linguistic politeness strategies

8/13/2019 Linguistic Politeness Strategies

1/3

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE GLOBALIZED WORLDFaculty of Econo !c" an# Bu"!n$"" A# !n!"t%at!onAl$&an#%u Ioan Cu'a (n!)$%"!ty of Ia *!+ Ro an!a+ May , t- + ./00

Alon1 t-$ No%t-2Sout-3 W$"t2Ea"t D!)!#$4T-$ Ca"$ of L!n1u!"t!c Pol!t$n$"" St%at$1!$" !n Cont$ 5o%a%y En1l!"- an# Ro an!an

Pol!t$n$"" can be seen as deviation from maximally efficient communication (Grice1967;Searle 1975).

P6 B%o7n 8 S6 L$)!n"on (1978 1987 Politeness: some universals in language usage ) see !oliteness as a rationaland rule"#overned as!ect of communication$ aimed !redominanly at maintainin# social co%esion t%rou#% t%emaintenance of individuals& public face $ construed as a double 'ant a 'ant of freedom of action and freedomfrom im!ositions ( negative face )$ and a 'ant of a!!roval and a!!reciation ( positive face ).

G6 L$$c- (198 Principles of Pragmatics ) !osits a Grand Strate#y of *oliteness$ !rovidin# a very #eneral

ex!lanation for communicative !oliteness !%enomena$ accordin# to '%ic% in order to be !olite$ a s!ea+ercommunicates meanin#s '%ic% (a) !lace a %i#% value on '%at relates to t%e ot%er !erson (ty!ically t%e addressee)$(,a-or onstraint) and (b) !lace a lo' value on '%at relates to t%e s!ea+er (,inor onstraint).

96 Hou"$ (/005 *oliteness in Germany Politeness in Germany2&) !rovides a com!re%ensive descri!tive andex!lanatory frame'or+ for t%e analysis of !oliteness$ includin# bot% universal and culture lan#ua#e"s!ecificlevels 1. a fundamental biolo#ical and !syc%olo#ical level ( coming together vs. noli-me-tangere ); / . a

!%iloso!%ical level to ca!ture biolo#ical drives in terms of a finite number of !rinci!les$ maxims or !arameters; .an em!irical descri!tive level to deal 'it% t%e !articular o!en"ended set of norms$ tendencies and !references; 3. alin#uistic level at '%ic% sociocultural !%enomena become #rammaticali4ed and lexicali4ed in s!ecific lan#ua#eforms$ suc% as %onorifics and ot%er systemic distinctions.

n#lis% t%e lan#ua#e of understatement omanian t%e lan#ua#e of em!%atic overstatement ranslation of understatements !resents difficulties

rather ludicrous (? destul de ridicol) ; pretty awful (? destul de ngrozitor); X can hardly be described as (? Xabia dac! poate fi descris drept ); somewhat of an understatement (? ntr-o oarecare m!sur! o atenuare);are "ou at all worried? (?e#ti ctu#i de pu$in ngri%orat&!?)

n#lis% is exce!tional in t%e many +inds and de#rees of indirect re uest it allo's; n#lis% re uests arealso associated 'it% syntactic and lexical do'n#raders do'ntoners %ed#es$ e.#.

ou couldnt tid" up' could "ou? (ne#ation of !re!aratory condition) (2 u po$i s! faci ordine' nu-i a#a? ) :in omanian$ a #enuine uestion

* m wonder ing if "ou could tid" up? (a"5$ct < sub-ectivi4er)(? +! ntreb dac! nu po$i s! faci ordine?) :not used in om.

was wondering if "ou could tid" up? (tense < as!ect < sub-ectivi4er) Im afraid "ou*re going to have to tid" up, ( sub-ectivi4er)

(+! tem c! va trebui s! faci ordine,) was wondering if "ou would mind awfull" if as ed "ou to tid" up?

(? +! ntrebam dac! te-ar deran%a foarte mult dac! te-a# ruga s! faci ordine?) .ir' ma" ma e so bold as to sa" that wanted to as "our daughter*s hand in marriage?:all unusual in omanian

=ndirect re uests are muc% less fre uent in omanian com!ared to n#lis%$ as are %ed#es.


2/3

n#lis% :u$"t!on!n1 ta1" reflect t%e culture of non"interference and !ersonal s!ace$ im!lyin# t%atdifferences in o!inion are ac+no'led#ed. a#s 'it% im!eratives$ functionin# as %ed#es$ %ave severalvariants$ 'it% sli#%tly different functions /lose the door' will "ou &won*t "ou& could "ou& would "ou?

omanian uses as ta#s nu?' da?' nu-i a#a?' bine?' adev!rat? $ '%ic% are in fact similar to t%e invariantta#s right? and 01? $ '%ic% are more forceful as t%ey refer to evidence and do not leave t%e addresseemuc% c%oice but to confirm t%e s!ea+er&s ex!ectations. omanian does not %ave t%e same !ro!ensity forta#s$ or it 'ould sound ridiculously re!etitive; nu-i a#a? does not see+ a#reement but rat%erac+no'led#ement of s!ea+er&s trut%&.

