Cultural Values in English and Chinese Politeness.doc

cultural values in english and chinese politenesswhat is politeness? while stopping the car at the toll station, the vocalized machine said: “excuse me，20 yuan please！”（你好，请付20元）as we all know that “nihao” in china usually means to greet others and is commonly interpreted into english as “how are you”, “how do you do” or even “hello”. it is definitely unreasonable to understand this version this way in the situation of a toll station. another example, why on earth hugh grant is considered amusing? although he kept bumbling “oh im sorry i err, rather, i mean, i didnt want to offend” these words seem so polite superficially, while people from other cultures find this just plain awkward and embarrassing to watch. these two examples of politeness differ from the common knowledge of politeness, such as offering your seat to the elderly on a bus is considered polite behavior, and interrupting when someone is talking is considered impolite or to greet someone the first time you meet him in the morning is polite and to stand up to reach for the dish you want at a dinner table is impolite. as a social phenomenon which can be observed, politeness is something superficial but to explain what is perceived on the surface we can delve into the depth where different cultural values are rooted. however, the social and communicative context of politeness is much more profound than the intersection. in order to examine this issue more thoroughly, this study poses questions including the following: what are the theories about the politeness on terms of linguistics? what role does politeness play in the prospective of cross-cultural communication? what are the major differences between english politeness and chinese politeness? what implications can be attached to english teaching and learning? politeness theory ?politeness can at once be understood as a means to achieve good interpersonal relationship, and a norm imposed by social conventions（何兆熊 2-8）. politeness theory is the theory that accounts for the redressing of the affronts to face posed by face-threatening acts to addressees（foley 495）. first formulated in 1978 by penelope brown and stephen levinson, politeness theory has since expanded academias perception of politeness. politeness is the expression of the speakers intention to mitigate face threats carried by certain face threatening acts toward another (mills 6). another definition is a battery of social skills whose goal is to ensure everyone feels affirmed in a social interaction（foley 495）. being polite therefore consists of attempting to save face for another.face is the public self image that every adult tries to project. in their book, brown and levinson defined positive face two ways: as the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others, or alternately, the positive consistent self-image or personality claimed by interactants. negative face was defined as the want of every competent adult member that his actions be unimpeded by others, or the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction-i.e. the freedom of action and freedom from imposition（brown；levinson 345）.ten years later, brown characterized positive face by desires to be liked, admired, ratified, and related to positively, noting that one would threaten positive face by ignoring someone. at the same time, she characterized negative face by the desire not to be imposed upon, noting that negative face could be impinged upon by imposing on someone（coates 259）. positive face refers to ones self-esteem, while negative face refers to ones freedom to act（foley 495）. the two aspects of face are the basic wants in any social interaction, and so during any social interaction, cooperation is needed amongst the participants to maintain each others faces（foley 495）. politeness in cross-cultural communication the growing interest in linguistic politeness points out to the importance of this issue in human interaction and especially in intercultural studies. questions dealing with this social and linguistic phenomenon and its realization in different cultures are investigated in a number of social sciences, such as anthropology, cultural anthropology, psychology, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, cross-cultural pragmatics, applied linguistics, communication. be-cause of its complex character, politeness can be vie-wed only from an interdisciplinary point of view.communication is not only the transmission of information but also of attitudes. many problems in intercultural communication arise from the difficulty of finding appropriate ways to signal attitudes to interlocutors. even relatively simple misunderstandings are sometimes difficult to regulate in intercultural situations. talking to a foreigner, people usually easily forgive grammar or lexical mistakes as they are attributed to faulty linguistic knowledge, but are very sensitive to an inappropriate use of politeness formulas, as they are attributed to intentional cause1（janney 13-15）.being interculturally polite is a very complicated skill. interpersonal communication is the most sensitive area of intercultural communication. linguistic knowledge is not enough for successful communication, as politeness formulas are usually not translatable, though very often they seem to be similar. they are used in different situations and can be easily misunderstood. but what is most essential is that politeness is not a set of etiquette formulas. it is a system of communicative strategies which in different cultures are not fully shared. being polite in another culture requires skills of using culturally specific strategies and modifying verbal and non-verbal behavior. predictability of others behavior is necessary for successful communication, for understanding the interlocutors activity and planning ones own. when an interlocutors behavior differs from what was