Effective communication is a key process in everyday life. Not only do we need to communicate about business and public affairs but also about ourselves and the things which concern us personally. In each case, it is highly interesting to analyse how we try to convey the information we want to get across: Naturally enough, we make use of conventional language but we are also creative and constantly invent new words, phrases and formulations. This, according to Blank, is due to the fact that: "Linguistic (and even non-linguistic) communication can be seen as a process whereby people try to maximize their communicative success by minimalizing their linguistic effort" (1993, p. 6). Sometimes, however, we diverge from the maximally effective way of communication and, naturally-enough, the question arises, why we do so. The divergence, however, which seems to be highly irrational as far as efficiency is concerned will turn out to be highly rationally motivated - with politeness being the main reason for this process. In the following, I will (1) sketch out the maxims according to which effective communication takes place and (2) analyse the reasons why it is sometimes advisable to intentionally counteract to the requisite maxims. For this purpose, I will refer to different works of well known linguists, especially to the model of politeness suggested by Brown and Levinson ( 1987). It is the final aim of this paper to reanalyse the model put forward by these two linguists and, thereby, evaluate to what extent their model covers politeness phenomena.
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION
2 GRICE AND THE PRINCIPLES OF CONVERSATION
2.1 COUNTEREXAMPLES
2.2 CONVERSATIONAL AND CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURES
2.2.1 Conversational implicatures
2.2.2 Conventional implicatures
2.3 ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPLICATURES
3 POLITENESS
3.1 FACE
3.1.1 Face threatening Acts
3.1.2 The five strategies connected to FTAs and their payoffs
3.1.3 Example: Application of the strategies
3.1.4 Criteria for the assessment of the seriousness of an FTA
4 SUMMARY AND REANALYSIS OF BROWN AND LEVINSON’S MODEL
4.1 SUMMARY
4.2 LIMITS OF BROWN & LEVINSON’S MODEL
4.2.1 The notion of face in the context of different societies
4.2.2 Politeness and grammatical structure
4.2.3 Speaker and Hearer
4.2.4 Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
The primary objective of this academic paper is to provide a critical reanalysis of the politeness model developed by Brown and Levinson (1987). By examining the relationship between Grice's cooperative principles and the pragmatic phenomena of politeness, the paper explores to what extent the proposed model effectively covers cross-cultural politeness phenomena and accounts for the complexities of everyday language use.
- Gricean maxims and conversational principles
- Conversational vs. conventional implicatures
- Theoretical foundations of face and face-threatening acts (FTAs)
- Strategic assessment of politeness and social determinants
- Critique of universality in Brown and Levinson’s model
Excerpt from the Book
3.1.1 Face threatening Acts
“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 the speaker” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 65). The corresponding conversational moves are to be avoided, as Brown and Levinson conclude: “In the context of the mutual vulnerability of face, any rational agent will seek to avoid these face-threatening acts or will employ certain strategies to minimize the threat” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 68). Minimizing in this context means softening. Corresponding linguistic strategies are applied unless S’s want to do an FTA with maximum efficiency (defined as bald on record) is greater than S’s want to preserve H’s (or S’s) face to any degree. If, for example, we want someone to do something, we can choose a direct speech act to convey our want. Then, we state our communicative intention openly and directly. This, however, might threaten the other’s right to autonomy. If we have the feeling that a direct speech act might be perceived as a face threat by the hearer, there is quite a wide range of implicit directives, which are indirect speech acts from which we might select something appropriate and less threatening.
Summary of Chapters
1 INTRODUCTION: This chapter outlines the paper's aim to evaluate the efficacy of Brown and Levinson's politeness model by analyzing deviations from Gricean conversational maxims.
2 GRICE AND THE PRINCIPLES OF CONVERSATION: This section introduces the cooperative principle and discusses how conversational and conventional implicatures function as strategies to manage communication.
3 POLITENESS: This chapter defines the concept of 'face', identifies face-threatening acts, and categorizes the five primary strategies used to manage social interaction.
4 SUMMARY AND REANALYSIS OF BROWN AND LEVINSON’S MODEL: This concluding analysis critiques the assumption of universality in Brown and Levinson's work, highlighting cultural limitations in Western and Eastern societal contexts.
Keywords
Politeness, Brown and Levinson, Grice, Cooperative Principle, Implicature, Face, Face Threatening Acts, Pragmatics, Cross-cultural communication, Sociolinguistics, Indirectness, Social distance, Relative power, Conversational strategy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on evaluating the robustness of Brown and Levinson’s politeness model, specifically questioning its claim to universal applicability in light of diverse cultural norms.
What are the central thematic fields?
The work navigates between Grice’s conversational maxims, the pragmatic theory of implicature, and the sociological definition of 'face' in human interaction.
What is the research goal?
The author aims to reanalyze the model by Brown and Levinson to determine if it can accurately account for politeness phenomena across different societies.
Which methodology is employed?
The paper utilizes a critical literature review, contrasting the original model with counterarguments from theorists like Matsumoto, Mao, and Goffman, and examines linguistic usage across German and English speakers.
What is covered in the main body?
The main body systematically deconstructs Grice’s principles, defines the components of positive and negative face, explains the five politeness strategies, and scrutinizes the cultural limitations of the model.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Key terms include Politeness, Implicature, Face Threatening Acts, Pragmatics, and Cross-cultural communication.
How do Eastern and Western notions of face differ in this analysis?
The author argues that Western models emphasize the individual, whereas Eastern cultures often prioritize social harmony and group standing, rendering the 'universal' aspects of the model problematic.
What role does the 'interactive character of talk' play?
The author criticizes the model for focusing too heavily on the speaker's production, suggesting that true politeness is an interactive process that accounts for both the hearer's interpretation and the broader social context.
- Quote paper
- Hanno Frey (Author), 1999, Politeness: Theoretical approaches and language practice - Brown and Levinson reviewed, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/12618
