Mandagumas kaip reliatyvus kalbinis, socialinis ir kultūrinis reiškinys

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LVIII (2008), 1 – 15 Politeness as a Relative Linguistic, Social, and Cultural Phenomenon Inga Hilbig Vilnius University The article deals with the pragmatic notion of linguistic politeness, encompassing more than just language etiquette. Politeness is viewed as determined by the speech situation, in which, for the realisation of his communicative purposes, the speaker can avail himself of virtually any verbal means to convey respect or friendliness. Merely on the basis of the linguistic expression of politeness no cultural community can be considered more or less polite than others. Different cultural groups may prefer different politeness strategies and their realisations. The final section of the article presents a small qualitative investigation into the way requests are made in service encounters in Vilnius. The negative evaluation of Lithuanian politeness in the said situations results from different sociocultural notions about what communication in such situations should be like. 1. INTRODUCTION Politeness, as one of the principal components of communication, without which human interaction would be impossible, is of interest to scholars in various humanities and social science disciplines. However, it has been studied predominantly from a linguistic perspective. Interest in linguistic politeness (English linguistic politeness), a field of interactional pragmatics that has established itself as a distinct branch, has grown substantially over the past quarter-century. Yet although it is claimed that the phenomenon is becoming difficult to study because of the sheer volume of work devoted to it (Sifianou, 2005: 263), the pragmatics of politeness in Lithuanian is only beginning to be investigated. 1 Inga Hilbig 2. SPEECH ETIQUETTE AND POLITENESS Politeness can be understood as any actions, including linguistic ones, that help maintain a minimal harmony in human interaction, “maintain or strengthen the relationship between interlocutors, and sometimes protect them from a perceived danger” (Čepaitienė, 2007: 11). It emerges as a highly multifaceted phenomenon permeating the entire discourse and is not limited to the etiquette formulas presented in books on good manners and etiquette (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 2005: 29). Nevertheless, the term under consideration is often equated with the similar concept of etiquette. The first of the nine meanings of the word mandagus (polite) given in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language1 is “well-mannered, having good manners.” The word etiketas (etiquette) is defined very similarly in this dictionary and in the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian2: “rules and forms of conduct in a particular society; public demeanor, manners.” As A. Kučinskaitė writes, “etiquette consists of rules of conduct that have become customary and govern the outward manifestations of interpersonal communication” (Kučinskaitė, 1990: 3). Speech etiquette, specifically, is also defined as “the totality of linguistic communication norms accepted by society” and “linguistic formulas (usually fixed expressions) used in the dialogic speech of a speech community, which indicate polite / impolite relations between interlocutors <...>” (Čepaitienė, 2007: 68, 11). It is worth noting that these definitions emphasize rules, norms, forms, and formulas. Since speech etiquette is often referred to as linguistic politeness and described as the linguistic expression of politeness (Ibid., 11, 20), one might conclude that the phenomenon of politeness fits within the framework of etiquette requirements. However, in works published in English by pragmatists specializing in linguistic politeness in various countries, the term speech etiquette is not used at all (see, e.g., Hickey, Stewart, 2005), or, if it is used, it has a broader meaning (see, e.g., Kasper, 1998). Linguistic politeness is understood not merely as adherence to a society’s rules and norms of linguistic behavior or the use of etiquette formulas, which can be discussed fairly generally. This phenomenon is studied 1 The 2005 online version of the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language” is cited (www.lkz.lt) 2 The online version of the “Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian” is cited (http://www.autoinfa.lt) 2 Mandagumas kaip reliatyvus kalbinis, socialinis ir kultūrinis reiškinys only as a feature of the use of a particular language in a particular situational context. When analyzing material gathered using natural (observational) and artificial (experimental) data-collection methods, researchers are interested in speakers’ individual choices about how to use language in interaction, and in practically any linguistic expressions through which respect, as well as friendliness, is shown to the interlocutor. The theoretical foundation, or at least the point of departure, for most empirical studies of politeness in speech acts is P. Brown