Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and politeness

Cross-Cultural variation in speech acts and politeness2013

Molay Ismail University Faculty of Letters Meknes Master: Applied Linguistics

Cross-Cultural variation in politeness and speech acts

Supervised by: Prof. Mostapha TALAY

Prepared by: DAHMANI HichamAcademic year 2012/2013

1) introduction:

Leech(1983) defines politeness as a type of behaviour that allows the participants to engage in a social interaction in an atmosphere of relative harmony. Thus, the speaker should know how to phrase an utterance at the moment of speaking in a particular context. So, to be polite is to behave in accordance with situations and specific rules or norms regarding appropriate linguistic behaviour.This work is going to shed lights on politeness theory from the perspective of Leech theory. It is going, of course, to explain Leechs maxims of politeness with examples from both Moroccan Arabic context and English context. However, before dealing with Leach politeness, it is so important to give a hint about its history. Then, the work will deal -into some extent- with (im)politeness and cultural variation; that is polite in Morocco can be impolite in other cultures. The work will end with cross-cultural variation of speech acts.

2) History of politeness:

The pragmatic approach to politeness starts to appear in 70s of last century with some experts who put a hand in theorizing to social science where the acts of speech meet. It is crucial for us as beginners in the field of applied linguistics to know more about the history of socio-pragmatics, that follows is an attempt to make a picture clear for you - even if it is not enough - to have at least an idea about the emergence of pragmatics. For sure I will focus on Leechs maxims to politeness since it is my purpose behind this work. 2.1. Robin Lakoff (1973) linked rules of politeness - dont impose; give options; make the other person feel good, which means be friendly - to Grices cooperative principle to explain why speakers do not always conform to maxims such clarity.

2.2. Brown and Levinson (1978) propose another model of politeness the face. It is the basic notion of their model. Brown and Levinson defined face as the public self-image that every member of society wants to claim for himself. In their framework, face consists of two related aspects, positive face and negative one. negative face wants freedom of action and freedom from imposition; not to constraint behaviors by others, and a positive face wants approval and appreciate; self-image have the desire of being appreciated by at least some other people. The social context prohibits people from their freedom, it is exemplified in the principle of social authority; order and apologize are imposed models of behaving. In both situations we try to avoid things that may make the hearer uncomforted or embarrassed. However, such face threatening acts (FAT) infringe the hearers need to be respectful. Politeness strategies are developed for the sake of dealing with FAT. It should be avoided, or redressed by means of polite (verbal strategies).

2.3. Leech (1983) in his model discussed the politeness differently from Gricean conversational maxims. He was motivated by international goals, and posited a parallel politeness principle exhibit in many different maxims such as tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement and sympathy. As human face differs in situations along his/her life which absolutely requires different levels of politeness such as authority, social distance, optionality, directness and indirectness.

2.4. Sperber and Wilson (1995) developed new theory of social communication called relevance theory. It is a cognitive theory of human communication. This theory based on the assumption that the human beings are endowed with biologically rooted ability to maximize the relevance of incoming stimuli (including linguistics utterances and other communicative behaviour). Relevance theory is not only a typical property for external stimuli but also for internal representations and thoughts, all of them may become inputs for cognitive processing.

