�Yò�Z(y��)�ÌW(xu��) ��(ji��)�x

������ţ�����(hu��)�Z(y��)�ԌW(xu��)�������Yò�Z(y��)�ÌW(xu��)��������Gu's reworking of my Generosity Maxim opened my eyes to a fiaw in the 1983 model; also his Balance Principle�� which recognizes the important element of balance or equilibrium underlying mutual politeness�� needs to be recognized as an essential component of why people are polite. Other writers�� such as Watts and Spencer-Oatey�� also recognize this����The idea that politeness is normative comes out particularly strongly in the conversational contract view of Fraser and Nolen�� but it is also an essential feature of other models�� including my own. As I see it�� the nature of sociopragmatic politeness ��as opposed to pragrnalinguistic politeness�� involves convergence on�� or divergence from�� a norm of what is regarded as appropriately polite for a given set of situational parameters The normative nature of politeness has been questioned by Eelen ��2001���� because it appears to make the exercise of politeness an impediment to the individual's freedom of behavior. However�� awareness of a norm does not compel obedience to a norm. Certainly a norm is not to be seen as some kind of superimposed restriction on behavior. Empirically�� I see no problem in recognizing the existence of statistically observable politeness norms ��as shown�� for example�� by convergent responses to discourse completion tasks and multiple choice questionnaires"�� as a background against which individual performances can deviate Moreover�� we carry around with us some contextually tunable sense of what is normal politeness as part of our social-co8:nitive response to communicative situations When the comment is made that a person is "very polite��" or "a little bit rude��" and so on�� we are implicitly acknowledging; such a norm�� from which individuals' behavior can deviate in a positive or negative direction.����Arndt and Janney lay great store on the responsiveness of the whole person in politeness; for them�� the purely linguistic aspect of politeness must be integrated with other components of interpersonal emotive communication�� including prosody�� paralinguistics�� gesture�� eye gaze�� kinesics�� and proxemics. I recognize the importance of these additional channels of communication�� and in fact it has often been commented that the nonlinguistic channels may be more important for impressions of politeness than the actual words said. At the same time�� I have to admit that little space in this book will be devoted to these features�� which demand a rather different research paradigm. My two excuses for largely omitting nonlinguistic and prosodic aspects of politeness are that my research endeavor does not extend beyond the linguistic�� and that the corpora I have mainly used for examples do not provide paralinguistic or prosodic information. On the other hand�� Arndt and Janney's characterization of politeness in terms of supportiveness is something I find compatible with my General Strategy of Politeness ��GSP; 4.3���� which identifies politeness with the assigning of high value to the other person's concerns and Iow value to one's own. Indeed�� the two ideas are very closely associated: being supportive means giving compatbetic support-something of value-to another person. Amdt and Janney's approach in particular highlights the importance of one of the constituent maxims of the GSP: the Sympathy Maxim�� which focuses especially on the goal of identifying one's own feelings with the feelings of the other.����Ideals distinction between Discernment and Volition as two types of politeness�� the former more associated with Eastern cultures and the latter with Western cultures�� corresponds in essence to my distinction between bivalent and trivalent politeness ��1.2.1���� the former being richly developed in languages such as Japanese that have elaborate honorific systems�� I also see these bivalent and trivalent conceptions of politeness as leaning respectively toward a sociolinguistic domain and a pragmatic one. As opposed to pragmatics�� sociolinguistics tends to deal with variables that are relatively stable across time ��Thomas 1995: 185-187��: variables such as the gender�� age�� social networks�� and social relations as measured according to B&L's P and D factors Hence bivalent politeness ��"discernment"���� with its social indexing function�� belongs here rather than to pragmatics. On the other hand�� trivalent politeness ��"volition"���� dealing with dynanuc 8oal-driven communicative behavior�� belongs more to pragmatics The goal-driven nature of trivalent politeness is likely to vary from one encounter to another�� depending on the individual goals�� as well as social goals�� adopted by S. However�� the two politenesses are not separate�� and honorific usage can interact dynamically with context�� as has been shown for Japanese����by Okamoto ��1999��.��������