Politeness across languages and cultures: A comparison between English and Norwegian

Essay by Flavia Di Luzio (LM) LCIS Matr. number: 0000576923 a.y. 2010/ 2011

“Politeness across languages and cultures: a comparison between English and Norwegian”

English Language ( 9 cfu ) Prof.ssa Mette Rudvin Prof.ssa Mariella Lorusso

1

SUMMARY

1) Preface ……………………………………………………………………………………. 3

2) What is politeness? …………………………………………………............................... 4

3) Politeness in English ………………………………………………................................11

4) Politeness in Norwegian ……………………………………………………………… 15

5) Practical examples …………………………………………………................................19

6) Conclusion ……………………………………………………….....................................21

7) Bibliography and sitography ………………………………………………………......22

2

“Politeness is the flower of humanity”. -Joseph Joubert

1. Preface

The aim of this work is to focus on the phenomenon of politeness in language, with particular attention to English and Norwegian. I must admit that before I had only a general idea about the meaning of the word “politeness” but now, thanks to the course of English Language Mediation I attended at University of Bologna two years ago, I understand how important politeness can be and how easily its role and value can change across languages and cultures. My intention is not only to talk about the definition and the theories of politeness, but to give practical examples, such as dialogues and schemes, that can help you to understand how the presence among the participants of different applications of politeness principle can affect communication also in everyday life. I have read books, articles and especially blogs about this topic, because I wanted to go beyond theory and comprehend what politeness really means for people, i.e. what is considered polite and what is considered rude and what kind of relationship exists between cultural background and politeness. I chose to analyse English and Norwegian because, even though there is not a too big cultural distance between the major English-speaking countries and Norway, I found some differences in the common idea of politeness English-speaking people and Norwegians have. Someone could ask, why focus on Norwegian? Well, I have studied this language for three years during my bachelor’s degree and sometimes I have also worked as a translator Norwegian – Italian and Norwegian – English. I visited Oslo six years ago and I was very surprised when some Italian and Spanish immigrants I met expressed their disappointment with the fact that “Norwegians are rude as they don’t talk to you on the street. They say never please”. It was probably due to the misunderstanding of Norwegian culture and character. In my opinion, local people were friendly and absolutely NOT rude, but I think that cultural awareness was a great point in my favour, because, before my journey, I already knew that Norwegian culture and way of life were something totally different if compared to the Southern European ones. 3

Finally, this essay wants to underline that politeness is not mere courtesy but a complex sociolinguistic phenomenon which deserves attention in any interaction with or without an interpreter.

2. What is politeness? The definition from the Collins English Dictionary1 for the word “politeness” is: “the quality of being polite ⇒ I do expect reasonable politeness and consideration. ‘out of politeness, If you say or do something out of politeness, you say or do it so that you do not offend somebody, and not because you really want to ⇒ She listened to him, but only out of politeness.”

Politeness is absolutely culture-bounded and culture-specific. It reflects not only a socio-cultural system but also important culture’s values, such as hospitality, or the importance of privacy (the latter particularly evident also in Northern European mentalities). Generally speaking, politeness strategies can include paraverbal acts such as offering and accepting food and gifts, or the use of particular verbal constructions (as we shall see later in chapter 4), even though it’s important to remember that what is considered polite in one culture can sometimes be quite rude or simply eccentric in another cultural context. Many linguists and sociolinguists such as Goffman, Brown, Levinson, Leech and some interpreting scholars have focused their attention on the role of politeness2. Ervin Goffmann introduced for the first time the concept of “face”, idiomatically meaning dignity/prestige, which plays a central role in Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson’s theory of politeness phenomena.

1

Consulted online: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/ Garzone, G., Rudvin, M., 2003, Domain-specific English and Language Mediation in a Professional and Institutional Setting, Arcipelago, Milano, p. 184. 2

4

This model includes three basic notions3:

 Face  Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs)  Politeness Strategies