3) Leechs politeness principles:Leechs politeness principles (PP) tend to account for the way people use speech while communicating either in formal or informal situations taking into account the context of performing an utterance. According to Leech(1983) PP contains six maxims which are formulated in general way; minimize the expression of impolite beliefs and maximize the expression of polite beliefs. (p. 83)Speech acts as usual have a negative and positive face; some illocutions (order) are in fact impolite, while some others (offers) are for sure polite. Leech in his book principles of pragmatics talks about negative politeness by which the speaker minimizes the impoliteness of impolite illocutions, and positive politeness by which the speaker maximizes the politeness of polite illocutions. For example:1) (a) Brit atay - (b) teni atay (I want tea)2) (a) teni wahd lkas datay, llah yxellik. (b) wash ymklli naxud shi kas datay? (Give me a cup of tea, may God keep you (safe)). (Can I have a cup of tea?).In the first two utterances the speaker (S) uses imperative (order). The imperative according to Leech is impolite since S maximizes the cost to Hearer (h) as well as s/he maximizes benefit to S. it is clearly noticed that politeness concerns two participants whom may call self and other (leech, 1983:131). Speaker also shows politeness to third party which may or may not be present in the speech situation. 3.1. Maxims of politeness:3.1.1. Tact maxim.Tact maxim refers to some actions to be performed respectively by the self or the other. These actions may be thought of in terms of what S pretend to be its cost or benefit to S or H.For example: 4) Open the door 5) Hand me a cup of tea6) Look outside7) Enjoy your meal8) Have another sandwich.9) ash dher lik fshi kas datay? (how about a cup of tea?)The examples (1-6) show the cost to hearer which seem to be less polite in the first three examples and more polite in the last two examples. The first two of course maximize cost to H while the last three maximize benefits to H.3.1.2. Generosity maxim:In this maxim S minimizes benefit to self seen in I can lend you some money. And maximizes cost to self seen in Wllah htta tshrb kas datay (In the name of God, you must drink a cup of tea). The first is polite since it implies benefit to H, and the second implies cost to S. whereas this example we must come and have dinner with you reverses the fact that minimizing benefit to self which, of course, seems to be impolite. It is possible to apply Generosity maxim without referring to Tact maxim say you can get them for less than half the price most of the time we hear like this expressions in some markets. It is, for sure, beneficial to H but does not imply any cost to S.3.1.3. Approbation maxim:Generally imply the rule that being polite implies minimizing dispraise of others and maximizing the praise of other. This maxim says avoid saying unpleasant things about others, especially about H. this examples clarify that mentioned above llah ala riht tajin! and what a marvelous meal you cooked, it is highly valued according to approbation maxim, however riht lahrik and what an awful meal you cooked! is not. 3.1.4. Modesty maxim:Modesty maxim is like the other maxims of politeness which tends to maximize dispraise to self as well as to minimize praise to self. This maxim is over used in Moroccan situations - to some extent - depends on the context such as interacting with parents and elder relatives in addition to elder people to S. it is used also between friends. For instance, our classmate was so kind to us implies modesty to third party where S minimizes praise to self, and how stupid of me which also implies maximizing dispraise to self. Both of the examples show the modesty of S towards the third part where S minimizes him/herself and maximizes the others. Whereas, the next example breaks the maxim of modesty since S maximizes the praise to him/herself. 10) You were kind to us. 11) Yes, I was, wasnt I?

9.1.4 Agreement maxim:

This maxim minimizes disagreement and maximizes agreement with other. In other words, S tend to exaggerate agreement and to mitigate disagreement with others by expressing regret, partial agreement, etc. For instance:

12) It was an interesting trip, wasnt it?13) Yes, it was.14) Morocco is a wonderful country, isnt it?15) Yes, except it is full of thieves. It is noticed that the latter is different than the former. The latter expresses partial agreement to S which is always preferable to complete disagreement.

9.1.5 Sympathy maxim:Sympathy maxim explains the reason behind being well-mannered in speech acts like congratulations and condolences, even though the latter expresses negative beliefs regardless to the H. for instance:16) I am terribly sorry to hear that your car is damaged.17) I am pleased to hear that your car is damaged. The first, for sure, is polite in contrast to the second which maximizes antipathy between self and other. The example (16) is interpreted as condolence as an expression of sympathy but it might be preferable to say it as in (18). However, the example (19) is interpreted as congratulation.18) I am terribly sorry to hear about your car.19) I am delighted to hear about your newborn.

3) Negative and positive politeness as culture-bound.Sociopragmatics studies demonstrate that politeness is a culture-bound, people typically using polite relative to some norm of behaviour which for a particular setting they regard as typical (leech, 1983). According to leech, this norm differs from society to another and from culture to another. Brown and Levinson (1987) divide politeness into four strategies (positive politeness, negative politeness, the bald on-record, Off-record indirect) which depends on a number of factors reduced to a simple formula: Distance (D) of the speaker and hearer. (social distance) The relative power (P) between the speaker and the hearer. The absolute ranking (R) of the imposition in a particular culture. Positive politeness strategy shows you recognize that the H has a face to be respected. It insists on that the relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity. In Moroccan culture people tend to use this kind of politeness with strangers; it is meant by stranger the H who is unknown to the S. Mostly happens in first time meeting. For example: 20) May I have a cup of tea?21) Can I possibly have a cup of tea?22) Could I have a cup of tea?23) Was it possible for me to have a cup of tea?Negative politeness strategy recognizes the Hs face. But it also admits that the S is in some way imposing on the H. This strategy is used in Morocco in broad sense; especially, among friends in particular cultural context. This means, each cultural context demands particular way of behaving which is drawn clearly in manners of speaking in a given context. For instance: 24) Teni atay (Give me (some) tea).25) Bxit atay (I want tea)

4) Cross-cultural (im)politeness.

