|
Article Excerpt
ABSTRACT: This paper addresses the ritual realization of four inherently polite speech acts in English, French, Spanish and Romanian--thanks, apologies, compliments, and wishes--focusing on the linguistic formulas used in each case. Although some of these formulas seem to translate literally from one language into another (for instance: Eng: Thanks/Fr: Merci/Sp: Gracias/ Rom: Multumesc; or Eng: Bless you! or Gesundheit!/Fr: A vos souhaits!/Sp: !Salud !or !Jesus! /Rom: Noroc! etc.), sensible differences can be observed in their frequency and conditions of use. These differences will be used as variation parameters in this contrastive study of politeness across cultures. It will be argued that the variability of these parameters supports the claim that polite speech acts reflect cultural values and attitudes at both the inter- and the intra-linguistic level. *
'... un etat d'equilibre tres subtil et tres fin pour se proteger sans blesser l'autre '(1)
Roland Barthes (on politeness)
1. INTRODUCTION. According to experts like Colin Gill, from the University of Leeds, British courtesy--'for example referring to a gentleman as "sir", a lady as "ma'am", or simply saying "please" and "thank you"'--developed in the late 1600s and flourished in Victorian England in the late 1800s as a way for people from different cultures and opinions to have civilized dialogue. 'The cult of being polite and mannered had an awful lot to do with the British Empire', that is, with the conception that 'Britain was on top and it had a mission to civilize the world'. (2) 'Manners were one of the things that Britain exported', this psychologist and manners specialist concluded (quoted in Soriano 2005:13A). Whether or not the above claim is entirely accurate I don't know, but the fact is that the most influential theory on the study of verbal politeness came from two well-respected English-speaking academics (Brown and Levinson [1978]/1987), and that it was adopted, with or without changes, by the great majority of researchers working on this topic in many varieties of English and several other important European and non-European languages of the world. (3)
In this paper, I will address the realization of some polite speech acts in four European languages that I am familiar with--English, French, Spanish, and Romanian--using Kerbrat-Orecchioni's (1997, 2000, 2001, 2004) approach to verbal politeness, which is based on a modified version of the original Brown and Levinson ([1978]/1987) model; in other words, I will resort to a British politeness theory with a French twist.
2. POLITENESS THEORY REVISITED. In her work on verbal interaction and speech acts, French linguist Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni adopted the core ideas of Brown and Levinson's theory (inspired, in turn, by Goffman's concept of TERRITORY or FACE), in which politeness basically equals face-work, and is motivated by the desire of the participants in interaction to mutually preserve both their territory (NEGATIVE FACE) and their self-esteem (POSITIVE FACE). Negative face, in turn, correlates with negative politeness defined by Brown and Levinson as 'redressing action addressed to the addressee's negative face' (1987:129), while positive face correlates with positive politeness. In light of this double dichotomy, speech acts performed by the participants in interaction have the potential to either preserve or threaten the addressee's faces, and politeness strategies are aimed, essentially, at avoiding (or mitigating) the so called FACE-THREATENING ACTS or FTAs.
However, unhappy with this view of polite interaction which she perceived as 'too restrictive' and 'pessimistic', Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1997) designed a modified, more complex and better balanced model of politeness in which the counterpart of FTAs are FEAs--FACE-ENHANCING ACTS (later re-labeled FFAs, i.e. FACE FLATTERING ACTS cf. Kerbrat Orechionni 2004, 2005)--which are directly linked to positive politeness. She argues for politeness strategies in interaction that are both ABSTENTIONIST or COMPENSATORY in nature (negative politeness, consisting of avoiding FTAs, or softening their formulation) and PRODUCTIONIST (positive politeness, that is performing any flattering act for one or the other faces of the addressee). She stated that
unlike Brown and Levinson, I consider that, in the global system, positive politeness legitimately holds as important a position as that of negative politeness: being polite in interaction means producing FEAs as much as softening the expression of FTAs--and even more so: in fact, negative politeness is basically a restricted impoliteness, more or less neutralized by some redressive action; but positive politeness is 'genuine politeness' (praise is even more polite than softened criticism; the expression of agreement is even more polite than a mitigated disagreement, etc.). (1997:15) (4)
Moreover, Kerbrat-Orecchioni stresses that what is essential for her, as a linguist is that
the formulation of a speech act totally depends on its FTA/FEA status (which depends itself on both the context and the intrinsic features of the act), a status which explains, for instance, the very general disposition of FTAs to be softened and minimized--example of criticism--vs, the very general disposition of FEAs to be hardened and maximized--example of thanks: "Thanks a lot/thank you very much/(ever) so much/a million/I can't thank you enough", but the ungrammaticality of *"a few thanks" is unexplained without any reference to the politeness system.' (1997:14)
