Published on

Published in: Technology
1 Comment
  • kindly allow download.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Deals with the fields-circumstances
  • Polyanna= blessing in disguise.MasihmerasauntungTact (delicacy) maxim= seminimalmungkinmembebaniorang, semaksimalmungkinmenguntungkanorang lain.Imposition= burden….kondisidimanakitamengharapbantuanorang lain, non free goods (not at the right place) –free goods (at the right place).
  • Polyanna= blessing in disguise.MasihmerasauntungTact (delicacy) maxim= seminimalmungkinmembebaniorang, semaksimalmungkinmenguntungkanorang lain.Imposition= burden….kondisidimanakitamengharapbantuanorang lain, non free goods (not at the right place) –free goods (at the right place).
  • Modesty (humble)maxim: seminimalmungkinmembanggakandiri, semaksimalmungkinmerendahApprobation (good opinion) : seminimalmungkinmencela, semaksimalmungkinmemuji
  • Agreement maxim: seminimalmungkinmelarang, semaksimalmungkinmenyetujuiGenerosity maxim: seminimalmungkinberharapuntung, semaksimalmungkinmemberi
  • FTA=
  • Redress= keseimbangan/pembetulan
  • Redress= keseimbangan/pembetulan
  • Redress= keseimbangan/pembetulan
  • Redress= keseimbangan/pembetulan
  • Politeness.present

    1. 1. Suhartini Syukri (2003512142)POLITENESS
    2. 2. 1. Delimiting the concept of politeness2. Politeness Explained in terms of Principles andMaxim3. Politeness and Management of face4. Politeness viewed as a conversational contract5. Politeness measured along pragmatic scalesContent
    3. 3. (Brown and Levinson: 1987)• “The human personality is sacred thing; one dare not violateit nor infringe its bounds, while at the same time the greatestgood is in communion with others.” (Durkheim 1915:299).• Terms relate to politeness:• Cooperation• IndirectnessDEFINITION OF POLITENESS (Thomas: 1995)Genuine desire to be pleasant to others.
    4. 4. •Politeness as a real-world goal•Deference vs politeness•Register•Politeness as a surface level phenomenon•Politeness as a pragmatic phenomenon1. Delimiting the concept of politeness
    5. 5. • Politeness has no place withinpragmatics. It is difficult to access to thespeakers‟ real motovation for speakingas they do, and discussion as to whetherone group of people is „politer‟ thatanother. We only can curiously to whatspeakers say and to how their hearersreact.Politeness as a real-world goal
    7. 7. e.g.a. - The cadet responds to the Academy Sergeant Major :“Yes, Sir!”- Show politeness by holding a door open to allow someone else topass throughe.g.b. French, German and Russian,Choice of a second person pronounT/V systemTu/vous,Du/SieTbI/BbIDeference,a. The speaker has no choice as to whether to use deferentform or not.b. It is built into the grammar of languages
    8. 8. GESTUREA lecturer of a University asks questionto his student:“I wonder if I might ask you toanswer the last question!”
    9. 9. POLITENESSA student is answering to his respectedlecturer:“Yes, Sir”
    10. 10. • Register refers to “systemic variation in relation to socialcontext” (Lyons 1977) or the way in which the language wespeak or write varies according to the type of situation(Halliday, 1978, in Thomas 1995, p. 154)• It is primarily a sociolinguistic phenomenon : a description ofthe linguistic forms which generally occur in a particularsituation.e.g. If you decided to disrupt a stuffy meeting by usinglanguage not normally associated with that particular type ofevent, such as cracking jokes or making fun of the personchairing the meetingRegister
    11. 11. POLITENESS AT UTTERANCE LEVEL OF PHENOMENON• Much early work in the area of politeness focused on utterancelevel realization (Walter, Rintell, Fraser)• Investigate how much politeness could be squeezed out ofspeech act alone.• Investigate by using a standard lexical context.---------------------------------------------------------------e.g. Listing the proper forms of request:(would you.., could you..); this way is more sociolinguisticsPRAGMATICS : look at how a particular form in a particularlanguage is used strategically in order to achieve the speaker‟sgoals. It requires context.
