Διεθνές Συνέδριο ‘SPEAKERS OF SMALLER
LANGUAGES IN THE BIG WORLD’, Πανεπιστήμιο
Σόφιας, Βουλγαρία.
POLITENESS PHENOMENA IN GREEK AND ENGLISH
A Cross-cultural Comparison
Introduction
“Discovering the principles of language usage may be largely
coincident with discovering the principles out of which social
relationships, in their interactional aspect, are structured:
dimensions by which individuals manage to relate to others in
particular ways.”
Brown & Levinson, 1987
“Pull your chair a bit forward, if you want.”
Believe it or not, this is a perfect example of a polite Greek request that
would cause no offence at all if uttered in a Greek setting. However, what
would an English person think, if he would listen to that sentence? ‘It’s all
Greek to me!’
In this essay, it will be examined how non-universal linguistic aspects of a
natural language can provoke pragmatic failure, an event of cross-cultural
communication breakdown. More specifically, in the first section the
pragmatic phenomenon of Politeness is going to be studied, followed in the
second section by a cross-cultural comparison between two European
languages: English and Greek. The main attempt of the present paper is to
show that due to the fact that Greeks convey politeness in different
linguistic ways, they are often considered to be less polite, or sometimes
even impolite, compared to English people. So, in the last third section we
will be looking at the Greek linguistic devices used in expressing
politeness.
Afroditi Bousoulenga
1
SECTION ONE
1. The concept of Politeness
Language is above all a tool of communication, a channel of conveying
meaning. Regarding Language a cultural phenomenon, it is undoubtfull that
all kinds of ethnic, political, regional and class differences would manifest
themselves through various linguistic as well as pragmatic variations in it,
an argument supported through the years by various linguists, ethnologists
and philosophers.
The concept of Politeness has been part of linguistic studies since the late
1970s but it was the publication of Brown and Levinsons’ famous
Politeness book, in 1978 that established this issue as one of the main
areas of Pragmatics theory, a novelty that emphasized the importance of
this concept in human interaction (Sifianou, 1992). Etymologically, polite
could be derived from either the Greek poli which means ‘city’, and
politizmos meaning ‘civilization’ (Tegopoulos and Fitrakis, 1993), or by the
Latin politus, past participle of polire which means ‘to smooth’ (Tzartzanos,
1997). So, the original meaning of the word polite was ‘smoothed’, and
gradually, when referring to people, ‘refined’, ‘cultivated’ and ‘well bred’
(Sifianou, 1992). However, since in our times the definition of politeness is
‘the attitude of being socially correct, being refined and having good
manners’ (Oxford Dictionary 1981), then two issues emerge immediately:
first that neither speakers’ linguistic behaviour necessarily accounts for
their real motivation, nor should we assume that all languages share the
same perceptions as far as concepts as ‘good manners’ or ‘social
correctness’ are concerned (Thomas, 1995; Sifianou, 1992). Scholars have
nowadays agreed on the fact that politeness is conceptualized differently
and so, manifested differently in each society, an argument supported by
Sifianou (1992), who points out that ‘...despite popular stereotypes, no
nation may be objectively verified as more or less polite than any other, but
only polite in a different, culturally specific way’.
1.1 Principles of Politeness
Afroditi Bousoulenga
2
Politeness can be manifested through general social behaviour as well as
linguistic means. This assumption, however, emphasizes once again on the
fact that politeness cannot and should not be assessed out of context,
since from a pragmatic point of view, all utterances in conversation are
interpreted firstly contextually and only secondly literally (Coulmas, 1981).
