Indirectness And Politeness In Communication

It is universal that the phenomenon of politeness and indirectness exist in communication, which is the primary content in pragmatics study. In 1970's, the focus of pragmatics study not only try to explain that how language users convey their actual intention by employing indirect expression, but also to point out why they use indirect way to express their meaning. There are several motives and reasons for the use of indirectness. One of them is that indirectness is motivated by politeness. In this thesis, we try to explore the relationship between politeness and indirectness.Chapter 1 is the literature review. It is introduced the theories related to indirectness and politeness. In 1962, an English philosopher J.L. Austin put forward "The Speech Act Theory"; then his student, an American philosopher, J.R. Searl put forth "The Indirect Speech Act Theory". The two theories are the basic concepts to understand directness. In 1976, HP. Grice explained his conversational Implicature, which enriched the theory of indirectness. In the study of politeness, it is widely known that Brown & Levison FTAS (Face-threating acts) and Leech's PP (The Politeness Principle) are well present and influential. However, there are many deficiencies in their theories.Chapter 2 describes the understanding indirectness. In communication people do not usually employ direct way to convey their meaning but use indirect way to express their intention. There are many motives for the use of indirectness and ten ways are employed in indirect expression. Finally, in this chapter we analyze the factors, which affect the appliance in directness, including culture differences, power, imposition and obligation.Chapter 3 is about the relationship between politeness and pragmaticdistance. Pragmatic distance is defined as "the intimacy between the speaker and hearer as revealed in a particular communicative event." The closer the pragmatic distance is between interlocutors (the higher degree of intimacy), the lower politeness degree is required. The farther the pragmatic distance is between them (the lower degree of intimacy), the higher politeness degree is required. On the basis of analysis, politeness is divided into linguistic politeness and utterance politeness. Linguistic politeness is static without communicative value, which is defined by linguistic forms; while utterance politeness is dynamic and determined by pragmatic distance between interlocutors (in the hearer's perception).Chapter 4 analyzes the relationship between indirectness and politeness. The relationship between indirectness and linguistic politeness is determined by speech manner and prepositional content. The relationship between indirectness and utterance politeness is incongruous. Indirect expressions may be polite, impolite, which is determined by pragmatic distance. Generally, the lower intimacy degree (i.e. the farther pragmatic distance) needs indirect expression. If the interlocutors recognize the pragmatic distance, the indirect expression is politeness. On the contrary, if they have the closer pragmatic distance, the indirect expression could not achieve the polite effect.Chapter 5 is conclusion. The relationship between politeness and indirectness can be explained by dividing politeness into linguistic politeness and utterance politeness and introducing pragmatic distance.