Furthermore, this author, whose essential ideas have been widely adopted by other researchers working on this topic (e.g. Hernandez Flores 2004, among others), claims that, although politeness is first a set of instructions about the behavior that the speaker must comply with towards his or her addressees (saving and flattering their faces), these OTHER-ORIENTED PRINCIPLES which strictly speaking constitute politeness, correlatively imply other principles that concern the behaviors speakers must adopt toward themselves; thus we have SELF-ORIENTED PRINCIPLES--among which there is, for instance, Leech's Modesty Maxim (1983). However, she notes that there is, at the same time, a striking dissymmetry between these two sets of rules, since:
--other-oriented principles are all favorable to the other person, who must be either treated tactfully (negative politeness) or be enhanced (positive politeness); --among the principles belonging to the second type (self-directed principles), some are favorable to the self, but uniquely in the defensive form; and some are even unfavorable: if one is allowed during interaction to protect one's faces, it is not recommended to enhance them in an ostensive way; furthermore, it may be recommended in certain circumstances to deprecate them (to damage one's own territory, or to belittle oneself by any self-criticism). (1997:15)
Further, Kerbrat-Orecchioni concludes, therefore, that '[p]olite communication consists above all in putting forward other people's interests before one's own.' (1997:15)
Another author who adopts and further elaborates Brown and Levinson's theory in the same direction as Kerbrat-Orecchioni is Haverkate (1994), who--working on Spanish (in contrast to Dutch, his native language)--classifies speech acts as polite and non-polite (with a further subdivision of the latter into non-impolite and impolite) depending on whether or not they benefit the addressee's faces. For instance, a compliment would be a polite speech act; a request would be a non-polite/non-impolite speech act; while an insult would be a non-polite/impolite speech act. (5)
In subsequent work, Haverkate (2003/2004) pursues and develops Brown and Levinson's distinction between positive politeness cultures and negative politeness cultures from their chapter on Sociological Implications. As the Dutch author explains, this distinction manifests itself at two different levels of analysis, depending on whether the research is focused on the intra- or the intercultural dimension of the communicative process. As far as the intra-cultural dimension is concerned, it has been shown that, in general, less privileged social classes manifest a predilection toward positive politeness, tending to establish in-group solidarity links. In contrast, higher social strata tend to orient themselves toward interpersonal distance, placing a particular value on negative politeness. But Haverkate (2003/2004) is more interested in the intercultural dimension of politeness, which manifests itself in the alleged distinction between positive politeness societies and negative politeness societies. He posits Mediterranean countries at one end of the spectrum with Great Britain and the Scandinavian Peninsula at the other end. Regardless of how easy or difficult one finds it to accept such 'cultural generalizations', (6) the fact is that Haverkate (taking his inspiration from Sifianou 1992) manages pretty convincingly to suggest that Spanish culture (unlike the Dutch or British) belongs alongside the Greek as part of 'the class of cultures in which positive politeness forms their center of gravity' (2003/2004:64, my translation). But where do French and Romanian (or even the Anglophone US) cultures belong from this perspective?
In the remainder of this paper, I will try to suggest a possible answer to this question, by discussing from an intercultural perspective (making use of the theoretical framework presented above) the realization of four polite or FFA speech acts that share a number of structural characteristics, while at the same time varying along a number of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural parameters.
3. THE RITUAL EXCHANGE IN THE SPEECH ACTS OF THANKING, APOLOGIZING, COMPLIMENTING AND WISHING: WHAT THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON. Thanking, apologizing, complimenting, and wishing are all EXPRESSIVE SPEECH ACTS, insofar as their function is to express 'emotions which arise in response to given states of affairs' (Norrick 1978: 279, elaborating on Searle 1976). In these specific cases, the emotions arise in response to states of affairs that are linked to the interlocutor; thus thanking, apologizing, complimenting and wishing are all INTERLOCUTOR-CENTERED speech acts. Consequently, and since their purpose is to enhance the positive face of the interlocutor, they are inherently POLITE SPEECH ACTS, or, in Kerbrat-Orecchioni's politeness system described above, they are FFAs. Furthermore, they are typically followed by a VERBAL RESPONSE on the part of the hearer, insomuch that they along with their responses appear to form what conversation analysts would probably call an ADJACENCY PAIR. The verbal responses, depending on the particular speech act performed and on the situation, range from acceptance (possible in all cases), to minimization (possible in many), and to return (possible in a few), with non-acceptance counting always as a dispreferred second part. (7) And finally, from the strictly linguistic point of view, both the speech act and its response usually exhibit a high degree of ROUTINIZATION, which means that they are performed, most of the time, through what Ferguson (1976) and others (e.g. Davies 1987) refer to as POLITENESS FORMULAS. In other words, the verbal exchanges involved in the realization of the above mentioned speech acts are RITUAL exchanges, if we adopt the definition of ritual utterances given by Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2001:110):
On qualifie de 'rituels' les enoces qui ont la double caracteristique d'etre fortement stereotypes dans leur formulation et leur conditions d'emploi, et d'avoir une fonction surtout relationelle (leur contenu etant en revanche relativement pauvre). (8)
Let me exemplify the above with four ritualized exchanges in English.