“Face” is derived not only by Goffman’s work but also from the English folk perception of ‘being embarrassed or humiliated, or “losing face” (Brown & Levinson 1987:61, Goffman 1955,1967 in Bowe & Martin 2007: 27). Here this word refers to the desire that all people have to maintain and defend their own self-image and, according to Huang, it can be defined as the “sense of worth that comes from knowing one's status and reflects concern with the congruency between one's performance or appearance and one's real worth”4. From a sociological and sociolinguistic perspective face is also usually defined as “the negotiated public image, mutually granted each other by participants in a communicative event” and represents something attractive in communicative studies because it leaves open the question of who is the “real” person underneath the face presented in communication5. I found very interesting what Ron and Suzanne Wong Scollon say about “face”, which is defined as a paradoxical concept (Ibidem 2001: 46). In human interactions, in fact, we have a need to be involved with other participants and to show them our involvement but, on the other hand, we also need to maintain our independence from the others and to show them that we respect their independence. For this purpose we can “linguistic strategies of involvement” and “linguistic strategies of independence”, which can be expressed through various linguistic forms that I will analyse later in the chapter dedicated to politeness in English (Ibidem 2001: 46-7).

The second important notion of Brown and Levinson’s theory is the concept of “face-threatening acts (FTAs) (Bowe & Martin 2007: 28).

3

Bowe, H., Martin, K., 2007, Communication Across Cultures. Mutual Understanding in A Global World , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 27. 4 Huang, S., 1987, Two Studies of Prototype Semantics: Xiao “Filial Piety” and Mei Mianzi “Loss of Face”, Journal of Chinese Linguistics 15: p. 71. 5 Scollon, R., Wong Scollon S., 2001, Intercultural Communication (2° edition), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 456

5

Face is, in fact, “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 other's cooperation) in maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face”. According to Brown and Levinson (Brown & Levinson 1987:61 in Bowe & Martin 2007: 28-9), there are some acts which are implicitly “threatening to the face”, requiring softening. It’s for this purpose that language-users develop different politeness strategies to reduce the face loss which may result from an interaction which is face-threatening. Now it’s very important to make a distinction between the concepts of “positive face” and “negative face”: the former is “the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality, claimed by interactants”, the latter

is “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction – which

substantially is, to freedom of action and freedom from imposition. To sum up I can say that politeness has two principals functions: preserving a person’s positive selfimage and avoiding imposing on a person’s freedom. Brown and Levinson’s classification of “face-threatening acts” to follow:



Acts threatening to the Hearer’s Negative Face (freedom of action): e.g. ordering, advising, threatening, warning



Acts threatening to the Hearer’s Positive Face (self-image): e.g. complaining, criticizing, disagreeing, raising taboo topics



Acts threatening to the Speaker’s Negative Face (freedom of action): e.g. accepting an offer, accepting thanks



Acts threatening to the Speaker’s Positive Face (self-image): e.g. apologizing, accepting a compliment, confessing

It’s important to remember that these acts are closely related to various factors:

 the “Social Distance” between the Speaker and the Hearer (i.e. the presence of familiarity or solidarity between them which creates a symmetric relation)  the “Relative Power” of the Speaker with respect to the Hearer (i.e. the imposition exercised on the Hearer by the Speaker, which creates an asymmetric relation)  the “Absolute Ranking” of the imposition in a specific culture (i.e. the right of the Speaker to perform the act; and the degree to which the Hearer welcomes imposition). 6

This factors are linked also to the distinction among three politeness systems (Scollon, R. & Wong Scollon S., 2001: 54-6)

 the “Deference politeness system”, e.g. -symmetrical power (perception of being at the same social level); -distance, that is, every participant uses independence strategies speaking to the other  the “Solidarity politeness system” e.g. -symmetrical power (perception of being in equal social position); -close distance, that is the participants both use politeness strategies of involvement  the “Hierarchical politeness system” e.g. -asymmetrical power (perception of being in unequal social position); -asymmetrical in face strategies, that is, the “higher” uses involvement face strategies and the “lower” uses independence face strategies.

The third basic notion of the Brown and Levinson’s model is related to the choice of “Redress Strategies” (Brown & Levinson 1987: 76-9 in Bowe & Martin 2007: 30), when the imposition exercised is perceived as being face-threatening. Not all members of a given community are aware of the concept related to face and face-saving, on the contrary, they can acquire automatically polite ways of speaking and interacting as a result of social norms of communication, without understanding “the theory” which underpin them. The following scheme is a representation of possible politeness strategies (Ibidem 1987: 69-70 in Ibidem 2007: 31): Baldly – Without Redress

On-Record

 Do FTA

Positive Politeness

With Redress

Off-Record



Negative Politeness

Don’t Do FTA (If High face Risk to the participant)

