Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
The major aim of this section is to review the literature on linguistic politeness
as a technical term. A theory of linguistics politeness always takes as its focus the
ways in which the members of social group conceptualize politeness as they
participate in socio-communicative verbal interaction. There are eight concepts of
politeness that will become the subject of discussion of this article. These concepts
are proposed by (1) Robin Lakoff, (2) Penelope Brown and Steven Levinson, (3)
Geoffrey Leech, (4) Yueguo Gu, (5) Sachiko Ide, (6)Shoshena Blum Kulka, (7)
Bruce Frasher and William Nolen, and (8) Hornst Arndt and Richard Janney.
Robin Lakoff was associated in late 1960s with the development of a semantic
based model of generative grammar commonly refers to as “generative semantics”
and with the possible integration of speech act theory into generative models of
language. The positive impact of Grice’s cooperative principle has shifted Lakoff’s
linguistic interests in the direction of Gricean Pragmatics. Lakoff’s roots in
Generative Semantics effect her conceptualization in theory of politeness. Her rules,
of politeness are seen as part of a system of pragmatic rules. Which she likens that of
syntactic rules. So, politeness rules are primarily seen as a linguistic tool to capture
the systematic of the process.
1. Rules one (Be clear) is really the Grecian CP in which she renames the rules
of conversation. It is subdivided into a set of conversational maxims and sub-
maxims as describe bellow:
a. The maxims of Quantity
Sub maxim: - make your contribution as informative as is
required.
- Do not make your contribution more informative
than is required.
b. The maxims of Quality
Sub maxim: - Do not say what you believe to be false.
- Do not say that for which you lack adequate
evidence.
c. The maxims of Relation: be relevant
d. The maxims of Manner: be perspicuous
Sub maxim: - Avoid obscurity of expression
- Avoid ambiguity
- Be orderly
2. Rules two (be Polite) consists of a sub set of three rules: (1) don’t impose, (2)
give option (3) make a feel good-be friendly.
3. Rules three (make a good- be friendly) is most variable in terms of cultural
meanings
Lakoff’s interest in issue of gender discrimination led her to
investigate women and men’s speech in American English, using literary
texts, casual conversation, and personal observation as the basis for her
observation, women are socialized into using linguistics features that connote
tentative, deference and a lack of authority.
Lakoff’s suggests a range of style as follow:
1. Clarity
2. Strong distance
3. Deference
4. camaraderie
1. Bald On-record
Bald on-record strategies usually do not attempt to minimize the threat to the
hearer’s face, although there are ways that bald on-record politeness can be used in
trying to minimize FTAs implicitly. Often using such a strategy will shock or
embarrass the addressee, and so this strategy is most often utilized in situations where
the speaker has a close relationship with the audience, such as family or close friends.
Brown and Levinson outline various cases in which one might use the bald on-record
strategy, including.
Instances in which threat minimizing does not occur
Watch out!
Hear me out:...
Task-oriented
Welcomes
Come in.
Offers
The final politeness strategy outlined by Brown and Levinson is the indirect
strategy. This strategy uses indirect language and removes the speaker from the
potential to be imposing. For example, a speaker using the indirect strategy might
merely say “wow, it’s getting cold in here” insinuating that it would be nice if the
listener would get up and turn up the thermostat without directly asking the listener to
do so.
Face is the public self image that every adult tries to project. In their 1987
book, Brown and Levinson defined positive face two ways: as "the want of every
member that his wants be desirable to at least some others", or alternately, "the
positive consistent self-image or 'personality' (crucially including the desire that this
self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interact ants. Negative face
was defined as "the want of every 'competent adult member' that his actions be
unimpeded by others", or "the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to
non-distraction--i.e. the freedom of action and freedom from imposition". Ten years
later, Brown characterized positive face by desires to be liked, admired, ratified, and
related to positively, noting that one would threaten positive face by ignoring
someone. At the same time, she characterized negative face by the desire not to be
imposed upon, noting that negative face could be impinged upon by imposing on
someone. Positive Face refers to one's self-esteem, while negative face refers to one's
freedom to act. The two aspects of face are the basic wants in any social interaction,
and so during any social interaction, cooperation is needed amongst the participants
to maintain each others' faces.
Positive Politeness
Positive politeness strategies seek to minimize the threat to the hearer’s positive face.
