This term paper is concerned with the question of whether or not two pragmatic approaches to language can be adapted to the phenomenon of politeness and be combined under certain aspects. The specific question is: Can Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson’s model of politeness completely be described through the terminology and perspective of Grice’s?
I will therefore, in a first step, compare both models under these aspects and then try to combine them. Depending on to what degree this can be done, I shall afterwards explain the differences that hinder a complete merging, if they exist. In a second step, I will adapt the new knowledge exemplarily to a corpus and repeat the comparison deductively on a practical level.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Thesis
3. Grice’s Maxims and his cooperation principle
4. Brown and Levinson’s face-threatening acts
5. Merging both in theory
5.1. Cooperative principle
5.2. Maxims
5.3. Conclusion
6. Explanatory statement regarding the corpus
7. Method
8. Exemplary practical proof
8.1. Arthur: “[…] Ron, get out of the kitchen. We’re all hungry.” (28f)
8.2. Dumbledore: “I’d like to make an announcement . […]“ (46f)
8.3. Seamus: “Can I have a go, Harry? After you, of course.” (138)
9. Conclusion
10. References
11. Attachment: Corpus
Objectives and Research Focus
This academic paper examines whether the pragmatic politeness model established by Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson can be integrated into the framework of Herbert Paul Grice’s cooperative principle. The primary research question investigates to what extent Gricean terminology is sufficient to describe the face-threatening acts and mitigation strategies identified by Brown and Levinson, followed by a practical application using dialogue examples from the Harry Potter film series.
- Analysis of Grice’s Conversational Maxims and the Cooperative Principle.
- Exploration of Brown and Levinson’s theory of face-threatening acts.
- Theoretical synthesis of rationality and communicative efficiency across both models.
- Practical application of pragmatic theory to film corpus data.
- Evaluation of the adequacy of Gricean models in describing complex sociolinguistic politeness.
Excerpt from the Book
8.1. Arthur: “[…] Ron, get out of the kitchen. We’re all hungry.” (28f)
The first sentence consists of an address “Ron […]” and an imperative: “[…] get out of the kitchen.” While the address has no specific relevance for Ron’s face and Arthur’s FTA, the imperative can be classified as an on record, bald FTA without redressive action. It is the “most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way” of “saying ‘Do X’.” (Brown and Levinson, 1989, 69) Arthur might use this formulation because Ron is his son, so the familiar relationship between them allows him to perform the FTA, while Ron knows that his negative face is still being respected, even without rederessive action. (Bublitz, 2001, 228)
The second sentence “We’re all hungry.” Can be interpret in two ways: If seen as an act of negative politeness, Arthur might add it to reassure Ron that he personally does not want to infringe upon his negative face, but that the group forces him to keep Ron out of the kitchen. He avoids the words “you” and “I” and thereby depersonalises his utterance. (Brown and Levinson, 1989, 197ff) He could also have uttered that sentence to console Ron’s positive face through the use of positive politeness. By showing he is accepting him as a group-, in this case family member. (Brown and Levinson, 1989, 107ff) He could have said it to give Ron a feeling of solidarity that he would wait with him for dinner.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the research question regarding the compatibility of Gricean pragmatics with Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory.
2. Thesis: Outlines the theoretical foundations of the Cooperative Principle and the concept of face-threatening acts.
3. Grice’s Maxims and his cooperation principle: Details the four conversational maxims and defines the role of rationality in communication.
4. Brown and Levinson’s face-threatening acts: Introduces the concepts of negative and positive face and strategies for avoiding face-threatening acts.
5. Merging both in theory: Compares the definitions of rationality in both models and assesses the applicability of Gricean terms to politeness strategies.
6. Explanatory statement regarding the corpus: Justifies the use of Harry Potter film subtitles as a valid source for analyzing Western European polite language use.
7. Method: Describes the analytical approach of scrutinizing situation, interlocutor constellation, objective, and anticipation.
8. Exemplary practical proof: Applies the theoretical frameworks to specific dialogue excerpts to test their descriptive power.
9. Conclusion: Summarizes that while Gricean terminology is useful, it requires expansion by a "maxim of politeness" to fully capture sociocultural nuances.
10. References: Lists the primary and secondary literature used for the analysis.
11. Attachment: Corpus: Provides the transcribed dialogue segments from the analyzed films.
Keywords
Pragmatics, Politeness, Gricean Maxims, Cooperative Principle, Face-threatening Acts, FTA, Implicature, Rationality, Communication, Sociolinguistics, Indirect Speech Acts, Utterance Analysis, Linguistic Politeness, Conversational Implicature, Film Dialogues
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental objective of this research paper?
The paper aims to determine if the politeness model by Brown and Levinson can be fully described or subsumed within the linguistic framework established by H.P. Grice.
Which key theories are central to this work?
The central pillars are Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Conversational Maxims, contrasted and integrated with Brown and Levinson’s theories on Face and Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs).
What is the primary research question?
The author asks whether Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson’s model of politeness can be comprehensively described through Grice’s terminology and perspective.
Which methodology is employed to analyze the language data?
The paper uses a deductive method, analyzing four situational factors: the physical situation, the interlocutor constellation, the speaker’s primary objective, and the speaker’s anticipation.
What does the practical analysis focus on in the main body?
The main body tests the theoretical findings against specific speech acts from the "Harry Potter" film series to see if they align with the described linguistic theories.
How are the results of the comparison summarized?
The author concludes that Gricean terminology is insufficient for describing sociocultural circumstances, suggesting the addition of a specific "maxim of politeness" is necessary.
Why did the author choose Harry Potter movies as a corpus for analysis?
The author argues that these films reflect Western European standards of politeness and are thus representative of the natural language use and social expectations of the target audience.
How is the concept of "rationality" interpreted in this paper?
Rationality is defined as acting in a way that helps a speaker reach their communicative goals, aligning with the definition provided by both Grice and the team of Brown and Levinson.
What distinguishes "positive face" from "negative face" in this study?
Negative face relates to the desire for autonomy and freedom from imposition, while positive face relates to the need for social acceptance and inclusion.
How does the author evaluate the "off-record" strategy?
The author identifies that performing an FTA "off-record" functions through the violation of a conversational maxim, triggering a conversational implicature that allows the hearer to interpret the intent.
- Quote paper
- Erik Lutz (Author), 2015, Politeness. A comparison of two pragmatic approaches towards polite acting in speech, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/335445
