Speech Formulas in Air Crew Discourse

Table of content

Introduction
1. Communication and speech acts – theoretical framework
1.1. Communication- key concepts
1.2. The notion of discourse
1.3. Levels of language
1.4. The speech act theory
1.5. The theory of politeness
1.6. Intercultural communication
2. Cabin Crew Discourse
3. Research Chapter
Chapter 1. Communication and speech acts – theoretical framework

This chapter aims to provide a theoretical background of the key notions of language
and communication as viewed from the perspective of pragmatics. The chapter is
composed of six sections, opening with an introductory subchapter explaining the basic
aspects of the communication process. Subsequently, the concept of discourse is
introduced, followed by a subchapter exploring various dimensions of language. The
following sections examine the speech act theory and politeness theory, both of which
are essential topics of research in the field of pragmatics. Finally, problems related to
intercultural communication are outlined in the final part of the chapter. All those
theoretical aspects of communication are of the utmost importance to the study
presented in the analytical chapter.

1.1. Communication – key concepts

Communication, understood as “the process of exchanging information or

messages (…) in speech and writing” (Wales 2011: 70), has been studied extensively
from various perspectives for several decades. Definitions and theoretical models of
communication are many and diverse, since it is an extremely broad concept, an
indispensable component of human existence and a factor that enables the progress of
civilizations. In general, communication is typically understood as a process of sending
a message (information) between a sender and a receiver, each of which can perform
both of those roles (figure 1). Messages are encoded by the sender and sent through a
selected medium and channel to the receiver, who encodes them, ideally interpreting the
message as it was intended. The correct interpretation, however, may be affected by
noise, i.e., various factors interrupting the process. The recipient can then respond to the
message, or send their feedback to the sender, who now becomes a receiver (Steinberg
2007: 45). People communicate for a variety of different reasons, e.g. to share
information with another person, to influence the person’s behavior, to express one’s
feelings, and so on. In all those cases, the process is similar, although every act of
communication is unique.

1
Figure 1. The prototypical form of a communication process
Source: Steinberg, S. (2007). An Introduction to Communication Studies. Cape Town: Juta &
Co., p. 45.

Communication may be conceptualized as a form of action, as it consists of sending a

message between two or more parties. At the same time, it is also an interaction, since it
involves at least two participants, and a transaction, because it entails the construction
of shared meanings between the participants, leading to specific outcomes, such as
gaining understanding of something, striking a deal, achieving an agreement, etc. (Duck
and McMahan 2012: 18).
On the most basic level, a distinction can be made between verbal and nonverbal
forms of communication. The former type entails the use of language, whether through
speaking or writing, to communicate; those two modes involve different conventions
and norms of language use and interaction. Nonverbal communication, on the other
hand, pertains to interactions in which a message is sent via nonverbal means, which
may include gestures, movements, facial expressions, eye contact, smiling, touch, use of
space, etc. All those behaviors can reinforce or complement verbal messages, contradict
them, completely replace them, or regulate the interaction (Steinberg 2007: 58-59). In
either case, as Duck and McMahan (2012: 9-11) note, communicated is possible
through the use of symbols – language or nonverbal cues – which are generally
arbitrary, i.e., they have no direct connection to concepts they represent. Those symbols
convey meanings, but most of them have a potential to communicate more than one

2
meaning; all of them are constructed socially, over time. The exact meaning of a symbol
depends on the situational context of an interaction and possibly also the medium used
to convey it. What is more, communication processes involve frames, or “basic forms of
knowledge that provide a definition of a scenario, either because both people agree on
the nature of the situation or because the cultural assumptions built into the interaction
and the previous relational context of talk give them a clue” (Duck and McMahan 2012:
15). Those frames help participants better understand their roles in the communication.
With regards to the environment in which the process occurs, communication
can be divided into following types:
 intrapersonal – talking to oneself, out loud or in one’s mind, thinking,
reflecting;
 interpersonal – communicating between two or more people, often face-to-face;
 group – interactions among people belonging to the same social group;
 organizational – communication within an organization or a company;
 public – usually one-way communication between an individual or a small
group addressing a large audience in a public context;
 mass – communicating messages to a mass audience, traditionally a one-way
and asymmetrical process fully controlled by the sender;
 intercultural – interactions between two or more members of different cultures
(Cleary 2003: 8-11).
Numerous other classifications of communication types have been proposed by
scholars, however, it is impossible to described them all in this chapter due to space
constraints. A key aspect of communication is its dynamic nature and strong context-
dependence, which means that the way people use language (or nonverbal cues) to
communicate with others is to a great extent determined by the situation.

1.2. The notion of discourse

A concept related to communication, discourse can be defined in different ways.