and S. Levinson’s politeness theory (1978, 1987). Although it has obvious shortcomings and has been much criticized, refined, and rejected, it is still considered the most comprehensive and influential. The central concept of this theory is a person’s public self-image (English face) (Goffman, 1967), which everyone possesses and recognizes that others possess as well. According to this theory, politeness in interaction can be defined as strategic behavior that seeks, in various ways, to show concern for the interlocutor’s image, while mitigating acts that threaten it (English face threatening acts) (e.g., requests, exhortations). Image has two sides: not only a negative (distancing) side, in cultivating which one seeks to maintain distance and communicate respectfully, but also a positive (affiliative3) side, which emphasizes closeness and friendliness. As the originators of image theory themselves state, etiquette books are full of examples of conventional negative-politeness strategies in practice (Brown, Levinson, 1978: 135). Positive politeness, on the other hand, may be conveyed, among other things, through joking or even, as later researchers have observed, through swearing and insults that fall outside the bounds of speech etiquette (for more, see Holmes, 1995: 10; Christie, 2005: 1). In practice, there are no typical forms of expression, rules that fit into etiquette manuals, or linguistic formulas that are used or should be used to express this latter type of politeness; it is, as it were, less defined and informal. Politeness can be expressed not only through “autonomous politeness 3 G. Čepaitienė proposes the terms distancing and affiliative politeness in place of the somewhat misleading terms negative and positive politeness (see further, 2007: 25); E. Gudavičienė also uses them in her doctoral dissertation (2007). The shortcomings of the concepts developed by P. Brown and S. Levinson have also been criticized in the works of foreign pragmatists, but they nevertheless seem to have become fully established by now. Perhaps, therefore, it might still be worth considering whether Lithuanian linguistics should also use the original terms coined by the American scholars. 3 INGA HILBIG acts whose purpose and predicative force are intended to demonstrate a politeness convention,” but also through other acts, “whose use gives them a mark of politeness in certain situations” and which “show no degree of politeness at all when detached from a specific situation of use,” although G. Čepaitienė does not assign such utterances to speech-etiquette situations (see Čepaitienė, 2007: 37, 38). According to the scholar, such phrases are not necessary for conversation, nor are they required by general etiquette. However, it is claimed that asking, for example, How did you sleep? may “show that the interlocutor is valued and that attention is being paid to them” (see ibid., 38)—thus, positive (affiliative) politeness is nevertheless expressed. The researcher mentioned above describes a small sociolinguistic survey which found that, of the twenty students who attended a seminar, only two came from homes where it was customary to apologize, while “the others generally had difficulty understanding why family members should use any forms of apology with one another” (Čepaitienė, 2007: 28). The scholar speculates that “an attitude is gradually taking shape that speech etiquette is only a matter of public speech.” But is speech etiquette not always more relevant when a speaker chooses a negative (distancing) politeness strategy, when precisely a respectful “public demeanor” is at issue? Positive (affiliative) politeness is very often expressed without any conventional etiquette formulas. For example, if you accidentally bump into a family member, you can apologize while bending down and asking with concern: Does it hurt? The illocutionary force of such an utterance, its politeness function, is not explicit in the utterance’s surface structure, but is evident in the particular interaction. 3. (IM)POLITE FORMS AND ACTUAL USAGE Works on Lithuanian speech etiquette have mainly aimed to present and describe an inventory of linguistic politeness resources (how one can address someone, greet, thank, offer a wish, and so on in Lithuanian), and to investigate how particular speech-etiquette formulas have been used historically, are used today, or, from the perspective of language culture, ought to be used in Lithuanian in general—that is, in the broadest social and cultural context. One work that stands out is G. Čepaitienė’s comprehensive and wide-ranging monograph “Lithuanian Speech Etiquette: Semantics and Pragmatics” (2007). The work emphasizes that pragmatics is concerned with the interpretation of an utterance and the selection of linguistic expression in a specific conversational context. However, the data being analyzed 4 Mandagumas kaip reliatyvus kalbinis, socialinis ir kultūrinis reiškinys nature4 means that researchers have access only to utterances that are ostensibly objectively polite, judging by their external form and