Politeness Strategies in English-Arabic Literary Translation: A Pragmatic Study

1. Introduction

      politeness strategies describe verbal communication techniques that make the hearer feel good. To avoid violating the hearer's face, a politeness strategy is employed. Speakers employ a variety of tactics to avoid FTAs or, at the very least, reduce a potential threat. However, using the wrong tactics can backfire, leading to miscommunication or even confrontation. The thing that is considered correct, especially when the language users are non-native. They view civility as "a precondition of human cooperation" and believe that its relevance resides in upholding social order. Being courteous is meant to prevent confrontations. Following these customs, which have existed from the beginning of human history, seems to be quite significant. Language is employed my people as a means to accomplish something, such as ask for help, promise, report readings, say hello directly, and perform hundreds of daily verbal actions in life. So, language is how we meet human needs and convey messages and/or feelings. People use multiple forms of communication. The medium of language can be either spoken or written. The messages delivered may include giving directions, issuing requests, inviting others, issuing warnings, broadcasting news, and making advertisements. When someone does or says something, think of their attitude. There is a process of thinking about the way and words you choose to speak if the speaker says something. There is yet another reason for communication: to boost social relations.

1. Politeness: A Historical Review

      When two humans interact orally, some details are typically forgotten; rather, the feeling of the interlocutor and the overall interaction remain as it is. What is usually memorable about the encounter is that the participants are cooperative or otherwise amicable, polite, terse, or rude in their exchange. Politeness is not innate in the human being but arises from the interaction process occurring within the community, within a specific linguistic environment. Taking all that into consideration, politeness is regarded as a historically and ethnically constructed process. It etymologically stems from the late Medieval Latin word ‘politus’, meaning smooth and accomplished. When people cared, ‘polite’ could mean ‘refined’ or ‘polished.’ A hundred years later, the Oxford Dictionary of Etymology said of polite: ‘one of refined courteous manners’ — a gentleman.

2. Politeness: Definitions

     Politeness is a fundamental characteristic of human interaction. Researchers and linguists across many disciplines have studied and defined politeness; thus, a better understanding and definition of politeness are needed. In what follows, several definitions of politeness are presented.

     According to Lakoff (1973 P:296) (1), politeness is seen as “a system of interpersonal relations designed by societies to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interactions and transactions.” Similarly, Ide (1989: P 225) (2), conceptualizes politeness as a “language associated with smooth communication.” On the same line, Leech (1983:P 19) (3) has it that politeness is a “strategic conflict avoidance” that “can be measured in terms of the degree of effort put into the avoidance of a conflict situation.” The above-mentioned idea goes hand in hand with Green’s (1996: P148) (4) who emphasizes that politeness is generally speaking seen as communication behavior and what one person does when one ‘shows regard for another person by trying to make that person feel comfortable (or, to make an obvious effort to avoid making that person feel uncomfortable)’ and, by extension, friendly to other people. Chapman (2011) claims that politeness is a term used to explain a behavior that shows awareness and consideration for others (as cited in Younus, 2025: P182).(5)

3. Theories of Politeness

        There are diverse viewpoints on "politeness" that seek to study and probe it in depth. Fraser (1990: P7) (6) presented four distinct perspectives on civility. There is a debate over whether these phenomena are socio-pragmatic, with some belonging to pragmatics and others to sociolinguistics. Four perspectives exist regarding politeness, and they are as follows:

•The social norm view.

•The conversational-contract view.

•The conversational maxim view.

•The face-saving view.

3.1 The Social Norm View

       According to Fraser (1990: P220) (6), the social-norm view is the original approach to politeness and is associated with the historical understanding of politeness. Since "politeness" is founded on social norms and conventions, it is closely related to sociolinguistics. It affirms that each society has a distinct set of social norms, or explicit rules, that dictate and prescribe specific actions, daily activities, and ways of thinking within a particular social setting. Such social norms may be viewed favorably or unfavorably. Positive politeness will inevitably increase when societal behavior aligns with social norms; conversely, negative politeness will increase when social context is out of alignment.

