The Concept of Tact

 

There are better or more appropriate ways of communicating certain information so that we don’t sound “too pointed” or “too direct” or “insulting” or “uncultured” or even “foolish.” People who speak just “anyhow” are often accused of lacking tact in communication. Someone said something to you and you felt that the person did not apply some “tact.” Why? It is because the language has something in common with politeness and common sense. As a matter of fact, tact is one kind of politeness. In this article, we shall attempt to look more closely at the various ways communicators apply some tact or tactics in communication in order to achieve their desired goal.

Tact as a Pragmatic Concept

According to Adegbite (2000) tact or “tactics” is a means of interpreting the discourse value of information encoded in a word and its relationship with other linguistic items which precede or follow the items as well as some other non-linguistic factors of communication-based on the communicative context of an utterance. “Discourse value” is the meaning that the speaker or writer expects his hearer/reader to decode or interpret. A question for example may not be intended to elicit any answer at all, but may aim at eliciting another kind of response from the participant. 

Rhetorical questions do not generally demand any verbal answers. Tact, therefore, is that alternative discourse options that are available to you, that will enable you to communicate more comprehensively, appropriately and most friendly. If I asked you, “don’t you think your shirt needs washing?” You are not likely to respond, “Yes, I think it does.” You will know I am tactically suggesting that you wash your shirt. On the other hand, you’re likely to feel embarrassed if I told you: “your shirt is dirty; go and wash it.” Below is a news item that appeared on the cover page of Most prominent News magazines for so many weeks during the later part of 2011. It said, “Who killed Gaddafi?” It is indeed a question, but is it really a question? What kind of answer does it demand?

Tact as Politeness

When communicators apply tact in speaking or writing, they do so in order to present some serious subject that may ordinarily appear offensive in a more polite and receptive manner. And we must point out here that one of the principal aims of tact is to achieve politeness. In pragmatics, we always pay attention to the force of our utterance. When people speak, their words or expressions generally have some force (or illocution) on the hearer. And this illocution may be positive or negative. To increase the level of politeness, it is recommended that it is better to use more indirect kind of illocution. According to Leech (1983), the indirect illocutions tend to be more polite because they increase the degree of options that people have and then the more indirect an illocution is the more diminished its force tends to be. Let me illustrate with the following examples:

Sometimes, some indirect illocutions function as commands, while some don’t. An offer such as “won’t you come in?” implies that coming in is in the interest of the person being addressed although it doesn’t sound too polite. On the hand, “will you return my book?” sounds rather harsh and authoritative. “Would you mind returning my book?” is indirect and polite.

Leech (1983) argues that the tact maxim essentially has two sides to it, i.e. a negative side, meaning “minimize the cost to y” and positive side “maximize the benefit to y.” This means that in proposing an action to y, z should direct his illocution towards a positive outcome by restricting y’s option of saying “No.” Thus an imperative like “relax” or “help yourself” which does not allow yto say No, is actually a positive polite way of making an offer. A positive force might even be added to it by a persuasive emphasis of “have a drink” or “you must have a drink.”

Forms of Illocutionary Function

Illocutionary functions are those functions that correspond to what the speaker or writer intends to achieve in the mind of the hearer or reader. As we have observed earlier these functions or goals may be positive or negative. Leech (1983) identifies four (4) types of illocutionary functions that are possible in different types of context, especially in relation to achieving social goals of maintaining comradeship. They are as follows:

(i)                Competitive; this illocutionary goal competes with social goals e.g. ordering, asking, demanding, begging

(ii)              Convivial; this illocutionary goal coincides with social goals e.g. inviting, greeting, thanking, congratulating

(iii)           Collaborative; this illocutionary goal is indifferent to the social

goal; asserting, reporting, announcing, instructing

(iv)            Conflictive; this illocutionary goal conflicts with social goal e.g. threatening, accusing, cursing, reprimanding

Only the first two involve politeness, however where the illocution is competitive, it only tends to reduce discord in case of competition between y and z. etc. 

Face-Saving Tact

All we have discussed so far about tact and how it relates to politeness is to show the various ways individuals use language to achieve the desired aims and sustain social relationships. When a speaker tries not to cause offence, he is said to be protecting the hearer’s face. So face-saving tact is a strategy in communication aimed at lessening someone feeling of threat or fear. It might be in form of a polite request or a statement that is actually a question, in order to reduce someone’s possibility to feel threatened, embarrassed or insulted. “Could you possibly close the door please” is a more face-saving tact than an imperative “close the door!”

CONCLUSION

You will agree with me that tact is very important in language use. You can imagine how peaceful our families and societies would be if everyone should apply some tact in the way we talk to one another. You will also agree with me that most conflicts in our society today is traceable to the fact that someone had forgotten the principle of face-saving and the other person had reacted rather harshly. We should now begin to apply these principles in our language use so that our relationships might be better as well as our world.