POLITENESS AND INTERACTION
I. Introduction
As human being, we need to do the interaction with other people. Every interaction will has different sense depend on the people who do it. Particularly, when we talk about linguistic interaction. A linguistics interaction is necessarily a social interaction. Interaction occurs when speaker and listener are active. We will know if there are many factors that relate to social distance and closeness are established prior to an interaction. To get the sense of interaction we should look at various factors that relate to social distance and closeness. Typically, social distance and closeness involve the relative status of the participants, based on social values tied to such things as age and power. However, there are other factors, such as amount of imposition or degree of friendliness, which are often negotiated during an interaction. These are internal to the interaction and can result in the initial social distance changing and being marked as less, or more, during its course. These internal factors are typically more relevant to participants whose social relationships are actually in the process being worked out within the interaction. Both types of factors, external and internal, have an influence not only on what we say, but also on also how we interpret (Yule, 1996). Every interaction that people do usually got the impact from their culture and behavior. So when we do the interaction with them. We will think how to show our politeness to our listener / partner. To show it we usually adapted from their culture and behavior. Pragmatic is the one of the study that talks about it especially in the politeness and interaction.
In order to avoid cultural misunderstandings, which will lead to communication failure, people should tolerate by a certain courtesy criteria. In another hand, I will talk it more in this paper because when we learn to get sense of interaction we will examine about Politeness and Interaction.

II. Definition of Politeness and interaction
According to (Brown & levinson, 1987) everyone has self-public image which has relation to emotional and social sense of self and expects everyone else to recognize. Politeness refers to the common notion of the term, that is, the way politeness manifests itself in communicative interaction. Politeness is one of the constraints of human interaction, whose purpose is to consider other`s feelings, establish levels of mutual comfort, and promote rapport. Hill et al. (1986: 282). Politeness is what we think is appropriate behaviour in particular situations in an attempt to achieve and maintain successful social relationships with others (Lakoff 1972: 910).
According to To Watts (2003:39) politeness can be identified as follows:
1. Politeness is the natural attribute of a ‘good’ character.
2. Politeness is the ability to please others through one’s external actions .
3. Politeness is the ideal union between the character of an individual and his external actions.
According to (Yule, 1996, p. 60) politeness in an interaction, can then be defined as the means employed to show awareness of another person’s face. The word “face” in this case refers to the public self-image of a person. The examples of politeness: A student to teacher
Student : Excuse me Mr. Buckingham, but can I talk to you for a minute? Friend to friend:
Hey Bucky, got a minute?
Politeness = the means employed to show awareness of another person’s face, showing awareness for a socially distant person’s face respect, deference showing awareness for a socially close person’s face friendliness and solidarity.
III. Face Wants
An important concept in the linguistic study of interaction is that of 'face'. The study of face – or 'facework' – is related to our everyday concept of respect and politeness, familiar from expressions such as 'to save face' or 'to suffer a loss of face'. Linguistic studies of face focus on the way in which we use language to acknowledge the fact that people have face 'needs'.
The concept of 'face' in the study of linguistic interaction derives from the work of Goffman (1967), who observed that face had to do with the 'positive social value' that we like to maintain in social interactions. During any one encounter, the interactants will each have a certain face and will produce utterances that take into consideration each other's face in this particular situation. In different situations, a single individual's face will be constructed differently. For example, when an individual is engaged in small talk with their family, they might expect to be addressed through terms of endearment, and not mind having fun made of them; when running a business meeting, on the other hand, they may expect to be addressed more formally, and to be treated with respect by other interactants. An individual's face can also change during a single interaction, for example when a businessman at a meeting completes his speech and turns to colleagues to discuss the injustices of a referee's decisions in the football match the previous evening
One of the most prominent conceptualisations of face is Brown and Levinson's model (1987), which claims to provide a universal account of how face-work operates (although it has been the subject of much debate). Brown and Levinson suggested that there are two distinct types of face: 'positive' and 'negative'. Our positive face reflects our desire to be accepted and liked by others, while our negative face reflects our wish to have the freedom to do what we want and to have independence. Brown and Levinson observe that, generally, people cooperate in maintaining each other's face needs. However, the nature of interaction means that – intentionally or unintentionally – speakers often find themselves producing utterances that threaten one or both types of face: what Brown and Levinson called 'face-threatening acts' (FTAs). Obvious examples include insults or expressions of disapproval, which can harm the addressee's positive face; however, more innocuous speech acts such as requests can also be face-threatening, by rubbing up against an interactant's desire to be free to do what they want to do (their negative face).