expected, misunderstanding occurs. such misunderstanding can lead to stereotyping, which in turn harms communication. stereotypes should not be judged in a negative way only. they are important signals of cultural differences, which should be in a particular focus of attention of researchers. indeed there are serious reasons for english people to judge chinese as impolite: they often sound imposing, argumentative, even aggressive, ask private questions, give ad-vice even to strangers, interrupt interlocutors etc. but such conduct should not be considered as impoliteness. it can be explained through social relationships and cultural values. as wierzbicka claims, linguistic differences are due to “aspects of culture much deeper than mere norms of politeness” and are associated with cultural differences（wierzbicka 145）. to understand cultural differences which influence communicative behavior is a necessary part of intercultural communicative competence. cultural values in english and chinese politenessspeakers of different cultures try to observe and maintain politeness, which is perceived as a social phenomenon, a communicative strategy and a prescriptive norm imposed by the particular social conventions. however, differences do arise from the different origins of the notion of politeness and the cultural value orientations, which have been gradually formed in the course of history under the influence of various factors. to deal with politeness phenomena, we must take such relevant cultural matters into full consideration. thus, after the contrastive study of the different usages of politeness language in english and chinese, this section aims to conclude the cultural values which give birth to the politeness differences.3.1 being modest and self-denigrationit is known to us that to be modest is a way to show politeness. the chinese equivalent of “modesty” is qianxu, whose cultural connotation is quite different from that of the word in english culture in many ways: chinese qianxu involves putting down oneself and elevating others while “modesty” as leechs theory puts, is to avoid self-praise; chinese qianxu remains at the core of chinese politeness while “modesty” is not so valued by english speakers; qianxu is regarded as a virtue of self-cultivation, which servers as the foundation on which chinese politeness is built whereas “modesty” functions as a strategy of minimizing self-praise. on this phase, assertiveness and non-assertiveness in english culture and chinese culture respectively are best displayed, which can easily be seen from different attitudes toward the act of being complimented.as deng yanchang and liu runqing note, the different responses to compliments in english and chinese stem from their different cultural assumptions and values: in english culture, it is generally assumed that the praise is sincere and/or the praise is for some not unworthy achievement or something else（邓炎昌；刘润清 77）. thus, there should be no show of false humility or no pretended modesty; however, to chinese, acceptance of praise will be assumed to be self-conceited or lack of good manners. besides, the different usages of address terms, especially the respectful terms, can very well serve the purpose of illustrating the different connotations of “modesty” and qianxu. to sum up, “modesty” in english culture stresses other-elevating, but not necessarily and very rarely self-denigrating and other-elevating, but with a more stress on self-denigrating. to denigrate the self is aimed to show respect to the other. chinese modesty or more precisely self-denigration, encompassing respectfulness and humility has long been a well-established tradition and a highly valued virtue in chinese culture. it has been as the core of the chinese notion of politeness for more than two thousand years.3.2 privacy and attitudinal warmthprivacy is valued in all cultures but the understanding of “privacy” in two cultures is quite different. it is more highly regarded in english culture than in chinese culture. chinese culture pays great importance to human feelings and interpersonal relationships. according to chinese conventions, to show attitudinal warmth for others is considered as polite behavior. therefore, it is customary that chinese people initiate their conversation by asking about each others age, marital status, occupation and even income when they meet each other even for the first time. to chinese, asking all these questions is undertaken to show concern for others and will shorten distance between themselves and their interlocutors. thus, harmonious relationship is maintained. but this conflicts with the english conception of individual privacy. their sense of privacy is so strong that they are easily offended by such common chinese greetings as” where are you going?” where have you been?” in this case, the natural response of most english speakers is most likely to be” it is none of your business!”it doesnt mean that chinese people have no privacy, but implies that their conception of privacy is quite different from that in english culture. chinese conception of privacy penetrates a value of a sort and that it not just refers to ones personal things, but also belongs to ones in-group like the family while the english notion of privacy is related to ones everything and is sacred. 