The hypothesis that, what is implied and/or meant at a discourse level
varies according to the context of the utterance, was originally introduced
by Grice, in 1968. Within the issue of politeness, the most respected theory
appears to be, as aforementioned, Brown and Levinson’s. The basis of
their theory is the concept of face, a term referring to every individual’s
sense of self-image. This concept involves a positive and a negative
aspect:
negative face: the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his
actions be unimpeded by others.
positive face: the want of every member that his wants be desirable
to at least some others. (Brown & Levinson, 1978)
The concept of face leads to the hypothesis that certain illocutionary acts
could be face-threatening, an idea introduced once again by Brown and
Levinson (1978). Face-threatening acts (FTA), are liable to threaten or
damage the Hearer’s positive face, i.e. expressions of disapproval/criticism,
accusations, contradictions, interrupting, expressions of violent emotions,
etc., and threaten his/her negative face, i.e. orders, requests, remindings,
offers, promises, etc. Moreover, certain acts can also be face threatening to
the Speaker’s positive face, such as expressing thanks, excuses,
acceptance of offers/apologies, etc., as well as his/her negative face, such
as apologies, acceptance of compliments, confessions/admissions of guilt
or responsibility, etc. Thus, always according to Brown and Levinson’s
hypothesis, the Speaker should adopt certain strategies, in order to
maintain his or her own face undamaged and at the same time to minimize
the possibility of affecting the positive or negative face of the Hearer. If the
Speaker decides to perform a FTA, then Brown and Levinson (1978)
suggest a framework that determines the choice of his/her strategy:
Afroditi Bousoulenga
3
The theory of Politeness has been explored by other academics as well.
All of them share the belief that the concept of face, of both the Speaker’s
and Hearer’s, is of great importance. Therefore, it is suggested that the
strategies followed by the Speaker when performing an illocutionary act,
should be the least threatening possible to that concept.
1.2 The Universality of Politeness phenomena
Evidence for the universality of Politeness lies in the study of every diverse
language community (Brown & Levinson, 1978; Leech, 1983). All cultures
seem to share this specific concept and express it in certain linguistic and
very often in non-verbal ways, i.e. warm look, friendly smile, etc. However,
there is a diversity of opinions concerning the way that Speech Acts,
including FTA, function. Some scholars have suggested that they operate
by universal pragmatic principles, whereas they have been claimed by
others to vary in conceptualization and verbalization across cultures and
Languages (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989).
It is generally accepted that various markers contribute to the politeness of
an utterance and the explanations of their existence are placed within a
broad framework of cultural differences. As aforementioned, it is undoubtful
that different socio-cultural norms are reflected in all levels of the linguistic
code. Therefore, when observing politeness norms the researcher should
always take account of the relationship between the Speaker and the
Afroditi Bousoulenga
4
Hearer and the nature of the interaction in which they are involved (Leech,
1983). Within their framework of Politeness, Brown and Levinson argue
that three different sociological variables, determine the weightiness of a
FTA, ‘perhaps in all cultures’. These are the following:
- ‘the social distance’ (D) of Speaker and Hearer (a symmetric relation)
- the relative ‘power’ (P) of Speaker and Hearer (an asymmetric relation)
- the absolute ranking (R) of imposition in the particular culture.
Moreover, according to their hypothesis, these variables have an actual
value only when there is a mutual knowledge of their meaning between the
interactants.
Nevertheless, even though certain pragmatic features do manifest
themselves in any natural language, the issue of universality is challenged
since the system of variant patterns governing the linguistic expression of
Politeness, derives from different norms and values that are culturally
bound (Sifianou, 1989). This is the main source of criticism for Brown and
Levinson’s theory, which has shown to be inadequate especially as far as
face is concerned, since its exact content is culturally specific.
SECTION TWO
2. A cross-cultural comparison: Greek versus English
The Greek word for Politeness is evγeniα, and reflects the similar
connotations as in English. Originally, ef meant ‘good’ and γenos ‘origin’ or
‘descent’. Thus, Politeness was an attribute characteristic of an aristocrat
(Tegopoulos & Fitrakis, 1993), someone from a good family, a noble.
