1 / 18

Linguistic Politeness: Editor as diplomat

Linguistic Politeness: Editor as diplomat. TECM 4190 Dr . Chris Lam. Linguistic Politeness Theory. Brown and Levinson (1987) Founded in pragmatics and based on speech act theory (Austin, 1962) All utterances perform a locutionary act and an illocutionary act

hieu
Download Presentation

Linguistic Politeness: Editor as diplomat

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Linguistic Politeness: Editor as diplomat TECM 4190 Dr. Chris Lam

  2. Linguistic Politeness Theory • Brown and Levinson (1987) • Founded in pragmatics and based on speech act theory (Austin, 1962) • All utterances perform a locutionary act and an illocutionary act • Locutionary act is the act of saying something • Illocutionary act is the underlying meaning • Does this need salt?

  3. Face and Face-threatening acts • Face is positive self-image (Goffman, 1967) • Negative face- need for autonomy/individualism • Positive face- need for social approval

  4. Relationships between writers and editors • Relationships between writers and editors are often contentious • Writers don’t want editors to “demand a single solution” • Editors can be seen as “controlling” or taking “control of a paper” • Important for editors to be language experts AND diplomats

  5. Editing as an FTA • Editing is inherently an FTA • Telling a writer to make a change impedes negative face • Criticizing a writer (explicitly or implicitly) impedes positive face • So where does politeness come into play? • Linguistic politeness refers to using language to tend to both positive and negative face needs

  6. So, what’s the dilemma? • Relationships between writers and editors is already contentious • Editing is inherently an FTA • SO, editors must balance clarity and politeness

  7. Levels of directness • Direct- Unambiguous • Include a table here • Conventionally indirect- Creates pragmatic ambiguity (2 possible meanings) • Can you include a table? • Nonconventionally indirect (hints)- Creates pragmatic vagueness (many meanings) • Graphic aids create interest

  8. Downgraders • Can be added to both direct or indirect utterances • Fine tune the level of indirectness of an utterance • Can be stacked • Lexical or phrasal (word-level) • I think (Subjectivizer) • Maybe/Perhaps (Hedge) • Possibly (Downtoner) • OK? (Appealer) • You know, (Cajoler) • Just (Understater)

  9. Supportive Moves • Can be added to direct and indirect strategies • Mitigate FTAs • Add semantic content (move beyond word or phrase-level) • This will help the reader find your work experience more easily (payoff statement) • This is a good start, but (compliment)

  10. Direct strategies • Bald-on-record • Locution-derivable • Opinion statement

  11. Bald-on-record • Example: Insert work experience here • Most face-threatening, but also most clear • Some non-native speakers actually prefer bald-on-record • Suggestions for bald-on-record • Mitigate with downgraders (Insert work experience here, OK?) • Mitigate with compliments (I like what you’ve listed, but insert work experience here) • Mitigate Payoff statement (Insert work experience here. The reader will be able to access it more easily)

  12. Locution-derivable • Example: You should include your work experience here. • The locution (force or obligation) can be derived by the hearer • Insert a high-value modal verb • Should, will, or ought • Suggestions for locution-derivable • Avoid passive voice locution-derivable (The table ought to be inserted here.) • Mitigate active voice locution-derivable with downgraders (You know, you should include a table here) • Mitigate active voice locution-derivable with compliments (The content is good for this section, but you should include a table here.) • Mitigate active voice locution-derivable with payoff statements (You should include a table here; it will make it easier for the audience)

  13. Opinion statement strategy • Changes the point-of-view, while remaining direct and unambiguous • Suggestions • Use them! (I would put my work experience before education)

  14. Conventionally indirect strategies • Preparatory • Interrogative

  15. Preparatory • Example: You could insert your work experience here. • Refers to some condition that must be true for the hearer to be prepared to perform the directive • More polite than most direct strategies, but introduces ambiguity • Use low-value modal verbs • Can and Could Suggestions • Avoid preparatory strategies when intent is to convey obligations • Reserve for possibility or options (You could remove your references)

  16. Interrogative strategy • Example: Can you include work experience here? • Less direct than all previous • States directive as a question Suggestions • Avoid when obligation is intended. • Reserve for actual inquiries (Can you include more information for each work entry?)

  17. Non-Conventionally Indirect Strategies • Example: Work experience is typically included here. • Strong hints (This section has a lot of information) • Mild hints (Tables can help when you have a lot of information) Suggestions • AVOID!

  18. Conveying possibility and not obligation • Use illocutionary-force indicating device (explicitly state purpose) • Use with preparatory strategies • You might include more information about your work experience. This is just a suggestion, however.

More Related