semantics, and whose illocutionary force and politeness function are in fact predictable even without a specific situational context. For example, attention is focused on the semantic basis of the request paradigm: requests expressed by the performative verb please, the interjection please, other words with the same root that denote a request, and imperatives, while acts with an “implied” or “hidden” illocutionary purpose are set aside, e.g., It’s so drafty, isn’t it? (as a request to close the window) (see Ibid., 154). This is entirely understandable, since the latter acquire their function only when used in a specific communicative situation. Such unconventional requests abound in spoken language, but when collecting and analyzing, for instance, examples drawn from a written corpus, where researchers inevitably have to begin with the form of an utterance and only then consider its function, they are very difficult to identify. In the view of linguistic politeness specialists, no word or phrase taken out of a specific utterance situation can in itself be considered either objectively polite or impolite. Where it is expected, failure to use a formula of linguistic etiquette can indeed cause the interlocutor displeasure (Čepaitienė, 2007: 23). Yet sometimes a politeness formula, even when used where it is not expected at all and where the speaker considers it inappropriate, can produce a similar effect—for example, giving an impression of excessive formality or a cold relationship, as when a very close person constantly says thank you for trivial things in everyday life. Moreover, etiquette formulas may be deliberately employed even when the speaker has no intention of being polite (e.g., Well, congratulations!—a coach to a promising footballer who had fought with an opponent during an important match and been sent off the pitch). In the utterance by the manager in question, I would ask you to finish this work immediately!, the word would ask certainly does not carry the nuance of humility or entreaty specified for it in works devoted to our linguistic etiquette (see Čepaitienė 2007: 157); the fixed polite- 4 The principles for selecting the highly diverse material analyzed and the statistical description of its sample are not provided in the monograph. However, the examples suggest that it draws mainly on data from the Vytautas Magnus University Corpus of Contemporary Lithuanian, on written texts of various genres (fiction, mostly classical literature; letters by cultural figures from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, etc.), while relatively little contemporary spoken language is included in the analysis. 5 INGA HILBIG meanings conveying the speaker’s hesitation and modesty5 (see Kučinskaitė, 1990: 44). “The Etiquette of Telephone Conversations” classifies Lithuanian requests for information into the lowest degree (e.g., please tell me), a higher, or neutral, degree (e.g., I would like to ask), and a high degree of politeness (e.g., could you perhaps tell me); this classification is likewise not absolute, and, as the book’s authors themselves observe, we choose different expressions not only according to “whether the information requested is very important to us” (Čepaitienė, Steigvilaitė-Urbietienė, 2003). Many early works devoted to politeness examined it as a phenomenon at the level of an isolated utterance. It became clear that when ranking utterances taken out of context, members of a single speech community generally agree very well about their politeness, and that the more grammatically complex, longer, and more formal an expression is, the higher it ranks on the politeness scale. In real communication, however, where there is a communicative purpose, being longer, more formal, and less direct does not necessarily make an utterance more polite. Excessive formality, often equated with politeness, just like too little formality, can be impolite, emphasize the distance between interlocutors, sound ironic, and so on. Pragmatics is not concerned with neutral, absolute rules governing the use of individual linguistic forms. Researchers of linguistic politeness are interested in how a particular form is strategically employed to achieve the speaker’s goal; when we observe a speech act being performed, we see that there is not necessarily a connection between linguistic form and the concept of politeness in a speech act (Thomas, 1995: 156). What is polite is what language users consider appropriate in a specific communicative event. 4. POLITENESS AND CULTURE Politeness is relative when we consider its different manifestations across cultures. In general, it should be regarded as a phenomenon common to human societies, since it meets their universal needs. Yet, given the different importance attached to these needs, members of different cultures draw on different resources for realizing politeness 5 “The conditional mood forms would ask express a polite request to someone very subtly, conveying that the action or object desired is necessary, useful, or pleasurable to the requester; yet, out of modesty and respect for the person being addressed, the requester seems somewhat hesitant and tries to express the wish as politely as possible” (Kučinskaitė, 1990: 44). 