Use of Politeness Principles as Driving Force for Achieving Change

Citation: Yusuf Sale SADAU, Zulai Muhammad RABIU, Ukwumaka Kate OJOAH, Haliru ABUBAKAR & Duze Daniel ALI (2021). Use of Politeness Principles as Driving Force for Achieving Change. Yobe Journal of Language, Literature and Culture (YOJOLLAC), Vol. 9, Issue 1. Department of African Languages and Linguistics, Yobe State University, Damaturu, Nigeria. ISSN 2449-0660

USE OF POLITENESS PRINCIPLES AS DRIVING FORCE FOR ACHIEVING CHANGE

By

Yusuf Sale SADAU

Zulai Muhammad RABIU

Ukwumaka Kate OJOAH

Haliru ABUBAKAR

Duze Daniel ALI

Abstract

This paper examined the place of the application of politeness strategies by political leaders in resolving the current state of political atmosphere of chaos in Nigeria created as a result of use of inflammatory utterances by the Nigerian political leaders in their political or even administrative activities. The paper has identified that such utterances have divided the Nigerian populace along the various political leaders’ interests, and have brought about conflicts within the society, the state currently threatening democracy in the country. The paper recommends that politicians should be sensitized to develop the skill of display of administrative expertise and competence, personal ethics and integrity, control of emotions, and development of professional image in order to produce nationalistic followership and therefore create a balanced political atmosphere in the country.

Key Words: Politeness Principle, Language and Literature, Achieving Change

1.0 Introduction

Throughout man’s life communication remains the most vital ingredient for coexistence. Depending on one’s intention or purpose of communication such as to inform, to persuade, to convey goodwill, or to establish credibility, one is required to pattern language to effectively suit the purpose. To achieve one’s purpose(s) of communication, one should use certain strategies to help achieve the goal of communication as well as establish and, or, maintain harmonious relationship between oneself and co-communicator(s). Of such strategies to be employed in communication is politeness strategy. Politeness is an important aspect in human communication. To make effective communication (between addressor and addressee), a politeness strategy is used to show respect for other people or for selves. In every communication, the communicators cannot hurt the addressee while conveying utterance using politeness strategy. According to Brown and Levinson (1987) the politeness strategy used by addressor should be free from face threatening act toward addressee’s face. If speakers say something that represents a threat to another individual’s expectations regarding self-image, it is described as a face threatening act (Yule 1996).

This paper examines the relevance of the use of politeness strategy by Nigerian political actors as a valuable tool to counter the state of political conflict between political leaders and their supporters currently prevailing within our communities as a result of inciting and provocative utterances made by the political leaders and or their stalwart [members] in the political pitch.

2.0 Theories of politeness

One of the thorough treatment of the concept of politeness is that of Brown and Levinson (1987). In their model, politeness is defined as redressive action taken to counter-balance the disruptive effect of face-threatening acts (FTAs). The basic notion of their model is face which they define as “the public self-image that every member of society wants to claim for himself”. In their framework, face consists of two related aspects. One is negative face, or the rights to territories, freedom of action and freedom from imposition - wanting your actions not to be constrained or inhibited by others. The other is positive face referring to consistent self-image that people have and their desire to be appreciated and approved of by at least some other people.

The rational actions people take to preserve both kinds of face for themselves and the people they interact with add up to politeness. Brown and Levinson (1987) also argue that in human communication, either spoken or written, people tend to maintain one another's face continuously. In everyday conversation, we adapt our utterances to different situations. Among friends we take liberties or say things that would seem discourteous among strangers. In both situations we try to avoid making the hearer embarrassed or uncomfortable. Face-threatening acts (FTAs) are acts that infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his/her self-esteem and be respected.

Besides cooperation, most interactions are governed by politeness. That is to say by what is considered a “polite social behaviour” within a certain culture. Politeness, in an interaction, can be defined as the means employed to show awareness of another person’s face (Yule. 1996, p. 60). Politeness refers to maintaining proper etiquette and speaking properly to a person without offending him or her. One must not be rude or offensive. One must use proper words to convey something.