In everyday social interaction, people generally behave as if their expectation concerning their public self-image, or their face wants, will be respected. If a speaker says something that represents a threat to another individual’s expectations regarding self-image, it is described as a face-threatening act. Alternatively, given the responsibility that some actions might be interpreted as a threat to another’s face, the speaker can say something to lessen the possible threat. This is called face saving act (Yule, 1996, p. 61). Politeness is also defined as the concern for someone’s “face”. Face needs are the basic wants.
According to (Brown & levinson, 1987, p. 67), public self image representing needs to have been maintained by another’s face and even acknowledge by others. It is related to aspect of positive and negative could be defined in terms of wants which every interactant knows what another has and knows are in his best to or the want to be at least independent to satisfy other. In this case face need is well defined as a person’s expectation, or person’s self-esteem on the public self image will be acknowledged .
According to Brown and Levinson (1987 [1978]), face-threatening acts may threaten either the speaker's face or the hearer's face, and they may threaten either positive face or negative face.
A. Face - Threatening Acts
People in all cultures have an awareness of self-image, or "face", as they communicate. Protecting face is important for communicating and behaving successfully with others, even though it may not be accomplished consciously by talk participants. A "face-threatening act" (FTA) is one that would make someone possibly lose face, or damage it in some way. FTAs, which occur regularly in everyday interaction, are often softened by means of politeness. Politeness can be expressed through "positive politeness" (e.g., "please", to try to make the other person like you) or "negative politeness" (e.g., "I know this is a terrible imposition", to try to give the other person some space and not impose).
B. Face-Saving Acts

IV. Negative and Positive Face
When we attempt to save another’s face, we can pay attention to their negative face wants or their pesitive face wants. A person’s negative face is the need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others. The world “negative” here doesn’t mean “bad”, it’s just the opposite pole from “positive”. A person’s positive face is the need to be accepted, even liked, by others, to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her wants are shared by others. In simple terms, negative face is the need to be independent and positive face is the need to be connected (Yule, 1996, p. 61).
So, a face saving act which is oriented to the person’s negative face will the tend to show deference, emphasize the importance of the other’s time or concerns, and even include an apology for the imposition or interruption. This is also called negative politeness. A face saving act will is concerned with the person’s positive face will tend to show solidarity, emphasize that both speakers want the same thing, and that they have a common goal. This is also called positive politeness. (Brown & levinson, 1987) A distinction can be made between (i) FTAs which threaten positive face and those which threaten negative face, and (ii) FTAs which threaten the hearer’s face and FTAs which threaten the speaker’s face.
FTAs Threatening the Hearer’s Face
Positive Face
FTAs threatening the hearer’s self-image include (i) expressions negatively evaluating the hearer’s positive face, e.g. disapproval, criticism, complaints, accusations, contradictions, disagreements etc., as well as (ii) expressions which show that the speaker does not care about H’s positive face, e.g. expressions of violent emotions, taboo topics, bad news, emotional topics, interruptions etc.
Examples
• Criticism: “I think your report was not concise enough.” -> The hearer’s positive face is threatened because s/he is blamed for having done sth. badly, i.e. his/her self-image is negatively evaluated.
• Expression of emotions: "You’re feeling sad because of your ex-boyfriend, aren’t you?” -> The speaker addresses a topic which involves a state of emotional weakness on the part of the hearer, i.e. the speaker does not care about the 'public self-image' of the hearer, thus threatening his/her face.
