Pragmatics: cultural values reflected in speech acts
See Crystal (1987: 120-121) and Jakubowska (1999: 24-34).
1. Introduction
> pragmatics – the study of “… the factors that govern our choice of language in social interaction and the effect of our choice on others.” (Crystal 1987: 120)
> differences between languages in the use of pragmatic distinctions, e.g., of politeness, formality, intimacy;
> use of expressions of politeness (e.g., E thank you vs. P dziękuję vs. F merci as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to an offer), greeting, leave-taking, talking or staying silent during a meal
> pragmatics as outside language structure, but is closely bound up with structure; overlap with other areas of linguistics: semantics, stylistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, discourse analysis
> types of competence: grammatical vs. communicative (Hymes 1972)
2. Speech acts
> speech act – an utterance equivalent to an action
a) key difference between performatives and constatives
> performative (equivalent to action): I apologize ..., I name this ship ...
> constative (communicate information): This is called ..., Hanna has a cat ...
b) three elements of study of speech acts, effects of utterances on speaker and hearer:
> locutionary act: bare communicative act
> illocutionary act: act being performed by making the utterance, e.g., begging, warning (illocutionary force)
> perlocutionary act: effect of the utterance on the interlocutor, e.g., anger, amusement
2.. Positive and negative face and politeness (Goffman 1959; Brown – Levinson 1987)
> face: favorable social impression that a person wants others to have of them
> positive face: desire for respect – to be liked or approved; in positive politeness you express appreciation for another person’s value (cf. text below on perception of Americans)
> negative face: desire to be free from constraints – not to be imposed upon or intruded; in negative politeness you offer assurances that another person’s freedom will not be constrained (cf. use of indirect instead of direct requests)
> face-threatening act: an act which threatens another person’s face (as in use of direct requests)
4. Cultural differences
> principles behind Anglo-Saxon culture: emphasis on the rights of the individual, abhorrence of interference in other people’s affairs; tolerance of individual idiosyncracies and peculiarities; respect of privacy; approval of compromise
> general differences: use of indirect speech acts in English vs. direct ones in Polish
Advice
> use of imperative vs. interrogative/conditional/modal
> P Radzę ci powiedz mu prawdę.
> E If I were you I would tell him the truth, Maybe/perhaps you should...?, Why don’t you...
Requests
> use of imperative vs. interrogative/conditional/negative interrogative
> P Zamknij okno, Czy mógłbyś / zechciałbyś ...?, Czy byłbyś tak dobry...?, Czy byłaby Pani łaskawa...?
> E Will/would you close the door, please?, Would you mind closing the door?, Why don’t you be quiet?
> use of interrogative with or without negation in orders or commands, e.g., Why don’t you just shut up? (cf. ?Dlaczego się nie zamkniesz?)
> use of the bare infinitive, e.g., Wynosić się stąd! (cf. Get out of here!), Iść prosto - nie oglądać się.
Tags
> P prawda, nie, tak, co, co nie, czy nie, dobrze, nieprawdaż? (Za tydzień kończą się lekcje, prawda?)
> E: variety of auxiliaries marked for tense, mood or number, e.g., Close the door, will you?, So just move out, will you?, You are not having a go at me, are you?, I’ve made a bloody fool of myself, haven’t I?, You are a smart little prick, aren’t you?
> function: request for confirmation in Polish vs. politeness, cooperation, accusation, abuse in English Opinion
> cannot be distinguished from statements of fact in Polish
> use of hedging/hedged expressions, e.g., I think, I believe, I suppose, I don’t think, I mean, I reckon, I guess, I’d say,sort of, well
Exclamations
> P: more critical, mainly affirmative
> E: general tendency not to impose one’s opinion on the interlocutor; use of interrogative, negative
> P Wspaniale! Cudownie! Jaki miluśki chłopczyk!
> E How nice!, What a splendid day!, Isn’t he marvellous!, Isn’t she a sweetie? A real darling.
Lexicon
> E privacy, personal remarks; compromise (kompromis), inflexible (nieugięty, niezłomny), this country (ojczyzna), emotional
> pronouns of address in English: lack of intimate T-form “... reflects and fosters the culturally expected psychological distance between individuals, the general need for psychological and physical ‘privacy’”; function of you as an ‘equaliser’
References:
Brown, P. – S. Levinson. 1987. “Politeness: Some universals in language usage” in: Adam Jaworski – Nikolas
Coupland (eds.). 2006. The discourse reader. (2nd edition.). London: Routledge. 311-323.
Crystal, D. 1987. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: CUP. (120-121).
Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Hymes, D. 1972. “On communicative competence”, in: J.B. Pride - J. Holmes (eds.) 1972. Sociolinguistics.
Harmondsworth: Penguin. (269-293)
Jakubowska, E. 1999. Cross-cultural dimensions of politeness in the case of Polish and English. Katowice:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego. (“Theories of politeness” 24-34)
Searle, J.R. 1976. “A classification of illocutionary acts”, Language in Society 5: 1-23.
Wierzbicka, A. 1991. Cross-cultural pragmatics. The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (Chp
2 “Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts” 25-65).