Language means of expressing the communicative strategy of politeness in Modern English
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2617-3921.2024.26.116-124Keywords:
the category of politeness, linguistic devices, lexical, grammatical and discoursal downtonersAbstract
In recent years there has been a growing interest in linguistics to the study of its anthropocentric perspective in general, and the category of politeness, in particular. It is being studied on the material of one language within the limits of a single linguistic and cultural community, as well as on the material of several languages in various linguistic and cultural communities in the works of a great number of scholars The classifications of politeness offered show the dependence of the verbal representation of politeness on a wide range of factors. Each classification, developing different aspects of this phenomenon, aims to determine what the interlocutors should be guided by to successfully realize their communicative intentions. These classifications focus on the fact that different types of politeness have different ways of verbal realization depending on a situation, the interpersonal relationship between the speaker and the addressee, cross-cultural factors. The topicality of the problem under investigation lies in the fact that due to the expansion of the boundaries of international cooperation and the increasing role of intercultural communication, there is a great need to know and follow speech strategies leading to successful communication process. Proceeding from the definition of politeness as a phenomenon implying socially acceptable behaviour based on the attention to the feelings of others, aimed at ensuring a successful, non-conflict interaction associated with the assessment of the behaviour of the speaker by the listener being realized in speech through a certain strategy, we can suggest that language means expressing communicative strategy of politeness is a complex phenomenon having its own reasons, strategies, and is being realized through the whole set of linguistic devices, called downtoners. Among them can be singled out three main groups: lexical, grammatical and discoursal downtoners.
References
Почепецька Т. М. Лексичні засоби вираження ввічливості в англійській мові. Сучасні дослідження з іноземної філології. Вип. 15. Ужгород: ПП «Аутдор Шарк», 2017. C. 123–128.
Archer J. False impression. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2006. 375 p.
Blum-Kulka S. The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In Politeness in Language: Studies in its history, theory and practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992. P. 255–280.
Brown P., Gumperz J. J., & Levinson S. C. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. 345 p.
Christie A. The mystery of king’s abbot. New York: Harper, 2011, 286 p.
Gu Y. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2),1990. p. 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-o
Harper A. P. Housewife up. London: Pan Macmillan, 2006. 325 p.
Holmes J. Women, men and politeness. London– New York: Longman, 1995. 254 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315845722
Hristov P. B. Politeness in requests in English and Bulgarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 80 p.
Koceva Ana. The variability of linguistic politeness. Годишен зборник Филолошки факултет, Универзитет „Гоце Делчев“ – Штип, 2023. C. 99-105.
Kusevska M. Меѓукултурна прагматика, Несогласување во усната комуникација: англиски и македонски. Intercultural pragmatics. Disagreement in oral communication: English and Macedonian. Skopje: Akademski pecat, 2012. 120 c.
Lakoff R. T. Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness. Pragmatics & beyond New Series. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamin, 2005. 335 p.
Leech G. The pragmatics of politeness. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. 343 p.
Lee-Wong S. M. Politeness and face in Chinese culture. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2000. 344 p.
Lewycka M. A Short history of tractors in Ukrainian. London: Penguin Books, 2006. 296 p.
Mambetniyazova Almagul. Linguistic and cultural analysis of the concept “politeness”. Semiotica 2024; 258: pp. 73–91. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2023-0141
Maugham W. S. Theatre. Penguin Random House, 2001. 288 p.
Osborne J. A patriot for me; and, a sense of detachment. London: Faber and Faber, 1983. 158 p.
Rowling J. K. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. London: Faber and Faber, 2005. 158 p.
Sifianou M. Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective. Oxford – New York: Clarendon Press, 1992. 254 p.
Sifianou M. The use of diminutives in expressing politeness: Modern Greek versus English. Journal of Pragmatics, 17(2), p. 55–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90038-d
The concept of politeness: An empirical study of American English and Japanese. Politeness in language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992. pp. 281–297.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110886542-014
Watts R. J. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009. 304 p.
Wierzbicka A. Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction (2nd ed.). New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. 502 p.
