《礼貌原则在商务信函中的应用.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《礼貌原则在商务信函中的应用.doc（21页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、The Application of Politeness Principle to Business CorrespondenceA THESISOF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ADULT HIGHER EDUCATION GRADUATIONMajor:EnglishName :Chen YunJilin Normal UniversityApril,2012OutlineAbstract.1 Introduction.2 The concept of Politeness.3 The Universality of Politeness phenomena.4 L
2、eech s politeness principle.4.1 Leechs maxims4.2Face and politeness strategies5 The features of business correspondence.5.1Countesy5.2Consideration. 5.3Completeness.5.4Clearness5.5 Conciseness.5.6 Concreteness 5.7 Correctness .6 The Application of Politeness Principle to Business Correspondence7 Con
3、clusion.Bibliography.The Application of Politeness Principle to Business Correspondence(Abstract)The Politeness Principle, which was proposed by the English scholar G. N. Leech, cannot be only applied to verbal language, but also to formal style. Based on this theory, together with the characteristi
4、cs of business correspondence, this paper analyzes the application of politeness principle to business correspondence through specific examples. A conclusion is drawn that politeness principle plays an important role in modern business correspondence.(Key words): polite; politeness principle; busine
5、ss correspondence1.IntroductionEtymologically, polite could be derived from either the Greek poli which means city, and politizmos meaning civilization, or by the Latin politus, past participle of polite which means to smooth (Tzartzanos, 1997). So, the original meaning of the word polite was smooth
6、ed, and gradually, when referring to people, refined, cultivated and well bred (Sifianou, 1992). However, since in our times the definition of politeness is the attitude of being socially correct, being refined and having good manners (Oxford Dictionary 1981), then two issues emerge immediately: fir
7、st that neither speakers linguistic behaviour necessarily accounts for their real motivation, nor should we assume that all languages share the same perceptions as far as concepts as good manners or social correctness are concerned.Politeness can be manifested through general social behaviour as wel
8、l as linguistic means. This assumption, however, emphasizes once again on the fact that politeness cannot and should not be assessed out of context, since from a pragmatic point of view, all utterances in conversation are interpreted firstly contextually and only secondly literally. Within the issue
9、 of politeness, the most respected theory appears to be, as aforementioned, Brown and Levinsons. The basis of their theory is the concept of face, a term referring to every individuals sense of self-image. This concept involves a positive and a negative aspect. After them Geoffrey Leech (1983), a we
10、ll-known linguist at the University of Lancaster, believed that, apart from cooperation, there must be something else that interactants all value and follow in conversations. This made him think hard and come to conclude that politeness is a notion that plays a vital role there to help people to smo
11、oth a conversation. Accordingly, his ideas were framed under the Politeness Principle (PP). Imitating Grice, Leech discussed six maxims in his proposed PP. They are the maxim of tact, the maxim of generosity, the maxim of approbation, the maxim of modesty, the maxim of agreement, and the maxim of sy
12、mpathy.Based on this theory, together with the characteristics of business correspondence, this paper analyzes the application of politeness principle to business correspondence through specific examples. Through these analysis, we can further realize that the politeness principle, which was propose
13、d by the English scholar G. N. Leech, cannot be only applied to verbal language, but also to formal style. 2. The concept of PolitenessLanguage is above all a tool of communication, a channel of conveying meaning. Regarding Language a cultural phenomenon, it is undoubtfull that all kinds of ethnic,
14、political, regional and class differences would manifest themselves through various linguistic as well as pragmatic variations in it, an argument supported through the years by various linguists, ethnologists and philosophers. The concept of Politeness has been part of linguistic studies since the l
15、ate 1970s but it was the publication of Brown and Levinsons famous Politeness book, in 1978 that established this issue as one of the main areas of Pragmatics theory, a novelty that emphasized the importance of this concept in human interaction (Sifianou, 1992). Etymologically, polite could be deriv
16、ed from either the Greek poli which means city, and politizmos meaning civilization (Tegopoulos and Fitrakis, 1993), or by the Latin politus, past participle of polire which means to smooth (Tzartzanos, 1997). So, the original meaning of the word polite was smoothed, and gradually, when referring to
