ÀñòÓïÓÃѧ

ÀñòÓïÓÃѧ ½ÚÑ¡

¡¡¡¡¡¶Å£½òÉç»áÓïÑÔѧ´ÔÊ飺ÀñòÓïÓÃѧ¡·£º¡¡¡¡Gu's reworking of my Generosity Maxim opened my eyes to a fiaw in the 1983 model; also his Balance Principle£¬ which recognizes the important element of balance or equilibrium underlying mutual politeness£¬ needs to be recognized as an essential component of why people are polite. Other writers£¬ such as Watts and Spencer-Oatey£¬ also recognize this¡¡¡¡The idea that politeness is normative comes out particularly strongly in the conversational contract view of Fraser and Nolen£¬ but it is also an essential feature of other models£¬ including my own. As I see it£¬ the nature of sociopragmatic politeness £¨as opposed to pragrnalinguistic politeness£© involves convergence on£¬ or divergence from£¬ a norm of what is regarded as appropriately polite for a given set of situational parameters The normative nature of politeness has been questioned by Eelen £¨2001£©£¬ because it appears to make the exercise of politeness an impediment to the individual's freedom of behavior. However£¬ awareness of a norm does not compel obedience to a norm. Certainly a norm is not to be seen as some kind of superimposed restriction on behavior. Empirically£¬ I see no problem in recognizing the existence of statistically observable politeness norms £¨as shown£¬ for example£¬ by convergent responses to discourse completion tasks and multiple choice questionnaires"£© as a background against which individual performances can deviate Moreover£¬ we carry around with us some contextually tunable sense of what is normal politeness as part of our social-co8:nitive response to communicative situations When the comment is made that a person is "very polite£¬" or "a little bit rude£¬" and so on£¬ we are implicitly acknowledging; such a norm£¬ from which individuals' behavior can deviate in a positive or negative direction.¡¡¡¡Arndt and Janney lay great store on the responsiveness of the whole person in politeness; for them£¬ the purely linguistic aspect of politeness must be integrated with other components of interpersonal emotive communication£¬ including prosody£¬ paralinguistics£¬ gesture£¬ eye gaze£¬ kinesics£¬ and proxemics. I recognize the importance of these additional channels of communication£¬ and in fact it has often been commented that the nonlinguistic channels may be more important for impressions of politeness than the actual words said. At the same time£¬ I have to admit that little space in this book will be devoted to these features£¬ which demand a rather different research paradigm. My two excuses for largely omitting nonlinguistic and prosodic aspects of politeness are that my research endeavor does not extend beyond the linguistic£¬ and that the corpora I have mainly used for examples do not provide paralinguistic or prosodic information. On the other hand£¬ Arndt and Janney's characterization of politeness in terms of supportiveness is something I find compatible with my General Strategy of Politeness £¨GSP; 4.3£©£¬ which identifies politeness with the assigning of high value to the other person's concerns and Iow value to one's own. Indeed£¬ the two ideas are very closely associated: being supportive means giving compatbetic support-something of value-to another person. Amdt and Janney's approach in particular highlights the importance of one of the constituent maxims of the GSP: the Sympathy Maxim£¬ which focuses especially on the goal of identifying one's own feelings with the feelings of the other.¡¡¡¡Ideals distinction between Discernment and Volition as two types of politeness£¬ the former more associated with Eastern cultures and the latter with Western cultures£¬ corresponds in essence to my distinction between bivalent and trivalent politeness £¨1.2.1£©£¬ the former being richly developed in languages such as Japanese that have elaborate honorific systems£¬ I also see these bivalent and trivalent conceptions of politeness as leaning respectively toward a sociolinguistic domain and a pragmatic one. As opposed to pragmatics£¬ sociolinguistics tends to deal with variables that are relatively stable across time £¨Thomas 1995: 185-187£©: variables such as the gender£¬ age£¬ social networks£¬ and social relations as measured according to B&L's P and D factors Hence bivalent politeness £¨"discernment"£©£¬ with its social indexing function£¬ belongs here rather than to pragmatics. On the other hand£¬ trivalent politeness £¨"volition"£©£¬ dealing with dynanuc 8oal-driven communicative behavior£¬ belongs more to pragmatics The goal-driven nature of trivalent politeness is likely to vary from one encounter to another£¬ depending on the individual goals£¬ as well as social goals£¬ adopted by S. However£¬ the two politenesses are not separate£¬ and honorific usage can interact dynamically with context£¬ as has been shown for Japanese¡¡¡¡by Okamoto £¨1999£©.¡¡¡¡¡­¡­