Perhaps the most common understanding of the term refers to a comprehensive
approach to communication, including not only a message or text itself, but also the
addresser and addressee, as well as its context. Alternatively, discourse has been

3
conceptualized as a variety or register of language (e.g. literary discourse, philosophical
discourse, etc.), often along with a speech community that uses it (discourse
community). Furthermore, in linguistic discourse is often understood in connection with
social values and ideologies transmitted in various forms of communication. In this
sense the term discursive practice is frequently used, pertaining to a set of “larger
discourse frameworks which reflect and inscribe sets of significant social, cultural and
political beliefs at any one period: e.g. education, politics, information technology”
(Wales 2011: 122).
Van Dijk (2011: 3-5) identifies several major properties of discourse. First of all,
it can be considered as a form of “social interaction among human participants,”
whether by speaking or writing. When people communicate with each other, people
accomplish a variety of social actions rather than merely exchange information, which
is performed in accordance with the established social norms of behavior in a given
community. In other words, interactions are a means to maintain the social order in
societies. At the same time, however, discourse has a crucial importance in creating and
maintaining the political order in societies, since it can be used to reassert a domination
of some individuals or groups over others. Furthermore, discourse can be understood as
a form of communication of knowledge that helps define the cognitive order in
societies. An instance of natural language use, discourse is not restricted to verbal
exchange but also other social activities that convey meaning, e.g. sounds, gestures,
visuals, etc. It is an indispensable element of everyday life, but the choice of language
resources is determined by context, i.e., people use language in a way that is considered
as appropriate in their social group. Summing up, Van Dijk (2011: 4) views discourse as
a complex construct, composed of three dimensions, namely form, meaning, and action.
Discourses are often defined by their register and genre. The notion of register,
not infrequently used as a synonym of style or stylistic variety, refers to “the way people
use language in different situations” (Savova 2011: 898). For instance, registers can be
divided into formal and informal. The former is likely to be used in formal contexts and
official situations, especially when there is a social distance between the speaker and the
addressee, e.g. when they do not know each other or when one of them is superior to the
other in social hierarchy. On the other hand, casual conversations between people who
know each other well are likely to involve an informal register, therefore, the speaker
will choose different words, grammar structures, pronunciation, nonverbal

4
communication, etc., than in an official context. The concept of register goes beyond the
formal-informal distinction, as it can also be associated with a particular communicative
situation, topic, or activity, e.g. medical or technical register. The use of an appropriate
register is necessitated by social norms, while failing to do so may have social
consequences (Savova 2011: 898-899).
The concept of genre, on the other hand, is usually used in reference to “an
identifiably distinct type of discourse or text recognized by a particular culture and with
particular linguistic characteristics” (Trudgill 2003: 55). Although initially the term was
applied exclusively to literature (e.g. fable, myth, legend, romance, science fiction,
fantasy, memoir), today it is used in reference to other areas of cultural communication
as well. Distinct genres emerge as a result of combining particular forms, contents, and
uses, forming a relatively stable – although also flexible – entity that can be recognized
by the audience familiar with it. A genre is thus understood as a type of structure shared
by a group of texts that perform a similar function in a society. As opposed to registers,
in which characteristic features are pervasive, markers of genres do not occur frequently
in a text but they are highly distinctive; still, a certain degree of overlap between the
concepts of register and genre can occur (Biber and Conrad 2009: 54).
The emergence of the notion of discourse has led to the rise of discourse studies,
an area of linguistic study that examines “language and language use as evidence of
aspects of society and social life” (Taylor 2013: 7). In the words of Renkema (2004:1),
discourse studies explore “the relationship between form and function in verbal
communication.” The basic assumption of this discipline is that language is not only a
means to communicate but also a social practice, therefore, certain language resources
(vocabulary, grammar, text structure, genre, conversational codes, etc.) can actually
convey socio-cultural values, beliefs, norms, ideologies, etc. Discourse studies is a
broad term that encompasses a number of specific approaches to the investigation of
discourse, including Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Conversation Analysis,
Political Discourse Analysis, and other. Each of those fields have a different focus
but share a number of features, including:
 interest in naturally occurring language by its real users rather than abstract
systems or invented language samples;
 examining language units longer than words and sentences, i.e., speech acts,
speech events, texts, conversations, etc.;

5
  going beyond sentence grammar to explore communicative actions and
interactions;
 focus on social, cultural, and cognitive aspects of context of language use;
 analysis of a wide range of linguistic phenomena in use, e.g. speech acts,
politeness strategies, topics, turn-taking, rhetoric, coherence, and many more
(Wodak and Meyer 2009: 2).
All in all, discourse studies take into consideration a great number of phenomena,
analyzing various layers of language. The next section provides a brief overview of
those layers, paying special attention to pragmatics, which, not unlike discourse studies,
focus predominantly on language in use.

