William   B.   and   Young   Yun   Kim.   1997.   Communicating  with  strangers:  An  
approach  to  intercultural  communication.  3rd  edition.  Boston:  McGraw-­‐Hill.  
Hall,  Edward.  1976.  Beyond  culture.  Garden  City,  N.Y:    Doubleday.  
Hall,  Edward.  1973.  The  silent  language.  Garden  City,  NY:  Doubleday.    
Johnson,   Fern   L.   2003.   “Cultural   dimensions   of   discourse”.   In   Samovar,   Larry.   A   &  
Porter   Richard   E.   (Eds.).   Intercultural   communication:   A   reader.   10th   edition  
(pp.  18-­‐28).  Belmont,  CA:  Wadsworth.  
Keesing,  Roger.  1974.  Theories  of  culture.  Annual  Review  of  Anthropology.  3:  73-­‐  97.  
Matsumoto,   Yoshiko,   1988.   Reexamination   of   the   universality   of   face:   politeness  
phenomena  in  Japanese.  Journal  of  Pragmatics  12,  403–426.  
Mey,  Jacob.  2001.  Pragmatics:  An  introduction.  2nd  edition.  Oxford:  Blackwell.  
Myers-­‐Scotton,   Carol.   2006.   Multiple   voices:   An   introduction   to   bilingualism.   Malden:  
Blackwell.  Chapter  7:  Intercultural  Communication.  175-­‐207.  
Pomerantz,   Anita.   1984.   “Agreeing   and   disagreeing   with   assessments:   some   features  
of   preferred   and   dispreferred   turn   shapes”.   In   J.M.   Atkinson.   &   J.   Heritage,  
(Eds.).   Structures   of   social   action.   (pp.   57-­‐101).   Cambridge:   Cambridge  
University  Press.  
Scollon,   Ron   and   Scollon,   Suzanne.   2001.   Intercultural   communication.   2nd   edition.  
Malden:  Blackwell.  
Scollon,   Ron   and   Scollon,   Suzanne   W.   &   H.   Jones,   Rodney.   2012.   Intercultural  
communication:  A  discourse  approach.  3rd  edition.  Oxford:  Wiley-­‐Blackwell.  
Spencer-­‐Oatey,   Helen.   2000.   “Rapport   management:   a   framework   for   analysis”.   In  
Spencer-­‐Oatey,  Helen  (Ed).  Culturally   speaking:   Managing   rapport   through   talk  
across  cultures.  (pp.  11-­‐45)  London:  Continuum.    
Triandis,  Harry  C.  2003.  “Culture  and  conflict”.  In  Samovar,  Larry.  A  &  Porter  Richard  
E.   (Eds.).   Intercultural   communication:   A   reader.   10th   edition   (pp.   18-­‐28).  
Belmont,  CA:  Wadsworth.  
Watts,  Richard  J.  2003.  Politeness.  Cambridge,  UK:  Cambridge  University  Press.  
Watts,  Richard  J.,  Ide,  Sachiko,  and  Ehlich,  Konrad  (eds).  2005.  Politeness   in   language.  
2nd  edition.  Berlin:  Mouton  de  Gruyter.  

  17