Linguistic Politeness Study

Linguistic discretion displacevasChapter 1INTRODUCTIONOver the last three decades, civility has be enumerate champion of the central discussions in pragmatic and sociolinguistic lookes. A large number of theoretical, empirical books and articles approximately linguistic ingenuity that name been published, shows that address has hold up superstar of the some inciteive aras of research in style gloweringice.Although the strainle of civility in some(prenominal) neighborly and linguistic phenomenon signifi arseholetly increased, many recent studies accept to drawn on conversational data, it was affect that is plainly sm each number of scholars digested to hold ingenuity in write textbook much(prenominal) as scientific written text quite a than on conversational data recently.Even though the main stream of linguistic civility is gener onlyy associated with complaisant behaviour as strategic betrothal overturnance, and the major concept of niceness theory is an arrangement of civilisedness strategies along a continuum from to the lowest degree polite to virtually polite, as well as allows them to engage in conflict-free conversation, and it commonplacely found in the show of conversational development talker-hearer simulation of interactions. Many scholars do non realize that this readiness model also can be extended to opposite medium non only through verbal communication tho also in a written material in cost of the interactions of the or authors and audiences in scientific texts.Further much, the advances of readiness models to some genres of scientific written texts is someway interesting and in the new(prenominal) hand complex playing field to means. Greg Myers1 (1989) in his study found that the model proposed by dark-br ingest and Levinson was real expendful to formulate how he interpret some constituteion of the norm of scientific culture found in piece of music, crossly donnishian musi cal composition. dark-brown and Levinson (1978/1987) cast their study as part of the linguistic project of showing universals in linguistic process habit the striking parallels in tact devices amid three unrelated phrases shows that while the fashions of ingenuity whitethorn vary enormously from peerless culture to some other, and the staple hierarchy of readiness strategies is not a culture unique(predicate). embrown and Levinsons (1987 58) constructed a system in which a model person is invest with prejudicious and domineering reflexion roughly the call for to be unimpeded and the want to be approved of in accepted see. The model person also has a lucid faculty for choosing the course of action that leave give the highest pay- wrap up with the least loss of cause, evaluating three variables the affectionate distances (D) the relative difference in power surrounded by the speaker and hearer (P) the rank of finesse (R). These three prefatory variables see m still affective to succor understanding the interactions of tact between writers and readers in written text. brown and Levinsons (BL) theory has been extensively used and also criticised. Although most of the scholars that studied niceness are halt that specific f thespians like power, social distance or status, decide the adoption of strategies, it is still difficult to provide definite conclusions.More all(prenominal)where, by using Myers room of idea above that linked to what brownish and Levinson had proposed in their study, this research tries to pore on the politeness strategies sedulous by the economists authors in academic diarys, by concerning that at this sentence academic journals had reached a fabulous numbers two digital and printing material and also become a major references by scholars all over the world. On the other hand, the scholars that deeply think to study the academic journals in the pragmatics or discourse analysis area says politeness its still rare.By view that chances the tec hopes that this study is able to contribute to the existing mob of knowledge on politeness strategies used in academic writing, ill-temperedly which in the writing of scotch journal articles of two place frugal journals.1.1 Statements of the businessStarted in the early 1950s, Schuler studied about the politeness in Germany and Goffman studied on depend work in 1955. Nowadays, the study about politeness has become one of the major areas of pragmatics or sociolinguistics. Classical theories of linguistic politeness clarifies such as Lakoff (1973, 1977), brownish and Levinson (1987), Leech (1983) agree that linguistic politeness can be used as a strategic conflict avoidance.Linguistic politeness not only was applied by many people via verbal communication but also through the medium of written material both in academic or non academic fields, politeness persuasion in journal writing as a genre in academic writing somehow in line with t he demands of the academic community that expects scientific language to be objective and formal. Further, the use of politeness persuasion or strategies in journal issues by particular people from several(predicate) culture background, age and economic basic education is interesting field to discuss.Based on that statement above the main inventions of this study beyond the limits of this paper, to give an exhaustive overview of politeness-related research are to diagnose sort of politeness strategies employed by economist authors and analyze the politeness kinds of strategies in economic journal articles both topical anaesthetic and planetary economic journal.1.2 butt of the StudyIn recent years on that point has been a steady increase in interest and research into economics discourse by both economists and linguists which has spawned an expanding body of work. The temperament of this work in part reflects not only the varied academic backgrounds of the writers, but also th e evolutionary development of linguistics in general and its sub-discipline of discourse analysis in particular. This body of work is not only in hope succeeding clarify many of the ship canal that economists use language to express themselves in polite way, but also can be use to help the public to understand the politeness style of writing from the economist in the scientific text.Furthermore based on the business relationship above, this beat study tried focused in identify politeness strategies employed by authors of economic journal communities both local and international economic journals, by proposing the objectives beneath1. To investigate how economists use language to give findings in polite way2. To investigates the use of politeness strategies in economics text3. To compare the use of politeness strategies in a local and international economic journals1.3 interrogation QuestionBrown and Levinson (1987) gestate unquestionable a theory of politeness to explain the nature of politeness phenomena in language. Through this exploratory study, the researcher exit focus on the existence of linguistic politeness in economic articles. For this purpose the researcher study the selected local and international economic journals. The researcher focused on specific areas in these journals that the researcher feels exemplifies the existence of politeness strategies.Based on the explanation above, the present study aims to answer the following question1. What kinds of politeness strategies are employed by authors in local and international economic journal articles?2. In what ways are local and international journals similar or different in the use of politeness strategies?1.4 Significance of the studyPoliteness has become one of the fields of research to which more tutelage has been devoted in the last two decades. The connections of politeness studies with other domains, such as sociolinguistics, socio pragmatics, ethnography of