Grammar
Tenses
Present
Present Simple
Present Continuous
Present Perfect
Present Perfect Continuous
Past
Past Continuous
Past Perfect
Past Perfect Continuous
Past Simple
Future
Future Simple
Future Continuous
Future Perfect
Future Perfect Continuous
Passive and Active
Parts Of Speech
Nouns
Countable and uncountable nouns
Verbal nouns
Singular and Plural nouns
Proper nouns
Nouns gender
Nouns definition
Concrete nouns
Abstract nouns
Common nouns
Collective nouns
Definition Of Nouns
Verbs
Stative and dynamic verbs
Finite and nonfinite verbs
To be verbs
Transitive and intransitive verbs
Auxiliary verbs
Modal verbs
Regular and irregular verbs
Action verbs
Adverbs
Relative adverbs
Interrogative adverbs
Adverbs of time
Adverbs of place
Adverbs of reason
Adverbs of quantity
Adverbs of manner
Adverbs of frequency
Adverbs of affirmation
Adjectives
Quantitative adjective
Proper adjective
Possessive adjective
Numeral adjective
Interrogative adjective
Distributive adjective
Descriptive adjective
Demonstrative adjective
Pronouns
Subject pronoun
Relative pronoun
Reflexive pronoun
Reciprocal pronoun
Possessive pronoun
Personal pronoun
Interrogative pronoun
Indefinite pronoun
Emphatic pronoun
Distributive pronoun
Demonstrative pronoun
Pre Position
Preposition by function
Time preposition
Reason preposition
Possession preposition
Place preposition
Phrases preposition
Origin preposition
Measure preposition
Direction preposition
Contrast preposition
Agent preposition
Preposition by construction
Simple preposition
Phrase preposition
Double preposition
Compound preposition
Conjunctions
Subordinating conjunction
Correlative conjunction
Coordinating conjunction
Conjunctive adverbs
Interjections
Express calling interjection
Grammar Rules
Preference
Requests and offers
wishes
Be used to
Some and any
Could have done
Describing people
Giving advices
Possession
Comparative and superlative
Giving Reason
Making Suggestions
Apologizing
Forming questions
Since and for
Directions
Obligation
Adverbials
invitation
Articles
Imaginary condition
Zero conditional
First conditional
Second conditional
Third conditional
Reported speech
Linguistics
Phonetics
Phonology
Semantics
Pragmatics
Linguistics fields
Syntax
Morphology
Semantics
pragmatics
History
Writing
Grammar
Phonetics and Phonology
Semiotics
Reading Comprehension
Elementary
Intermediate
Advanced
Teaching Methods
Teaching Strategies
The two classic pragmatic politeness theories
المؤلف:
Jonathan Culpeper and Michael Haugh
المصدر:
Pragmatics and the English Language
الجزء والصفحة:
202-7
21-5-2022
773
The two classic pragmatic politeness theories
The conversational-maxim view: Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983)
The classic theories of politeness draw, as one might guess, on the classic pragmatic theories, notably, Gricean conversational implicature and speech act theory, as outlined. Given that pragmatic theory has moved on, this is one of the weaknesses of those politeness theories. The bulk of the work in politeness studies has been based on or related to Brown and Levinson (1987), which we will outline in the following section. First, however, we will also note an alternative theory, mainly as a way of illustrating how politeness can interact with the Cooperative Principle (see section 4.2.2).
Robin Lakoff (1973) was the first to posit a maxim-based view of politeness. In brief, she proposes that there are two rules of pragmatic competence, one being “be clear”, which is formalized in terms of Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle, and the other being “be polite”, which is formalized in terms of a Politeness Principle. The latter Politeness Principle consists of the following maxims: (1) don’t impose, (2) give options, and (3) make your receiver feel good. Lakoff notes that sometimes the need for clarity would clash with the need for politeness. Leech (1983) also posits a Politeness Principle, one which is more elaborate than that of Lakoff. The central mechanism of his Politeness Principle is involved in “trade-offs” with the Cooperative Principle. As an illustration, consider this event. At the annual general meeting of an undergraduate university society at which the major business was to vote for the president for the coming year, an author of this topic witnessed that a candidate for the presidency had gained only one vote from the forty people present in the room. The candidates had been waiting outside, and the first author of this topic was asked to summon them inside to receive the results.
Upon meeting the candidate who got one vote, the candidate immediately asked him how many votes she had gained. He could not reveal the truth, since that would upset her; on the other hand, he did not want to be seen to be lying. Cornered by her question, he decided to be vague and replied, not many. His response thus avoided both a prototypical lie and the upset to the hearer that would have accompanied a more cooperative – in Grice’s sense (1975) – reply. By flouting Grice’s maxim of Quantity (1975) (not many relative to what?), he hoped that she would draw the implicature that a more cooperative reply would have been more damaging to her, and that was why he had been uncooperative. In Leech’s (1983) terms, the reason why he had expressed himself unco-operatively was to uphold the Politeness Principle, which Leech defines as: “Minimize (other things being equal) the expression of impolite beliefs ... (Maximize (other things being equal) the expression of polite beliefs)” (1983: 81). More specifically, he had abided by the Approbation maxim (minimize dispraise of other/maximize praise of other), by minimizing “dispraise” of the candidate. The other maxims of the Politeness Principle are: Tact, Generosity, Modesty, Agreement and Sympathy (see Leech 1983: 131–139, for details). The key point is that the Cooperative Principle accounts for how people convey indirect meanings, the Politeness Principle accounts for why people convey indirect meanings.
الاكثر قراءة في pragmatics
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

الآخبار الصحية
