PRAGMATICS 4

POLITENESS

Related to cooperative principle. What we expect and consider being rational (or civilized behaviour).
Expectations vary according to culture, communities, social groups and discourse systems
Pragmatic phenomenon (context). Differentiation of what is appropriate from what is not.
APPROACHES:

 GREEN: Strategies for maintaining or changing interpersonal relations.

 GRUNDY: Study of the way in which expectations as to how we should be addressed are met (or not).

 LEECH: Missing link between the Cooperative principle and the problem of how to relate sense to force. Polite maxims

 WATTS: Values of socially acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

1. 1st order politeness (politeness 1) Everyday sense of the term. Evaluation by common people.
2. 2nd order politeness (politeness 2) Abstract characterization, scientific concept, transcends everyday notion.

 FRASER: (4 main approaches)

1. Social-norm view: Good manners (use of “could” instead of “can” as politer). Perspective which lost support.
2. The conversational-contract view: All participants in an interaction enter into a conversation (agreement of participation).
3. Conversational-maxim view: Cooperative principle based (Grice´s)
4. The face-saving view: Most renowned. Avoids face threatening acts (offence, damage to speaker´s or addressee´s face)
 OTHER APPROACHES

5. EMOTIVE PERSPECTIVE: Focused on holistic behaviour and emotions. Affects language and paralinguistic features (gesture, intonation, laughter).

6. RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: Relational work. Efforts made by participants to be as considerate towards one another as possible. Postmodern perspective.

7. FRAME APPROACH: Conventionalized forms of polite behaviour and stereotyped features. Used for routinized conventionalization.

8. RAPPORT (interpersonal relations) MANAGEMENT VIEW: Sociocultural perspective. Later on, representation in
A. Face managements
A3. Personal level
A1. Quality face: Value of our personal qualities (self-esteem)
A2. Identity face: Value of ourselves in terms of social roles (parents, boss, teacher) A4. Relational level

A5. Group level

B.Management of social things All including emotive context
B1. Equity rights: How we think we should be treated
B2. Identity face: Entitlements we feel we should have in terms of relation with others

Politeness is not an innate phenomenon. We acquire it. Can´t be disregarded in any study of the nature of human language.
 FACE Brown and Levinston

Face =wants

Negative face: The want of any `competent adult´ member is unimpeded

Positive face: The want of every member that his wants be desirable (approved)

Lose face: Damage to one´s self-esteem (embarrassment, humiliation, suffering)

It is everyone´s interest to respect other´s people face (it varies through cultures)

FACE THREATENING ACTS (FTA): One´s face wants to come into conflict with other people´s desires.

FTAS FOCUSED ON THREATS TO THE HEARER´S FACE

A. Threats to hearer´s positive face: Show a lack of respect, of praise or of sensitivity. Redressive actions: Additional linguistic materials which show that the
speaker is aware of the harm done*. Criticisms, violent displays of emotion, bad news: You´ve been a good student all semester but you´ve failed the exam.
B. Threats to hearer´s negative face: Offers or promises, mechanisms that request reciprocity (the hearer may feel to promise something back), restricts freedom
of action. Orders, requests, reminders, dares, offers: I´d like to make you a loan of 5000 €

FTAS FOCUSED ON THREATS TO THE SPEAKER´S FACE

A. Threats to the speaker´s negative face: In reaction to something the hearer has said or done (no choice but to utter). Thanks, acceptance of thanks, excuses,
responses to a gaffe. Don't worry, you didn't know my husband had died.
B. Threats to the speaker´s positive face: Admitting something that is damaging to the speaker´s self image. Apologizes, acceptance of a compliment, loss of
physical control, confession. I haven´t done the homework.