3.2 The Conversational-Contract View

     The conversational contract view, first put forth by Fraser and Nolen (1981) and later developed by Fraser (1990) (6), is another approach to politeness. This is the broadest definition of politeness within a conversational contract (CC) between parties. Each party "brings an understanding of some initial set of rights and obligations that will determine, at least for preliminary stages, what the participants can expect from the others" when engaging in a conversation, according to Fraser (1990: P232) (6). These rights are based on the parties' social relationships. During the interaction, parties always have the option to adjust and negotiate the rights and obligations they have agreed upon, which binds them to the new set. If participants do not comply with the rules, they are considered impolite or rude. The interlocutor's duty is defined by the rights and obligations as a Conversational Contract (CC).

3.3 The Conversational Maxim View

The conversational-maxim view of politeness draws on Gricean's concept of the cooperative principle (CP) and his maxims (1975). This approach is used by two prominent models: Leech's model of politeness principles (1983) and Lakoff's model of politeness norms (1973).

3.1 Grice Cooperative Principle (CP)

       Grice's Cooperative Principle (CP) and the Maxims of Conversation (1975) are among the most notable contributions to the field of pragmatics. Four conversation maxims were proposed by philosopher Paul Grice to describe the association between what is perceived from utterances. The cooperative principle, upon which the Maxims are founded, says the following: ‘Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged, Grice (1975: P45) (7).

3.2  Lakoff’s Politeness Rules (PR)

     Linguist Robin Lakoff was among the first scholars to approach politeness from a pragmatic perspective. She proposed that politeness emerged as a societal mechanism aimed at minimizing tension and maintaining harmony in interpersonal communication. According to her, it serves to ease potential conflicts that may arise in everyday interactions (Lakoff, 1975:P 64) (8).

3.3 Leech’s Politeness Principle (PP)

     Building on Grice’s foundational work, Leech (1983) (3), much like Lakoff, sought to account for politeness as a key element within pragmatic theory. He argued that Grice’s cooperative principle is insufficient without incorporating politeness. Leech introduced a ‘rhetorical’ perspective to pragmatics, which he defines as the skillful and purposeful use of language, particularly in ordinary, everyday interactions, and to a lesser extent in formal or public discourse (Ahmed & Hussein, 2025: P159). (9)

3.4  The Face-Saving View

     The face-saving view proposed by Brown and Levinson (1978) (10) builds on Goffman's concept of face (1967), emphasizing that politeness fundamentally aims to preserve one's public self-image during social interaction. According to this view, speakers continuously manage their own face and others' by choosing linguistic strategies that reduce conflict and maintain social harmony. Politeness, therefore, is seen as a set of strategies designed to protect face from potential threats that naturally arise in communication. This framework provides the basis for understanding key components of the theory, including the notion of Face and Face Threatening Acts (FTAs), which are central to how politeness strategies operate.    

3.4.1  The Notion of Face

        Face, a fundamental concept in politeness theory, was introduced by sociologist Erving Goffman in his article "On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements of Social Interaction" and his 1967 book Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Goffman describes the face as a mask that adapts to different audiences and social interactions.

3.4.2 Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs)

       Having introduced the notion of face, the next part in the theory's construction is the fact that certain acts intrinsically threaten face. These acts are referred to as Face-threatening acts (henceforth, FTAs) . To clarify what 'Threatening Acts' mean, Thomas (1995: P169) (11) states that they represent particular illocutionary acts that contain damage or threaten another communicator's face. Brown & Levinson( 1987:69-70) (10), on the other hand, represent this notion of extreme importance within this theory because politeness is interpreted as a 'redressive action serving to mitigate the potential face threat involved in some communicative acts.' So, face-threatening acts (or FTAs) are those acts that threaten the face of the speaker or the addressee because these acts, by their nature, contradict or act in opposition to the face wants and desires of the addressee, the speaker, or both.

