The interactional approach to politeness

As an antidote to the classic politeness theories, discursive politeness work has been valuable. In particular, it has drawn attention to the fact that (im) politeness is not inherent in particular forms of language, in the sense that a judgement of politeness is solely determined by the usage of particular language. It argues instead that it is a matter of the participants’ evaluations of particular forms as (im)polite in context. However, discursive approaches have generally emphasized social aspects at the expense of close consideration of pragmatic aspects of politeness. The interactional approach to politeness (and interpersonal attitudes more generally) has much in common with the discursive, relational and frame-based approaches, but it also advocates a number of theoretical and methodological moves that mark it as distinct from those approaches. One key claim is the idea that user (cf. politeness1) and observer (cf. politeness2) perspectives on politeness are both equally important, so we very often have to deal with multiple understandings of behavior vis-à-vis im/politeness (see Kádár and Haugh [2013] for more detailed discussion).

To see what we mean by multiple understandings of politeness, consider the following apology that arose in an intercultural setting (Chang and Haugh 2011). The background to the apology is that Wayne (an Australian) and his wife had been invited by Joyce’s mother (a Taiwanese) to go out with her family to a restaurant for dinner, as they had just met and found they shared a common interest in vegetarian food. Wayne and his wife did not, however, turn up, and did not respond to Joyce’s call from the restaurant. It was only the next day that Wayne sent an SMS text to Joyce saying Sorry I forgot I was busy with something. Joyce decided to call Wayne and the entire call was recorded.5 The excerpt below features the head act of Wayne’s apology and the first part of the interaction that followed:

The question is: is Wayne’s apology polite (or not)? Asking such a question already presupposes a number of different perspectives. You, the reader, may form your opinion about this particular incident. Your perspective (as the analyst) is grounded as an observer (although sometimes the analyst can also be a participant), specifically, an overhearer. Your footing therefore differs from that of the speaker (Wayne) and the addressee (Joyce). You evaluate it without having direct access to the minds of either participant and so, inevitably, draw more from generalized or shared perspectives on the kinds of apologies that arise when one does not turn up to a social occasion. The participants themselves, Wayne and Joyce, not only draw from their own cultural perspectives, but also draw from their shared interactional history with each other, and perhaps with other Australians and Taiwanese. The recipient footing of Joyce is also somewhat complex as, while she is the interpreter and accounter in this interaction, she is not the exclusive target (i.e. the apology is for Joyce’s family as well, not just Joyce).

The first footing to consider is that of Joyce. Did she consider it polite or not? Clues to this can be observed in the interactional data. After Wayne issues the apology in lines 13–14, Joyce responds in line 15 with an absolution (that’s okay) that is oh-prefaced, thereby increasing the level of absolution, at least in English (Robinson 2004). In framing it as a preferred response, it appears on the surface that Joyce displays acceptance of Wayne’s apology. However, in the subsequent talk, a more complex picture emerges. Joyce offers a proposed account for why Wayne did not turn up (lines 15–18), and then subsequently repeats her absolution (that’s fi ne, that’s okay) in lines 20–21, in spite of the fact that Wayne hasn’t actually apologized again. Joyce repeats this absolution two more times before the call ends (data not shown). We need to turn to studies of apologies in Chinese to consider what might be meant by the repetition of this absolution. What we find is that typically in Chinese, apologies are repeated in order to show sincerity (Hua et al. 2000). The repeated absolutions from Joyce therefore open up interactional space for Wayne to repeat his apology. He does not do this, which lends support for the inference that Joyce found Wayne’s apology to be inadequate and thus impolite. This was independently verified by Joyce herself; she claimed she found it impolite in subsequent talk with the researchers.

The second footing to consider is that of Wayne. Did he consider his apology polite? From close examination of the interaction it appears that his understanding was that it was sufficiently polite. To begin with, the choice of the performative verb apologize is a marked IFID, as it appears only very infrequently in corpora of spoken discourse in English (Aijmer 1996; Deutschmann 2003). It is also preceded by an intensifier (really) which arguably increases the illocutionary force of this apology, as well as an account (we couldn’t make it), the latter being a standard feature of apologies in English. That Wayne does not perceive this apology to be inadequate is evident from the fact that he does not take up the interactional opportunities to repeat the apology created by Joyce. It is also evident from his attempts to “catch up” with Joyce despite her moving to close down the conversation at a number of points (data not shown), thereby displaying genuine (on the surface at least) interest in Joyce and her family (see Chang and Haugh 2011 for further discussion).

The third footing to consider is that of you, the reader. Here we would suggest, based on Chang and Haugh’s (2011) study, that your understanding is likely to vary. Chang and Haugh elicited metapragmatic evaluations of the apology as (very) polite, neither polite nor impolite, or (very) impolite from a sample of Australian and Taiwanese respondents. While there was interesting intra-group variation found across these evaluations, particularly amongst the Australians, there was nevertheless a very clear inter-group difference. Overall, the Australians found it not impolite, while the Taiwanese found it impolite. This difference results from different cultural perspectives on the apology that these respondents brought to bear. The Australian respondents emphasized Wayne’s attempts to show friendliness as increasing the level of sincerity (and thus acceptability) of his apology. The Taiwanese respondents, on the other hand, emphasized the lack of repetition as indicative of a lack of sincerity, which was one of their main reasons for evaluating the apology as impolite. Both the Australian and Taiwanese respondents shared the view that the account Wayne gave was somewhat inadequate, but ultimately judged the apology overall quite differently.

From this brief analysis a number of issues emerge. One key question that needs to be asked according to the interactional approach is whose understanding of politeness is it that we are analyzing. We outlined the multiple participation footings that underlie pragmatic meaning. This complex array of participation footings is also relevant to interpersonal attitudes such as politeness. Recipients may be addressees, side participants, overhearers or bystanders, for instance, and their evaluations of a particular pragmatic meaning or act may vary not only with those of the speaker but also amongst themselves (see Haugh 2013c for further discussion).

A second key question according to the interactional approach is how is it that participants (and so analysts as well) know something counts as polite, mock polite, mock impolite, impolite, over-polite, and so on. In other words, what are the moral grounds for making such an evaluation? To date a technical notion of “face” has generally been invoked in analyzing politeness. In the interactional approach, however, we argue that there are other possible explanations of politeness from an emic perspective, namely, that of members of the (sub)cultural group in which the interaction is situated. The notion of face as a publicly endorsed social image of individuals is just one. There are others, including an orientation to one’s sense of “place” relative to others or the heart/mind of others, for instance (see Haugh 2013a for further discussion).

A third question is how do we as analysts establish that evaluations of politeness, impoliteness and so on have indeed arisen. In the interactional approach we argue that the study of politeness (at least in interaction) necessarily involves very close analysis of the dynamics of interaction, including not only what is said, but also how it is said, that is, issues of prosodic and non-verbal delivery. The latter can provide important clues for the analyst in making inferences about attitudes on the part of participants. Such an approach also directs the analyst to examine responses to potentially polite (or impolite) meanings or acts to gather further evidence for making such inferences. However, as interpersonal attitudes often remain tacit rather than visibly surfacing in interaction, we also propose that the analyst needs to make recourse to metapragmatics in the study of politeness, and to interpersonal attitudes more generally. We will discuss metapragmatics in more detail, but suffice to say at this point that it involves drawing from evidence that language users are aware of (potential) evaluations of politeness.

An interactional approach to politeness thus not only considers the understandings of participants in particular situated instances of interaction, but also draws from the understandings of users and observers over time. In this way, we can arguably build a much richer and more nuanced understanding of politeness and, more broadly, interpersonal attitudes.