communication, second l anguage teaching/acquisition or conversational analysis, have decidedly contributed to this growing interest and its exploratory study, the researcher choose to focus on the existence of politeness strategies n economic journals.Since the early 1980s, the discussion of various controversial issues in the economics discourse community has led to increase debate among concerned economists about the ways that they communicate with each other, as well as with non-economists.Royce (1995) in his paper2 mentions that Although economics is considered to be a science and its language is often close to scientific language, within evidence the texts are often complemented by graphs. The model of literary discourse is predominant.In 1986, Donald McCloskey published The Rhetoric of Economics and republished in 1998. McCloskey considers economic discourse as a language comprised of tropes a word or phrase used in a sense not proper to it, tales and other rhetorical devices that are literary and rhetorical or persuasive rather than scientific or natural.The specific aim of this research also to show that was an increasing awareness of the nature of economics discourse by both applied linguists and economists, For the purposes above, the research studies one locally and one international economic journal, published by economic associations from Malaysia and USA. This research try not to deeply focus on particular specific area what economist and linguist arguing about, but more on general issues of economic that become content severally in these journals, that researcher feels exemplifies the existence of politeness strategies.1.5 Scope and Limitation of The StudyThis present study impart limit its data from selected journals released by economic associations from local and international to find out politeness strategies employed by the economists in two identified Economic journals, namely, Malaysia Journal of Economic Studies and the Journal of Economic ontogeny releas ed by Malaysian Economic association and American economic association respectively.The corpus from those journal were chosen from the five year latest issues, start from 2004 until 2008 whereas this present study start it work. Here the study also limits its scope only on the content of the articles. The areas of Mathematical language, formula as well as write in the articles will be not included to analyze in this present study.1.5 supposed FrameworkThe present section presents the theoretical framework of the present study. Brown and Levinson (1987) have developed a theory of politeness to explain the nature of politeness phenomena in language. According to them, it is realistic to define generic types of politeness strategies to explain and predict the adoption of politeness in oral or written discourse.Since the present study tries to focuses on the analyzing a politeness in written material that is academic journal both from local or international well know economic journal s. The writer tries to use a formula that construct by Greg Myers (1989) in his articles The Pragmatic Of Politeness In Scientific Articles in line with what Brown and Levinson (1987) proposed in their book Politeness Some Universal in language Usage as underlying theoretical structure.Chapter.2Review of Related Literature2.0. initiationThe phenomenon of interest in politeness both social and linguistic has been significance increase over the last three decades as evidenced by the numbers of paper have appeared on the subject in international journal and monographs. The present research mostly, still based on Brown and Levinsons politeness theory (1978, 1987). The recent published literature on Brown and Levinsons model concerns two main aspects, which are the concept of politeness itself and the claims for universality on the one hand, and different criticism or modification of one of the ingredients of the model on the other mainly the concepts of impertinence, see- inauspici ous act, and the factors that determine the production and commentary of politeness, in the other hand.The notions of type see, impertinence threatening act (FTA) and politeness as well as the ways in which the phenomenon of politeness is realized in language consumption have been extensively utilize who are concerned with linguistic pragmatics Leech, 19983 Kasper, 1990 Brend 1978 Brown 1988 Schmidt, 1980 Carrel and Konnoker, 1981 Ferguson, and many other scholars have explore the notions of nervus.Since the main focus of this present study is trying to institutionalise economic issues written by economist in economic journals related with politeness strategies as a main topic to discuss, the researcher in this chapter, will try to discuss about the theory of politeness, and explains about the scathe related to the main topic, such as the different forms of feel, FT3A and the factors seems to be interrelated in politeness system that also useful in studying politeness strate gies in written material such as academic journal.2.1 The Theory A picture OverviewBrown and Levinsons (1978, 1987) theory of politeness has become the model against which most research on politeness defines itself. Central to BLs theory is the concept of hardiness, as proposed by Goffman (1967) who be face asthe unconditional social value of a person efficaciously claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. character is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes -albeit an image that others might share, as when a person makes a upright showing for his profession or religion by do a well-behaved showing for himself .(Goffman 1967 5)BL define (197866) face as something that is emotionally invested and the face can be lost, maintained or deepen and it must be constantly attended to in interaction, BL categorize politeness as either coercive politeness or disconfirming politeness and tie both strategies to the splendour of face in every culture. They define face as the public self-image that every atom wants to claim for himselfFurthermore The main focus of BL (Brown and Levinson)4 study as part of the linguistic project of showing universals in language usage They construct a system in which a model person is endowed with ostracize and unconditional face and tie both strategies to the importance of face in every culture. They define face as the public self-image that every fellow part wants to claim for himself roughly the want to be unimpeded and the want to be approved of in genuine respects (1987 58).According to Brown and Levinson, face wants may consist of ostracize or positive face. When speakers appeal to positive face wants (i.e. the inclination to be appreciated and approved of), they employ positive politeness language that emphasizes in-group identity, shows concern, and seeks areas of agreement. Compliments represent typical positive politeness strategies.When s peakers appeal to negative face wants (i.e. the desire to be free from imposition and distraction), they use negative politeness strategies that seeks to reduce any imposition, such as apologies that represent the type negative politeness strategies. Further, basically in most situations, everyone seeks to maintain each others face. Thus, communicating efficaciously haves saving face-both for the speaker-identified by Brown and Levinson as (S) and for the addressee (H) or speaker and hearer. However, Brown and Levinson point out that S and H are rationalise by three other factors power, social distance, and imposition. For example, S will speak more courteously when the target (H) has more power than S, when the social distance between the two is great, and when the imposition is high.Before going further the following section tries to explain the first four politeness strategies of Brown and Levinsons with some