POLITENESS RESEARCH IN PRAGMATICS

Аннотация

This paper reviews four current approaches to an account of politeness: the social- norm view; the conversational-maxim view; the face-saving view; and the conversational- contract view. A characterization is given for each, followed by a discussion of certain salient aspects of the approach. While none of the views is considered adequate, the face-saving view is seen as the most clearly articulated and most thoroughly worked out, therefore providing the best framework within which to raise the crucial questions about politeness that mustnowbe addressed. There has been a great deal of interest in politeness in pragmatics, and just as definitions of pragmatics vary, so too do definitions of politeness. Not only is the term used in different ways, but theterm itselfis not defined.AsWatts, Ide andEhlich observe: … one of the oddest things about politeness research is that the term “politeness” itself is either not explicitly defined at all or else taken to be a consequence of rational social goals such as maximising the benefit to self and other, minimising the face-threatening nature of a social act, displaying adequate proficiency in the accepted standards of social etiquette, avoidingconflict, making surethat thesocial interaction runs smoothly, etc. Another difficulty is pointed out by Kasper, noting the different meanings of the term in ordinary parlance and pragmatics. In the former, …‘politeness’refers to proper social conduct and tactful consideration forothers. whereas in thelatter, … ‘politeness’ as a technical term in linguistic pragmatics refers to a broader, substantially more democratic concept. Since the object of pragmatic inquiry is linguistic action, ‘politeness’ as a pragmatic notion refers to ways in which linguistic action is carried out – morespecifically, ways inwhich the relational function inlinguisticaction is expressed. LoCastro points out that the term “politeness” is frequently confused with related folk terms like “etiquette” and “manners” and it has folk meanings that are not clearly distinguishable from its more technical or formal meanings. Indeed, the definition of “polite” inCollinsCOBUILD English Language Dictionary is in linewith thefolk meaning oftheterm, in thesenseofreferring to good manners and social correctness. Someonewhois politehas good manners and behaves in away that issocially correct and considerate ofother people’sfeelings. Politedescribes things that you say ordosimplybecause itis socially correct todo orsay them, rather than because you mean them sincerely. In Britain “politeness” is typically used to describe negative politeness, which is presumed to be “a good thing.” In this respect, I believe that the Japanese translation of “politeness,” teinei, also has a similar connotation. According to Hori (1986), the Japanese concept of “being polite”includes onlynegative politeness. These views of politeness coincide with what Watts et al. (1992a) have termed “first- order” politeness in their scheme in which they distinguish between the folk and pragmatic definitions of the term, the latter being “second-order” politeness in their classification. page822 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ISSN:2692-5206,ImpactFactor:12,23 AmericanAcademicpublishers,volume05,issue05,2025 Journal: https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai Second-order politeness is located within a theory of social behaviour and language use, and is not equated with any moral or psychological disposition towards being nice to one’s interlocutor. It is inthis pragmatic sense thatI willuse theterm. For the purpose of this study, I take politeness to refer to the use of communication strategies intended to maintain mutual face and to achieve smooth communication, taking into account human relationships. The promoting and maintaining of politeness calls for displays of appropriate behaviour. What is considered to be appropriate varies from situation to situation and culture to culture, while personal values and tastes may also influence judgements ofappropriateness. Fraser reviews four current approaches to politeness: (1) the socialnorm view; (2) the conversational-maxim view; (3) the face-saving view; and (4) the conversational-contract view. In this section, these fourviews areused as a basis ofreviewing theories of politeness. The Social-norm View. According to Fraser (1990: 220), the first approach to politeness is the social-norm view which assumes that each society has a particular set of social norms consisting of more or less explicit rules that prescribe a certain behavior, a state of affairs, or a way of thinking in a context. A positive evaluation (politeness) arises when an action is congruent with thenorm, anegativeevaluation (impoliteness-rudeness)when an action isnot. The social-norm view includes etiquette, manners, or social rules, i.e., what to do and what not to do. “This normative view considers politeness to be associated with speech style, whereby