Negative Politeness Brown and Levinson Politeness Theory

26 Strategy 4: Minimize the Imposition, Rx If the speaker asks hearer to do something, or give her something to the speaker, it means that the speaker was impose, as if the speaker gives hearer burden to obey what was uttered.  I just want to ask you if you could lend me a single sheet of paper. Strategy 5: Give Deference Show respect and respect for others through utterances.  we look forward very much to dining with you. Strategy 6: Apologize Apologized before revealing the real purpose to the hearer, Apologizing does not always explicitly with the words forgive or apologize, but also implicitly by using a verb.  I hesitate to trouble you, but ... Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H Not mention the speaker or hearer in a utterances. For example, by using the word it that serves impersonal not pronoun.  it is so I tell you that it is so  Do this for me I ask you to do this for me Strategy 8: State the FTA as a General Rule Stating utterances in a general form, so it does not seem to make or threaten someone to do something. 27  passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train you will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train. Strategy 9: Nominalize It is quite astonishing is nominalizing expression, express it in the form of a noun, not a verb and others. a. guide on the examinations performed well and we were impressed favorably. b. your performing well on the examinations impressed us favorably. c. your good performance on the examinations impressed us favorably. Here, c a more formal look like a formal letter from the b, and b more than in a. Strategy 10: Go on Record as Incurring a Debt. Or as Not Indebting H Speakers is in order to express what they want directly, but with as if indebted to hearer if indulged request, or as if it does not feel burdened by someone if asked to do anything offer.  Ill be never repay you if you would ...  Easily I could do it for you. 2.4. Off Record This strategy uses indirect language and removes the speaker from the potential to be imposing. Off the Record itself is the strategy of politeness on the application, the speaker does not explicitly say the words, and the hearer can speculate on speaker’s utterance. Speaker’s utterance is not addressed directly to the hearer. 28 The notion of Off Record is refers not simply to formal types of indirection but rather to such linguistic strategy in context. Clearly, many of the classic off record strategy-metaphor, irony, understatement, rhetorical question, etc.- are very often actually on record when used, because the clues to their interpretation the mutual knowledge of S and H in the context; the intonational, prosodic and kinesic clues to the speaker’s attitude; the clues derives from conversational sequencing add up to only one really viable interpretation in the context. 37 In short, off record is do FTA but be indirect. Invite conversational implicatures, via hints triggered by violation of Gricean Maxims. For example, speaker say “it’s cold in here. c.i. Shut the window. Make someone doing something for speaker by using utterance implicitly. Strategy 1. Give hints It is like speech act, S saying something implicitly want to H doing something for him.  it’s is hot in here i.e. turn on the fan Strategy 2. Give association clues S and H have mutual knowledge of their interactional experience.  oh God, I’ve got a headache again i.e. give me an aspirin Strategy 3. Presuppose An utterance can be almost wholly relevant in context and yet violate maxim relevance just at the level of its presuppositions.  I washed the car again today he presuppose that he has done it last week. 37 Ibid. p.212 29 Strategy 4. Understate The speaker violate the quantity maxim.  A: what do you think about Jocelyn new dress? B: yeah good. i.e. I don’t think it is very good Strategy 5. Overstate S says more than is necessary, exaggerating or choosing a measurement higher than actually is.  there were a million people in the party tonight, so come in Strategy 6. Use tautologies By using tautologies, S encourage H to look for an informative interpretation of non informative utterance.  war is war  Boys will be boys Strategy 7. Use contradiction S violated quality maxim with using contradiction in the utterance, S force H to find assumption about his feeling.  A: are you upset about that? B: well, I am and I’m not. Strategy 8. Be ironic S saying the opposite what he means, a violated quality maxim.  It’s a nice and comfortable room, isn’t it? in a messy room 30 Strategy 9. Use metaphors Use connotations of the metaphor.  harry is real fish c.i. he drinks swims is slimy is cold blood like a fish Strategy 10. Use rhetorical question Asking a question but leave the answer hanging in order to S want to H to provide him with the indicated information.  How many times do I have to tell you? too many times Strategy 11. Be ambiguous Ambiguity may be achieved through metaphor it is not clear what S means.  John’s pretty sharp smooth cookie it could be compliment or insult, depending on which of the connotations Strategy 12. Be vague S being vague about what object of the FTA.  I’m going you-know-where down the road for a bit. c.i. to the local pub Strategy 13. Over-generalize Rule instantiation may leave the object of the FTA vaguely off record:  mature people sometimes help do the dishes. 31 Strategy 14. Displace H S redress an FTA to whom it would not threaten in order to the real target will know that he is the actual target who FTA aimed to him. For example, teasing someone in playful way.  asking someone to go out would you rather get your foot stuck in a bear trap or hang out this weekend? Strategy 15. Be incomplete, use ellipsis Leaving the FTA undone, S can leave the implicature hanging. And this strategy much violated quantity maxim as of manner maxim.  oh sir, a headache…

2.5. Don’t Do FTA

This strategy is simply that speaker avoids offending hearer at all with this particular FTA. Speaker also fails to achieve his desired communication. 38

3. Sociological Variable

Besides the strategy above, to apply the politeness strategy in the real life, there are three sociological variables:  The social distance D of S and H a symmetric relation  The relative power P of S and H an asymmetric relation  The absolute ranking R of impositions in the particular culture. Thus these are not intended as sociologist’ rating of actual power, distance, etc, but only as actors’ assumption of such ratings, assumed to be mutually assumed, at least within certain limits. 39 38 Ibid. p. 72 39 Brown and Levinson. Op.cit. pp. 75-76 32 Absolutely, those three sociological variable influence the weightiness of FTA. Brown and Levinson have calculated the weightiness of FTA. For each FTA, the seriousness or weightiness of a particular FTA x is compounded of both risk to S’s face and risk H’s face, in a proportion relative to the nature of the FTA. Thus apologies and confession are essentially threats to S’s face, and advice and orders are basically threats to H’s face, while request and offers are likely to threaten the face of both participants. The weightiness of FTA is calculated thus: Wx = DS,H + PH,S + Rx Where Wx is the numerical value that measures the weightiness pf the FTA x, DS,H is a measure of the power that H has over S, and Rx is a value that measures the degree to which the FTA x is rated an imposition in that culture. For instance, PH,S may be assessed as being great because H is eloquent and influential, or is a prince, a witch, a thug, a priest; DS,H as great because H speaks another dialect or language, or lives in the next valley, or is kinsman. D is a symmetric social dimension of similaritydifference within which S and H stand for the purpose of this act. It is based on an assessment of the frequency of interaction and the kinds of material or non-material goods including face exchanged between S and H or parties representing S or H, or for whom S and H are representatives. P is an asymmetric social dimension of relative power, roughly in Weber’s sense. That is, PH,S is the degree to which H can impose his own plans and his own self- evaluation face at the expense of S’s plans and self-evaluation. In general there are two sources of P, either of which may be authorized or 33 unauthorized- material control over economic distribution and physical force and metaphysical control over the actions of others, by virtue of metaphysical force subscribed to by those others, R is a culturally and situationally defined ranking of imposition by the degree to which they are considered to interfere with an agent’s want of self- determination or of approval his negative- and positive-face wants. In the other hand, we also know that politeness also be taught in sociolinguistics. In sociolinguistics, politeness always connects with relationship between person to person. In sociolinguistics, we know Ronald Wardhaugh who initiated politeness and solidarity. In his book, Wardhaugh write about solidarity and politeness, he suggests that politeness is associated with closeness between speaker and hearer. In short, the closer relationship between speaker and hearer makes them having less polite and vice versa if the far relationship the more polite the utterances. Moreover, in his book Wardhaugh also cites studies from Ford and Brown were conducted in 1961 that the practice of naming in English, based on the analysis of modern plays. They reported that the use of the title, last name, and first name indicates equality in strength or power, that the use of title and last name indicates inequalities and lack of intimacy, while the use of first names indicate the similarities and familiarity. For example: for the title and the last name of Mr. Smith or such a degree as Professor and Doctor. Then, for the next instance name Jack, Buddy, and so on.