Jeffrey Taylor-Kantz

Emotions Across Languages and Cultures

Professor Katarzyna Dziwirek

Final Research Paper

The American Politeness Contradiction

According to the Politeness Theory posited by Dr. Penelope Brown and Stephen

Levinson, politeness is a universal concept carried by all cultures. It’s purpose is to

protect ones “face,” or self-image in conversations, especially with people one is not

intimately familiar with. The concept of face is Chinese in origin but has become

extremely prevalent in English speaking cultures, often related to embarrassment or

humiliation, as with the phrase “losing face”. In developing the universal Politeness

Theory, Brown and Levinson have assumed that “all competent adult members of

society have (and know each other to have) [two traits]:

1. ‘Face’, the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself [or

herself], consisting in two related aspects:

(a) negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-

distraction – i.e., to freedom of action and freedom from imposition

(b) positive face: the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially

including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of)

claimed by interactants.

2. Certain rational capacities, in particular consistent modes of reasoning from ends

to the means that will achieve those ends” (Brown & Levinson 2013 311).
 Cultures develop politeness routines to improve or preserve face in social

interactions. Each culture develops its own unique set of politeness routines. I believe

that the types of politeness routines that cultures develop is dependent on certain

variables, such as core cultural values, and whether a culture is individualistic or

interdependent. I wanted to examine some American politeness routines and see how

they compared to politeness routines of other cultures, and came across some

interesting results. There are certain politeness routines within American culture that

seem to contradict each other if we assume they are formed on the same internal

cultural logic.

One of the more salient politeness routines I have personally observed in American

English is our tendency to use hyperbole in certain situations, namely when giving or

receiving compliments, or when offering or refusing to give help or assistance. When it

comes to giving compliments, Americans are definitely notorious for using a lot of

hyperbole. We say things like “I absolutely love your sweater!” which just sounds kind

and polite to most Americans, would be seen by people of other cultures as laying the

compliment on so thick that it seems insincere. In a cross-cultural study done by Sanae

Tsuda, she contrasts the attitudes in compliments between English and Japanese

speakers. As a native speaker of Japanese with a more outsider perspective on the

English language, she can perceive unique aspects of our language that just seem

normal to us. She says about English compliments, “As a speaker of Japanese, I have

always felt that the native speakers of American English are very good at complimenting

others by using somewhat exaggerated expressions. For instance, a Japanese man

would scarcely compliment his wife or friend about her cooking as follows: "No one can

cook a chestnut soup like you do, Lisa." In the same way, a compliment on one's

appearance like the following sounds unnatural if it is literally translated into Japanese:

‘I don't know what you've been up to but you look terrific,’ said her friend, approvingly.

‘Like a million dollars!’” (Tsuda 1992 137). We use absolute statements and overstate

our positive opinions. This differs greatly from the Japanese approach to compliments,

which according to this paper is primarily characterized by humility. An example of a

Japanese compliment that she gives is “Trinity University is really beautiful and

spacious. Compared to your school, my college is so small that it doesn’t look like a

university” (Tsuda 1992 138). While the exaggerated nature of American compliments

can make a Japanese speaker feel like the compliment giver is being insincere, the

extremely deprecating nature of Japanese compliments conversely makes Americans

feel like the compliment is being insincere. Americans also have a similar routine of

hyperbole when offering help or when declining to offer help; e.g. “I would love to help”

(and then they help), or “I would love to help, but I would have to leave early”, or “I really

wish I could help, but I have other things to do” (Liao & Bresnahan 1996 710).

Americans are known for using the word “love” much more freely than other cultures, in

situations when they probably don’t feel as strongly as the word usage implies. That can

sometimes be off-putting to people of other cultures.

When it comes to responding to compliments, a study by Rong Chen shows a

relatively similar dynamic between America English speakers and Chinese speakers.

