Ch7 Politeness
by Peter Grundy
Presenter: 孫安霖, 694210221
Introduction
7.1 Politeness phenomena
7.2 The effects of politeness
7.3 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 speakeraddressee 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
politeness phenomena as a support to an
explanatory model capable to accounting for
any instances.→universal
Goffman’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.
7.3Ｂrown 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-record
3.Don’t do the act at all.
7.3 Brown and Levison's model of
politeness strategies
In 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 sitcoms 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 nonimposion ”(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 contextcreating 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
poliness status.
2.Politeness is no more than a bolt-on
redressive element which is typical
found in interactional but not
transactional discourse.(Kasper,1990)
→Grundy disagrees it because facewants are satisfied precisely in certain
transactional contexts.
Thank you for your attention!!
Questions, comments, and suggestions
are welcome!