Why say it that way?: evasive answers and politeness theory

IF 1.4 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Jessica Marsh
{"title":"Why say it that way?: evasive answers and politeness theory","authors":"Jessica Marsh","doi":"10.1515/pr-2016-0047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Examples of evasive answers frequently appear in discussions of non-literal meaning comprehension. A considerable amount of work on this topic has focused on how this kind of non-literal meaning is generated. Of the researchers who have dealt with speakers’ motives for using evasive answers, and how hearers’ awareness of these motives affects their interpretations, the majority have focused on evasive answers that are not intended to be recognized as such – in Gricean terms, those that violate the Maxim of Relation. Comparatively little research has dealt with answers that are blatant in their failure to answer the question – that is, those that flout Relation.\n This paper proposes that the majority of answers in the latter category can be understood using Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) model of politeness – in particular, that evasive answers are motivated by considerations for both speaker and hearer’s positive face-wants. Evasive answers are defined according to Roberts’ (2012) model of “the question under discussion” and characterized in terms of violating, infringing, or flouting Grice’s (1975) Maxim of Relation. Various contexts in which the latter category of evasive answers occur are identified and discussed with reference to their role in avoiding face-threatening acts. Potential exceptions to the proposition that blatantly evasive answers can be explained using Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) model of politeness are identified, and problems with treating violating, infringing, and flouting as clearly distinct categories are discussed.","PeriodicalId":45897,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Politeness Research-Language Behaviour Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/pr-2016-0047","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Politeness Research-Language Behaviour Culture","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2016-0047","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Examples of evasive answers frequently appear in discussions of non-literal meaning comprehension. A considerable amount of work on this topic has focused on how this kind of non-literal meaning is generated. Of the researchers who have dealt with speakers’ motives for using evasive answers, and how hearers’ awareness of these motives affects their interpretations, the majority have focused on evasive answers that are not intended to be recognized as such – in Gricean terms, those that violate the Maxim of Relation. Comparatively little research has dealt with answers that are blatant in their failure to answer the question – that is, those that flout Relation. This paper proposes that the majority of answers in the latter category can be understood using Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) model of politeness – in particular, that evasive answers are motivated by considerations for both speaker and hearer’s positive face-wants. Evasive answers are defined according to Roberts’ (2012) model of “the question under discussion” and characterized in terms of violating, infringing, or flouting Grice’s (1975) Maxim of Relation. Various contexts in which the latter category of evasive answers occur are identified and discussed with reference to their role in avoiding face-threatening acts. Potential exceptions to the proposition that blatantly evasive answers can be explained using Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) model of politeness are identified, and problems with treating violating, infringing, and flouting as clearly distinct categories are discussed.
为什么这么说呢?:回避回答和礼貌理论
回避回答的例子经常出现在非字面意义理解的讨论中。关于这个主题的大量工作都集中在这种非字面意义是如何产生的。在研究说话者使用回避答案的动机,以及听者对这些动机的认识如何影响他们的解释的研究人员中,大多数人关注的是那些不打算被承认的回避答案——用Gricean的话说,就是那些违反关系准则的答案。相对而言,很少有研究涉及那些公然不回答问题的答案——也就是那些藐视关系的答案。本文提出,后一类中的大多数答案可以使用Brown和Levinson(19781987)的礼貌模型来理解——特别是,回避答案的动机是考虑说话人和听话人的正面愿望。回避答案是根据Roberts(2012)的“讨论中的问题”模型定义的,其特征是违反、侵犯或蔑视Grice(1975)的关系准则。针对后一类回避回答在避免威胁面部行为中的作用,确定并讨论了后一类逃避回答发生的各种情况。明确了可以使用Brown和Levinson(19781987)的礼貌模型来解释公然回避的答案这一命题的潜在例外,并讨论了将侵犯、侵犯和蔑视视为明显不同的类别的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
30.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Journal of Politeness Research responds to the urgent need to provide an international forum for the discussion of all aspects of politeness as a complex linguistic and non-linguistic phenomenon. Politeness has interested researchers in fields of academic activity as diverse as business studies, foreign language teaching, developmental psychology, social psychology, sociolinguistics, linguistic pragmatics, social anthropology, cultural studies, sociology, communication studies, and gender studies. The journal provides an outlet through which researchers on politeness phenomena from these diverse fields of interest may publish their findings and where it will be possible to keep up to date with the wide range of research published in this expanding field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信