7

The Do FTA-options are suitable for a relatively small imposition, while the Don’t do FTA are appropriate if the risk to face is high. Brown and Levinson provide the following explanation:

 “On-record”: when only one intention can be identified by the participants, e.g. “I promise that I will come back at 6 o’clock”.  “Off-record”: the avoidance of direct impositions, e.g. “I’m out of cash. I forgot to go to the back today”.  “Baldly, without redress”: it involves undertaking an act in the most direct, unambiguous and clear manner, e.g. “Go out” (“Do X!”)  “Redressive action”: it “gives face” to the Hearer and, in other words, the Speaker tries to repair any possible damage from the FTA by modifying their behavior, i.e. positive or negative politeness strategies.  “Positive politeness”: strategies addressed to the Hearer’s self-image (positive face), e.g. the Hearer is treated as a member of an in-group, a friend, a person whose wants and personality features are known and appreciated. Expressions of solidarity, informality and familiarity are often used (exaggerate interest in H, sympathize with H and avoid disagreement) – “ If you don't mind..." or "If it isn't too much trouble..."  “Negative politeness”: oriented towards H’s negative face, involving expressions of restraint, self-effacement and formality, e.g. being conventionally indirect, giving deference, using edges, apologizing for imposing – “ If you don't mind...”or “If it isn't too much trouble...”

Brown and Levinson’s model has formed the basis of much subsequent research conducted in different contexts and across cultures, but has meet also with criticism. This theory, in fact, has been criticized as not being universally valid, especially by linguists working with East-Asian languages (including Japanese), such as Matsumoto and Ide6. In their opinion Brown and Levinson’s model is based on the speaker's volitional use of language, which allows the Speaker's creative use of face-maintaining strategies toward the addressee, whereas, in East-Asian cultures like Japan, politeness is something totally different, based not on 6

Ide, S., 1989, Formal Forms and Discernment: Two Neglected Aspects of Universals of Linguistic Politeness, in Multilingua, 8: pp. 223-248.

8

volition or fixed social norms, but rather oriented towards the need for acknowledgment of the positions or roles of all the interactants and also for adherence to formality norms appropriate to the specific situation. In East-Asian cultures, in fact, what is more important, is “discernment” (called “wakimae” in Japanese), that is “the choice of linguistic forms or expressions in which the distinction between the ranks or the roles of the speaker, the referent and the addressee are systematically encoded”. In other words, “discernment” is the opposite to “volition”7.

I also would like to mention other theories of politeness, such as the model of “politeness maxims”, first introduced by Paul Grice and later developed by Geoffrey Leech. Grice introduces the “cooperative principle”, which describes how people normally behave in conversation and how effective communication in conversation is achieved in common social situations, underlining that Hearers and Speakers must speak cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way. The cooperative principle can be divided into four maxims, called the “Gricean maxims”, describing specific rational principles, that enable effective communication and that enable effective communication: “Quantity” (quantity of information), “Quality” (be truthful), “Relation” (be relevant) and “Manner” (be clear) (Bowe & Martin 2007: 32). Later Geoffrey Leech elaborated Grice’s model, including politeness maxims and a set of rules, which have the function to determine the degree of interaction between the maxims in a particular situation (Ibidem 2007: 33):

 “Tact Maxim”: minimise Hearer costs; maximise Hearer benefit, e.g. “Could I interrupt you for a second?”  “Generosity Maxim”: minimise your own benefit; maximise your Hearer’s benefit e.g. “You must come and have lunch with us.”  “Approbation Maxim”: minimise Hearer dispraise; maximise Hearer praise, e.g. “I saw you dancing with your friends last night. It seemed like you were enjoying yourself!”  “Modesty Maxim”: minimise self-praise; maximise self-dispraise, e.g. “Oh, I'm so stupid” 7

Mazzotta, P., 2007, Il ruolo della cortesia nella formazione della competenza interculturale, Studi di Glottodidattica 4: p. 19.