    12. 12. THE WEAKNESSES OF PREVIOUS APPROACHE.g. 7 (Thomas, p. 156)A married couple are trying to decide a restaurant. Thehusband says:“You choose”.E.g. 8 (Thomas, p. 156)(The other context),Husband: „will you be kind to tell me what time is it?‟the wife says to the husband:“If you‟ll be kind enough to speed up a little?”E.g. (Thomas, p. 157)(i) I wonder if I might respectfully request you to stoppicking your nose?(ii) Stop picking your nose!These examples are artificialto be recognized as apoliteness. There is nonecessary connectionbetween the linguistic formand the perceivedpoliteness of a speech act incontext.
    13. 13. POLITENESS AS A PRAGMATIC PHENOMENONCONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS VIEWFACE MANAGEMENT VIEWCONVERSATIONAL CONTRACT VIEWPoliteness : a strategy employed by a speaker to achieve a variety of goalsTo promote and maintain harmonious relations.conventional, non-conventional indirectnessHOW..?
    14. 14. Politeness is as crucial in explaining „why people are often soindirect in conveying what they mean‟ and rescuing theCooperative Principle (CP) in the sense that it can satisfactoryexplain exception to and apparent deviations from the CP(Leech (1980 [1977] 1983a)). He introduces Politeness Principle(PP). There are two concepts dealing with the principles, namelyambivalence and politeness.2. Politeness explained in terms of principles and maximsLeech defines politeness as a type of behaviour that allows theparticipants to engage in a social interaction in an atmosphere ofrelative harmony.
    15. 15. To be more politeness, ambivalence has more than one potentialpragmatic force. It is possible to convey messages which the hearer isliable to find disagreement without causing undue offence. It is left thereader to decide;(a) What the precise force of the message is(b) Whether or not it applies to themE.g. 9. (Thomas, 1995, p. 159)In relation to potentially very offensive speech act (Requesting peoplenot to steal!)Notice in the Junior Common Room, Queens College, Cambridge.These newspaper are for all the students, not the privileged few whoarrive first.Ambivalence and Politeness
    16. 16. • The principles explain ‘the relationship between sense and force inhuman conversation’The main maxims are: tact, generosity, Approbation,Modesty,Agreement andSympathyPragmatic PrinciplesMinimize (all things being equal) the expression ofimpolite beliefs; Maximize (all things being equal)the expression of polite beliefs.
    17. 17. 1. CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS VIEWPRAGMATIC PRINCIPLES:THE POLLYANNA PRINCIPLESTo put the best possible gloss on what we have to say“ I assureyou,..parts of itare excellent”.e.g.Finding something positive tosay about rotten egg (but I hadto look back 100 years to findit!)Situation:A young curate is havingbreakfast with his Bishop
    18. 18. 2. CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS VIEW: PRAGMATIC PRINCIPLES:IMPOSITIONOPTIONALITYBENEFIT SCALETHE TACT MAXIMa. Minimize the expression of beliefswhich imply cost to otherb. Maximize the expression ofbeliefs which imply benefit to other- Hang on a second!- I’ve got a bit of aproblem.Chinese host chosedishes withoutconsulting you.Have achocolate!Tact Maxim aspects aree.g. a. minimizing toreduce the implied costto the hearer by saying:a. Mitigating the effect of arequestb. If something is perceived asbeing to the hearer’s benefit, itcan be expressed withoutemployeng indirectness
    19. 19. THE MODESTY MAXIMa. Minimize the expression of praise of selfb. Maximize the expression of dispraise of selfB: “This coffee is very good”A: “Not bad, is it?”CONT.Situation:A and B were giving a series of lectures in a foreign country where decentcoffee was uncertain comodity. At the airport A had bought a good supply ofground coffee and a gadget for percolating it. She makes a first attempt asusing it. Firstly, (A) minimize the expression of prise her gadget, then shemaximize the expression of adore her ground coffee.A: “This isn’t bad, is it?”B: “The coffee? It’s verygood”A few hours later she makessome more:e.g.a.e.g.b.