=n t-$ $&5%$""!on of o5!n!on $ t%e list of n#lis% e!istemic verbs$ >is !robably 'it%out !arallel in ot%erlan#ua#es of t%e 'orld e2pect $ believe $ suppose $ assume $ imagine $ gather $ presume $ guess $

suspect $ ta e it $ understand $ trust $ wonder $ feel3 (?ier4bic+a /006 /09); t%ese reflect t%ecultural em!%asis on e!istemolo#ical accuracy and !recision

=n omanian o!inions are ty!ically ex!ressed strai#%tfor'ardly if not forcefully; distin#uis%in# neatly

bet'een fact and o!inion is not a !riority$ as t%e restricted use of cred' probabil' and dup! p!rerea meaindicates. ranslatin# utterances 'it% suppose& guess& rec on by cred& probabil& presupun& dup!

p!rerea mea is not al'ays !ossible$ as t%ese sound formal and intellectual and so do not al'ays fit t%econtext.

@rom t%e omanian vie'!oint$ accordin# to Aaleria GuBu omalo (/005)$ t$% " of a##%$"" are t%emost im!ortant !oliteness resource in omanian$ '%ic% %as not t'o address !ronouns ( 4&5 )$ li+e ot%eruro!ean lan#ua#es$ but four " tu& dumneavoastr!& dumneata (no' dated) & 6omnia ta& voastr!

(ceremonious). omanian em!loys a common !oliteness strate#y t%e im!ersonali4ation of t%e addressee by usin# a !lural instead of sin#ular. urrently in omanian$ not only t%e familiar tu is #ainin# #round$ but also a %andful of inter-ections of address '%ic% are ty!ical of !o!ular omanian s!eec% bre (ofur+is% ori#in)$ b!(i)' f! and m!, Cnli+e n#lis%$ omanian favours o!enly !rovo+in# one&s interlocutort%rou#% t%e use of suc% inter-ections and vocatives.

=n t%e 17t%

century$ n#lis% sin#ular thou $ already 'it% ne#ative connotations$ under'ent a !rocess ofsociodialectal narro'in#$ so t%at "ou came to be used in t%e sin#ular as 'ell as in t%e !lural in su!ra"local uses of n#lis%$ '%ic% sets n#lis% in a sin#ular !osition amon# uro!ean lan#ua#es. n#lis% "ou%as been termed a #reat social e ualiser$ democratic as it is; in fact$ it can also be seen as a distance"

builder$ since as t%e default address !ronoun$ it cannot convey t%e intimacy si#nalled by t%e c%oice of a"form. %us n#lis% "ou im!oses less distance t%an omanian !oliteness !ronouns& '%ile bein# muc%less intimate t%an omanian tu,

=n Dn#lo"Saxon culture$ t%e absence of an intimate "form of address reflects and fosters t%e culturallyex!ected !syc%olo#ical distance bet'een individuals and t%e value attac%ed to personal space and

privac" $ a notion '%ic% resists translation into ot%er lan#ua#es. ic% systems of $&5%$""!)$ #$%!)at!onare a c%aracteristic of cultures in '%ic% emotions and affections are dis!layed overtly$ e.#. omanian

s!rm!lu$!' pisicu$!' ploicic!' ghetu$! a.s.o; n n#lis% t%e corres!ondin# system of ex!ressive derivationis extremely limited.

%e Dn#lo"Saxon et%not%eory of basically *rotestant uro!ean middle"class bac+#round identifiesemotion !rimarily 'it% irrationality and sub-ectivity. %is is also reflected in t%e emer#ence in modernn#lis% of t%e 'ord dispassionate $ t%e dictionary meanin# of '%ic% is >free from emotion$ calm$

im!artialE. elated to t%is$ is t%e conce!t of reasonableness as reflected in t%e several meanin#sassociated 'it% t%e ubi uitous ad-ective reasonable' a 'ord 'it%out corres!ondents in ot%er uro!eanlan#ua#es.

Fi+e ot%er Sout%ern uro!ean cultures$ omanian culture values t%e unin%ibited emotional ex!ression;many features of t%e omanian et%no#ra!%y of s!ea+in# can be accounted for in terms of t%is culturalattitude$ e.#. cordial im!eratives and im!ositives trebuie s! mai serve#ti& servi$i; mai r!mi& r!mne$ietc. Dccordin# to ,ar#areta ,anu ,a#da (/00 b 98)$ >unin%ibited emotional self"assertionE is ty!icalof t%e in%abitants of t%e Sout%ern !art of omania. ransylvanians %o'ever manifest more restraint andmore concern for verifiable facts. omanian favours t%e overt ex!ression of emotions$ and never more sot%an at !resent$ in t%e current de#raded socio"economic environment.


3/3

linguistic politeness strategies

Documents