2.4 THEORETICALCONSIDERATIONS
2.4.1 Politeness Theory
26
has some witty expressions, such as ‘having popped off’ or ‘kicked the bucket’
(www.chledu.com).
In brief, the general characteristics of euphemisms are universality, localisation, contemporaneity, differences in gender or age, profession or identity and style or context.
27
They see politeness in terms of conflict avoidance. The central themes are rationality and face, which are claimed to be universal features, i.e., possessed by all speakers and hearers. Such features are personified in a universal Model Person (MP). A MP is one with the ability to rationalise from communicative goals to the optimal means of achieving those goals. In so doing, the MP has to assess the dangers of threatening other participants’ face and choosing appropriate strategies to minimize any face threats that might be involved in carrying out the activity.
‘Face’ refers to an individual’s feeling of self-worth or self-image, reputation or good name. It is described as the ‘public self-image of a person’ and it refers to the emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize (Yule, 1996:60). Such self-image may be damaged, maintained or enhanced through interaction with others (Brown & Levinson, 1987:66). According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 67), ‘face’ refers to two basic needs of every individual:
(1) To be approved of by others (positive face) and (2) To have his/her actions and thoughts unimpeded by others (negative face). Positive face is reflected in the desire to be liked, approved of, respected and appreciated by others and negative face is reflected in the desire not to be impeded and to have the freedom to act as one chooses. Politeness, in interaction, can be used to show an awareness of another person’s face. In this sense, politeness can be accomplished in a situation of social distance. Social distance represents respect or deference whereas social closeness is described in terms of friendliness, camaraderie, or solidarity (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Thomas, 1997:169).
Brown and Levinson (1987:65) constructed their theory of politeness on the premise that many speech acts are intrinsically threatening to face in that they do not support the face wants/needs of the speaker (S) and/or those of the addressee (A). Brown and Levinson (1987:65-67) define face-threatening acts (FTAs) in terms of two basic parameters: (1) Whose face is being threatened (the speaker’s or the addressee’s) and (2) Which type of face is being threatened (positive or negative face). Acts that threaten an addressee’s positive face include those in which a speaker demonstrates that he/she does not approve of or support the addressee’s positive face or self-image, such as complaints, criticisms, accusations, mention of taboo topics and interruptions.
28
When speakers find themselves in a situation where a face threatening act (FTA) may have to be performed, their calculations lead to a decision which results in choosing one of five possible communication strategies. The five strategies for performing FTA are as follows:
(1) Say thing as it is (bald-on record). We address the other directly as a means of expressing our needs. It is usually used in emergency situations, regardless of who is being addressed, such as “Don’t touch that! Get out of here!” This bald-on record form may be followed by expressions, like “please’
and ‘would you’ which serve to soften the demand and are called mitigating devices.
(2) Off record. We utter no word but give hints. For example, when we need to borrow a pen, we just search rather obviously through our pocket and then rummage in our bag. Even if we need to say something we do not actually ask for anything. We might just simply say, “Uh, I forgot my pen.”
(3) On record Positive Politeness and Negative Politeness. According to Park (2008:2202) this leads the speaker to appeal to a common goal and even friendship through expressions, such as, “How about letting me use your pen?” Such on record expression often represents a greater risk for the speaker of a refusal. However, in an English speaking context, a FTA is more commonly performed via a negative politeness strategy. The most typical form used is a question containing a modal verb, such as in “Could you lend me a pen?” Negative politeness is typically expressed via questions - even questions that seem to ask permission to ask a question, as in “May I ask you if you have an extra pen that I could borrow?” Positive politeness is indicated by shortening the distance while negative politeness is indicated by lengthening the distance. The figure given below shows how to get a pen from someone else using Brown and Levinson’s guidelines:
29
How to get a pen from someone else
Say something Say nothing (but search in the bag)
On record Off record (“I forgot my pen)
Face saving act Bald on record (“Give me a pen”)
Positive face Negative face
(“How about letting me use your pen?”) (“Could you lend me a pen?”) (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Yule, 1999:66).
Figure 2.1: Politeness Strategies
2.4.1.1 Politeness theory and euphemism
The aim of politeness is essentially to provide conditions for the smooth flow of communication between the sender and the receiver. Leech (1983:89) identifies five maxims that underlie the politeness principle:
Tact maxim: the interlocutor minimises the cost to the other and maximises the benefit to the other.
Generosity maxim: minimises benefit to self and maximises cost to self.
Approbation maxim: minimises dispraise of the other while maximising praise of the other.
Modesty maxim: the interlocutor minimises praise of self and disagreement between self and the other while maximising agreement between self and the other.
30
Sympathy maxim: the interlocutor minimises antipathy between self and the other and maximises sympathy between self and the other.
Euphemisms are good examples of language usage for politeness purposes. They are words used to soften the reality of the truth in what we want to communicate to a reader or listener. Euphemisms are a feature of language and acquire meaning within the geographical boundaries of cultures. They are used in traditional communities to refer to things considered to be terrifying. For instance, in the African context “gone to the land of the ancestors” is used instead of “having died”. From an anthropological point of view, Neaman and Silver (1983:1-2) explain that “to speak a name was to evoke the divinity whose power then had to be confronted.”
Euphemisms are also used to express taboos, while keeping the speaker at safe distance from the taboo (Alkire 2002). Finally, euphemisms are used to elevate the status of something. For example, the use of ‘attorney’ for lawyer or ‘educator’ for teacher.