Definition and Examples of Politeness Strategies

Definition and Examples of Politeness Strategies In sociolinguistics  and  conversation analysis (CA), politeness strategies are  speech acts that express concern for others and minimize threats to self-esteem (face) in particular social contexts. Positive Politeness Strategies Positive politeness strategies are intended to avoid giving offense by highlighting friendliness. These strategies include juxtaposing criticism with compliments, establishing common ground, and using jokes, nicknames, honorifics, tag questions, special discourse markers (please), and in-group jargon and slang. Negative Politeness Strategies Negative political strategies are intended to avoid giving offense by showing deference. These strategies include questioning, hedging, and presenting disagreements as opinions. The Face Saving Theory of Politeness The best known and most widely used approach to the study of politeness is the framework introduced by Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson in Questions and Politeness (1978); reissued with corrections as Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987). Brown and Levinsons theory of linguistic politeness is sometimes referred to as the face-saving theory of politeness. Examples and Observations Shut up! is rude, even ruder than Keep quiet! In the polite version, Do you think you would mind keeping quiet: this is, after all, a library, and other people are trying to concentrate, everything in italics is extra. It is there to soften the demand, giving an impersonal reason for the request, and avoiding the brutally direct by the taking of trouble. Conventional grammar takes little account of such strategies, even though we are all masters of both making and understanding the signs that point to what is going on beneath the surface.(Margaret Visser, The Way We Are. HarperCollins, 1994)Professor, I was wondering if you could tell us about the Chamber of Secrets.(Hermione in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, 2002)Would you mind stepping aside? I got a purchase to make.(Eric Cartman in Cartmanland.  South Park, 2001)Sir, the gentleman asked with a twang in his voice that was unmistakably Southern, would it bother you terribly  if I joined you?(Harold Coyle, Look Away. S imon Schuster, 1995)   Laurence, said Caroline, I dont think Im going to be much help to you at Ladylees.  Ive had enough holiday-making.  Ill stay for a couple of days but I want to get back to London and do some work, actually. Sorry to change my mind butGo to hell, Laurence said. Kindly go to hell.(Muriel Spark,  The Comforters. Macmillan, 1957)   A Definition of Politeness What exactly is politeness? In one sense, all politeness can be viewed as deviation from maximally efficient communication; as violations (in some sense) of Grice’s (1975) conversational maxims [see cooperative principle]. To perform an act other than in the most clear and efficient manner possible is to implicate some degree of politeness on the part of the speaker. To request another to open a window by saying â€Å"It’s warm in here† is to perform the request politely because one did not use the most efficient means possible for performing this act (i.e., â€Å"Open the window†). . . .Politeness allows people to perform many inter-personally sensitive actions in a nonthreatening or less threatening manner.There are an infinite number of ways in which people can be polite by performing an act in a less than optimal manner, and Brown and Levinson’s typology of five superstrategies is an attempt to capture some of these essential differences.(Thomas Holtgraves, Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002) Orienting to Different Kinds of Politeness People who grow up in communities that are more oriented to negative face wants and negative politeness may find that they are perceived as aloof or cold if they move somewhere where positive politeness is emphasized more. They may also mistake some of the conventionalised positive politeness routines as being expressions of genuine friendship or closeness . . .. Conversely, people accustomed to paying attention to positive face wants and using positive politeness strategies may find that they come across as unsophisticated or vulgar if they find themselves in a community that is more oriented to negative face wants.(Miriam Meyerhoff, Introducing Sociolinguistics. Routledge, 2006) Variables in Degrees of Politeness Brown and Levinson list three sociological variables that speakers employ in choosing the degree of politeness to use and in calculating the amount of threat to their own face: (i) the social distance of the speaker and hearer (D);(ii) the relative power of the speaker over the hearer (P);(iii) the absolute ranking of impositions in the particular culture (R). The greater the social distance between the interlocutors (e.g., if they know each other very little), the more politeness is generally expected. The greater the (perceived) relative power of hearer over speaker, the more politeness is recommended. The heavier the imposition made on the hearer (the more of their time required, or the greater the favour requested), the more politeness will generally have to be used.