To sum up, politeness can be viewed as a social phenomenon, a means to achieve good interpersonal relationships and a norm imposed by social conventions; as it can be observed as a phenomenon in all cultures and it is recognized as a norm in all societies. To be polite, means to live up to a set of conventionalized norms of behavior.

3.0 The Politeness Maxims

Consequent upon the indispensability of politeness in human communication, scholars such as Leech (1983) proposed certain principles guiding (the use of) politeness in one’s communication. Leech proposed a series of maxims which explain how politeness operates in conversational exchanges. Below are the Leech’s maxims.

1. The Tact Maxim

The tact maxim applies to Searle’s directive and commissive categories of illocution, which refer, in their proportional content X, to some action to be performed, respectively, by the hearer or the speaker, (Leech, 1983, p. 107).

As in the following example:

(I) Peel these potatoes.

(ii) Hand me the newspaper.

(iii) Sit down.

(iv) Enjoy your holiday.

(v) Have another sandwich.

At some rather indeterminate point on this scale (depending on the context) the relevant value becomes ‘benefit to h’ rather than ‘cost to h’; but clearly, if we keep the imperative mood constant, there is a general increase in politeness (other factors being equal) between i and v. (Leech, 1983, p. 107-108).

2. The Generosity Maxim

Minimize benefit to self, maximize cost to self: Bilateralism means that in practice, there is little need to distinguish the ‘other-centered’ Maxim of Tact from the ‘self-centered’ Maxim of generosity. The asymmetry of (1) and (2) or of (3) and (4), for example, can be explained in terms of either of these maxims (leech, 1983, p. 133):

(1) You can lend me your car. (impolite)

(2) I can lend you my car.

(3) You must come and have dinner with us.

(4) We must come and have dinner with you. (impolite)

(Note: The dinner indicates that this utterance is markedly less acceptable, in terms of absolute politeness, than the utterance with which it is paired; remember that we are still concerned with absolute rather than relative politeness) (Leech, 1983, p. 133-134).

3. The Approbation Maxim

Minimize dispraise of other; Maximize praise of other. An unflattering Maxim’-but the term ‘flattery’ is generally reserved for insincere approbation. In this more important negative aspect, this maxim says ‘avoid saying unpleasant things about others, and more particularly about h’. hence, whereas a compliment such as “What a marvelous meal you cooked!” is highly valued according to the Approbation Maxim, “What an awful meal you cooked!” is not valued, (Leech, 1983, p. 135).

4. The modesty maxim

Minimize praise of self, Maximize dispraise of self: The modesty Maxim, like the other maxims of politeness, shows itself in asymmetries.

Example:

(i) A: They were so kind to us. B: Yes, they were, weren’t they?

(ii) A: You were so kind to us. B: Yes, I was, wasn’t I?

(iii) How stupid of me!

(iv) Please accept this small gift as a token of our esteem.

(v) Please accept this large gift as a token of our esteem.

As (i) shows, it is felicitous to agree with another’s commendation except when it is a commendation of oneself. Similarly, (iii) shows how self-dispraise is regarded as quite benign, even when it is exaggerated for comic effect. In (iv), the understatement of one’s generosity is shown to be quite normal, and indeed, conventional, in contrast to the exaggeration of one’s generosity. As (ii) and(v) illustrate, to break the first submaxim of modesty is to commit the social transgression of boasting (Leech, 1983, p. 136).

5. The agreement maxim

Like the maxim acceptance and humility maxim, maxim of compatibility is also expressed by the phrase expressive and assertive. There is a tendency to exaggerate agreement with other people and to mitigate disagreement by expressing regret, partial disagreement etc. Compare the rudeness of the reply in (i) and the replies in (ii) to (iv).

(i) A: Referendum will satisfy everybody.

B: Yes, definitely.

(ii) A: English language is difficult to learn.

B: True, but the grammar is quite easy.

(iii) A: The book is tremendously well written.

B: Yes, well written as a whole, but there are some rather boring patches, don’t you think?