According to the study, American English speakers have ten main strategies for

responding to compliments which are, in descending order of frequency: “Thanking”,

“Agreeing (with the complimenter)”, “Expressing Gladness (that the object of the

compliment is liked)”, “Joking”, “(Thanking and) Returning Compliment”, “Offering

Object of Compliment (or help)”, “Encouraging [such as saying the complimenter should

get the abject of the compliment as well]”, “Explaining [e.g. ‘Thank you. I’ve been

working out considerably.’]”, “Doubting (the praiseworthiness of the object of the

compliment)”, and finally “Rejecting (the compliment) and Denigrating (the object of the

compliment)” (Chen 1993 53-54). Meanwhile, the Chinese strategies for responding to

compliments in descending order of frequency are: “Disagreeing and Denigrating”,

“Expressing Embarrassment”, “Explaining”, “Thanking and Denigrating”, and finally

“Thanking (only)” (Chen 1993 55). English speakers don’t always accept the

compliment, and Chinese speakers don’t always self-deprecate, but for each language,

the most common strategy for responding to compliments was the least common

strategy for the other language. Even if an American compliment is highly hyperbolized,

Americans are more likely to accept or agree with the compliment than to doubt the

complimenter.

This widespread practice of hyperbole seems to me to be in direct conflict with, or at

least highly contrast, another well observed routine common in polite American

discourse: our tendency to qualify our statements of knowledge or opinion when stating

what we think about a particular topic. This behavior is discussed in a cross-cultural

study about discourse management between English and French language speakers.

This research describes this contrast by highlighting the difference between the French

value of “S’Engager” or the showing of engagement and commitment, and the English

value of showing restraint. According to the article, and this matches what I have
observed of American culture, “Native speakers of English are genrally less outspoken

in their opinions than their French counterparts. Except among close friends, it is not

very English (American, Australian, etc.) to have a say about everything when going

about one’s daily business” (Peeters 2000 203). It is often considered impolite to voice

your opinion, and even considered bad to have an opinion in some cases. When an

English speaker voices an opinion that is not based in fact, it opens them up to censure,

which often makes voicing opinions “unnecessary risks”. The article provides a quote

from the American language professor Alston that encapsulates this idea: “When I

vouch for something or lend my authority to its being a certain way, I render myself

liable to censure, reprimand, correction, or the like, in the case things are not as I have

claimed they are” (203). The author of the article, Bert Peeters, asserts that this attitude,

and the possibility of having negative consequences for baseless assertions is

“particularly un-French”. English speakers believe that voicing a strong opinion about

any topic exposes them to significant social risks and prefer to voice their views

circumspectly and noncommittally so that they can disavow the assertion if it proves

false. Peeters provides a useful cultural script for this value of “restraint”:

“it is not good for people to always say what they think

because of this, I do not always say what I think

there are things that I do not want to say

when I say what I think,

I cannot say it like a thing that I know

I cannot say it like a thing that is true

if I do, people will think something bad about me” (204)

 This seems to greatly contrast the French cultural discourse. In French culture, the

nature of discourse seems very heated and almost hostile to a foreign observer. “Seen

through foreign glasses, a conversation between native French speakers often seems

to take on all the proportions of a confrontation.” This is because “in the workplace … ‘a

vigorous assertion of everyone’s viewpoint, the use of a certain verbal violence to lend

those views more weight, and the clash of convictions and interests are part of normal

functioning’” (Peeters 2000 198). The French passionately voice their opinions on every

topic, as if their opinions were fact, until the “best” or strongest opinion wins out. This

viewpoint is encapsulated in the phrase “Du choc des idѐes naȋt jaillit la lumiѐre

‘Enlightenment arises from the clash of ideas’” (Peeters 2000 199). This is seen as

extremely different than the way English speakers conduct their discourse. Many

French speakers see English speakers as extremely “wishy-washy”. The French do not

qualify their opinions when they speak them and advocate them passionately until their

mind is changed. They see our noncommittal qualifications and withholdings of opinion

as cowardly and untoward. One of the phrases the French use to condemn this lack of

commitment is, “donner une rѐponse de Norman (‘give the answer of a Norman’)”

(Peeters 2000 199). In French culture, you are expected to have an opinion on any

given topic and it is considered rude to withhold that opinion because you are not

contributing to the clash of ideas by hiding your beliefs. English speakers, on the other

hand, think that speaking your mind on a topic that you know nothing about is brash,

arrogant, ignorant. Speaking only when you know you are correct, and withholding your

opinion unless it is relevant or requested is considered polite.

