Being cooperatively ( - PowerPoint Presentation

Being cooperatively (im)polite: Grice’s model in the context of (im)politeness theories Written by Marta Dynel Presented by Jianling Yue and Katelyn Loughman November 11, 2014

OutlineIntroduction ( Im )politeness in the light of cooperation and rationality 2.1 Cooperative Principle (and conversational maxims) vs. Politeness Principle (and its maxims) Speaker-intended meaning and ( im )politeness ( Im )politeness and indirectness/implicitness 4.1 Flouting the maxims Communication of ( im )politeness implicature Politeness maxim Conclusions

1. IntroductionGricean PragmaticsCooperative Principle (CP) Subordinate maxims Quality Quantity Relation Manner Flouting the maxims Conversational implicatures

Pragmatic Literature on (Im)politeness Politeness Lakoff (1973, 1977, 1989) Leech (1983, 2003, 2005) Brown and Levinson (1987) Haugh (2002, 2007) Pfister (2010) Impoliteness Lachenicht (1980) Culpeper (1996, 2005, 2008, 2011) Culpeper et al. (2003) Bousfield (2008a, 2008b, 2010)

Marta Dynel’s ClaimLiterature on ( im )politeness is replete with controversial claims that are founded upon numerous author’s: Misinterpretations of Grice’s philosophy ( implicature , rationality, intentionality) Unnecessary extensions/modifications of the CP and its subordinate maxims Ex: Politeness and implicature are synonymous Ex: A Politeness Principle supersedes Grice’s Communicative Principle Ex: A politeness maxim must be included into Grice’s subordinate maxims

Marta Dynel’s AimTo tease out the “problematic interdependence” between the CP and ( im )politeness To point out “unfounded interpretations and modifications” of the Gricean account To show that ( im )politeness can be viewed in the light of Grice’s original work on communicative rationality and intentionality

2. (Im)politeness in the light of cooperation and rationality Dictionary definition of COOPERATION A situation in which people work together to do something The actions of someone who is being helpful by doing what is wanted or asked for The process of working together to the same end Grice’s use of COOPERATION Interlocutors engaged in rational and intention-based communication Speakers and hearers (with very few exceptions) are rational language users who communicate with an intention (whether known or unknown) ( Grandy and Warner 1986 )

Quotation from Bach (2005) “...[ W]e need first to get clear on the character of Grice's maxims. They are not sociological generalizations about speech, nor they are moral prescriptions or proscriptions on what to say or communicate . Although Grice presented them in the form of guidelines for how to communicate successfully, I think they are better construed as presumptions about utterances, presumptions that we as listeners rely on and as speakers exploit .” Grice did not, however, assume that all people should constantly follow these maxims. Instead, he found it interesting when these were not respected (flouted or violated). The Gricean Maxims, despite their wording, are only meant to describe the commonly accepted traits of successful cooperative communication . http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle

Brown & Levinson (1987) Pfister (2010) 1.Politeness must capitalize on maxim flouting. 2.Politeness and maxim flouting are inefficient. 3.Politeness and maxim flouting are irrational. Dynel’s Arguments 1. Politeness without maxim flouting is possible. 2. Politeness can be carried b y literal meanings (not only by implicatures - maxim floutings ), and can be efficient. Efficiency is not the only goal of communication. Communication is not only for the exchange of information (phatic communication). 3. Speaker is rational even if polite or potentially aggressive.

Watts (1992a, 2003), Culpeper (2008) and Leech (1983) Inherent contradiction: polite language does not abid e by CP CP can be disregarded for the sake of politeness. The operation of CP depends on the context. Dynel’s Arguments CP is invariably operating in interaction (no contravention or deviation). CP holds unchanged among rational communicators (maxims may be flouted). CP (rationality) operates the same way across contexts.

