12.1 – Politeness theory  

12.2 – Practical communication skills

Anybody who has learned to live amongst different groups of people knows the importance of learning some basic rules of behaviour, described by O’Sullivan as “the way we do things around here “(1994:1) so as not to cause offence or become unsociable.

“When you are abroad, you are an ambassador for your country”. Eileen Sloan

Kuouh (2013) takes this further by suggesting that it is indeed the business partners of today who serve as diplomats in our world and their attitudes and behaviour can help to make or break diplomatic relations. Her guiding principle for doing business with African partners is that trust must be built before any type of business can begin.

In order to draw attention to this concept of a business person rather like a diplomat, some key areas of language use are considered as essential.

12.3 – Being prepared

Part of being prepared and building relationships depends on our first encounters and forming a positive impression. Before moving on to level two, i.e. rapport building, we have to pass the test of the first encounter. Kouoh (2013).

1 First and second encounters are crucial and will most probably have an effect on how the relationship continues.

2 The higher the level of the speaker’s English (in linguistic terms), the more serious will breaches of politeness conventions generally be considered. Camerer and Mader (2015)

Therefore it is important to be aware of conventional rules of politeness and etiquette; core competencies for establishing trust. British sociologists Brown and Levinson (1987) first developed the theory of face which is based on our desire to be liked; positive face and not imposed on negative face.

12.4 – Politeness Theory

Politeness theory is based on the concept that people have a social self-image that they consciously project and try to protect. This sense of self-image is referred to as “face.” The theory was developed in 1978 by researchers Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson. It holds that people use various politeness strategies to protect the face of others when addressing them. Under politeness theory, there is a positive and a negative face. Positive face reflects the desire to have one’s self-image approved of by others. Negative face is a part of personality that desires not to be imposed upon. Politeness strategies will differ depending on whether a person is dealing with another’s positive or negative face.

In situations where a face-threatening act (FTA) could arise, the politeness strategy used will depend largely on the relationship between the speaker and the listener. FTAs are sometimes unavoidable in conversation. A face-threatening act can damage the face of the person spoken to because it opposes her wants or needs. An FTA can be either a positive or negative one and can damage the speaker or the hearer.

Positive face-threatening acts are a direct challenge to the face of the listener. They contain an indifference to the listener’s self-image and include things such as threats, insults, and belittling the listener. Positive FTA includes speech that involves socially unacceptable topics, such as sexual innuendo and racial slurs. A speaker might also embarrass a listener with inappropriate references to gender, age, or status. A speaker’s own face may be damaged in these situations by the necessity of an apology or an admission of personal weakness.

In politeness theory, negative face-threatening acts occur when the speaker impinges on the listener’s negative face. The speaker requires a verbal response or an action from the person she is addressing. Negative FTAs can include advice, warnings, or requests of the listener to perform a certain action. It is confrontational in the sense that either the listener or the speaker must acquiesce to the desires of the other.

Politeness theory identifies four politeness strategies a speaker uses when dealing with face-threatening acts to the listener. They are; on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness, and off-record. The strategy used will depend on the relationship between the speaker and the hearer.

Bald on-record politeness is used among intimates, family and friends. It allows for plain speaking not available in other situations, and the concern for the other’s face is less complex. Positive politeness is a strategy used when the speaker is at least familiar with the listener. It recognizes the person’s status while also acknowledging the familiarity. For example, a speaker who has forgotten his wallet might ask a co-worker to borrow some money for coffee.

Negative politeness is used when speakers know they are impinging on a person’s time and want to show respect. Stopping a person on the street for instance to ask for directions requires negative politeness. Indirect politeness strategy involves the speaker requesting something without directly asking the listener to do it. The approach is more deferential and places the burden on the speaker. For example, a speaker might comment on something that needs to be done rather than asking the listener to do it

When comparing different cultures and countries it is clear that what is considered polite in one country may be considered impolite in another.

Take, for example, a ‘typically Swiss attitude to punctuality. When referring to private invitations, probably nine out of ten Swiss will not agree on whether it is a good idea to be a few minutes early, to come on time or to come up to 15 minutes late. In many cases, it will, therefore, be a good idea to ask a trusted friend or a colleague familiar with the specific environment. If that is not possible, polite meta-communication will be the best way to avoid serious blunders. Meta-communication is something that may be more difficult to achieve than one would expect. If you do not want to appear uninformed, uneducated, or rather arrogant and overbearing, it will need a certain type of knowledge, sensitivity and practical skills.