 Peeters believes that culture and language are constantly interacting with and

changing each other, “especially if language is taken to refer to discourse as well as to

grammar and lexicon, and if culture is taken to include not only Whorf’s cultural and

behavioral norms, but also the cultural values hidden behind the way a community

manages its discourse. I am thinking of values such as ‘restraint’ among native

speakers of English, and ‘engagement’ ‘commitment’ among the French. The relation

between the expanded concepts of language and culture is one of constant interaction”

(Peeters 2000 194). This brings up a very interesting point that our methods of

discourse and management thereof is built upon our core cultural values. Thus, if we

explore the cultural values of America that could be affecting our discourse regarding

compliments and other opinions differently, we could find a possible reason for this

seeming contradiction that is still internally consistent within the American psyche.

I believe that the reason that these seemingly contradictory politeness routines

concurrently coexist in American discourse is because each routine actually is built

upon two main culturally values that are related to each other but are nevertheless

distinct. One well known English cultural value is that of “non-imposition”. A cross-

cultural study of American English, Australian English, and English English posits that

all three cultures share the “classic English ideals of ‘non-imposition’, ‘non-intrusion’,

and ‘privacy’” (Goddard 2012 1042). I believe that our behavior of withholding opinions

is at least partially built upon this value of non-imposition. America is a highly

individualistic society. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and worldview, and we

do not put a very high value on consensus. As such, loudly voicing our own opinions

during discourse could be seen as imposing our own worldview on others. This
becomes more acceptable the more based in fact your viewpoint is, but when your

opinion is not based in fact, you are merely threatening another person’s worldview by

establishing yours in conflict with their own. I believe the way in which Americans

respond to compliments is also somewhat based on this value. When we simply thank

or agree with someone who gives us a compliment, not only are we accepting praise,

we are validating their assertion. To refuse a compliment would be to tell the

complimenter that their opinion is wrong, which would be seen as offensive, especially

since the complimenter is trying to be kind. Compliment discourse can be just as much

about validating the compliment giver as the compliment receiver. That matches with

some of the other strategies for responding to compliments such as encouraging the

compliment giver and offering the object of compliment. Meanwhile, our routines of

hyperbole when it comes to offering compliments or help seem to me to stem from a

different cultural value, that of making other people feel positive emotions. This was

something that we discussed in lecture when comparing Polish and American culture.

While Poles value emotional honesty very highly, Americans are more willing to mask or

fake emotions for the sake of making others feel good. Now, that doesn’t mean that we

are manipulative users, or that compliments that we give are insincere, just that we

place a high value on making sure that other people feel positive emotions. When we

are giving compliments or offering help, we want to make the receiver feel as valued as

possible, which lends to exaggerating the degree of our compliment. Over time, this

becomes normal, and anything less than an exaggerated compliment sounds half-

hearted. We do not genuinely think that a person complimenting our cooking actually

thinks that our casserole is actually the best thing they’ve ever tasted, but the
compliment makes us feel good. These two values are not dissimilar, especially when

framed in a certain way. Our value on non-imposition is for making sure other people

don’t feel anything bad, which compliments our value on making sure others feel good.

But these values are just different enough to affect certain politeness routines in a way

that makes them seem contradictory, while actually serving similar functions.
 Sources

Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: some universals in

language usage. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Chen, Rong. “Responding to compliments A contrastive study of politeness

strategies between American English and Chinese speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics,

vol. 20, no. 1, 1993, pp. 49–75., doi:10.1016/0378-2166(93)90106-y.

Goddard, Cliff. “‘Early interactions’ in Australian English, American English, and

English English: Cultural differences and cultural scripts.” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 44,

no. 9, 2012, pp. 1038–1050., doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.010.

Liao, Chao-Chih, and Mary I. Bresnahan. “A contrastive pragmatic study on

American english and mandarin refusal strategies.” Language Sciences, vol. 18, no. 3-

4, 1996, pp. 703–727., doi:10.1016/s0388-0001(96)00043-5.

Peeters, Bert. ““S’engager” vs. “to show restraint”.” Evidence for Linguistic Relativity

Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 2000, p. 193., doi:10.1075/cilt.198.13pee.

Tsuda, Sanae. “Contrasting Attitudes in Compliments: Humility in Japanese and

Hyperbole in English .” Intercultural Communications Studies, 1992, pp. 137–146.