    20. 20. THE APPROBATION MAXIMa. Minimize the expression of beliefswhich express dispraise of otherb. Maximize the expression of beliefswhich express approval of otherb. “Well”, “I enjoyed your lecturer”.a. In contraryjust keep quiteorRemain silentAll things being equal we prefer to praise othersand if we cannot do so, to sidestep the issue, wecan give sort if minimal response,e.g. in commenting a process of lecturing, wemaximize in approve someone, or minimize theexpression dispraiseCONT.
    21. 21. CONT.THE AGREEMENT MAXIMa. Minimize the expression of disagreementbetween self and otherb. Maximize the expression of agreementbetween self and othere.g. 18, (Thomas, 1995, p. 165)A: … I don’t want my daughter to do CSE, Iwant her to do ‘O’ level.B: Yes, but Mr Sharma, I thought weresolved this on your last visite.g. 19, (Thomas, 1995, p. 165)A: Nehemulla is ideally suited to the classshe’s in and this class will do CSE in twoyears’ time.B: No, my dear, no, no, it’s wrong!Situation: Example of (a) e.g. 18 & 19Speaker A is Mr. Sharma, the Indian-born father ofone of the pupils attending school.Speaker B is Mrs. Green, the deputy head teacherof a school (a British woman). They are involved ina major disagreement concerning the courses Mr.Sharma’s daughter will take the following year.e. g. Of (b) Mrs. Sharma allows herdaughter to join her preference ofextra classA: So.. Should I let my daughter tochoose her interest?B: Yes, of course you’re right, yourdecision might make her veryoverwhelmed .
    22. 22. CONT.THE GENEROSITY MAXIMa. Minimize the expression of benefit to selfb. Maximize the expression of cost to selfFor indicating generosity, sometimes it is fine todirectly expressed invitation even obviouslyregard as a force to maximize the benefit toother or somehow in generally speaking in yourown party or peculiar home we do unmodifiedimperative to minimize benefit to self, allowingother as if the part of us (owner)e.g. b. “You must comeand have dinner withus”.e.g. a. “Help yourself!”
    23. 23. Cont.THE SYMPATHY MAXIMa. minimize antipathy between self and otherb. maximize sympathy between self and other.This includes a small group of speech acts such as congratulation,commiseration, and expressing condolences –all of which is in accordancewith Brown and Levinsons positive politeness strategy of attendingto the hearers interests, wants, and needse.g. (b) In maximizing sympathy of someone whose father has already passedaway by saying ”I am sorry to hear about your father. “The speaker makes an effort to minimize the antipathy between himself and the addressee.E.g. (a). Despite very serious disagreement with you on a technical level, we have done our best tocoordinate our efforts in reaching on agreement. But have so far not been able to find any commonground
    24. 24.  There appears to be no motivated way ofrestricting the number of maxims, it would bepossible to produce new maxim to explain everytiny perceived regularity in language use, The theory is at worst virtually unfalsifiable, There is no explain cross-cultural differences inthe perception of politeness and the use ofpoliteness strategies.Problem with the Leech’s Approach
    25. 25. “FACE”
    26. 26. 2. FACE MANAGEMENT VIEW(Thomas pp. 168)“They’ve got to safe face.Saving face is the strongestmotive in the world”General idea of politeness: fixed concept of socialbehavior/etiquette within a culture, involves certain generalprinciples as being tactful, generous, modest, sympathetic towardsothers. (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987)Narrower concept of politeness within an interaction:face = the public self-image of a person (emotional and socialsense of self one has and expects everyone else to recognize)
    27. 27. Negative face : need to beindependent, to have freedom ofaction, not be imposed on by othersPositive face : need to beaccepted/liked, to be treated as amember of the samegroup, to know thatwants are shared by others.
