







































AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

63                  Ezenwa-Ohaeto & Umelo 

POLITENESS MAXIMS AND VERBAL VIOLENCE IN FAMILIES: A STUDY OF 

EMEKUKU OWERRI NORTH, IMO STATE 

 

Professor Ngozi Ezenwa-Ohaeto 

Department of English Language and Literature 

Faculty of Arts, 

Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka. 

& 

 Ngozi Jovita N. Umelo 

njovic59@yahoo.com 

 

Abstract 

The study examined politeness maxims and verbal violence in families’ language use. The 

jeopardy of verbal violence in families against politeness maxims was discussed. The study 

hinged on Brown and Levinson (1978/1987) politeness theory and Leech (1983) politeness 

maxims. The method of data collection used are; two research instruments- questionnaire and 

observations. The study adopted a quantitative research design of the simple percentage for 

data analysis. Ten families were randomly visited to obtain data from the members. It was 

revealed that fourteen (14) out of the twenty-eight (28) participants were not aware of 

politeness maxims or its stipulations nor verbal violence and its implications. Also, the result 

proved ignorance of politeness maxims stipulations made speakers to use verbal violence as 

normal and acceptable language of rebuke or correction. Therefore, the study recommended 

that interactants should apply the stipulations of politeness maxims in conversations in the 

family so as to shun the menace of verbal violence. Again, the use of polite 

expressions/courteous utterances in family interactions enhanced self-confidence and good 

interpersonal relationships among interactants.     

Key words: politeness maxims, verbal violence, families, language use 

 

Introduction 

The essence of communication is largely dependent on the existence of language. Language is 

used to create, form, destroy or damage one’s well-being within the family and the society at 

large. Words are powerful tools that can either lift an addressee up or tear him/her down. 

Through language, feelings/emotions, ideologies, desires, questions etc are communicated. 

O’Grady, Archibald and Katamba (1) opine that “words can be used to achieve various ends; 

language is at the heart of all things human”. Words that are being spoken do not just have an 

effect but how the words are spoken, the tone of voice, the facial expressions and body language 

all play a part in the message that is being conveyed to that individual (Brennan and Lane as 

cited in Thomason, 13). So much of what keeps the family together or broken rests hugely on 

language use and meaning. 

The family stands as a microcosm of a nation. Language use and communication plays great 

role in family. The family ought to be a place where members feel loved and accepted the way 

they are. Mckay (219) emphasizing the importance of communication in family relationship 

asserts that “a family with chronic poor communication becomes a pressure cooker”. Each 

member is vulnerable to emotional devastation. The children especially are susceptible to a 

range of physical and psychological symptoms. Families get into trouble when members are 

prohibited from expressing certain feelings, needs or awareness. The family as a unit is meant 

to create awareness, inculcate in the children the dynamics of conflicts and the promotion of 

peace making skills in homes as a necessary channel of socialization (Gumut, 116). Therefore, 

a family with chronic poor communication resorts to verbal violence. 

 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

64                  Ezenwa-Ohaeto & Umelo 

Verbal violence entails the use of profane, dehumanizing and insulting language to cause 

emotional pain or distress on others. It is an act of hate speech, criticism, swearing, curses, 

coercion and teasing of a person who is in control of other (Lepper, 65-67). Living free is a 

fundamental development aspiration. It is an objective that has thus far received comparative 

limited attention in human development issues. Verbal violence creates fear in human 

development especially in a family. Kembe (14) corroborates that verbal violence is a salient 

aspect of domestic violence that has not received much publicity. Although, it is not physical 

in nature, does not leave visible bruises yet it is damaging and can leave individual with lasting 

adverse emotional scars for life. Family interactions that are embellished with verbal violence 

depict lack of politeness maxims and do more harm than good. 

 

Statement of the Problem 

Language use in the family is crucial for personality formation and perception. Polite 

expressions during family conversation keep interaction smooth and maintain the face-value 

of interactants. Politeness maxims are principles stated to enhance interactions for social 

relationships but most language users in the family are not aware of this. Because language use 

in the family is common therefore, it lacks appropriate linguistic tokens that promote 

consideration and solidarity among interactants. Due to lack of knowledge of politeness 

maxims, speakers in the family deploy verbal violence which is demeaning and destructive on 

the addressee. Again, verbal violence contradicts politeness maxims in that its stipulations are 

violated in the cause of interaction and that results to face-threat, anger, anxiety, low self-

esteem, depression, animosity and so on. 

