Comparative Study on Politeness in Chinese and English Languages 英语专业毕业论文.doc

comparative study on politeness in chinese and english languages abstract：politeness, as a symbol of human civilization, is a social-cultural as well as linguistic phenomenon that can be found in all societies all over the world. it has drawn much attention from linguists, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists since 1960s. as a result of the rapid development of the study of cross-cultural communication, people are now getting more and more interested in investigating what politeness is and how to be polite in cross-cultural interactions. as people from different cultures may have different views on what politeness is and how to be polite, misunderstanding or even breakdown may occur if the cultural differences of politeness are neglected in cross-cultural communication. therefore, it is necessary and of great significance for the chinese learners of english to have a good knowledge of politeness in both chinese and english. this thesis is intended to make a comparative study on politeness in english and chinese from the perspectives of both the theoretical principles and the manifestations of politeness, and analyze that the different cultural values between them are the main cause of such differences. the comparative study and analysis of polite behavior and politeness principles in english and chinese are expected to be of some help to chinese learners of english and english teaching as well.key words: politeness english chinese culture valuesintroductionpoliteness seems to be a social value that occurs in all civilized societies, even though the social norms relating to what is and what is not considered polite behavior may vary across cultures. politeness has been a focus of interest in pragmatics for decades. as a common social phenomenon, politeness is not only a universally highly valued virtue, but also a widely employed strategy to realize tactful and effective communication. despite its universality of politeness, the way to realize politeness, and the standards of judgment differ in different cultures. being unaware of such differences would probably lead to trouble or failure in cross-cultural communication. therefore, it is necessary and important to study different concepts and manifestations of politeness in different cultures, so as to reduce the possibility of misunderstanding between the two sides and achieve a satisfactory result.this thesis attempts to make a comparative study of politeness between english and chinese. politeness can be realized in a number of ways, among which the use of language is an important one. with the development of pragmatics in the past thirty years or so, more and more attention has been paid to the ways in which language is used to show politeness and also the differences between different languages and cultures. comparative study on politeness in chinese and english languages conception and classification of politeness1.1 conception of politeness1.1.1 conception of politeness in english-speaking cultures in the first half of the 20th century, european linguists became aware that forms of linguistic behaviors that we may now label as polite deserved attention in the study of language. from then on, linguists have made every effort to define politeness as a subject of study. lakoff concentrates on its supportive features and says that politeness is for reaffirming and strengthening relationships (1973:298). according to her, politeness is a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange. leech goes for the protective side of politeness and proposes that it is used to avoid strategic conflict (1977:19). 1.1.2 conception of politeness in chinese culturethe most approximate chinese equivalent to the english word politeness is limao(礼貌)，which is derived from the old chinese word li(礼). the classical notion of li(礼) was formulated by the ancient chinese philosopher and thinker confucius (551b.c.- 479b.c.), who lived at a time when the slavery system had already declined, and in an environment where there were constant wars between feudal states; from the above brief exploration of the notion of politeness in both the english-speaking culture and the chinese culture, it has become clear that while the notion of politeness is universal, it has different origins and thus different connotations in different cultures.1.2 classification of politeness1.2.1 verbal politeness and nonverbal politenesssince there are two ways for human beings to communicate with each other, the manifestation forms of politeness can be verbal and nonverbal. so linguists divide politeness into verbal politeness and nonverbal politeness. hudson remarks that, we speak with our organs, but we converse with our entire bodies. consequently, politeness is not limited to the form and does not only rely on the linguistic medium. there are linguistic verbal as well as non-linguistic/ nonverbal norms of politeness. informative communication is mainly verbal, whereas rapport communication involves much non-verbal behavior as well. 1.2.2 positive politeness and negative politenessbrown and levinson first put forth the face-saving view of politeness in 1978, interpreting polite behavior as being basic to the maintenance of face wants. viewing the need to satisfy face as a basic human want, they propose five politeness strategies available to speakers about how to perform a face-threatening act (fta), the choice of strategy depending on the estimated risk of face loss to the speaker or the hearer: (1) bald on record; (2) positive politeness; (3) negative politeness; (4) off-record, and (5) dont do fta, among which positive and negative politeness are prominent. brown and levinson point out, positive politeness is oriented toward the positive face of the hearer, the positive self-image that he