examples, based on several studies done in the past that are relate d to the present study of politeness.Brown and Levinson identify five super strategies used to communicate. They list strategies from the most deal/impolite ( grow-on- playscript) to the least direct/impolite (being silent).2.1.1 Politeness StrategiesAccording to Brown and Levinson (197865), certain acts can damage or threaten another persons face and these acts are referred to as face threatening acts (FTAs). An FTA5 has the potential to damage the hearers positive or negative face or the act may damaged the spakers own positive or negative face. In order to reduce the possibility of damage to the hearers or the speakers face s/he may adopt certain strategies these strategies BL call politeness strategies (1978 65). Politeness strategies can be divided into four main strategies Bald-on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness and off-record strategies.Being polite therefore consists of attempting to turn in face for another, although all cultures have face as Brown and L evinson claim, all cultures do not maintain face in the same way. Brown and Levinson also claim that understanding cultural norms of politeness enables communicators to make strong predictions about communicating effectively within a culture, also politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearers face. position refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that self-esteem in public or in private situations. The functions are to avoid embarrassing the other person, or making them feel uncomfortable. Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with FTA.Next each of the strategies of BLs theory will be presented separately first Bald on record, then positive politeness, next negative politeness and finally off record strategies2.1.1.1 Bald on recordAccording to Brown and Levinson(1978 74), Bald on record strategy is a direct way of saying things, without any minimisation to the imposition, in a direct, clear, un indefinite and concise way, for example Do.X. Bl claim that the prime reason for bald on record usage may be stated simply in general, whenever the speaker wants to do FTA with maximum efficiency more than s/he wants to satisfy hearers face, charge to any degree, s/he will choose the bald on record strategy.There are different kinds of bald on record usage in different circumstances, because the speaker can have different motives for her/his want to do the FTA with minimum efficiency. The motives falls into two classes where the face threat is not minimised, where face is ignored or is ir germane(predicate) and 2) where in doing the FTA baldly on record, the speaker minimises face threats by meaning. BL (1978 100)Brown and Levinson (ibid,. 1978 100) give examples of bald on record strategy and say that direct imperatives are clear examples of bald on record usage. Imperative are often softened with hedges or conventional politeness markers, eg recreate send us the offers. Verb do is used with imperatives, like in Do call us. What BL call bald on record strategies might involve simply following the Gricean maxims, whereas politeness strategies would involve violating the maxims in specific way (Watss, Ide and Ehlich 19927)2.1.1.2 supreme politenessUnlike negative politeness, ordained politeness is not ineluctably redressive of the particular face infringed by the FTA that is whereas in negative politeness the stadium of relevant redress is restricted to the imposition itself, in positive politeness the sphere of redress is widened to the detainment of alters want in general or to the expression of similarity egos and alters want.The positive politeness is usually seen n groups of friends, or where people the wedded social situation know each other more or less well, it usually tries to minimize the distance between them, by expressing friendliness and solid interest in the hearers need to be expected (minimize FTA)According to Brown and Levinson (1 978 106) positive politeness is redress directed to the addressees positive face, his/her perennial desire to the his/her wants or actions acquisitions, values resulting from them -should be thought of as desirable. BL describe that the redress consists in partially satisfying that desire that ones own wants or some of them are in some respects similar to the addressees wants. BL also notes that unlike negative politeness, positive politeness is not necessarily redressive of the particular face want infringe by the FTA. In other words whereas in negative politeness the sphere of relevant redress is restricted to the imposition itself, in positive politeness the sphere of redress is widened to the appreciation of alters wants in general or to the expression of similarity between egos and alters wants .. . .the linguistic actualizations of positive politeness are in many respects simply interpreter of the normal linguistic behaviour between intimates, where interest and compliment of each others personality, presuppositions indicating shared wants and shared knowledge, implicit claims to reciprocity of obligations or to reflexivity of wants, etc. be routinely exchanged. Perhaps the only feature that distinguishes positive politeness redress from normal everyday intimate language behaviour is an element of exaggeration this serves as a marker of the face-redress aspect of positive politeness expression by indicating that even S cant with total sincerity say I want your wants he can at least sincerely bespeak I want your positive face to be satisfiedBrown and Levinson (1978 106)BL add the element of insincerity in exaggerated expressions of approval or interest 6 As in how absolutely marvellous and exquisite your roses are ,Mrs.Pete is compensate for by the implication that the speaker really sincerely wants Mrs. Petes positive face to be enhanced. This perspectives of intimacy is interesting when considering articles in economic journal between authors and audiences is not usually very intimate and if it were, intimacy would be disregard while doing a scientific claim. In this sense, it could be expected that not many strategies of positive politeness would be used or are used rarely in article economic journals BL also explain that the association with intimate language usage gives the linguistic of positive politeness its redressive force. They claim that positive politeness utterances are used as a kind of metaphorical extensions of intimacy, to imply coarse ground or sharing of wants to a limited extension of intimacy, to imply common ground or sharing of wants to a limited extent even between strangers who perceive themselves for the purposes of the interaction as somehow similar. This is true when considering economic articles, in fact some times authors and audience7 has similar knowledge in general or purpose in common.BL also point out that the positive politeness techniques are usable not only for FTA redress but in genera l as a kind of accelerator, where S, in using them, indicates s/he wants to come closer to H or audiences. BL divide positive politeness into three strategies claiming the common ground, conveying that sender and receiver are co-operators and fulfilling receivers want. .2.1.1.3 proscribe PolitenessWhen Brown and Levinson define negative politeness, they say that it is a redressive action addressed to the addressees negative face addressees want to have addressees freedom of action unhindered and addressees attention unimpeded. Furthermore According to BL (1978134) prejudicial politeness is the heart of respective behaviour, just as positive politeness is the kernel of familiar and joking behaviour. damaging politeness corresponds to the rituals of avoidance. Where positive politeness is free-ranging, negative politeness is specific and focused