6. The sympathy maxim

Sympathy maxim (in representatives): minimize antipathy between self and other; [maximize sympathy between self and other]. Maxim of sympathy requires every participant to maximize sympathy and minimize antipathy to the opponent. If your opponent says he finds success or happiness, speakers must give congratulations. When opponents say they are getting trouble or calamity, speakers should show mourning or express condolences as a sign of sympathy. Example:

(i) A: I’ve passed ENG 223.

B: Congratulations!

(ii) A: Uncle is dead.

 B: I’m sorry to hear that.

Discourses (i) and (ii) show politeness because the addressees each abided by the maxim of sympathy, that is, maximizing sympathy to addressee, (DewaPutu Wijana. 1996, p. 60).

4.0 Factors to Consider in Politeness

To achieve the goal of politeness, the following aspects should be considered. The social background of the communicator plays a fundamental role in his communication conduct. Thus, generally, the more educated an individual is, the more he tends to show his politeness to the addressees. The more he knows about the suitable ways to show politeness, the better he uses them to be polite to others. Also, the personality of the communicator is very important. Good-tempered person prefers to use “face-saving act” while bad-tempered person prefers “face-threatening act” when each comes across the “face-losing condition”.

According to the communicative circumstances, communication is a very complicated process. In formal occasions, people tend to use formal expressions to show politeness, especially between the new acquaintances; while in informal states, people tend to be casual to show intimacy even if it is in the very moment they first meet, and that does not mean impoliteness. Look at the following example:

A man went into a bar and said to the waiter: “Hi! Buddy!

Gimme some Whisky, would ya?”

Although they have never met before, the customer used very casual phrases to enclose their relationship. This is a usual way to show friendliness to strangers in similar entertaining places.

In situations of social distance or closeness, showing awareness for another person’s face when that of the other seems socially distant is often described in terms of respect or deference. Showing the equivalent awareness when the other is socially close is often described in terms of friendliness, camaraderie, or solidarity” (Yule, 1996).

But there are exceptions. For example, people often use family names to call their close friends, and when these people speak to each other, they will use direct offer or request. But sometimes they use very formal expressions in their speech.

Look at the following example (Husband to his wife):

“Would you be so kind as to hand the bread over to me?”

Surely here one knows that the wife has just quarreled with the husband and the husband is trying to amuse her in a certain way.

5.0 Utterances of Nigerian Politicians and the Political Atmosphere

From the above, it is quite clear that an individual’s choice of utterances is always guided by the principles of politeness to show positive self and positive other and thus create a peaceful and mutual coexistence. However, this is not usually the case with the utterances of some Nigerian politicians either in their campaign rallies or in interviews. For example, in the electioneering campaign that took place in 2015 candidates of the two strong political parties – APC and PDP – uttered expressions that seriously violated the established politeness maxims. Consider two texts below.

Text One:

 We will surely come out as a party to campaign. If anyone (opposition

 party members) feels he is a legitimate child, let him dare to stone us.

 (To his party members) If they tear our posters, you should tear theirs too in return. If you cannot protect yourselves, we are available to protect to you! (Alh. Muktar Ramalan Yero, Kaduna State Governor and PDP governorship candidate, 2015).

Text Two:

I do not dread (engaging in) conflict with anyone. If I know that I wrong you,

 I will apologise to you. But if you do not tell me what wrong I have done to you, … Go and ask Umaru Musa ‘Yar’adua (already late) or you ask Jonathan (i.e. then immediate past Nigerian president). Either of them had a clash with me and one, (now in the) grave; the other, (now in) Otuoke. (Malam Nasir El-Rufa’I, Governor of Kaduna State, 2017).

From the two texts above, one can discern that utterances of the politicians are capable of spurring rage among the populace, as each of them has generated different responses depending on their political inclinations; consequently, they have polarized the people along the different political leaders. Text One merely served to weaken members of the opposition party (APC) and raise the spirits of governor’s own party members to harass the opposition. Such utterance generated heated arguments between the citizens of Kaduna State and far beyond; one group defending the governor, and the other condemning him for the statement. Also, Text Two shows how inflammatory the utterances of politicians are, as such utterance had instigated scores of opinions across the state; some of which conclude that certainly there is an implication that the speaker is guilty of assassinating, or at least was an instrument to the death of, President Umaru Musa ‘Yar’adua.