17、 people, refined, cultivated and well bred (Sifianou, 1992). However, since in our times the definition of politeness is the attitude of being socially correct, being refined and having good manners (Oxford Dictionary 1981), then two issues emerge immediately: first that neither speakers linguistic
18、behaviour necessarily accounts for their real motivation, nor should we assume that all languages share the same perceptions as far as concepts as good manners or social correctness are concerned (Thomas, 1995; Sifianou, 1992). Scholars have nowadays agreed on the fact that politeness is conceptuali
19、zed differently and so, manifested differently in each society, an argument supported by Sifianou (1992), who points out that .despite popular stereotypes, no nation may be objectively verified as more or less polite than any other, but only polite in a different, culturally specific way.Politeness
20、can be manifested through general social behaviour as well as linguistic means. This assumption, however, emphasizes once again on the fact that politeness cannot and should not be assessed out of context, since from a pragmatic point of view, all utterances in conversation are interpreted firstly c
21、ontextually and only secondly literally (Coulmas, 1981). The hypothesis that, what is implied and/or meant at a discourse level varies according to the context of the utterance, was originally introduced by Grice, in 1968. Within the issue of politeness, the most respected theory appears to be, as a
22、forementioned, Brown and Levinsons. The basis of their theory is the concept of face, a term referring to every individuals sense of self-image. This concept involves a positive and a negative aspect:negative face: the want of every competent adult member that his actions be unimpeded by others.posi
23、tive face: the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others. (Brown & Levinson, 1978)The concept of face leads to the hypothesis that certain illocutionary acts could be face-threatening, an idea introduced once again by Brown and Levinson (1978). Face-threatening acts (F
24、TA), are liable to threaten or damage the Hearers positive face, i.e. expressions of disapproval/criticism, accusations, contradictions, interrupting, expressions of violent emotions, etc., and threaten his/her negative face, i.e. orders, requests, remindings, offers, promises, etc. Moreover, certai
25、n acts can also be face threatening to the Speakers positive face, such as expressing thanks, excuses, acceptance of offers/apologies, etc., as well as his/her negative face, such as apologies, acceptance of compliments, confessions/admissions of guilt or responsibility, etc. Thus, always according
26、to Brown and Levinsons hypothesis, the Speaker should adopt certain strategies, in order to maintain his or her own face undamaged and at the same time to minimize the possibility of affecting the positive or negative face of the Hearer. If the Speaker decides to perform a FTA, then Brown and Levins
27、on (1978) suggest a framework that determines the choice of his/her strategy:The theory of Politeness has been explored by other academics as well. All of them share the belief that the concept of face, of both the Speakers and Hearers, is of great importance. Therefore, it is suggested that the str
28、ategies followed by the Speaker when performing an illocutionary act, should be the least threatening possible to that concept.3.The Universality of Politeness phenomenaEvidence for the universality of Politeness lies in the study of every diverse language community (Brown & Levinson, 1978; Leech, 1
29、983). All cultures seem to share this specific concept and express it in certain linguistic and very often in non-verbal ways, i.e. warm look, friendly smile, etc. However, there is a diversity of opinions concerning the way that Speech Acts, including FTA, function. Some scholars have suggested tha
30、t they operate by universal pragmatic principles, whereas they have been claimed by others to vary in conceptualization and verbalization across cultures and Languages (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989).It is generally accepted that various markers contribute to the politeness of an utterance and th
31、e explanations of their existence are placed within a broad framework of cultural differences. As aforementioned, it is undoubtful that different socio-cultural norms are reflected in all levels of the linguistic code. Therefore, when observing politeness norms the researcher should always take acco
32、unt of the relationship between the Speaker and the Hearer and the nature of the interaction in which they are involved (Leech, 1983). Within their framework of Politeness, Brown and Levinson argue that three different sociological variables, determine the weightiness of a FTA, perhaps in all cultur