it performs the function of minimizing the particular imposition that the FTA unavoidable effects, BL also argue that negative politeness is the kind of politeness used between acquaintances whereas positive politeness is used between closer friends.Negative politeness is the most elaborate and the most conventionalized set of linguistic strategies for FTA redress it fills the etiquette books although positive politeness gets some attention. Further according to BL (1987 135) the linguistic credit of negative politeness conventional indirectness, hedges on illocutionary force, polite pessimism8, the furiousness on hearers relative power are very familiar and need no introduction.In addition , BL say that the negative politeness outputs are all forms usefull in general for social distancing9 they are therefore likely to be used whenever a speaker or sender wants to put a social brake on the course of interaction. BL, see five main categories as the linguistic realization of negative politeness communicating senders want not to entrench the receiver, not coercing receiver, not presuming/assuming, being (conventiona lly in) direct and redressing receivers wants.2.1.1.4 Off RecordBrown and Levinsons (1978216) define off record strategy as a communicative act which is done in such a way that is not possible to attribute one clear communicative intention to the act. In this case the actor leaves her/himself an out by providing her/himself with a number of defensible interpretations, s/he cannot be held to have a committed himself to just one particular interpretation of her/his act. In other words, BL claim, the actor leaves it up to the addressee to decided how to interpret act.Further, BL continue that such off record utterances are essential indirect uses of language. One says something that is either more general (contains less information in the sense that it rules out fewer possible states of affairs) or actually different from what one means (intend to be understood). BL continue claim that in both cases the hearer must make some inference to recover what was in fact intended. For example, if somebody says it is hot in here, the hidden meaning of the utterance can be request to open the windowpane or to switch on the fan.BL, (1978 230-232), list inviting conversational implicatures as one main strategy of off record-ness and its subcategories are giving hints, giving association clues, presupposing, understating, overstating, using tautologies, using contradictions, being ironic, using metaphors, and using rhetorical question. The other main strategy of going off record is being vague or ambiguous and its subcategories are being ambiguous, being vague, over-generalising, displacing hearer and being incomplete.2.1.2 FacePoliteness theory states that some speech acts threaten others face needs. The concept of face has come to play an important role in politeness theory. Brown and Levinson, for example, have chosen it as the central notion for their study of universals in language usage and politeness phenomena (1978, 1987). Brown and Levinson says that they have derived the notion of face from Ervin Goffman in social interaction.Our notion of face is derived from that of Goffman and from the English folk term, which ties up face notions of being gangrenous or humiliated, or losing face. Thus face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. In general, people cooperate (and assume each others cooperation) in maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face(198763)In 1963, Erving Goffman published the article On Face Work where he first created the term face. He discusses face in reference to how people present themselves in social situations and that our entire reality is constructed through our social interactions. Face is a mask that changes depending on the audience and the social interaction (Goffman, 1967). Face is maintained by the audience, not by the speaker. We strive to maintain the face we have created in social situations. Face is broken down by Goffman into two different categories. Positive face is the desire of being seen as a good human being and negative face is the desire to remain autonomous. Moreover he argues that there is a limited amount of strategies to maintain face.Face in communicative events is a universal concept, but it is employed in culture specific ways. It is defined in psychological, philosophical and symbolic terms, the term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume s/he has taken during a particular contact. Face generally involves interlocutors mutual recognition as social members of a society. Face can be lost, maintained, or enhanced and must be constantly attended to in interaction.Brown and Levinson (1978 1987), presented politeness as a formal theoretical construct based on in the beginning work on face by sociologist Goffman, (1963) as already mentioned above, BL sai d that we are all motivated by two desires (positive face), and (negative face). The working definition and examples on both negative and positive face presented below.2.1.2.1 Negative FaceThe negative face is the attention and defence of ones territory and freedom from imposition. The negative face is an inalienable. Negative face is the desire to be autonomous and not to infringe on the other person. Negative politeness is designed to protect the other person when negative face needs are threatened. Thus there are different strategies to handle face threatening acts and these strategies are put into a hierarchy of effectiveness.2.1.2.2 Positive FaceThe positive face, on the other hand, is the claim for the recognition and appropriate validation of ones social self-image or personality. The positive face is the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some other members of the society. Also is the desire to be liked and appreciated. Positive politeness is desig ned to meet the face needs by performing an action like complimenting or showing concern for another person (Held 1989 and ODriscoll 1996)2.1.2.3. FTAHoltgraves and Yang (1992) defines politeness as phrasing ones remarks so as to minimize face threat. Here, Face Threatening Act (FTA) is acts like promises, apologies, expressing thanks, ven non verbal acts such as stumbling, falling down or any utterance that intrinsically threatens anothers face (positive or negative) and includes disagreement, criticism, orders, delivery of bad news, and request. For examples simple request threaten the targets negative face because the targets compliance with the request interferers with his/her desire to remain autonomous. Criticism threatens his/her desire for approvalFurthermore, Brown and Levinson (1987) propose that when confronted with the need to perform a FTA, the individual must choose between performing the FTA in the most direct and streamlined manner, or attempting to mitigate the ef fect of the FTA on the hearers positive/negative face. The mitigation strategies are what BL labeled as politeness strategies.2.1.3 Politeness SystemsSince Goffmans (1967) work, politeness has become one of the most active areas of research in language use. The literature on the subject is mammoth-like, the research on politeness falls into three categories (1) work that constructs theories of politeness, such as Lakoff (1973, 1977), Brown and Levinson (1987), Leech (1983), Fraser (1990), and Escandell-Vidal (1996) (2) work that investigates cultural- specific concepts and strategies of politeness, such as Hill et al. (1986), Gu (1992), Lindenfeld (1990), and Sherzer (1983) (3) work that applies existing theories to data from various cultures, such as Chen (1993, 1996), Garcia (1989), Rhodes (1989), and Holmes (1990). Although these researchers differ in important ways, they share a common focus on politeness