3.4.3 Brown and Levinson's politeness Strategies

       In everyday conversations, there are ways to get what we want. When we are with a group of friends, we can say to them, "Go give me a cup of tea!" or "Shut up!" However, when a group of adults surrounds us in a formal setting, in which our parents are attending, we must say, "Could you please bring me a cup of tea, if you do not mind?" and "I am sorry, I do not mean to disturb you, can you lend me fifteen dinars"? We must adjust our words in different social situations to fit the occasion. If we reverse the utterances above, it would seem impolite and unacceptable.

    The term "politeness strategies" refers to verbal message strategies that satisfy the hearer's face. A politeness strategy is used to prevent a violation of the hearer's face. To avoid FTAs or at least minimize the threat, speakers use various strategies. However, ineffective strategies can have disastrous consequences, leading to misunderstandings or even conflicts. This is particularly true when nonnative speakers use languages. According to many linguists, the importance of politeness strategies lies in maintaining social order, and they see it as "a precondition of human cooperation" (Brown & Levinson, 1987: P13). Lakoff (1975: P101) (10,1) said that the purpose of politeness is to avoid conflicts. Politeness strategies are learned when the mother tells her child to greet his uncle or to thank someone who has, for example, given him sweets. Sticking to these conventions seems very important, and they have developed since human beings existed.

3.4.3.1 Bald on Record:

       According to Brown and Levinson (1987: P69) (10), the first superstrategy is the bald-on-record strategy. It refers to the expression of an act in the most direct way. It refers to the speaker who does nothing to reduce threats to the interlocutor's face. It is a brief, clear, unambiguous, and direct way to say something without minimizing interference.

3.4.3.2 Positive Politeness

       A positive politeness strategy can also be called a 'solidarity strategy. 'Positive politeness strategy is directed at the hearer's positive face, which, as previously stated, represents the self-image that reflects the need to be appreciated and accepted by other community members. This strategy brings the interlocutors closer to each other, expressed through the informality of the occasion, solidarity, and friendship. The speaker recognizes, cherishes, and enhances the hearer's positive face by showing that he respects his desire to be acknowledged and appreciated. (Ogiermann, 2009:P212). (12)

3.4.3.3  Negative Politeness

       Unlike the positive politeness strategies that aim to realize solidarity, Brown and Levinson's negative politeness strategies can be seen as a 'deference strategy' to increase the social distance between interlocutors. To quote Brown and Levinson (1987:P129) (10): "Negative politeness is redressive action addressed to the addressee's negative Face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded.".

3.4.3.4  Off-Record Indirect

       Figure (1) : Brown & Levinson's Strategies for Doing FTAs (1987: P69) (10)

The fourth strategy of Brown and Levinson is the off-record, a unique approach in which a particular act is performed in an unclear, indirect way, in stark contrast to the bald-on-record strategy's straightforwardness.  The speaker, in this case, performs the FTA but also aims to evade its consequences. Off-record indirect strategies are designed to relieve the pressure on the speaker by sidestepping the direct FTA, thereby freeing them from any imposition. Brown and Levinson (1987, p.211) explain this concept. (10)

3.4.3.5  Do not Do the FTA

       Brown and Levinson’s fifth strategy is “Do not do the FTA.” In this strategy, nothing is said because the risk of face loss is exceptionally significant. It is to remain silent and not doing the act. Interestingly, the researchers did not delve into this strategy, leaving it open for further exploration. Sifianou (1997: P79) (13) comments on the hierarchy of the strategies, noting that Brown and Levinson (1987) (10) consider silence as the ultimate expression of politeness, yet they offer no further discussion.

4. Politeness in Translation

     Translation is a controversial concept that is hotly debated, and there is no agreement on its definition, nor are translation theories agreed on the types or models of translation. Each translator has his own definition, theory, or model when translating. House (2001:P 247) (14) shows that translation equivalence should include the intellectual and interpersonal functions of the source text. She also explains that a text is bounded by its situational context and that politeness theory and face work vary according to the cultural and social norms of interaction. Also, the rules of politeness are determined by such parameters as gender, social status, situation factors, intimacy between people, social distance and the topic of speech. Inevitably, politeness theory is used in translation studies as a linguistic means of identifying similarities and differences between cultures. Moreover, one could discuss the equivalence of politeness in translation. Consequently, the difficulty of translating such a pragmatic concept is represented by transferring the linguistic and socio-cultural dimensions of its determined patterns and norms to the target language.

