1. SOLIDARITY
AND
POLITENESS

2. When we speak we have to make choices of many different
kinds: what to say, when to say it, how to say it.
How we say something is as important as what we say –
Content and form are inseparable
Some linguistics choices indicate the social relationship
between speaker and listener.

3. TU AND VOUS
 This distinction began as a difference between plural and
singular.
 IV century: the use of plural vous was to address the
emperor. There were two emperors: one in Constantinople
and another in Rome, but the Empire was
administratively unified. By addressing one, you were in
fact addressing both emperors.
 As a consequence, the medieval upper
classes began to use V-forms among them
to show mutual respect and politeness

4.  Lower classes used mutual T –forms
 Upper classes used T to address lower classes, but
received V addressing.
 Asymmetrical T/V usage symbolized a power
relationship.
 Symmetrical V usage became “polite”
usage, spreading downwards in society. It was used, for
instance, between wife and husband, parents and
children and lovers
 Symmetrical T usage showed intimacy. People using
this for had strong common interests, showed
solidarity.

5.  Mutual T for solidarity gradually replaced mutual V for
politeness
 Use of asymmetrical T/V decreased and mutual V was
often used in its place.
 Nowadays, the right to initiate the reciprocal T belongs
to the member of the dyad having the better power
based claim to say T without reciprocation – an
interesting residual of the power relation.
 If you cannot judge who has the power, settle for polite
V usage!
 But…once a pair of speakers decide on mutual T, it is
impossible to go back to either T/V or V/V usage.

6. ADDRESS TERMS
How do you address people? By title?
By first name? by last name? by
nickname? By some combination of
these?

7. Brown and Ford reported that:
 Asymmetrical use of title, last name and first name
indicated inequality in power
 Mutual title, last name indicated inequality and
unfamiliarity
 Mutual first name indicated equality and familiarity
 Switch from mutual TFL to FN is usually initiated by
the most powerful member in the relationship.
 Address somebody by title is the least intimate form of
address in that titles usually designates ranks or
occupations
 Using another’s first name is a sign of considerable
intimacy

8. Is the address process symmetrical or
asymmetrical?
 Asymmetric use of names and address terms is
often a clear indictor of a power differential.
Examples:
 Children and teachers
 In the past, white people addressing black people
 People addressing the Queen or the President

9.  In each country there are different rules stating how
people should address each other. In England we can
omit the address term when greeting someone but in
France that avoidance could be impolite.
 As your family relationships change, issues of naming
and addressing may arise; for example: how do you
address your father/mother in law?
 Finally, an additional peculiarity is that people
sometimes give names to, and address, non – human as
well as humans,
for example: how do you address
your pets, if you have?
And how do you address your kids
or kids in general?

10. POLITENESS
 POLITENESS is socially prescribed, we adjust to
others in social relationships in ways society deems
appropriate
 IMPOLITENESS depends on the existence of
standards

11. There are tow kinds of politeness:
 POSITIVE: we try to achieve solidarity and treat
others as friends. We do not impose and never
threaten their face. Example: symmetrical pronominal
use
 NEGATIVE: it leads to deference, indirectness
and formality in
language use. Example: Asymmetric T/V use

12.  Goffman (1955) states that when
communicating “we present a FACE to others
and to others’ faces.”
 In every social interaction we are obliged to
protect both our own face and the face of
others.
 We play out a kind of ritual in which each
party is required to recognize the identity the
other presents or claims.
 There is no faceless
communication.

13.  Brown and Levinson (1987) provide the
definition of FACE
“[it is] the public self-image that every member
wants to claim for himself”
They make a distinction between:
 POSITIVE FACE: it is the desire to gain the
approval of others, the positive consistent self-
image or personality. It looks to SOLIDARITY
 NEGATIVE FACE: it is the desire to be
unimpeded by others’ actions; a claim for
freedom of action and from imposition.

14.  Each interaction is a FACE WORK and the goal is the
maintenance of as much of each individual’s positive face
as possible.
 Pinker (2007) argues that “politeness theory is a good
start, but not enough [because] it assumes that the
speaker and the hearer are working in perfect
harmony, each trying to save each other’s face”