They are used to make the hearer feel good about himself, his interests or
possessions, and are most usually used in situations where the audience knows each
other fairly well. In addition to hedging and attempts to avoid conflict, some
strategies of positive politeness include statements of friendship, solidarity,
compliments, and the following examples from Brown and Levinson:
Be optimistic
If we help each other, I guess, we’ll both sink or swim in this course.
Offer or promise
That’s a nice haircut you got; where did you get it?
Avoid Disagreement
Joke
Negative Politeness
Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer’s negative face and
emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer. These strategies presume that the
speaker will be imposing on the listener and there is a higher potential for
awkwardness or embarrassment than in bald on record strategies and positive
politeness strategies. Negative face is the desire to remain autonomous so the speaker
is more apt to include an out for the listener, through distancing styles like apologies.
Examples from Brown and Levinson include:
Be indirect
Be pessimistic
You couldn’t find your way to lending me a thousand dollars, could you?
It’s not too much out of your way, just a couple of blocks.
Apologize
I’m sorry; it’s a lot to ask, but can you lend me a thousand dollars?
In addition, there are ten strategies addressed to the hearer’s negative face
and are thus examples of negative politeness.
Leech, unlike Lakoff, does not aim at accounting for pragmatic competence.
His approach to linguistic politeness phenomena forms part of an attempt to set up a
model of what he calls general pragmatic, and account how language is used in
communicative. He proposes two further pragmatic systems:
Leech recognizes two systems of rhetoric, there are textual and interpersonal.
Textual rhetoric consists of four sets of principle: the processibililty principle, the
clarity principle, the economy principle, and the expressivity principle. Whereas
interpersonal rhetoric which among others consists of three sets of principle: the
cooperative principle, the politeness principle, and the irony principle. Thus he
considers the Grice’s CP and the PP to constitute only the principle of interpersonal
rhetoric.
To offer to do something that involves the H’s benefit, utterances must be made
as directly as possible for politeness, such as “Let me help you wash the dishes”.
On the contrary, request for the benefit to the S should be made as indirect as
possible for politeness, such as “ I’m going to hospital, but my car ha a flat tire”.
E.g. “Thought it’s not my favorite, you look wonderful in your new dress”.
B: * I disagree
I agree with you, but in this case there are mitigating circumstances.
g. Consideration Maxim
- Minimize the hearer’s discomfort/ displeasure
- Minimize the hearer’s comfort/ pleasure
(Leech, 1997; Thomas, 19997: 158-166;
Watts, 2003: 65-68)
Leech also goes further to suggest that there are three scales of delicacy
along which each to the maxims of the PP must operate: cost/benefit, optionality, and
indirectness. Cost/ benefit concern the weightiness in which a speaker has to weight
the amount of cost to her/him and the amount of the benefit his/her utterance will
bring the hearer.
Optionality Scale assesses the degree to which the illocution performed by
the speaker allow the addressee a degree of choice.
Indirectness Scale measure the amount of work incurred by the hearer in
interpreting the speech acts produce by the speaker.
This scale involves the authority scale and the distance scale. The first
measure the degree to which the speaker has the right to impose on the hearer while
the letter assesses the degree to which the speaker and the hearer are acquainted.
(Watts, 2003: 68)
The kind and amount of politeness that is called for depends on the following
situations:
1) Competitive: where the illocutionary goal competes with the social goal, e.g.
ordering, asking.
2) Convivial: where the illocutionary goal coincides with the social goal, e..g.
offering, thanking.
3) Collaborative: where the illocutionary goal is indifferent to the social goal, e.g.
asserting, announcing.
4) Conflictive: where the illocutionary goal conflicts with the social goal, e.g.
threatening, accusing.
(Leech, 1997; Watts, 2003: 69)
In the latter two situations, politeness is either irrelevant (in a collaborative
situation) or simply out of question (in a conflictive situation). In the former,
politeness will be mostly negative, for example to avoid discord or giving offence,
while in the latter it will be positive.
As we can see from the above schema Irony principle is a second order principle.
It is apparently friendly way of being offensive (mock politeness). It enable as a
speaker to be impolite while seeming to be polite. It does so superficially breaking the
CP, but ultimately upholding it. For example an utterance, “that’s all I wanted’ (it’s
taken a means “that’s exactly what I did not want.) The Irony force of the remark is
often signaled by exaggeration or understatement, which make it difficult for the
hearer to interpret the remark at its face value.
According to Dai a treatise on politeness and rituals is written for the purpose of
attaining political goals. There are four prescriptions that can be derived from Dai’s
liji and these are handed down from generation to other trough formal or informal
pedagogical channels.