5. Translation Quality Assessment: Juliane House’s Model

       House’s model is considered a comprehensive model of analyzing a text and comparing the translation to the original. , and the effect of the Hallidayan model enabled Juliane House to put forward one of the first functional-pragmatic models for evaluating translation quality in 1977/ 1997, focusing on a retrospective comparison of source and target texts. She attracted attention to the importance of ST in comparing ST and TT. In this way, she “rejected” the ‘more target-audience oriented notion of translation appropriateness’ as ‘fundamentally misguided’ and considered the right way to achieve a good translation assessment is through ST-TT comparison (Munday, 2001:92) (15). House’s systemic-functional translation evaluation model has not only shed light on many critical theoretical issues” but has also provided translation practitioners and researchers with valuable tools” (Hatim, 2001: P96) (16). Building on this foundation, House further refined her model in subsequent updates (1981, 1997, and 2015), aiming to establish a scientifically grounded framework for translation criticism (TQA).

     In her Translation Quality Assessment framework, House (1997: P66–71) (17) differentiates between two main types of translation: overt and covert. This classification is based on the relationship between the source text and its cultural context. Overt translation refers to texts that remain closely connected to the source culture and language. These translations are designed to offer readers in the target culture insight into a foreign context, functioning almost as a cultural window. Such an approach is especially suitable for texts of high cultural or historical value. In contrast, covert translation aims to render the text in a way that aligns with the conventions of the target culture while preserving the original’s communicative function. Unlike overt translation, covert translation is not explicitly marked as a translation and seeks functional equivalence. While the overt translator acts as an intercultural guide, the covert translator’s role is to adapt the text using what House calls a "cultural filter" (pp. 74–75). This involves pragmatic adjustments such as modifying the social relationship dynamics between writer and reader to match expected norms in the target culture.

6. Methodology

     This study offers a qualitative investigation into the translation of politeness expressions from English to Arabic in Pride and Prejudice. It utilizes House’s (1997) (17) Translation Quality Assessment Model as a theoretical framework to analyze the pragmatic, textual, and cultural aspects of translation. The model’s key dimensions—field, tenor, and mode—are employed to systematically evaluate how forms of politeness and address are represented in the target text.

     The analysis focuses on selected passages from the novel that are characterized by dense use of politeness strategies and socially nuanced interactions. These excerpts were chosen due to their linguistic richness and cultural specificity, which often pose challenges in translation. The study places particular emphasis on expressions such as honorifics, indirect requests, compliments, and instances of face-threatening acts. This focus allows for a close examination of the translators’ ability to preserve both the intent and subtle interpersonal meanings of the source text.

     Moreover, the paper investigates both overt and covert translation errors, shedding light on how politeness strategies are either maintained or altered in Arabic renditions. Through the lens of House’s model, the research evaluates the degree of equivalence and cultural appropriateness, paying special attention to the

7.  Data Collection , Analysis and Discussion

       This study investigates how politeness expressions are translated from English (source language) into Arabic (target language) by analyzing two selected excerpts from Pride and Prejudice and their respective renderings in three Arabic translations by Ameen Salama (1996), Abdullah Adwan (2018), and Rawan Shoaib (2023). The selected data focuses specifically on expressions of politeness, forms of address, and socially situated interactions.

      The rationale behind selecting Pride and Prejudice lies in its intricate portrayal of social dynamics, hierarchical structures, and nuanced dialogue, making it highly suitable for examining challenges in translating politeness across cultures. The novel’s emphasis on etiquette and interpersonal conduct provides a fertile ground for analyzing pragmatic features in language.

