Cours 5 : Politeness

Question 1

systematic individual variation in politeness

Answer 1

two distinct speakers can express the same idea in a completely different way (ex. “i’m sorry, i need to pass” VS “move it, bitch”)

Question 2

politeness

Answer 2

it’s the actions taken by competent speakers in a community in order to attend to possible social or interpersonal disturbance.

it is determined by social factors. it’s used to express a distance relaton on various social scales (ex. solidarity, familiarity, intimacy, power, status)

spatial distance : this VS that
social distance : demonstrative determiners (why did you talk to that man VS why did you talk to that man over there)

Question 3

Goffman and face work

Answer 3

> any individual adopts a face when they take part in a social interaction
this face must be accepted and sanctioned by others (= interpersonal aspect)

Question 4

Brown and Levinsons theory on politeness

Answer 4

it adapted the sociological notion of face to tackle linguistic politeness phenomena

it claims that politeness is context-sensitive, and that it’s not an absolute scale. each context will determine a certain politeness strategy

Question 5

positive and negative faces

Answer 5

positive : you want people to like you
> linguistic moves : friendliness, compliments, informal language use
> “hey sweetie, bring that gorgeous body of yours over here”

negative : you don’t like people telling you what to do
> linguistic moves : deference, apologies, indirectness, formal style
> “good morning, Sir, i’m sorry to disturb you, but would you mind
coming to my office please?”

it’s possible to use both strategies at the same time and therefore stroke both faces at the same time.

Question 6

face-threatening acts (FTA)

Answer 6

you are always at risk of damaging someone’s positive or negative face.

FTAs can be counterbalanced by mitigating services, such as politeness strategies
> a conversation is a constant negotiation between FTAs and politeness strategies

FTA scale to be as mitigated as possible :
potential FTA -> FTA on record -> mitigation -> mitigation strategy -> negative or positive politeness strategy

Question 7

degree of imposition in politeness

Answer 7

degree of threat

all request aren’t equally threatening (ex. asking someone for comfort VS asking for financial support)

Question 8

intercultural variation

Answer 8

> Japanese uses mostly negative politeness strategies to mark social distance (anti-groupness, social position, age, gender)
American Hawaii way uses mostly positive strategies to mark in-groupness

so students have to compromise (first name + sensei)
> willing to go against the polite option in Japanese for age and gender : if we are to violate the politeness rules, we will do it with the people that occupy the lowest ranks, such as female young professors.

Question 9

T/V distinction

Answer 9

there used to be a T/V distinction, but not anymore
> the singular (“tutoiement”) marked solidarity and intimacy
> the plural (“vouvoiement”) marked social distance and respect

now, people just use the “you” which is a reflection of the “vouvoiement” concept

Question 10

style ≠ politeness

Answer 10

it’s possible to be impolite in a formal style or informally polite
> “Is that horrible stench in any way related to you, Sir ?” (impolite and formal)
> “Mate, we gotta save our asses in this mess” (polite informal)