 

Again, many studies abound on physical violence, domestic violence and sexual violence but 

just few on verbal violence and politeness maxims. Therefore, it is the intent of this study to 

expose the damage inherent in the violation of politeness maxims particularly in family sphere. 

 

Purpose of the Study 

The main purpose of this study is to create awareness to language users in the family about the 

effectiveness and benefits of politeness maxims for better flow of conversations among family 

members for quality family relationship. 

 

Research Questions: The following research questions are formulated to guide this study: 

• What are politeness maxims and their stipulations? 

• How do speakers at family level perceive verbal violence and what are the 

implications on the victims? 

• How has verbal violence promoted or demoted self-confidence and love on 

addressees in the family? 

 

Conceptual Clarifications 

The manner in which utterances are presented in conversational situations can enhance or 

breach conversation depending on how speakers utilize politeness principles in the process of 

interaction and how the addressee reacts to such tokens. Politeness is a social deixis which 

expresses a high degree of solidarity between the speaker and the addressee. As a socialization 

process which begins from the family, all adult members learn how to behave politely, 

linguistically and otherwise. Hence, politeness has not been borne as instinctive but it is a 

phenomenon which has been constructed through socio-cultural and historical processes 

(O’Grady, Archibald and Katamba, 230). Mills (6) aver that “politeness is the expression of 

the speaker’s intention to mitigate face threat carried by certain face-threatening acts towards 

another”. Yule (135) posits that politeness is seen as showing awareness and consideration of 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

65                  Ezenwa-Ohaeto & Umelo 

another person’s face. Leech on his part, posits that politeness aids to establish and maintain 

mutual respect among interactants (128). Brown and Levinson (49) equally maintain that 

politeness helps interactants to minimize the imposition caused by a face threatening act. While 

Watts (156) views politeness as a social behavior that helps to maintain the equilibrium of 

interpersonal relationships within a social group. Again, Lakoff (178) lists other functions of 

politeness as thus: 

1. The appropriate use of politeness defines an individual as competent, benevolent and 

worthy of trust. 

2. Politeness is used to decide whether others are in or out socially; a basis on which to 

reward the good (the polite) and punish the bad (impolite). 

3. Politeness is a tool by which societies maximize and legitimize gender distinction and 

define appropriate gender rules and roles. 

 

Generally, individuals who engage in conversations are required to show a degree of politeness 

among them. Interactants are expected to show a level of social and linguistic considerations 

in interactions. Such considerations for the conversational needs of others have been termed 

polite behaviours. Politeness according to Grundy (187) is seen as the exercise of language 

choice to create a context intended to match/suit the addressee’s notion of how he or she should 

be addressed. Therefore, in agreement with other scholars, this study assumes that politeness 

implies enhancing and maintaining the face-worth of interactants in conversational situation. 

 

To maintain and balance social relation among interactants, certain degree of consideration is 

needed. Thus, Brown and Levinson (61) are of the view that in positive politeness, the speaker 

and the addressee have the same needs and the speaker indicates that to the addressee. Since 

politeness is a social phenomenon, its domain is beyond verbal choices but in co-operates 

behaviour and non-verbal mode that is wordless cues. For instance, when one offers her seat 

for another or bows in greeting, it is a sign of politeness but verbal violence is contradictory. 

 

Verbal violence is a form of communication that is known to have destructive effects on the 

addressee. It is a profane language use that has a deep negative influence and leaves an indelible 

mark on the listener. Verbal violence can also be defined as “the use of derogatory and 

destructive language on another person” (Ewurum, Njoku and Umeh, 61). It can be expressed 

by such terms as global label, name calling, verbal abuse, dehumanizing language, demeaning 

words and so on. Verbal violence is “any language or remark that is intended to cause distress 

to the individual which can be perceived as being demeaning, humiliating, intimidating or 

disrespectful resulting in feelings of inferiority, lowered self-worth and self-esteem, stunned 

goals and ambition (Brennan qtd in Lani, 16). Lani (16) included in her definition of verbal 

abuse “as the use of critical or insulting behavior”. The work argues that the word behavior 

keeps the definition open to include not just the words that are being spoken but the tone of 

voice, facial expressions and body language. These instances are normally overt in nature but 

at times can be subtle like double-edge comments. Going by the above definitions, it is assumed 

that verbal violence implies derogatory expressions, rude/nasty remarks, stony silence and 

mitigated attitudes on hearers.      