(Alan Partington, The Linguistics of Laughter: A Corpus-Assisted Study of Laughter-Talk. Routledge, 2006) Positive and Negative Politeness Brown and Levinson (1978/1987) distinguish between positive and negative politeness. Both types of politeness involve maintainingor redressing threats topositive and negative face, where positive face is defined as the addressees perennial desire that his wants . . . should be thought of as desirable (p. 101), and negative face as the addressees want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded (p. 129).(Almut Koester, Investigating Workplace Discourse. Routledge, 2006) Common Ground [C]ommon ground, information perceived to be shared among communicators, is important not only for gauging what information is likely to be already known versus new, but also to carry a message of interpersonal relationships. Brown and Levinson (1987) argued that claiming common ground in communication is a major strategy of positive politeness, which is a series of conversational moves that recognise the partners needs and wants in a way that shows they represent a commonality, such as a commonality of knowledge, attitudes, interests, goals, and in-group membership.(Anthony Lyons et al., Cultural Dynamics of Stereotypes. Stereotype Dynamics: Language-Based Approaches to the Formation, Maintenance, and Transformation of Stereotypes, ed. by Yoshihisa Kashima, Klaus Fiedler, and Peter Freytag. Psychology Press, 2007) The Lighter Side of Politeness Strategies Page Conners: [bursting into Jacks bar] I want my purse, jerk-off!Jack Withrowe: Thats not very friendly. Now, I want you to go back out, and this time, when you kick the door open, say something nice.(Jennifer Love Hewitt and Jason Lee in Heartbreakers, 2001)

Definition and Examples of Politeness Strategies

Definition and Examples of Politeness Strategies In sociolinguistics  and  conversation analysis (CA), politeness strategies are  speech acts that express concern for others and minimize threats to self-esteem (face) in particular social contexts. Positive Politeness Strategies Positive politeness strategies are intended to avoid giving offense by highlighting friendliness. These strategies include juxtaposing criticism with compliments, establishing common ground, and using jokes, nicknames, honorifics, tag questions, special discourse markers (please), and in-group jargon and slang. Negative Politeness Strategies Negative political strategies are intended to avoid giving offense by showing deference. These strategies include questioning, hedging, and presenting disagreements as opinions. The Face Saving Theory of Politeness The best known and most widely used approach to the study of politeness is the framework introduced by Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson in Questions and Politeness (1978); reissued with corrections as Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987). Brown and Levinsons theory of linguistic politeness is sometimes referred to as the face-saving theory of politeness. Examples and Observations Shut up! is rude, even ruder than Keep quiet! In the polite version, Do you think you would mind keeping quiet: this is, after all, a library, and other people are trying to concentrate, everything in italics is extra. It is there to soften the demand, giving an impersonal reason for the request, and avoiding the brutally direct by the taking of trouble. Conventional grammar takes little account of such strategies, even though we are all masters of both making and understanding the signs that point to what is going on beneath the surface.(Margaret Visser, The Way We Are. HarperCollins, 1994)Professor, I was wondering if you could tell us about the Chamber of Secrets.(Hermione in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, 2002)Would you mind stepping aside? I got a purchase to make.(Eric Cartman in Cartmanland.  South Park, 2001)Sir, the gentleman asked with a twang in his voice that was unmistakably Southern, would it bother you terribly  if I joined you?(Harold Coyle, Look Away. S imon Schuster, 1995)   Laurence, said Caroline, I dont think Im going to be much help to you at Ladylees.  Ive had enough holiday-making.  Ill stay for a couple of days but I want to get back to London and do some work, actually. Sorry to change my mind butGo to hell, Laurence said. Kindly go to hell.