1.3. Levels of language

The description of language takes into consideration several dimensions of it, including
vocabulary, morphology, syntax, phonology, semantics, and pragmatics. The first
dimension refers to the lexical layer of the language, which is the foundation of every
language – without words, it would be impossible to communicate. The notion of a
word has been a challenge for scholars to define, however, Carter (2012: 4) points out
that no such need exists since “everyone knows what a word is.” From the orthographic
point of view, words are sequences of letters or sounds which together create an entity
with a particular meaning, thus, words may also be regarded as the smallest meaningful
units of language, although there are words which do not have a meaning on their own.
One word can come in a number of different forms or one form can be shared by two or
more different words. Linguists frequently use the term lexemes instead, which are
“basic, contrasting units of vocabulary in a language,” including not only one-word
forms but also lexical items like phrasal verbs and idioms (Carter 2012: 7).
The study of words is a major area of interest for morphology, which
investigates “the internal structure of words, the rules that govern it, as well as the ways
of creating new words” (Plag et al. 2009: 70). The structure of words is typically based
on morphemes, which are also the smallest identifiable units of language. Some
morphemes are lexical, i.e., they have a distinct meaning, while other morphemes, such
as suffixes and prefixes, are grammatical in nature, which means they do not have a

6
meaning on their own but have a particular function, e.g. changing word meaning
(happy – unhappy) or grammatical category (happy – happily). Another distinction is
made between free morphemes that can be standalone words and bound morphemes,
which can never exist on their own and are always part of a word. Morphology also
studies processes of word formation, e.g. derivation, compounding, blending,
conversion, and clipping, which provide language users with sufficient resources to coin
new words if the need arises (Trask 2007: 176-177).
Words in a language do not exist in isolation, but are combined in many
different ways to create phrases, clauses, sentences, and so on. The way in which the
lexical units are combined together is an object of study of syntax, which, along with
inflectional morphology, constitutes what is generally known as grammar of a language.
Syntax explores “the rules which make it possible to combine smaller linguistic units
into well-formed (i.e., grammatically correct) sentences” and systems of those rules
(Kortmann 2020: 87). Word order, agreement, cases, mood, tense, aspect, and
hierarchical structure are among language phenomena that are of particular interest to
syntax.
As far as the sounds of language are concerned, there is a distinction between
phonetics and phonology – while phonetics investigates speech sounds in a language,
phonology refers to the “study of the abstract categories that organize the sound system
of a language” (Plag et al. 2009: 29). Accordingly, the study in the field of phonetics is
concerned with sounds (vowels, consonants, diphthongs, triphthongs) and how they are
produced by human vocal organs, prosody of speech (syllables, pitch, intonation, tone,
and paralinguistic features), and relationships between written and spoken language.
Phonology, on the other hand, focuses less on the physical dimension of speech
production, instead paying special attention to patterns of sounds and organized systems
of sounds in languages. This branch of linguistics studies phonemes, which are
“contrastive units” of the language “in that they distinguish words, thus representing
differences in meanings” (Giegerich 1992: 32).
Word meanings, in turn, are a primary object of analysis in semantics. Meaning
itself is a complex phenomenon, as word meaning can be analyzed on different levels.
For instance, Leech (1981: 9) enumerates as many as seven types of meaning,
including: (1) conceptual, (2) connotative, (3) social, (4) affective, (5) reflected, (6)
collocative, and (7) thematic. Kortmann (2020: 146-147), on the other hand,

7
distinguishes between descriptive, expressive, and social dimensions of meaning;
descriptive meaning can refer to the conceptual aspect of meaning and extra-linguistic
reality. This branch of linguistics also study semantic relationships between words, both
at the word level (synonymy and antonymy, homonymy, hyponymy, polysemy,
metonymy) and the sentence level (paraphrase, ambiguity, collocations).
All those dimensions of language are significant in the study of pragmatics,
which is particularly important in the context of the present thesis. Levinson (1983: 6)
succinctly defines pragmatics as “the study of language in use,” which is concerned
“with the study of those aspects of meaning not covered in semantics.” Pragmatics is,
indeed, closely related to semantics, however, it emphasizes such aspects of language as
“utterance meaning, intention, and inference,” or, those aspects of meaning that are
conveyed in speech or writing implicitly (Kortmann 2020: 174). As opposed to
semantics, pragmatics studies meaning in context, focusing on meaning – of utterances
rather than words or sentences – in a particular situation and as intended/received by a
particular speaker/ addressee. Finally, Yule (2010: 4) argues that pragmatics is a “study
of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users of those forms,” which
means that it brings the language user, who is not present in either semantics nor syntax,
into focus.
One of the most important aspects of pragmatics is the study of reference and
inference, that is, two aspects of meaning of utterances. This means that a speaker uses
particular language forms to refer to something (an object, person, place, situation, etc.),
however, the correct understanding of the utterance depends on the hearer’s ability to
infer its meaning by identifying referents correctly. Reference and inference are closely
tied to deixis, another essential element of pragmatics, which refers to words and
expressions, mainly pronouns and demonstratives, whose interpretation is strongly
determined by the context. As Kortmann (2020: 7) explains, there are three major
dimensions of deixis, namely person (I, you, we), place (here, there, this, that), and time
(now, soon, today, yesterday, next, last). This phenomenon is important for pragmatics
due to its heavy dependence on context and speakers’ intention. In inferring the
meaning of an utterance, people also rely on certain assumptions that are not stated
explicitly, which is referred to as presupposition, e.g. when saying “Mary’s brother
bought a house,” it is presupposed that there exists a woman named Mary who has a