    28. 28. FACE WANTS!• Within everyday social interaction people generally behave as iftheir expectations concerning their face wants (i.e. public self-image) will be respected• face threatening act (FTA)-Brown and Levinson: speaker says something that represents a threat to anotherindividuals expectations regarding self-image• face saving act: speaker says something to lessen a possible threatSituation: Young neighbor is playing loud music late at night. Oldercouple cannot sleep.A: Im going to tell him to stop that awful noise right now!B: Perhaps you could just ask him if hes going to stop soon because its getting a bit lateand people need to get to sleep.http://ifla.uni-stuttgart.de/~jilka/index.html
    29. 29. PARAMETER OF FTA :- POWER (P)- DISTANCE (D)- IMPOSITION RATING (R)Politeness STRATEGIES for avoiding FTA:A. ON RECORD SUPERSTRATEGY1) Bald-on record2) Positive Politeness3) Negative PolitenessB. OFF RECORD SUPERSTRATEGY
    30. 30. What would you do if you saw a cup of pens onyour teachers desk, and you wanted to use one,would you say…Ooh, I want to use one of those.Hmm, I sure could use ablue pen right now.So, is it O.K. if I use one of thosepens?Im sorry to bother you but, I just wanted to askyou if I could use one of those pens?
    31. 31. Politeness Strategies for Avoiding ‘FTA’A. 1) Bald-on record:it is directly address the other person to express yourneeds using imperative forms is known as bald onrecorde.g: I want some beer.bald on record: direct
    32. 32. Cont.A. 2) positive politenessA face saving act concerned with thepersons positive face will tend to showsolidarity, emphasize that both speakerswant the same thing and have a commongoal.e.g: hey buddy, is it OK for me to have a beer?positive politeness: somewhat direct
    33. 33. Cont.A. 3) Negative politenessA face saving act oriented to a persons negativeface tends to show deference, emphasizes theimportance of the others time or concerns and mayinclude an apology for the impositione.g: I hope its not too forward, but wouldit be possible for me to have a beer?negative politeness: somewhat indirect
    34. 34. Cont.B. Off record:statements not directly addressed to another persone.g: Its so hot. It makes you really thirsty.off record: indirect
    35. 35. (How about letting me use your pen?’) ( Could you lend me a pen?’ )Politeness and InteractionEx. Yule (1996, pp. 64-66) (How to get a pen from someone else)say somethingsay nothing(but search in bag)off record on record(I forgot my pen)face saving act bald on record(Give me a pen!)positive politeness negative politeness
    36. 36. • FTA implies act is threatening to the face of either thespeaker or the hearer in fact, many acts can be seento threater the face both S and H simultaniously.e.g. An apology, threatens the speaker‟s face inobvious way, but can also be the source ofconsiderable embrassment to the hearer• Brown and Levinson claim that positive and negativepoliteness are mutually exclusive, but in practice, asingle utterence can be oriented to both positive andnegative simultaneously (e.g. Ex 27-29 inThomas, 1995, p. 171)Criticism Brown and Levinson
    37. 37. Fraser (1990),• People are constrained in interaction by „conversationalcontract‟ (CC)… Being polite constitutes operating within the.. Terms ofthe CC… Negotiable in light of the participants‟ perception and/oracknowledgements of factors such as the status, thepower, and the role of each speaker and the nature of thecircumstances.(in Thomas, 1995, p. 177)4. Conversational Contract View of Politeness
    38. 38. • Spencer-Oatey (1992 in Thomas, p. 178) proposes setsof dimensions to overcome the problem of cultural-specificity, as follows:5. Politeness measured along pragmatic scalesSpencer-Oatey’s Scale (1992:30)1. Need for Consideration Autonomy Imposition2. Need to be Valued ApprobationInterest/ concernCriticismDisinterest3. Need for Relational Identity InclusionEqualityExclusionSuperordination/subordination
    39. 39. REFERENCES• Houpte Seminar, Introduction to Pragmatics.http://ifla.unistuttgart.de/~jilka/index.html. Downloaded onApril 21, 2013• Thomas, J. 1996. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction toPragmatics. New York: Longman Group Limited.• Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press
    40. 40. - THANK YOU -