Politeness Theory in
INTRODUCTION
On first consideration, it might seem obvious that politeness is simply a well-understood concept that permeates human interaction. A common understanding of the concept and accounting for it is problematic. Defining politeness appropriately is one of the difficulties existing in the study of linguistic politeness. It is quite difficult to give a proper definition to politeness. The researches on linguistic politeness started from the middle of 1970 's, however, it was in the late 1980s that the researchers tried to put forward their definitions of it.
DEFINITION OF POLITENESS
According to Webster 's Third New International Dictionary (Grove (1976)), politeness is defined as: showing or characterized by correct social usage: marked by or exhibiting appearance of consideration, tact, deference, courtesy, or grace resulting sometimes from sincere consideration of others and sometimes from mere regard for etiquette.
Naturally, being polite is to show consideration, tact, deference, courtesy, or grace, sometimes for sincere consideration of others and sometimes for regard of etiquette.
Politeness is more concisely defined in Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (Richards, Platt, & Weber (1985)) as: how languages express the social distance between speakers and their different role relationships; (b) how face-work; that is, the attempt to establish, maintain, and save face during a conversation, is carried out in a speech community. Languages differ in how they express politeness. ... Politeness markers include differences between formal speech and colloquial speech, and the use of address forms. In expressing politeness, the anthropologists Brown & Levinson distinguished between positive politeness strategies (those which show the closeness, intimacy, and rapport between speaker and hearer) and negative politeness strategies (those which indicate the social distance between speaker and hearer). ROBIN LAKOFF
Lakoff, one of the first
On first consideration, it might seem obvious that politeness is simply a well-understood concept that permeates human interaction. A common understanding of the concept and accounting for it is problematic. Defining politeness appropriately is one of the difficulties existing in the study of linguistic politeness. It is quite difficult to give a proper definition to politeness. The researches on linguistic politeness started from the middle of 1970 's, however, it was in the late 1980s that the researchers tried to put forward their definitions of it.
DEFINITION OF POLITENESS
According to Webster 's Third New International Dictionary (Grove (1976)), politeness is defined as: showing or characterized by correct social usage: marked by or exhibiting appearance of consideration, tact, deference, courtesy, or grace resulting sometimes from sincere consideration of others and sometimes from mere regard for etiquette.
Naturally, being polite is to show consideration, tact, deference, courtesy, or grace, sometimes for sincere consideration of others and sometimes for regard of etiquette.
Politeness is more concisely defined in Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (Richards, Platt, & Weber (1985)) as: how languages express the social distance between speakers and their different role relationships; (b) how face-work; that is, the attempt to establish, maintain, and save face during a conversation, is carried out in a speech community. Languages differ in how they express politeness. ... Politeness markers include differences between formal speech and colloquial speech, and the use of address forms. In expressing politeness, the anthropologists Brown & Levinson distinguished between positive politeness strategies (those which show the closeness, intimacy, and rapport between speaker and hearer) and negative politeness strategies (those which indicate the social distance between speaker and hearer). ROBIN LAKOFF
Lakoff, one of the first
References: Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bell, A Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Blom, J., & Gumperz, J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching in Norway. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 407-434). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56-289). New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing. Eelen, G. (1999). Politeness and ideology: A critical review. Pragmatics, 9(1), 163-173. Fisher, B Fraser, B. (1975). Hedged performatives. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3. Speech acts (pp. 187-210). New York: Academic Press. Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236. Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of difference in linguistic form. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 27, 93-109. Goffman, E. (1955). On facework: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. New York: Garden City. Grice, H. P. (1967[1975]). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics III: Speech acts (pp. 44-58). New York: Academic Press. Grice, H. P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 9 Grice, H. P. (1989). Logic and conversation. In H. P. Grice (Ed.), Studies in the way of words (pp. 22-40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, R Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman 's place. New York: Harper and Row. Lakoff, R. (1979). Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style. In J. Orasanu, K. Slater, & L. Adler (Eds.), Language, sex and gender: Does la difference make a difference? (pp. 53- 80). New York: The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Leech, G. (2007). Politeness: Is there an east-west divide? Journal of Politeness Research, 3 (2), 167-206. Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 237-262. Watts, R. J., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (1992). Introduction. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language (pp. 1-17). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wolfson, N. (1988). The bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. In J. Fine (Ed.), Second language discourse: A text book of current research (pp. 21-38). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Stewart, N., & Joseph, S. (2008). Conceptualizing gratitude and appreciation as a unitary personality trait. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 619-630.