礼貌原则英语

Politeness Principle and the hypocrisy of human kindPoliteness is one of the major social constraints on human interaction regulating participants' communicative behavior by constantly reminding them to take into consideration the feelings of the others. (He Zi'ran 2003)Leech (1983) proposed the Politeness Principle which is formulated in a general way from 2 aspects: 1) to minimize the expression of impolite beliefs2) to maximize the expression of polite beliefsThe Politeness Principle encompasses six maxims: Tact maxim, Generosity maxim, Approbation maxim, Modesty maxim, Agreement maxim and Sympathy maxim. Apparently, as He Zi'ran mentioned, it is necessary to consider the hearer's feelings in order to establish a mutual rapport between the conversationers. Human is really a face-wanting animal (face is Goffman (1959)'s term originated from Chinese). According to Goffman, face is a sacred thing for every human being, an essential factor communicators have to pay attention to. Face wants are reciprocal, that is, if one wants her face cared for, she should care for other people's face.The problem is that Leech naively (in an unoffensive way) believed that most people will stick to these six maxims in verbal interations, or even other human interations. Here is my interrogation: how motivated is every human being in saving others' face? Honestly, I would say that I am not a highly motivated face-saving human being. And I guess that there must be a large amount of people who would agree with me. I think the truth is, most people are reluctant in saving others' face or considering others' feelings, because saving others' face may cost too much of their own face, which is contradictory to the claim that every human being wants her/ his face. Oh, this might look like a logical fallacy. But just suppose in particular contexts, for example, a guy just goes bankrupt and loses his girlfriend at the same day, how likely will he considering his friends' feelings when they (with the disasters unknown)are speaking in dispraise of his taste? So, the most possible situations when the Politeness Principle is used would be those hypocritical situations where the speaker and the hearer both want something from each other (this sounds really evil, right?). But not all people use the PP for this double-dealing purpose. Or does this kind of purpose of being polite happen only among hypocritical people? Or do all kinds of people actually keep this purpose in their mind and pretend that they are polite to others?People can cover themselves well under the politeness strategies they use. After all, this article is a summary of my daydreams that i had when attending pragmatics lectures. Donews首页 Donews社区 Donews邮箱 我的首页 联系作者 聚合 登录 Blog统计文章 - 122 收藏 - 11 评论 - 129 Trackbacks - 0 文章All trivial (RSS)family's works(RSS)Journey logs(RSS)Love Life(RSS)Music food(RSS)Neandertal's daydreams(RSS)Pure Academic (RSS)Short Messages (RSS)收藏LyricsnovelsPoemsProses相册爸爸的摄影你看到我的朋友肯定也是笑的你看到我肯定是笑的我也追星Friends潮汕八卦门猥琐门已故掌门和我一样喜欢手链耳坠的hihi有时间并不免费Jazz Jazzy JazzistsIntroduction to Jazz bands and their discography- a history of jazz before 30sPaintersPoetsLangston Hughes' Biography and Everything else about himLangston Hughes' poemsPennies for Poetry资源丰富的诗歌网站W.B. Yeats 叶芝 (My favorite Irish poet)Readings for goodAtlas of the Human Journey可爱的Shnappi时代书城书评：The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey《出非洲记》维基百科中文Singers & BandsColdplay's websiteCraig David's official siteDeath cab for cutieElla Fitzgerald Eva CassidyLifehouse Louis ArmstrongSidsel EndresenSophie Zelmani Writers存档2006年06月(1)2006年04月(7)2006年03月(1)2006年02月(2)2006年01月(5)2005年12月(19)2005年11月(28)2005年10月(20)2005年08月(1)2005年07月(8)2005年06月(2)2005年05月(13)2005年04月(13)最近评论molly：支持。17：其实发生了很多事，每天都有各式各样的事情发生，永远没有结局，就好象电视剧，一个事情的结束也是另一个事情的开始。 太多太多时候的想法太乱了，以致没有办法写出来，不过这些在心里都是一个过程。 累吧？好好休息一下吧。adah：这期间碰到好多障碍，有客观的有主观的，自己心里也很乱，再加上最近也很懒，也没时间整理心情，可能要缓冲一段时间我才写得出比较好的文字吧。susan：美女，自从拍拖后你就不写blog了 为什么不写写恋爱中的感受呢？you are such a little girl.;)牛牛：我以前读过一篇文章,Susan Bordo的The Male Body(重新发现男性身体的美),里面很多论述如何重新定义男性身体和如今社会对身体的错误认识，很文化很女权主义的一篇论述。可惜找不到中文版本的，在网上也很难找到关于这篇文章的资料。现在的男人也开始越来越担心自己的身体了呢！ ……Politeness Principle and the hypocrisy of human kindPoliteness is one of the major social constraints on human interaction regulating participants' communicative behavior by constantly reminding them to take into consideration the feelings of the others. (He Zi'ran 2003)Leech (1983) proposed the Politeness Principle which is formulated in a general way from 2 aspects: 1) to minimize the expression of impolite beliefs2) to maximize the expression of polite beliefsThe Politeness Principle encompasses six maxims: Tact maxim, Generosity maxim, Approbation maxim, Modesty maxim, Agreement maxim and Sympathy maxim. Apparently, as He Zi'ran mentioned, it is necessary to consider the hearer's feelings in order to establish a mutual rapport between the conversationers. Human is really a face-wanting animal (face is Goffman (1959)'s term originated from Chinese). According to Goffman, face is a sacred thing for every human being, an essential factor communicators have to pay attention to. Face wants are reciprocal, that is, if one wants her face cared for, she should care for other people's face.The problem is that Leech naively (in an unoffensive way) believed that most people will stick to these six maxims in verbal interations, or even other human interations. Here is my interrogation: how motivated is every human being in saving others' face? Honestly, I would say that I am not a highly motivated face-saving human being. And I guess that there must be a large amount of people who would agree with me. I think the truth is, most people are reluctant in saving others' face or considering others' feelings, because saving others' face may cost too much of their own face, which is contradictory to the claim that every human being wants her/ his face. Oh, this might look like a logical fallacy. But just suppose in particular contexts, for example, a guy just goes bankrupt and loses his girlfriend at the same day, how likely will he considering his friends' feelings when they (with the disasters unknown)are speaking in dispraise of his taste? So, the most possible situations when the Politeness Principle is used would be those hypocritical situations where the speaker and the hearer both want something from each other (this sounds really evil, right?). But not all people use the PP for this double-dealing purpose. Or does this kind of purpose of being polite happen only among hypocritical people? Or do all kinds of people actually keep this purpose in their mind and pretend that they are polite to others?People can cover themselves well under the politeness strategies they use. After all, this article is a summary of my daydreams that i had when attending pragmatics lectures. avoid the possible confusion caused by the literal meaning of “implication”, Grice introduces the “implicature” and “conversational implicature”, which refers to “the implications which can be deduced from the form of an utterance, on the basis of certain co-operative principle which governs the efficiency and normal acceptability of conversations.” After mentioning the particular word “say” and conventional meaning of sentences, Grice emphasizes a whole system with four categories , which develops into nine specific maxims or sub-maxims: (1) Maxim of Quantity1 Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange).2 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.(2) Maxim of QualitySuper-maxim: try to make your contribution one that is true.1 Do not say what is you believe to be false.2 Do not say what for which you lack adequate evidence. (3) Maxim of RelationBe relevant.(4) Maxim of Manner 1 Avoid obscurity of expression.2 Avoid ambiguity.3 Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).4 Be orderly. Grice realizes some disputable elements in his system himself, and it turns to be some points of his theory of conversational implicature that are argued heartily by other linguists.Since Grice’s theory of implicature was brought about, whose freshness and significance were recognized immediately by the linguists, most of whom valued highly of them. However, it seems apparent that certain redundancy and even contradiction exist in the theoretical structure, so there appears plenty of criticisms; for example, some linguistics scholars point out the inexactness of the formulations of conversational implicature and the quite doubtful real significance that is related to the inexactness. Some of the criticisms are reasonably based on profound study and deeply analysis of Grice and his theory of conversational implicature. Now, instead of presenting an endless list of sound or unfair criticisms, it is useful for us to look into some key modifications of Grice’s theory of conversational formulas proposed by several contemporary linguists.Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson consider the Gricean maxim to be too redundant. Their view on the communication is that “--- more psychological point of view, defining communication is not a primary concern. --- Our aim is to identify underlying mechanisms, rooted in human psychology, which explain how humans communicate with one another. A psychologically well-founded definition and typology of communication, if possible at all, should follow from a theoretical account of these underlying mechanisms.” From this perspective, they point out the defect of Grice’s view on communication, “--- the main defect of Grice’s analysis is not that it defines communication too vaguely, but that it explains communication too poorly.” (ib, id) According to the theory of inference, communication refers to the audience trying to recognize the speaker’s informative intention. However, you cannot say that recognizing intentions is a formal feature of human cognition, and the awareness of that communication is not only a recognizing behavior. The recognition of informative intentions presents problems, which the recognition of other human intentions does not. Besides, Grice, talking only of verbal communication, argues, “Our talk exchanges --- are characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction --- at each stage, some possible conversational moves would be excluded as conversationally unsuitable. We might then formulate a rough general principle which participants will be expected to observe, namely: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.” This is Grice’s co-operative principle, which is developed into nine maxims classified into four categories. This account of the general standards governing verbal communication makes it possible to explain how the utterance of a sentence, which provides only an incomplete and ambiguous representation of a thought, can nevertheless express a complete and unambiguous thought. Of the various thoughts, the audience need not consider any that are incompatible with the assumption, in which the speaker is obeying the co-operative principle and maxims. If only one thought is left, them the hearer can infer that it is this thought that the speaker is trying to communicate. Thus, to communicate efficiently, all speaker is has to do is utter a sentence only one interpretation of which is compatible with the assumption that he is obeying the co-operative principle and maxims. For example, lets see the following dialogue:(1) A: Do you want some coffee?B: Coffee would keep me awake.(2) B does not want to stay awake.(3) B does not want any coffee.Suppose that A is aware of (1). Then from the assumption expressed by B’s answer, add it to the assumption (2), he could infer conclusion (3). Grice seems to think that the hearer uses the assumption that the speaker has observed the maxims as a premise in inference. Others have tried to reinterpret the maxim as code-like rules, and yield pragmatic representations of utterances as output (Gazdar 1979). Let’s see Gazdar’s proposal from the following remarks: “The tactic adopted here is to examine some of the data that would, or should be, covered by Grice’s quantity maxim and then propose a relatively simple formal solution to the problem of describing the behavior of that data. This solution may be seen as a special case of Grice’s quantity maxim, or as an alternative to it, or as merely a conventional rule for assigning one class of conversational meanings to one class of utterance.” Grice’s view on implicature raises many basic questions. What is the rationale behind the co-operative principle and maxims? Are there just the nine maxims Grice mentioned, or might others be needed, as he suggests himself? Now lets analyze the last part of Grice’s principle of Quality, which is widely argued ever since it appeared. In his essay “Logic and Conversation”, Grice puts two maxims under the principle of Quantity: 1 Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange).2 