As aforementioned, the present paper attempts to compare and contrast
the linguistic constructions employed in Greek and English so as to function
as polite forms. The major interactional difference between the Greek and
English culture is that a preference for formality and distance has been
observed in English, whereas in Greek a tendency for intimacy and
informality seems to be manifested. In particular, there are differences in
Brown and Levinson’s notions of ‘imposition’ and attitudes toward
interactional involvement. Greeks tend to express politeness either by
showing solidarity towards the Hearer and by claiming common ground, or
Afroditi Bousoulenga
5
by showing affectionate concern for imposing on his/her freedom of action
(Sifianou, 1991). Moreover, they value intimacy as an indicator of
closeness with others. The majority of Greeks are rarely on their own. By
contrast to other societies, they seem to spend more time with friends and
relatives where they express their views and opinions (Vassiliou, Triandis &
Mcguire, 1972, in Sifianou, 1989). Generally speaking, ‘talkativeness and
effusiveness are not only tolerated but also highly desirable and sometimes
compulsory components of interaction among Greeks’ (Sifianou, 1989).
Nevertheless, intimacy and solidarity do not necessarily minimize the
concept of face which is present in the Greek society. On the contrary,
social distance and deference are acknowledged by the use of the forms of
address and the formal plural (Triandafillides, 1979; Makri-Tsilipakou,
1983). Brown and Levinson’s Politeness model suggests another
distinction, that of positive and negative politeness societies. This
distinction is, as they put it, ‘the social basis for the predominant cultural
style of interaction...it typifies relations in public’ (1978: 249). In the present
paper it is argued that Greece is a positive politeness society when
compared to England. This argument emerges from the observation of the
preferred strategies employed by Greeks to convey politeness. These
strategies are positive in nature (according to Brown and Levinson’s
schema), such as in-group markers, direct constructions and in general,
linguistic devices which sound optimistic about the outcome of the
conversational event (Sifianou, 1989). On the contrary, a preference for
negative politeness strategies has been observed in English encounters
where general devices which sound pessimistic are employed (Brown and
Levinson, 1978). English seem to equate indirectness with politeness,
where indirectness itself appears to be one of the main characteristics of
individualism.
To summarize, it is generally accepted that neither societies as a whole
can be characterized as either absolutely negative or absolutely positive,
nor has it been proved a universality in politeness strategies.
Afroditi Bousoulenga
6
SECTION THREE
3. Greek linguistic devices used in expressing politeness
In this section, four of the Greek linguistic devices used in conveying
politeness are going to be discussed.
3.1 The case of diminutives
The original function of diminutives, both in Greek and English, is to
indicate smallness. However, these linguistic elements, along with the
lexical item ‘liγo’ (a little) are markers of intimacy and informal politeness
and are often used to establish solidarity among the interactants and
minimize any threat to both the Speaker’s and Hearer’s face.
Diminutives (or hypochoristics) appear to be universal linguistic forms
unevenly distributed among European languages. To be more specific,
English is notoriously poor in this respect (Ullman, 1953 in Weinreich,
1966). The production of diminutives occurs extensively in Greek
(Triandafillides, 1979) along with a further flexibility of multiple suffixation,
i.e. mama (mother), mamaka-mamakoula-mamakoulitsa. Their frequency
of occurrence is heightened when the Speaker is referring or talking to
children:
Example 1
[ Mother to her three-year-old daughter]1
ela
karδulα mu
anixe to stomatαki su
na fas
to
psarαki su...
come on heart-dim. my open the mouth-dim. your
to eat-you
the
fish-dim. your...
‘Come on sweetheart eat up your fish.’
Nevertheless, Greek diminutive forms are not restricted to encounters with
children. By using them with adults the Speaker immediately signals
1
The data in Greek used here were taken from studies conducted by Sifianou (1989,
1992), Makri-Tsilipakou (1983), Pavlidou (1986), Tannen and Oztek (1981) and they are
all examples of discourse. These examples are followed by both a translation in English
and given in Latin characters. However, exact translation of the Greek constructions is not
always possible and therefore some of those given here should be seen as
approximations.
Afroditi Bousoulenga
7
affectionate concern for imposing on the Hearer’s freedom of action
(Sifianou, 1989), i.e.:
Example 2
[waiter in a restaurant]
travate
tin kareklitsα sas
para mesa
an θelete?
pull-you the chair-dim. your a bit forward if want-you
‘Could you please move your chair a bit?’
Diminutives are also present in cases where the Speaker wishes to reduce
the impact of his/her utterance when referred to self achievement, own
possessions etc., that could be interpreted as self-praise.