12.5 – Building trust

It is hard to imagine that anyone can be considered interculturally competent if he or she never says a single word. Smiling and nodding may be appropriate in some very basic and minimal encounters, but in general, this will by no means be enough in business encounters. This is where language comes in. In fact, it may be a language that makes finding out, internalizing and using appropriate politeness conventions even more difficult. What you say, how, when, or if at all you say something, obviously plays a vitally significant role in intercultural business encounters. Clearly, it will be important to get facts right, for instance, to say the right numbers and not confuse millions and billions, but t it may even be more important to do this politely. At the same time, using language correctly and politely is not everything. To understand the role polite communication plays at both intra- and intercultural levels let us look at the following incident, which really happened

Anna’s experience illustrates three dimensions that may influence the success or failure of intercultural encounters. These are:

1. social distance (age, gender, status, kinship, education, profession, in-group/out-group, ..),
2. power relations (hierarchy, host/visitor, teacher/student, … ),
3. the absolute ranking of face-threatening acts (from minor flaws to serious insults). All three indicate the stage and quality of relationships, whether long-established, just established or in the process of being established. Whether an individual’s or a group’s behaviour will be considered polite will be judged in view of these three factors. In terms of social distance and power relations, Anna’s relationship with the Korean business partners was clearly one of unfamiliarity. This brings us to the two most important rules. The first is that in first, second (and probably even third) encounters in business, ‘conventional rules’ of politeness and etiquette are considered obligatory and expected by all sides. “When in Rome do as the Romans do” is an ancient rule often quoted and varied by people from all over the world. Anna’s ideas of ‘conventional rules’ were obviously different from those of the Koreans. What was even worse, in her eyes their behaviour was unforgivable, while the Koreans were probably completely unaware of the grave insult their behaviour implied for their visitor. In other words: a ‘conversational contract’ that was binding for all sides did not exist – neither was it successfully established. Deviations from ‘conventional rules’ would have probably been permitted (by both sides), provided a relationship of trust had been developed, something Anna did not recognize the importance of and may not have had the time to embark on.

This brings us to the second rule. The best-tried way of reaching this stage of trust in relationships is to find topics of common interest. What these are may again depend on cultural specifics. In some countries, you may win your partners’ sympathy by showing family photos, by mentioning your personal interests or by giving them a valuable gift, in other countries you may want to build trust through competent discussions of professional subjects

Sometimes even a third stage of building rapport may be reached, i.e. a relationship of intimate familiarity, a relationship of trust where, in terms of (im-)politeness, almost anything goes. In business contexts, this type of intimate relationship is certainly exceptional. It may even be met with reservation or disapproval by line managers and senior executives. So, all in all, it is a balanced relationship of trust which should generally be sought in intercultural encounters.

12.7 – What makes communication polite?

It should be clear from what has been said above that politeness is not inherent in language. It is far more often the case that polite language can be used to express impoliteness. “I beg your pardon”, for instance, may be used as an extremely impolite intervention, depending on the situation, intonation and emphasis with which it is uttered.

Polite language may also be understood as a sign of coldness, arrogance and rejection, as shown by the example of British vs. Singaporean use of English.

Equally, impolite language may signal a trustful relationship, as in cases of ritual insults’. Brothers or old friends, for example, may top an affectionate greeting ceremony by using insulting language to each other like “you old bastard” (or worse) and combine this with a bear-hug or playful boxing.

And lastly, polite language may be misinterpreted. Your guest, for instance, following: her own politeness conventions, may refuse to accept a drink or some food that you offer her. How would you find out what she really wants?

To sum up what we have discussed so far: In the same way as language-based communication may be seen as a collective process of meaning-making, so may politeness be described as a process of relationship-building through communication. What we sometimes do when communicating is, to a certain extent, but not always, the exchange of factual information. What we always do in communication is – more than anything else – to mutually define and (re- )affirm our identity, role and relationship.

This is what we actively do in all communication as soon as there are people in sight. We do it in high-level business negotiations as well as during relaxed chats over a cup of coffee, in small talk during a conference as well as when we are silent – because, as the famous quotation goes, we simply can not communicate.

Being polite plays a crucial role in the process of establishing and maintaining trustful relationships and means much more than the frequent use of ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ although these may be helpful, too). It is important to note that politeness involves a great variety of elements, all-important in business. Among them are discourse conventions (compliments, hedging, inquiries, … ) body language (posture, gestures, eye contact, smiling, … ) rules of etiquette (dress, behaviour, formality, … )

taboo topics (personal feelings, sex, money, politics, religion, … ) taboo actions (touching a person’s head, use of the left hand, … ) face-saving conventions (“I must have got this wrong … “) language conventions (“I totally disagree … ” /”I see your point … “) positive politeness (“I like your dress … “) negative politeness (“I hope you don’t mind me asking … “)