Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
A Pragmatic Analysis of Polite Forms in English and Arabic A Contrastive Study
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | نوري, Baidaa' F. Noori د.بيداء |
| Copyright Year | 2012 |
| Abstract | This study aims to make a pragmatic analysis of some selected polite forms in English and Arabic. The data for the study consist of a number of exchange unites of discourse which have similar functions in the two languages. The framework for analysis takes into account the model presented by Brown and Levinson (1987). It is noted that English deferential behavior adheres to Brown and Levinson’s model of politeness whereas Arabic deferential behavior does not seem to adhere to this model. The results show that both English and Arabic speakers use a combination of politeness strategies to defer to hearers, but the difference lies in the fact that formal and informal situations and kind of relationships play a great role in the British interaction system, whereas no such role is evident in the Arabic interaction system. ا ذاتسلأ ددعلا ) ٢٠٣ ( ةنسل ١٤٣٣ ةيرجه – ٢٠١٢ ةيدلايم .... A Pragmatic Analysis of Polite Forms in English and Arabic A Contrastive Study ٧٦ 1 Introduction: Politeness has been the subject of research for many linguists, sociolinguists, and anthropologists (Lakoff, 1973; Leech, 1983; Brown and Levinson, 1987; Fraser, 1990; and Gu, 1990). It is noted that there has been little consensus on the nature of politeness and how to describe and explain it crosslinguistically. Fraser (1990: 221), for instance, categorizes linguistic theories of politeness into four views, namely: social-norm view, face – saving view, conversational – maxim view, and conversational – contract view. But, he does not provide full details to these views. The purpose of the present study is to compare and contrast a few exchange units of discourse in English and Arabic. In order to achieve this comparison, Brown and Levinson's (1987) model of linguistic politeness is adopted. The reason for this adoption is due to the universal features stated in their model. These features, as Brown and Levinson (ibid: 61) postulate, include: A Model Person, who is a willful fluent speaker of a natural language, and that all competent adult members of a society have Face and Rationality .... Given these assumptions of the universalities of face and rationality , it is intuitively the case that certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face , namely those acts that by their nature run contrary to the face wants of the addressee and / or of the speaker . (ibid: 64) 2 – Previous Studies: Following Grice's ideas and expanding his "be polite" maxim, Lakoff (1973: 297) postulates two rules of pragmatic competence, with three submaxims under the second rule: Be Clear and Be Polite: Don't impose (Formal Politeness) Give options (Informal Politeness) Make A feel good (Intimate Politeness) In a later article, Lakoff (1974:45) rewords this model as: Formality: keep aloof Deference: give options Camaraderie: show sympathy Grice (cited in Lakoff, 1973: 296) and Lakoff (1974:35) imply that their rules apply in order to achieve what the speaker wants to achieve, for instance, an acceptance of a request, imparting a piece of information or a refusal of an offer. Lakoff (1973: 297 – 8) states that in real conversations, politeness considerations disregard any other considerations of truthfulness, directness, ا ذاتسلأ ددعلا ) ٢٠٣ ( ةنسل ١٤٣٣ ةيرجه – ٢٠١٢ ةيدلايم .... A Pragmatic Analysis of Polite Forms in English and Arabic A Contrastive Study ٧٧ brevity etc., since it is often the case that conversations aim at reaffirming and strengthening relationships, rather than imparting information . Moreover, Lakoff (ibid) argues that different cultures may consider some rules as more important than others. Leech (1983: 30 ff.) expands Grice's and Lakoff's ideas considerably. He places politeness in the area of interpersonal rhetoric which includes the Cooperative Principle (CP), after Grice, a Politeness Principle (PP) and an Irony Principle (IP). Moreover, leech (ibid) recognizes not all maxims are of equal importance and he assumes that the tact maxim is more powerful than the generosity maxim which is indicative of the fact that politeness is focused more on the other than the self, This fact, according to Leech, may hold true of British society, whereas in Mediterranean societies the generosity maxim takes precedence over the tact maxim. Another facet of Leech's (1983) model is his construct of relative vs. absolute politeness. According to Leech (ibid: 32), relative politeness refers to politeness in a specific situation, while absolute politeness is inherent in specific actions. He; therefore , claims that some illocutions (e.g. orders) are inherently impolite, while others, like offers, are inherently polite . On the contrary, Fraser (1990: 227) states that there are many instances where this is not the case. For instance, he quotes the example of a teacher ordering a student to put her prize – winning solution on the board for the class, in which case an order loses its inherent impolite value. Any assertion of acts being inherently polite