8
brother. Words or phrases do not have presuppositions on their own, as only speakers
can have them (Yule 2010: 27-33).
Studies of pragmatics of the language use clearly point to the fact that interaction
participants tend to cooperate to ensure smooth communication. This problem has been
studied by many scholars in the field, including Grice (1989: 26), now famous for his
cooperative principle of conversation: “Make your conversational contribution such as
is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the
talk exchange in which you are engaged.” Additionaly, Grice (1989: 27) proposed four
principles that together constitute the basis for cooperation in communication: (1)
maxim of quantity, or making one’s contribution as informative as required, no more or
less; (2) maxim of quality, or making true contributions while avoiding making false
statements or statements for which one does not have enough evidence; (3) maxim of
relation – being relevant; and (4) maxim of manner – avoiding obscurity and ambiguity
of expression as well as being brief and orderly. In reality, those four principles
frequently come into conflict, however, participants of the interaction can still correctly
interpret the utterances due to conversational implicature, another concept introduced by
Grice, meaning “things that a hearer can work out from the way something was said
rather than what was said” (Grandy and Warner 2020). Two other crucial areas of
interest for pragmatics, the speech act theory and the politeness theory, are of the utmost
importance to the discussion in this thesis, therefore, they will be discussed in separate
paragraphs.

1.4. The speech act theory

One of the key fields of study within pragmatics, especially in the early years of this
academic discipline, has been the theory of speech acts. Yule (2010: 47) points out that
speech acts are “actions performed via utterances,” based on the assumption that while
communicating, people do not only convey meanings through grammar, lexis,
phonology, etc., but also perform actions. Kortmann (2020: 180), in turn, defines speech
act as “an utterance made by a certain speaker/author to a hearer/reader in a certain
context,” in which the communicative intention is superior to structural or semantic
properties of the utterance. Accordingly, a speech act consists of, first of all, a

9
locutionary act, understood as producing a grammatical and meaningful utterance;
secondly, an illocutionary act, pertaining to the communicative force of the utterance;
and a perlocutionary act, or an effect of the utterance on the hearer/ reader (Yule 2010:
48-49). The speech act theory focuses primarily on the concept of illocution. The
illocutionary force of an utterance is indicated by the Illocutionary force Indicating
Device (IFID), a function most frequently performed by performative verbs, word
order, stress, intonation, and many other devices used to indicate the true intention
behind the utterance. In order for a speech act to be interpreted as intended, felicity
conditions must exist, including general conditions (e.g. both speaker and hearer can
understand the language of communication, they do not act out a play, etc.), preparatory
conditions (enabling the proper understanding of the illocutionary act), sincerity
conditions (ensuring that the speaker is sincere and serious in performing the speech act
is performed sincerely), and essential conditions (creating an obligation to carry out the
action expressed in the utterance (Yule 2010: 49-52).
On the most basic level speech acts can be divided into direct and indirect acts.
In the first case a clear and straightforward relationship exists between the structure and
the function of the utterance; however, when such connection is only indirect, a speech
act is referred to as indirect. For example, if a speaker wishes to make a request, doing it
by means of a question (“Can you close the door?”) would be a direct act, whereas
using a declarative sentence to convey the same meaning is an indirect act (“It’s cold” –
asking the hearer indirectly to close the door) (Yule 2010: 54-55). More elaborate
taxonomies of speech acts have been proposed by a number of scholars, including
Austin (1962: 5-6), one of the most prominent figures in the early research on the
theory. The scholar made a distinction between performatives, or utterances that are
synonymous with performing an action (“I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth,” “I give
and bequeath my watch to my brother”), and constatives, that is, utterances used to
describe an element of reality that can be true or false. Performative utterances cannot
be either true or false, but they can be happy or unhappy, e.g. the performative “I am
sorry” is happy if the speaker is genuinely apologizing, which is then an essential factor
in their success in the apology act (Austin 1962: 46-47). The scholar also identified five
distinct types of performatives, including:
 verdictives, involving “the delivery of a finding (…) upon evidence or reasons
as to value or fact,” which is indicated by such verbs as “acquit,” “convict,”

