Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/35-583

Title: Chinese Politeness
Subtitle: Diachrony, Variation, and Universals in Politeness Theory
Publication Year: 2023

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics
Book URL: https://cambridge.org/9781009281188

Author(s): Rong Chen

Reviewer: Xuan Li

SUMMARY

Chen’s (2003) Chinese Politeness is insightful to the field as it introduces an extended model of politeness based on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory, called B&L-E. The book offers a rich and comprehensive exploration of politeness from multiple perspectives including synchronic and diachronic analysis and cross-cultural comparisons among different countries (e.g., America, Singapore, China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam). It offers valuable resources for scholars and students interested in politeness studies, particularly within the context of Chinese culture. The book contains nine chapters, addressing a wide range of topics, such as the significant role of politeness in pragmatics, the influence of Confucianism on Chinese politeness, the dual faces in the concept of Chinese face, and the evolution and applicability of the B&L-E model.

EVALUATION

Chapter 1 highlights the significant role of politeness within the field of pragmatics, as well as the contributions of Chinese politeness to this research domain. Specifically, it exemplifies the centrality of politeness as a mitigator of face-threatening acts (FTAs) in speech acts, as well as its role as a universal social motive in various discourse studies, conversation analysis, and language use on the internet. Additionally, the author emphasizes how Chinese politeness, with its unique linguistic and cultural characteristics, such as the concept of Chinese face, offers insights that challenge and refine Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory of politeness and contemporary research. Therefore, this chapter clearly and effectively presents the context of existing politeness research and positions its discussion within the broader domain of pragmatics.

In Chapter 2, the author effectively explains how the hierarchical social structure (e.g., government, family and society interaction) and the societal value of harmony within Chinese culture influence the formation of Chinese faces and politeness by laying emphasis from the perspective of Confucianism.The author illustrates the influence of harmony in social structure (e.g., the relationships between father and son, and monarch and subject, as well as the virtues traditionally expected of women) through several important Chinese concepts, such as the notion of ren 仁, xiao 孝, zhong 忠, xin Trust and jing 敬. These notions in Chinese culture are based on traditional literature and provide strong evidence supporting the relationship between the hierarchical social structure and the societal value of harmony. However, no further discussion ensues regarding cultural changes in contemporary Chinese society.

Additionally, the author not only discusses evidence from mainland China but also non-mainland areas, including Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, to support the significance of hierarchy and harmony in formatting Chinese faces and politeness. However, these areas have their unique histories, influenced by factors such as ‘large-scale’ immigration and the local government policies. Therefore, whether the formation of their social structures and cultures is entirely due to the dominant influence of Chinese culture needs further discussion. Additionally, the uniqueness of the concept of Chinese face in this chapter can be further discussed. For instance, in English culture, when people aim to maintain harmony in relationships and avoid the offense of direct refusal, it is common to use a conventionalized expression pattern, starting with a positive statement and then introducing a contrast or shift in meaning with words like ‘but.’ This can be seen as a strategy to avoid confrontation and allow the interactors to save face.

Through various instances of lexemes in Chinese related to face and politeness, Chapter 3 argues that the concept of Chinese face consists of two parts: Face 1 (lian) and Face 2 (mian or mianzi). Specifically, Face 1 refers to aspects of the individual's personal identity such as morality, and accomplishments. Face 2 means the outward persona or image perceived by others. The author effectively illustrates how Face 1 and Face 2 interact with each other, influencing social interactions and others’ perception within the community. Furthermore, within the Chinese culture, the author uses multiple instances to demonstrates how Renqing (人情) or qingmian (情面) under hierarchy and harmony influence the possession, loss, and acquisition of Face 2. The evidence cited in the chapter primarily comes from works in Confucianism. However, it is worth noting that from circa 2070 to 221 BCE, Confucianism did not consistently hold a dominant position. During the Spring and Autumn Period (770 BC–221 BC), multiple philosophical schools, including Daoism and Mohism, flourished (Zhang, 2021). Therefore, when acknowledging the influence of Confucianism, it may be worth considering whether these other philosophical schools share common features with Confucianism that also influenced the formation of the Chinese concept of face.

Chapter 4 primarily reviews existing models of politeness, such as Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory and the Model of Chinese Politeness (MCP), for explaining Chinese politeness. While discussing their weaknesses, such as limited applicability in various contexts beyond ‘normal’ ones, the author proposes an updated model based on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory, which is referred to as B&L-E. The author compares MCP and B&L-E, specifically on the concept of face and politeness, noting that although these two models are similar in content, they differ in their theoretical and linguistic explanations. The key differences are that MCP views politeness as strategies for maintaining harmony, while B&L-E considers it a means to mitigate face threats in speech acts. Additionally, MCP is more general and language-specific, whereas B&L-E focuses on broader, operational aspects of politeness. However, some instances provided in this book are derived from research rather than naturally occurring data. To enhance its applicability and reliability, authentic examples from individuals’ real-life communication could be used.

Chapters 5 and 6 explore the utility of MCP and B&L-E in explaining both the synchronic variation and diachronic changes in politeness behaviors within Chinese culture. Chapter 5 focuses on how these models account for the consistency and variation in politeness, emphasizing the crucial role of bystander interventions in conflicts, which align politeness with moral values to restore harmony and resolve disputes. Chapter 6 provides a diachronic analysis of changes in Chinese politeness across three speech events including marriage rituals, food offering, and compliment responding. It highlights that despite these changes, they continue to support the validity of MCP and B&L-E.

In Chapter 7 and Chapter 8, the author well examines that applicability of MCP and B&L by comparing Chinese politeness with other different linguacultures including English, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese. These testimonies confirm that while disparities exist in these linguistic structures and cultures, they are superficial rather than fundamental in nature. Instead, the author believes that the underlying social values (e.g., face needs, the desire to benefit others) driving politeness are essentially consistent within these cultures. Through detailed comparison, these two chapters make a compelling argument that some universality does exist in politeness across different linguacultures.

The author in Chapter 9 firstly addresses the current criticism of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory of politeness, focusing on four main aspects: rationality, individualism, normativity, and dynamism. Then, the author criticizes the evaluation approach to politeness, highlighting several deficiencies, such as its limited generalizability, and failures in fully capturing the complexity and shifting contexts of social interactions. Instead, the author argues that the use of the Face Threatening Act (FTA) formula in B&L-E, an extended version of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory, can effectively account for the dynamism of social interaction through multiple factors (e.g., power, distance, ranking). Specifically, the author uses examples of funeral rituals from Chinese and American cultures to demonstrate that rationality in Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory of politeness does not negate the existence of cultural logics. Rather, from the perspective of B&L-E, Chinese politeness is fundamentally similar to politeness in other cultures, but with different surface-level representations.

In all, Rong Chen’s interpretation of the current studies of politeness is thought-provoking. The argument of the newly proposed B&L-E is well warranted and understandable. Therefore, it is recommended for scholars and students interested in politeness studies. However, the book assumes a certain level of familiarity with Chinese cultural and other east Asian cultural concepts, as some discussions involve some culture-specific representations.

REFERENCES

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.

Zhang, S. (2021) ‘Contention of a hundred schools of thought: The convergence of the multiple perspectives and purpose of the pre-qin philosophers’, The Logical Deduction of Chinese Traditional Political Philosophy, pp. 127–182. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4376-7_3.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Xuan Li holds a PhD in Linguistics and has a background in English teaching at multiple educational institutions. His research interests include pragmatics and second language acquisition, with a particular focus on humor, irony, and sarcasm.