The category of politeness and means of its actualization in English legal discourse
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2617-3921.2025.27.124-131Keywords:
politeness category, English-language legal discourse, hedging, pragmatics, means of actualizationAbstract
The article emphasizes politeness as a communicative and pragmatic phenomenon, focusing on its manifestation in English-language legal texts. Politeness is regarded as a complex and multifaceted category encompassing verbal and nonverbal means of expression and communication’s sociocultural and linguistic dimensions.The study identifies the main stages and directions in the study of politeness within linguistics. The classical stage is characterized by analyzing politeness as a pragmatic category of speech and communication, focusing on linguistic strategies aimed at maintaining harmonious relationships between communicators. The discursive stage takes into account mental, socio-, linguistic, and cultural aspects of the generation of politeness, emphasizing its dependence on context and cultural norms. The interactional stage is based on the idea of the joint construction and understanding of politeness by communication participants, highlighting the dynamics of interaction and the co-creation of meanings.Special attention is given to hedging, which is an integral characteristic of English-language legal communication. Hedging mitigates the categorical nature of statements, allowing for a more cautious formulation of thoughts. In legal texts, this is manifested through modal verbs, conditional constructions, and parenthetical words and phrases, which reduce the degree of categorical assertions and provide flexibility in interpretation.The article also analyzes verbal and nonverbal means of actualizing politeness in English-language legal texts. Verbal means include politeness formulas, euphemisms, indirect speech acts, passive constructions, and nominalizations.Nonverbal means encompass aspects such as text formatting, the use of specific fonts, and the arrangement of information on the page, which contribute to the creation of an appropriate tone and mood in communication.Due to its complexity and multifaceted nature, as well as the different theoretical and methodological foundations of its study, various approaches exist to interpreting the category of politeness. The article emphasizes the importance of considering cultural and social norms when analyzing politeness, as what is considered polite in one culture may be perceived differently in another.Thus, studying the category of politeness and the means of its actualization in English-language legal texts allows for a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of communication in legal discourse, as well as identifying the specifics of using linguistic means to achieve communicative goals.
References
Васильєва О. О. Ввічливість в англомовному науковому дискурсі: проблема визначення. Вісник Київського державного лінгвістичного університету. Серія: Філологія. 2000. № 4. С. 20–26.
Ільченко О. М. Ґеджінг в аспекті етикетизації. Мовні і концептуальні картини світу: збірник наукових праць. Київ: Логос, 2000. № 38. С. 147–155.
Кущ Е. О. Лінгвоідеологічні та комунікативні особливості політичного дискурсу Великобританії з питань імміграції. Мова і культура. Наукове видання. Серія «Філологія». Київ: Видавничий дім Дмитра Бураго, 2004. Вип. 7. Т. 3. Ч. 2. С. 116–122.
Федіна М. Інтерпретація поняття «обличчя» як методологічного підґрунтя в дослідженнях теорії лінгвістичної ввічливості П. Браун і С. Левінсона та моделей неввічливості Дж. Калпепера й Д. Баусфілда. Науковий вісник Міжнародного гуманітарного університету. Серія: Філологія. 2015. № 15. Т. 2. С. 157–160.
Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 352 p.
Brown P., Levinson S., Goody E. (Ed.) Universal in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. P. 56–289.
Clemen G., Gotti M., Dossena F. (Eds.). The Concept of Hedging: Origins, Approaches and Definitions. Academic Discourse and Critical Thinking. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996. P. 85-96.
Grice H. P., Cole P., Morgan J. L. (Eds.). Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Vol. 3. P. 41–58.
Lakoff G. Hedges: A Study of Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Con- cepts. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Soci- ety. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1972. 296 p.
Lakoff R. Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper & Row, 1975. P. 45–79.
Leech G. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman, 1983. 442 p.
Vass Ward H. A Comparative Analysis of Hedging in a Corpus of Two Written Legal Discourse Genres: дис. ... д-ра філол. наук: 4.11.2015, Madrid, Univer- sidad Politécnica de Madrid, 2015. 318 p.
Vlasyan G. R. Linguistic Hedging In The Light Of Politeness Theory. In I. V. Denisova (Ed.), Word, Utterance, Text: Cognitive, Pragmatic and Cultural Aspects. Future Academy: European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2018. P. 685–690. DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2018.04.02.98.