The best examples of Greek diminutives exhibiting pragmatic force in polite
interaction are present in the case of requests (Sifianou, 1989). Requests
are by nature face-threatening acts and therefore, they require some kind
of minimization of imposition (Brown and Levinson, 1978). However, it
should be mentioned once again that the concept of imposition is not
universal. In Greece, requests are culturally specific speech acts, not
always perceived as FTA.
Greek diminutives are not restricted to certain structural patterns. They
could be used to soften impositions even when they co-occur with
imperative, subjunctive and indicative constructions (Triandafillides, 1979),
i.e.:
Example 3
[on the phone]
perimenete ena leptαki
wait
a
minute-dim.
‘Hang on a minute, please.’
Example 4
[in the elevator]
patate liγo
ton ekto?
press a little the sixth
‘Could you press the button for the sixth flour, please?’
Afroditi Bousoulenga
8
Thus, diminutives are used by the Speaker to establish solidarity and
common ground with the Hearer. In the case of the seventh example, the
lexical item liγo is employed as a convension that minimizes both the force
of imposition to the Hearer’s negative face and the impact of the
imperative.
Diminutive forms n Greek manifest themselves in other various cases, such
as offers and compliments. Offers constitute basic positive politeness
strategies, in that Speakers indicate their concern about the Hearer’s
desires, which they wish to satisfy. For instance, a gift can be perceived as
an action imposing to the Hearer’s negative face, as he/she might wish to
either accept or reject it. In this case, the reciprocity of giving and receiving
is mitigated by the use of diminutives which act as conventional linguistic
devices, i.e.:
Example 5
[at a party]
ma ela
pare liγes
patatules
akomi
but come on, take a few potatoes-dim. more
‘Come on, have some more potatoes.’
To summarize, diminutive forms are often employed in Greek as politeness
markers. In these cases they function as linguistic conventional devices
and convey intimacy, common ground and solidarity. Moreover, the
considerable ease with which diminutives are formed and employed in
Greek seems to contrast with the system of diminution in English.
3.2 The case of formal plural and forms of address
3.2.1 Formal plural
The Greek language includes a pronominal system similar to those of many
European languages, i.e. French tu/vous, Russian ty/vy, German Du/Sie
and Greek esi/esis. Generally speaking, the form of the second pronominal
person in plural, esis, is addressed to one Hearer as a means of indicating
formality and/or politeness and is determined either by the social distance
or status differences between the interactants in an encounter. What
should also be mentioned here, is that the V pronoun itself is not
necessarily stated in an utterance, because in Greek the inflectional system
Afroditi Bousoulenga
9
of the verb indicates both person and number, rendering personal
pronouns redundant (Triandafillides, 1979).
Finally, we could say that in Greek formality, social distance and politeness
can be expressed through the polite plural. Polite plurals can be used only
in direct address and are restricted to the use of the second plural verb
towards a single addressee (Triandafillides, 1979). The Speaker’s
appropriate choice of pronoun and number of the verb when addressing to
one Hearer determines the status of the encounter. The avoidance of this
linguistic device in cases when it is most expected could provoke a
communication breakdown or imply certain ideas and feelings from the
Speaker’s part towards the Hearer and/or their relation.
3.2.2 Forms of address in Greek
Along with the T/V pronominal system, Greek includes a variety of
possibilities of address listed here:
Title (T) [kirie, kiria, δespinis]
First Name (FN)
Title+First Name (T+ FN)
Last Name (LN)
Title+Last Name (T+LN)
Title+ Positional Title
Multiple Naming (MN)
No Naming (NN)
The form T+FN, not existing in English, is an intermediate possibility in
Greek which helps bridge the gap between formality and intimacy. Besides,
this particular construction is probably the most commonly used in
everyday encounters (Makri-Tsilipakou, 1983). The number choice is
determined by the form of address. The FN of the Hearer is always
followed by the second singular number, whereas plural is employed with T
and T+LN. The construction T+FN can be followed by either singular or
plural.