6 Mandagumas kaip reliatyvus kalbinis, socialinis ir kultūrinis reiškinys choose and establish different verbal and nonverbal ways of expressing it (Sifianou, 2000: 46, 93). The understanding of politeness, how it is conveyed, who is polite to whom, and so on, varies enormously across cultures (Holtgraves, 2005: 73). For a long time, English-speaking theorists dominated pragmatic studies, advancing and theoretically examining supposedly universal principles of politeness that in fact were often specific only to English. They identified conventional Anglo-Saxon conversational features with human linguistic behavior in general, while assigning cultural differences little, if any, significance. For example, because English imperative forms are generally used to express commands and orders, it was ethnocentrically claimed that imperatives are generally avoided when making polite requests (Clark, Schunk, 1980: 111). However, this language simply reflects an Anglo-Saxon cultural tradition that particularly values and emphasizes individual privacy and freedom. Since making a request always encroaches, to a greater or lesser extent, on the addressee’s freedom of action, English has established indirect forms of expression characteristic of negative (distancing) politeness for all requests, even very minor ones that pose almost no threat to face. These forms lessen the forcefulness of a request and mitigate its illocutionary force. By using them, the speaker seems to avoid imposing their will on the addressee, leaving them more opportunity to refuse the request. Thus, the Briton G. Leech argued that negative politeness is a “more serious” way of showing consideration for another (Leech, 1983: 133), while the Americans P. Brown and S. Levinson devote almost three times as much space to this type of politeness as to positive politeness in their work (Brown, Levinson, 1978). However, distance and concern for another’s privacy are not such highly valued principles in every culture and, as attested by numerous empirical studies of other languages, some cultural communities are more inclined toward positive (contact-oriented) politeness. In these communities, a sense of collectivism often outweighs the need for privacy. A clear distinction between members of one’s own group and outsiders makes it possible to communicate very openly with one’s own. In such cultures, close ties and mutual, voluntary interdependence matter more than individual freedom; consequently, people are less afraid of inconveniencing others, and requests, rather than threatening another’s face, actually strengthen relationships and foster unity. They can, and indeed should, therefore be expressed very directly (see, e.g., Sifianou, 2000; Marquez Reiter, 2005). This way of expressing them is entirely acceptable even in societies with greater power differences and asymmetrical relations between interlocutors. 7 Inga Hilbig Differences in the understanding and expression of politeness are a major source of cultural misunderstandings in intercultural communication. Such misunderstandings arise when utterances in one language are assigned an incorrect illocutionary force—that is, the force they have in another language. For example, imperatives used by Eastern Europeans speaking English to make requests often sound to Britons like insulting commands. It is usually societies oriented toward positive (contact-oriented) politeness, which also tend to express requests directly, that are labeled “impolite” (Sifianou, 2000: 43). On the other hand, the speech of the “polite” British often seems overly elaborate and insincere to members of other cultures. Such stereotypical judgments would be objective only if the concept of politeness were universal. But it is not, and every cultural community can be polite in its own way. There is no standard by which to determine that members of one culture are more or less polite than those of another. Linguistic expressions and modes of communication alone cannot support the claim that one nation treats people more nicely or politely than another (Thomas, 1995: 150). Linguistic differences in interactional practices are influenced by cultural factors far deeper than politeness norms alone (Wierzbicka, 1985: 145)—they are shaped by different social structures and systems of values. 