Since politeness is a matter of moral, sanctionable norms, this entails that offers
and invitation are always made out of politeness consideration. As it is acknowledged
that invitation/acceptance interaction sequence typically consists of three exchangers:
Ide is one of the few researchers who have actually carried out experimental
research into common sense notions of politeness, the Japanese concept politeness.
That is the language usage associated with smooth communication that is realized
troughs the speaker’s use of intentional strategies to allow his/her message to be
resaved favorable by the addressee. The experiment result of Ide were use to
establish discernment as the primary component of Japanese politeness as apposed to
American volition.
Then in Japanese politeness roles are akin to grammatical rules. They are part of
the language itself, and depend on the socio structural characteristics of speaker and
hearer as well as on characteristics of the situation that must be faithfully reflected in
the speaker’s linguistic choice.
Shoshana Blum-Kulka’s Theory of Politeness
In Blum Kulka’s view discernment merely refers to that part of politeness which
is strongly conventionalized. Politeness is about appropriate social behavior as
determined by cultural expectation or cultural norms. From her research result Blum
Kulka also characterized politeness as something external, hypocritical and non-
natural. This negative qualification is associated with the view of politeness as an
outward mask.
Kulka maintains that there are two terms in used in Modern Hebrew that are
equivalent to politeness nimus and adivut. Nimus is frequently used in formal aspect
of social etiquette. While,adivut is used to express consideration and an effort to
accommodate to the addressee. She also makes an interesting distinction between
politeness in public and in the private sphere. She suggests that complain about lack
consideration deplorable public service, and luck of individual restraints in public
places indicate the lack of clear conversation for politeness as a social cultural code.
Within the sphere of the family, however, there is a cultural notion of kefergen which
means roughly to indulge.
Arndt and Janney have developed an approach towards politeness from the
early 1980s. In earlier work they make a distinction between social and interpersonal
politeness. Social politeness refers to standardized strategies for getting gracefully
into, and back out of recurring social satiation. (In Ellen, 2001:15) . Meanwhile,
interpersonal politeness on the contrary refers to the interpersonal practice of being
sportive. Supportiveness is not a function of what we say, but of how we say it.
In latter work, they elaborate the theory of interpersonal politeness, which is
captured under the new label ‘tact’. Tact is somewhat expended notion of
supportiveness, in that it is not only linked to positive but also negative face. Tact
here is seen from a normative perspective. Tact is said to have to basic roots
psychological and cultural. Firetb the impulse to seek and avoided confrontation is
seen as rooted in human biology and is shared with others animal species. Within this
framework there are two kinds of communication. Emitional and emitive. Emotional
communication refers to sponteness uncontrolled expression of emotion. Wearies
emotive communication is the conscious strategic modification of affective signals to
influence others behavior. Emotive communication involves not only speech but also
Para linguistic and non linguistic signal. It contains three dimensions: confident,
positive and negative effect and intensity.
Thus, within this model, politeness refers to the part of emotive
communication where the speaker behaves in an interpersonally supportive way. In
fact, Arndt and Jenney’s views of interpersonal supportiveness replaced the notion of
politeness entirely. The effective speaker attempts to minimize his/her partner’s
emotional uncertainty. in all cases by being as sportive as possible (Ellen 2001; 16,
Watts 2003; 53.
Arndt and Janney further discuss the concepts of interactional grammar. Arndt
and Janney discuses politeness it is relation to face. Their frame work of strategies of
face work resemble that the brown and Levinson. Albert with a somewhat narrower
definition of politeness. It ia most distinguishing characteristics, however are (1) It
conceptualize politeness as embedded in broader aspect of communication. (2)The
fact that politeness is not linked to sociological variable but rather the human
emotion.
SUMMARY
Brown and Lavinson have stated that politeness is universal feature of language
use. Thus it has occupied a central place in the social study of language, especially in
pragmatics. This also has attracted many scalars to investigate the phenomena of
linguistics politeness in a wide range of culture. The investigation has yielded a
number of theories or consensus of politeness. The corollary is the notion on
politeness has reserve different definition and interpretation. Some of the most widely
used models of linguistic politeness in literature are those proposed by Robin Lakoff.
Penelope Brown and Steven Levinson, Geoffrey leech, Yeugoa Go, Sharica ide,
Shoshena Blum Kulka, Bruce Frasher and William Nolen and Hornt Arndt and
Richard Janney.