     This section applies House’s TQA model (1977–1997) to twenty-five politeness-related samples from the novel. The analysis follows a systematic, criterion-based approach, and the outcomes for each sample will be organized in tabular form according to the evaluative steps outlined in

ST. (1)

“I beg you would not put it into Lizzy’s head to be vexed by his ill-treatment , for he is such a disagreeable man ” , that it would be quite a misfortune to be liked by him.”( Austen: 12)

Setting: "The sentence is part of a conversation between Mrs. Bennet and Charlotte about Mr. Darcy’s behavior at the Meryton ball, where he offends Elizabeth by refusing to dance with her.

TTs

1-       ردت السيدة بينيت: أرجوك ان لا تحشري في رأس ليزي مثل هذه الأفكار لكي لا تغتاظ من أسلوبه البغيض ،لأنه في الأصل رجل بغيض. )روان شعيب، ص32(.

2-       ردت السيدة عليها وقالت :(أتمنى أن لا تدفعيها للتفكير في هذا الموضوع ثانية ياشارلوت حتى لا تشعر بالإهانة بسبب شخص غير مقبول اجتماعيا ولا يستحق الاهتمام).(عبد الله عدوان،ص38.(

3-     لا ترسخي ذلك في ذهن ليزي حتى لا تنزعج من سوء معاملته فهو شخص سي الطباع".
)أمين سلامة ، ص(42.

Analysis and Discussion

ST, The field revolves around social interactions and emotional management, as Mrs. Bennet seeks to control Elizabeth's emotional response to Darcy's perceived slight. Her intent is persuasive and protective, aiming to prevent distress and ensure Charlotte doesn't reinforce the idea of taking Darcy's behaviour to heart. The mode is spoken, while the tenor highlights Mrs. Bennet's authority as a mother and a higher-status figure. The genre is a fictional narrative reflecting societal norms and relationships within the novel. Ideational function: Mrs. Bennet's statement operates on two levels. First, she asks Charlotte not to remind Elizabeth to be upset by Darcy's behavior. Second, she reframes Darcy's dislike as a positive outcome, portraying it as a stroke of good fortune rather than an insult. This protects Elizabeth's positive face by preventing her from feeling personally hurt.   Interpersonally, Mrs. Bennet uses politeness strategies to soften her requests and maintain harmony. She employs negative politeness in hedging the request with "I beg you," which softens the imposition on Charlotte. The indirect request "would not put it into Lizzy's head" further reduces the potential for resistance from Charlotte. Her affectionate use of "Lizzy" shows positive politeness. Her remark, "it would be quite a misfortune to be liked by him," adds humour, lightening the tone and reframing Darcy's behavior more lightly.

     In terms of FTAs, Mrs. Bennet protects Elizabeth's face by reframing Darcy's behavior as a positive outcome, softening the potential FTA toward Charlotte with indirectness. However, the FTA against Darcy is not mitigated, as she directly criticizes him as a "disagreeable man," However, he is not present to be affected by the criticism.

TT(1), The field, mode, tenor, and genre align with the original societal norms and relationships depicted in the novel. Ideationally, Mrs. Bennet's request to Charlotte is preserved. She reframes Darcy's dislike as a positive outcome, which protects Elizabeth's positive face. The TT conveys this by preserving the main intent of the ST, but it softens the phrasing. Interpersonally, the TT maintains politeness strategies similar to the ST. The negative politeness marker "أرجوك" softens the imposition on Charlotte, and the indirect request "لا تحشري في رأس ليزي مثل هذه الأفكار" reduces potential resistance. The affectionate term "ليزي" signals, reflecting the positive politeness strategy used in the ST. Regarding (FTAs), Mrs. Bennet protects Elizabeth's face by reframing Darcy's behavior as a positive outcome. The potential FTA toward Charlotte is softened with indirectness, while the criticism as a "بغيض" directed at Darcy remains unmitigated. The translation is covert, adapting the content to fit the cultural and linguistic context, with some degree of cultural filtering. Specifically, omitting humorous element in the ST, "that it would be quite a misfortune to be liked by him," is not translated in the TT, constituting an overt error. This omission results in a loss of the playful tone.