system, that specific factors influence the adoption of strategies. Simila r with Scollon and Scollon (1981) proposed the face relationships into three politeness systems namely Difference, solidarity and hierarchical. An explanation on those politeness systems presented below.2.1Linguistic Politeness StudyLinguistic Politeness StudyChapter 1INTRODUCTIONOver the last three decades, politeness has become one of the central discussions in pragmatic and sociolinguistic researches. A large number of theoretical, empirical books and articles about linguistic politeness that have been published, shows that politeness has become one of the most active areas of research in language use.Although the interest of politeness in both social and linguistic phenomenon significantly increased, many recent studies choose to drawn on conversational data, it was surprised that is only small numbers of scholars focused to study politeness in written text such as scientific written text rather than on conversational data recently.Even though the main stream of linguistic polit eness is generally associated with social behaviour as strategic conflict avoidance, and the major concept of politeness theory is an arrangement of politeness strategies along a continuum from least polite to most polite, also allows them to engage in conflict-free communication, and it usually found in the study of conversational using speaker-hearer model of interactions. Many scholars do not realize that this politeness model also can be extended to other medium not only through verbal communication but also in a written material in terms of the interactions of the or authors and audiences in scientific texts.Furthermore, the advances of politeness models to some genres of scientific written texts is somehow interesting and in the other hand complex field to study. Greg Myers1 (1989) in his study found that the model proposed by Brown and Levinson was very useful to explain how he interpret some construction of the norm of scientific culture found in writing, particularly academ ic writing.Brown and Levinson (1978/1987) present their study as part of the linguistic project of showing universals in language usage the striking parallels in politeness devices between three unrelated languages shows that while the expressions of politeness may vary enormously from one culture to another, and the basic hierarchy of politeness strategies is not a culture specific.Brown and Levinsons (1987 58) constructed a system in which a model person is endowed with negative and positive face roughly the want to be unimpeded and the want to be approved of in certain respects. The model person also has a rational faculty for choosing the course of action that will give the highest pay-off with the least loss of face, evaluating three variables the social distances (D) the relative difference in power between the speaker and hearer (P) the rank of imposition (R). These three basic variables seem still affective to help understanding the interactions of politeness between writers and readers in written text. Brown and Levinsons (BL) theory has been extensively used and also criticised. Although most of the scholars that studied politeness are agree that specific factors like power, social distance or status, influence the adoption of strategies, it is still difficult to provide definite conclusions.Moreover, by using Myers room of thinking above that linked to what Brown and Levinson had proposed in their study, this research tries to focus on the politeness strategies employed by the economists authors in academic journals, by concerning that at this time academic journals had reached a fabulous numbers both digital and printing material and also become a major references by scholars all over the world. On the other hand, the scholars that deeply focused to study the academic journals in the pragmatics or discourse analysis area says politeness its still rare.By viewing that chances the researcher hopes that this study is able to contribute to the existing pool of knowledge on politeness strategies used in academic writing, particularly which in the writing of economic journal articles of two identified economic journals.1.1 Statements of the ProblemStarted in the early 1950s, Schuler studied about the politeness in Germany and Goffman studied on face work in 1955. Nowadays, the study about politeness has become one of the major areas of pragmatics or sociolinguistics. Classical theories of linguistic politeness clarifies such as Lakoff (1973, 1977), Brown and Levinson (1987), Leech (1983) agree that linguistic politeness can be used as a strategic conflict avoidance.Linguistic politeness not only was applied by many people via verbal communication but also through the medium of written material both in academic or non academic fields, politeness persuasion in journal writing as a genre in academic writing somehow in line with the demands of the academic community that expects scientific language to be objective and formal. Further, the use of politeness persuasion or strategies in journal issues by particular people from different culture background, age and economic basic education is interesting field to discuss.Based on that statement above the main purposes of this study beyond the limits of this paper, to give an exhaustive overview of politeness-related research are to identify sort of politeness strategies employed by economist authors and analyze the politeness kinds of strategies in economic journal articles both local and international economic journal.1.2 Objective of the StudyIn recent years there has been a steady increase in interest and research into economics discourse by both economists and linguists which has spawned an expanding body of work. The nature of this work in part reflects not only the varied academic backgrounds of the writers, but also the evolutionary development of linguistics in general and its sub-discipline of discourse analysis in particular. This body of work is not only i n hope succeeding clarify many of the ways that economists use language to express themselves in polite way, but also can be use to help the public to understand the politeness style of writing from the economist in the scientific text.Furthermore based on the explanation above, this present study tried focused in identify politeness strategies employed by authors of economic journal communities both local and international economic journals, by proposing the objectives below1. To investigate how economists use language to present findings in polite way2. To investigates the use of politeness strategies in economics text3. To compare the use of politeness strategies in a local and international economic journals1.3 Research QuestionBrown and Levinson (1987) have developed a theory of politeness to explain the nature of politeness phenomena in language. Through this exploratory study, the researcher will focus on the existence of linguistic politeness in economic articles. For this p urpose the researcher study the selected local and international economic journals. The researcher focused on specific areas in these journals that the researcher feels exemplifies the existence of politeness strategies.Based on the explanation above, the present study aims to answer the following question1. What kinds of politeness strategies are employed by authors in local and international economic journal articles?2. In what ways are local and international journals similar or different in the use of politeness strategies?1.4 Significance of the studyPoliteness has become one of the fields of research to which more attention has been devoted in the last two decades. The connections of politeness studies with other domains, such as sociolinguistics, socio pragmatics, ethnography