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. (Grice, 1975)Grice himself admits in the paper that it is disputable whether the second maxim of the principle of Quantity is needed or not because of that: on the one hand, over-informative is merely a waste of time, but providing more information is not transgression of the Co-operative Principle; on the other hand, it is possible that such over-informativeness may be confusing, and it is likely to raise misunderstandings or aside issues; To prevent this kind of inefficiency of conversation, we prefer obeying the Principle of Relation to the second maxim of Quantity. As to the Principle of Relation, Grice recognizes many problems existing in its formulation, “Though the maxim itself is terse, its formulation conceals a number of problems that exercise me a good deal: questions about what different kinds and focuses of relevance there may be, how these shift in the course of a talk exchange, how to allow for the fact that subjects of conversation are legitimately changed, and so on.” However, he considers that those problems are so difficult that he could only leave them to his latter research. Grice’s uncertainty of the Principle of Relation leaves large room for later linguists to rearrange the maxims by their own theory. As an example, Sperber and Wilson put the second maxim of Quantity under a principle of relevance ---- as Grice predicts at the very beginning of his article on Conversational Implicature comes out in public someone may do this. Sperber and Wilson seem to be a little too enthusiastic about the possible overlap in Grice’s theory to notice the complication of conversation, and consequently over-simplify Grice’s principle of Quantity. Laurence Horn recognizes that language in use cannot be that simple; he tries to replace all the Grice’s maxims of conversation by his Q-principle and I-principle, but he is unable to explain the principle of Quality. Horn’s Q-principle and I-principle shows us that he thinks in a typical two-side way. In this aspect, Horn differs from Sperber and Wilson’s single-mindedly focus on Relevance, which is too extreme. However, the balance kept by Horn is still far from the intricateness of real conversation. Both the extreme “Relevance” of Sperber and Wilson and Horn’s two-sided theory of Q-principle and I-principle are simple enough to fit into a clearly organized structure, but how can the real meaning and utility remain in an over-simplified theory? Unlike Sperber, Wilson and Horn, Levinson treats Grice’s theory of Co-operative principle much more correctly; he comparatively has a more serious attitude and constructs a more complex system of maxims. He sets the second maxim of Grice’s principle of quantity as a separate principle, and calls it “Principle of Informativeness”. He is adequately meticulous when he separates the system of three principles; for example, he tries to restrict the scope of the Q-principle to prevent overlap between the Q-principle and I-principle. It may be his over-confidence in his own study on the various theories of communication, Levinson revises Grice’s Co-operative principle, esp. the principle of manner in a new way but he pays too little attention to the principle of Quality; he at least faces squarely the complication of conversation in real life; if his theory is not convincing enough, he has to make a lot of efforts to attempt to account for it in a reasonable way. In conclusion, we should admit that Grice’s theory of Conversational Inplicature contributes a lot to the development of pragmatics as a fresh, creative and independent branch of linguistics; it is esp. remarkable that the theory shows how, in the event of an apparent violation of the co-operative principle and maxims, hearers are expected to make any assumptions needed to dispose of the violation. The theory of conversational imlicature is “redundant”, even “self-conflicting and overlapping”, and to some extent it is too idealized and far from perfect, but the most serious problems in Grice’s theory are those he discovers himself. Grice’s innovative endeavor to create a general philosophical theory of language is meaningful. The significance and the utility are far more important than the issues from many commentators.

我不会~~~但还是要微笑~~~：）

