The following paper seeks to be an empirical approach to the usage of clear and polite expressions in written communication. The material concerned are think- aloud-protocols, so-called TAPs, and respective letters written by students in their Hauptstudium who got the task to write to an imaginary guest professor and record their thoughts while doing this. The letters were first written in English (L2) and afterwards in German (L1) but since the main concept of politeness is very similar in these two languages and a detailed analysis of cultural differences would reach beyond the scope of this paper only the English letters are concerned here.
The students were supposed to remind the professor of correcting their termpaper early because the credit was neeeded for the registration to their final exams. Obviously, this task requires to deal with the conflict between polite behaviour and a precise presentation of facts. As it will be shown it is on the one hand often not easy to be friendly and polite when one simultaneously wants to get an important message across. On the other hand there is the danger of creating a negative impression if one exaggerates politeness. Since I am one of the students who had to write an imaginary letter and especially since I already had to write similar letters in reality and am likely to have to do it again I am really interested in the study of politeness. The close relation between theory and practice here makes the topic very attractive.
32 letters were written and afterwards ranked into a quality scale ranging from high top to deep low. From each of these categories at least one letter will be picked out for a detailed analysis. The paper is based on the theoretical background of three different models of politeness by Lakoff, Leech and Brown and Levinson which have in common that they are all linked somehow to Grice’s Cooperative Principle while Brown and Levinson’s approach seems to be the most elaborate one. The four Gricean maxims have to be adhered to in a communicative act for the sake of clarity but as it will be shown they are often violated in favour of polite speech. All of these models can be criticized more or less but since the purpose of this paper is a strong focus on the empirical part those criticisms will not be taken into consideration here.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Clarity versus Politeness
2.1 Grice's Cooperative Principle (CP)
2.2 Lakoff's model of Pragmatic Competence
2.3 Leech's Politeness Principle (PP)
2.4 Brown and Levinson's model of Politeness
3 Analysis of various letters
4 Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper provides an empirical examination of the balance between clarity and politeness in written student communication, specifically analyzing letters written by university students to a professor. The central research question explores how speakers navigate the conflict between presenting factual information efficiently and maintaining social politeness without appearing insincere or overly informal.
- Empirical analysis of student-written correspondence using think-aloud protocols (TAPs).
- Evaluation of communicative effectiveness based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle.
- Comparative application of linguistic politeness theories by Lakoff, Leech, and Brown and Levinson.
- Identification of communicative "moves" within professional and academic letter writing.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP)
The CP ( cf. Grice 1975: 45f.) consists of four maxims which might compete with one another. The first maxim is concerned with quantity and says that one should be as informative as it is necessary for one’s purposes. In the case of our letters this means that all important pieces of information like a short self-introduction, the name of the seminar and the paper as well as the respective dates have to be contained. The more informative the letter is the less work has the professor.
The second maxim definitely is the most important one because it is concerned with quality. It postulates that nothing which is untrue must be said. Moreover, one should not say anything of which one is not sure. This together simply means that one must not deliberately tell lies. At first glance, of course, nobody has written lies in the letters. But having a closer look at the respective TAPs there are some interesting cases where it is at least considered to write something which is at best a supposition.
The third maxim is concerned with relevance. In the case of our letters the postulation to make relevant contributions is similar to the maxim of quantity. For example, it is relevant to tell the professor our full name while it is unnecessary to tell him our whole family background. In a conversation however, the maxim of relevance plays a great role in connection with conversational goals (cf. Leech 1983: 94).
The fourth and last maxim is concerned with manner which means that one should be as clear, short and precise as possible. Grice considers this maxim less important than the others and different in that way that it is “relating not...to what is said but, rather, to HOW what is said to be said” (Grice 1975: 46). The maxim of manner is highly in conflict with politeness because it is obvious that it needs a certain number of words to convey politeness which are actually superfluous if one only wants to convey a clear message.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter outlines the empirical scope of the research, focusing on student letters and think-aloud protocols designed to address a professor regarding late feedback on term papers.
2 Clarity versus Politeness: This chapter establishes the theoretical framework by discussing Grice’s Cooperative Principle and the specific politeness models proposed by Lakoff, Leech, and Brown and Levinson.
3 Analysis of various letters: This chapter evaluates specific student letters by comparing them against an "ideal letter" model and applying the previously discussed politeness strategies to determine their effectiveness.
4 Conclusion: This chapter synthesizes the findings, noting that while clarity and politeness are often in conflict, a successful communication requires an adequate balance that avoids both excessive formality and insincere, overly casual language.
Keywords
Politeness, Clarity, Grice, Cooperative Principle, Lakoff, Leech, Brown and Levinson, Pragmatic Competence, Face-threatening Acts, Think-aloud Protocols, Communication, Academic Writing, Linguistics, Speech Acts, Sociolinguistics.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The paper examines the tension between being clear and being polite in written communication, specifically within the context of students writing to a professor to request feedback on their work.
Which theoretical models are applied in the analysis?
The work utilizes Grice’s Cooperative Principle as a foundation and compares the politeness theories of Lakoff, Leech, and Brown and Levinson.
What is the main goal of the study?
The goal is to determine whether students can balance the need for factual clarity with appropriate social politeness, and to assess which politeness strategies are most effective.
What methodology was used?
The author analyzed 32 letters written by students, alongside think-aloud protocols (TAPs) that recorded the students' internal thought processes while drafting the letters.
What are the main topics covered in the analysis?
The analysis covers the structural "moves" of an ideal letter, the impact of various politeness strategies on the professor, and the risks of perceived insincerity when using excessive politeness.
Which concepts define this research?
Key concepts include pragmatic scales, face-threatening acts (FTAs), the distinction between positive and negative face, and the conflict between the maxims of quantity and manner versus politeness.
Why are some letters categorized as "deep low"?
Letters categorized as "deep low" often lack essential factual information, use aggressive or demanding language, or rely on inappropriate humor and flattery that the recipient may find insincere.
What makes "Letter 27" successful compared to others?
Letter 27 is considered "high top" because it successfully includes a self-introduction, provides necessary facts, and manages to convey urgency while maintaining a respectful and polite tone without being overly wordy.
- Quote paper
- Ilona Gaul (Author), 2006, Clarity versus politeness in written communication, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/54032
