Towards a cognitive approach to politeness

Abstract The aim of this paper is to argue for the possibility of a cognitive approach to politeness. Modern research on politeness was dominated by a strategic approach for several years: politeness was seen as a result of the rational need for balanced interpersonal relations, and politeness mechanisms were considered universal. However, the investigations carried out on different cultures soon began to show that things were not that simple: cultures strongly differ not only in forms, but also in the social meanings associated with various strategies, in the internal structure of speech acts, or in the expectations concerning verbal behaviour. The conclusion was easily drawn that politeness is a social matter, and hence culture-specific. As a consequence, politeness studies seem to have fallen into an unavoidable contradiction between universality and culture-specificity.

[1]  Henk Haverkate.  La cortesia verbal. Estudio pragmalinguistico , 1994 .

[2]  B. J. Kwarciak.  The acquisition of linguistic politeness and Brown and Levinson’s theory , 1993 .

[3]  Asa Kasher,et al.  On the pragmatic modules: A lecture , 1991 .

[4]  D. Sperber.  The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations. , 1994 .

[5]  G. Kleiber.  Contexte, interprétation et mémoire : approche standard vs approche cognitive , 1994 .

[6]  Stephen Krashen,et al.  Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language , 1990 .

[7]  M. Minsky.  The Society of Mind , 1986 .

[8]  Patrick Henry Winston,et al.  The psychology of computer vision , 1976, Pattern Recognit..

[9]  S. Ide.  Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness , 1989 .

[10]  D. Sperber,et al.  Relevance: Communication and Cognition , 1997 .

[11]  P. Johnson-Laird.  Mental models , 1989 .

[12]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Strategies of discourse comprehension , 1983 .

[13]  John O'Neill,et al.  RELEVANCE AND PRAGMATIC INFERENCE , 1988 .

[14]  H. Haverkate,et al.  Toward a typology of politeness strategies in communicative interaction , 1988 .

[15]  Y. Matsumoto.  Politeness and conversational universals – observations from Japanese , 1989 .

[16]  Maria Sifianou.  Off-record indirectness and the notion of imposition , 1993 .

[17]  M. Sinclair.  Fitting pragmatics into the mind: Some issues in mentalist pragmatics , 1995 .

[18]  C. Snow,et al.  Developmental perspectives on politeness , 1990 .

[19]  Deirdre Wilson,et al.  Linguistic form and relevance , 1993 .

[20]  Deborah Tannen,et al.  Framing in Discourse , 1993 .

[21]  S. Blum-Kulka.  Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? , 1987 .

[22]  Politeness and Conversational Universals-Observations from Japanese in Linguistic Politeness II. , 1989 .

[23]  Dell Hymes,et al.  Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking: Ways of Speaking , 1989 .

[24]  R. Janney,et al.  Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication , 1994 .

[25]  R. Lakoff.  Language and woman's place , 1973, Language in Society.

[26]  G. Leech.  Principles of pragmatics , 1983 .

[27]  H. Arndt,et al.  Universality and relativity in cross-cultural politeness research: A historical perspective , 1993 .

[28]  Deirdre Wilson.  Relevance and understanding , 1993 .

[29]  R. Bauman,et al.  Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking , 1975 .

[30]  E. Keenan.  The universality of conversational postulates , 1976, Language in Society.

[31]  R. Lakoff.  The limits of politeness: therapeutic and courtroom discourse , 1989 .

[32]  Rosemary J. Stevenson.  Language, thought, and representation , 1993 .

[33]  M. Posner.  Foundations of cognitive science , 1989 .

[34]  George A. Miller,et al.  Language and Communication , 1951 .

[35]  A. Wierzbicka.  Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction , 1992 .

[36]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures , 1978 .

[37]  Marjolein Groefsema.  Can, may, must and should: A Relevance theoretic account , 1995, Journal of Linguistics.

[38]  A. Goatly.  Register and the Redemption of Relevance Theory The case of metaphor , 1994 .

[39]  K. Bach,et al.  Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts , 1983 .

[40]  Richard Schmidt,et al.  Consciousness, Learning and Interlanguage Pragmatics , 1990 .

[41]  R. Lakoff.  The logic of politeness: or minding your p''s and q''s , 1973 .

[42]  R. Adolphs.  Impaired recognition of emotion in facial expressions following bilateral damage to the human amygdala , 1997 .

[43]  G. Kasper,et al.  Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies , 1991 .

[44]  Deirdre Wilson,et al.  On verbal irony , 1992 .

[45]  D. Rumelhart.  NOTES ON A SCHEMA FOR STORIES , 1975 .

[46]  H. Grice.  Further Notes on Logic and Conversation , 1978 .

[47]  G. Kasper.  Linguistic politeness:: Current research issues☆ , 1990 .

[48]  G. Held.  5. Politeness in linguistic research , 1992 .

[49]  S. Gelman,et al.  Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity In Cognition And Culture , 1994 .

[50]  Andreas H. Jucker,et al.  The Relevance of Politeness in Linguistic Politeness I. , 1988 .

[51]  John R. Searle,et al.  Expression and Meaning: Indirect speech acts , 1979 .

[52]  J. Sadock,et al.  Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts , 1975 .

[53]  B. Fraser.  Perspectives on politeness , 1990 .

[54]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness , 1985 .

[55]  Susanne Günthner,et al.  German-Chinese Interactions Differences in Contextualization Conventions and resulting Miscommunication , 1993 .

[56]  S. Tsohatzidis.  Foundations of speech act theory : philosophical and linguistic perspectives , 1994 .

[57]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[58]  C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni,et al.  Les interactions verbales , 1994 .

[59]  R. Lakoff.  Language in Context. , 1972 .

[60]  J. Carlos.  Languages of the Mind , 1995 .

[61]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage , 1989 .

[62]  K. Werkhofer.  6. Traditional and modern views: the social constitution and the power of politeness , 1992 .

[63]  Marvin Minsky,et al.  A framework for representing knowledge , 1974 .

[64]  J. L. Morgan,et al.  Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts. Technical Report No. 52. , 1977 .

[65]  J. Mey,et al.  Computation and the soul , 1988 .

[66]  Y. Matsumoto.  Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese , 1988 .

[67]  Maria Sifianou,et al.  The use of diminutives in expressing politeness: Modern Greek versus English , 1992 .

[68]  Horst Arndt,et al.  Verbal, prosodic, and kinesic emotive contrasts in speech , 1991 .

[69]  S. Ide,et al.  Preface: The search for integrated universals of linguistic politeness , 1993 .

[70]  S. Garrod,et al.  Understanding written language: Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence , 1981 .