Language and Social Relationship in Brazilian Portuguese: The Pragmatics of Politeness 9780292768987

Citation preview

Language and Social Relationship in Brazilian Portuguese The Pragmatics of Politeness

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Language and Social Relationship in Brazilian Portuguese The Pragmatics of Politeness

by Dale April Koike

U N IV ERSITY OF TEXAS PRESS, AUSTIN

Copyright © 1992 by the University of Texas Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America First Edition, 1992 Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to Permissions, University of Texas Press, Box 7819, Austin, Texas 78713-7819. © The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences— Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials,

an si

Z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Koike, Dale April. Language and social relationship in Brazilian Portuguese : the pragmatics of politeness / by Dale April Koike. — 1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. i s b n 0-292-76532-0 (cloth) 1. Portuguese language—Brazil— Rio de Janeiro—Deixis. 2. Portuguese language—Brazil— Rio de Janeiro—Honorific. 3. Portuguese language—Brazil— Rio de Janeiro—Imperative. 4. Portuguese language—Brazil—Rio de Janeiro—Address, Forms of. 5. Pragmatics. 6. Speech acts (Linguistics). 7. Social interaction—Brazil— Rio de Janeiro. I. Title. PC 544 7. R46K65

469-7'98— dc20

19 92

91-28319 CIP

Contents

PREFACE

Vii

1. Pragmatics and Speech Acts: An Overview 2. Politeness as a Social Phenomenon

1

20

3 . A Pragmatic Hierarchy of Politeness in Directives 4 . Deixis and the Pragmatic Hierarchy of Politeness 5. The Acquisition of Strategies for Politeness 87

36 66

6. Further Explorations in the Study of Directive Speech Acts 113 Appendix: Test for Speech Act Comprehension no tes

143

145

REFERENCES

155

AUTHOR INDEX

167

SUBJECT INDEX

171

FIGURES

1. Components of Directive Illocutionary Force 2 . Continuum of Politeness 25

12

3 . Relationship between Speaker and Addressee in Directives 38 4 . Directives Given by More-Educated Respondents 5 . Directives Given by Less-Educated Respondents

44 51

6. Percentage of Frequency of Some Elements of Directives by the Form of the Directive 54

7. Hierarchy of Directive Forms in Brazilian Portuguese

67

8. Directives in a Hierarchy of Politeness and Deference

80

9. Performance on All Politeness Items by Three Age Levels 101

vi

Contents

10. Directives Given in Three Contexts 11. Directives to Child

131

133

12. Directives to Peer 134 13. Directives to Higher Rank

136

TABLES

1. Frequency of Linguistic Options and Strategies in Directives by Register (more-educated respondents) 47 2 . Frequency of Linguistic Options and Strategies in Directives by Register (less-educated respondents) 53 3 . Frequency of Various Elements of Directives by the Form of the Directive 55 4 . Brazilian Portuguese Interrogative Requests versus Confirmation Questions in Three Temporal Settings 73-74 5. Brazilian Portuguese Requests in Interrogative Form According to Politeness 75 6. Verb Tense in the Formal Register in Requests 76 7. Some Brazilian Portuguese Honorifics 81 8. Percentage of "Correct" Politeness Judgments Corresponding to Adult Standards: Type of Item by Age 100 9 . Order of Difficulty for Types of Politeness Items and Age at Which Item is Discriminated "Correctly" 102 10. Reasons for Choosing One Item as More Polite, by Age 104 11. Types of Spontaneous Requests Made by Children to "Elderly Woman" 106 12. Types of Spontaneous Requests Made by Children to Animal 107 13. Results of Listening Comprehension Experiment 119 14. Responses to Question 2 of Listening Comprehension Experiment 120 15. Results of Situation A in Spanish (FL) 122 16. Results of Situation B in Spanish (FL) 123 17. Results of Situation A in English (LI) 124 18. Results of Situation B in English (LI) 125

Preface

c u r i o s i t y r e g a r d i n g the variation of linguistic form and its rela­ tionship to contextual factors started me on this study of pragmatics. Speech acts provide an excellent framework for an examination of linguistic variation, and a focus on directive speech acts, in turn, brings into play the aspect of politeness. With this beginning, the main ideas and concepts in Language and Social Relationship in Brazilian Portuguese: The Pragmatics of Politeness came to be. The examples used in this book come mainly from Brazilian Por­ tuguese, which has been explored relatively little in the area of prag­ matics. From smaller replicative studies I carried out in Mexico, however, and from informal linguistic observations of the speech of casual acquaintances and unsuspecting friends, students, and col­ leagues in the Spanish and Portuguese departments in various uni­ versities in this country, I feel quite confident in stating that most of the theoretical claims I make in this study can be applied to Spanish and, even more broadly, to any Western language. In the course of my research it has become clear that work on speech acts and politeness is by no means complete. In recent years, a great number of studies on these topics have surfaced, some based on work that laid the foundations of speech act study, such as that of Austin, Searle, Morgan, Green, and Fraser, and some questioning the validity of those theories. Moreover, cross-linguistic comparisons in pragmatics will serve to enrich and expand existing theories. Many of the ideas presented in this book were published in earlier works (Koike 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989), and my appreciation goes to the publishers of them. These ideas have evolved and become more defined over time. For this reason, and because ideas and notions can be greatly expanded in a book-length work, one may note some dis­ crepancies from those articles. I would like to thank some of the many people who contributed to the completion of this project. I am grateful to Anete and Hissao

viii

Language and Social Relationship

Arita and Eulalia Fernandes in Rio de Janeiro, who not only assisted in finding informants but who also gave me some different perspec­ tives on the project. I thank Claudia Abreu and Christina de Araujo, my assistants in the Escola de Ensino Moderno (EDEM) of Rio de Janeiro, for their help in gathering the data on children's directives, and Sharon Feldman and Ninfa Burgos-Kohler for the data on adult students' directives in Spanish as a foreign language. I am grateful to all the informants in Brazil, Mexico, and the United States who pro­ vided the language samples that form the basis of my book. I am indebted to colleagues who have encouraged me and shared their ideas: Mary Gay Doman, the late Dana Wheeler, Donaldo Macedo, Janet Swaffar, Antonio Simoes, John Baugh, Joe Matluck, Betty Matluck, Douglass Rogers, David Jackson, and Beth Jackson. I espe­ cially thank Knud Lambrecht for his patience, encouragement, ex­ change of ideas, and careful reading of the manuscript in its early stages. Special thanks also go to John Jensen and Jacob Mey for their helpful suggestions,- to Naomi Lindstrom and Theresa May for help­ ing to see the manuscript into print; to Gina Sconza for lending me her computer and a kind ear. Financial support for various stages of the research was provided by North Carolina State University and the University of Texas at Austin. I thank my friend Eric Daub for keeping the music going when things were bleak. Most of all, I am grateful to my family for con­ stant support and encouragement throughout many frustrating months. I would like to dedicate this book to my mother who, with her quiet grace and dignity in life and death, taught me more than anyone else about human understanding.

Language and Social Relationship in Brazilian Portuguese The Pragmatics of Politeness

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Chapter 1

Pragmatics and Speech Acts: An Overview

1.1. Introduction Much everyday language is ritualistic and expected according to the norms of the particular society. While the exact messages one con­ veys cannot be anticipated, the frames one utilizes to communicate them usually can be predicted in accordance with the social and lin­ guistic context in which they occur. For example, if two friends are trying to decide what to do on a Saturday night, and one asks "What shall we do?" one can usually assume the other will come up with a suggestion, as in (1.1) How about going down to a club on Sixth Street? The How about part of the utterance is recognized as a formula often used to make a suggestion, and the rest of the message as a viable suggestion proposition. The friend may, however, use (or misuse) the formula How about to convey an entirely unexpected kind of message, for example, (1.2) How about keeping your mouth shut? (offense) (1.3) How about making me some dinner? (request) (1.4) How about those Lakers! (praise) In saying (1.2), (1.3), or (1.4), the friend would either cause the other to laugh, as in response to a jest, or run the risk of causing a misun­ derstanding or some adverse reaction. These reactions would occur in part because they run counter to expectations and in part because they do not meet any of the requirements of suggestions, such as the speaker's expression of a possible action toward a goal that the hearer is assumed to desire (see Koike 1989). The fact that (1.2) through (1.4) can be classified into categories (requests, praise, and so on) shows that they are part of the recog­