*Redressive action: A strategy used by the speaker to compensate threats to face using a form of words and intonation (not obligatory). This way, the hearer can infer that
the speaker is sensitive to the damage he is doing.
 POLITENESS STRATEGIES

Circumstances determining the choice of the strategy Secure strategy, less offensive

Lesser Do the FTA On record (1) Without Redressive -BALD

Estimation of face loss (4) Off record With Redressive (2) positive politeness
(3) negative politeness
Greater (5)Don´t do the FTA
Secure strategy, most offensive
Risky strategies for most offensive

(1) Speaker go on record without redressive action: Considerations of face are less important than getting the message across. Urgency: Call an ambulance!
(2) Going on record with redressive action + positive politeness: Speaker shows wants what the hearer´s wants. Polite formulation, sweetens the pill: Silly old you,
you´ve burned the toast!
(3) Going on record with redressive action + negative politeness: The hearer is not being coerced, Freedom of action: The report will be needed by 4, remember?
Instead of I told you the boss needs the report by 4.
(4) Speaker goes off record: The speaker says something that could be face threatening. The implicature may be drawn, both parties can act as if ther was no intention
of launching the implicature (use of euphemisms). A: It´s so late… The supermarket may be closed and my fridge is empty. B: I´m sure you will find a shop open.
(5) Not performing the FTA: The circumstance is so threatening that it is best not to do it. A “biting tongue” situation. It can have the opposite effect. A: I think she is
such a good person, don´t you think so? B: *(uncomfortable silence).

SOCIOLOGICAL VARIABLES (D, P & R)

Relevant for how speakers and hearers deals with threats to their face

D – Distance: Low for family and high for strangers. It is symmetrical

P – Power: Asymmetrical through material control physical force or financial capacity (employers over employees, etc) or metaphysical control (beliefs, priest over flock)

R- Ranking: How the culture in which S and H are operating defines imposition. Services H is being asked to deliver and related to material goods (begging: low imposition
outside a church and high imposition somewhere else)

Weightness of an FTA: Wx=D (S,H) + P (H,S) + Rx Examples:

 THEORIES OF IMPOLITENESS

Sometimes, interlocutor´s face in threaten purposely (accidentally, unconsciously /gratuitously). Continuum that allows various types of behaviour.

Impoliteness and emotion (anger or humiliation) Politeness (varied gamut of emotions).

KAUL DE MARLANGEON´S APPROACH

CULPEPER´S APPROACH Impoliteness can be sometimes involuntary (Information found in tango songs) –
Politeness as a continuum.
Each of B&L´s politeness super strategies have it opposite impoliteness
super strategy. P- Main variable when using impoliteness

1. Bald on record impoliteness: Attacking face in a direct way. Heated D- Can´t be regarded as a symmetrical relationship
argument: A: I don’t understand you b: Shut up, you idiot!
A speaker can choose if being impolite
2. Positive impoliteness: Strategies designed to damage the hearer´s
positive face wants Ex: excluding someone from conversation. 1- Overtly (baldly or with redress, attacking positive or negative face)
3. Negative impoliteness: Strategies designed to damage the hearer´s 2- Off record (irony, sarcasm)
negative face wants Ex: asking about private life to invade space.
Instances
4. Sarcasm or mock politeness: Use of polite strategies obviously
insincere, to provoke social disharmony Ex: It seems Your Majesty is A. Speaker
comfortable there. 1. Tries to be polite but for H´s manner, S is improper
5. Withhold politeness: Absence of politeness where it would be 2. Voluntarily offends H by:
expected Ex: Not thanking a present, deliberated silence. i. Committing a gaffe
ii. Stinting (escatimando) the politeness expected by H
Takes into account paralinguistic (non-verbal) politeness: Ex: Japanese
iii. Ignoring politeness norms
bowing salutation (pol.) Ex: rolling eyes, or watching the clock (impol.)
3. Deliberately uses offensive language towards him/herself
Definition of impoliteness: 4. Is very polite in order to hurt the hearer
5. Voluntarily stints on the politeness expected
Cannot be unintended. It happens when:
6. Deliberately offends the hearer to
1. The speaker communicates face- attack intentionally. i. Damage H´s face
2. The hearer perceives and/or constructs the behaviour as ii. Defend S´s face
intentionally face –attacking. B. Hearer
3. Combination of 1 and 2. 1. Interprets S behaviour as intentional
2. Remains silent intentionally