1. Politeness as the Use of Linguistic Forms

One approach to politeness in linguistics focuses on the use of specific linguistic forms to signal deference, respect, or social distance. In many languages, politeness is encoded through grammatical structures, vocabulary choices, and speech styles. For example, in languages such as Japanese or Korean, politeness is marked by honorifics and verb endings that reflect the social status and relationship between the speaker and the listener. Similarly, in English, indirect speech acts (e.g., "Could you possibly open the window?") and formal address terms (e.g., "Sir" or "Madam") serve as linguistic markers of politeness. The emphasis in this approach is on the formal properties of language that speakers use to navigate social interactions appropriately.

This perspective assumes that politeness is largely conventionalized and rule-governed, meaning that speakers acquire a set of linguistic strategies that they apply in specific social contexts. The degree of politeness expressed often depends on situational factors such as hierarchy, familiarity, and cultural norms. However, this approach has been criticized for its narrow focus on linguistic form rather than broader interactional dynamics. Politeness is not simply about choosing the "correct" form; rather, its interpretation is influenced by context, tone, and pragmatic intentions. Thus, while linguistic markers of politeness provide an important analytical framework, they do not fully capture the complex, dynamic nature of politeness in real-life communication.

2. Politeness as Positive vs. Negative Politeness

The distinction between positive and negative politeness, developed by Brown and Levinson (1987), provides a functional perspective on politeness as a way to manage social relationships. Positive politeness strategies are designed to foster closeness and solidarity, making the interlocutor feel appreciated and included. These strategies include compliments, jokes, inclusive pronouns (e.g., "we"), and expressions of agreement. For example, saying "That’s a great idea!" or "We should totally do that together" affirms a shared social identity and strengthens bonds. Positive politeness is commonly used among friends, colleagues, and in informal settings where social harmony is a priority.

In contrast, negative politeness aims to respect the interlocutor's autonomy and freedom from imposition. It often involves indirectness, hedging, and formal structures to minimize the impact of a request or statement. Phrases like "I’m sorry to bother you, but…" or "Would you mind if I…?" exemplify negative politeness by acknowledging the imposition and softening its force. This strategy is often employed in hierarchical relationships or formal situations where maintaining personal space and social distance is important. While both forms of politeness serve different social purposes, their usage depends on cultural expectations, power dynamics, and situational context. Some cultures emphasize positive politeness (e.g., collectivist societies), while others prioritize negative politeness (e.g., individualist societies), making this distinction a useful but culturally variable framework.

3. Politeness as Face Preservation (Face Work)

The face-saving approach to politeness, influenced by Goffman (1967) and expanded by Brown and Levinson (1987), views politeness as a strategy for preserving one’s own face and that of others in social interactions. "Face" refers to a person's public self-image, which they wish to maintain and protect. This theory distinguishes between positive face (the desire to be liked and approved of) and negative face (the desire for autonomy and freedom from imposition). Any speech act that threatens these aspects—such as requests, criticisms, or disagreements—is considered a face-threatening act (FTA) and requires mitigation strategies to reduce its potential impact.

Politeness, in this view, is a form of "face work", where speakers actively manage interactions to avoid embarrassment or conflict. Strategies include indirectness, apologies, softeners, and humor to minimize potential threats. For instance, instead of directly criticizing someone, a speaker might use hedging ("Maybe we could try another approach?") or an indirect suggestion ("Have you considered doing it this way?"). This theory provides a comprehensive framework for understanding politeness as a negotiation of social relationships, rather than just a set of linguistic markers. However, critics argue that face is culturally dependent, and not all societies conceptualize politeness through individual face concerns in the same way. Some cultures prioritize group harmony over individual face, making the applicability of this model more nuanced than initially assumed.

4. Politeness as Observation of Social Norms (wakimae / discernment)

Wakimae is sets of social norms of appropriate bchavior people have to observe in order to be considered polite in the socicly they live. One is polite only if he or she behaves in congruence with the expected norms in a certain situation, in a certain culture and sociely. Just like a set of rules you follow when you play a game, you follow wakimae in your game of life.

Thus, speaking within the confines of wakimae is not an act of expressing the speaker's intention, but rather of complying with socially expected norms.The speaker's altention is paid not to what he or she intends to express, but rather to what is expected of him or her by social norms.

To say "How do you do?" when you are introduced, or to begin your spcech with a joke, is verbal behavior according lo expected norms and may be referred to as examples of wakimae use in English. However, this is not obligatory." In contrast, the prototypical observation of wakimae is intrinsically obligatory and situation bound, as we see in the choice of proper honorific forms and speech formulas. Among various levels of expected norms to be observed, the choice of honorific forms for the referent or the addressee, to whom due respect is required, is the most sophisticated.