10
 “find,” “understand,” “rule,” “reckon,” “estimate,” “measure,” “grade,”
“assess,” etc.;
 exercitives, conveying a decision in favor of or against a certain action,
delivered by such verbs as “appoint,” “dismiss,” “degrade,” “name,” “order,”
“command,” “direct,” “sentence,” “nominate,” “pardon,” “warn,” “advise,”
“plead,” “beg,” “urge,” etc.;
 commissives, by which the speaker commits to a certain action, as in utterances
with words and expressions like “promise,” “contract,” “undertake,” “give my
word,” “declare my intention,” “plan,” “swear,” “guarantee,” “vow,” “agree,”
“oppose,” etc.;
 behabitives, through which the speaker reacts to others’ behaviors and express
their attitudes about them, as in apologies (“apologize”), thanks (“thank”),
expressions of sympathy (“condole,” “congratulate,” “compliment”), greetings
(“welcome,” “bid you farewell”), wishes (“bless,” “curse,” “toast”), and
challenges (“dare,” “defy”);
 expositives, used to fit the utterances into a conversation or an argument, e.g.
“reply,” “argue,” “assume,” “postulate,” “concede,” “withdraw,” “deny,”
“affirm” (Austin 1962: 152-162).
The speech act theory was further developed by Searle (1969: 16), who also believed
that “speaking a language is performing speech acts,” but acknowledged weaknesses of
Austin’s taxonomy. Searle’s typology of speech acts, which is somewhat less
ambiguous than Austin’s, comprises five categories of utterances, namely:
 representatives (assertive), through which the speaker commits to the expressed
propositions, thus, such utterances can be evaluated in terms of true or false;
 directives, in which the speaker attempts to get the hearer perform a certain
action, expressed through verbs like “ask,” “beg,” “command,” “order,”
“request,” “permit,” “invite,” “dare,” “defy;”
 commissives, used by the speaker to commit to a certain action, corresponding
with Austin’s commissives;
 expressives, in which the speaker communicates their psychological states to the
hearer, corresponding to Austin’s behabitives;

11
  declarations, or utterances which bring about a change in the world, frequently
containing verbs like “announce,” “appoint,” “curse,” “declare,” “nominate,”
etc. (Searle 1975: 354-360).
Searle’s typology is briefly illustrated in table 1, following Yule (2010: 55).

Table 1. Searle’s (1975) classification of speech acts

Type of speech act Direction of fit speaker (S) vs. situation (X)
representatives makes words fit the world S believes X
directives makes the world fits words S wants X
commissives makes the world fits words S intends X
expressive makes words fits the world S feels X
declarations words change the world S causes X
th
Source: Yule, G. (2010). The Study of Language. 4 ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 55.

Additionally, Yule (2010: 56-57) introduces the concept of speech events, defining it as
an “activity in which participants interact via language in some conventional way to
arrive at some outcome.” A speech event contains a particular speech act as well as
other acts surrounding, preceding, and following it, creating a coherent whole.

1.5. The theory of politeness

Another crucial area of study within the field of pragmatics is the theory of politeness. It
has been observed by linguists that people employ a variety of strategies of politeness in
their discourse in order to establish a positive relationship with their interlocutors and
minimize the risk of conflicts or disagreements. According to Brown (2015: 11620),
language politeness is synonymous with “taking into account the feelings of others as to
how they should be interactionally treated, including behaving in a manner that
demonstrates appropriate concern for interactors’ social status and their social
relationship.” Válková (2004: 38), in turn, defines this type of politeness as a “language
manifestation of social values” through the use of such lexical, grammatical,
phonological, etc., language resources that convey the speakers’ intention to “consider
each other and satisfy shared expectations about cultural and situational assumptions in
order to avoid or at least soften face-threatening acts, to create happy conditions for

