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
Reflection: Indirectness, (im)politeness and cultural variation
المؤلف:
Jonathan Culpeper and Michael Haugh
المصدر:
Pragmatics and the English Language
الجزء والصفحة:
204-7
23-5-2022
474
Reflection: Indirectness, (im)politeness and cultural variation
Gricean implicature underpins the notion of directness (cf. Searle 1975). This is the main dimension for both of the classic politeness theories, Leech (1983) and Brown and Levinson (1987). Leech’s (1983: 108) comments on the relationship between politeness and indirectness are frequently cited: indirect utterances, such as Could you possibly answer the phone, tend to be more polite because they increase optionality for the hearer, while decreasing illocutionary force (ibid.). However, we must be careful not to assume that implicitness or indirectness always conveys politeness, a point we discussed. It may be typical of British culture, but is not so for all cultures. More directness is not always interpreted as less politeness (particularly, it seems, in less individualistic cultures) (see also Field 1998 on directives in a native American culture).
We should briefly note that researchers typically mis-report Leech’s work (see Leech 2007). As far as indirectness and politeness are concerned, they usually ignore the fact that he also points out that indirectness might increase impoliteness when expressing “impolite beliefs”. He comments “because ‘You have something to declare’ is an impolite belief, the more indirect kinds of question [e.g. ‘Haven’t you something to declare’] are progressively more impolite, more threatening, than the ordinary yes–no question” (1983: 171). While intuitively there seems to be something in this, it has not as yet been fully empirically investigated.
Perhaps the biggest problem for all classic approaches to politeness, both those subscribing to the maxim view and those subscribing to the face-saving view (to be discussed below), is that they focus on politeness arising from deviations from the Cooperative Principle, and pay little attention to politeness that does not. Merely saying good morning to a colleague at the beginning of the working day may be considered “polite”, but this does not involve a deviation from the Cooperative Principle triggering the recovery of the speaker’s intention – it is more a case of performing a routine expected by the hearer, given the social norms. A number of researchers have accounted for the fact that politeness can be expected, normal, not noticed and thus not a deviation from the Cooperative Principle (e.g. Escandell-Vidal 1998; Jary 1998; Terkourafi 2001; Watts 2003). This kind of politeness is labelled anticipated politeness by Fraser (1999, cited in Terkourafi 2001). Anticipated politeness is based on associative inferencing, as described. The distinction between anticipated politeness and inferred politeness is elaborated by Haugh (2003) (see also Terkourafi 2001: 121–127). Inferred politeness is based on “logical” inferencing as mentioned and elaborated
It is this kind of politeness that is discussed by the classic theories. In a nutshell, “politeness is anticipated when the behavior giving rise to politeness is expected, while it is inferred when the behavior giving rise to politeness is not expected” (Haugh 2003: 400). The distinction between anticipated and inferred politeness is also echoed in the distinction between politic behavior and politeness, which we will discuss.
الاكثر قراءة في pragmatics
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

الآخبار الصحية