2

Language and Social Relationship

nized rituals that people use to facilitate communication. These special linguistic rituals are called "speech acts" and form a particu­ larly rich field of study, since they involve the grammatical, seman­ tic, and pragmatic systems of the language and are governed by the sociocultural context in which they occur. Language in social interaction is an ordinary occurrence, yet it is representative of the unique and creative nature of the human mind. It comprises various systems, each one as important as the others in contributing to the communication and comprehension of mes­ sages. The semantic system includes the formulation of proposi­ tions, the conceptual units of messages. The grammatical system comprises the separate but interrelated components of syntax, lexi­ con/morphology, and phonology, components that are directly manifested in the actual utterance. The pragmatic system is in­ volved in the selection of linguistic options available to express the message in a particular way, according to the context of the interac­ tion. Basic to the pragmatic system is a consideration of the effect the speaker wishes to convey via the message and how it is intended that the listener understand it. Linguistic options in the gram­ matical system are selected according to sociocultural expectations, such as those present in situations requiring the observance of rules of politeness. A fourth system involves paralinguistics, including factors such as gestures and facial expressions that reinforce the in­ tent of the spoken utterance!s). All of these systems are intertwined in the communication of language in the larger, global system of discourse. Each of these systems is governed by rules of the language and the society, which create order and organization among the vari­ ous components. This study on politeness is situated in the field of pragmatics, which serves as an interface for several disciplines such as philoso­ phy, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and psycho­ linguistics. The book addresses aspects of politeness as expressed in certain speech acts and is particularly concerned with the type of speech acts called "directives," or acts intended to get someone else to do something (Searle 1976). Directives may be, for example, orders, requests, or suggestions. They represent a complex area of in­ vestigation of diverse linguistic strategies used to communicate a message. The strategies depend on various sociocultural factors. Also examined here is an aspect of politeness not treated extensively in previous speech act research—deixis—which I believe is central to the linguistic realizations of politeness. Most of the observations in this study are based on data obtained in English and especially

Pragmatics and Speech Acts

3

Brazilian Portuguese, which has been explored relatively little in the field of pragmatics. The Brazilian Portuguese language offers a rich field of investiga­ tion of speech acts, since it differs significantly from the other lan­ guages of Western Europe. One finds a wide variation in gram­ matical forms, such as in the marking of verb inflection in command forms. Verb inflection marking actually illustrates a kind of "diglossia" between the prescriptive grammar taught in school and the popular language used in everyday interaction. Moreover, the lan­ guage is undergoing changes that reflect shifts in the class and social structure and advances in technology. The mass media now reach nearly all regions and have stimulated other linguistic modifica­ tions. Thus, the linguistic variation in Brazil provides an interesting and exciting area of research. Areas of pragmatics most relevant to this investigation, such as the notions of speech acts, indirectness in speech acts, illocutionary force, inference, implicature, presupposition, and shared knowledge, are reviewed in the following sections. 1.2. Speech Acts Austin (1962) was the first to focus on speech acts as an object of linguistic study. His theory assumes that language is rule-governed behavior that entails performing speech acts, such as issuing com­ mands, warnings, and apologies. Thus, importance is placed on the production of words and sentences in the context of the performance of basic linguistic acts. These acts are simultaneously performed in all utterances. Austin posits three kinds of act—locutions, illocutions, and perlocutions. In brief, a locutionary act is the utterance of a sentence with a par­ ticular sense and reference, that is, the formulation of a proposition. An illocutionary act is a conventionally recognized social act, such as issuing a command or an apology: (1.5) Write a letter! Illocutionary acts normally have a conventional force—illocution­ ary force—associated with them. This force is part of the meaning of an utterance, since it expresses the speaker's intent, which is part of the proposition of the utterance. If the speaker intends to tell a lis­ tener to sit in another chair, but plans to do it in such a way that the utterance will sound like a polite request, the way the speaker ex­

4

Language and Social Relationship

presses the intent is part of what he or she means to say. The force cannot be reduced to truth conditions; that is, the question of whether it is true or false is not at issue, since one is not judging the utterance in terms of whether what the speaker is saying is true or not. What is at issue is whether the speaker's intent is understood and, in some cases, acted on by the listener. This force is inextri­ cably tied to the performance of conventionally recognized illocu­ tionary acts, otherwise known as "speech acts," within a specified context. What is important is the intended effect of the utterance. A perlocutionaiy act refers to the effects on the listener of having heard the utterance; for example, if the speaker tells the listener to write and the latter does, the listener can then report (1.6) He persuaded me to write. Or the listener can express discouragement or anger on hearing the order to write, since these are also possible effects. As a refinement of Austin's work, Haverkate (1979) proposes an­ other kind of act called the "allocutionary act." This entails the se­ lection of linguistic devices that the speaker believes are most ap­ propriate in making the speech act, such as the selection of verb tense. The devices may be specific or not to a particular kind of il­ locutionary act. Hill, Ide, Ikuta, Kawasaki, and Ogino (1986) posit a similar idea, but label it a "discernment" factor operating in polite systems. They link the perceived social characteristics of the addressee with the se­ lection of the most-appropriate form for the utterance. The recogni­ tion of the social situation of the speech act and the appropriacy of linguistic strategies are certainly part of the act. Austin did not in­ clude this component in his conceptualization of these acts. Searle's work on speech acts (1969, 1976) is an expansion and sys­ tematization of Austin's theory. He proposes a typology of five types of speech act and refines the kinds of felicity conditions, or proper­ ties necessary for the act to be successful in its intent. One of the speech acts he proposes is the category of directives, which form the focal point of this study. In directives, the speaker forms the proposi­ tion of the message (locutionary act), for example, [c a u s e hearer to do X\. The speaker has a variety of options (illocutionary acts) avail­ able to convey this message to the listener, for example, (1.7) Order: Do X! (1.8) Suggest: I suggest that you do X.

Pragmatics and Speech Acts

5

(1.9) Request: Can you do XI (1.10) Hint: It would be nice for X to happen. Each of these options carries its own illocutionary force due to its grammatical and intonational components and the conventional in­ terpretation given the utterance by the listener. Of course, the force of an utterance can truly be measured only in terms of the effect on the listener. But there is at the same time an intended force on the part of the speaker, determined by the speaker's knowledge of and experience with the sociocultural rules of the latter's particular native language and society. For example, a speaker of a language such as English or Portuguese knows that an order carries more force than a suggestion or a request and selects the most appropriate utterance according to a perception of the so­ cial situation, the proposition itself, and the relationship to the ad­ dressee. If the option chosen by the speaker achieves the desired re­ sult and causes the listener to act, then the utterance is said to be "felicitous" and a perlocutionary act has been performed. Felicity conditions include appropriateness, completeness, correctness, and shared feelings on the part of both parties. As Levinson (1983) states, illocutionary acts (and their force) are not captured in truth condi­ tions, that is, the truth or falsity of their propositions, but rather in terms of felicity conditions. According to Labov and Fanshel (1977), certain felicity conditions relating to the need for the act and the addressee's ability and will or obligation must hold for an utterance to convey the meaning of a directive: 1. Need (a) X should be done. (b) Addressee would not do X unless asked. 2. Ability Listener has the ability to do X. 3. Addressee willingness /obligation (a) Addressee is willing to do X. (b) Addressee is obliged to do X. 4. Speaker obligation Speaker has the right to tell addressee to do X. Searle (1969, 1975 :71) lists felicity conditions that apply to direc­ tives—in particular, requests. Besides the condition on the ad­ dressee's ability, called a "preparatory condition," he includes [a) a

6

Language and Social Relationship

sincerity condition: the speaker wants the addressee to do the act; [b) a propositional content condition: the speaker predicates a future act of the addressee; (c) an essential condition: the speaker attempts to get the addressee to do the act. Thus, Searle's conditions deal with the speaker's desire for the act and conditions on the intent and ac­ tual formulation of the utterance. Haverkate (1979) proposes a revision of Searle's framework to in­ crease its descriptive power, especially in relation to directives. He posits six types of precondition, which include the same felicity conditions on sincerity, ability, and willingness discussed earlier, and (a) nonobviousness: the speaker presupposes that the listener will not perform the act without the directive act performed by the speaker; (b) reasonableness: the speaker is presumed to be able to indicate the reason(s) for issuing the directive; and (c) obviousness: the speaker presupposes that a directive cannot be made to bring about a state of affairs that already exists. This last precondition, proposed by Haverkate (1979), relates to the context of the utter­ ance. If these conditions are met, then illocutionary force is con­ veyed and the directive is considered to be felicitous, or successful. 1.3. Direct and Indirect Speech Acts Directives can be classified into two categories: those that are direct and explicitly state their propositions; and those that are indirect and do not explicitly state them. An example of the former are orders, as in (1.11) Fecha a janela. 'Close the window' (command intonation) in which there is no attempt to soften or "mitigate" the form of the utterance. It should be noted that Fraser (1978) uses the term "m iti­ gation" to refer to an intentional softening of the force of the mes­ sage. He prefers this term to "indirectness," since he claims that mitigation implies the effects of an utterance on the addressee and, more specifically, only the softening of unwelcome effects for the addressee. He also stresses that mitigation is not the same as po­ liteness, since politeness depends on the extent to which the speaker has acted appropriately in a given context (1980). BlumKulka (1987), on the other hand, argues that the politeness of con­ ventional indirectness is derived from pragmatic clarity and noncoerciveness in the utterance. I shall use "directness" and "indirectness" in this study, since they address the question of the property of force in speech acts.