5.1 Further Evidences and analysis of hate speech in Northern Nigeria

Political leaders in Nigeria use hate speech to divide and rule the people already divided alone ethnic and religious lines. Put simply, political leaders in Nigeria employ hate speeches in politicking and this incites coexisting ethnic and religious groups, thereby generating all forms of violence especially election related ones. 

The use of hate speech in Nigeria dates back to the pre independence era but the colonial administration used the big whip to manage its negative manifestation. After Nigeria‟s independence, the First Republic politicians employed hate speeches fiercely. This tendency helped in heating –up the polity for electoral violence, sectarian killings, military coups and civil war.

 Some of the earliest notable hate speeches credited to the First Republic politicians in Nigeria include the following:

1. The Igbo are too dominating, if you employ an Igbo man as a labourer, he will like to take over as foreman within a short while - Late Sardauna of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello

2. The God of Africa has created the Igbo nation to lead the children of Africa from bondage of ages – The first President of Nigeria, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe

3. Nnamdi Azikiwe‟s policy was to corrode the self respect of the Yoruba people as a group to build up the Igbos as a master race- Chief Obafemi Awolow (Seng, & Hunt, 1986).

In this paper, we present analyse on only ten (10) hate specches notable people from Northan Geo-Political Zone of Nigeria. This comprises of the following: 

1. Northwest -Jigawa, Kano, Katsina, Kaduna, Kebbi, Sokoto, and Zamfara states

2. North-Central-Benue, FCT, Kogi, Kwara, Niger and Plateau states

3. North-East-Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe states

5.1.1 Hate speeches in Northern Nigeria, 2010-2015 Electioneering Campaign

S/n	Year	Hate speaker	Hate speech	Sources
1	2010	The former Governor of the old Kaduna State, Alhaji Lawan Kaita	The North would make the country ungovernable if President Goodluck Jonathan wins the 2011 polls… Anything short of a Northern President is tantamount to stealing our presidency.	Jason, 2011 (See references)
2	2010	Shehu Sani, a Kaduna based civil rights activist	President Goodluck Jonathan should not contemplate contesting the 2011 presidential election. Any attempt by him to contest amounts to incitement and a recipe for political instability	www.nigerianbestf orum.com./shehu-sani-warnsjonathanAgainst contesting
3	2010	National Coordinator of the Coalition of Northern Politicians, Dr. Junaidu Mohammed	It must be a Northerner or no Nigeria… If Goodluck Jonathan wins the PDP‟s endorsement to contest the 2011 presidential election, there would be violence	Interview with Guardian Newspaper, 2nd November, 2010
4	2011	Presidential Candidate of Congress for Progressive Change, General Muhammadu Buhar	God willing, by 2015, something will happen. They either conduct a free and fair election or they go a very disgraceful way. If what happened in 2011 should again happen in 2015, by the grace of God, the dog and the baboon would all be soaked in blood	Reported by Luka Binniyat in Vanguard Newspaper on May 15th, 2012
5	2012	National Coordinator of the Coalition of Northern Politicians, Dr. Junaidu Mohamme	Unless efforts are made to ensure that the 2015 general election are free and fair, it may turn out to be the last election in the history of the nati	Leadership March 29, 2012
6	2013	National Coordinator of the Coalition of Northern Politicians, Dr. Junaidu Mohamme	There will be bloodshed. Those who feel short-changed may take the war path and the country may not be the same again	by Kemy Oguns in Osun Defender, 2nd December, 2013
7	2015	Abu King Shuluwa	Nigeria will disintegrate if Jonathan contests in 2015	Daily Independent Friday, March 8th , 2013
8	2013	Former Chairman of PDP, Colonel Ahmadu Ali (rtd)	The Yorubas are ungrateful kind of people, who do not appreciate what others have done for them	Sun Newspaper, March 16, 2
9	2014	Publicity Secretary of All Progressive Congress, Alhaji Lai Mohammed	If the 2015 elections are rigged, the party will not recognize the outcome and will go ahead and form a parallel government	Leadership 21st November, 2014; Sahara Reporters 22nd November, 2014
10	2014	Governor Shema Ibrahim of Kastina State	You should not be bordered with cockroaches of politics. Cockroaches are only found in the toilet even at homes, If you see cockroach in your house, Crush them	Reported by Premium Times 19th November, 2014

Sources: Christian C. E. (2015)

From the table above, it can be deduced that hate speech have had conseqential effects that resulted post electoral violence in 2011. Notably among Northern elites such as Alhaji Lawan Kaita, Shehu Sani and Dr. Junaidu Mohammed, especially since the year 2010 led to the 2011 post- election violence in Nigeria.

