Politeness devices: modality to save editors' face in EWM

Politeness has been object of linguistic studies specially by Leech (1983), Brown and Levinson (1987) and more recently by Simpson (1989) and Holmes (1995). Simpson (1990:73; 74) has pointed to the ‘interconnection of modality and politeness’ and says that ‘modality, politeness, and the presentation of information are crucially linked’. What these studies show is that politeness is context-bound and multifunctional, in the sense that politeness devices may be used differently under diverse circumstances and express different meanings. A broad framework for the study of modality, therefore, has to account for the verbal mechanisms/strategies or maneuvers used by speakers/writers to be tactful or diplomatic, in other words, to save their face.

EWM display politeness devices, that is, lexicogrammatical strategies which contribute to express feelings such as sympathy, interest, approval, or intimacy, for instance. I intend to present these strategies now, taking into account the notion of ‘face’

as proposed by Goffman (1967) and later by Brown and Levinson (1987), in their study of politeness in relation to negative and positive face.

According to Goffman (1967:5),

The term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself (sic) by the line others assume he (sic) has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes – albeit an image that others may share, as when a person makes a good showing for his profession or religion by making a good showing for himself (sic).

By the term line Goffman means 'a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts' which speakers use to communicate their views and evaluate participants including themselves. As modality is part of the interpersonal category, the function related to human interaction and relationships, the study of face and strategies of politeness may contribute to a better understanding of the function of modality markers in EWM.

In EWM, editors have to maintain a friendly and tactful relationship with their readers, in other words, they must have ‘face-work’: a capacity to use social skills, usually referred to as 'savoir-fair', 'tact' or 'diplomacy' (Goffman, 1967). Editors strive to save not only their own face and that of the publishing company and contributors, but readers’ face as well, in the sense that they cannot offend or shock the readers. In other

words, they must avoid face-threatening acts and must find strategies for what is known as positive and negative face, as is explained below.

As already seen, EWM are a form of advertising, and, as such, the editors are concerned with maintaining a positive self-image, that is, a positive face. Brown and Levinson (1987) see positive face as the desire or need of every adult member of a society 'that his (sic) wants be desirable to at least some others' (Brown and Levinson, 1987:62). It concerns people's positive self-images and personalities, 'the desire to be ratified, understood, approved of, liked or admired'. Positive politeness, thus, refers to linguistic realizations to claim common ground and express or intensify approval, interest, sympathy, and/or intimacy in the interaction. Here are two examples of sympathy in two different troublesome circumstances in EWM:

How would you feel if you saw your son joy-riding in a stolen car? On page 16 we talk to a mum who had just that experience -- and ask the experts if parents are to blame for their criminal kids.

I've got a while to go before my youngsters's old enough to reach the peddles on a car, but it's certainly food for thought...(ed 9)

I do know women who've bought the myth of One Great Love. They've had one wonderful affair, lived with him or married him. Things didn't go as planned or dreamed about and expectations were dashed. The hurt and the grief were so colossal that these women never allow themselves the chance to love again. ‘He was the love of my life,’ they tell you mourningfully. I've mourned, I promise you. I've cried, felt panic-stricken and life has temporarily lost its meaning. (ed 24)

In the first excerpt, the editor shows sympathy to a reader whose son has been involved with criminal acts: the topic of a feature in that issue. By being sympathetic to this specific woman, the editor is extending his (Keith McNeil's) feeling to all mothers in that situation. First he introduces the topic with a question, as a way, perhaps, to include the readers and put them in the troublesome situation. Then, as positive politeness, the editor refers to his own case and ends with it's certainly food for thought, as the last sign of sympathy. The second excerpt also contains devices of sympathy: the editor is sympathetic to women who had one great love only. The editor emphasizes the fact that this situation is common, she uses the modal adjunct never, the fixed expression I promise and also talks about her own experience related to this problem.

Other instances of positive politeness in EWM include the following compliments:

And I'd like to say a big congratulations to all our readers for having the style, wisdom and intelligence to be part of Britain's fastest-growing young women's glossy magazine. (ed 50)

I've always thought that women were great copers and now you've confirmed it. Three cheers for jugglers everywhere! (ed 53)

We Brits are a great nation of lovers -- we love our children, our animals, our countryside. (ed 75)

In the examples above the editors are paying compliments, which is considered one of the most obvious ways to express positive politeness, used to show solidarity between interlocutors or maintain rapport, having a clear affective and social function (Holmes, 1995). The first example illustrates the fact that the editor is complimenting not only the readers but the magazine as well.