Pragmatics and Speech Acts

7

This property is central to the ideas in this book of a pragmatic hier­ archy of directives according to varying degrees of force. I use the term "mitigation" to refer to strategies that one can employ to soften the illocutionary force of a directive speech act. There are more ways to express indirect directives than direct ones: (1.12) Podia fechar a janela? 'Could you close the window?' (1.13) Ta fazendo frio aqui, ne? 'It's cold in here, isn't it?' The indirect directives can be placed on a continuum of varying de­ grees of explicitness and directness. For example, based on intuition alone, one could say that a request like that in (1.12) is more direct and explicit than the hint in (1.13), which, under certain conditions, implies the same directive proposition. If directives are indirect and their meaning must be inferred, then the addressee, assuming that the speaker is trying to be cooperative in the conversation and is at­ tempting to convey a logical piece of information, must rely more on inferential processes to derive the speaker's meaning. The next chapter discusses whether a greater reliance on inference by the ad­ dressee through a less-direct or less-explicit directive leads to a per­ ception of more politeness. Searle (1975) notes the difference between conventional and nonconventional indirectness. An example of conventional indirectness can be seen in (1.12), in which the framing of the directive in a ques­ tion format with the modal poder 'to be able' is a recognized, con­ ventional form of making an indirect directive, given the appropriate social context (see Morgan 1978). "Social context" implies that there is a window nearby and the speaker, at least in principle, has some need for it to be closed. Directives expressed through hints, for example, are sometimes nonconventional, however, and must be in­ ferred from the social and linguistic context. If the speaker utters the hint in (1.13) and both parties are in the addressee's house or in a place where the latter is responsible for the speaker's comfort and can do something to remedy the situation, then the addressee will infer that the speaker is uncomfortable and wants the window closed. On the other hand, if both are in a public building where nei­ ther can do anything about the situation, the addressee will under­ stand that the speaker is merely expressing an observation or else implying a desire to leave. And if both are in the speaker's house, where the speaker is empowered to take action, the addressee will infer that the speaker wants to know if the addressee is cold and wants the speaker to close the window.

8

Language and Social Relationship

By distin guish in g conventional and nonconventional directives, one can divide directives into those that require only a superficial level of inference and those that require much more processing to understand the intent of the utterance. If the utterance is entirely nonconventional and the hearer does not associate any kind of con­ ventional meaning with it, then the utterance is not understood as a speech act. As stated earlier, one of the characteristics of speech acts is that they have a recognizable conventional force. 1.4. Inference, Implicature, and Assumed Knowledge To communicate indirect or inexplicit directives felicitously, some kind of implicature is made by the speaker; likewise, some level of inference is needed on the part of the addressee. As explained in Levinson (1983:2.70), there are several theories to explain this phe­ nomenon. They share the following properties. First, the literal meaning and force of an utterance is accessible to the addressee, who then processes it. Second, for an utterance to be an indirect speech act, there must be an "inference-trigger, i.e., some indication that the literal meaning and/or literal force is conversationally in­ adequate in the context and must be 'repaired' by some inference" (Levinson 1983:270). There must also be specific principles or rules of inference that will derive the relevant indirect force, given the literal meaning and force and the context. Finally, there must be pragmatically sensitive linguistic rules or constraints. These rules govern, for example, the occurrence of preverbal "please" in both di­ rect and indirect requests. Gordon and Lakoff (1975) and Grice (1975) have developed two other inference theories. Gordon and Lakoff posit a set of inference rules, or "conversational postulates," which combine meaning and contextual factors to capture the nonliteral meaning expressed in an utterance such as (1.12). For example, they propose a set of condi­ tions, in essence, felicity conditions, that function in requesting, in­ cluding (a) sincerity: the speaker sincerely wants the addressee to do the act; and [b] reasonableness: the request must be reasonable. They do not go into depth on these conditions, but propose more generally that conversational postulates be added to derive conver­ sational implications relevant to specific contexts and to enrich existing grammar theories. Another inference theory is derived from Grice's (1975) work on implicature. His ideas lie at the heart of felicitous indirect speech acts. To summarize briefly, Grice proposes a set of maxims for non­ conventional implicatures (compare "implying" and implicature),

Pragmatics and Speech Acts

9

which he calls "conversational implicatures." These implicatures are based on violations of a "Cooperative Principle." A speaker must observe this principle in discourse to produce "conversationally suitable" utterances in a "maximally effective exchange of informa­ tion" (p. 49). The principle subsumes four categories of maxims: [a] quantity: be as informative as required; [b] quality: be truthful; (c) relation: be relevant; and [d] manner: avoid ambiguity by being brief and orderly. In directive speech acts, these maxims would lead to the expression of direct and explicit directives, as in orders. Grice suggests that violations of these maxims occur when the speaker "flouts" or blatantly fails to fulfill a maxim. Moreover, a speaker may "opt out" and be unwilling to act according to a maxim, or may create a "clash" between two or more maxims. Assuming the speaker is cooperating in the conversation, whenever there is a vio­ lation of a maxim, the addressee must try to infer what the speaker is intending to implicate without directly expressing it. In these cases, the addressee will use the following to understand the implicature, that is, to infer the meaning: (a) conventional meaning of the words, or other particular referents involved; [b) the cooperative principle and its maxims; (c) the context of the utterance; [d] back­ ground knowledge; and [e) assumed or shared knowledge. Grice states that other maxims, such as "Be polite," may also generate nonconventional implicatures, since the speaker would violate the maxims in order to be indirect and more polite. As discussed earlier, conventional forms help the listener under­ stand utterances such as (1.12) as a request, that is, an indirect direc­ tive, and not as a literal query about any window-closing ability. The reason for this interpretation has been the topic of much discussion (Sadock 1974; Morgan 1978). The literature agrees that, because of the context of the utterance—that is, the conventionally recognized speech act—the listener passes over the literal interpretation to in­ fer the more implicit intent of the utterance. However, in utterances such as (1.14) O, esse bolo e uma delicia! 'Oh, this cake is so delicious!' the addressee can infer that the speaker is perhaps hinting for more cake. To arrive at this inference, the addressee relies not on conven­ tional form, but rather on knowledge assumed to be shared by the speaker and the addressee, to be able to assign the utterance a speech act meaning. This knowledge, also referred to as "presupposition," can take different forms.1 Bates (1976:25) says that "the presupposi­ tion will carry so long as the speaker and listener construct the same

10

Language and Social Relationship

topic-comment relationship between the asserted information and the assumed information." This presupposition can be "psychologi­ cally present regardless of its phonetic expression" as long as the speaker thinks that the intent of the act is shared with the listener. Goff man (1967) presents another example of presupposition drawn from the discourse itself. He offers the idea of "frames," or particular units in discourse. Fraser (1978) applies this notion to speech acts to describe "speech act frames," recognizable to all na­ tive speakers of a particular language. Thus, the addressee, recogniz­ ing the speech act frame (for example, a suggestion), the actual physical setting, and the gestures and intonation of the speaker, in­ fers this context-dependent meaning from the utterance. The shared knowledge is gained from experience in the language and the society and is the basis for communicative competence in the language.