TT(2), The field, mode, tenor, and genre align with the ST, maintaining the novel's social interactions and emotional management. Ideationally, TT2 preserves Mrs. Bennet's request but softens the phrasing. She reframes Darcy's behavior as unworthy of concern, shielding Elizabeth's face. Interpersonally, negative politeness is maintained through "أتمنى أن لا تدفعيها," which softens the imposition on Charlotte. The indirectness of "حتى لا تشعر بالإهانة" further reduces resistance. However, "ليزي" is omitted, losing the affectionate tone of the ST, though "ياشارلوت" still signals solidarity between the two women, while indirectness minimizes resistance.  Regarding FTAs, Mrs. Bennet protects Elizabeth's face by downplaying Darcy's behavior. The FTA toward Charlotte is mitigated, while criticism of Darcy is intensified with "ولا يستحق الاهتمام," an addition absent in the ST. The covert translation adapts the content culturally but omits "that it would be quite a misfortune to be liked by him," an overt error that alters the playful tone and weakens Mrs. Bennet's character.

TT(3): It preserves the field, mode, and genre. The tenor retains the motherly authority of Mrs. Bennet. However, the weakening of politeness markers and interpersonal strategies alters the relationship dynamics. Ideationally, the translation simplifies Mrs. Bennet's request, using "لا ترسخي ذلك في ذهن ليزي," losing the indirectness and hedging of the ST. "حتى لا تنزعج" weakens the emotional intensity of Elizabeth's reaction, and the omission of the humorous phrase "that it would be quite a misfortune to be liked by him" removes irony and humour, diminishing Mrs. Bennet's face-saving strategy. Interpersonally, negative politeness strategies are diminished. The request sounds more direct, lacking the softening effect of the ST's hedging. "حتى لا تنزعج" lacks the emotional mitigation found in the ST, while the affectionate diminutive "ليزي" retains ( positive strategy). Regarding FTAs, Mrs. Bennet's directness increases the potential threat toward Charlotte, while her criticism of Darcy is softened: "شخص سيّ الطباع" loses the social disapproval conveyed by "disagreeable man." The translation is covert due to its adaptation to the target culture and language, particularly through cultural filtering and modification of certain expressions. The covert errors, including the omission of humour and weaker emotional framing, alter the tone, reducing the effectiveness of Mrs. Bennet's character and intent.

ST(2)

 “Mrs. Hurst began again: “I have an excessive regard for Miss Jane Bennet, she is really a very sweet girl, and I wish with all my heart she were well settled. But with such a father and mother, and such low connections, I am afraid there is no chance of it.”(Austen,p.24)

Setting: Mrs. Hurst speaks to Miss Bingley at Netherfield, criticizing Jane Bennet’s prospects due to her low social status. She pretends to admire Jane but ultimately dismisses her chances of marrying well.

TTs

1-       علقت السيدة هيرست: أكن كل التقدير لجاين بينيت ، فهي فتاة لطيفة جداّ وأتمنى من كل قلبي أن تستقر في زواج مناسب ,وعلى الرغم من بوجود والدين في هذا المستوى  كوالديها ،أظن أن لديها فرصة لهكذا استقرار. )روان شعيب، ص59(.

2-       استأنفت بعدها السيدة هورست الحديث قائلة: " إنني معجبة حقاً بحين فهي فتاة جميلة للغاية . أتمنى من كل قلبي لو كانت قد مكثت معنا بصحة طيبة. ولكن مع هذين الوالدين ، والنسب المتدني الوضيع ، أخشى ألا يكون هناك فرصة لذلك".(عبد الله عدوان،ص54).

3-       وبدأت السيدة هورست واصلة الحديث مرة أخرى :لدي تقدير مفرط للآنسة جاين بينيت ، إنها حقاَ فتاة جميلة جداً ، وأتمنى من كل قلبي أن تكون قد شفيت بشكل جيد ،لكن مع مثل هذا الأب وهذه الأم ، ومثل هذه الاتصالات المتدنية ، أخشى ألا تكون هاك فرصة لها. (أمين سلامة,ص68).