 

Kembe (15) maintains that “verbal abuse is an act of constant criticism, name calling, social 

rejection, sarcasm and put downs on an individual”. Obinauju (16) reveals that “the society 

contributes to perpetuating the act of verbal abuse by not taking it seriously enough and by 

treating it as expected, normal or deserved”. This does not contradict the traditional Nigerian 

child rearing practice where the child is rebuked and chastised for doing wrong. According to 

the United Nation’s Standard (cited in Kembe, 15) “verbal abuse is a condition of causing or 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

66                  Ezenwa-Ohaeto & Umelo 

permitting to occur of any form of offensive or harmful contact on the body of a person. Such 

a contact incorporates any form of interaction, exchange of communication that brings shame, 

embarrassment, fear or disgrace to the person”. Thus, it can be stated that verbal violence can 

be much more emotionally damaging than other types of abuse. This confirms the adage which 

says “sticks and stones may break my home but words will break my heart”. Therefore, this 

study opines that verbal violence is like a sword that pierces through the heart with indelible 

mark. The addressee goes with an injury he/she nurse for the rest of life. 

 

Theoretical Framework 

This study utilizes Brown and Levinson (1987) politeness theory and Leech (1983) politeness 

maxims for data analysis.  

 

Brown and Levison (1987) Politeness theory: It is the theory that accounts for the redressing 

of the affronts to face posed by face-threatening act to addressee. It is based on the concept that 

people have a social self-image that they consciously project and try to protect. Brown and 

Levinson (61) construct their politeness theory on the premise that many speech acts are 

threatening in that they do not support the face wants of the speaker and or those of the 

addressee. They propose that a face threat directly affects the perceived relationship between 

the speaker and the hearer. For example, intrinsic face threat specified by this theory include: 

disapproval, disagreement, challenge and non-co-operation. Brown and Levinson (66) 

categorized face into two; positive face and negative face. They define positive in two ways: 

“as the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some other executors” or 

alternatively, “the positive consistent self-image or personality (crucially including the desire 

that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants”. It can also mean 

when others like, respect and approve of us. Brown and Levinson posit negative face “as the 

want of every competent adult member that his actions be unimpeded by others or “the basic 

claim of territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction that is freedom of action and 

freedom from imposition. Negative face implies when we feel that others cannot constrain us 

in any way.                                                 

 

Leech (1983) Politeness Maxims: Leech (128) posits politeness maxim as a way of explaining 

how politeness operates in conversational exchanges. Leech’s concept on politeness maxims is 

concerned with conflict avoidance and geared towards comity. A polite speaker tactfully 

employs language in order to make his/her statements acceptable to the decoders. To be polite 

is saying the socially correct things (Lakoff, 34). Leech observes that politeness is sometimes 

relative to people and their culture, expressed through language use. Leech identifies seven (7) 

politeness maxims as thus; 

1. Tact maxim which stipulates that speakers should;   

a. minimize the expression of beliefs which imply cost to others and maximize the 

expression of beliefs which imply benefit to others. 

b. minimize the expression of impolite beliefs and maximize the expression of polite 

beliefs. 

2. Generosity maxim states that interactants should; 

a. minimize benefit to self 

b. maximize cost to self 

3. Approbation maxim states that speakers should; 

a. minimize dispraise of others 

b. maximize praise or approval of others 

4. Modesty maxim stipulates that speakers should always; 

a. minimize the expression of praise of self 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

67                  Ezenwa-Ohaeto & Umelo 

b. maximize the expression of dispraise of self 

5. Agreement maxim states; 

a. minimize the expression of disagreement between self and others 

b. maximize agreement between self and others 

6. Sympathy maxim stipulates that speakers should; 

a. minimize antipathy between self and others 

b. maximize sympathy between self and others. 

7. Pollyanna maxim states that; 

People should look at the bright side instead of the gloomy side in talking about others. 

 

Methodology 

The research adopted a descriptive quantitative type of study which aimed at obtaining data 

through questionnaire and observation. Ten (10) different families, five (5) families each from 

the two villages (Eedibia and Ezeogba) that make up Emekuku autonomous community were 

randomly selected to obtain data for analysis with the intent to find out if language users in the 

families know what politeness maxims are and their perception of verbal violence. Family 

members form the population for the study and questionnaire were distributed to the members 

who filled and returned. 