1.5. Illocutionary Force Illocutionary force is a component of speech acts that is always mentioned in the literature but that remains vaguely defined as simply a conventional force through which the speaker intends to communicate the meaning of the act to the addressee. The compo­ nents of this force have not been clearly characterized, as force itself eludes a true categorization. One attempt to characterize illocution­ ary force was "performative analysis," based on the assumption that all speech acts are headed by an underlying performative verb (e.g., I request, I declare), for example, (1.15) (I request) Could you open the window? It proved inadequate, however, to explain the fact that the intent of most utterances must be determined by pragmatic factors rather than by discrete linguistic elements alone, without consideration of pragmatic considerations (Ross 1970; Katz 1977). M ey (1985 and personal communication) specifies that there is no power inherent in words or utterances as such; rather, the force must be drawn from the societal factors determining its meaning, its appropriateness according to a given context, the felicity conditions that should exist, and so on. As Mey proposes, any study of speech acts must be linked continuously to the discourse context in which they occur. For this study, these discourse factors are those external to, or outside of, the actual verbal utterance, including the relation­ ship between speaker and hearer, the particular society to which the participants belong, and so on, but that provide a vital part of the

Pragmatics and Speech Acts

11

illocutionary force. Assuming one has established these circum­ stances and that the utterance or series of utterances has led the hearer to understand a speech act as, say, an order, one can then at­ tempt to characterize the elements of the utterance itself that con­ tributed to the interpretation of the act as an order. Wierzbicka (1985), as well as Bazzanella, Caffi, and Sbisa (1990), propose that there are innumerable linguistic indicators of different illocutionary forces and that they are, for the most part, languagespecific. In a later study, Wierzbicka (1986) defines illocutionary force in terms of "bundles" of semantic components. For example, orders (assuming one understands an utterance as such) are charac­ terized as follows (p. 71): (1.16) I assume that you have to do what I say I want you to do I say: I want you to do X I say this because I want to cause you to do it I assume that you will do it Wierzbicka also characterizes other kinds of directives as well as other speech acts and their respective illocutionary forces. Breaking down this metalanguage, one can derive in general that her compo­ nents of directives include, roughly, [a) an assumption of certain fe­ licity conditions; (b) a perspective of the weight or gravity of the speech act (similar to the cost/benefit distinction of Leech [1983]; see chapter 2 for a discussion); (c) the intent of the act; and [d) an assumption regarding the expected outcome of the act (projected compliance on the part of the addressee). Wierzbicka's proposals that there are many kinds of force associ­ ated with various speech acts and that there are language-specific differences that must be considered are correct. Refining her compo­ nents of illocutionary force for directives, and considering other work on felicity conditions reviewed thus far, the components nec­ essary to formulate a directive (whether or not it is successful) can be defined as follows: 1. Proposition/Speaker's intent; 2. Speaker considerations (e.g., sincerity condition); 3. Weight of the act—includes the gravity of the imposition, need for the act, reasonableness, obligation, and obviousness/non­ obviousness conditions; 4. Addressee considerations (from the speaker's perspective)— includes presupposition of shared knowledge, willingness and ability conditions; and

Figure 1. Components of directive illocutionary force Speaker Factors Felicity Conditions (e.g., sincerity) Weight of Imposition

Proposition

Gravity Nonobviousness/obviousness Need Reasonableness Obligation Addressee Factors (from Speaker's Perspective) Assumptions of shared knowledge Willingness Ability Degree of compliance Form-Force Relationship/Inference Compliance/form and force Inference Appropriacy

Utterance

5. Form of act—includes "force-form relationship," "compliance," "inference," and appropriateness of form. These components are illustrated in figure i. Two components of the last box in the figure are discussed here. First, the degree to which the addressee is expected to comply with the directive can be illustrated in the following examples: (1.17) Open the window (spoken with command intonation) (1.18) Could you open the window? In (1.18), the addressee's desire to comply is addressed. This ac­ knowledgment is "addressee-orientation," or "addressee-based." Ex­ ample (1.17) illustrates "speaker-orientation" or a "speaker-based" directive, in which the speaker acknowledges the addressee's wants and desires little, if at all. These orientations are found in relative degrees and are not quantifiable in absolute terms. The topic of ad­ dressee and speaker orientation is treated in section 1.6.

Pragmatics and Speech Acts

13

A second factor tied to the first is the relationship between the form of the three basic sentence types—imperative, interrogative, and declarative—and the force normally associated with the three formal types in the context of a given speech act. I will begin by say­ ing that one cannot claim that there is a one-to-one relationship be­ tween each of these types and a given force, since each type can be used to express different meanings, given the proper context and in­ tonation. Looking at the pragmatic forms, on the other hand, one sees a different pattern. Regarding directives, orders are typically given in the imperative, assertions in the declarative mode: (1.19) Open the window, (order) (1.20) I want the window open, (assertion) Suggestions, requests, and hints, however, do not have a one-to-one relationship between form and function; there is no single syntactic construction in which they are typically communicated. For ex­ ample, the imperative form of (1.19) can also convey a suggestion, with a change in intonation and in the proper context. In sum, there is a more defined form-force relationship for the two pragmatic forms of orders and assertions. From the perspective of the sentence types, the three types, under no contextual constraints, do not have a definite form-force relationship, since they can be used to express different directives. If one takes the same directive proposition under the same con­ text, however, and expresses it in all three syntactic constructions, one can see a scalar difference in force. Of the three, if we consider the degrees of freedom to respond allowed the addressee, the impera­ tive conveys the most force, and the interrogative conveys the least. That is, the imperative conveys that the speaker's will is to be im­ posed on the addressee, whereas the interrogative allows the ad­ dressee to respond according to his or her will. This form-force rela­ tionship is tied to the first factor—addressee or speaker orientation. Another element is the degree to which the addressee is asked to infer the directive. Most speech acts are formulaic and rely on the addressee's ability to recognize the conventionalized expressions. The addressee, processing the semantic content and the context of the utterance, associates the expression with a given speech act type and derives the intended illocutionary force. If the speech act is not conventionally encoded, then it requires more inferential processing to derive the force and assign it to a speech act category. In (1.21) and (1.22), the italicized portions indicate the formulaic parts of the utterance:

14

Language and Social Relationship

(1.21) How about opening the window? (suggestion) (1.22) Can you open the window? (request) Given their formulaic nature, their common use, and the context, these utterances are easy to process. Hints are more difficult, how­ ever, since they do not include these formulae to facilitate pro­ cessing. Searle (1979a: 3 1-3 2 ) states that in "indirect speech acts, the speaker communicates to the hearer more than he actually says by relying on their mutually-shared background information, both lin­ guistic and non-linguistic, together with the general powers of ra­ tionality and inference on the part of the hearer." In all the directive forms, with the exception of direct orders, the speaker relies on the addressee to infer the directive from the utterance(s). The more the addressee is called on to infer, the weaker the force and the more freedom the addressee has with which to respond. The factors shown in figure 1 also form the basis of a pragmatic hierarchy of the illocutionary force of directive forms. It was stated earlier that illocutionary force is part of the conventional meaning of a speech act. In the case of directives, one can claim that the il­ locutionary forces of these directive types line up in hierarchical form respective to one another in terms of the various factors dis­ cussed earlier, such as speaker and addressee factors. This study posits that a given form has more illocutionary force than another,* it does not imply that it has more meaning than another but rather that it expresses characteristics such as greater linguistic control and inferential "transparency" than another (see Blum-Kulka 1987). The hierarchy, ranging from more to less force, should hold for di­ rectives in any given situation and in any kind of relationship be­ tween speaker and addressee. That is, regardless of the speech act situation, any native speaker of a Western language should recognize certain forms as being stronger in force than others. What the hierar­ chy does not predict, and what is essentially tied to contextual fac­ tors, is the appropriateness of certain forms over others in a given context. 1.6. Deixis As stated earlier, central to the approach in this study on politeness is the semantic notion of deixis, a term borrowed from the Greek word for pointing or indicating. Levinson (1983:54) states that deixis "concerns the ways in which languages encode or gram-

Pragmatics and Speech Acts

15

maticalize features of the context of utterance, or speech event." He adds that it is generally true that deixis is organized in an egocentric way. Fillmore's (1975) three types of deixis—person (e.g., you, me), place (e.g., here, there), and time (e.g., now, later)—are all oriented to the speaker's point of reference, which constitutes the deictic center. Deictic expressions can be employed as strategies for more or less politeness to reflect an egocentric focus in an utterance, referred to by Lyons (1977) as "deictic projection." For example, in (1.23) Eu quero um livro. 'I want a book' the utterance is an egocentric statement on the part of the speaker, who simply declares a desire. Example (1.24), on the other hand, is an utterance that pays some attention to whether the addressee wants to do the action: (1.24) Podia me dar um livro? 'Could you give me a book?' The more egocentric utterance of (1.23) is less polite than the lessspeaker-centered one of (1.24). This "framing" of the utterance to re­ flect the addressee's versus the speaker's perspective is one of several ways in which the deictic system is used to convey politeness. Gordon and Lakoff (1975) also discuss the difference between speaker- and hearer-oriented utterances. They state that one can convey a request either by asserting a speaker-based sincerity condi­ tion, as in (1.25) I want you to take out the garbage in which the subject of want is the speaker, or by questioning a hearer-based sincerity condition as in (1.26), in which the doer of the action is the hearer: (1.26) Can you please take out the garbage? According to Levinson (1983:271), a more accurate principle is that one can state only a speaker-based felicity condition, as in (1.25), while one can state or question all others, although to state them may be heard as impolite, as in (1.27) You can take out the garbage.