Analysis and Discussion

    SL.T, The field is centred on the discussion of Jane’s social standing and marriage prospects, with the mode of spoken dialogue that carries a polite yet condescending tone. The tenor of the exchange highlights a power imbalance as Mrs. Hurst asserts her social superiority over Jane, subtly reinforcing class distinctions. The genre of the text is a fictional narrative. The function of the conversation is both ideational, as Mrs. Hurst conveys her classist opinions, and interpersonal, as she uses her words to assert social hierarchy through veiled insults. Mrs. Hurst employs various politeness strategies to structure her speech. She starts with positive politeness using praise: “I have an excessive regard for Miss Jane Bennet,” creating the illusion of friendliness and concern, which masks the true intent of her comment. This is followed by a bald-on-record strategy in “with such a father … there is no chance,” a direct criticism that undermines Jane’s social worth, constituting a FTA  that openly criticizes Jane’s family and threatens her positive face. To soften the harshness of this judgment, Mrs. Hurst adds, “I wish with all my heart,” a politeness marker mitigating the offence, though it does little to mask the underlying classist tone.

TT(1), The field, mode, tenor, and genre remain consistent with the ST, preserving the conversational setting and the hierarchical dynamic between Mrs. Hurst and Jane. However, the translation introduces a critical covert error that distorts the ideational function. In the ST, Mrs. Hurst asserts that Jane cannot secure a good marriage due to her parents and low connections, reinforcing a classist prejudice. The TT, however, shifts the meaning entirely by stating, "أظن أن لديها فرصة لهكذا استقرار", entailing that there is a chance for Jane did you do that she is sweet. The thing that weakens the interpersonal function show minimizing the ST’s implicit emphasis on the superiority of the class. In the TT, there is neutralization of the descending tone, the thing that makes the remark of Mrs. Hurst look less judgmental and diminishes the imbalance of power between Jane and her. As far as politeness strategies are concerned the TT still holds positive politeness "أكن كل التقدير لجاين", which feigns friendliness. But the bald-on-record strategy, in the ST, is eliminated entirely. Jane's positive demeanor is directly threatened by the ST. Even this FTA is eliminated by the TT, which changes it into a more positive or neutral statement that is less offensive to society. This translation introduces a substantial covert error that affects the meaning of the ST. The power dynamics of the original are ultimately undermined by cultural filtering, which softens Mrs. Hurst's classist remark and makes it less direct and contemptuous.

In TT(2), the field is still somewhat in line with the source text because it mentions Jane's past, but it no longer emphasizes her prospects of getting married. Rather, the translation changes the ideational function by emphasizing Jane's health. The target text contains both overt and covert errors, but the style, tenor, and genre are all in harmony with the ST—the conversational style and the hierarchical connection between Mrs. Hurst and Jane are preserved. Mrs. Hurst perpetuates class-based bias in the ST by implying that Jane's parents' status risks her chances of a happy marriage. However, the Arabic rendering "النسب المتدني الوضيع" introduces a direct insult absent in the original, thus constituting an overt error. Additionally, the sentence "أتمنى من كل قلبي لو كانت قد مكثت معنا بصحة طيبة" redirects the reader’s attention from Jane’s social position to her physical condition, weakening the original message and representing a covert error. These alterations also affect the interpersonal function. The ST frames Mrs. Hurst’s statement as a blunt, yet socially coded FTA, employing the strategy of bald-on-record—“with such a father and mother… there is no chance.” While TT adopts an identical directness, it amplifies the FTA by directly calling Jane "وضيع," making the remark sound harsher and more aggressive as compared to the ST. It is right that there is a degree of puzzle to politeness expressed by the TT with the use of "إنني معجبة حقاً بجين", the thing that shows the ST's feigned admiration, the overall pragmatic impact is altered. What was originally a veiled social critique becomes a more openly hostile judgment. Rather than softening the ST’s tone through cultural adaptation, the TT overemphasizes the insult, distorting Mrs. Hurst’s condescension and shifting the power dynamic. This misrepresentation ultimately changes the character’s portrayal and undermines the ST’s nuanced delivery.