33、es. These are the following:- the social distance (D) of Speaker and Hearer (a symmetric relation)- the relative power (P) of Speaker and Hearer (an asymmetric relation)- the absolute ranking (R) of imposition in the particular culture.Moreover, according to their hypothesis, these variables have an
34、 actual value only when there is a mutual knowledge of their meaning between the interactants.Nevertheless, even though certain pragmatic features do manifest themselves in any natural language, the issue of universality is challenged since the system of variant patterns governing the linguistic exp
35、ression of Politeness, derives from different norms and values that are culturally bound (Sifianou, 1989). This is the main source of criticism for Brown and Levinsons theory, which has shown to be inadequate especially as far as face is concerned, since its exact content is culturally specific.4.Le
36、ech s politeness principleThe politeness principle is a series of maxims, which Geoff Leech has proposed as a way of explaining how politeness operates in conversational exchanges. Leech defines politeness as forms of behaviour that establish and maintain comity. That is the ability of participants
37、in a social interaction to engage in interaction in an atmosphere of relative harmony. In stating his maxims Leech uses his own terms for two kinds of illocutionary acts. He callsrepresentatives “assertives”, and calls directives“impositives”. Each maxim is accompanied by a sub-maxim (between square
38、 brackets), which is of less importance. These support the idea that negative politeness (avoidance of discord) is more important than positive politeness (seeking concord). Not all of the maxims are equally important. For instance,tact influences what we say more powerfully than does enerosity, whi
39、le approbationis more important thanmodesty. Note also that speakers may adhere to more than one maxim of politeness at the same time. Often one maxim is on the forefront of the utterance, with a second maxim being invoked by implication. If politeness is not communicated, we can assume that the pol
40、iteness attitude is absent. 4.1 Leechs maximsGeoffrey Leech (1983), a well-known linguist at the University of Lancaster, believed that, apart from cooperation, there must be something else that interactants all value and follow in conversations. This made him think hard and come to conclude that po
41、liteness is a notion that plays a vital role there to help people to smooth a conversation. Accordingly, his ideas were framed under the Politeness Principle (PP).Imitating Grice, Leech discussed six maxims in his proposed PP. They are the maxim of tact, the maxim of generosity, the maxim of approba
42、tion, the maxim of modesty, the maxim of agreement, and the maxim of sympathy By the tact maxim, it is meant that we all try to be tactful in a dialog by observing two submaxims: 1) we try to minimize cost to others, and 2) we try to maximize benefit to others.By the generosity maxim, it is meant th
43、at we all try to be generous in a dialog in that 1) we try to minimize benefit to self, and we try to maximize cost to self.By the approbation maxim, it is meant that we all try to be approbational in a dialog in that 1) we try to minimize dispraise of others, and 2) we try to maximize praise of oth
44、ers.By the modesty maxim, it is meant that we all try to be modest in that 1) we try to minimize praise of self, and 2) we try to maximize dispraise of self.By the agreement maxim, it is meant that we all try to be agreeable to one another in a dialog in that 1) we try to minimize disagreement betwe
45、en self and others, and 2) we try to maximize agreement between self and others.By the sympathy maxim, it is meant that we all try to be sympathetic to one another in a dialog in that 1) that we try to minimize antipathy between self and others, and 2) we try to maximize sympathy between self and ot
46、hers.4.2Face and politeness strategies“Face” (as in “lose face”) refers to a speakers sense of linguistic and social identity. Any speech act may impose on this sense, and is therefore face threatening. And speakers have strategies for lessening the threat. Positive politeness means being compliment
47、ary and gracious to the addressee (but if this is overdone, the speaker may alienate the other party). Negative politeness is found in ways of mitigating the imposition: Hedging: Er, could you, er, perhaps, close the, um , window? Pessimism: I dont suppose you could close the window, could you? Indicating deference: Excuse me, sir, would you mind if I asked you to close the window? Apologizing: Im terribly sorry to put you out, but could you close the window? Impersonalizing: The management requires all windows to be closed. A good illustration of