9

 “Agreement Maxim”: minimise disagreement between yourself and others; maximise, agreement between yourself and others, e.g. “I don't want you to go away, I want you to stay here”  “Sympathy Maxim”: minimise antipathy between yourself and others; maximise sympathy between yourself and others, e.g. “I am so sorry to hear about your mother”

As I wrote before, it’s important to remember that these maxims vary from culture to culture: what may be considered polite in one culture may be strange or downright rude in another. Finally I want to write about an interesting study of politeness in court interpreting, “The Bilingual Courtroom” which was conducted by Susan Berk-Seligson. The aim of Berk-Seligson’s work is to show that interpreter-mediated politeness (including eventual politeness-markers added by the interpreter in test cases with mock jurors) in the courtroom affects jurors’ evaluations (Berk-Seligson, 1990: 166 in Garzone & Rudvin, 2003: 184) She found, in fact, that interpreters tend to add frequently politeness-markers, therefore increasing the general level of politeness8. It’s important to underline that Berk-Seligson focused her attention especially on English and Spanish, so it’s not possible to apply her findings automatically to all language/culture pairs, since courtesy/politeness is different in every culture and might have different functions (Berk-Seligson, 1990: 166 in Garzone & Rudvin, 2003: 184). But now, after having talked about theories of politeness, I would like to focus my attention on the real topic of this essay, that is the concept and forms of politeness in English and Norwegian.

8

Berk-Seligson, 1990 in Hale, S., 2007, Community Interpreting, MacMillan, Houndmills Basingstoke

10

3. Politeness in English In English, as in many other languages, there are different techniques to show politeness:

 Expressing uncertainty and ambiguity through hedging and indirectness.  Polite lying  Use of euphemisms (which make use of ambiguity as well as connotation)  Preferring tag questions to direct statements, such as “You ate chocolate, didn't you?”  Modal tags request information of which the speaker is uncertain. “You didn't go to the supermarket yet, did you?”  Affective tags indicate concern for the listener. “You haven't been in England long, have you?”  Softeners reduce the force of what would be a brusque demand. “Hand me that book, could you?”  Facilitative tags invite the addressee to comment on the request being made. “You can do everything, can't you?”

As I wrote before, when we communicate we have a need to be involved with other participants and to show them our involvement but we also need to maintain our independence from the others and to show them that we respect their independence. For this purpose we can identify “linguistic strategies of involvement” and “linguistic strategies of independence”, which are widely used in English (Scollon & Wong Scollon 2001: 50-1).

Examples of English “linguistic strategies of involvement”:

 Notice or attend to H – “I like your dress.”  Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H) – “You’re always so sweet!”  Claim in-group membership with H – “All of them there at school...”  Be optimistic – “I think we should be able to graduate this year.”  Indicate S knows H’s wants and is taking them into account – “I’m sure you’ll like that.”  Assume or assert reciprocity – “I know you want to do well at school as much as I want you to do well.” 11

 Use given names and nicknames – “Stevie, can you come here?”  Be voluble.  Use H’s language or dialect.

Examples of English “linguistic strategies of indipendence”:

 Make minimal assumptions about H’s wants – “I don’t know if you will like it.”  Give H the option not to do the act – “It would be nice to have dinner together, but I am sure you are very busy at the moment.”  Minimise threat: “I just need to borrow a little piece of paper, any scrap will do.”  Apologize: “I’m sorry to touble you, could you tell me the time?”  Be pessimistic: “I don’t suppose you’d know where that place is, would you?”  Dissociate S, H from the discourse: “This is to inform our students that…”  State a general rule: “Company regulations require an examination…”  Use family names and titles – “Mr. Smith, there’s a phone call for you.”  Be taciturn  Use own language or dialect

As we can see, politeness is something complex that can be expressed in many ways and that is closely connected to our need of involvement and independence in the interaction. Time ago I read an interesting article9 written by an English teacher, who told that she always spend a lot of time with her students explaining them polite formulaic phrases, which are very common especially in British English, such as “would you mind…”, “could you possibly…”, “that’s very kind of you”. According to a piece published last year on the BBC website, if a British person says “we must meet up for coffee”, he/she probably doesn't want to see you again, and if you receive a reply to a job application saying “we'll keep your letter on file and let you know if any suitable openings occur”, you can forget any chance of a job at that company. Someone can tell you with a smile that “your English is somewhat unusual”, meaning that it is really bad, or, if you say something stupid, a common reply can be “I agree up to a point”.

9

http://virtuallinguist.typepad.com/the_virtual_linguist/2011/05/politeness-in-british-english.html

12

Expressions, such as “I’m afraid…”, “How strange…” and “I’m sorry, but…” often indicate a negative judgment. As we can see, British people are more indirect (the famous “British indirectness”), and roundabout in what they say, particularly when making a request, and they also tend to temper bad news, even when there is a major problem,

e.g. -“There seem to be one or two issues here.” -“Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.” (comment made by the captain of a British Airways flight which flew through a cloud of volcanic ash over Indonesia in 1982).

