1. Introduction
This paper will deal with politeness distinctions in personal pronouns. Thus, le leading question will be: In how far can personal pronouns, being deictic expressions, serve as elements of politeness?
To clarify this a little more, I would like to begin with a short explanation of the term “deictic expression”:
Deictics, also known as “pointing words”, are for example: I, you, here, there, before, after. One can distinguish between person, local and time deixis. Special to deictics is the fact that they are meaningless unless we know who speaks and thus forms the center of orientation - the origo . Personal pronouns, however, form a category of person deixis. They relate to either the addressee or to someone talked about in a conversation, they “characterize the referent as well with respect to the speech act role and the size of the respective speaker and hearer groups.”
In a discourse, personal pronouns lexicalize the relation between the origo, which is the cognitive ground for an act of pointing, and the intended referent, who is the figure of the pointing act. Unlike in local or time deixis, this intended referent is a human being (I will omit the situations when human beings speak to animals here), not an inanimate thing like a piece of furniture or an abstract unit like for example a time span – in short, it makes a difference if I say something like: “Here is the green chair”, or “It rained really hard yesterday.” or if I speak either about “I have met that Mrs. Jones” or directly to “You can leave the room now” other persons. If in direct address or not, the issue of politeness gets important in these cases. We can express distance and dislike in demonstratives as shown in the Mrs. Jones sentence, and we can be nice or rude depending on the form of address we use.
As this paper thus will primarily be focused on person deixis, I will omit the topics of local and time deixis but investigate the use of person deictic expressions in their various uses with regard to the question of politeness.
Therefore, I want to start with a chapter about politeness in general: What is politeness? Why are human beings polite (or impolite)? And how is this politeness conveyed through language? To specify the various strategies used to perform politeness, I will then introduce Brown and Levinson’s concept of “Face”, and, later, draw the link to the use of personal pronouns.
[...)
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Politeness
2.1. The Concept of Face
3. Conclusion: Politeness Distinctions in Personal Pronouns in English and German
4. Literature
Objectives and Topics
This paper explores the role of personal pronouns as deictic expressions within the framework of linguistic politeness. The central research question examines to what extent personal pronouns serve as elements of politeness and how these strategies differ between the English and German languages, particularly through the lens of Brown and Levinson's "Face" theory.
- Deixis and the role of personal pronouns in discourse
- Brown and Levinson's theory of "Positive" and "Negative" Face
- Face-Threatening-Acts (FTAs) and redressive strategies
- Cross-linguistic analysis of address forms in English and German
- The use of the 1st person plural as a strategy for positive politeness
Excerpt from the Book
2.1. The Concept of “Face”
First introduced by Erving Goffman in 1959, the concept of face, e.g. in what way human beings want to be perceived by their environment, was broadened and further developed by Brown and Levinson in the 1970’s. Their theory about positive and negative face still is the most popular linguistic approach to politeness. It is also most revealing when it comes to the examination of the use of personal pronouns, as we will see later in this chapter.
Brown and Levinson’s theory starts with the assumption that, with respect to interaction with others, every adult person has two fundamental needs: Firstly, to receive acceptance and reassurance from other human beings and secondly, to maintain his/ her individuality, personal autonomy and freedom. These “face wants” are part of the self-image of every person, the “Face”. Accordingly, Brown and Levinson distinguish between Positive Face (need of reassurance) and Negative Face (need of respect).
In a communicative situation, however, we presuppose that both speaker and hearer want to maintain each others Face. Nevertheless, this is not always possible and there are certainly situations where it is not intended. Brown and Levinson call speech acts, that violate Face Face-Threatening-Acts (FTAs). According to the distinction of Positive and Negative face, FTAs can violate either the Positive or the Negative face of the hearer. Examples 1. – 4. show how Negative Face violations work:
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the research topic of politeness in personal pronouns, defines deictic expressions, and outlines the focus on person deixis over local and time deixis.
2. Politeness: This chapter examines the cooperative principle by Grice and defines politeness as a social mechanism that often overrides communication efficiency, incorporating Brown and Levinson’s concepts of Face and Face-Threatening-Acts.
2.1. The Concept of Face: This section details the distinction between Positive and Negative Face, explaining how specific speech acts can violate these needs and how speakers employ redressive strategies to mitigate such violations.
3. Conclusion: Politeness Distinctions in Personal Pronouns in English and German: This chapter synthesizes the findings, noting that while English has lost most formal binary pronoun distinctions, both languages utilize specific pronoun usage to negotiate hierarchical structures and social closeness.
4. Literature: This section lists the academic sources and online resources used to support the analysis in the paper.
Keywords
Politeness, Deixis, Personal Pronouns, Face, Brown and Levinson, Positive Face, Negative Face, Face-Threatening-Acts, Speech Acts, Person Deixis, Social Interaction, Pragmatics, Address Forms
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on how personal pronouns, which are deictic expressions, function as markers of politeness in social discourse.
What are the primary theoretical pillars used in this study?
The study relies heavily on Brown and Levinson’s theory of "Face," alongside Grice’s cooperative principle and general theories of person deixis.
What is the core research question?
The research asks to what extent personal pronouns can serve as elements of politeness within communicative interactions.
Which linguistic methodology is applied?
The author uses a comparative approach, analyzing specific examples of English and German discourse to illustrate how different language structures handle social distance and respect.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body defines politeness and "Face," categorizes Face-Threatening-Acts, and provides a comparative analysis of how address forms in English and German navigate social hierarchies.
Which keywords best describe this research?
Key terms include Politeness, Deixis, Face, Brown and Levinson, and Pragmatics.
How does the author define a "Face-Threatening-Act" (FTA)?
An FTA is a speech act that inherently violates the hearer's Positive or Negative Face, necessitating the use of redressive strategies to maintain social harmony.
What is unique about the German use of "uns" mentioned in the text?
The author highlights the use of the first-person plural pronoun "uns" as a positive politeness strategy that artificially creates a sense of equality between interlocutors, masking existing social hierarchies.
Does English allow for politeness through personal pronouns?
The author argues that modern English has largely lost its binary politeness distinctions in pronouns, unlike languages like German, though some limited exceptions in usage persist.
- Quote paper
- Cornelia Charlotte Reuscher (Author), 2006, Politeness Distinction in Personal Pronouns and the Concept of Face, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/60171