Locher (2004), Kallia (2004, 2007), Kingwell (1993), Kienpointner (2008) 1. Politeness diverts from CP. 2. CP violation would be tantamount to irrationality. 3. Impoliteness as “non-cooperative and competitive communicative behavior”. 4. Recognising CP as social goal sharing or social cooperation. Dynel’s Arguments 1. CP (rationality) embraces non-cooperativeness/ impoliteness (conflicts, disagreements, quarrels). 2. Politeness, if an intentional and rational activity, does not violate CP. 3. Non-cooperativeness not at odds with CP/rationality Rationality is germane to all communication (polite or impolite). 4. CP can be deemed as “linguistic goal sharing” or “ linguistic cooperation”.

2.1 Cooperative Principle (and conversational maxims) vs. Politeness Principle (and its maxims)Lakoff (1973, 1977, 1989) CP is insufficient Politeness Principle (PP) as an indispensable appendage Aim to reduce friction in personal interaction Champions two rules of pragmatic competence: “be clear” and “be polite” Three sub-maxims of the “be polite” competenceR1: Formality/Distance R2: Deference R3: Camaraderie

http://www.academia.edu/7110634/Theories_of_Politeness

Lakoff (1973, 1977, 1989) CP for conveying information, PP focused on social issues CP focuses on conveying information with minimal processing costs (avoid imposition) PP supersedes CP in informal encounters (R3); CP obtains for cases of formality (R1); suggesting CP is context-dependent. The choice between CP and PP is gender-dependent. Women: polite, indirect Men: informative, rational Dynel’s Arguments CP includes communicative goals, information conveyance, and phatic language use CP maxims capture the nature of communication in general and can be legitimately flouted (imposition) Politeness does not infringe the Gricean communicative rationality (an all-encompassing concept) Women: irrational? Differences in gendered idiolects addressed in linguistic gender studies

Leech (1983, 2003, 2005)CP synonymous with folk understanding of cooperation Perceiving CP as meaning conveyance-oriented. Formulates the Politeness Principle (PP). PP has a higher regulative role than CP and controls CP (in facilitating social cooperation). Politeness regulates/superior to conversational rationality Speakers may blatantly break a maxim of the CP in order to uphold the PP. Dynel’s Arguments Speakers need not always be friendly but still abide by CP. CP is a principle that invariably obtains in communication and includes maxim floutings yielding implicatures . Politeness is socially controlled and can be violated while CP is unchangeable in all interpersonal encounters (rational and cooperative without being polite). Many interactions can hardly considered politeness-orientated, rather appropriate. PP may be useful, but otiose when in contrast to CP. Isolating PP might necessitate infinite proliferation of principles for various phenomena, which are easily captured by CP.

3. Speaker-intended meaning and (im)politeness ( I m )politeness is determined by the speaker’s rationality/intentionality and the hearer’s perception. Speaker’s a priori intention tends to be superseded by its post factum intention. Speaker’s meaning serves intentional and rational communicative purposes and lays at the heart of CP. No linguistic form invariable carries politeness or impoliteness, even if some expressions are commonly associated with each.

4. (Im)politeness and indirectness/implicitness Lakoff (1973, 2005), Leech (1983, 2003, 2005) Brown and Levinson (1987) Politeness, non-clarity, indirectness, implicitness—flouting maxims Going-off-record coincides with maxim nonfulfillment Boldly-on-record conforms with Grice’s maxims Politeness only implemented by going-off-record ? Dynel’s Arguments Clarity needs not involve offensiveness, impoliteness may reside in implicitness. Boldly-on-record may be polite, or not count as polite or impolite (a mother ordering a child to eat dinner) Politeness ≠ implicitness (going-off-record); literal utterance and blunt statement can be polite “Thank you!” “This dress does become you.”

Five super-strategies for handling face-threatening acts (Brown & Levinson 1987) You saw a cup of pens on your teacher's desk, and you wanted to use one 1) Bald On-Record strategy, provides no effort to minimize threats to your teachers' "face". “Ooh , I want to use one of those !” 2) Positive Politeness strategy, confirms that the relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity. “ Is it O.K. if I use one of those pens?” 3) Negative Politeness strategy, recognizes that another wants to be respected, but assumes one is imposing on them. "I'm sorry to bother you but, I just wanted to ask you if I could use one of those pens ?” 4) Off-Record indirect strategy, tries not to directly impose by asking as a way to direct attention away from oneself “ Hmm, I sure could use a blue pen right now.” 5) Non-performance strategy, avoid the face-threatening act Don’t ask for a pen . Instead you wait to be offered it by the teacher.