Besides the common titles Mr (kirios), Mrs (kiria) and Miss (δespinis), there
are certain words that can be used as forms of address in a more
impersonal and distancing way. These forms include occupations or
Afroditi Bousoulenga
10
position (PT) and respect. For instance forms of occupation titles are
δikiγore (vocative for δikiγoros ‘lawyer’), καθiγitα (vocative for kαθγitis
‘professor’), γιαtre (vocative of γatros ‘doctor’) and others. Examples of
respect titles are sevαzmiotαte and αksiotime (vocative of the adjectives
sevαzmiotαtos ‘ most respected’ and αksiotimos ‘worthy of honour’).
Respect titles are never preceded by other titles, however in Greek a
Speaker can say for example, kirie δikαstα (vacation of kirios δikαstis ‘Mr.
Judge’), or kirie δimαrχe (vocation of kirios δimarχos ‘Mr. Mayor’), etc.
(Makri-Tsilipakou, 1983).
Forms of endearment and kinship are also used as forms of address and it
has been recorded that their occurrence is more frequent in Greek than in
English (Sifianou, 1992). This, once again, is bound to the Greek culture
which is based on in-group relations. Terms of endearment and intimacy
are for example, mαtiα mu (my eyes), kαrδγια mu (my heart), psixi mu (my
soul), and their diminutives. Moreover, kinship terms such as, mαnulα mu
(my mother-dim.) or peδi mu (mu child), can also be found in encounters
between friends and are considered to be very affectionate forms of
address, and though semantically unnecessary, extremely frequent.
3.3 The case of formulaic speech
Finally, in Modern Greek there are certain ‘formulas’ that convey many
different meanings of politeness. There are times, for example, when
people need to have control over forces that seem threatening, such as
death, health problems, loss, etc.. The opposites of these events are also
supplied with a number of formulaic speech in Greek. Occasions of
happiness, departures and exchanging of goods (especially taking) gather
the greatest number of formulas, 20 per cent of all Greek formulas (data
gathered by Tannen and Oztek, 1981). All these formulas should be firstly
examined contextually and only secondly in a literal way. Although English
has many formulaic expressions (at least 2500 have been isolated by
Fillmore, in Tannen and Oztek, 1981), Greek not only includes many more
than English but most of them do not exist in English. Once again, when
exploring the pragmatic function of these expressions, we can understand
the cultural conventions of a country and to what extent these conventions
Afroditi Bousoulenga
11
can be considered universal. It should also be mentioned here that in
Greece older people tend to use formulas more than younger ones, and
these formulas are far more widely used in villages than in Athens (Tannen
and Oztek, 1981)2
At this point, I would like to list the formulas that have been recorded by
Tannen and Oztek (1981) in an attempt to explain what exactly is meant by
the statement that most of the Greek formulas are not linguistically or
semantically expressed in English and to what extent this case reveals
cultural differences between the two societies. These formulaic expressions
are ranked here according to obligatoriness, as well as according to the
judgments of 25 Greeks of varying age, sex and geographical origins, all
now living in Athens.
Health to Our Mouths
1. chronia pola, ‘many years’, holidays, namedays, birthdays.
2. kalinichta, ‘goodnight’, leaving at night, going to sleep.
3. kali epitichia, ‘good success’, good luck.
4. silipitiria, ‘condolences’, to one bereaved.
5. stin ighia sas, ‘to your health’, toast.
6. perastika, ‘passingly’, to one who is ill.
7. kalos orises, ‘welcome’, familiar; to one arriving.
8. na tous cherese, ‘enjoy them’ [your loved ones], general wish.
9. kali orexi, ‘good appetite’, before a meal or to one eating.
10. kalo taxidi, ‘good trip’, to one leaving for a trip.
11. kali stadhiodhromia, ‘good racecourse’, start of new career.
12. kali proodo, ‘good progress’, after graduation.
13. kalos politis, ‘good citizen’, to a man discharged from the army.
14. kaloriziko, ‘good fate’, to one who has acquired a new item.
15. kali tichi, ‘good luck’, whenever someone needs it.