16

Language and Social Relationship

In this way, by questioning or asserting a felicity condition in an act, one performs the act itself. These deictic strategies will be explored later in this study, as will how deixis can help explain the order of acquisition of politeness strategies by children. 1.7. Directive Studies As outlined by Yaeger-Dror and Sister (1987), the field of pragmatics has witnessed basically four approaches to the study of speech acts and, in many cases, of directives (I have added some of the references in parentheses): (a) interaction: this approach examines speech act turns in discourse and focuses on the interaction between speaker and addressee (e.g., Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974,- Camaioni, Campos, andLemos 1984; Haverkate 1988); (b)sociolinguistic: other research, in a more sociological and anthropological vein, has exam­ ined the politeness phenomenon and its relationship to variables in the dynamics between speaker and addressee, such as power, dis­ tance, and rank (e.g., Brown and Gilman i960; Scollon and Scollon 1981; Haverkate 1979, 1984; R. Lakoff 1989); (c) felicity conditions: this approach attempts to define the conditions that must obtain for the utterance to communicate its intent successfully (e.g., Labov and Fanshel 1977; Ervin-Tripp 1981); (d) directive force: directives are examined in terms of their illocutionary force, especially since they vary in a "continuum" of force (see, e.g., Ervin-Tripp 1977; Thomas 1985; Wierzbicka 1986). Yaeger-Dror also mentions studies on directives as they are ac­ quired by children (e.g., Garvey 1975; Bates 1976; Dore 1977; ErvinTripp 1977; Bruner, Roy, and Ratner 1982; Kirsh 1983; Holmes 1984; Liebling 1988) as well as cross-cultural research on the differences and similarities of politeness forms and how they may cause misun­ derstandings (Rintell 1981; Olshtain and Blum-Kulka 1985; Fraser 1978; Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984; Blum-Kulka 1983, 1987). This book approaches the study of directive forms and politeness using five underlying assumptions: 1. Directives, and the closely related concept of politeness, which figures into much of their usage, cannot be separated from the sociocultural context in which they occur. Nevertheless, there are certain linguistic elements that can be identified as contrib­ uting to the desired illocutionary force intended by the speaker. 2. Directives are a manifestation of the deictic organization pres­ ent in language.

Pragmatics and Speech Acts

17

3. Directives illustrate a pragmatic hierarchy of illocutionary force. 4. The deictic organization on which the directive hierarchy is based is also reflected in the order in which children acquire directive forms. 5. Although the examples used in this study are mostly drawn from the Brazilian Portuguese and English languages, I assume that the conclusions hold for most Western languages. These assumptions place this study in line with sociolinguistic studies and those dealing with theories of illocutionary force and language acquisition. The book aims to [a] present some ideas con­ cerning the pragmatic hierarchy of illocutionary force that all native speakers intuitively feel but the basic elements of which have never been clarified; [b] explore directives by adults and children in con­ texts of sociolinguistic interaction within a given speech commu­ nity—that of Brazilian Portuguese; (c) explore the speech acts of directives and how they reveal strategies for politeness; and [d] con­ tribute to an understanding of politeness systems, especially with regard to the Brazilian Portuguese context. 1.8. Summary This brief discussion of speech acts and topics related to them is in­ tended to prepare the reader for an examination of aspects of the di­ rective speech act. Chapter 2 discusses the sociocultural notion of politeness and how, in directive speech acts, it is directly reflected in the form of the message communicated by the speaker. The ques­ tion of whether politeness is the same as indirectness, and whether directness is the same as explicitness, is also addressed. I posit the notion of a pragmatic hierarchy of politeness using directive forms ranging from impolite and casually polite to deferent, the last of which entails forms such as honorifics. Chapter 3 deals with the factors present in the utterance! s) that affect the organization of directives in this hierarchy. The factors may be divided into two groups: internal and external. Internal, or purely linguistic, factors include components of the sentence such as verb tense and the framing of the utterance( s) to reflect the speaker's or the listener's perspective, as presented in the discussion on deictic expressions. There are various external, or extralinguistic, factors, including the social context, the directive's degree of im­ position, and cost to the addressee. The principal reason for the use of indirect directives can be traced to the speaker's desire to effect politeness, a desire that is motivated externally by the sociocultural

18

Language and Social Relationship

rules of the particular society. The selection of the most-suitable strategy for a given context is governed by rules of appropriateness. These topics are discussed in chapter 3 in light of data obtained in an experiment on directives in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This experiment was conducted using a questionnaire first with forty-five native informants between the ages of eighteen and sixty, all of whom had completed at least a high school education and were from lower-middle to upper-middle-class socioeconomic back­ grounds. The same questionnaire was also administered to a group of thirteen adults who were exposed to no more than eight years of formal education. For a cross-linguistic comparison, fifteen adult speakers of Spanish in Cuernavaca, Mexico, were also asked to par­ ticipate in the same experiment. Although the data are limited, they suggest several patterns, such as the forms that are used most often in a caretaker, as opposed to a peer or to a formal relationship. The elements of speech acts that commonly occur in the various direc­ tive forms (e.g., vocatives) are examined and several models of the structure of directive speech acts according to speech register are proposed. Chapter 4 presents the idea of a hierarchy of politeness forms and discusses the basis for degrees of politeness. Elements such as verb inflectional markers indicating distance from the speaker's moment of speaking (e.g., the conditional) and the framing of the utterance to reflect the addressee's instead of the speaker's perspective or desires can be traced to the concept of deixis, which is discussed in detail. Brazilian Portuguese honorifics and humiliatives and their relation­ ship to a deictic system of linguistic organization are also examined. Children's acquisition of strategies for politeness is the focus of chapter 5. The notion of a hierarchy of politeness forms is applied to the language-learning situation to see if there is a relationship be­ tween the order in the hierarchy and the order of acquisition of di­ rective forms. By replicating a series of experiments by Bates (1976), I undertook a study of Brazilian children's knowledge of politeness forms. Thirty-four informants between the ages of three and six were tested for passive judgments of pairs of directives, the meta­ linguistic reasons for choosing one form over another, and spon­ taneous requests directed at a puppet. The data suggest a link be­ tween the hierarchy and the order of acquisition of politeness forms. My interpretation of the data differs from that of Bates in that I ap­ ply the concept of deixis to explain the order of acquisition. Finally, chapter 6 presents two issues that may be considered pe­ ripheral, and yet that are relevant to the preceding chapters: (1) the use of polite directive forms in a second-language-acquisition set­

Pragmatics and Speech Acts

19

ting; and (2] variation of politeness forms according to gender within the Brazilian Portuguese speech community. To study the acquisi­ tion of polite directives by second-language learners, I carried out a series of experiments with several groups of language learners at an American university. The study on men's and women's polite lan­ guage is based on data gathered through the same questionnaire used in chapter 3; however, the forty-five adult participants between the ages of eighteen and sixty were not the same individuals as those in­ terviewed in the experiment described in chapter 3, although they shared very similar demographic characteristics. The chapter con­ cludes with more general remarks regarding future exploration of politeness and speech acts.

Chapter 2

Politeness as a Social Phenomenon

2.1. Introduction Politeness is a universal social phenomenon that occurs in specific social contexts. It is often expressed in grammatical structures via pragmatic conventions recognized by a particular society as carrying a certain intended illocutionary force (e.g., please, could you), but it may also be communicated in a series of utterances from which one infers politeness, as in (2.1) A., olha, eu muito constrangidamente tenho que pedir a voce que saia desta cadeira. Voce sabe que esta cadeira e do chefe da tribu, e ele e uma pessoa muito sistematica, muito cheia de coisa, e ele ta para chegar al, de maneira que se ele encontrar voce, vai ser um desespero. 'A., look, I'm uncomfortable about this but I have to ask you to get up from that chair. You know that that chair belongs to the chief of the tribe, and he is a very structured person, really picky, and he's about to arrive here, so if he finds you, it's going to be a mess.' In example (2.1), the speaker communicates respect for the ad­ dressee by stating reasons for the directive and also expresses mis­ givings for having to say it. Politeness illustrates a link between sociocultural norms, lin­ guistic form, and function, a relationship that will be explored in this chapter. 2.2. Background Research Many linguists have attempted to define politeness. The endeavor is made more difficult by the fact that the concept is complex and demonstrates cultural and idiosyncratic variation. For example, in saying "Oh, she's too polite to say anything like that," one is refer­ ring to a different aspect of politeness—that of "saving face"—

