POLITENESS IN INTERACTION

Micropragmatics – single utterances

Macropragmatics – move beyond single utterances (broaden the context, culture and society)

THE POWER OF POLITENESS

2 or more interacting → transactional goal, to accomplish something through conversation

Relational goal – work on relationship linguistically (we signal something what we think about the relationship with other person)

Different perception of a relationship may lead to conflict; there is a necessity for mutual recognition.

TWO NOTIONS

• 1^st order politeness – etiquette (people’s intuitive evaluation of specific behaviours as polite)

• 2^nd order politeness – as a social-scientific concept, value-free; you classify particular utterances as a politeness strategy

FACEWORK

1. Erving Goffman (1967) – microinteraction between individuals, crucially social notion, others confer your face, dynamic – can evolve

2. Penelope Brown, Stephen Levinson – systematized Goffman’s idea, subject to criticism

   UNIVERSAL THEORY:

   +ve/-ve face – not value laden in every interaction, both will be present

   -ve: personal space (concrete and abstract), independence, freedom from imposition, creates distance

   +ve: desire to be appreciated and approved of and to share our values – closeness

   There is tension between positive and negative faces – goal is to find balance

FACE THREATENING ACTS (FTA)

Anything we do is potentially threatening to one or more faces

Detrimental –ve/+ve:

Hearer’s faces more important than speaker’s

Requests, expressions of disagreement, invitations

Examples of FTA

To –ve face of the hearer: imposing freedom

To +ve face: don’t share values/opinions

To –ve face but own’s +ve face: may have other things to do, socially obliged

BALD-ON-RECORD

Least polite hierarchy

• Be direct (follow Grice’s maxims)

• Speak plainly (direct imperative, unmitigated expression of disagreement, unhesitating acceptance of offers

• Restricted to few contexts

• Face threat low

+VE POLITENESS ADDRESSESS POSITIVE FACE

• Display closeness between yourself and the hearer

• Claiming common ground (shared values, in-group membership)

• Tu rather vous address pronoun (in French), slang, humour (presupposition of common values)

• Claiming cooperation with the hearer (ex. Inclusive ‘we’)

• Satisfaction of hearer’s face (flattery, giving gifts)

-VE POLITENESS

• Not coercing the hearer

• Minimal imposition, give options

• Communicate desire not to impose (apologize, impersonalize)

• Impersonal – nominally left in the dark: no individuals involved

• Don’t presume (questions, hedges ex. … wasn’t it ? toning down assessment)

• Redress other face wants (be deferent, claim debt)

OFF-RECORD (MOST POLITE)

• Not out there

• Flout Grice’s maxims

• Be indirect

• Hint, presuppose, be ambiguous

Strategies can be mixed, both faces are in play all the tiem

HOW DO WE CHOOSE?

-the weight of FTA in a given situation

P: hearer’s power over speaker (H,S)

D: social distance between speaker, hearer (S, H)

R: ranking of the imposition in the particular culture, context R(x)

W = P (H, S) + D (S, H) + R(x)

Off-record might not achieve transactional goal

PROBLEM OF IMPOLITENESS (CONTROVERSY)

• Cannot account for deliberate impoliteness

• Face-threatening acts?

• Sanctioned (military) vs non-sanctioned

• Sarcasm

• Irony (off-record)

• Is it really universally applicable ( cultural variation)