TT(3), Here, the field remains concentrated on the social status of Jane, yet the core idea of her marriage prospects is partially displaced, with emphasis shifted toward her health. While the mode, tenor, and genre are all maintained—maintaining the hierarchical tone and social tension between Mrs. Hurst and Jane— the phrase"وأتمنى من كل قلبي أن تكون قد شفيت بشكل جيد" has a covert error. This additional concern about Jane’s recovery, which can’t be seen in the ST, diverts from the original critique and weakens the ideational force. The translation also misrepresents the ST's term "connections" with "اتصالات," which lacks the connotation of social ties intended; "علاقات" would be more accurate. Interpersonally, the TT largely maintains the source's confrontational tone. The phrase "لكن مع مثل هذا الأب وهذه الأم" preserves the strategy of bald-on-record used in the ST, continuing a straight forward attack on positive face and Jane’s family. Likewise, "أخشى ألا تكون هناك فرصة لها" reflects the blunt rejection of Jane’s marriage chances, keeping the face-threatening act intact. In terms of politeness strategies, "لدي تقدير مفرط للآنسة جاين بينيت" reflects the ST’s insincere praise, and "إنها حقًا فتاة جميلة جدًا" reinforces the illusion of admiration before the critique. The phrase "وأتمنى من كل قلبي" adds a layer of apparent concern but is weakened by its misplaced reference to Jane’s health. While the TT adapts expressions to Arabic norms through cultural filtering, this covert approach shifts the ST’s tone. The softened social critique dilutes Mrs. Hurst’s classist condescension, subtly altering the pragmatic effect and weakening the original character portrayal.

Conclusions

      Translating politeness strategies between English and Arabic literary texts is more than a linguistic task—it is a cultural and emotional journey. This study has shown that politeness operates beyond surface-level expressions; it is deeply embedded in how people relate, show respect, and navigate social hierarchies. Closely examining literary excerpts and their Arabic translations made it clear that effective translation demands much more than finding word-for-word equivalents. It calls for an intuitive understanding of both languages' social norms, tone, and cultural expectations.

       English often encodes politeness in structured forms—titles, hedging, or clear markers of formality—while Arabic tends to rely on subtle cues, context, and relational awareness. This distinction presents unique challenges when preserving the original text's emotional and interpersonal weight. Translators often have to adapt, soften, or omit certain expressions to make them culturally appropriate in the target language. Throughout the analysis, it was evident that shifts in politeness can reshape how characters are perceived, influence the power dynamics within dialogue, and alter the reader's interpretation of relationships. A literal translation could sometimes strip away the original's nuance; in others, too much adaptation risks changing the author's intent. Ultimately, this study highlights that translating politeness is a careful balancing act, blending linguistic accuracy with cultural empathy. It requires the translator to be a language expert and a cultural mediator, sensitive to how meaning lives between the lines.

References

1.Lakoff R.  The logic of Politeness, or minding your p's and q's". Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1973;pp: 292–305. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

2.Ide S.  Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingual, 8(2-3). 1989; pp:223-248.

3.Leech  G.  Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.1983.

4.Green G.  Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.1996.

5.Younus M K. Investigating politeness strategies presented in Iraqi sixth primary’s English student textbook. Al-Noor Journal for Humanities. 2025;3(3):181–188.

6.Fraser B.  Perspective on Politeness. Journal of Pragmatics. 1990;14 (2):7,219–236.

7.Grice H P.  'Logic and conversation' In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3. New York: Academic Press, 1975; pp: 41–58.

8.Lakoff  R. Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper & Row.1975.

9.Ahmed A & Hussein K.  A pragmatic representation of threatening in Arabic messages: A case study of court interactions. Al-Noor Journal for Humanities. 2025;3(3):157–164.

10.Brown P and Levinson S.  Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1987.

11.Thomas J.  Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman. 1995.

12.Ogiermann  E.  On Apologizing in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.2009.

13.Sifianou M. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press.1992.

14.House J.  Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description versus social evaluation. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators' Journal. 2001; 46(2):243-257.

15.Munday J. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London: Routledge.2001.

16.Hatim B.  Teaching and Researching Translation. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. 2001.

17.House J.  Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.1997.