Politeness as a Social Phenomenon

21

rather than to an utterance such as "He's such a nice boy; he's so polite," meaning that he is pleasant, respectful, and well-behaved. Lakoff (1973) posits two rules of interactional competence: [A ) be clear, and (B) be polite. Rule [A] includes Grice's (1975) maxims on conversational cooperation, discussed in chapter 1. Rule (B ) in­ volves the following principles: (a) don't impose; (b) give options; and (c) make the listener feel good—be friendly. These three prin­ ciples, as Lakoff states, may necessitate a violation of Rule [A ), since being polite usually requires not expressing oneself efficiently and clearly. These principles reflect the speaker's attitudes toward the social context of the speech act, including the speaker's relationship with and sensitivity toward the addressee, the importance of the in­ formation to be conveyed, the formality of the act, and the effect the speaker wishes to achieve via the utterance. Brown and Levinson (1978) define a broad notion of politeness and divide it into two types—positive and negative politeness—based on the idea of "face" or a self-image that every individual wants to claim. The speaker is constantly aware of this self-image and that of the addressee in verbal interaction and relies on several strategies to vary the communication according to a perception of the need to protect the "face" of both parties. Positive politeness is commu­ nicating to the listener that the speaker's wants are in some ways similar to those of the listener (p. 106). Strategies through which this can be communicated include showing interest or approval of the addressee's wants, claiming common opinions or attitudes, jok­ ing, and giving reasons for an imposition by the speaker. Negative politeness is consideration of the listener's wish to be unimpeded in taking action and having attention. The function of negative politeness, in the case of directives, is to minimize the im­ position o f the speech act. It includes strategies such as conven­ tional indirectness, hedges on illocutionary force, giving deference, apologizing, and disassociating oneself from the imposition (p. 136). The act itself cannot be extracted from the social aspects of the interaction, that is, the relationship between the speaker and the lis­ tener. These social aspects, according to Brown and Levinson (1978), involve the social distance between the two parties, and relative power of both, and the ranking of impositions in the particular cul­ ture (p. 79). Considering each social variable independently, one can see how linguistic options chosen to communicate the speech act are directly related to each. For example, in the situation of a boss giving orders to a secretary, the boss enjoys relative power over the secretary because of a higher rank. There may or may not be social distance between the two, depending on the level of collegiality be­

22

Language and Social Relationship

tween them.1 If the boss and the secretary are in a formal working relationship, the boss will probably use more indirect means to com­ municate directives, as in (2.2) Ms. Jones, could you please have that report ready tomorrow? whereas, if they have an informal relationship, the boss can be more direct, for example, (2.3) Mary, get that report ready for tomorrow. Fraser and Nolen's (1981) notion of politeness is also related to the relationship between the speaker and the addressee and a "conversa­ tional contract" that reflects the status and social distance between them as well as the language that can be used to reflect their rela­ tionship. Politeness is abiding by the rules of the relationship. If the speaker voluntarily violates one or more of the rules of the contract, for example, by interrupting, that speaker can be viewed as being impolite. In an earlier work Fraser states that no utterance is inher­ ently polite or impolite, since it must be evaluated in context, and this evaluation is completely in the hands of the addressee (1978). Recent studies on politeness also focus on this aspect of abiding by "rules" for interaction. Lakoff (1989) says that politeness represents a means of minimizing the risk of confrontation in discourse. She claims there are politeness styles, such as coolness for distance, which conveys nonconfrontation, and warmth for intimacy, which signifies safe confrontation. Ide (1989) identifies politeness as "smooth communication." Leech (1983) also ties politeness to the relationship between both parties and the language used. He claims that "static" features, such as social distance, interact with "dynamic" features, such as the kind of illocutionary demand the speaker is making on the ad­ dressee, to produce an appropriate degree of politeness. He formu­ lates a "Politeness Principle," which, generally stated, is (2.4) "Minimize (other things being equal) the expression of im­ polite beliefs" (p. 81). The function of the Politeness Principle is to maintain the social re­ lationship on friendly terms to enable the speaker to assume that cooperation will follow. One kind of politeness is clarified in a "Tact Maxim," which includes

Politeness as a Social Phenomenon

23

(2.5) (a) Minimize the cost to the hearer. (b) Maximize the benefit to the hearer (p. 109). Thus, if the directive communicates these two properties, the utter­ ance is usually heard as polite regardless of its direct expression, as in Leech's examples: (2.6) Have another sandwich. (2.7) You must have another sandwich! Both of these utterances are polite according to a cost-benefit scale for the addressee in spite of their explicit form, since they express propositions that are of benefit to the addressee in the sense of an offer, whereas (2.8) Gimme that bag! is explicit and of cost to the addressee and therefore is heard as less polite than (2.6) and (2.7). The offer in (2.6) could also be framed as a suggestion or a question: (2.9) Won't you have another sandwich? (2.10) Would you like to have another sandwich? No examples come to mind of a hint used to communicate an offer. This discussion on politeness incorporates the ideas of Brown and Levinson (1978) and Leech (1983) in that this social phenomenon will be examined for its pragmatic and linguistic manifestations within the social context of the dynamic relationship between speaker and addressee. At the same time, rules of politeness such as those postulated by Lakoff, which emphasize a sensitivity toward the listener, are recognized. For our purposes, linguistic politeness is de­ fined as the communication of the recognition of and respect for the social relationship between speaker and listener through the use of linguistic strategies recognized by the society as carrying a particu­ lar illocutionary force. The strategies usually are conventional but are not necessarily so. The degree of politeness to be conveyed de­ pends on the social relationship between the two parties as per­ ceived by the speaker, including the variables of power, social dis­ tance, and the gravity of the imposition. The society's rules of politeness are learned at an early age, that is, that one must speak in a manner that is pleasing to the listener in order to be attended to most successfully (Bates 1976).

24

Language and Social Relationship

The most common or unmarked occurrence in everyday interac­ tion in Western societies is for politeness not to be expressed; that is, people who know each other well do not particularly concern themselves in informal situations with the expression of respect for the social relationship between them.2 Instead, it is more common simply to express what they want to say. This does not mean that they are impolite, or that they do not use, for example, hedges or more indirect forms of communication. It means that the reinforce­ ment of their relationship through linguistic means is not an issue in their communication with each other; however, it is not the norm to be impolite in daily interactions. Thus, there is at issue an interrelationship between the speech act, the message, and the relationship between speaker and ad­ dressee. For example, given a directive of "cost," one can be (a) di­ rect and not impolite—with intimates, for example, "Me da" 'Gimme'; (b) direct and polite—"Preciso da sua ajuda, por favor" 'I need your help, please'; or (c) indirect and impolite—if the addressee tries but cannot understand the message, for example, "Essa cadeira e do chefe da tribu" That chair belongs to the chief of the tribe'; addressee does not understand, so speaker tries again: "Fie likes to settle back and watch the football game" (addressee still does not understand the message and begins to feel uneasy). These are only a few of the possible scenarios that illustrate the complex nature of politeness and speech acts. It is easy to distin­ guish between an utterance that most members of a society would hear as impolite, or at least as rather harsh, such as (2.11) Get this sloppy mess out of here. or an utterance that expresses more "formal politeness," or rather, a register that one would use to interact with strangers, as in (2.12) You may want to store your articles in the lockers pro­ vided. It is not always so simple to determine which utterances are neutral, or do not express politeness or impoliteness, for example, (2.13) Pass the salt. and those that are "casually" polite, or rather, those that follow con­ ventions in everyday language and express some attention to the feelings of others:

Politeness as a Social Phenomenon

25

Figure 2 . Continuum of politeness

Impolite

Neutral

Casually Polite

^

Formally Polite

Deferent >

(2.14) Don't forget to write. What these examples seem to show is that there are degrees of po­ liteness, with impoliteness on one extreme and deference on the other. In between the two poles are degrees ranging from neutral to casually polite to formally polite, as shown in figure 2. An act is not inherently polite or deferent, but is construed as such according to its context and the rules of conduct and expecta­ tions established by that society. Goffman (1967:49) states that rules of conduct impose themselves on the individual as “ obliga­ tions, establishing how he is morally constrained to conduct him­ self," and as " expectations, establishing how others are morally bound to act in regard to himself." These obligations and expecta­ tions define the ways in which polite and deferent acts are expressed and interpreted in a particular society and culture. It will be as­ sumed for this discussion that both speaker and addressee are from the same cultural background, although they may not be of the same socioeconomic and educational backgrounds. Therefore, the as­ sumption is that both speaker and addressee have more or less the same expectations concerning the linguistic behavior of both parties in the interaction. In many situations in which polite or deferent be­ havior is exhibited, the speaker attempts to convey the perception of being in a position subordinate to the addressee in power or status.3 Although the general ideas set forth by all of the research dis­ cussed here are considered widespread in at least Western cultures, data from Brazilian Portuguese will be used as a basis for ideas re­ garding linguistic options used to express politeness. Several crosslinguistic studies of politeness strategies suggest that different so­ cieties attach different values to various features of polite speech. For example, Blum-Kulka (1987) indicates that Hebrew and English speakers vary in their ratings of requests according to directness and politeness due to language-specific norms. She claims that Hebrew speakers value directness, while Americans, although they show a