of communication, second language teaching/acquisition or conversational analysis, have definitely contributed to this growing interest and its exploratory study, the researcher choose to focus on the ex istence of politeness strategies n economic journals.Since the early 1980s, the discussion of various controversial issues in the economics discourse community has led to increasing debate among concerned economists about the ways that they communicate with each other, as well as with non-economists.Royce (1995) in his paper2 mentions that Although economics is considered to be a science and its language is often close to scientific language, within evidence the texts are often complemented by graphs. The influence of literary discourse is predominant.In 1986, Donald McCloskey published The Rhetoric of Economics and republished in 1998. McCloskey considers economic discourse as a language comprised of tropes a word or phrase used in a sense not proper to it, tales and other rhetorical devices that are literary and rhetorical or persuasive rather than scientific or natural.The specific aim of this research also to show that was an increasing awareness of the nature of economics disco urse by both applied linguists and economists, For the purposes above, the research studies one locally and one international economic journal, published by economic associations from Malaysia and USA. This research try not to deeply focus on particular specific area what economist and linguist arguing about, but more on general issues of economic that become content respectively in these journals, that researcher feels exemplifies the existence of politeness strategies.1.5 Scope and Limitation of The StudyThis present study will limit its data from selected journals released by economic associations from local and international to find out politeness strategies employed by the economists in two identified Economic journals, namely, Malaysia Journal of Economic Studies and the Journal of Economic Growth released by Malaysian Economic association and American economic association respectively.The corpus from those journal were chosen from the five year latest issues, start from 2004 until 2008 whereas this present study start it work. Here the study also limits its scope only on the content of the articles. The areas of Mathematical language, formula as well as footnote in the articles will be not included to analyze in this present study.1.5 Theoretical FrameworkThe present section presents the theoretical framework of the present study. Brown and Levinson (1987) have developed a theory of politeness to explain the nature of politeness phenomena in language. According to them, it is possible to define generic types of politeness strategies to explain and predict the adoption of politeness in oral or written discourse.Since the present study tries to focuses on the analyzing a politeness in written material that is academic journal both from local or international well known economic journals. The writer tries to use a formula that construct by Greg Myers (1989) in his articles The Pragmatic Of Politeness In Scientific Articles in line with what Brown and Levin son (1987) proposed in their book Politeness Some Universal in language Usage as underlying theoretical structure.Chapter.2Review of Related Literature2.0. IntroductionThe phenomenon of interest in politeness both social and linguistic has been significance increase over the last three decades as evidenced by the numbers of paper have appeared on the subject in international journal and monographs. The present research mostly, still based on Brown and Levinsons politeness theory (1978, 1987). The recent published literature on Brown and Levinsons model concerns two main aspects, which are the concept of politeness itself and the claims for universality on the one hand, and diverse criticism or modification of one of the elements of the model on the other mainly the concepts of face, face-threatening act, and the factors that determine the production and interpretation of politeness, in the other hand.The notions of face, face threatening act (FTA) and politeness as well as the ways in which the phenomenon of politeness is realized in language usage have been extensively exploited who are concerned with linguistic pragmatics Leech, 19983 Kasper, 1990 Brend 1978 Brown 1988 Schmidt, 1980 Carrel and Konnoker, 1981 Ferguson, and many other scholars have explore the notions of face.Since the main focus of this present study is trying to put economic issues written by economist in economic journals related with politeness strategies as a main topic to discuss, the researcher in this chapter, will try to discuss about the theory of politeness, and explains about the terms related to the main topic, such as the different forms of face, FT3A and the factors seems to be interrelated in politeness system that also useful in studying politeness strategies in written material such as academic journal.2.1 The Theory A Brief OverviewBrown and Levinsons (1978, 1987) theory of politeness has become the model against which most research on politeness defines itself. Central to B Ls theory is the concept of face, as proposed by Goffman (1967) who defined face asthe positive social value of a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes -albeit an image that others might share, as when a person makes a good showing for his profession or religion by making a good showing for himself .(Goffman 1967 5)BL define (197866) face as something that is emotionally invested and the face can be lost, maintained or enhanced and it must be constantly attended to in interaction, BL categorize politeness as either positive politeness or negative politeness and tie both strategies to the importance of face in every culture. They define face as the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himselfFurthermore The main focus of BL (Brown and Levinson)4 study as part of the linguistic project of showing universals in language usage T hey construct a system in which a model person is endowed with negative and positive face and tie both strategies to the importance of face in every culture. They define face as the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself roughly the want to be unimpeded and the want to be approved of in certain respects (1987 58).According to Brown and Levinson, face wants may consist of negative or positive face. When speakers appeal to positive face wants (i.e. the desire to be appreciated and approved of), they employ positive politeness language that emphasizes in-group identity, shows concern, and seeks areas of agreement. Compliments represent typical positive politeness strategies.When speakers appeal to negative face wants (i.e. the desire to be free from imposition and distraction), they use negative politeness strategies that seeks to reduce any imposition, such as apologies that represent the type negative politeness strategies. Further, basically in most situation s, everyone seeks to maintain each others face. Thus, communicating effectively involves saving face-both for the speaker-identified by Brown and Levinson as (S) and for the addressee (H) or speaker and hearer. However, Brown and Levinson point out that S and H are mitigated by three other factors power, social distance, and imposition. For example, S will speak more politely when the target (H) has more power than S, when the social distance between the two is great, and when the imposition is high.Before going further the following section tries to explain the first four politeness strategies of Brown and Levinsons with some examples, based on several studies done in the past that are related to the present study of politeness.Brown and Levinson identify five super strategies