Besides the use of devices of positive face, concerned with treating readers as friends and likeable people, as members of the same group, editors also present strategies of negative face, those mechanisms used to show respect, avoid impositions or intrusion, minimize tensions, apologize or indicate reluctance. When editors need to impose their views on readers, they need to attenuate the force of the statements, that is they must use negative politeness strategies. Negative face, thus, is defined as ‘the want of every 'competent adult member 'that his (sic) actions be unimpeded by others’ (Brown and Levinson, 1987:62). By using negative politeness strategies, ‘the speaker recognizes and respects the addressee's negative-face wants and will not (or will only minimally) interfere with the addressee's freedom of action’ (ibid p. 70). When people think of politeness, they tend to link it to negative politeness. An example from EWM include:

If you can hear a lot of banging and sawing back here, it's because some of us are building an ark!

Only joking, but with the amount of rain we've had this autumn, I reckon it's only a matter of time.

What's that got to do with this week's issue?

Well, on page 27 we're testing...brollies. The last time I used mine, the spokes shot through the side, so I'm off to the brolly shop after a quick read! (ed 4)

The lexical items in bold are strategies of negative politeness. First the editor introduces an exaggeration, so he (Keith McNeill) minimizes the impact of the statement with the expression Only joking and the mental verb process I reckon. Then, by using the question the editor seems to feel that readers may be puzzled by his talking about the rainy weather, and he himself asks what may be on readers' mind. The editor appears to be apologizing for the kind of talk he is offering, so he also uses the discourse marker/hedge Well, which modifies the force of what is being said (Coates, 1987), marks the response to the question at an interactional level (Schiffrin, 1987), and prevents him from making a categorical assertion.

In the following excerpts the editors are asking readers to send money for the Rape Victim Appeal and to participate in a survey, using devices of negative politeness:

I love Cosmo readers because you care. You are willing to stand up and be counted. Please go on sending money to help the Bosnian rape victims to: Cosmopolitan Rape Victim Appeal, WomenAid 3, Whitehall Court, London SW1A 2EL. (ed 21)

There is still much confusion about menopause, so on page 24 we are carrying out a special survey.

Please find the time to fill it in. We'd be very grateful. We also look at natural alternatives to HRT on page 22. (ed 114)

Ed 21 contains what Brown and Levinson (1987:102) call 'in-group identity markers', who in this case are the Cosmo readers. The editor also praises the readers (you care, you are willing to stand up and be counted). These are devices of positive politeness, but at the same time this strategy also functions as preparation for the proposal: the editor wishes to ask readers to contribute to the Appeal. She must, therefore, use devices of negative politeness, not to coerce or impose. So the particle Please is used to attenuate the imposition. In the second excerpt the editor does not wish to coerce readers to fill in a survey, so she uses the adverb please and the sentence We'd be very grateful as devices of negative politeness to save her face and thus minimize the imposition.

Hedges and boosters are two linguistic devices used in politeness which I am considering as exponents of modality. Hedges are devices which ‘attenuate or reduce the strength of the utterance’ (Holmes, 1995:26); they signal that the speaker does not want to impose her/his wish. Boosters, on the other hand, are devices which ‘intensify or emphasize the illocutionary force of any utterance in which they are used’, such as modal verbs, ‘pragmatic particles such as of course, modal adverbs such as certainly and absolutely (Holmes, 1995:77). Besides some of the lexical items shown above as part of positive and negative politeness, here are other instances of hedges and boosters in EWM:

You get the feeling -- don't you? -- that apart from being rather funny, he's dead honest and probably speaks for lots of men. (ed 21)

Not one -- absolutely no one -- should be as stupid as me! (ed 17)

Naturally, I think you're wonderful but I'm also aware that we need to earn your loyalty, which is why all of us here will continue to work hard to improve the magazine in 1994. If we're good, we'll get better! (ed 18)

The two kinds of politeness, positive and negative politeness, can be illustrated in relation to solidarity and social distance by the figure below, adapted from Holmes (1995:15; 20):

Intimate <————————————————————> Distant

High solidarity Low solidarity

informal settings formal settings

POSITIVE POLITENESS NEGATIVE POLITENESS

reciprocity/mutual friendship respect/deference

familiarity social distance

compliments/invitations apologies/indirect requests

Figure 6.3 – Positive and negative politeness

These opposing sides represent extremes in terms of politeness, and, as is true of modalities, they may overlap and be blurred. In EWM, editors deploy devices of both positive and negative politeness, which constitute exponents of modality, for they contribute to minimize the possibility of performing a face-threatening act. In EWM, editors do not want to risk being misinterpreted by their readers or worse still being abandoned by them, as readers may start reading other women's magazines. This way, even though there is a tendency to use more positive politeness strategies, negative politeness strategies (as seen above) are also used. When the editors use markers of modality, a degree of solidarity with readers seems to be established and these markers also help editors to 'claim common ground' or 'seek agreement' (terms used by Brown and Levinson, 1987).