Politeness Theory Brown & Levinson (1987) Cheryl Holden.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Politeness Theory and Discourse Lecture 7. Objectives After this lecture, students should be able to: 1.Explain the notions of politeness and face 2.Explain.
Advertisements

Theoretical perspectives – Communication as Interaction Media Technology and Culture.
Politeness Theory and Discourse
There is so much behind this theory. You are going to hate it. I’ll make it brief and to the point.
Discourse and Pragmatics Politeness and Face. Popular Meanings Face: mian zi, min ji, mentsu, chae myon Concept of honour Politeness: Being ‘nice’, following.
General Logic In order to decide what we ought to do to obtain some good or avoid some harm, it is necessary to consider not only the good or harm in itself,
General Logic In order to decide what we ought to do to obtain some good or avoid some harm, it is necessary to consider not only the good or harm in itself,
Introduction to Linguistics for lawyers
1 Linguistics and translation theory Mark Shuttleworth Teaching Translation Swansea, 20 January 2006.
Face and Face Management Psychology of Language John R. Baldwin School of Communication--ISU.
Communicating Identity
Second Language Acquisition Video series with Dr. Frank Tuzi
Institutions and their role in shaping European Security
Fundamentals of Political Science
H 714 Language Variation: Conversational Interaction and Speech Events October 3, 2006 Kendra Winner.
+. + Assumptions of PT Negative Face needs Free, act without constraints, autonomous Face-Threatening acts (FTA’s) Apologies, compliments, requests, threats,
Yule, Principles of Politeness Pertemuan 10 Matakuliah: G1042/Pragmatics Tahun: 2006.
Politeness Lecture 11.
H 714 Language Variation: Dialect, Speech Acts & Politeness September 26, 2006 Kendra Winner.
Interpersonal Communication Politeness Theory Chris Lewis.
Politeness in language
Consolidating Grice, Brown & Levinson, and Goffman
Politeness Starter – How might Politeness be connected to English Language and Literature? Learning Objective – to explore Brown and Levinson’s politeness.
Brown and Livenson’s Politeness Theory.
____________________________________________________________________ Linguistic Politeness: Editor as diplomat TECM 5195 Dr. Chris Lam.
Putting your Best Face Forward: Politeness Theory at Work Yvonne Anderson Spring PD April 30 th, 2009.
S OLIDARITY AND P OLITENESS Drs. Liliek Soepriatmadji, M.Pd.
Politness and Face theory
Notes on Face & Politeness. Face and Facework Goffman Face: The positive social image we seek to maintain during interaction. Why is Goffman’s perspective.
Linguistic interaction = social interaction  Social distance and closeness (age, social status, power, etc)
Section 2: Science as a Process
Introduction to linguistics II
Anne Marie Bülow CBS Negotiation Centre Dep.t of Int. Culture & Communication Studies Negotiation over .
Various Definitions of Pragmatics. Morristhe study of the relations of signs to interpreters (1938) deals with the origin, uses, and effects of signs.
1 Politeness Effect: Pedagogical Agents and Learning Gains 報 告 人:張純瑋 Wang, N., Johnson, W.L., Mayer, R.E., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E., and Collins, H. (2005).
Natural Information and Conversational Implicatures Anton Benz.
Consumer Theory and preferences: a microeconomic application
Overview of Discourse Analysis 1. Pragmatics and Politeness Theory ( ) 2. Ethnography of Speaking ( ) 3. Interactional Sociolinguistics ( )
Politeness & Speaking Style Discourse & Dialogue CS 359 November 15, 2001.
Politeness & Speaking Style Discourse & Dialogue CMSC November 22, 2006.
1 Chapter 11 Interpersonal Influence Chapter 11 Interpersonal Influence Inter-Act, 13 th Edition Inter-Act, 13 th Edition.
What is a method? More than three decades ago . Edward Anthony (1963) gave us a definition that has quite admirably withstood the test of time. His concept.
EEL 5937 Agent communication EEL 5937 Multi Agent Systems Lotzi Bölöni.
Transmission Model of Communication Melisa Nahimana.
Discourse and pragmatics. Meaning and context situational context background knowledge context co-textual context.
ADRESS FORMS AND POLITENESS Second person- used when the subject of the verb in a sentence is the same as the individual to.
Multi-Functionality of Impoliteness in Professional Discourse : with Special reference to Translation By Asst. Prof. Amthal Mohammed(Ph.D)
ATTRACTION 1. 2 INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION The desire to approach other people.
Language and Gender. Language and Gender is… Language and gender is an area of study within sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, and related fields.
Defining Discourse.
FACE. Goffman’s Face Erving Goffman was intrigued by what lay behind everyday expressions such as ‘losing face’, ‘saving face’ and ‘being shamefaced’.
The Analysis of a Journal Article Anindia Lokitavera Episiasi Pratama Irwin Talenta Wendi Kufrabawa.
PRAGMATICS 3. CH 7: POLITENESS AND INTERACTION Arrange these in order of politeness: (least polite first) Set the table! Could you please set the table?
Principles of conversation
Politeness.
Language & Social Interaction (LSI) An Internationally Prominent Subfield of Communication Karen Tracy, University of Colorado, USA.
King Faisal University جامعة الملك فيصل Deanship of E-Learning and Distance Education عمادة التعلم الإلكتروني والتعليم عن بعد [ ] 1 جامعة الملك فيصل عمادة.
Chapter 8 Spoken Discourse. Linguistic Competence communicative competence: the knowledge we bring to using language as a communicative tool in conversation.
POLITENESS STRATEGIES: Taken from: BROWN AND LEVINSON (1987: ) POLITENESS: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Face & Intercultural Communication
Chapter 15 Strategic Thinking
Approaches to Discourse Analysis
Introduction to Linguistics
UNIT 3 - POLITENESS.
Discourse and Pragmatics
Communicative Competence (Canale and Swain, 1980)
Sociological analysis of CC misunderstanding
Choices, Values and Frames
Q: How do you perceive yourself?
Presentation transcript:

Politeness Theory Brown & Levinson (1987) Cheryl Holden

Introduction Where does this theory fit into linguistics? Who are Brown & Levinson? B&L’s objectives So, what’s the theory? How does it work? Is it bomb-proof?

Where does this theory fit into linguistics? Linguistics > pragmatics / interactional sociolinguistics > politeness / facework Brown & Levinson < Erving Goffman( ) <<< Émile Durkheim ( )

Who are Brown & Levinson? Penny Brown and Stephen Levinson Worked with ‘situated conversational exchanges‘. Theirs remains one of the most prominent works in this domain.

B&L’s objectives To examine the assumptions and reasoning used by participants. Account for cross-cultural similarities in the abstract principles behind polite usage. To draw up a formal model to account for cross- cultural similarities that also worked for culturally- specific use.

So, what’s the theory? (1) All parties have positive face and negative face and are rational agents, and so will choose means that satisfy their ends. If the satisfaction of face wants relies on the actions of others, it is generally in the interests of both parties to maintain each other’s face. Some actions (or FTAs) are inherently threatening to face.

So, what’s the theory? (2) A speaker (S) will therefore want to maintain the face of his hearer (H)... unless S’s desire to perform the FTA outweighs his need to respect H’s face. Given the above, the more that face is threatened, the more S will want to use a strategy that minimizes risk. Since these strategies are known to both parties, they will not use a less risky strategy than necessary, lest this be perceived as indicating that the FTA is more threatening that is really the case.

How does it work?

Calculating the seriousness of an FTA Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx

Is it bomb-proof? Criticisms that it’s too west-centric. Even within Europe, politeness is not universal. - turn-taking (France) - thanking (Spain) Values of D, P and R not fixed, but can change according to context. Other factors – such as prosody – can prompt perceptions of difference in politeness.