Politeness is the flower of humanity”, (Joseph Joubert , 1754 – 1824, French moralist). “Politeness is to human nature what warmth is to wax”, (Arthur Schopenhauer, 1788- 1860, German philosopher).
Politeness and tact play an important role in dealing with other people. The term calls a behaviour that shall demonstrate respect for the vis – à – vis. In order to avoid embarrassing situations or abashing someone polite behaviour has to be used. In the following paper, I will deal with the topic “Politeness in English and Japanese.” As a basic concept I will use two essays: “Politeness and conversational universalsobservation from Japanese” by Yoshiko Matsumoto (1989) and “Keigo – Höflichkeit und soziale Bedeutung im Japanischen” by Florian Coulmas (1987). On the basis of these two papers I want to show what politeness is like in Japanese and English and whether the principles of conversation generated by Grice (1975) and Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness (1978, 1987) are universal as they are claimed to be. In order to analyse this assertion I will take a closer look on the Japanese language.
At first I will give basic information to understand what the respective theory is about. I will first give an overview of Grice’s theory and will then focus on Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness and explain their notion. The next point will comprise the transformation of the theories’ properties on the Japanese language to confute or verify their alleged universality. I will use Matsumoto’s and Coulmas’ essays to indicate the construction of the Japanese language and will demonstrate this with many examples. Subsequently I will illustrate whether Brown and Levinson’s theory is also appropriate for the Japanese language system. Section five will give a summary of the topic and present the result of the analysis.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Definition Politeness
3. Basics
3.1. Grice’s theory of conversation (1975)
3.1.1.. Basic Idea
3.1.2. Grice “Maxims of Conversation”
3.1.3 Conversational vs. Conventional implicatures
3.2. Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness ( 1978, 1987)
3.2.1. Negative and Positive Face
3.2.2 Face – Threatening - Acts (FTAs)
4. Grice’s theory of conversation and Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness applied on the Japanese language including the comparison between English and Japanese politeness
5. Conclusion
Objective and Core Themes
This paper examines the cross-cultural validity of established Western politeness theories, specifically those proposed by Grice, as well as Brown and Levinson, by applying them to the Japanese language. The primary research goal is to determine whether these allegedly universal principles of conversation and politeness account for the specific social and grammatical requirements inherent in Japanese communication.
- Comparison of English and Japanese politeness strategies
- Critique of Grice’s "Cooperative Principle" and "Maxims of Conversation"
- Evaluation of Brown and Levinson’s "Face-Threatening-Acts" (FTAs) theory
- Analysis of Japanese honorifics (Keigo) and social hierarchy
- The role of group membership versus individual territory in Japanese linguistics
Excerpt from the Book
Interactional Implicatures
As I demonstrated in the introduction Grice distinguishes between conversational and conventional implicatures. In his paper Matsumoto furthermore points out a kind of implicature which Grice’s theory does not contain: namely if a speaker does not comply with what is expected, than a so-called “interactional implicature” emerges. That means if a speaker does not regard the respective choice of verb this leads to an insult of the audience, the speaker might be seen as feeble-minded and this very impolite behaviour will entail the exposure of him or her.
He demonstrates this with an example: if a university student wanted to describe the act of eating of his or her professor and used the vulgar verb kuu, particularly if the professor’s close colleagues were present then his /her expression would be seen as a try to decrease the pofessor and the usual relationship.
There are further cases in which interactional implicatures are evoked:
(7a) Dotira - made?
where to
“Where are you going to?”
(7b) Tyotto soko- made.
A little there to
“Just there.”
This example would be used as a brief conversation on encountering neighbours, acquaintances or friends. Although B contravenes the Gricean Maxims of Conversation no interactional implicature would arise. In fact, B could have given an answer with more information but the question does not demand such a detailed answer.
But if you conveyed it to an English - speaking culture, than A’s question would be seen as an intrusion into B’s privacy and an interactional implicature would be originated: B deems A’s question contumelious.
In summary: a Japanese speaker would not find an interactional implicature in this utterance while an English-speaker would.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the research motivation, specifically questioning the universality of Gricean and Brown/Levinsonian theories when analyzed against the Japanese language system.
2. Definition Politeness: This chapter defines politeness as a mechanism for maintaining undisturbed social interaction and creating a framework for successful conversation.
3. Basics: This section provides the theoretical foundation, detailing Grice’s Cooperative Principle and the Brown/Levinson concepts of negative/positive face and face-threatening acts.
4. Grice’s theory of conversation and Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness applied on the Japanese language including the comparison between English and Japanese politeness: The core analytical chapter that demonstrates how Japanese linguistic choices, such as honorifics and verb usage, complicate or contradict Western universalist politeness theories.
5. Conclusion: The concluding chapter summarizes that the examined theories are less universal than proposed and that Japanese politeness requires a more nuanced, context-dependent analysis.
Keywords
Politeness, Japanese Language, Grice, Brown and Levinson, Keigo, Cooperative Principle, Face-Threatening Acts, Interactional Implicature, Honorifics, Sociolinguistics, Conversational Universals, Social Context, Linguistic Comparison, Humility, Respect.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this academic paper?
The paper explores the applicability of Western linguistic politeness theories, specifically those of Grice, Brown, and Levinson, within the unique context of the Japanese language.
Which central theories are analyzed?
The work primarily addresses Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Maxims of Conversation, as well as Brown and Levinson’s theory regarding face-threatening acts and the concepts of negative and positive face.
What is the primary research question?
The paper asks whether the conversational principles claimed to be universal by Western linguists truly hold up when subjected to the structural and social constraints of Japanese linguistic practice.
Which scientific methodology does the author employ?
The author conducts a qualitative comparison using secondary literature, specifically essays by Yoshiko Matsumoto and Florian Coulmas, to provide evidence that challenges the universality of the aforementioned theories.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section details the Japanese honorific system (Keigo), verb variations based on social hierarchy, and the distinction between conversational and interactional implicatures.
What are the primary characteristics of the terminology used?
The paper is characterized by terms such as honorifics, humble language (Ergebenheitsausdruck), group membership, and social context.
How does the author define "interactional implicature"?
The author defines it as an implicature that arises when a speaker deviates from social expectations regarding verb choice, which can lead to social insult or being perceived as impolite.
Why does the author argue against Brown and Levinson’s "individual territory" concept in Japan?
The author argues that in Japan, the emphasis is placed on group acceptance rather than the preservation of individual territory, making Brown and Levinson’s definition of "face" less suitable for describing Japanese interaction.
How does the example "Today is Saturday" illustrate the complexity of Japanese politeness?
It demonstrates that Japanese speakers cannot simply make a neutral statement; they are forced to choose between specific variants of the copula based on the social status of the addressee and the formality of the situation.
- Quote paper
- Antje Brinckmann (Author), 2005, Politeness in English and Japanese, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/65840