3.3 solidarity and poweras a sociolinguistic term, “solidarity” not only refers to the equal and informal relationship but also the desire for establishing equality, intimacy, common interest, and a sharing between people, etc. while “power” ,is closely related to ones social status, family position, age, education, and achievement, etc. solidarity and power relationships exist in all cultures. solidarity and power represent the different orientation of interpersonal relationships in english and chinese cultures respectively. the address terms and expressions of thanks can said to be the salient manifestations of solidarity or power relationship.the emphasis on solidarity over power can best be demonstrated in the wide use of first names in their daily interactions. according to deng yanchang and liu runqing, first naming as an address form, which was formerly applied to define intimate relationships only, has now been employed to describe general relationships between people of different social status and among strangers. in contrast, status differences overrule social distance in chinese culture. that is, the interpersonal relationship among chinese is power-oriented or status-marked. chinese people tend to accept the hierarchical relationships. they pay much attention to power and authority and hence stress status and/or age difference in their everyday communication（邓炎昌；刘润清 77）. the orientation of power relationship is best manifested in the common use of respectful terms like “nin” in the case of addressing others. “whenever one speaks to a superior or an elder, one has to employ honorifics no matter how close they may be”(gudykunst；mody 606).this is quite counter to the english practice.” one can imagine the reactions of adults if a child were to call a grandparent by his or her first name, or a student to do the same in calling a teacher.”(邓炎昌；刘润清 30).what is more, age has long been one of the most important elements of status or power. 3.4 individualism and collectivismenglish culture is characterized by individualism and chinese culture characterized by collectivism. mao stated that since face is a public image that every member in the society wants to earn for himself/herself, the image manifests a politeness orientation: the orientation of ideal social identity or the orientation of ideal individual autonomy. according to mao, politeness in english culture is oriented to the ideal individual autonomy while politeness in chinese culture is oriented to the ideal social identity. differences of politeness languages in english and chinese, especially the usage of request and refusal, can be explained by this kind of culture value.individualism is characterized by individuals subordinating the goals of collectives to their personal goals. the major characteristic of individualism in the english culture is i consciousness and self-orientation: competition rather than cooperation is encouraged; personal goals take precedence over group goals; people tend not to be emotionally dependent on organizations and institutions; and every individual has the right to own his or her privacy, thoughts and opinions. these cultures stress individual initiative and achievement, and they value individual decision-making. collectivism is characterized by individuals subordinating their personal goals to the goals of some collectives and by a rigid social framework that distinguishes between in-group and out-group. in the chinese culture it is we” consciousness and collectivity-orientation. it values interdependence and considers individual aggressive behavior negatively. group achievement is emphasized, and a harmonious in-group interaction is the goal. collectivism is the core of chinese culture. implicationto fully explain the cultural specificity of politeness, we need to explore the specific values of the cultures in question in that talking about politeness without considering the social norms and cultural values of a particular culture is just like a tree without a root. the issue of politeness in english and chinese cultural has been mentioned above and we can infer that different realizations and standards of politeness often lead to miscommunication in english-chinese interactions. these findings may be of considerable significance in cross-cultural communication and foreign language teaching and learning.4.1 implications for cross-cultural communicationpeople from different socio-cultural backgrounds tend to have very different beliefs and value orientations, and there differences can readily be reflected in their practice of politeness. the close contrastive analyses of differences can easily cause mutual misunderstandings or interpersonal conflicts. given the contrastive study of english and chinese politeness so far, it might seem that the best way to avoid unnecessary cross-cultural miscommunication would be to know as much information as possible regarding the diversity of sociolinguistic behavior of politeness, to build mutual understanding and to foster an attitude of tolerance towards this aspect of differences.therefore, adaptation to each others value systems is the key to achieve successful communication across cultures. our world gets smaller with the development of communication technologies and transportation means and people from different cultures come increasingly into closer contact with one another. as a result, cross-cultural communication has become an undeniable fact. to function effectively and successfully in cross-cultural encounters, people should develop cross-cultural awareness, promote cultural exchange and achieve mutual understanding.4.2. implications for foreign language teaching and learningadequate knowledge of grammatical and lexical distinctions enable the foreign language learners to speak accurately and to understand information explicitly stated, but not necessarily to speak appropriately and understand exactly what is meant in specific contexts. the former case involves ones linguistic competence (knowledge of language structure) while the latter relates to ones communicative competence (cultural knowledge of language use).getting the right message across is not always easy when the problems become more serious and difficult cross-culturally. moreover, the lack of linguistic competence can easily be detected, while communication difficulties resulting from different cultural assumptions and expectations about appropriate sociolinguistic behavior are hard to detect and are most probably associated with the speakers politeness or rather wi