Negative Face
FTAs restricting the hearer’s personal freedom include (i) acts predicating a future act of the hearer, e.g. orders/requests, suggestions/advice, reminding, threats/warnings/dares, (ii) acts predicating a future act of the speaker towards the hearer, e.g. offers/promises, and (iii) acts expressing a desire of the speaker towards the hearer or his/her goods, e.g. compliments, expressions of emotions.
Examples:
• Order: “Please give me that book.” -> The speaker expresses an anticipation of some future action of the hearer and thereby restricts his/her personal freedom.
• Promise: “I promise I will come by tomorrow.” -> The speaker states a future action in which the hearer should be involved.
• Compliment: “I really like you.” -> The speaker expresses positive emotions towards the hearer which may involve an anticipation of a positive reaction by the hearer (giving thanks/expressing positive emotions towards the speaker).
FTAs Threatening the Speaker’s Face
Positive Face
FTAs threatening the speaker’s self-image include apologies, acceptance of a compliment, breakdown of physical/emotional control, self-humiliation, confession etc.
Example:
• Apology: “I think I made a huge mistake.” -> The speaker makes a statement about his/her own shortcomings, thereby 'damaging' his/her own positive self-image/face.
Negative Face
FTAs threatening the speaker’s personal freedom include theexpresion of thanks, acceptance of thanks/offers/compliments, apologies, excuses etc.
Example:
• Expression of thanks: “Thank you so much for your help.” -> The speaker expresses thanks because he/she feels obliged to do so. His freedom of action is thus threatened in the moment of speaking.
V. Self and Other : Say nothing
Through a single speech event, one can detect different interpretations associated with different expressions possibly employed within that event. The relationship between these politeness concepts, positive or negative, and language application depends on the concepts of “Self” and “Other”. A person who aims to have his/her needs figured out by the other person next to him/her (the “Other”) is the “Self”. The requirements of the self are sometimes not explicitly expressed, but are just conveyed as vague intentions. When this “say nothing” works, it is because “ the other offers and not because the self asks” (1996:62). Therefore, one can clearly conclude that more is communicated than is said.
Nevertheless, if someone decides to say something, he/she does not have actually to ask for anything, but simply produce a statement, as the following ones:
1) Whh, I forgot my pen.
2) Hmm, I wonder where I put my pen.
Such statements are not directly addressed to the other. Consequently, the other can ignore them, that is, act as if the statements have not been even heard. These statements, as stated by Yule (Yule, 1996, p. 63).
VI. Say something: off and on record
A. Off-the-record
The communicative acts can be employed either going on record or going off record. Off record can not affect the other except it will result the influencing communicative acts to the hearer. In other words, he can do it with off record by giving the interpretation concerning to his own desire.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), a communicative act is done off-record if it is done in such a way that it is not possible to attribute only one clear communicative intention to the act. Thus, if a speaker wants to do an FTA, but wants to avoid the responsibility for doing it, he can do it off-record and leave it up the addressee to decide how to interpret it.
There are stages of processing the inferences from what speaker said (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
a. There is trigger serving the proper notice to hearer that the interference of what is said must be made.
b. Kinds of interfere involving to speech can derive what is meant from what is said, this providing the adequate sign to the interference.
As a whole, this designates that social context-oriented pragmatic conception that what is communicated is more than what it said. The use of off-record speech is properly considered as a strategy required to tactfulness. So the use of off-record strategy makes a speaker appears tactful as the utterance is ambiguous, more than one intention can be attributed to it. The off-record strategy can be categorized as successful or unsuccessful strategy. It can fortunately success because the interference can be made as required properly and the hearer can infer what is communicated (Yule, 1996)
B. Bald On-the-record
It is type of politeness strategy expressed to other form of direct utterance. (Yule, 1996). This strategy is often produced in imperative sentence to influence one to do what speaker intended. Besides, bald on record may be modified by inserting mitigating expressions like “please”, “would you mind” and etc., so as to maintain other’s face infringing linguistics expression (Yule, 1996), therefore, such these called as mitigating service. It is type of ordering strategy, hence a strategy should be used when the interactants have sufficiently been familiar each other and comfortable at particular environment. In the bald on record strategy, the speaker does nothing to minimize threats to the hearer’s face. The prime reason for its usage is that whenever a speaker (S) wants to do the FTA with maximum efficiency more than he wants to satisfy the hearer’s (H’s) face, even to any degree, he will chose bald on record strategy (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 95). There are, however, different kinds of bald on record usage in different circumstances, because S can have different motives for his want to do the FTA with maximum efficiency. Bald on record has outputs in term of considering it to be a strategic choice.