(Muriel Spark,  The Comforters. Macmillan, 1957)   A Definition of Politeness What exactly is politeness? In one sense, all politeness can be viewed as deviation from maximally efficient communication; as violations (in some sense) of Grice’s (1975) conversational maxims [see cooperative principle]. To perform an act other than in the most clear and efficient manner possible is to implicate some degree of politeness on the part of the speaker. To request another to open a window by saying â€Å"It’s warm in here† is to perform the request politely because one did not use the most efficient means possible for performing this act (i.e., â€Å"Open the window†). . . .Politeness allows people to perform many inter-personally sensitive actions in a nonthreatening or less threatening manner.There are an infinite number of ways in which people can be polite by performing an act in a less than optimal manner, and Brown and Levinson’s typology of five superstrategies is an attempt to capture some of these essential differences.(Thomas Holtgraves, Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002) Orienting to Different Kinds of Politeness People who grow up in communities that are more oriented to negative face wants and negative politeness may find that they are perceived as aloof or cold if they move somewhere where positive politeness is emphasized more. They may also mistake some of the conventionalised positive politeness routines as being expressions of genuine friendship or closeness . . .. Conversely, people accustomed to paying attention to positive face wants and using positive politeness strategies may find that they come across as unsophisticated or vulgar if they find themselves in a community that is more oriented to negative face wants.(Miriam Meyerhoff, Introducing Sociolinguistics. Routledge, 2006) Variables in Degrees of Politeness Brown and Levinson list three sociological variables that speakers employ in choosing the degree of politeness to use and in calculating the amount of threat to their own face: (i) the social distance of the speaker and hearer (D);(ii) the relative power of the speaker over the hearer (P);(iii) the absolute ranking of impositions in the particular culture (R). The greater the social distance between the interlocutors (e.g., if they know each other very little), the more politeness is generally expected. The greater the (perceived) relative power of hearer over speaker, the more politeness is recommended. The heavier the imposition made on the hearer (the more of their time required, or the greater the favour requested), the more politeness will generally have to be used.(Alan Partington, The Linguistics of Laughter: A Corpus-Assisted Study of Laughter-Talk. Routledge, 2006) Positive and Negative Politeness Brown and Levinson (1978/1987) distinguish between positive and negative politeness. Both types of politeness involve maintainingor redressing threats topositive and negative face, where positive face is defined as the addressees perennial desire that his wants . . . should be thought of as desirable (p. 101), and negative face as the addressees want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded (p. 129).(Almut Koester, Investigating Workplace Discourse. Routledge, 2006) Common Ground [C]ommon ground, information perceived to be shared among communicators, is important not only for gauging what information is likely to be already known versus new, but also to carry a message of interpersonal relationships. Brown and Levinson (1987) argued that claiming common ground in communication is a major strategy of positive politeness, which is a series of conversational moves that recognise the partners needs and wants in a way that shows they represent a commonality, such as a commonality of knowledge, attitudes, interests, goals, and in-group membership.(Anthony Lyons et al., Cultural Dynamics of Stereotypes. Stereotype Dynamics: Language-Based Approaches to the Formation, Maintenance, and Transformation of Stereotypes, ed. by Yoshihisa Kashima, Klaus Fiedler, and Peter Freytag. Psychology Press, 2007) The Lighter Side of Politeness Strategies Page Conners: [bursting into Jacks bar] I want my purse, jerk-off!Jack Withrowe: Thats not very friendly. Now, I want you to go back out, and this time, when you kick the door open, say something nice.(Jennifer Love Hewitt and Jason Lee in Heartbreakers, 2001)

Definition and Examples of Politeness Strategies

Definition and Examples of Politeness Strategies In sociolinguistics  and  conversation analysis (CA), politeness strategies are  speech acts that express concern for others and minimize threats to self-esteem (face) in particular social contexts. Positive Politeness Strategies Positive politeness strategies are intended to avoid giving offense by highlighting friendliness. These strategies include juxtaposing criticism with compliments, establishing common ground, and using jokes, nicknames, honorifics, tag questions, special discourse markers (please), and in-group jargon and slang. Negative Politeness Strategies Negative political strategies are intended to avoid giving offense by showing deference. These strategies include questioning, hedging, and presenting disagreements as opinions. The Face Saving Theory of Politeness The best known and most widely used approach to the study of politeness is the framework introduced by Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson in Questions and Politeness (1978); reissued with corrections as Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987). Brown and Levinsons theory of linguistic politeness is sometimes referred to as the face-saving theory of politeness. Examples and Observations Shut up! is rude, even ruder than Keep quiet! In the polite version, Do you think you would mind keeping quiet: this is, after all, a library, and other people are trying to concentrate, everything in italics is extra. It is there to soften the demand, giving an impersonal reason for the request, and avoiding the brutally direct by the taking of trouble. Conventional grammar takes little account of such strategies, even though we are all masters of both making and understanding the signs that point to what is going on beneath the surface.(Margaret Visser, The Way We Are. HarperCollins, 1994)Professor, I was wondering if you could tell us about the Chamber of Secrets.(Hermione in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, 2002)Would you mind stepping aside? I got a purchase to make.(Eric Cartman in Cartmanland.  South Park, 2001)Sir, the gentleman asked with a twang in his voice that was unmistakably Southern, would it bother you terribly  if I joined you?(Harold Coyle, Look Away. S imon Schuster, 1995)   Laurence, said Caroline, I dont think Im going to be much help to you at Ladylees.  Ive had enough holiday-making.  Ill stay for a couple of days but I want to get back to London and do some work, actually. Sorry to change my mind butGo to hell, Laurence said. Kindly go to hell.(Muriel Spark,  The Comforters. Macmillan, 1957)   A Definition of Politeness What exactly is politeness? In one sense, all politeness can be viewed as deviation from maximally efficient communication; as violations (in some sense) of Grice’s (1975) conversational maxims [see cooperative principle]. To perform an act other than in the most clear and efficient manner possible is to implicate some degree of politeness on the part of the speaker. To request another to open a window by saying â€Å"It’s warm in here† is to perform the request politely because one did not use the most efficient means possible for performing this act (i.e., â€Å"Open the window†). . . .Politeness allows people to perform many inter-personally sensitive actions in a nonthreatening or less threatening manner.There are an infinite number of ways in which people can be polite by performing an act in a less than optimal manner, and Brown and Levinson’s typology of five superstrategies is an attempt to capture some of these essential differences.(Thomas Holtgraves, Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002) Orienting to Different Kinds of Politeness People who grow up in communities that are more oriented to negative face wants and negative politeness may find that they are perceived as aloof or cold if they move somewhere where positive politeness is emphasized more. They may also mistake some of the conventionalised positive politeness routines as being expressions of genuine friendship or closeness . . .. Conversely, people accustomed to paying attention to positive face wants and using positive politeness strategies may find that they come across as unsophisticated or vulgar if they find themselves in a community that is more oriented to negative face wants.(Miriam Meyerhoff, Introducing Sociolinguistics. Routledge, 2006) Variables in Degrees of Politeness Brown and Levinson list three sociological variables that speakers employ in choosing the degree of politeness to use and in calculating the amount of threat to their own face: (i) the social distance of the speaker and hearer (D);(ii) the relative power of the speaker over the hearer (P);(iii) the absolute ranking of impositions in the particular culture (R). The greater the social distance between the interlocutors (e.g., if they know each other very little), the more politeness is generally expected. The greater the (perceived) relative power of hearer over speaker, the more politeness is recommended. The heavier the imposition made on the hearer (the more of their time required, or the greater the favour requested), the more politeness will generally have to be used.(Alan Partington, The Linguistics of Laughter: A Corpus-Assisted Study of Laughter-Talk. Routledge, 2006) Positive and Negative Politeness Brown and Levinson (1978/1987) distinguish between positive and negative politeness. Both types of politeness involve maintainingor redressing threats topositive and negative face, where positive face is defined as the addressees perennial desire that his wants . . . should be thought of as desirable (p. 101), and negative face as the addressees want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded (p. 129).