语用准则是源于文化的，是一种进入语言行为的文化准则，具有鲜明的文化特点。礼貌准则作为语用准则之一，也蕴涵着丰富的文化内涵。利奇1983年的所提出的礼貌原则(慷慨准则（Maxim of Generosity），赞誉准则（Maxim of Approbation），谦虚准则（Maxim of Modesty），同意准则（Maxim of Agreement），同情准则（Maxim of Sympathy）)，是根据英语语言的人如何运用“礼貌原则”而使说话恰到好处，从而达到良好的交际效果。顾曰国先生认为，讲汉语的人由于中国人的历史文化特点，而具有自己的礼貌准则(贬己尊人的准则，德言行准则，文雅准则，求同准则，称呼准则)。虽然利奇礼貌原则和汉语的有相似之处，但是在言语行为的实际运用中，中西方在各自的“礼貌原则”的支配下明显的出现了较大的差异。中国学生在使用英语与英语国家的人士进行交际的过程中，往往由于不了解中西方礼貌的差异性，而造成了误解或者谈话的中断，致使交际失败而达不到预期的效果，从而造成跨文化的语用失误。 以往的礼貌原则的研究大多都侧重在两个方面：第一，分析礼貌原则中西方的差异性；第二，同一文化中的礼貌原则的语用失误的问题而本文则是通过问卷调查这样的实证调查，从不同的角度对于礼貌原则的语用失误的表现形式及其成因进行了重新的划定。 本文通过对20名北京语言文化大学英语专业的大一的学生和20名刚刚来该校留学的外国留学生进行问卷调查，分析了由于不同的礼貌的含义的理解而造成的语用失误的表现及其成因。 从词汇的角度来说，造成中西方礼貌原则的跨文化语用失误的原因之一是在两种语言中存在着某些词汇的空缺。比如，中国有师傅，同志，这样的称呼，表现一种人与人的和平相处，而在西方语言中则没有这样的词汇。 从心理学的角度上来看，心理学家认为，在跨文化言语行为中，讲话者总会在心里存在某种语用偏见，从而在称呼，赞扬，要求和道歉言语行为中，把母语的言语习惯带到非母语中。这种言语迁移导致了跨文化语用的失误。 从语用角度来看，根据托马斯的观点，语用失误大体上可以分为言语语用失误和社交语用失误。言语语用失误表现为言语者不懂得英语的正确表达方式，不能结合具体语境恰当的遣词造句，采用了英语的其他表达方式。后者是指在交际场合，言语者的话违背了英语文化中的社交准则，在语言形式的选择上出现了失误，导致了跨文化语用失误。 礼貌原则的言语语用失误原因主要是由于英汉两种语言中的说话者所采取的策略类型具有差异性，如中国人较西方人倾向于直陈语气表达请求等。另外，在英语中多，possibly，a bit，ror a while，haveafook等表示克制意义的词语，语气不生硬。而中国学生则往往的忽视或者滥用这些词汇，从而使得言语行为变得不礼貌。 社交语用失误的原因主要是由于中西方各自的文化的特点造成的。文中主要分析了中美这两个国家之间的文化差异性。其各自的特点使得对中美于话题的接受程度存在着差异，对于什么是自由话题什么是不自由话题的看法不同。这种观念根源于两种文化内涵的差异性。中国的传统文化强调的是集体主义，注重的是脸面以及人与人之间的平和。而西方的文化看重个人主义。 最后，非语言交际总是伴随着言语交际，因此对于非语言交际的正确的理解有时候也直接关系到整个交际的成功的与否。中国人缺乏的是眼部的交流，认为不直视对方尤其是异性时是礼貌的，而在西方则恰恰相反。 正因为英汉语言具有符合本民族文化的各自的礼貌准则，所以人们在实际交流过程中对于什么是礼貌的言语行为，什么是不礼貌的言语行为的看法不同。因此我们在与不同的文化的人进行交流的时候，要注意到的礼貌的差异性，避免本文提到的类似的语用失误的出现。我们教师在英语教学过程中，主观上自身不但要重视学生的语言能力，更重要的是重视培养学生的语用能力，客观上采取行之有效的教学方法，创造有可能的教学条件，让学生大量的与目的语文化接触，使学生获得跨文化语用的能力成为可能。

The Grice thinks that in the language social intercourse the process, social intercourse both parties have to cooperate, following four standards of[with]"cooperation principle", in the most direct way, the tallest efficiency carry on social intercourse.But in actual social intercourse middlemans usually have intention to breach a certain standard among them with acquire special conversation meaning.Cooperating the principle can not explain people why want to talk in a round-about way.For this, the British linguist Leech put forward "manner principle", using this as the complement which cooperate a principle. The Leech points out that people for touching "face" of the other party not and simple and directly, cans be beat around the bush and reserveds to express its true information indirectly, but lets hearer oneself comprehend his "the idea out of the speech".The manner principle is under the circumstance of[with] other condition homologies, dying down the ill-mannered conviction to the lowest limit.Obey some rightness person or third party to say ill-mannered words, or slightly go don't say or the circumlocution speak indirectly[6].The manner principle requests people in the social intercourse as far as possible the decrease have others of, own beneficial standpoint;Reduce to belittle others as far as possible, to own applause;Reduce as far as possible to the inconformity of the others standpoint and the opposition of the affection.Altogether, the manner principle is under the circumstance of[with] other condition homologies, dying down the ill-mannered conviction to the lowest limit, some is ill-mannered words to obedient personses or third party, or go not to say slightly, or tactfully, speak indirectly.

在现代语用学理论当中，合作原则和礼貌原则是两个主要的理论。为了“拯救”和补充合作原则，英国语言学家利奇（Leech）提出了礼貌原则这个理论。他自己罗列出了相关的六项关于礼貌原则的准则，为了尽可能详细的阐明礼貌原则。后来提出的“脸面理论”同样是也是关于礼貌的相关理论。实际上，在日常交际过程中，我们对他人所表现出来的礼貌都可以说是为了保护自己的面子。我们首先将简单介绍这三个理论，然后会就礼貌原则在两个领域的应用来展开分析讨论。通过对礼貌原则在英语商业信函和委婉语的使用的应用的介绍，我们能更好的掌握了解礼貌原则。1.1975年,格赖斯(H.Paul Grice)在其 论文《逻辑与会话》(Logic and Conversation)中创造性地提出会话准则(conversational maxim)理论,认为交际参与者必须遵循合作原则才能展开正常的交流。其中：1)数量准则( The maxim of quantity):指所提供的信息的量。①所说的话应包含为当前交谈目的所需要的信息;②所说的话不应包含多于需要的信息。For example:—Excuse me, could you tell me what time is it?—It’s ten o’clock, fifteen minutes, twenty seconds and in the year 2015.在这里，我们可以看到听者想要知道时间，但是说话者告诉他非常准确的时间会让听众感到困惑。 说话者使他的贡献更具信息性，并告诉听者一些不必要的信息。 因此，说话者违反了数量准则。2)质量准则( The maxim of quality):所说的话力求真实,尤其是：①不要说自知是虚假的话;②不要说缺乏足够证据的话。For example:—John, do you know where the No.1 Middle School is?—It is at the end of the street.在我们上面提到的对话中，观察到了质量准则。 John没有贡献他认为是错误的信息以及John所说的完全理解的东西。John知道学校在哪里，他直接告诉学校的位置，这是说话者想要的正确信息。