16. kali dhiaskedhasi, ‘good enjoyment’, to one going out to have fun.
17. na ta ekatostisis, ‘hundred them’, to someone's birthday .
2 This is also my personal anecdotic view, however I would like to add that nowadays young
people seem to go back to these, in a way, traditiona lexpressions. They are often found in
encounters with educated young people, not necessarily from villages.
Afroditi Bousoulenga
12
18. kalos sas vrika, ‘well found you’, formal; response to (7).
19. me ghia, ‘with health’, to someone who has got new clothing.
20. (na pas) sto kalo, ‘(go) to the good’, to someone leaving.
2l. kala stefana, ‘goodwreaths’, to an engagement.
22. kalos na ton dhechtis, ‘receive him well’, to someone who will have a
loved one visit.
23. kali lefteria, ‘good freedom’, to a pregnant woman.
24. Theos schores ton, ‘God forgive him’, mention of dead person.
25. I ora i kali, ‘the good hour’, mention of good event.
26. kali andamosi, ‘good meeting’, leaving for a long time (both leaver and
stayer say).
27. me to kalo, ‘with the good’, to someone leaving.
28. oti epithimite, ‘whatever you long for’, to someone leaving.
29. kalo ximeroma, ‘good dawning’, to someone going to sleep.
30. na cherese ton andra sou, ‘enjoy your husband (children, etc.)’, general
good wish.
31. na ta chiliasis, ‘thousand them’, on someone's birthday.
32. O Theos voithos, ‘God the Helper’, mention of future event.
33. Ora kali, ‘good hour’, variant of (25).
34. I Panaghia mazi sou, ‘the Virgin be with you’, to someone leaving.
35. se kali meria, ‘in a good place’, when giving someone money.
36. na zisete, ‘may you (pl.) live’, on someone’s wedding.
37. kali chonepsi, ‘good digestion’, after a meal.
38. onira glika, ‘sweet dreams’, to someone going to sleep.
39. na sou zisi, ‘may [he/she] live to you’, occasion celebrated by
someone's child. The formula is said to parent.
40. ghia sta cheria sou, ‘health to your hands’, to someone who has shown
something they made.
41. o Theos mazi sou, ’God be with you’, to someone leaving.
42. kala saranda, ‘good forty (days)’, to woman who has given birth.
43. o sinhoremenos, ‘the forgiven one’, mention of deceased person.
44. kaloforemeno, ‘well-worn’, new clothing.
45. me to simpathio, ‘with the indulgence’, or ‘I beg your pardon’, at the
mention of an off-colour word.
Afroditi Bousoulenga
13
46. sidherenios, 'of iron’, to someone who has recovered from illness.
47. me to ghio (me ena ghio), ‘with the son (with a son)’, to a pregnant
woman
To conclude, it has been clear from the list above that Greek includes a
number of culturally bound ‘formulas’. Most of these formulas cannot be
linguistically interpreted in English as they do not exist semantically in that
language.
Conclusion
The aim of the present paper has been to explore the linguistic ways in
which Greek conveys Politeness and to compare and contrast these ways
to the ones employed by the English language system. Therefore, the
conclusions of this analysis are as follows: first of all, Greek conveys
politeness using different strategies than English, strategies that are
regarded as ‘positive’. Further, it has been shown from the data that
despite the preference for in-group constructions, deference and respect
can be expressed in Greek with the use of formal plural and various forms
of address. Finally, the major difference that has been observed between
the Greek and English culture is the way that Politeness is conceptualized
by the members of each society. I believe that this difference originates
from the fact that the concept of imposition in Greece has been reported to
differ from the way it is regarded in England. If the basis in Brown and
Levinson’s theory is the notion of face and if this notion is realized
differently by the Greek society, it is not pragmatically correct to compare
two cultures at a Politeness level. Not only, I think that Greeks are regarded
by English as impolite or less polite than them, for two reasons. First of all,
Greeks state their opinions and talk about personal things, a behaviour that
is too direct and against the English preference for individualism and
formality. As far as the second reason is concerned, I believe that it is
based on the theory of transfer. If we accept the fact that non native
speakers of a second language, in this case Greek speakers of English,
unconsciously attempt to apply the grammatical constructions of their
mother tongue to the L2, then it is possible that in their effort to convey
politeness with the linguistic devices they employ in Greek, they fail to
Afroditi Bousoulenga
14
produce the same impact on the Hearer due to lack of the same devices in
English, and as a result they are often considered to be impolite. So, when
Greeks wish to express something politely they first make use of the formal
plural along with the forms of address. Thus, if the English language
system cannot provide them with these linguistic devices, then they first go
through a stage where they omit in their minds these specific politeness
markers and do not employ any others, and by the time they start
understanding and applying the devices available to them by English they
have already been seen as less polite or impolite.