In British English we can notice that politeness is expressed especially through principles of “negative politeness”, avoiding the use of direct forms, such as imperative (which could be seen as a direct imposition), and using “not” with positive words (“not very convenient”) and in verbal forms (“wouldn’t it be better if…”)10. We can also notice that there are linguistic mechanisms, such as “hedging” and “cushioning”, which have the function to reduce the impact of a potentially unpleasant communication: e.g. “you must forgive me, but I was wondering if…” (Ibidem). This manner of speaking is obviously very well if you are familiar with it and you are able to understand the real meaning of these expressions, but it can cause misunderstandings in multinational work environments, i.e. when BMW took over the British car manufacturer Rover, they did not realise for a while just how serious some problems were as the British managers talked in euphemisms which played down the difficulties. The following table, presented as an “Anglo-EU Translation Guide”, is a joke attributed to "the Dutch, trying to do business with the British" (Ibidem):

What the British say

What the British mean

What others understand

I hear what you say

I disagree and do not want to discuss it further

He accepts my point of view

With the greatest respect…

I think you are an idiot

He is listening to me

That's not bad

That's good

That's poor

10

http://blog.terminologiaetc.it/2011/06/01/cortesia-negativa-in-inglese/

13

That is a very brave proposal You are insane

He thinks I have courage

Quite good

A bit disappointing

Quite good

I would suggest…

Do it or be prepared to justify yourself

Think about the idea, but do what you like

Oh, incidentally/ by the way

The primary purpose of our discussion is…

That is not very important

I was a bit disappointed that

I am annoyed that

It really doesn't matter

Very interesting

That is clearly nonsense

They are impressed

I'll bear it in mind

I've forgotten it already

They will probably do it

I'm sure it's my fault

It's your fault

Why do they think it was their fault?

You must come for dinner

It's not an invitation, I'm just being I will get an invitation soon polite

I almost agree

I don't agree at all

He's not far from agreement

I only have a few minor comments

Please re-write completely

He has found a few typos

Could we consider some other options

I don't like your idea

They have not yet decided

Correct me if I'm wrong

I'm right, don't contradict me

I may be wrong, please let me know

Up to a point

Not in the slightest

Partially

Generally speaking, if your native language is Norwegian, German, Dutch, Russian or many others, if you translate word for word into English, you will probably sound rude to a Brit. British people tend to use frequently “small talk”, those little phrases so familiar to the British about the weather or a person's general well-being, which are not very common in other languages11. The purpose of “small talk” is not to add information, but to perform some social function, such as making people feel good: in academic language it’s a matter of “phatic” conversation. Concerning this fact, I would like to mention an interesting interaction taken from the book “A Bear called Paddington”: “Hello Mrs Bird,” said Judy. “It's nice to see you again. How's the rheumatism?” “Worse than it's ever been” began Mrs. Bird.

11

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13545386

14

“It's nice to see you again” is clearly an example of typical English “small talk”, not present in the foreign versions of the book. British people have the so called “etiquette of simulation”, feigning an interest in someone and simulating concern: for them it just means lubricating social life (Ibidem). This doesn’t mean that they are more polite than others, they simply have a different idea of politeness and different ways to express it.

4. Politeness in Norwegian We could think that Norwegian and British cultures are not very distant, but there are many differences in the way they express politeness. Foreigners visiting Norway may think that Norwegians are not overly polite and correct but it is not true, they simply have another idea of politeness. Norway is generally a very liberal country, and you will come a long way by just using common sense. Norwegians don’t say “please” (there is not a similar word in Norwegian) after every single word they say, and they don’t even say “enjoy” to their friends before lunch or dinner12. The use of the polite form of “you” (“De”), “your” (“Deres”) and “yours” (“Deres”) is not common, even though it does exists13. The polite forms are used less and less in modern Norwegian, although in some contexts it is still most natural to use them, especially for older people – for example to older strangers and in business correspondence (Ibidem, 2005: 104),

e.g. Kjøpmannen: “Kan jeg hjelpe Dem med noe?” (The shopkeeper: “Can I help you with anything? ”) Politiet: “Hvor bor De?” (The police: “Where do you live?”) Til en fremmed: “Er det Deres hatt?” (To a stranger: “Is this your hat?”)

