Abstract
Polite speech poses a fundamental alignment challenge for large languagemodels (LLMs). Humans deploy a rich repertoire of linguistic strategies tobalance informational and social goals -- from positive approaches that buildrapport (compliments, expressions of interest) to negative strategies thatminimize imposition (hedging, indirectness). We investigate whether LLMs employa similarly context-sensitive repertoire by comparing human and LLM responsesin both constrained and open-ended production tasks. We find that larger models($\ge$70B parameters) successfully replicate key preferences from thecomputational pragmatics literature, and human evaluators surprisingly preferLLM-generated responses in open-ended contexts. However, further linguisticanalyses reveal that models disproportionately rely on negative politenessstrategies even in positive contexts, potentially leading tomisinterpretations. While modern LLMs demonstrate an impressive handle onpoliteness strategies, these subtle differences raise important questions aboutpragmatic alignment in AI systems.