 

Data Presentation: Participants’ demographic data using statistical analysis of the simple 

percentage in a table below:  

S/N 1. Variable(Family) Group (10) Frequency 

of Data 

Valid % Cumulative% 

 Five families Ezedibia 3 10.7% 10.7% 

 Five families Ezeogba 2 7.1% 17.8% 

 Five families Ezeogba 4 14.3% 32.1% 

 Five families Ezedibia 2 7.1% 39.2% 

 Five families Ezeogba 3 10.7% 49.2% 

 Five families Ezedibia 3 10.7% 60.6% 

 Five families Ezeogba 2 7.1% 67.7% 

 Five families Ezedibia 2 7.1% 74.8% 

 Five families Ezeogba 4 14.3% 89.1% 

 Five families Ezedibia 3 10.7% 100% 

  Total 28 100%  

2. Sex Male 11 39.2% 39.2% 

  Female 17 60.7% 100% 

  Total 28 100%  

3. Age 30 yrs below 9 32.1% 32.1% 

  31 yrs above 19 67.8% 100% 

  Total 28 100%  

4. Position Father 4 14.3% 14.3% 

  Mother 10 35.7% 50% 

  Biological 

son 

2 7.1% 57.1% 

  Biological 

daughter 

4 14.3% 71.4% 

  House help 8 28.5% 100% 

  Total 28 100%  

5. Religion Christian 27 96.4% 96.4% 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

68                  Ezenwa-Ohaeto & Umelo 

  Moslem ___ ___ ____ 

  Traditional 1% 3.5% 100% 

  Total 28 100% 100% 

6. Family 

background 

Educated 6 21.4% 21.4% 

  Uneducated 10 35.7% 57.1% 

  Married 5 17.8% 74.9% 

  Single 4 14.3% 89.2% 

  Divorced 3 10.7% 100% 

  Total 28 100%  

7. Occupation Civil servant 5 17.8% 17.8% 

  Business 12 42.8% 60.6% 

  Students 11 39.3% 100% 

  Total 28 100%  

8. Residence Type Self-

compound 

8 28.5% 28.5% 

  Public 

compound 

20 71.4% 100% 

  Total 28 100%  

 

From the table above, twenty-eight (28) out of thirty (30) copies of the questionnaire were 

filled and returned. From the twenty-eight (28), thirteen (13) which represented 46.4% were 

retrieved from five families in Ezedibia while fifteen (15) which counted for 53.5% were 

gathered from another five families in Ezeogba village in Emekuku. Out of the twenty-eight 

(28) family members that participated, eleven (11) that indicated 39.2% were male respondents 

while seventeen (17) which was 60.7% were female respondents. From the twenty-eight (28), 

nine (9) represented 32.1% were 30 years below while nineteen (19) which was 67.8% were 

31 years and above. On the position of participants in the family, data retrieved showed that 

out of the twenty-eight (28), four (4) which counted for 14.3% were fathers, ten (10) which 

represented 35.7% were mothers, two (2) that counted for 7.1% were biological sons, four (4) 

which implied 14.3% were biological daughters while eight (8) that indicated 28.5% were 

house helps. 

 

On religion, twenty-seven (27) that represented 96.4% respondents were Christians while only 

one (1) which indicated 3.5% was a traditional worshiper and no Moslem among all the 

participants. Family background indicated that out of the twenty-eight (28) respondents, six (6) 

that indicated 21.4% were educated, ten (10) that represented 35.7% were uneducated, five (5) 

which implied 17.8% were married, four (4) that counted for 14.3% were single while three (3) 

that indicated 10. 7% were divorced. Then by occupation, five (5) which indicated 17.8% were 

civil servants, twelve (12) which implied 42.8% were business people and eleven (11) that 

implied 39.3% were students. Lastly, residential type showed that eight (8) represented 28.5% 

of the respondents resided in their personal compounds while twenty (20) which indicated 

71.4% lived in public compound. 

Results and Analysis 

Questionnaire/Res

earch Questions 

Idea/Lac

k of 

knowled

ge of 

politenes

Percepti

on of 

verbal 

violence 

Ignoranc

e of 

verbal 

violence 

Promoti

on of 

self-

confide

Demotion 

and 

Enhancem

ent of 

Hatred 

Total 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

69                  Ezenwa-Ohaeto & Umelo 

s maxims 

and 

Stipulati

ons 

implicati

ons 

nce and 

love 

Strongly Agreed 5 4 2 ___ 3 14(50

%) 

Agreed 3 3 1 ___ 2 9(32.1

%) 

Disagreed ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 3(10.7

%) 

Strongly Disagreed ____ ____ ____ ____ 2 2(7.1%

) 