5. LITHUANIAN (IM)POLITENESS Lithuanians are sometimes called impolite by foreigners, and they themselves often consider one another impolite. The vast majority of complaints concern how we interact with strangers in public. These views prompted a closer look at how Lithuanians communicate in public places, focusing on request speech acts. For five months in 2006–2007, short requests overheard in Vilnius—in streets, at the university, on public transport, in cafés, grocery stores, pharmacies, the polyclinic, the post office, and elsewhere—were recorded at random. Efforts were made to capture as much of the verbal conversational context as possible: the location was noted, the interlocutors were briefly described, and observations were made about paralinguistic features of their speech and their body language. In total, approximately 150 examples of the speech acts of interest were collected. Most of them (about 100) were recorded in retail and service encounters. Since the latter are fairly clear and defined in terms of location, communicative scenario, and the participants’ social roles, and requests are the primary speech acts performed in them, it was decided to limit the study to these encounters. This section presents several observations about the most prominent features of Vilnius residents’ 8 Mandagumas kaip reliatyvus kalbinis, socialinis ir kultūrinis reiškinys the characteristics of requests in the situations mentioned and possible sociocultural factors affecting our communication in the situations under discussion. Individualistic cultures are not characterized by a marked distinction between “insiders” and “outsiders,” and people are treated in much the same way—most often by applying conventional negative (distancing) politeness strategies (Fukushima, 2000: 188). It seems that in Lithuanian society, which is rapidly becoming more individualistic but remains more collectivist, our direct requests, when the addressee is not being asked for anything substantial6, are permitted by either a very great or a very small social distance (social distance—understood here as the degree of closeness or familiarity) and a large power difference (power distance) between the interlocutors, when the speaker occupies a superior position. “There are differences in conversational style between Eastern and Western Europeans: Westerners speak in order to maintain contact. Eastern Europeans talk primarily with an instrumental purpose in mind and feel quite comfortable in silence” (Keevalik, 2005: 214, cited in Giles et al. 1992: 220). Although the accuracy of this very broad generalization in private Lithuanian interactions is questionable, it seems entirely apt when speaking of interactions between strangers. At least in ordinary everyday shopping and service encounters in Vilnius, there is very little interaction. Given the clearly defined rights and obligations of those communicating, a customer can state their request bluntly, without any preamble (often these are the only words they utter); an employee can silently hand over the desired item or provide the service, and, if necessary, also directly ask for what is required to fulfill the customer’s request (e.g., to sign a receipt or wait). Since no threat to face is thought to arise, often neither party employs any negative (distancing) politeness to preserve it, nor is the verbal and nonverbal positive (contact) politeness customary in such situations in many cultures expressed (e.g., no inconsequential phrases are exchanged, no prolonged eye contact is maintained, no one smiles or jokes7. The most prominent one 6 The size of the request (size of imposition) is determined by the following factors: how much time and effort are needed to fulfill it, what physical or psychological burden is imposed on the addressee, whether the speaker has the right to make the request and the addressee is obliged to fulfill it, and how usual the request is in the particular situation (Fukushima, 2000: 188). 7 Shopping and service encounters are discussed here in very general terms, although they can be classified according to the specific setting in which they take place (e.g., in a shopping center or a small shop), how everyday or routine the situation is (e.g., whether one is buying 9 Inga Hilbig a feature usually associated with positive politeness—very direct phrasing of requests. The largest number of conversations recorded were of this kind, oriented toward the content of the message rather than the relationship between the interlocutors, and occurring between strangers in routine service encounters. The collected data are dominated by short, elliptical object-request constructions that simply indicate what the speaker wants to obtain: Girl in a café: – A serving of grilled chicken salad, please. Young woman at a juice bar: – Carrot and apple juice. – Is that for here? – To go. A bottle. Elderly man in a pharmacy: – “Clotrimazolum.” – The ointment? – Yes. At a post office: – Please. – Registered (young woman holds out an envelope). Young man at the ticket window by the bus station: – Hello, two student tickets to Rokiškis via Svedasai for Sunday. Many customer requests expressed in the imperative mood were also recorded: Girl at the counter in a bakery: – Give me a cold sparkling mineral water (hands over the money). Middle-aged man in a grocery store by the fish counter: – Hello. Give me... maybe two herrings. newspaper or computer)—this greatly affects how interactional the communication is (Traverso, 2001: 423). For this study, requests were collected in a wide variety of shopping and service venues, but only in routine everyday situations. 