Mandagumas kaip reliatyvus kalbinis, socialinis ir kultūrinis reiškinys

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LVII (2008), 1 - 15 Politeness as a relative linguistic, social and cultural phenomenon INGA HILBc Vilniaus universitetas 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. Title Politeness, as one of the main components of communication, without which human communication would not be possible, interests scientists of various humanistic and social fields. However, it has been studied mainly from a linguistic point of view. Interest in linguistic politeness, a field of interactional pragmatics that has gained distinct Sako rights, has been very strong in the past quarter. However, although it is stated that Si language is becoming difficult to study due to the enormous amount of work devoted to it (Sifianou, 2005: 263), the pragmatic study of Lithuanian politeness has only just begun. Inca Hitsig 2. LINGUISTICAL ETIQUET AND CULTURE Politeness can be understood as any actions, including verbal ones, which help to maintain a minimum of human harmony, “to support and strengthen interpersonal relations, sometimes ar to protect oneself from perceived danger” (Cepaitiene, 2007: 11). It reveals itself as a very varied, all-pervading phenomenon and is not confined to the formulas of etiquette and good manners presented in etiquette books (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 2005: 29). However, the term under consideration is often identified with a similar su label. »Lietuviy language Zodyne“! presented first if devyniy word polite reiksmiy — ,,which grazZaus behavior, good manners“. Word Label Siame ir »Contemporary Lithuanian Language Dictionary“? is defined very similarly:- ,,the rules and forms of conduct in a society; vieSoji laikysena, manieros”. As raSoma A. Kuéinskaités- ,,,etiketas — papro¢iomis virsios Zmoniy elgesio taisyklės, apiman¢ios iSorinius tarpusavio bendravimo pasireiškimus* (KuGinskaité, 1990: 3). Specifically, language etiquette is also defined as »society’s accepted set of language norms for communication‘,,,language formulas used in the conversational language of a community’ (usually — rude) that show polite/rude interlocutor relations <...>“ (Split, 2007: 68, 11). It should be noted that These definitions emphasize rules, norms, form formulas. Since it is ir asserted that language etiquette is often referred to as linguistic politeness, it is discussed as a verbal expression of politeness (Ibid., 11, 20), It can therefore be concluded that the requirement of politeness is concentrated in the requirements of etiquette. Taéiau angly kalba publikuojamuose ivairiy Saliy linguistic courtesy specialisty pragmatiky in works of language etiquette term i8vis is not used (or., e.g., Hickey, Stewart, if used, it 2005), o broader ir need’me (2r., e.g., Kasper, Linguistic 1998). politeness is perceived only as the ne observance of the rules, norms and formulas of linguistic behaviour in a certain society, which can be discussed in a fairly general way. This phenomenon is being studied ‘Cited,Lietuviy kalbos Zodyno* 2005 m. web version (www.lkz.1t) 2Quoted ,,Present Lithuanian Language Zodyno online version (http://www. autoinfa.1t) Politeness as a relative linguistic, social and cultural phenomenon only as a characteristic of the use of a particular language in a particular situational context. By analyzing the material collected by natural (observational) and artificial (experimental) methods of data collection, we are interested in individual speakers’ choices of how to use language in interaction, and practically any linguistic expressions that show not only respect but also friendliness to the speaker. The theoretical basis or at least the starting point of most of Sneka’s empirical studies of politeness is the theory of politeness of P. Brown and S. Levinson (1978, 1987). Despite its obvious triviality, it has been much criticized, refined and denied, and is still considered the most thorough and influential. The main feature of this theory is the public image of oneself (Goffman, 1967), which everyone has and perceives others to have. According to this theory, politeness in interaction can be defined as a strategic behavior, in which by various means one seeks to show that one is playing on the interlocutor's image, trying to mitigate face threatening acts (e.g., requests, calls). [the image is two-sided: not only the negative (distant) one, which is aimed at maintaining distance, communicating respectfully, but also the positive (contact*) one, when closeness, friendliness is promoted. According to the authors of the image theory, the examples of implementation of the conventional negative politeness strategy are the full books of etiquette (Brown, Levinson, 1978: 135). And positive mannerism can be expressed, among other things, by jokes or even, as observed in the vélesniy study, by curses, jZeidimai on the edge of language etiquette. (plagiau Mr. Holmes, 1995: 10; Christie, 2005: 1). There is no typical form of expression, no rules of etiquette, no used or to be used linguistic formulas of the latter type of politeness, it is practically non-existent, it is as if less defined, informal. Politeness can be described not only in terms of autonomous politeness 8 pistachio and contact politeness, but also in terms of negative and positive politeness, which are somewhat misleading. These terms were used by G Gepaitiené (more detailed reference 2007: 25), and also by E. Gudavigiené (2007) in her doctoral dissertation. Mr. Brown and $. Levinson's trifles were criticized in foreign pragmatic works, but still they seem to be completely out of date. Therefore, perhaps it is still possible to consider whether the original original American scientist- 's terms should not be used in Lithuanian linguistics. InGA HiLsic acts, whose purpose of predicative power is to demonstrate ir courtesy convention”, but otherwise, whoy ir ,,consumption gives them a politeness pozymj in certain situations“, which ,,detached from the specific situation of usage does not show any degree of politeness in general“, although for language etiquette situations such sayings G. Cepaitiené nebskiria (Zr. Cepaitiené, 2007: 37, 38). According to the researcher, such phrases are not suitable for conversation, and general etiquette does jy not require them either. However, it is said that when asked, for example, how did you sleep? may be ,showing that the Speaker is appreciated, showing démesys to him“ (Zr. Idem, 38) — so still délto i3reiSkiamas positive (contact) politeness. Minéta's study was based on a small sociolinguistic survey, during which it was revealed that the twenty students who attended the seminar only in two homes were accustomed to i8 apologize, others generally had difficulty understanding why. o Members of the family should use some form of apology to each other” (Cepaitiené, 2007: 28). Scientist says that ,,the position is gradually forming that language etiquette is only a matter of public — language“. However, isn’t language etiquette always more ar relevant when a speaker chooses a strategy of negative (distant) politeness, when he is using respectful,,public language”? Positive (contact) politeness is very often expressed in no usual form of etiquette. ir be E.g., accidental collision j A member of the Seimas can apologize by asking: ir Doesn't it hurt? The power of such a statement, the function jo of politeness, is not explained in the structure of the statement, but is evident in the concrete interaction. 3. (NE)MANDAGIOS FORMS IR REALI The works devoted to Lithuanian language etiquette mainly aimed at presenting a detailed ir linguistic courtesy iStekliy inventory (how to address, greet, thank, wish, etc. in Lithuanian), investigates how the ko history of specific ir language etiquette formulas was, is and will be used in Lithuanian language in general in the most general social and ar cultural context. — ir I§ kity darby i8siskiria G. Cepaitienés igsami much ir aprepianti monographja ,,Lietuviy language etiquette: semantics ir and pragmatics“ (2007). The thesis highlights that pragmatically ripe interpretation of the statement and the selection of linguistic expression in a specific conversation context. However, the data analyzed As a relative linguistic, social and cultural phenomenon, politeness leads to the fact that researchers are only accessible as objectively polite statements in terms of their form and semantics, in which the elocutive power and the function of politeness are truly deduced without a specific situational context. For example, it focuses on the semantic basis of the paradigm of requesting: expression of requests in performative verbs as requesting, asking, other common verbs as requiring words, imperatives, but it distances itself from,,numanomy“,,,uzslépto“ acts of the ilocutional purpose, e.g., so pulls, or will not pull (as in requesting to open a window) (see ibid., 154). This is quite understandable, because the latter acquire their function only when used in a specific communication situation. In living language such unconventional meanings are abundant, but when collecting and analyzing examples from, say, written texts, when the researcher must inevitably start from the form of the statement and only then see its function, it is very difficult to detect them. In the opinion of the specialists of linguistic politeness, no word or phrase in a particular situation can be considered either objectively polite or rude. i§ Where it is expected, the non-use of the language etiquette formula i8ties can cause the speaker- ’s dissatisfaction (Cepaitiené, 2007: 23). However, sometimes used where it is not expected at all, where it seems inappropriate to the speaker, the formula of politeness can cause a similar effect, e.g., to create an impression of excessive politeness, relative politeness, when a very close person in the household constantly repeats to go for trifles. Moreover, the formulas of etiquette can be deliberately used when the speaker does not ir intend to be polite né (e.g., Well, congratulations! — coach during important matches with the head coach and i§ aikStés paSalintam prospective footballer). In the words of an angry boss Please finish $j job immediately! The word "please" certainly does not have the humility, begging shade indicated in the works for the miisy language label (Zr. Cepaitiené 2007: 157), fixed manda- ‘Very different principles of selection of the analyzed material, its statistical sampling is not presented in the monograph. Tag i8 example can be concluded that mainly based on VDU Current Latvian textbook data, vary The texts of various genres of literature (grotesque, mainly classical literature, periods of cultural activity