used to communicate. They list strategies from the most direct/impolite (bald-on-record) to the least direct/impolite (being silent).2.1.1 Politeness StrategiesAccording to Brown and Levinson (197865), certai n acts can damage or threaten another persons face and these acts are referred to as face threatening acts (FTAs). An FTA5 has the potential to damage the hearers positive or negative face or the act may damaged the spakers own positive or negative face. In order to reduce the possibility of damage to the hearers or the speakers face s/he may adopt certain strategies these strategies BL call politeness strategies (1978 65). Politeness strategies can be divided into four main strategies Bald-on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness and off-record strategies.Being polite therefore consists of attempting to save face for another, although all cultures have face as Brown and Levinson claim, all cultures do not maintain face in the same way. Brown and Levinson also claim that understanding cultural norms of politeness enables communicators to make strong predictions about communicating effectively within a culture, also politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearers 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. The functions are to avoid embarrassing the other person, or making them feel uncomfortable. Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with FTA.Next each of the strategies of BLs theory will be presented separately first Bald on record, then positive politeness, next negative politeness and finally off record strategies2.1.1.1 Bald on recordAccording to Brown and Levinson(1978 74), Bald on record strategy is a direct way of saying things, without any minimisation to the imposition, in a direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way, for example Do.X. Bl claim that the prime reason for bald on record usage may be stated simply in general, whenever the speaker wants to do FTA with maximum efficiency more than s/he wants to satisfy hearers face, even to any degree, s/he will choose the bald on record strategy.Th ere are different kinds of bald on record usage in different circumstances, because the speaker can have different motives for her/his want to do the FTA with minimum efficiency. The motives falls into two classes where the face threat is not minimised, where face is ignored or is irrelevant and 2) where in doing the FTA baldly on record, the speaker minimises face threats by implication. BL (1978 100)Brown and Levinson (ibid,. 1978 100) give examples of bald on record strategy and say that direct imperatives are clear examples of bald on record usage. Imperative are often softened with hedges or conventional politeness markers, eg please send us the offers. Verb do is used with imperatives, like in Do call us. What BL call bald on record strategies might involve simply following the Gricean maxims, whereas politeness strategies would involve violating the maxims in specific way (Watss, Ide and Ehlich 19927)2.1.1.2 Positive politenessUnlike negative politeness, Positive politeness i s not necessarily redressive of the particular face infringed by the FTA that is whereas in negative politeness the sphere of relevant redress is restricted to the imposition itself, in positive politeness the sphere of redress is widened to the appreciation of alters want in general or to the expression of similarity egos and alters want.The positive politeness is usually seen n groups of friends, or where people 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 hearers need to be expected (minimize FTA)According to Brown and Levinson (1978 106) positive politeness is redress directed to the addressees positive face, his/her perennial desire to the his/her wants or actions acquisitions, values resulting from them -should be thought of as desirable. BL describe that the redress consists in partially satisfying that desire that ones own wants or some of them are in som e respects similar to the addressees wants. BL also notes that unlike negative politeness, positive politeness is not necessarily redressive of the particular face want infringe by the FTA. In other words whereas in negative politeness the sphere of relevant redress is restricted to the imposition itself, in positive politeness the sphere of redress is widened to the appreciation of alters wants in general or to the expression of similarity between egos and alters wants .. . .the linguistic realizations of positive politeness are in many respects simply representative of the normal linguistic behaviour between intimates, where interest and approval of each others personality, presuppositions indicating shared wants and shared knowledge, implicit claims to reciprocity of obligations or to reflexivity of wants, etc. Are routinely exchanged. Perhaps the only feature that distinguishes positive politeness redress from normal everyday intimate language behaviour is an element of exaggera tion this serves as a marker of the face-redress aspect of positive politeness expression by indicating that even S cant with total sincerity say I want your wants he can at least sincerely indicate I want your positive face to be satisfiedBrown and Levinson (1978 106)BL add the element of insincerity in exaggerated expressions of approval or interest 6 As in how absolutely marvellous and exquisite your roses are ,Mrs.Pete is compensate for by the implication that the speaker really sincerely wants Mrs. Petes positive face to be enhanced. This perspectives of intimacy is interesting when considering articles in economic journal between authors and audiences is not usually very intimate and if it were, intimacy would be disregard while doing a scientific claim. In this sense, it could be expected that not many strategies of positive politeness would be used or are used rarely in article economic journals BL also explain that the association with intimate language usage gives the lin guistic of positive politeness its redressive force. They claim that positive politeness utterances are used as a kind of metaphorical extensions of intimacy, to imply common ground or sharing of wants to a limited extension of intimacy, to imply common ground or sharing of wants to a limited extent even between strangers who perceive themselves for the purposes of the interaction as somehow similar. This is true when considering economic articles, in fact some times authors and audience7 has similar knowledge in general or purpose in common.BL also point out that the positive politeness techniques are usable not only for FTA redress but in general as a kind of accelerator, where S, in using them, indicates s/he wants to come closer to H or audiences. BL divide positive politeness into three strategies claiming the common ground, conveying that sender and receiver are co-operators and fulfilling receivers want. .2.1.1.3 Negative PolitenessWhen Brown and Levinson define negative poli teness, they say that it is a redressive action addressed to the addressees negative face addressees want to have addressees freedom of action unhindered and addressees attention unimpeded. Furthermore According to BL (1978134) Negative politeness is the heart of respective behaviour, just as positive politeness is the kernel of familiar and joking behaviour. Negative politeness corresponds to the rituals of avoidance. Where positive politeness is free-ranging, negative politeness is specific and focused it performs the function of minimizing the particular imposition that the FTA unavoidable effects, BL also argue that negative politeness is the kind of politeness used between acquaintances whereas positive politeness is used between closer friends.Negative politeness is the most elaborate and the most conventionalized set of linguistic