10 Mandagumas kaip reliatyvus kalbinis, socialinis ir kultūrinis reiškinys A young man to a waitress in a café (from a distance): “Miss, could you work out the bill, please?” A middle-aged minibus passenger to the driver: “Stop at the intersection.” The minor requests recorded from sellers or service providers were most often expressed precisely as imperatives: A sales assistant in a clothing store: “Please enter your PIN.” A polyclinic receptionist to a patient who called: “Wait a little.” A route-bus attendant at the border to passengers: “Have your passports ready.” A bank employee: “Give me your ID document.” As can be seen from all the examples given, sometimes people greet one another before making a request; lexical politeness markers please are used, as is a little to soften the request, the particle perhaps to convey uncertainty, okay? to seek agreement, and the respectful form of address miss. However, even the second-person plural imperative forms give, work out, wait, and so on, on their own convey sufficient politeness for minor requests in the situations discussed. Since the imperative is inflected, in Lithuanian, as in many other languages, it is often an appropriate way to make a polite request when the request is minor and reasonable. The suitability of imperatives, as well as of short, direct request constructions, can be explained by the pursuit of efficiency: the other person’s needs are taken into account by saving their (and one’s own) time and energy (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 2005: 36). However, when the usual conversational script is departed from in the situations under discussion—for example, when a more substantial request is made, which the addressee is not unequivocally obliged to fulfil—only more or less indirect interrogative constructions were recorded, a typical expression of negative (distancing) politeness. Th 11 Inga Hilbig The inquiry about the addressee’s ability to perform the action desired by the speaker in such a case is itself the request: Cashier to a middle-aged man: – You wouldn’t happen to have three cents? Young man to a saleswoman in a chocolate shop: – Could you perhaps change a 10 Lt note? Woman to a bookstore saleswoman who had been unable to find the book she was looking for: – Couldn’t you call the “Rotas” bookstore on Pylimo Street? Perhaps they’ll have it there... Girl to an intercity bus driver: – Could I give you some notes to take with you? In general, a strong orientation toward the message rather than the interaction in commercial and service situations indicates considerable social distance between the people interacting, who have no intention of engaging in any other kind of communication. Forms of positive (contact) politeness such as greetings, smiles, prolonged eye contact, and phatic communication seem, in our culture, to be reserved exclusively for interaction with people one knows. Another important factor to consider, it seems, is the power differential. Following the radical change in the economic system, the power differential between the service or goods provider and the customer ought seemingly to have been completely reversed, but relationships and modes of communication established over many years, understandably, do not change so quickly. It may be that, at the intersection of two service cultures, both the customer and the service provider often believe themselves to be superior, and this too leads to the use of minimal formal politeness devices. Thus, when asking for something minor and reasonable, despite substantial social distance and a power differential, communication in service situations appears very direct and economical in linguistic terms—a characteristic of positive (contact) politeness, although in this case this form of expression is used precisely to mark distance. Used to “warm up” relationships, this strategy encompasses much more. Among the material collected were several examples in which both service providers and customers also used other verbal means of expressing positive politeness, for example: 12 Mandagumas kaip reliatyvus kalbinis, socialinis ir kultūrinis reiškinys A man in a pastry shop to the saleswoman (smiling): “Weigh me some of those little cakes with ‘legs’—maybe they won’t run away, I say.” A woman in a pastry shop to the saleswoman: “These little cookies of yours are very tasty—give me about two hundred grams.” A young female pharmacist to an old man: “Show me the little prescription.” A bank employee to an older female customer: “Just next time, ma’am, please be so kind as to call before you come.” As can be seen, the requests here are made light of, diminutives are used, along with praise and an appeal to the interlocutor’s kindness. Despite being just as direct, these requests make the interaction polite by creating a cozy and friendly atmosphere, where harmonious communication is maintained even without any thank you, please, or could you; intonation and nonverbal signals also play a greater role than they do in expressing negative (distancing) politeness. However, as G. Čepaitienė (2007: 90) also observes, this type of