A verb which is commonly used to show politeness is “å få”(“to get/receive”),

12 13

http://randomthoughtsonnorway.blogspot.it/2008/05/norwegian-politeness.html Strandskogen, Å., Strandskogen R., 2005, Norwegian. An Essential Grammar, Routledge, Abingdon, p. 103.

15

e.g. “Får jeg komme inn?” (“May I come in?”) “Kan jeg få snakke med Kari?” (“May I speak to Kari?”) “Du kan få lov til å spise hele kaken” (“You have permission to eat the whole cake”)14

We can say that Norwegian politeness consists more in being friendly with people than in correctness and Norwegians often think that there is nothing ruder than people being very correct and at the same time very unfriendly, like Germans telling you off in very correct language, or a Frenchman insulting you and at the same time being sure to use the polite vous-form. If you ask someone “how do you say “please” in Norwegian”, he/she will answer “you don’t!”, because if you use the form “can you” (“kan du”), it’s already considered polite enough , and the “please” wouldn’t be necessary. 15 An English sentence like “bring me an apple, please” would be sound to a Norwegian less polite than just “can you bring me an apple?” Probably it has something to do with the phrase being formed as a question that gives you a choice, and not as a command. In Norwegian we can also find polite expressions, such as “Takk for sist” (“Thanks for the last time we were together”), “Takk for maten” (“Thanks for food”) or “Ble du mett?”, used to show the concern when one is invited over as a guest for dinner. Sometimes “takk” can correspond to “please”: e.g. “Ja takk” (“Yes please”)16. In Norwegian using just the imperative can easily sound rude, so a more polite alternative is to use Vil du/De + a bare infinitive:

e.g. “Vil du lukke døren?” (“Will you please close the door?”) and if you want to make a good impression you can say: e.g. “Vil du/De være så snill å lukke døren?” (“Will you please be so kind as to shut the door?”) (Ibidem 2003: 75)

14

Danbolt Simons M., 2004, Teach yourself Norwegian, Cox & Wyman, Reading, p. 144. http://randomthoughtsonnorway.blogspot.it/2008/05/norwegian-politeness.html 16 Bråtveit K., Glyn Jones, W., Gade, K., 2003, Colloquial Norwegian. The Complete Course for Beginners, Routledge, Abingdon, p. 13. 15

16

A form mainly used in casual talk among people who know each other is: e.g. “Gidder du lukke døren?” (“Would you mind shutting the door?”) “Gidder du hjelpe meg med oppvasken?” (“Would you give me a hand with the washing up?”) (Ibidem 2003: 78) I read an interesting blog17 which talks about Norwegian politeness and I also found

many

interesting points. The core of Norwegian politeness is saying something with as little fuss as possible, remembering that Norwegians are a people of few words that mean a lot. In English, to be polite when you meet a friend you would sat “Hi, How are you? I haven’t seen you in ages. You’re looking well. Lost a bit of weight, have you?”, but in Norwegian to mean the same thing all you need to say is the already mentioned “Hei! Takk for sist!” (“Hi! Thanks for the last time we met.”) It is short, simple and straight to the point. Culturally speaking, over the centuries Norwegians have developed a habit of passing each other in the street without a glance. This may seem rude to non-Norwegians however, even though it’s simply practical. If you meet a friend in the city it would be considered very silly to stop and have a conversation when it is below freezing temperatures, snowing and blowing a gale; shaking hands with thermal gloves, nodding your head in your thick heavy hood and smiling behind your scarf can all be missed by even the canniest of body language watchers. So everyone in Norway have collectively agreed that the best way to handle the situation is to save it for a more appropriate time. It’s important to keep in mind that Norwegians tend to be reserved and relatively introvert. This is not a sign of hostility, it's just the common practice: when on a bus, most people would elect to sit down at an empty seat, rather than beside someone else.). Foreigners should be prepared to take the initiative when creating relations, but at the same time they should be polite and discrete. Norwegian also tend to express strong opinions, especially on foreign countries politics. Visiting Norway, we should also be prepared for egalitarian principles: never treat people differently based on wealth or other factors. We should be equally polite towards women as we would towards men, as well as children.