12
interaction and to avoid losing one’s face.” Haugh (2004: 88-90) points to four different
interpretations of politeness as:
 behavior oriented towards establishing smooth communication and avoiding
conflicts;
 socially appropriate, or adequate, behavior, i.e., adhering to social conventions
regulating communicative interaction;
 taking into consideration other people’s feelings, based on mutual respect;
 “an evaluation of the speaker’s behavior by the addressee as polite” (Haugh
2004: 89), i.e., an approach in which the reception of a linguistic behavior rather
than the speaker’s intention is seen as the primary determinant of politeness.
In order to explain how people apply politeness into their communication, Leech (1983:
90) proposed the Principle of Politeness, composed of ten maxims governed by the
overarching principle: “S’s [speaker] expresses or implies meanings that associate a
favorable value with what pertains to O [addressee] or associates an unfavorable value
with what pertains to S.” The maxims point to ten crucial components of Leech’s
Principle: (1) generosity – S assigns high value to O’s wants; (2) tact – S assigns low
value to own wants; (3) approbation – S gives high value to O’s qualities; (4) modesty –
S gives low value to own qualities; (5) obligation of S to O – S gives high value to own
obligations towards O; (6) obligation of O to S – S gives low value to O’s obligation
towards S; (7) agreement – S gives high value to O’s opinion; (8) opinion reticence – S
gives low value to own opinions; (9) sympathy – S gives high value to O’s feelings; and
(10) feeling reticence – S gives low value to own feelings (Leech 1983: 91).
A central concept in the study of politeness is face, which is defined as “the
public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” by Brown and
Levinson (1987: 61), who popularized the notion in the pragmatics research. The
scholars also made a distinction between positive face, or “the positive consistent self-
image,” related to the speaker’s desire that this self-image is approved of by
interlocutors, and negative face, which, in turn, is “the basic claim to territories,
personal reserves, rights to nondistraction – i.e., to freedom to action and freedom from
imposition” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 61). Actions performed within everyday
interactions between people are, to a great extent, aimed to maintain one’s face and
ensure that other participants also respect one’s face, thus, they are referred to as face-
work. In reality, however, people are constantly confronted with so-called face-

13
threatening acts (FTA) from others, who may, intentionally or not, threaten either
another person’s positive or negative face. As losing face is an undesirable situation,
related to embarrassment, humiliation, disrespect, offense, etc., people need to employ a
variety of face-saving acts (FSA) (Yule 60-61).
A comprehensive taxonomy of FTAs and FSAs has been put forward by Brown
and Levinson (1987: 68-69), who identified several strategies of performing FTAs.
Accordingly, if performed, such act can happen off record or on record; in the latter
case, this can be done baldly with or without any redressive action. When such action is
employed, it usually falls into one of the two categories – positive politeness and
negative politeness. Positive politeness strategies aim to compensate for a FTA oriented
towards maintaining the hearer’s positive face, usually by conveying that (some of the)
speaker’s wants are to some extent consistent with the hearer’s wants. The most
common positive politeness strategies, as enumerated by Brown and Levinson (1987:
102-129), include:
 claiming common ground between S and H, e.g. through conveying that
something H wants or values (X) is admirable or interesting (attending to X,
showing and exaggerating interest in X, approval of H’s actions, sympathy with
H), claiming in-group membership with H (by using group identity markers),
and claiming common points of view (seeking agreement and avoiding
disagreement, presupposing or asserting common ground, joking);
 conveying H and S’s cooperation, e.g. through indicating that S takes into
account H and their wants (presupposing or asserting S’ awareness of and
consideration for H) and claiming reflexivity (offering, promising, expressing
optimism, including H in the activity, asking for and providing reasons);
 fulfilling H’s wants, e.g. by giving H gifts, both physical gifts and in the form of
understanding, sympathy, cooperation, etc.
On the other hand, the goal of negative politeness strategies is to support the hearer in
their efforts to maintain their negative face so that their freedom to action is not
violated. These include:
 using conventional indirectness;
 avoiding presuppositions and assumptions, e.g. by questions and hedging;
 avoiding coercing H, e.g. by expressing pessimism, minimizing the imposition,
and giving deference;