(1) Speaker B does Speaker A a favor. Verbal exchange that follows: THANKING RITUAL
A: Thank you very much
B: You are welcome or Don't mention it.
(2) Speaker A inadvertently touches Speaker B's back in the elevator. Verbal exchange that follows: APOLOGIZING RITUAL
A: Oh, I am sorry.
B: It's all right or no problem.
(3) Speaker B comes to work with a new dress. Speaker A notices the change. Verbal exchange that follows: COMPLIMENTING RITUAL
A: Nice dress.
B: Thanks. Additional (possible) comment: Yours is pretty too.
(4) Speaker B has to take an exam and Speaker A accompanies him/her to the door of the classroom. Verbal exchange that follows (before B opens the door): WISHING RITUAL
A: Good luck.
B: Thanks.
Additional (possible) comment. Same to you (if A is going to have an exam as well).
As we can see, in each case, the FFA is the center of a three constituent structure; (9) it is preceded by a preliminary act or condition (the trigger of the FFA) and is followed by a verbal response (the reaction to the FFA), which in turn is itself an FFA directed to the producer of the previous FFA (since accepting someone's apologies, returning someone's good wishes, thanking the interlocutor for a compliment, or minimizing the debt of gratitude that one has contracted by accepting a favor, are all forms of enhancing the positive face of the person who issued them in the first place).
Schematically, we can represent the structural similarities among the above exchanges as follows: (10)
THANKS-CENTERED EXCHANGE: Constituents: favor or gift thanks acceptance/minimization Participants: P1 P2 P1 (return) Relative status to the (other-) face system: FFA FFA FFA APOLOGY-CENTERED EXCHANGE: Constituents: offense apology acceptance/minimization Participants: P1 P1 P2 (return) Relative status to the (other-) face system: FFA FFA FFA (FTA if rejected) COMPLIMENT-CENTERED EXCHANGE Constituents: state of compliment acceptance+minimization/ affairs return Participants: P1 P2 P1 Relative status to the (other-) face system: -- FFA FFA (FTA if rejected) WISH-CENTERED EXCHANGE: Constituents: state of wish acceptance/return/ affairs *minimization Participants: P1 P2 P1 Relative status to the (other-) face system: -- FFA FFA P1 = first participant P2 = second participant FTA = Face Threatening Act FFA = Face Flattering Act
The slight differences among these four exchanges can be described as follows. On the one hand, in the thanking and apologizing exchanges, the trigger is something that one of the participants does to the other (hence the labels of FTAs and FFAs used in the first column above), while in the compliments and wishing exchanges, the speaker who initiates the exchanges reacts to a state of affairs that holds true and is relevant to the addressee rather than to an action that has just occurred (for instance, it's the addressee's birthday, the addressee is wearing new clothes, etc.). On the other hand, apologies and thanks can be returned only in special situations (when there is mutual indebtedness or guilt) as in the following:
(5a) A: Thank you!
B: No, thank YOU!; or
(5b) A: I apologize for what happened
B: And I apologize to you too!
The same restriction is possible in the case of certain wishes (cf. A: Happy New Year!/B: Happy New Year! which is perfectly acceptable vs. A: Happy birthday!/B: * Happy birthday! which is not--except in the unlikely event that B is also celebrating his/her birthday at the same time). However, there appear to be fewer restrictions when returning compliments (even insincere ones where the person wishes to be 'positively polite' at all costs). It is also worth noting that rejecting a compliment carries the potential of becoming a FTA for the other speaker (that is why I put the FTA alternative in parenthesis above). This may also be the case when rejecting an apology but not an expression of gratitude. Finally, it is interesting to note that, of the four, wishing is the only speech act that does not seem to accept minimization or rejection as a response; it is also the one that is perhaps the most closely related to certain socio-politic and/or religious beliefs of one community or another. (11)
Most of the time speakers perform these rituals automatically, resorting to the politeness formulas readily available in their language, probably without giving much thought to what they are doing (cf. Dumitrescu 2004 regarding the wishing ritual in Spanish). However, not performing a ritual in the way it is expected to unfold is a noticeable offense, and the person 'breaking the rules' (i.e. failing to properly thank for a favor, to apologize for an offense, etc.) is immediately considered rude or impolite (cf. ill-mannered in English, maleducado, in Spanish, mal eleve in French, prost crescut in Romanian). And the situation is aggravated when cross-cultural communication is involved where misunderstandings may arise due to different socio-cultural interaction norms and/or expectations. (12)
This brings me to the next section...
|