VII. Positive and Negative Politeness
A. Positive Politeness Strategy
According to (Brown and Levinson, 1987), positive politeness is redress referring to other’s positive face, in which his wants should be recognized as desirable expectation. The positive politeness strategy is usually seen in groups of friends, or where people in the given social situation know each other fairly well. It usually tries to minimize the distance between them by expressing friendliness and solid interest in the hearer's need to be respected (minimize the FTA). The only feature that distinguishes positive politeness compensation from normal everyday intimate language behavior is an element of exaggeration.
There are fifteen sub-strategies that are used in positive politeness strategies:
1. Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods).
2. Exaggerate (interest approval, sympathy with H)
3. Intensify interest to H
4. Use in-group identity markers
5. Seek agreement
6. Avoid disagreement
7. Presuppose/raise/assert common ground
8. Jokes
9. Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants.
10. Offer, promise.
11. Be optimistic
12. Include both S and H in the activity
13. Give (or ask for) reasons
14. Assume or assert reciprocity
15. Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
B. Negative Politeness Strategy
Negative politeness is defined as “a redressive action addressed to the addressee’s negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unobstructed and his attention unrestricted” (Brown and Levinson, 1987). Negative politeness strategy recognizes the hearer’s face, but it also recognizes that the speaker is in some way forcing on them. Maintaining the positive and negative face differ from each other, negative face is the want to be be desired in independent ways, a freedom to do actions, and not to be imposed by other. (Yule, 1996). The use of negative politeness is to paid attention to negative face, by demonstrating the distance between the interlocutors and avoiding intruding actions to each other’s territory (Cutting, 2008). The situation of this strategy may be used, in case the speaker attemps to build the situation of respect between them in order to keep their own selves-esteem. Negative politeness is the heart of respect beaviour. Negative politeness tends to ritual of specific avoidance, and focused without any similar interventions. Some of the sub-strategies of negative politeness are:
1. Be conventionally indirect.
2. Question, hedge.
3. Be pessimistic.
4. Minimize imposition
5. Give difference
6. Apologize
7. Impersonalize S and H
8. State the FTA as general rule
9. Nominalize 10. Go on record as incurring debt, or as not indebting H.
VIII. Strategies
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness strategies are developed to save the hearer’s face. Face refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that “self-esteem” in public or in private situations. Their notions of ‘face is derived from that of Goffman (1967, as cited in Brown and Levinson 1987) and from the English folk term, which is related to notions of being embarrassed or humiliated, or ‘losing face’.
As a rational agent, willful model person, who is endowed to take an interaction in social life, it is admittedly to say that those merely tend to exert particular strategy in favors of minimizing face-threatened. The strategic choices considered to be employed in to do Face-Threatening Acts. One must acknowledge and observe the relation of particular strategy-used which realized in speech with the ends which can satisfy the other’s face want. Someone must tend to a strategy related to his particular circumstance that is solidarity strategy. This strategy according to (Yule, 1996) is the tendency to use positive politeness forms, emphasizing closeness between speaker and hearer. On the contrary the tendency to use negative politeness forms, emphasizing right to freedom, can be seen as a deference strategy. (Yule, 1996)
IX. Pre Sequences
The concept of face saving may be helpful in understanding how participants in an interaction inevitably understand more than is said. The basic assumption, from the perspective of politeness, is that face is typically at risk when the self needs to accomplish something involving other. The greatest risk appears to be when the other is put in a difficult position. One way of avoiding risk is to provide an opportunity for the other to halt the potentially risky act. For example, rather than simply make a request, speaker will often first produce what can be described as a pre request. (Yule, 1996)
References

Brown, P., & levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in language usage: Cambridge University Press.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.