Leave it up to academics to take something that should be simple and make a long, complicated theory out of it. Politeness, for example. Your mother taught you about being polite, right? Something like: Treat others the way you'd like to be treated, show kindness and respect to others, don't make trouble.

But Mom's advice wasn't enough for linguists Stephen Levinson and Penelope Brown. In 1987, they produced the seminal work on politeness theory, a 364-page tome titled, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.

It is always dangerous to summarize a lengthy work in just a few sentences, but then again you do read this column for the danger, right? So, here goes: Brown and Levinson are not concerned about prescriptions for being polite but rather a linguistic description as to what constitutes politeness. And not only for English speakers but, as the title implies, for all languages.

Their focus is largely upon face-threatening speech acts. These FTA's (to use the common abbreviation) form the core of the theory. The basic notion is that under normal circumstances people try to behave (and speak) in a manner that preserves both their own face and the face of others. (No, face is not just an Asian concept.)

Politeness can be both positive (such as when we offer praise to others) or negative (when we use hedges or indirect language because we feel we might be imposing upon the other). We can also be brutally direct (and it is necessary on occasion) which is known as going "bald-on-record."

Of course, while politeness has universal qualities, the actual language strategies that constitute an imposition or indicate a threat to others can vary from language to language and culture to culture. For example, in Japan, a waitress' failure to use honorific language to a customer violates norms of Japanese politeness and thereby constitutes an FTA to the customer, but this would rarely be so in an English-based setting. So, although language-specific norms can play a role in determining politeness, there are also cases where Japanese students create cross-cultural FTA's in English by actually violating Japanese norms of politeness. Two immediately come to mind.

The first is that old standby, the self-introduction. How many times have I seen Japanese students labor through a lengthy and completely unnecessary list of English personal data for the supposed benefit of foreigners present. What's the point? Did anyone ask if they wanted to hear details about the students? Are the listeners supposed to memorize them or somehow put them to use later? Why waste the time of others by talking about "me"?

What I am saying is that almost all such self-introductions violate universal norms of politeness because they impose themselves upon the hearer. It's no wonder foreign visitors shift uncomfortably every time Japanese students go through this mechanical charade. It appears more like a case of "let me show you what I can say in your language" than a meaningful attempt at cross-cultural interaction.

As an English native speaker, I can tell you that I have never given a self-introduction in my life. If asked, I am happy to answer any questions about myself, which is something that our students should be able to do, but therein lies the key: I do it if I'm asked! It's not something I am duty-bound to express every time I meet someone from another country.

Next is a case many of you will also be familiar with. A foreign guest, maybe an authority of some sort, is leading a discussion with a small group of Japanese. The foreign speaker looks for cues and signals of comprehension and understanding, but the students look back poker-faced. So the foreign speaker reformulates the point. Still no visible response.

So the speaker goes back over the language or concept again, even more slowly, showing some signs of frustration.

The students now think that the speaker is treating them lightly, perhaps as if they were children, or belaboring the point. The speaker, on the other hand, believes that the students have understood nothing of what they have said. Communication slows to a painful crawl and there is a palpable awkwardness in the air.

In such cases, students have failed to carry out an aspect of positive politeness that they would readily perform in their own language--that is, responding with simple interjections, nodding of heads, or even eye or body language that says, "I see" or even, "I don't follow you." This is not a matter of different cultures, as Japanese people regularly utilize "aizuchi" to indicate their recipient role in discussions (after all, it is a universal). But for some reason they often stop doing this when dealing with English speakers even though they understand what that visiting foreigner is saying and are capable of responding.

My suspicion is that this is caused by a combination of two factors. The first is a lack of transfer from their mother tongue habits into English.

After all, if you would offer a response in your first language, why not do it in the second? I blame those who focus upon "cultural differences" and emphasize how much the interactive rules of English supposedly differ from Japanese (and thereby lead Japanese students to think that many linguistic universals are uniquely Japanese) for this.

Another cause may be power relationships. If Japanese students feel that someone is taking an authoritative role they may feel uncomfortable responding in such a cavalier way--that classrooms are not the right place to engage in more personal forms of interaction. This is a more complex case when invoking politeness theory, since we could say that students were showing negative politeness to the speaker, seeing responses as an imposition upon authority (and mitigating responses to authority figures is also a universal). Then again, perhaps they just don't want to stand out, implying a type of negative politeness regarding fellow students, or worry that a response might cause the speaker to call upon them--but both of which become FTAs to the speaker.

Why? Because if the forum of discussion is that of a small group or tutorial, the positive politeness of active response trumps the authority role or self-preservation. This too, is a universal of politeness--that the lower the number of participants, the more positive politeness required.

Your mother never knew that politeness could be so complicated.

Guest is an associate professor of English at Miyazaki University. He can be reached at mikeguest59@yahoo.ca.

(Sep. 6, 2010)