Total 8 (28.5%) 7 (25%) 3 (10.7%) 0 (0%) 10 (35.7%) 28 

 

From the table above, politeness maxims and their stipulations were classified as; idea and lack 

of knowledge of politeness maxims stipulation in language use. By this, it was evident from 

the data that fourteen (14) that represented 50% of the respondents were stiffly in agreement 

that they had no knowledge of politeness maxims and its stipulations in language use. The 

result revealed that nine (9) which counted for 32.1% conformed to be ignorant of the 

implications of verbal violence on addressees rather they used it as language of rebuke. Three 

respondents out the twenty-eight (28) which implied 10.7% participants disagreed to the 

promotion of self-confidence and love by those they abused verbally while only two (2) which 

counted for 7.1% respondents vehemently disagreed that they were been hated in the cause of 

correction on wrong deeds.  

 

Discussion of Findings 

From the foregoing, it can be deduced that interactans in the families do not have knowledge 

of politeness maxims and even those who were aware did not speak in accordance with the 

stipulations. This was contrary to Brown and Levinson (178) positive politeness strategies of 

seek agreement and avoid disagreement. Also, it did not conform to Leech’s (128) concept of 

politeness which is concerned with conflict avoidance. Through observations, language users 

in families used verbal violence as language of rebuke and correction of wrong deeds and were 

ignorant of the implications. Again, it was observed that, the speakers’ tone, voice and facial 

expression sent negative meaning to the addressees as the addressees perceived anger, 

humiliation, hatred etc. This contradicted Svarova (9) who states that “addressers should 

indicate that they are reluctant to impinge”. 

 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

This study concluded that verbal violence violated politeness maxims and the stipulations in 

families. Speakers deliberately employed verbal violence as acceptable utterances of rebuke 

and correction. Therefore, the study recommended that family conversations be embellished 

with courteous utterances using the stipulations of politeness maxims to shun the menace of 

verbal violence.  

 

Works Cited 

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 2006. 

.... Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. In E.N. Goody, (Ed), Questions and 

politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

70                  Ezenwa-Ohaeto & Umelo 

Ewurum, Rc. N., Njoku, N.J. and Umeh, I.J. For once the man is on his knees: A study of 

language of conflict and conflict resolution in Nwosu’s Chord of Sanity. International 

Journal of Gender and Development Issues. Vol 1.No. 8: 2018.  235-249. (2018), print. 

…. A Pragmatic Analysis of Verbal Abuse As Face-Threatening Acts. NATELCEP Journal of 

language and communication studies. 2019. 

Grundy, P. Doing Pragmatics. London: Hodder Education, 2008. 

Gumut, V. Peace  Education and Peer Mediation .In S. G. Best (Ed). Introduction to Peace in 

West Africa: A Reader. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd, 2016. 

Hyden, M. Verbal aggression as prehistory of woman battering. Journal of family violence, 10: 

2015.55-71.  

Kembe, E.M. Causes and Effects on Adolescent Personality. Journal of Family 

Development,Vol 3, : 2008. PP.14-16.  

Lakoff, R. The Politics of Nice. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, 

Culture.1 (2) : 2005.173-191.  

….  The logic of politeness or minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistic society. 9, 292-

305. (1973). 

Lani, T. Childhood Verbal Abuse and Its Psychological Effects on Adults. Walden University: 

https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations, 2018. 

Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics. Harlow: Longman,1983. 

Lepper, M. R. Dissonance, Self-Perception and Honey in Children. Journal of Personality and 

Social Psychology. Vol 2, PP.65-74,1973. 

Mckay, M., Davis, M. and Fanning, P. Messages: The Communication Skills Book. Oakland, 

New Harbinger Publications, 1983. 

Mills, S. Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 

Natalie, S., Edelyn, V., Thomas, J. and Kristopher, J. Parental Verbal Abuse and the Mediating 

Role of Self-Criticism in Adult Internalizing Disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders. 

Florida State University United States, 2006. 

O’ Grady, W. Archibald, J. and Katamba, F.  Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction. 

England: Longman, 2011. 

Odebunmi, A.  Politeness and Face Management in Hospital Conversational Interactions in 

South-Western Nigeria. Ibadan Journal of English Studies, Vol .1:2005. 2-22.  

Svavora, J. Politeness markers in spoken language.Brono: Masaryk University press, 2008. 

Thomason, J. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. New York: 

Longman,1995. 

Watts, R. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 

Yule, G. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2010. 

 

https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations

