Politeness Scales: Cost-Benefit, Optionality, and Indirectness in English Interviews
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25098/8.1.36Keywords:
Politeness Principle, Scales, Maxims, Cost-benefit, Optionality, IndirectnessAbstract
The present study attempts to explicate the relations between three scales of politeness, namely: cost-benefit, optionality, and indirectness, along with the six politeness maxims: tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy maxim that offered by Geoffrey Leech’s (1983) Politeness Principle (PP). Lack of a dedicated and specific study to demonstrate the cruciality of these pragmatic scales and reveal the evident relations between these scales and maxims is noted as a knowledge gap in the area of pragmatic research.
The present study attempts to answer some questions of direct relevance to the field, namely: Are there any relations between the pragmatic scales and politeness maxims? Which politeness scale is mostly used in English interviews? And is only one scale enough to realize the degree of politeness in English interviews? Based on the above questions, it is hypothesized that there is a complementary relationship between the pragmatic scales and politeness maxims. The Cost/ benefit scale is the most dominant scale used in English interviews in relation to other scales. The Indirectness scale is mostly employed by politicians in political interviews. In comparison with other two scales, optionality scale is less utilized in English interviews.
To verify the hypotheses and analyse the selected data, a broad-based model is adopted to analyze five interviews from five different genres, using quantitative and qualitative methods.
The study concludes that there is a complementary relationship between pragmatic scales and politeness maxims. Politeness maxims operate within the pragmatic scale. In addition, the cost-benefit scale is found to be a dominant and widely employed politeness scale in English interviews. Similarly, approbation and tact maxims are the most commonly used politeness maxims in English interviews in the current study; one pragmatic scale would not be enough to realize the degree of politeness in English interviews when more than one scale is employed in an utterance.
References
• Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C., 1999. Politeness. Some universals in language usage. I: The discourse reader. Ed. by Adam Jaworski & Nikolas Coupland. London–New York. S, pp.321-335.
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S.,1987. Politeness: Some Universals in
Language Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th Edition, SAGE Publications, Inc., London.
• Cutting, J., 2005. Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. Routledge.
• Fraser, B., 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of pragmatics, 14(2), pp.219-236.
• Ide, S., 1989. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness.
• Kasper, G., 1990. Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of pragmatics, 14(2), pp.193-218.
• Leech, G., 1983. Principles of pragmatics. Longman, New York.
• Levinson, S. C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Locher, M.A., 2004. Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: M. de Gruyter.
• Locher, M.A., 2006. Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness.
• Mey, J.,1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Watts, R., 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Watts, R.J., Ide, S. and Ehrlich, K., 2005. Politeness in language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
SJCUS's open access articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
