Comparative Study on Politeness in Chinese and English Languages.doc

Comparative Study on Politeness in Chinese and English LanguagesComparative Study on Politeness in Chinese and English Languages摘要：礼貌作为人类文明的体现，它不仅是一种社会现象，也是一种语言现象。自二十世纪六十年代起，礼貌现象就已经开始引起语言学家、心理学家、人类学家及社会学家们的注意。随着跨文化交际研究的迅速发展，不同文化中礼貌的概念与内涵及在跨文化交际中如何做到礼貌的得体，越来越多地引起人们的关注。由于人们对什么是礼貌和怎样做才是有礼貌持有不同观点，因此在跨文化交际中，常常会出现一些误解。这些误解常常导致交际失误乃至失败，因此，对礼貌现象，特别是在跨文化交际中英汉两种语言中所体现的礼貌现象进行对比研究是非常必要的。对英汉语礼貌现象从其理论基础到其表现形式进行对比研究，对学习英语的中国学生和英语教学很有益处。关键词:礼貌 英语 汉语 “文化价值观”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. This thesis begins with a brief introduction, which is Chapter I concerning the interpretation and the classification of politeness.Chapter I is the examination of the perspectives on politeness, consisting of the social-norm view, the face-saving view, the conversational-maxim view and the conversational-contract view. Chapter II will discuss cultural differences of politeness manifested in some speech acts such as greeting, parting, complimenting and offering. Politeness and cultural values will be discussed in Chapter ，which is followed by a conclusion bringing the thesis to an end.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). From the view of Brown and Levinson, politeness can be defined as the means employed to show awareness of another persons face. Hill points out, Politeness is one of the constraints on human interaction, whose purpose is to consider others feelings, to establish levels of mutual comfort, and to promote rapport. (1986: 349) This definition indicates that politeness is seen as a constraint on human behavior, not only to reduce friction as Lakoff suggests, but also to enhance rapport and harmony.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; the former aristocratic social hierarchy was shattered and chaos reigned over the land. To alter the situation, Confucius advocated the restoration of ming(名).This li (礼)does not mean politeness; it refers to the social hierarchy and the order of the slavery system of the Zhou Dynasty (dating back to 1100B.C.), which was regarded by Confucius as an ideal model of any society. To restore li (礼) was necessary for people to zhengming(正名)(to rectify names), that is, to put each individual in his place according to his social position. This is important because Confucius thought if ming(名) is not properly rectified, speech cannot be used appropriately; if speech is not used appropriately, nothing can be achieved; if nothing is achieved, It cannot be restored; if It is not restored, law and justice cannot be exercised; and if law and justice are not exercised, people will not know how to behave. Thus speech had to be used appropriately in accordance with the users status in the social hierarchy so that li (礼)could be restored.Two or three hundred years after Confucius, the word li(礼)designating politeness seemed to be well established. This usage is found in the bookliji(礼记)that to be written by Dai Sheng sometime during the West Han Dynasty. The book opens with: Speaking of It, humble yourself but show respect to others. By the time of Dai Sheng, the notion of 1i(礼)had evolved into self-denigrating and other-respecting. It has ever since become an essential feature of the Chinese notion of politeness and remained at the core of the modern conception of Limao(礼貌).In short, the social function of politeness in modern Chinese is to seek harmony, mitigate contradiction, and facilitate cooperation between people.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. Consequently, nonverbal politeness plays a very important role in communication as verbal politeness does. Although the overwhelming majority of non-linguistic politeness norms seem to vary from culture to culture, it has also been argued that at least some of them fall into the probably innate class. Nonverbal behavior usually involves facial expressions, body contact, and gesture. Arndt and Jeanne has been emphasized the relationship between facial expressions and politeness. They maintain that the relationship between verbal and facial expressions is complex and also that, smiles and frowns have a number of emotive functions. They may modify or contradict emotionally loaded verbal cues. This function of facial expressions is very important to politeness, because it enables speakers to indicate positive or negative feelings independently of whatever they may be conveying verbally. Body contact, such as kissing, embracing, patting on the shoulder, hand-shaking, and body posture, even the distance between interactants are closely related to politeness and are utilized differently in different cultures. 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. The former derives from the need to feel accepted, appreciated or respected by some others, while the later derives from the need to feel unimpeded, free, or self-determining within an internal and personal preserve. To put it another way, a person has both a public self-image which he wishes to project to other group members and a need to act without being impeded in any way by other members. Gofmans face notion is thus extended as positive face, which is essentially the individuals public self-image or personality claimed by interactants, and“negative face, which is the desire for freedom of action and freedom from imposition to project this image.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. For example: Hey, buddy, Id appreciate it if youd let me use your pen. When we use positive politeness we use speech strategies that emphasize our solidarity with the hearer, such as informal pronunciation, shared dialect or slang expressions, nicknames, more frequent reference to the speaker and the hearer as “we”, and requests, which are less indirect. However, in most English-speaking contexts, a face saving act is more commonly performed via a negative politeness strategy. Negative politeness, on the other hand, is oriented mainly toward partially satisfying (redressing) the hearers negative face, his basic want to maintain claims of self-determination. Negative politeness, thus, is essentially avoidance-based, and realizations of negative politeness strategies consist in assurances that the speaker recognizes and respects the addressees negative-face wants and will not (or will only minimally) interfere with the addressees freedom of action. When we use negative politeness, we use speech strategies that emphasize our deference for the hearer. Nicknames, slang and informal pronunciation tend to be avoided and requests tend to be more indirect and impersonal. 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) This normative view historically considers politeness to be associated with speech style, whereby a higher degree of formality implies greater politeness. Kasher (1986) offers a variety of rules intended to govern polite discourses: “Avoid topics which may be supposed to have any direct reference to events or circumstances which may be painful. “Do not stop abruptly, when you perceive that it causes pain; do not make the matter worse by apologizing; turn to another subject as soon as possible, and pay no attention to the agitation your unfortunate remark may have excited. Never question the veracity of any statement made in general conversation. “If you are certain a statement is false, and it is injurious to another person, who may be absent, you may quietly and courteously inform the speaker that he is mistaken, but if the falsehood is of no consequence, let it pass.These social norms restrict peoples speech style, because only when the speech style is in conformity with these norms, it will be considered to be polite. The language use also reflects the normative view. Jespersen (1965:293) is representative in discussing the shifting meaning of “shall” (obligation) and “will” (volition). He suggests that the rules for using “shall” in the first and “will” in the other persons lie in English courtesy or modesty, and concludes that the speaker does not like to ascribe future events to his own will, but is polite enough to speak of someone elses will as decisive of the future.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 The notion of faceAccording to Goffman, face is a universal notion, that is, it is a sacred thing for every human being, and an essential factor communicators all have to pay attention to; face wants are reciprocal: if one wants his face cared for, he should care for other peoples face. B&L define face as the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself (1978), i.e. an individuals self-esteem. B&L further distinguish two kinds of face in terms of participant wants rather than of social norms: Negative face: the want of every competent adult member that his actions be unimpeded by others.(1987:62) .the want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded(1987:129) Positive face: the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others(1987:62) .the perennial desire that his wants (or actions/acquisitions/values) resulting from them should be thought of as desirable (1987:101) Simply put, negative face is the desire to be unimpeded in ones actions, and positive face is the desire to be approved of. Face is something that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. Since face is so vulnerable, and since most participants will defend their face if threatened, the assumption is made that it is generally in everyones best interest to maintain each others face and to act in such ways that others are made aware that that is ones intention2.2.2 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 ac