(Almut Koester, Investigating Workplace Discourse. Routledge, 2006) Common Ground [C]ommon ground, information perceived to be shared among communicators, is important not only for gauging what information is likely to be already known versus new, but also to carry a message of interpersonal relationships. Brown and Levinson (1987) argued that claiming common ground in communication is a major strategy of positive politeness, which is a series of conversational moves that recognise the partners needs and wants in a way that shows they represent a commonality, such as a commonality of knowledge, attitudes, interests, goals, and in-group membership.(Anthony Lyons et al., Cultural Dynamics of Stereotypes. Stereotype Dynamics: Language-Based Approaches to the Formation, Maintenance, and Transformation of Stereotypes, ed. by Yoshihisa Kashima, Klaus Fiedler, and Peter Freytag. Psychology Press, 2007) The Lighter Side of Politeness Strategies Page Conners: [bursting into Jacks bar] I want my purse, jerk-off!Jack Withrowe: Thats not very friendly. Now, I want you to go back out, and this time, when you kick the door open, say something nice.(Jennifer Love Hewitt and Jason Lee in Heartbreakers, 2001)

PHILOSOPHY Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

PHILOSOPHY - Essay Example motion, number, figures, solidity etc. As such, these were termed as characteristics of something else that ultimately conveyed facts to the observer yet do not themselves relate anything substantive. Conversely, Locke also introduced secondary qualities, which one would seemingly connect with the identification of real measurable objects. These include but are not limited to sound, taste, smell, touch, etc. In this way, the reader can understand that Locke’s understanding was that primary qualities were measurable whereas secondary qualities were subjective to the individual. However, as with most theories and ways of understanding philosophy, it was not long until Locke’s position was challenged by another philosopher. As this particular case study will illustrate, George Berkeley’s contrarian view of John Locke’s understand of reality which has thus far been related. In this way, Berkeley’s main premise is that neither the primary nor the secondary qualities are sufficient for determining reality. In this way, Berkeley provides a clean break from the ideas espoused by Locke and posits instead that the ultimate measure of reality can only be understood as a function of the ideas that sensations create within the mind of the individual. Whereas Locke sought to differentiate between subjective and objective measurements of reality, Berkeley posits that reality as a construct can only exist in the subjective realm. Due to the fact that no two individuals will behave the same way with regards to given stimuli, as a result of life experience and a host of other factors, it is similarly inconceivable, according to Berkeley, that they will approach reality from the same way and with the same results. Ultimately, Berkeley saw that once the object itself was stripped of its secondary qualities, i.e. the qualities that gave it measurable meaning to the individual, it became increasingly difficult, if not

Independent project Literature review Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Independent project - Literature review Example Epistemology seeks out sources of knowledge that has logical application to the cognitive level of every researcher. Those who conduct an inquiry must endeavor to utilize processes as tools for investigation to clarify, justify, and rationalize a phenomenon (Goldman, 1986). Epistemologists usually adapt a normative action to socially theorize an event on its moral basis: is this objective or subjective? Is this deontological or consequentialist? Or, is this absolutist or pluralist? (Goldman, 1986 p.3) Researcher evaluates ideas and arguments, propositions and sentences in deductive or inductive logical processes. Hence, the epistemic component of the study relates to the inferences in the formation of belief or rational conclusions (Goldman, 1986). As such, social epistemology looks into the impact of different patterns in social interaction—its forms, styles, arguments, and the critical interfacing of facts, controversies, assumptions, and theoretical frameworks arising from a phenomenon under study. Heidegger explained that ontology is the doctrine of being and such has interrelation with phenomenology. Ontology explicates the nature of social reality, (Dreyfus & Wrathall, 2005) explores more assumptions, and the categorical character of the subject of research. The ontological side of the study focused on facticity. Researcher would therefore take into the process of engaging, approaching, explaining, questioning and accessing information to determine the subject’s facticity (Dreyfus, et. al., 2005). The epistemic and ontological component of research is often elaborated in related literatures and in the analysis. Methodology refers to systemic procedures on how a research should be undertaken and about how subject of the study is procedurally explicated-- whether it’s qualitative, quantitative and mixed. Methodology also explains the kind of research instruments which will be utilized in generating and consolidating data or evidences.