My argument is that the process of verbalizing concepts in an L2, the way
native speakers do, lasts longer than the process of acquiring grammatical
constructions or new words. Thus, I feel that since politeness is acquired as
a concept in early childhood (Bates, 1976), then L2 teachers should try to
emphasize to their students the importance of expressing the right idea in
the right way, where ‘right’ is defined in my mind as an utterance that would
not cause pragmatic failure between the interactants. I feel that certain
cultural elements could be tought and students should not only be aware of
the linguistic possibilities that a second language can offer them, but also of
the range of expressions that are culturally bound to the specific language.
Also we should keep in mind that since each and every language is linked
to its culture and occasionally cultures assign different meanings to their
apparent natural meaning (Goody, 1978, in Sifianou, 1992).
I would like to conclude by saying that Politeness as a concept can claim
for universality. However, societies should not be regarded as more or less
polite than others, as it has been proved by research that all societies are
polite in a culturally specific way.
Afroditi Bousoulenga
15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bates, E. 1976. Language and Context: the acquisition of Pragmatics. New
York: Academic Press.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. 1984. Requests and Apologies: A CrossCultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP). Applied
Linguistics, 5: 197-213.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1978,1987. Politeness: Some universals in
language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. 1984. Pragmatic Knowledge: Rules and
Procedures. Applied Linguistics, 5: 214-25.
House, J. & Kasper, G. 1989, (eds.). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests
and Apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
House, J. & Kasper, G Politeness Markers in English and German, in
Coulmas, F.(ed.), 1981. Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton.
Hymes, D. 1964. Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics
and Anthropology. New York: Harper and Row.
Hymes, D. 1984. Vers la Competence de Communication. Paris: Hatier.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Maher, J. & Groves, J. 1996. Chomsky for Beginners. Cambridge: Icon
Books Ltd.
Makri-Tsilipakou, M. 1983. ‘Apopira perigrafis tis neoellinikis prosfonisis’.[
The forms of address in Modern Greek.] Studies in Greek Linguistics:
Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics,
Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, 219-40.
Pavlidou, T. 1986. “ ‘Na rotiso kati ;’ erotisis se ipotaktiki ”. [ The subjunctive
mood in independent interrogative sentences.] Studies in Greek Linguistics:
Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics,
Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, 233-49.
Pride, J. B. 1971. The Social Meaning of Language. London: Oxford
University Press.
Searle, J. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech
Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Afroditi Bousoulenga
16
Sifianou, M. 1989. On the Phone again! Differences in telephone behaviour:
England versus Greece. Language in Society, 18: 527-44.
Sifianou, M. 1992. The use of diminutives in expressing politeness: Modern
Greek versus English. Journal of Pragmatics, 17: 155-73.
Sifianou, M. 1992. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: a CrossCultural Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. & Oztek, P.K. Health to Our Mouths. Formulaic Speech in
Turkish and Greek, in Coulmas, F. (ed.), 1981. Conversational Routine. The
Hague: Mouton.
Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics, 4:
91-112.
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics.
London: Longman.
Triandafillides, M. 1980. Neoelliniki Grammatiki. [ Modern Greek Grammar.]
Thessaloniki: Aristotelian University
Tsitsipis, L. 1995. Isagogi stin Anthropologia tis Glossas.[ Introduction to
Linguistic Anthropology.] Athens: Gutenberg.
Afroditi Bousoulenga
17