claims for himself. positive politeness is approach-based; it anoints the face of the addressee by indicating that in some respects, the speaker wants the hearers wants, e.g. by treating him as a member of an ingroup, a friend, a person whose wants and personality traits are known and linked. the potential face threat of an act is minimized in this case by the assurance that in general the speaker wants at least some of the hearers wants. any indication that the speaker is asserting that he is closely connected to the hearer, or that the participants are showing their common attraction to each other may be considered positive politeness or a strategy of involvement. perspectives on politenesspoliteness is simply a well-understood concept that pervades human interaction and its manifestations are different from culture to culture. linguists also hold different views on politeness. this part is to provide an overview of how scholars approach an account of politeness. on the treatment of politeness, there are four major perspectives: the social-norm view, the face-saving view, the conversational-maxim view, and the conversational-contract view.2.1 the social-norm viewthe social norm view assumes that each society has a particular set of social norms consisting of more or less explicit rules that prescribe a certain behavior, a state of affairs, or a way of thinking in a context. a positive evaluation (politeness) arises when an action is in congruence with the norm, and a negative evaluation (impoliteness=rudeness) occurs when an action is to the contrary. wardhaugh, a sociolinguist, states that: politeness itself is socially prescribed. this does not mean, of course, that we must always be polite, for we may be quite impolite to others on occasions. however, we could not be so if there were no rules of politeness to be broken. impoliteness depends on the existence of standards, or norms, of politeness. (1986:275) ancient chinese scholars have the same view of politeness as western scholars. liji(礼记), on records that all the norms on behavior are based on jing(敬) (politeness), and what is said might not be true if the speech is not based on li(礼).thus, li(礼)is the social norm on ones behavior in ancient china.2.2 the face-saving viewcertainly the best known of the approaches to an account of politeness is face theory put forward by brown and levinson (hereafter b&l) in 1978, which is based on the face notion raised by goffman in the late 1950s. 2.2.1 face-threatening acts (ftas)according to brown and levinson, certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face. those acts that by their nature run contrary to the face want of the addressee and /or of the speaker can be considered as face-threatening acts (ftas). ftas vary in terms of the kind of threat involved. they propose the following four-way analysis:1) acts threatening the hearers negative face by imposing on the hearer, i.e. by indicating that the speaker does not intend to avoid impeding the hearers freedom of action. 2) acts threatening the hearers positive face by indicating the speakers lack of concern for the hearers self -image, i.e. the speaker does not care about the addressees feelings, wants, etc. - that in some important respect he doesnt want the hearers wants. 3) acts threatening the speakers negative face by offending the speakers need not to be imposed upon. (4) promising and offering unwillingly: the speaker commits himself to some future action although he doesnt want to; if his unwillingness shows, he may also offend the hearers positive face. for example, a knows b will do some shopping: 4) acts threatening the speakers positive face by offending the speakers self-image. these four-way classifying ftas offers the possibility of cross-classifying at least some of the above ftas, since some ftas intrinsically threaten both negative and positive face (e.g. complaints, threats, etc). however, such a cross-classification has a complex relation to the ways in which ftas are handled.2.2.2 strategies for doing ftasin the context of the mutual vulnerability of face, any rational agent will seek to avoid these face-threatening acts, or will employ certain strategies to minimize the threat. politeness is the effort made by the speaker and the hearer to maintain their face, so b&l term it as redressive strategies. they posit five possible strategies for performing ftas as in the following figure: 1. bald on record without redressive action; 2.positive politeness; 3.negative politeness; 4. of record; and 5. dont do the fta. 2.2.3 face in chinese culturethe concept of face is not new to chinese people, who recognize the term mianzi(面子)in chinese, where it carries a range of meanings based upon a core concept of honor. hu hsien chin, a chinese anthropologist in 1944, first introduced the concept. according to him, mianzi(面子)，individuals good image in a society, consists of two sides: the honor or prestige achieved by ones success or given by others, and the respect from others due to ones obeying the social norms. thus, mianzi(面子)is socially oriented; it is different from the b&ls face notion, which is self-oriented. gu (1990) claims that b&ls face theory is not applicable to chinese culture in some aspects. the chinese notion of negative face seems to differ from that of b&ls. for example, offering, inviting and promising in chinese, under ordinary circumstances, will not be considered as threatening the hearers negative face, i.e. impeding the hearers freedom of action. a chinese speaker will insist on inviting the hearer to dinner (which implies that the speaker will pay the bill) even if the hearer has already explicitly expressed his desire that the speaker should not do it. in this situation, an english speaker will think that the speakers way of performing the act of inviting is face-threatening. a chinese, on the other