strategies for FTA redress it fills the etiquette books although positive politeness gets some attention. Further according to BL (1987 135) the li nguistic realization of negative politeness conventional indirectness, hedges on illocutionary force, polite pessimism8, the emphasis on hearers relative power are very familiar and need no introduction.In addition , BL say that the negative politeness outputs are all forms usefull in general for social distancing9 they are therefore likely to be used whenever a speaker or sender wants to put a social brake on the course of interaction. BL, see five main categories as the linguistic realization of negative politeness communicating senders want not to impinge the receiver, not coercing receiver, not presuming/assuming, being (conventionally in) direct and redressing receivers wants.2.1.1.4 Off RecordBrown and Levinsons (1978216) define off record strategy as a communicative act which is done in such a way that is not possible to attribute one clear communicative intention to the act. In this case the actor leaves her/himself an out by providing her/himself with a number of defensib le interpretations, s/he cannot be held to have a committed himself to just one particular interpretation of her/his act. In other words, BL claim, the actor leaves it up to the addressee to decided how to interpret act.Further, BL continue that such off record utterances are essential indirect uses of language. One says something that is either more general (contains less information in the sense that it rules out fewer possible states of affairs) or actually different from what one means (intend to be understood). BL continue claim that in both cases the hearer must make some inference to recover what was in fact intended. For example, if somebody says it is hot in here, the hidden meaning of the utterance can be request to open the window or to switch on the fan.BL, (1978 230-232), list inviting conversational implicatures as one main strategy of off record-ness and its subcategories are giving hints, giving association clues, presupposing, understating, overstating, using tautol ogies, using contradictions, being ironic, using metaphors, and using rhetorical question. The other main strategy of going off record is being vague or ambiguous and its subcategories are being ambiguous, being vague, over-generalising, displacing hearer and being incomplete.2.1.2 FacePoliteness theory states that some speech acts threaten others face needs. The concept of face has come to play an important role in politeness theory. Brown and Levinson, for example, have chosen it as the central notion for their study of universals in language usage and politeness phenomena (1978, 1987). Brown and Levinson says that they have derived the notion of face from Ervin Goffman in social interaction.Our notion of face is derived from that of Goffman and from the English folk term, which ties up face notions of being embarrassed or humiliated, or losing face. Thus face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained or enhanced, and must be constantly attended t o in interaction. In general, people cooperate (and assume each others cooperation) in maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face(198763)In 1963, Erving Goffman published the article On Face Work where he first created the term face. He discusses face in reference to how people present themselves in social situations and that our entire reality is constructed through our social interactions. Face is a mask that changes depending on the audience and the social interaction (Goffman, 1967). Face is maintained by the audience, not by the speaker. We strive to maintain the face we have created in social situations. Face is broken down by Goffman into two different categories. Positive face is the desire of being seen as a good human being and negative face is the desire to remain autonomous. Moreover he argues that there is a limited amount of strategies to maintain face.Face in communicative events is a universal concept, but it is employed in culture specific ways. It is defined in psychological, philosophical and symbolic terms, the term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume s/he has taken during a particular contact. Face generally involves interlocutors mutual recognition as social members of a society. Face can be lost, maintained, or enhanced and must be constantly attended to in interaction.Brown and Levinson (1978 1987), presented politeness as a formal theoretical construct based on earlier work on face by sociologist Goffman, (1963) as already mentioned above, BL said that we are all motivated by two desires (positive face), and (negative face). The working definition and examples on both negative and positive face presented below.2.1.2.1 Negative FaceThe negative face is the maintenance and defence of ones territory and freedom from imposition. The negative face is an inalienable. Negative face is the desire to be autonomou s and not to infringe on the other person. Negative politeness is designed to protect the other person when negative face needs are threatened. Thus there are different strategies to handle face threatening acts and these strategies are put into a hierarchy of effectiveness.2.1.2.2 Positive FaceThe positive face, on the other hand, is the claim for the recognition and appropriate validation of ones social self-image or personality. The positive face is the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some other members of the society. Also is the desire to be liked and appreciated. Positive politeness is designed to meet the face needs by performing an action like complimenting or showing concern for another person (Held 1989 and ODriscoll 1996)2.1.2.3. FTAHoltgraves and Yang (1992) defines politeness as phrasing ones remarks so as to minimize face threat. Here, Face Threatening Act (FTA) is acts like promises, apologies, expressing thanks, ven non verbal acts such a s stumbling, falling down or any utterance that intrinsically threatens anothers face (positive or negative) and includes disagreement, criticism, orders, delivery of bad news, and request. For examples simple request threaten the targets negative face because the targets compliance with the request interferers with his/her desire to remain autonomous. Criticism threatens his/her desire for approvalFurthermore, Brown and Levinson (1987) propose that when confronted with the need to perform a FTA, the individual must choose between performing the FTA in the most direct and efficient manner, or attempting to mitigate the effect of the FTA on the hearers positive/negative face. The mitigation strategies are what BL labelled as politeness strategies.2.1.3 Politeness SystemsSince Goffmans (1967) work, politeness has become one of the most active areas of research in language use. The literature on the subject is mammoth-like, the research on politeness falls into three categories (1) wor k that constructs theories of politeness, such as Lakoff (1973, 1977), Brown and Levinson (1987), Leech (1983), Fraser (1990), and Escandell-Vidal (1996) (2) work that investigates cultural- specific concepts and strategies of politeness, such as Hill et al. (1986), Gu (1992), Lindenfeld (1990), and Sherzer (1983) (3) work that applies existing theories to data from various cultures, such as Chen (1993, 1996), Garcia (1989), Rhodes (1989), and Holmes (1990). Although these researchers differ in important ways, they share a common focus on politeness system, that specific factors influence the adoption of strategies. Similar with Scollon and Scollon (1981) proposed the face relationships into three politeness systems namely Difference, solidarity and hierarchical. An explanation on those politeness systems presented below.2.1