Further analysis reveals that, the utterance of Shema Ibrahim of Kastina State (An APC Chieftain) which referred to members of the opposition political party (Peoples Democratic Party, Labour Party and others) as cockroaches was one of the deadliest hate speeches in Nigeria. He encouraged members of his party to crush (kill) members of the opposition if they enter their territory. Shema Ibrahim examplied the popular hate speech in Rwanda, whereby the Hutus referred to the Tutsis as cockroaches and this led to the crushing (killing) of over 800,000 Tutsis within 100 days (Christian, 2015).

6.0 Conclusion

From the discussion above, it is clear that utterances of politicians in Nigeria are responsible for the present political atmosphere of tension, conflict and friction. To resolve these conflicts, politicians must prepare to make utterances that adhere to politeness principles, especially the approbation maxim in order to maximize the praise of other and minimize the praise of self. However, most, if not all, politicians today want to show positive self, negative other which is the major reason such impolite expressions are made by the politicians. Thus, to counter the situation the use of politeness principle should be realistically employed by the politicians, as politeness makes the user more popular, makes the audience to become friendlier towards him, one is more likable, there are less chances of developing enemies, and one develops an attractive personality, (http://www.paggu.com/personality-development/what-is-politeness/).

7.0 Recommendations

From the foregoing the following are found to be crucial:

As every Politian desires to build credibility to self, government and non-governmental organizations (both local and international) should educate all politicians to appreciate the fact that factors that help an individual to build credibility include expertise and competence, personal ethics and integrity, control of emotions, and development of professional image; as controlling of one’s emotion will certainly help one maintain credibility by showing that one acts reasonably, rationally, and respectfully in all situations 

Students at different levels of education (from secondary to tertiary level) should be trained to acquire adequate knowledge on the principles of politeness in order to prepare them for the political challenges ahead.

The constitution of Nigeria should state clearly the genre of language (political) leaders should use as they discharge their political rights and duties.

References

Abu King Shuluwa (2013 March 8th). Nigeria will disintegrate if Jonathan contests in 2015. Daily Independent.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language.

 Cambridge University Press.

Christain, C E. (2015). Hate speech and electoral violence in Nigeria. Two day national conference, –TEI- Abuja.

Deng, Y. et al. (1989). Language and culture. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Dewaputu, W. (1996). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatic. Longman.

Diyani, R. (2000). Approaches to fiction, poetry and drama. New York University.

Holmet, J. (1992). An Introduction to sociolinguistic. Longman.

Jason, R. (1991). Democracy and prebendal politics in Nigeria: The rise and fall of the second republic. Spectrum Books.

Kemy Oguns (2011 December 2nd). Dr. Junaidu Mohamme: “ there will be bloodshed”. Osun Defender online Newspaper, https://www.issuu.com.docsosundefender.org

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman, Linguistic Library.

Luka Binniyat (2011 May 15th). General Muhammadu Buhar “2015 will be bloody if........” Vanguard Newspaper. https://www.vanguardngr.com.cdn.ampproject.org

Rasaq, A (2010 November2nd). there will be violence. Guardians Newspaper. https://e-ajultmct;him.edu.my.com.

Sahara Reporters (2014) Alhaji Lai Mohammed: hours to election. http;//saharareporters.com Sahara Reporters 22nd November, 2014.

Seng, M and Hunt, H. (1986). The press and politics in Nigeria: A case study of developmental journalism. Boston College Third World Law Journal 6 (2): 85-110.

Yin, K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. The Guilford Press.

Yule, G. (1996). Personality development. Journal of English linguistics: http://www.paggu.com/personality- development/what-is-politeness/