Ch7 Politeness

by Peter Grundy

Presenter: 孫安霖 , 694210221

Introduction

7.1 Politeness phenomena7.2 The effects of politeness7.3 Brown and Levison's model of politeness strategies

7.1 Politeness phenomena

Politeness: compare(2)and (3)encodes the social relationships between speakers and addressees and communicates social meanings. is the exercise of language choice to creates a context to match the addressee’s notion of how he or she should be addressed.is conventionalized in etiquette thus predicable.is a trade-off between economy and the speaker’s preference for a more elaborate expression.

7.2 The effects of politeness

Politeness strategies:imply the most appropriate speaker-addressee relationship. If we don’t see the relationship we will be upset by the strategies. are pervasive in every instance of communicated language, although sometimes we hardly notice it.

7.2.1 Dealing with compliments

The pervasive nature of politeness: compliments vs. modesty relationship.(19)(20)Even the choice between seemingly semantically empty categories such as anaphoric it and that is politeness driven.(20)(23)Men tend to see compliments as threatening and women to see them as a means of expressing rapport or solidarity.(Holmes,1995)

7.2.2 Unequal encounters

Politeness strategies are used to minimize the disagreements or different opinions.(24)An inferior member always speaks first in an encounter in China.(Gu,1990)(really ？ )

7.2.3 The preference for agreement

• The preference for agreement is a strong motivation in polite exchanges. Thus we tend to avoid disagreement although in fact we had different opinions.

7.2.4 Minimizing face loss

• Speakers try to avoid disagreement or coming out with overt disappointing utterances.

• We frequently offer those we talk to something they have not asked for by way of redress rather than tell them we cannot satisfy their need.(29)

7.3 Brown and Levison's model of politeness strategies A systematic description of cross-linguistic politen

ess phenomena as a support to an explanatory model capable to accounting for any instances.→universalGoffman’s‘face ’: a property that all human beings have and that is broadly comparable to self-esteem.Positive face: a person’s wish to be well thought of. Negative face: a person’s wish not to be imposed on by others and to be allowed to be unimpeded, free and self-determined.

7.3 Brown and Levison's model of politeness strategies

Three superordinate strategies to choose from: do the act on-record, do the act off-record, don’t do the act at all. three subordinate on-record strategies, making the five strategies available to perform a face-threatening act.

7.3 Ｂ rown and Levison's model of politeness strategies

The five strategies:1.Do the act on-record (a) badly

without redress (b) with positive politeness redress

(c) with negative politeness redress

2.Do the act off-record3.Don’t do the act at all.

7.3 Brown and Levison's model of politeness strategiesIn picking the five strategies, speakers

work with an equation in which any distance differential and any power differential and any imposion are computed:

Social Distance ＋ Power Differential＋ Degree of Imposion ＝ degree of face threat to be compensated by appropriate linguistic strategy.

7.3 Brown and Levison's model of politeness strategies

Strategies are rationalistic and teleological (having an end in mind)The five strategies is a ranking. A speaker will choose a highly ranked strategy where the face threat is felt to be high since being ‘too polite’ implies that one is asking a lot of someone.

7.3.1 Non-canonical politeness phenomena

• The use of politeness strategies that are not the result of expected computations of Power, Distance and Imposion.( the typical source of humor in television sit-coms but very occasionally in real life.)

• A list of positive and negative politeness strategies.(p.161)

7.3.2 the universal character of politeness

• Hierarchical societies: over-classes tend to favor distance encoding negative politeness strategies and under-classes tend to favor solidarity encoding positive politeness strategies.

• Egalitarian societies: positive strategies is a way of encoding and thus confirming a less territorial view of face. →face is to be ‘ascribed’ on merit rather than ‘acquired’ by birth.

7.3.2 The universal character of politeness

Brown and Levinson(1987): Politeness is universal but not equally distributed. It depends on the calculation of what is expected in each social and situational context that arises.Challenging criticisms:

1.Matsumoto(1988):The structures associated with negative politeness strategies in Japanese honorifics do not have negative politeness function but instead a social register.

7.3.2 The universal character of politeness

“ It is far from clear that deference can be equated with the speaker’s respecting an individual’s right to non-imposion ”(Matsumoto,1988)Distinction of two uses of deference:

1.The expectable and unexceptional situation as an automatic acknowledgement of relative social status, not a politeness strategy at all.

2.The expectable but exceptional particular situation as a redressive strategy.

7.3.2 The universal character of politeness

2.Gu(1990):Chinese usage reflect some degree of etymology of the word for politeness, one of whose constituent morphemes( li) denotes social order. for example, the etymology of bai (to prostrate oneself at the foot of another )as in baidu( to read) as evidence that knowing one’s place underlies Chinese politeness.

Grundy(2000): Baidu is as conventional and inert as a politeness strategy.

7.3.3 Redefining the folk term

Traditional definition is liable to being confused with a prescriptive approach to linguistic etiquette.( descriptions of prescriptions vs. descriptions of context-creating politeness ) Gu’s address modes in Chinese in which non-familial addresses are styled grandpa or aunt as a mark of respect.

7.3.4 Politeness as merely redressive ？

Two views:1.All instances of language in use have p

oliness status.2.Politeness is no more than a bolt-on r

edressive element which is typical found in interactional but not transactional discourse.(Kasper,1990)

→Grundy disagrees it because face-wants are satisfied precisely in certain transactional contexts.

Thank you for your attention!!Questions, comments, and suggestions are welcome!