26

Language and Social Relationship

concern for clarity of expression, value face-maintaining considera­ tions more in their interactions. Thus, the Hebrew speakers in her study rated hints lower for politeness than did the Americans. Fraser and Nolen (1981), House and Kasper (1981), Scollon and Scollon (1981), Hill et al. (1986), Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989), and others find other cross-cultural differences in politeness strategies. While it is true that perceptions of what is polite speech vary by society, cross-linguistic comparisons will not be the focus of this study but rather the strategies used in Brazilian Portuguese itself; however, comparisons of polite speech in Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish, and English will be made to show some differences and similarities between these languages. 2.3. Politeness and Directives Politeness as expressed through various directive forms is particu­ larly interesting, since it is the chief motivation for the selection of one form over another. That is, a speaker will choose one of several ways to express the same directive proposition to be more or less di­ rect in asking for the desired action. According to Holmes (1984), the degree of indirectness is related to the speaker's attitude toward the addressee and also toward the linguistic message to be conveyed. The principal reason for the existence of a politeness hierarchy is precisely the fact that people try to find the most appropriate means to express their intents according to the social context of the inter­ action. A range of forms allows them to do that. It would be ludicrous to try to separate the linguistic forms of po­ liteness entirely from their social context, since the latter is the de­ termining factor in the use of the former. Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish some linguistic features, such as the conditional verb form or the use of modals, that can be used as tools to convey respect for the relationship between speaker and addressee. These linguistic features play a role in the formation of a politeness hierarchy, a hier­ archy that should be recognized by any native speaker of the lan­ guage. Regardless of context, speakers will still recognize an order to be of more illocutionary force than a hint; however, the social con­ text itself will determine the appropriateness of one form or forms over others. The mitigation of illocutionary force, or a strategy for softening the strength of a speech act, has been the focus of several studies (Fraser 1978, 1980; Fraser and Nolen 1981; Holmes 1984). Both hedg­ ing and mitigating of the utterance derive from the desire not to be

Politeness as a Social Phenomenon

27

direct. The question that should be asked is whether indirectness is always equated with politeness. 2.3.1. Does Politeness Equal Indirectness} Chapter i reviewed some of the literature on indirectness in speech acts and looked at theories of conventional and nonconventional in­ directness and inference. Referring specifically to politeness, Leech (1983) suggests that indirectness is an essential part of politeness, that is, that greater indirectness implies greater politeness, since in­ directness increases optionality for the addressee and also makes the illocutionary force more tentative. He posits three scales influenc­ ing the degree of tact that one would use appropriately in a given situation: [a) cost-benefit scale, or the cost or benefit of the proposed action to the speaker or addressee; (b) optionality scale, or the amount of choice that the speaker allows the addressee; and (c) indi­ rectness scale, or the ordering of illocutions in terms of means to goal. Leech is referring in (c) to a continuum of directives from most to least polite, according to indirectness. Blum-Kulka (1987) further stipulates that politeness is associated with conventional and not nonconventional indirectness. Conven­ tional indirectness, which employs formulaic expressions such as Could you XI is easier to understand because of the recognition of conventional markers in the context of the act. When no conven­ tions are involved, it takes the listener more time to infer the mean­ ing of the utterance. According to her reasoning, if the inferential process is too difficult, the request is heard as impolite. Moreover, there may be limits to how indirect one can be in ex­ pressing politeness. The speech acts of orders, assertions, sugges­ tions, and requests, as they rely heavily on conventions to express indirectness of illocutionary force, fall within the limits of easily recognized formulae associated with various degrees of force. If one does not use these conventions and becomes too indirect, vague, and ambiguous in communicating what one wants, however, the com­ munication runs the risk of being interpreted negatively. For this reason, hinting at a directive is probably not very common. In other words, conventional indirectness, as Blum-Kulka states, is desirable, while nonconventional indirectness could possibly be understood as rude. In this way, Lakoff's two rules—"be clear" and "be polite"— could be viewed as separate but interactive; in being polite, one must be indirect but not to the point of being too unclear. Does the fact that a directive is expressed indirectly imply that it

28

Language and Social Relationship

will be heard as polite? The answer to this question undoubtedly lies in the particular circumstances of the directive itself—its content, context, and the relationship of the speaker and the addressee. Nevertheless, it is understood that a directive, which is more easily expressed and understood if it is communicated directly, is uttered indirectly for a particular reason, namely, the desire to lessen its force. According to Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), the lessening of force stems from a desire to protect the face of one or both parties. Using these assumptions, I shall identify some discrete ways to ex­ press indirectness. The next two chapters will explore the elements that help make one directive form more indirect than another. Before proceeding, the notion of "softening" should be discussed. Softening can be accomplished through the choice of a more indirect syntactic strategy and through the use of lexical items such as "please" or the addition of elements such as explanations that show that the speaker feels accountable to the hearer's feelings. One soft­ ens a directive to mitigate or lessen its force, usually out of a desire to protect the face of either the speaker or the hearer. In doing so, the speaker is conscious of the possible effects the speech act may have on him or her. The desire to soften most likely extends beyond the speech act to affect the entire interaction with the hearer. For ex­ ample, after a speaker has very "gently" asked the addressee—a close friend who has just been through a trying experience—not to discuss the details of the experience in the presence of the speaker's children, the softening can extend to the manner in which the speaker goes on to offer a beverage or to recount a similar personal experience. Thus, the desire to soften can lead the speaker to use a special "pragmatic register" that permeates the entire discourse, a register that the speaker does not usually employ in the relationship with that particular addressee. On the other hand, the speaker may soften only the speech act in the entire interaction. In that case, there would not be an entire soft­ ened register established. This study concentrates only on the speech act itself. It is left to future investigations to examine the en­ tire discourse in which these speech acts take place. 2.3.2. Does Directness Equal Explicitnessl One last question should be discussed: Is directness the same as ex­ plicitness? These terms are often used interchangeably in describing speech acts and need to be clarified for our purposes. For this study, directness implies force; that is, there are few or no detours between what one wants to say in a directive and the amount of inferencing

Politeness as a Social Phenomenon

29

involved on the part of the listener. To be blunt is to be direct with one's utterances. Explicitness, on the other hand, implies clarity, and explicit messages are those that do not involve any implication by the speaker. One could not give an explicit hint, for example. Ex­ plicitness also implies the overt expression of a message. Both terms have similar connotations, but explicitness is more limited to verbal expression, while directness can also be used, for example, within the physical realm. One can stride directly toward another person, or look him or her directly in the eye, but one would have to com­ municate some kind of message, such as dislike, in an overt manner to be explicit, as in telling someone you dislike him or her. Explicitness is also involved in conventionalized forms of speech acts in that the people of a particular society recognize those forms to be explicit expressions of speech acts. The content of the utter­ ance, however, ultimately determines its classification as a particu­ lar type of speech act. 2.3.3. Politeness Markers There are also certain expressions in Brazilian Portuguese that are conventional lexical markers of politeness: (2.15) por favor, faz favor, fazendo favor, por gentileza 'please' as well as the use of the conditional verb form, especially with the verb poder in requests: (2.16) Poderia/Podia 'Could' or 'Would you?' Podia, which is equivalent to the imperfect indicative form, is com­ monly used as a substitute for the conditional poderia. This sub­ stitution, as well as the imperfect indicative of queria for the verb querer 'to want' and devia for deveria (infinitive dever) 'should, must', are used for politeness. The use of the conditional as well as other strategies for politeness will be examined in the next chapter. 2.4. Deference Before continuing, the notion of deference in speech acts should be examined. Goffman (1967:56) characterizes deference very gener­ ally as a "symbolic means by which appreciation is regularly con­ veyed to a recipient of this recipient, or of something of which the

30

Language and Social Relationship

recipient is taken as a symbol, extension, or agent." By deferring status to the listener, the speaker is confirming the relationship be­ tween them as the latter perceives it. Goffman sees deference assign­ ment in everyday, interactional rituals, such as salutations, compli­ ments, and apologies. Individuals must seek deference from others, thus interacting and entering into relationships with others. He states that deferential behavior in general tends to be honorific and polite, and that there are two broad categories of deferential behav­ ior: avoidance rituals and presentational rituals. Avoidance rituals emphasize the social distance between the two parties; presenta­ tional rituals convey to the listener how the speaker regards the two parties and how they will be treated in future interaction. They let the addressee know that the speaker is seeking the addressee's approval. Fraser and Nolen (1981) see an overlap in Goffman's definition of deference and their characterization of politeness as a respect for the "conversational contract" that the speaker and listener enter upon interacting. They claim that by conveying more or less deference through the choice of one's language, the speaker is obeying the terms of the conversational contract. If the speaker conveys a status to the listener that is consistent with the contract, then the speaker is heard as polite. If, on the other hand, the speaker assigns either too high or too low a level of deference, then the speaker can be under­ stood to be impolite. Thus, deference is not the same as politeness, since deference is the conveying of status, and an inappropriate level of deference can result in an impolite offense (p. 98). Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) consider deference to be a mani­ festation of their "negative politeness" distinction, in which the speaker must recognize that the addressee has freedom to do as the latter pleases. They claim that there are two ways in which defer­ ence may be realized: (a) speakers humble themselves; or [b] speak­ ers raise the addressee above themselves. Both convey that the ad­ dressee is considered to be of a higher social status (p. 183). Thus, according to Brown and Levinson, deference is linked to an empha­ sis on the social distance between speaker and addressee. Scollon and Scollon (1981) establish a "solidarity politeness," which corresponds to Brown and Levinson's "positive politeness," and a "deference politeness," which corresponds to Brown and Levinson's "negative politeness." Scollon and Scollon's definition of deference/politeness systems as favoring deference, indirectness, or avoidance strategies does not seem to capture the notion of defer­ ence as language used to convey respect for the listener's higher status. One important point is made clear from Scollon and Scollon's