4. (Im)politeness and indirectness/implicitness (cont.) Degrees of implicitness may be culture specific (Blum- Kulka , 1987 Marti 2006, Ogliermann 2009) A level of implicitness may be polite in one culture and less polite or impolite in another culture (Marta Dynel , 2013) ( I m )politeness of implicit and explicitness must be judged in isolation based on: considering context interlocutors’ relationship speaker’s intention

4.1 Flouting the maxims Brown & Levinson (1987) (1) Implicatures derive from violation (without epithet) (2) The 1 st three maxims conducive to implicature ; Manner maxims conducive to ambiguity. Dynel’s Arguments Correct in stating that maxims can be overtly violated Misgivings: (1) Implicatures derive from floutings =overt violations (vs. covert ones) (2) Manner maxims ALSO conducive to implicature .

5. Communication of (im)politeness implicature Brown & Levinson (1987 ) Fraser (1990, 2005) Politeness is immanently rooted in implicature , and accomplished by implication. Polite intent is implied or consciously observed in all cases. Haugh (2002, 2007) Politeness is co-constructed by the speaker and the hearer. Politeness considered as implicature (debatable) Existence of politeness implicatures (indisputable) Ex: a museum attendant & a woman about start eating Dynel’s Arguments If politeness must arise by implication, no politeness can be associated with the on-record strategy (fulfilling Grice’s maxims). Politeness is often a default and acknowledged if violated Politeness vs. appropriate behavior (rules remain latent, observed if transgressed ) In certain contexts/situations impoliteness may be expected/salient (in the army) Impoliteness is implicated by hearer but typically not speaker-intended (rather communicative goals: criticize, reprimand)

6. Politeness maxim Burt (1999) (1) Politeness Maxim (PM) added to CP (2) Based on rationality (3) Not exclusive with CP (displays no clash between) Kallia (2004, 2007) PM supplements and subscribes to CP PM-“Be appropriately polite” with 2 submaxims 1. Do not be more polite than expected. 2. Do not be less polite than expected. Ex :“change the topic/avoid a critical response” (cited from Kingwell 1993) Dynel ’s Arguments Disagrees with (1) Agrees with (2) & (3) Conversational maxim (CP) flouting may be motivated by politeness PM redundant/ No need The example flouts the relation maxim, rather than PM.

6. Politeness maxim (cont.) Pfister (2010 ) (1) Maxim of politeness underlies rational conversation, which in general is polite (2) Violation/impoliteness is a commonplace occurrence (3) Politeness –continuum, shows degree (4) Politeness is not a conversational maxim, but a matter of convention. Dynel’s Arguments (1) contradicts (2) (3) CP- speaker’s intention, maxims obeyed/flouted, no gradability (4) is in tune with CP. Politeness should be kept separate as a convention, rather than complementary to Grice’s. A Politeness Maxim would give rise to maxims for other conversational phenomena (impoliteness, humor, etc.) PM burdened with other problems (cross-cultural differences) (e.g. Spencer- Oatey and Jiang 2003). No need for an extension of the CP.

7. ConclusionsAll communication, polite or impolite, that has rationality and intentionality is based on CP. CP as a mutual agreement; Maxims may be flouted /overtly violated—not contravene CP. ( I m)politeness and CP are not mutually exclusive or opposite. A politeness principle and maxim is not a necessary compliment / an indispensable extension of the Gricean framework. Any meanings associated with ( im )politeness can be successfully explained with CP. ( Im )politeness may motivate implicature , but not invariably communicated as it. Politeness is a default , with violations being salient No correspondence and correlation between ( im )politeness and implicitness . No linguistic form inherently polite or impolite , must be assessed anew with attention to the speaker’s intention and the hearer’s interpretation .