stands on uncertain ground, because perception of politeness can vary enormously across cultures. For instance, in Arabic society, asking strangers questions about personal matters like marital status, occupation or income may be judged as intrusive. Other things being equal, in a British society setting such questions is treated as impolite (ibid). On the contrary, in Persian society, asking such questions is regarded as a polite way of establishing rapport between participants (Beeman, 1986: 105). Brown and Levinson, on the other hand, base their theory of politeness on Goffman's (1967) notion of face and extend the model to account for politeness in almost all languages. They assume a model person who is a fluent speaker of a natural language and has two features of rationality and face (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 61-2). Taken from English folk term they define 'face' as "the public self image that every member wants to claim for himself" consisting of two related aspects: negative face, that is, "the want of every competent adult member that his wants be desirable to at least some members" (ibid). They further contend that these two kinds of face – want give rise to two similar interactive behaviours: Positive Politeness which is redress toward positive face – wants and Negative Politeness which is redress toward negative face – wants. ا ذاتسلأ ددعلا ) ٢٠٣ ( ةنسل ١٤٣٣ ةيرجه – ٢٠١٢ ةيدلايم .... A Pragmatic Analysis of Polite Forms in English and Arabic A Contrastive Study ٧٨ According to Brown and Levinson, many acts are imposition on the hearer; hence Face–Threatening Acts (FTA). Since 'face' is so vulnerable, both the speaker and the hearer try to maintain it through several strategies. These are Positive Politeness strategies (PPS), that is, the kind of politeness exercised among friends, Negative Politeness Strategies (NPS), that is, politeness exercised among strangers, Off-Record Strategies (ORS), that is, the excessive use of polite language, and not performing the act at all. In cases that 'efficient communication' is necessary and other things are more important than 'face' , speakers go Bald – On – Record (BOR) , that is , using the most direct language for the conveyance of information . This is speaking in conformity with Grice's (1975:49) Co-operative Principles (CP). Accordingly, the least polite or (polite) behaviour occurs when speakers go BOR, and the most polite behaviour occurs when they use ORSs. By using ORS, the speaker performs an act indirectly, so that the illocutionary force is ambiguous. The whole model can be illustrated in the following scale: Polite 1BOR 2PPS 3NPS 4ORS + polite (Brown and Levinson, 1987:65) It is assumed that the greater the risk of face loss involved , the higher numbered strategy will be chosen by a speaker , with number 4 strategy going off – record in committing an FTA, because the risk of face loss is too great . Off –record strategies are classified as a strategy of doing an FTA, but the whole point of doing an FTA off-record is that the speaker cannot be held responsible for doing it. At the same time an indirect FTA provides the addressee with the option to disregard it as an FTA or to initiate a favourable response to the speaker which gives the addressee the opportunity to appear generous (ibid: 71). On the other hand, on record FTA can be done with or without any regressive action. When the risk of face loss is minimal or non – existent, an FTA can be done without regressive action, whereas FTAs that may result in face loss are usually accompanied by either a regressive action aimed at enhancing either the positive or the negative face of the addressee (ibid). It should be noted that in recent literature the strict ordering of the regressive strategies has been questioned. For instance, Sifianou (1992: 107) states that "the strategy ‘don't do the FTA' in a British society is not necessarily the most polite reaction if talk is expected." She also argues that it is not a separate super strategy, but primarily an off – record politeness strategy, which can be positive or negative. Here it is worth mentioning that a number of writers argue on the accounts that Brown and Levisohn’s claim of universality of the notion of face and in particular negative face is irrelevant to their culture. Data from Japanese (Hill et al. 1986) Korean (Clancy, 1989) Polish (Wierzbicka, 1985) and Chinese (Gu, 1990 and Chen, 1992) (cited in Sifianou, 1992; 109) refer to the inability of Brown and Levisohn’s model to account for a universal description of ا ذاتسلأ ددعلا ) ٢٠٣ ( ةنسل ١٤٣٣ ةيرجه – ٢٠١٢ ةيدلايم .... A Pragmatic Analysis of Polite Forms in English and Arabic A Contrastive Study ٧٩ politeness. Gu (1990: 242) (cited in Sifianou, 1992: 109) for example, warns that offering, inviting, and promising in Chinese under ordinary circumstances will not be considered threatening. Another example is what is mentioned in Ide (1989: 231); he argues that the use of honorifics (as opposed to |
| Starting Page | 75 |
| Ending Page | 85 |
| Page Count | 11 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://www.iasj.net?aId=71973&func=fulltext |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