politeness is much more pronounced, characteristic, and varied in interactions with close, familiar people. The establishment of a market economy and the intensive contacts many Lithuanians have with Western cultures are changing customary norms of politeness, which had not previously been questioned (for example, during the Soviet years, probably no one would have missed thank-yous from salespeople). Thus, not only some foreigners but also Lithuanians becoming accustomed to different kinds of relationships in the service sector may indeed feel that we lack politeness there. Nevertheless, no community can be impolite, because every community is concerned with harmonious and effective communication. However, members of the same culture do not necessarily share the same values or hold the same views and attitudes. The opinion that we are impolite in service situations is probably shaped by differing sociocultural conceptions of how one should behave in commercial and service settings, and in public with strangers in general. Our behavior in terms of politeness is often undervalued when we compare ourselves—and are compared—with supposedly more cultured, “more polite” cultures, which are in fact probably simply cultures with a different type of politeness. 13 Inga Hilbig 5. CONCLUDING REMARKS The study of Lithuanian linguistic politeness from the perspective of linguistic pragmatics is only just beginning. On the basis of our observations of linguistic behavior and the results of the study conducted in commercial and service situations, we hypothesize that Lithuanians are more inclined toward positive (contact) politeness. However, this will need to be tested through further studies of spoken language in various areas of interpersonal communication, focusing on the context in which particular speech acts are used. It would also be interesting to analyze how our linguistic politeness unfolds across longer stretches of speech, to take greater account of its paralinguistic and nonverbal aspects, and to compare the linguistic politeness of people of different genders, native and non-native speakers, and residents of different regions of the country. It would also be worthwhile to compare Lithuanian linguistic politeness with the expression of politeness in other languages and cultures, since the best way to understand and become familiar with our own ways of speaking and their characteristics is to compare them with others. LITERATŪRA Brown, P. & S. Levinson, 1978, 1987: Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Christie, Ch. 2005: Editorial. Journal of Politeness Research 1, 1–7. Clark, H. & D. Schunk, 1980: Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition 8, 111–143. Čepaitienė, G. 2007: Lietuvių kalbos etiketas. Semantika ir pragmatika. Šiauliai: Šiaulų universiteto leidykla. Čepaitienė, G. & D. Steigvilaitė-Urbietienė 2003: Pokalbių telefonu etiketas. Kaunas: Šviesa. Fukushima, S. 2000: Requests and culture: politeness in British English and Japanese. Bern: Lang. Giles, H., N. Coupland & J. Wiemann, 1992: “Talk is cheap...”, but “My word is my bond”: Beliefs about talk. In: K. Bolton & H. Kwok, eds., Sociolinguistics Today: International Perspectives. London & New York: Routledge, 218–241. 14 Mandagumas kaip reliatyvus kalbinis, socialinis ir kultūrinis reiškinys Goffman, E. 1967: Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Garden City. Gudavičienė, E. 2007: Lietuvių kalbos direktyvai. Daktaro disertacija. Holgraves, T. 2005: Social psychology, cognitive psychology, and linguistic politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 1, 73–93. Kasper, G. 1998: Linguistic Etiquette. In: F. Coulmas, ed., Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Blackwell Publishing, 374–385. Keevallik, E. 2005: Politeness in Estonia: A matter of fact style. In: L. Hickey & M. Stewart, eds., Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 203–214. Kučinskaitė, A. 1990: Lietuvių kalbos etiketas. Vilnius: Mokslas. Leech, G. 1983: Principles of pragmatics. London & New York: Longman. Márquez Reiter, R. 2000: Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay. A contrastive study of requests and apologies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sifianou, M. 2000 [1992]: Politeness phenomena in England and Greece. Cross-cultural perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sifianou, M. & E. Antonopoulou, 2005: Politeness in Greece: The politeness of involvement. In: L. Hickey & M. Stewart, eds., Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 263–276. Thomas, J. 1995: Meaning in interaction. An introduction to pragmatics. London: Harlow. Traverso, V. 2001: Syrian service encounters: a case of shifting strategies within verbal exchange. Pragmatics 11:4, 421–444. Wierzbicka, A. 1985: Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts: Polish vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics, 9 (2–3), 145–178. Inga Hilbig Lituanistinių studijų katedra Vilniaus universitetas Universiteto g. 5, 01122 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected] 15