from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, etc.) are included, while the analysis of the present-day spoken language is relatively little. Inca Hineic gios, the speaker- 's hesitation, modesty conveying the need8més® (Zr. Kuéinskaité, 1990: 44). ,,Telephone conversation etiquette“ presents a classification of Lithuanian requests for information by the lowest (e.g., please say), the highest, or neutral (e.g., I would like to ask), and the highest degree of politeness (e.g., maybe you could tell me) are also not absolute, different expressions, as the ir authors of the book themselves observe, chosen not only based on whether,,the primary information is very important to us* (Cepaitiene, SteigvilaiteUrbietiené, 2003). ] mandaguma as an isolated level of narrative reiSkinj delves into many early works devoted to him. It appears that when ranking hundreds of sentences out of context, the members of a linguistic community agree very well on their politeness, and the more grammatically complex, longer, and more formal the sentences, the higher they rank on the scale of politeness. However, in real communication, where there is a purpose of speaking, it is longer, more formal and not so directly necessarily more polite. — Too much formality, which is often identified with su politeness, as well as too little of ir it, can be rude, increase the distance between conversations, speak ironic and so on. Pragmatically, neutral, absolutely separate linguistic rules of use are important. For those who study linguistic politeness, it is important to my understand how a certain form is strategically used to achieve the speaker's goal. By examining the Snek's act, we see that there is a necessary connection between the linguistic form and the concept of politeness of the Snek's act. (Thomas, 1995: 156). Mandatory is what language users find appropriate for a particular communication event. 4. CULTURE AND CULTURE Politeness is relative when it ir comes to different expressions jo in different cultures. In general, it is considered a common good for human societies because it meets universal needs. ju However, according to ty different needs and i8 importance, the realization of politeness is possible in different cultures. 5 ,In the forms of the indicative pronoun, I have used very subtle 1polite address to a person, which is required to } show how the desired action object is necessary, useful, giving pleasure to the person, but ar modesty of respect to the person, who is addressed, as if competing, trying as politely as possible to say i8 his wish* ir (Kudinskaité, j ir 1990: 44). As a relative linguistic, social and cultural necessity, politeness chooses and affirms different linguistic and non-verbal ways of requiring it (Sifianou, 2000: 46, 93). How politeness is understood, how it is conveyed, who is polite to whom, and so on, varies greatly in different cultures (Holtgraves, 2005: 73). For a long time, the science of pragmatics was dominated by English-speaking theorists who studied supposedly common, but in fact often only English-speaking, principles of politeness, identifying the usual Anglo-Saxon characteristics of conversation with human linguistic behaviour in general, and giving at least little importance to cultural differences. For example, since the English imperative forms are usually used to express commands, it has been ethnocentrically argued that polite requests are generally avoided in imperative (Clark, Schunk, 1980: 111). However, this language simply reflects the Anglo-Saxon cultural tradition, which is extremely sensitive and respectful of the individual's privacy and freedom. Since a request is always more or less subject to the freedom of action of its addressee, in English, for any kind of request, even very small and apparently almost non-threatening, there are established forms of indirect expression more suitable for negative (distant) mandate, which reduce the insistence of the request and soften its elocutive power. With them the addressee as if avoids imposing his will on the addressee, leaving him more possibility to refuse to satisfy the request. However, the British G. Leech has said that negative politeness is like a more “serious” way of expressing oneself to another (Leech, 1983: 133), while the Americans P. Brown and S. Levinson in their work devote almost three times more space to the Siamese type of politeness than to the positive one (Brown, Levinson, 1978). Thus, distance and respect for one another's privacy are not valued as much in all cultures and, as evidenced by many other empirical studies, some cultural communities are more inclined to the positive (contact) type of politeness. In them, the need for privacy is often outweighed by a sense of collectivity. The separation between the representatives of one's own group and those of a foreign group allows them to communicate very directly with one another. Close bonds, mutual voluntary dependence in such cultures are more important than individual freedom, so long as the burden of the other is not too much feared, and the loss, through the fear of the image of the other, just strengthens the relationship, unites, so long as it can and even should be expressed very directly (see, for example, Sifianou, 2000; Marquez Reiter, 2005). Such a development is generally acceptable in societies with a greater power difference and asymmetrical relations between communicators. InGA HiLBic Different perception and expression of politeness is a major source of cultural misunderstanding in intercultural communication. They arise when statements in one language are given a false elocutive power—as they are in another language. For example, the imperatives used by English-speaking Eastern Europeans to express meaning often sound like commands to the British. It is precisely the positive (contact) manner oriented societies, which are familiar with a more direct expression of experience, that are most often labelled as “unmannerly” (Sifianou, 2000: 43). On the other hand,,,gentle“ British people often seem to other cultures too impressive, unhearted. Such stereotypical assessments will be objective only if the concept of politeness is universal. However, this is not the case, and each cultural community can be polite in its own way. There is no standard by which one can decide that representatives of one culture are (not) more noble than others. On the basis of linguistic expressions alone, the methods of communication, it cannot be said that some peoples treat people more politely than others (Thomas, 1995: 150). Linguistic interaction biidy differences are affected far more gilesniy kultiriniy aspekty than merely the norms of politeness (Wierzbicka, 1985: 145) —they are determined by different social and values backgrounds. 5. LITHUANIAN (NON)MANDUALITY Both Lithuanians and foreigners are sometimes called rude, and they themselves often consider each other rude. The vast majority of dissatisfaction is heard dél miisy communication with strangers in public. Such opinions prompted to draw more attention to Lithuanian communication in public j places, focusing on the past acts of Snekas. For five months in 2006-2007 in Vilnius (streets, university, transport, cafes, food shops, pharmacies, polyclinics, post offices, etc.) were randomly recorded heard short messages. Trying to capture as much as possible The context of the verbal conversation, the jo place was indicated, the interlocutors were briefly described, notes were made on the paralinguistic features of their language, Chinese language. In total, about 150 samples of Snek’s acts were collected. Majority jy (about 100) managed to get in touch with trade and service situations. Since the latter are quite clear and defined places, the communication scenario, communicating social roles and the 8ymai are mainly performed in them 8some acts, it was decided to limit themselves to them. This section contains some observations about the most prominent Vilnius Politeness as a relative linguistic, social and cultural phenomenon reflects the characteristics of meaning in the situations mentioned and the possible sociocultural factors affecting communication in the situations discussed. Individualist cultures are not afraid of a sharp distinction between “own” and “foreign”, and of comparing with all people in a naked way—usually through conventional strategies of negative (distant) politeness (Fukushima, 2000: 188). I believe that in a rapidly individualizing, but still more collectivist Lithuanian society, direct mischief requests, when the addressee is not asked for something great®, are allowed by extremely high or very low social distance (understood as the degree of intimacy, acquaintance) and a large power difference (power distance) between the interlocutors, when the addressee takes a superior position. »There is a difference in conversational style between Eastern and Western Europeans: Westerners speak to maintain a relationship. Eastern Europeans speak primarily for instrumental purposes and feel quite comfortable in silence” (Keevalik, 2005: 214, cited by Giles et al. 1992: 220). Although the correctness of this very broad generalization in private Lithuanian communication is doubtful, it seems quite appropriate when speaking about communication between strangers. At least in everyday situations of shopping and service in Vilnius, interactions are usually very few. In the presence of clearly defined communication rights and duties, the client can directly submit his request without any doubt (often these are the only words he implies), the employee can tacitly give the desired item or provide the service, and if necessary — also directly ask what is necessary to satisfy the latter's request (e.g., sign on the order or wait). Since it is not believed that there is any threat to the images, often neither side does not use not only any negative (distance) politeness to protect them, but also the verbal and non-verbal positive (contact) politeness common to many cultures in such situations (e.g., no meaningless phrases, no prolonged eye contact, no smiles, no jokes)’. One of the most prominent factors determining the size of imposition is the amount of effort and effort required to satisfy the request, the physical or psychological physical damage caused to the addressee, whether the addressee has the right to request and the addressee must satisfy the request, and how common the request is in a particular situation (Fukushima, 2000: 188). 7 Situations in the retail and service sectors are often discussed in a very general way, although they can be classified according to the specific environment in which they occur (e.g., a supermarket or a small store), the everydayness of the situation (e.g., a purchased product), and the