17

http://mylittlenorway.com/2009/11/norway-is-a-small-town/

17

In my opinion this passage is clarifying (Ibidem):

“When you live in a Norwegian city long enough (I’ve been in Tromsø for two years now) you get to know a fair amount of people. But not just ordinary people, people who have seen you at your most vulnerable – doctors, nurses, midwives, dentists, gynaecologists, microbiologists, physiologists etc. People who have seen you inside out or who know your embarrassing secrets. While shoe shopping I saw my family doctor. Because of doctor-patient confidence it is awkward if a doctor comes up to you at the shops and says ‘Hi, L-Jay. How’s that gangrene coming along?’ What else does a doctor know about you other than your medical problems? So to save both of you the trauma of the conversation we ignore each other. That’s perfectly fine with me, and that seems to be perfectly fine with everyone else. So since Norwegian culture has good reason to exclude ‘polite chit-chat’ with friends, neighbours, acquaintances etc. you are welcome to ignore them too. Of course, this ‘ignorance’ is not strict protocol in Norway. If you say ‘hi’ to someone out of the blue they will likely smile, or even say ‘hi’ back but don’t get offended if you don’t even get a nod as no reaction could possibly be the most considerate politeness of all.”

I want to point out that people who have a strong culture of community are generally the ones who suffer the Norwegian culture most and always have something to say about a Norwegian’s “coldness”. Just because some foreigners don’t like the way the Norwegian culture behaves doesn’t mean it is wrong, it is just different. As written by another blogger (Ibidem), “Norway developed differently. Geography, emigration and generally low carrying capacity ensured that the population density remained low until modern times, when roads, tunnels and modern communications thrust people into closer contact than the culture was adapted to. Norwegians have responded with increasing the importance of giving each other space, and not imposing. This is even more pronounced in larger towns and cities, where the culturally unnatural closeness is at the greatest.” The personal space in Norway is, in fact, generally larger than most other places18.

18

http://www.wikihow.com/Be-Polite-in-Norway

18

You should never express your own opinion unless the same opinion has already been expressed by the majority in the room, at least not until you get the hang of the social crowd. Norwegians, in fact, tend to shy away from people who express opinions they disagree with. To sum up, we can say that Norwegians are certainly not impolite, they are genuine when they are polite and they are polite when it really counts.

5. Practical examples

After this “journey” across politeness, I want to give practical examples of language mediation English – Norwegian – English.

An American tourist walks into a bank in Norway (Bråtveit, Glyn Jones & Gade, 2003: 26) T = Tourist B = Bank clerk I = Interpreter

T: Could I change some American dollars? I: Kan jeg få veksle noen amerikanske dollar? B: Ja, hvor mange? I: Yes, how many? T: A hundred. I: Hundre. B: Ja, det er i orden. I: Yes, that’s ok. T: What is the exchange rate today? I: Hva er kursen idag? B: Det vet jeg ikke. La meg se.

Another foreigner is in a Norwegian bank (Ibidem 2003: 26) T = Tourist B = Bank clerk 19

I = Interpreter

T: Could you cash a traveller’s cheque for me? I: Kan De løse inn en reisesjekk for meg? B: Ja, har De passet Deres med? I: Yes, have you got your passport with you? T: No, unfortunately. I: Nei dessverre. B: Førekortet Deres? I: Your driving licence? T: Yes. Here is my driving licence. I: Ja. Here er førekortet mitt. B: Fint. Vil De skrive under her? I: Fine. Would you sign here, please? T: Yes. – There you are. I: Ja – Ja, vær så god. At the Doctor’s19 John is English and he’s in Norway with his family. Unluckily he’s sick and his family decided to call the Doctor. In this case, a hotel clerk, who also works as an interpreter, mediate the interaction between the patient and the Doctor. J: John D: Doctor I: Interpreter

D: God morgen, hva feiler det met ham? I: John, the Doctor wants to know what’s wrong with you? J: I have a headache, a fever and I feel sick. I: Han har hodepine, feber og føler seg kvalm. D: Hvor gammel er han? I: How old are you? J: I’m 16. 19

Ellingsen, E., Mac Donald K., 2003, Norsk på en-to-tre, Cappelen Damm, Oslo, p. 155.