14
  conveying that S does not wish to impinge on H, e.g. by apologizing,
impersonalizing S and H, stating the FTA as a general rule, and nominalizing;
 redressing other H’s wants, including going on record as incurring a debt or not
indebting H (Brown and Levinson 1987: 132-209).
A distinct concept is impoliteness, which should not be confused with non-politeness, or
the absence of both polite and impolite linguistic behaviors (Leech 1983: 216-217).
Impoliteness is typically understood as an intentional face-attack on the hearer, although
some scholars believe that acts not intended as FTAs but received as such count as
impoliteness as well. Based on his model of politeness mentioned earlier in the section,
Leech (1983: 221-222) suggests ten main types of impolite language behaviors, each
being a violation of one politeness maxim: (1) refusing or threatening; (2) ordering or
demanding; (3) insulting or complaining; (4) boasting or being complacent; (5) refusing
to apologize or express thanks; (6) demanding apologies and thanks; (7) disagreeing and
contradicting; (8) being opinionated; (9) expressing antipathy towards H; and (10)
grumbling or grousing. Bousfield (2008: 123), in turn, enumerates such impolite
behaviors as denying common ground between H and S, expressing disapproval of H,
showing lack of interest in H, seeking disagreement and avoiding agreement, using
taboo words or swear words, threatening or frightening H, condescending and scorning
H, as well as, in some situations, employing sarcasm and mock politeness. Withholding
politeness – or not using politeness when it is expected according to social norms – is
considered by Bousfield (2008: 123) an instance of impoliteness, too.
Politeness seems to be a universal feature of human languages, however, the
conceptualization of polite behaviors, both social and linguistic, is largely a culture-
specific concept. For example, Brown and Levinson (1987: 245) suggested a distinction
(although they acknowledge that it is a “crude” one) between positive-politeness
cultures and negative-politeness cultures. Accordingly, the former emphasize negative
face wants, which associates them with “hierarchical, paternal ethos” (Brown and
Levinson 1987: 247), whereas the latter pay more attention to positive face needs,
hence, they are described as warm, egalitarian, and fraternal. Differences in linguistic
politeness stem from cultural differences, which affect the perception of social
behaviors. The interplays of language and culture have long been a subject of research
in linguistics, cultural studies, and other disciplines, but they have grown in prominence

15
in the recent decades, as globalization in nearly all areas of life highlight the need for
skillful intercultural communication.

1.6. Intercultural communication

The term intercultural, or cross-cultural communication is self-explanatory, denoting the

acts of communication across cultures. A more elaborate definition has been presented
by Ting-Toomey (1999: 16-17), who describes it as a “the symbolic exchange process
whereby individuals from two (or more) different cultural communities negotiate shared
meanings in an interactive situation.” The exchange is symbolic, as it entails the use of
verbal or non-verbal means, and it involves the negotiation of meaning, which,
however, may be challenging if the participants do not share the same cultural
background.
Culture is one of the most widely studied concepts in social sciences, which
explains the abundance of its definitions. It is usually understood as a system of
“knowledge, experience, meanings, beliefs, values, attitudes, religions, concepts of self,
the universe and self-universe, relationships, hierarchies of status, role expectations,
spatial relations, and time concepts,” which is shared by a large group of people over a
significant period of time (Porter 1972: 3). The ways in which people think, behave, and
communicate are all influenced by culture – its norms are acquired by people since their
earliest years of living in a particular environment. It is also under the influence of
culture that people shape their perception of social interactions and communication,
which, in turn, influences their behavior.
When a person brought up in one culture engages in a communication with a
member of another culture, there is always a room for misunderstanding, confusion, or
even communication breakdown, even if they share a language. Banaszkiewicz (2011:
59) points to several sources of mistakes in intercultural communication, namely:
 assumption of similarity – people naturally tend to believe that their ways,
norms, beliefs, practices, etc., are shared by all other people, which is not the
case despite certain cultural universals;

16
  language differences – being able to speak another language does not always
entail full socio-pragmatic and cultural competence, thus, ignoring the context of
interaction may lead to misunderstandings;
 failure to notice or interpret nonverbal cues – meanings of nonverbal
communication cues, as will be explained later, may also vary across cultures;
 stereotypes and prejudices – people often approach other cultures with a set of
stereotypes that do not necessarily have to be true and, worse still, with
prejudice, perceiving members of those cultures as inferior;
 tendency to judge others – another natural human tendency is to evaluate other
people as inferior because they act or think in a different way;
 anxiety and fear – it is common for people to approach the unknown and the
unfamiliar with apprehension, which has a direct impact on their behavior.
When discussing verbal aspects of intercultural communication, Novinger (2001: 49-
52) remarks that a speaker’s proficiency in speaking or writing a language is a crucial
determinant of their communicative competence. The ability to communicate in a
language is a multidimensional construct, composed of a wide range of elements that
may vary across languages, e.g. accent (lack of familiarity with a certain accent of the
language may affect communication), knowledge of connotations (as noted previously,
words have denotative and connotative meanings; the former can be easily learned, but
learning connotations is more challenging), familiarity with idioms and figurative
expressions, awareness of contexts, norms of politeness, style, and even the use of
silence. The awareness of nonverbal communication norms, likewise, is essential – as
explained earlier in the chapter, nonverbal behaviors are used to convey meaning as
well and they frequently differ from culture to culture. For examples, cultures described
as high-context communicate a great deal of meaning through nonverbal cues, which
goes hand in hand with numerous communication rituals, rigid etiquette, and, generally,
preference for formalized interactions. This is unlike low-context cultures, which use
predominantly verbal means to convey intended meanings, thus requiring little reliance
on context to interpret the utterances. While interaction rituals do exist, they are not
emphasized to the same extent. In both types of cultures, however, people’s gestures,
facial expressions, eye contact, body postures, body motions (kinesics), touch (haptics),
and use of personal space (proxemics) are important components of the communication
process, sending its participant valuable information. However, norms governing those