All are agree that each culture has its own norms that show the boundaries which actually the S should respect. Impoliteness occurs due to culture differences where negative transfer of politeness takes place in communication with the users of second language. At this level, we can talk about cross-cultural miscommunication (Thomas, 1983). Thomas (1983) divides cross-cultural miscommunication into pragmatic failure which may result from inappropriate transfer of speech act strategies through a misconception of their illocutionary force in the second language, and socio-pragmatics failure which may result from cross-cultural differences in the social condition places on language in use. The transfer of cultural norms of a non-native speaker to other culture may lead to misusing of language, which itself will absolutely lead to misunderstanding. For instance, if a native speaker is a Moroccan, the H will be introduced to the following state of being in considering greeting:

26) Hello, hello, hello! How are you? Its been such a long time since I last saw you. Where have you been all this time? How is the family, the wife, the children, your parents? Are they alright? My regards to all of them (Alaoui, 9).

This is a natural greeting that one has to go through in Moroccan society, which may be understood differently by foreigners. They absolutely would consider it impolite to ask these types of questions.

5) Cross-cultural variation of Speech Acts.

Culturally speaking, many speech acts are culture-specific. That is, its practice defers from one culture to another. In the case of institutionalized speech acts, which typically use standardized a set of formulas and are, of course, performed in public ceremonies. A good example is provided by the speech act of divorcing. In the Muslim world divorce takes certain conventional procedures or norms to be culturally acceptable under the appropriate circumstances, the uttering of a sentence I herby divorce you three times consecutively by a husband to his wife will really constitute a divorce. In the western world, we find different way of dealing with this state of being. This utterance no more obtain a divorce, in other cultures than Muslims.Concerning non-institutionalized speech acts. First of all, speech act can be cultural-specific as it is described above. Such speech acts like promising is performed in some areas of the world while it has no place in some others. For instance, Rosaldo (1982) observed that in Ilongost (tribal in Philippines) speech act of promising is absent. Similar example can be found in Australian aboriginal language Yolngu. It is cited by Harris (1984: 134-135) that speech act of thanking does not exist in their repertoire. On the contrary, some speech acts may be presented only in a certain cultures. In Islamic culture, for example, couple should pronounce a precise correct words zawwaj-tuka nafsi. Without uttering these correct words marriage seems to be not fulfilled. Secondly, speech acts are carried out differently according to each culture in a given particular situation. Again, if we take the example of marriage in Islamic culture, exactly the way couple divorce is totally different. Saying three times the utterance I herby divorce you by the husband carries out the divorce. While in western culture the divorce should be carried out through the court of appeal. Thirdly, the same speech act may meet with different typical responses in different cultures and languages. We can take the example of compliment. Compliment meets acceptance and thanking in Moroccan culture where people feel proud of themselves, but self-denigration in Chinese and Japanese. According to Misutani (1987), the Japanese will never accept a compliment without saying no.Fourthly, the same speech act may differ in its directness and indirectness in different cultures. Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Patterns Project (CCSARPP) conducted a research across some countries in the late of 1970s on how particular kinds of speech acts, especially face threatening acts as request, apologies, and complaints. The findings were that Argentinean Spanish speakers are the direct whilst the least direct are the Australian English speakers. This findings show that there is an extensive cross-cultural variation in directness and indirectness in speech acting, especially in the realization of face-threatening acts (FTA). Since not all speech acts are directly addressed which serve FTA such as keep your voice down. In fact, the most of them are expressed indirectly in every day communication for some social reason such as I would be grateful, if you could keep your voice down.

6) conclusion

All agree that cultures differ from each other world wild, but no one denies that there are norms where some cultures meet. According to the preceded illustration of the culture and its relation to the notion of politeness and speech acts, it is observed that each culture has its own way of dealing with certain situation say apologizing as an example. Apologizing is obligatory for some cultures if one steps on other persons toes, but in other cultures it calls for sympathy, take the example of West African culture as cited by Y Huang (2006).

7) Refrences:

Alaoui, M. S. (2011). Politeness principle: A comparative study of English and Moroccan Arabic requests, offers and thanks. European journal of social sciences, 20 (1), Pp. 7-15.

Hickey, L., & Orta, V.L. (no date). Politeness as deference: A pragmatic view.

Mey, L. J. (2009). Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (2nd ed.). United kindom: Elsevier Ltd.

Meyerhoff, M. (2006). Introducing sociolinguistics. New York: routledge.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of politeness. New York: Longman Group Limited.

Pop, A. (2009). An analysis of politeness as functional of speech acts and target reader in print medical advertising. Language at the university of Essex. Pp. 94-106.

Prepared by: DAHMANI HichamPage 9