20

I: 16 år. D: Kan han bøye nakken uten problemer? I: Can you bend the back of your head easily? J: Yes, it’s ok. I: Ja, det går bra. D: Da tror jeg at han har en valing influensa. Det har mange akkurat nå. Han kan prøve å ta noe å drikke og en febernedsettende tablett. Hvis han blir verre i løpet av kvelden, må han ringe tilbake. I: The Doctor thinks that you have a common flu. Many people are sick at the moment. You should drink something and take a fever reducer tablet. If you’ll get worse during the evening, you can call back. J: I’ll do it. I: Det skal han gjøre.

6. Conclusion After this “journey” across languages and cultures, I can say that this work was very interesting and constructive for me because it opened me new horizons and, through this essay, I had the opportunity to understand what politeness really is and how many expressions of it exist in our world. At first I thought that politeness was mere courtesy but I finally understood that it is a very complex phenomenon which plays a central role in our lives. As a student of English and Norwegian, I think that a comparative analysis was the right choice because it gave me the possibility to understand better both English (especially British) and Norwegian culture. I chose to read not only academic books and articles but also blogs, because it helped me to understand what is the common idea of politeness “normal” people have and what are the different ways they show politeness when communicating with other people. Finally I can say that this essay allowed me to reflect on how careful we must all be when judging negatively other people’s behaviour and manners and thinking we have right on our side20. In my opinion it’s positive that every culture and language has its specific idea and application of politeness (even though sometimes it can have negative consequences), since I do think there can be 20

Holliday, A., Hyde, M., Kullman, J., 2010, Intercultural Communication (2° edition), Routledge, Abingdon, p. 33.

21

an “unity without uniformity and diversity without fragmentation" and I totally agree with what the Anglo-Irish writer and poet Oliver Goldsmith says: “ceremonies are different in every country, but true politeness is everywhere the same”21.

7. Bibliography and sitography

 Bowe, H., Martin, K., 2007, Communication Across Cultures. Mutual Understanding in A Global World , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge  Bråtveit K., Glyn Jones, W., Gade, K., 2003, Colloquial Norwegian. The Complete Course for Beginners, Routledge, Abingdon  Danbolt Simons M., 2004, Teach yourself Norwegian, Cox & Wyman, Reading  Ellingsen, E., Mac Donald K., 2003, Norsk på en-to-tre, Cappelen Damm, Oslo  Garzone, G., Rudvin, M., 2003, Domain-specific English and Language Mediation in a Professional and Institutional Setting, Arcipelago, Milano  Hale, S., 2007, Community Interpreting, MacMillan, Houndmills Basingstoke  Holliday, A., Hyde, M., Kullman, J., 2010, Intercultural Communication (2° edition), Routledge, Abingdon  Huang, S., 1987, Two Studies of Prototype Semantics: Xiao “Filial Piety” and Mei Mianzi “Loss of Face”, Journal of Chinese Linguistics 15: pp. 55-89.  Ide, S., 1989, Formal Forms and Discernment: Two Neglected Aspects of Universals of Linguistic Politeness, in Multilingua, 8: pp. 223-248.  Mazzotta, P., 2007, Il ruolo della cortesia nella formazione della competenza interculturale, Studi di Glottodidattica 4: pp. 71-89.  Rudvin, M., 2005, Politeness Strategies in Cross-cultural Settings. Negotiating linguistic identities in interpreter-mediated communication for public services, 9th International Pragmatics Conference at Riva del Garda, Italy, 10-15 July  Scollon, R., Wong Scollon S., 2001, Intercultural Communication (2° edition), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

21

From the book: The Works of Oliver Goldsmith: The Citizen of the World. Polite Learning in Europe. - V. 4. Biographies. Criticisms. Later Collected Essays

22

 Strandskogen, Å., Strandskogen R., 2005, Norwegian. An Essential Grammar, Routledge, Abingdon  Collins Dictionary, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/  How to Be Polite in Norway, http://www.wikihow.com/Be-Polite-in-Norway  L’inglese, una “lingua educata”, http://blog.terminologiaetc.it/2011/06/01/cortesia-negativa-in-inglese/  Norway is a Small Town, http://mylittlenorway.com/2009/11/norway-is-a-small-town/  Norwegian "politeness", http://randomthoughtsonnorway.blogspot.it/2008/05/norwegian-politeness.html  Norwegian vs British Culture, http://quintessentiallyburrows.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/britishculture/  Politeness in British English, http://virtuallinguist.typepad.com/the_virtual_linguist/2011/05/politeness-in-britishenglish.html  What Paddington tells us about German v British manners, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13545386

23