17
behaviors are highly culture-specific, which means they can be either ignored or
misinterpreted by someone unfamiliar with the local culture (Novinger 2001: 55-74).
All things considered, it is clear that communicating across cultures does not
only require sufficient language proficiency, but also adequate cultural knowledge. This
explains the increased emphasis on intercultural communicative competence (ICC) in
educational and professional contexts. Deardorff (2006: 247) defines ICC as “the ability
to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s
intercultural knowledge, skills and attitudes.” This ability includes a wide range of sub-
skills, contributing to one’s both linguistic and cultural knowledge. One influential
model of ICC has been developed by Byram (1997: 48), who believes that it consists of
three categories of skills: (1) linguistic competence, (2) sociolinguistic competence, and
(3) discourse competence In a model of ICC proposed by Balboni (2006: 15-17), the
construct is also composed of three main dimensions of skills, including: (1) verbal
codes, e.g. knowledge of words, sounds, grammar, text structure, and socio-pragmatic
competence; (2) nonverbal codes, including the familiarity with the use of nonverbal
cues and of objects, clothes, status symbols, etc.; and (3) basic cultural values, related to
social hierarchy and status, space and time, public-private distinction, and many other.
Those competences are integrated and put into practice during intercultural
communicative events, such as teamwork, business negotiations, telephone calls, public
speaking, and so on. Those models make it clear that ICC is a complex skill, developed
over long periods of time, both through theoretical study and practical experience.
Summing up, this chapter has presented the review of literature concerning the
linguistic concepts which are of the utmost importance to the study presented in Chapter
3 – communication, especially in international contexts, and discourse, as well as the
theories of speech acts and politeness. As the chapter has demonstrated the study of
communication and language from the perspective of pragmatics focuses chiefly on
their practical aspects, prioritizing such factors as context and situation, especially in
connection to broader socio-cultural backgrounds.

18
Bibliography
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Banaszkiewicz, M. (2011). Pilot a grupa w środowisku wielokulturowości. In Z.
Kruczek (ed.) Kompendium pilota wycieczek. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Proksenia.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction.Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Brown, P. (2001). Politeness and Language. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 11620–11624). New York:
Elsevier.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R. (2012). Vocabulary: Applied Linguistics Perspective. London: Routledge.
Cleary, S. (ed.) (2003). The Communication Handbook: Student Guide to Effective
Communication. 2nd ed. Cape Town: Juta & Co.
Duck, S., & McMahan, D. T. (2012). The Basics of Communication: A Relational
Perspective. Los Angeles: Sage.
Giegerich, H. J. (1992). English Phonology: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Grandy, R. E., & Warner, R. (2020). Paul Grice" In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition),
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/grice/
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Haugh, M. (2004). Revisiting the conceptualisation of politeness in English and
Japanese. Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication,
23 (1-2), 85–109.
Kortmann, B. (2020). English Linguistics: Essentials. New York: Springer.
Leech, G. (1981). Semantics: The Study of Meaning, 2nd ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Books.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

19
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Novinger, T. (2001). Intercultural Communication: A Practical Guide. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Plag, I., Braun, M., Lappe, S., & Schramm, M. (2009). Introduction to English
Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing.
Savova, L. (2011). Register. In P. Strazny (ed.), Encyclopedia of Linguistics (pp. 898-
899). London: Routledge.
Searle, J. R. (1975). A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. Language, Mind, and
Knowledge, 7, 344-369.
Steinberg, S. (2007). An Introduction to Communication Studies. Cape Town: Juta &
Co.
Taylor, S. (2013). What is Discourse Analysis? New York: A&C Black.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating Across Cultures. New York: The Guilfold
Press.
Trask, R. L. (2007). Language and Linguistics: Key Concepts. London: Routledge.
Trudgill, P. (2003). A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Válková, S. (2004). Politeness as a Communicative Strategy and Language
Manifestation (A Cross-Cultural Perspective). Olomouc: Palacky University Olomouc.
Van Dijk, T. (2011). Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, 2nd ed.
London: Sage.
Wales, K. (2011). A Dictionary of Stylistics, 3rd ed. London: Longman.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory
and Methodology. In R. Wodak & R. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis, 2nd ed. (pp. 1-33). London: Sage.
Yule, G. (2010). The Study of Language. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

20