hand, will think that the way the speaker performs it shows that the speaker is genuinely polite, for the speakers insistence on the hearers accepting the invitation serves as good evidence of the speakers sincerity. and the chinese negative face is not threatened in this case.2.3 leechs politeness principle (pp)grices theory of conversational implicature fails to make a perfect explanation of the popular phenomenon of interaction: why do people usually violate the maxims of the cooperative principle (cp) deliberately while they are supposed to observe them? after a long term of study, leech put forward politeness principle (pp) which constitutes an influential theory concerning politeness in 1983, in his principles of pragmatics, with the purpose of supplementing grices cp. like lakoff leech adopts the framework initially set out by grice: there exists a set of maxims and sub-maxims that guide and constrain the conversation or rational peopleleech is concerned with how politeness provides a missing link between the cp and the problem of how to relate sense to force. leechs principle of politeness can be stated as the following: other things being equal, minimize the expression of beliefs which are unfavorable to the hearer and at the same time (but less important) maximize the expression of beliefs which are favorable to the hearer. 2.4 gus view on politeness in chinesein china, serious studies of politeness within the linguistic circles did not begin until the early 1980s. among the chinese scholars who have contributed significantly to the study of politeness is prof. gu yueguo of beijing foreign studies university. he also has adopted the conversational-maxim view on politeness in modern chinese. in his articles related to the study of politeness in modern chinese, prof. gu has traced the origin of the notion of politeness in chinese culture, and also formulated a different set of politeness maxims, which he thinks are more suitable to the chinese environment.2.4.1 essential notions of limao(礼貌)gu holds that there are basically four essential notions underlying the chinese conception of limao(礼貌): respectfulness, modesty, attitudinal warmth, and refinement. respectfulness is selfs positive appreciation or admiration of the other concerning the laters face, social status, and also on modesty can be seen as another way of saying self-denigration. attitudinal warmth is selfs demonstration of kindness, consideration, and hospitality to the other, and refinement refers to selfs behavior to the other which meets certain standards. the first notion, respectfulness, is largely identical with the need to maintain the hearers positive face; the second notion modesty, though varying in the importance attached to it in different cultures, is to a large extent universal; but to interpret modesty as self-denigration is uniquely chinese; the third notion attitudinal warmth bears a strong chinese trait for, according to b&l, demonstration of kindness, consideration and hospitality, the speaker runs a risk of impeding on the hearers personal freedom, i.e., threatening his negative face; and the fourth notion refinement represents the normative character of politeness, which, though universal, has not been mentioned in any important theory concerning politeness raised by western scholars so far. according to gu, underneath the concept of limao(礼貌)are two cardinal principles: sincerity and balance. genuine polite behavior must be performed sincerely, and sincerely polite behavior by self calls for similar behavior in return by the other (the folk notion is huanli(还礼)，i.e. to return politeness). the principle of balance breaks down the boundary of here-and-now conversation, predetermining follow-up talk exchanges long after the present conversation is terminated. the underlying notions of this principle are huanli (还礼)and qianrenging(欠人情)，i.e., to be indebted. huanli(还礼)means that, if the speaker is polite to the hearer, the latter ought to be polite to the former. generally, the hearer ought to denigrate himself and elevate the speaker if the speaker denigrates himself and elevates the hearer, and the hearer ought to address the speaker if the speaker addresses him, and so on. qianrenging(欠人情)refers to the situations where impositives and commissives are involved. for an inviting example, if the speaker invites the hearer, the hearer is thus indebted to the speaker, and the hearer will, in the near future, pay back the debt, e.g. by inviting the speaker. hence, an initial s-inviting-h transaction calls for a follow-up h-inviting-s transaction in conformity with the principle of balance. this follow-up transaction may be carried out long after the initial s-inviting-h transaction has taken place.2.4.2 politeness principle and its maxims in chinesegu claims that:“.the chinese conception of politeness is to some extent moralized, which makes it more appropriate to analyze politeness in terms of maxims. (1990: 243) on the basis of the four essential notions underlying the chinese conception of politeness, gu has formulated seven politeness maxims that jointly give substance to the politeness principle (pp), a sanctioned belief that an individuals social behavior ought to live up to the expectations of respectfulness, modesty, attitudinal warmth and refinement. and four of them, which are mainly demonstrated, are the self-denigration maxim, the address maxim, the tact maxim and the generosity maxim. cultural differences of politeness manifested in various speech actspoliteness could be conveyed by various speech acts in all languages and cultures. these speech acts, however, differ cross-culturally not only in the way they are realized, but also in the functions they serve. all these differences that reflect the perceptions of politeness differ from culture to culture. in this section, differences in realizations of pol