Politeness as a Social Phenomenon

31

work, however: the implications of deference and politeness sys­ tems may vary greatly from one society to another. They suggest that solidarity-politeness systems tend to be short-lived, since they ultimately minimize the differences among the members of the so­ ciety to the extent that the need to have "negative face" or the speakers' right to independence of activity and autonomy leads them to break away from the society to form new groups. They be­ lieve that "deference-politeness" systems tend to be more stable, since differences among members are emphasized and impositions are made with careful respect for the listener's rights. While they are not making these claims for any particular culture, the point of ref­ erence for their study is the Athabaskan society. A difference can be seen, then, in the dynamics of deference and politeness systems over time between more insular societies, such as those in rural areas, and larger societies in which one has more independence of activity by virtue of greater and more varied con­ tacts of interaction. Since the present study is focused more on the polite language of the inhabitants of the urban center of Rio de Ja­ neiro, known as Cariocas, however, discussion is restricted to the context of the larger, modern society. It is difficult to characterize a notion of deference with so many differing definitions, so I shall construct one that includes ideas from the research examined here. First, two questions may be asked: (a) Can an act be polite and not deferential? By the same token, [b] Can an act be deferential and not polite? Goffman says that deferen­ tial behavior tends to be polite. Moreover, if his definition of defer­ ence is taken as a symbolic means of conveying appreciation, then a polite act is also a deferential one, since status is accorded through politeness, but a deferential act is not necessarily polite, especially in the sense of Lakoff's principle of friendliness. Brown and Levinson agree with Goffman and distinguish deference as a part of negative politeness. Therefore, an act can be polite, in the sense of their no­ tion of positive politeness, to establish or reinforce friendly rela­ tions, and yet not be deferential. Fraser and Nolen, on the other hand, would answer negatively to both questions, claiming that one can confer degrees of deference. If one gives a level of deference inap­ propriate to the context, then the act can be read as impolite; like­ wise, if the act is impolite, it also implies an inappropriate level of deference. In other words, for Fraser and Nolen, the two are in­ separable. This study takes the position that the two are separate notions, that one can be polite and yet not deferential, and that one can be deferential and yet not particularly polite. This claim follows to a

32

Language and Social Relationship

greater extent the work of Brown and Levinson and of Goffman. I consider deference to be the ritualized or ceremonial behavior in which speakers engage in an effort to demonstrate their perception of the distance in social rank and power between themselves in the inferior position and the addressee. This behavior reflects the desire to keep direct interaction between them to a minimum, to the point of being negatively polite. That is, contrary to two of Lakoff's rules for politeness, deference may be characterized by the following maxims: (2.17) (1) Let the addressee know that you (the speaker) recog­ nize the addressee's higher rank and power as higher and greater than your own; (2) Don't impose; (3) Don't try to be friendly. As a consequence of the maxims in (2.17), the speaker must rely on formulaic language to convey deference to the addressee as quickly and efficiently as possible. Politeness, on the other hand, in­ volves a great number of strategies used by the addressee to encour­ age goodwill and cooperation by the addressee. Deferential forms may also be used to encourage cooperation, for example, in a re­ quest, but they usually do not encourage or sustain social inter­ action. To summarize, politeness can be divided into two types: (a) that which seeks to reaffirm or establish positive ties with the addressee; and (b ) that which emphasizes the social distance between the two parties. Deference is a manifestation of the second type and may sometimes rely on ceremonial, ritualized language. It can even be expressed with little softening of its illocutionary force, as will be discussed in section 2.5.

2.5. Politeness and Deference 2.5.1. Realizations of Politeness and Deference in Brazilian Portuguese To demonstrate more concretely the distinction between politeness and deference in Brazilian Portuguese, let us look at some examples. First of all, there may be times that a speaker, in desiring to be po­ lite, may choose a nondeferential strategy of expressing something, for example, a directive. Let us suppose that Pedro's boss and his

Politeness as a Social Phenomenon

33

wife go to Pedro's house for the first time. On entering the living room, Pedro could say: (2.18) Sentem-se (informal, Sentam). 'Sit down' On passing around a plate of appetizers, he could very possibly say: (2.19) Comam (informal, Comem). 'Eat' (2.20) Fiquem (informal, Ficam) a vontade. 'Feel at home' These direct commands are polite in that the host is directing the guests to be comfortable or to try some of the appetizers. In other words, he is obeying the cost-benefit principle of Leech's Tact Maxim in maximizing the benefit to the addressee. But he is not being deferential, since he is not indicating to the guests that he is raising them above himself in status or power in this speech act. There may be times, however, that the speaker, in desiring to give deference, may choose a strategy that is not necessarily the most po­ lite. That is, to confer great respect, the speaker may choose to re­ main distant and enter as little as possible into a "conversational contract" with the listener. In this case, the question of rank and power is assumed to be a factor. For example, by using a question, the speaker can expect direct interaction as a response to the question: (2.21) O senhor podia se sentar aqui? 'Could you sit here?' The question may be answered with a grunt, an okay, or a nonverbal signal. By utilizing the declarative conditional/imperfect subjunctive structure, on the other hand, the speaker may frame the request so that the addressee is not expected to reply at all, except to comply with the request. Compare, for instance, examples (2.21) and (2.22): (2.22) Eu gostaria de pedir que 0 senhor se sentasse aqui. 'I would like to ask you to sit here' In other words, given a nonintimate relationship between speaker and addressee and a desire to maintain distance, the declarative structure with the performative verb expressed, as in (2.22), could be less interactive and more deferential, since it does not expect a di­

34

Language and Social Relationship

rect verbal reply, although it is less polite in terms of being impos­ ing, offering fewer options, and conveying less friendliness.

2.5.2. Honorifics and Humiliatives Both politeness and deference are based on the speaker's perception of the addressee in terms of power, status, and social distance from the speaker (Brown and Levinson 1978). The distinction between the two can be illustrated, for example, in the use of what Comrie (1976) calls "referent honorifics," or titles of respect employed to address persons of a higher rank than that of the speaker, for example, Vossa Alteza 'Your Highness' (Brown and Gilman i960; Head 1978; Levin­ son 1983). Honorifics are used to indicate the speaker's recognition of the listener's relatively greater power and higher status and of the social distance between the two parties. Brown and Levinson (1987:23-24) claim that honorifics are "frozen conversational im­ plicatures" in that they carry an inferential load of semantic in­ formation. Another lexical option is the use of "humiliatives," a term coined by Brown and Levinson (1987) to denote ways in which one humbles oneself before the addressee, for example, Seu Servidor 'Your Ser­ vant'. Both are found in the ceremonial register of a language. Brown and Levinson (1987:179) define them broadly as "direct gram­ matical encodings of relative social status between participants, or between participants and persons or things referred to in the com­ municative event." Honorifics and humiliatives, as formulae conveying power and rank differences, are properly classified as manifestations of the def­ erence system of language. These pronouns in Portuguese can be di­ vided into two classes according to the degree of deference they express: (2.23) Less-deferential forms (e.g., o senhor/a senhora 'you'), and (2.24) Highly deferential forms (e.g., Vossa Senhoria, Sua Exce­ lenciaSenhor Presidente 'Your Excellency, Mister President') The pronoun o senhor!a senhora 'you' demonstrates respect and distance but is used in the more popular language and serves as a link between the "high-deference" register and everyday language. Since most Brazilians do not have the occasion to address important dignitaries, 0 senhor/a senhora, as well as titles such as o doutor 'doctor' (used to address an educated man), remain as the most ac­ tive deferential titles in Brazilian Portuguese.4

Politeness as a Social Phenomenon

35

In fact, particularly in oral language, the honorific is used only as a vocative, and there is considerable mixing of other pronouns in the same context, as seen in the following example taken from a tele­ vision broadcast in Rio de Janeiro of a conversation between the president of Brazil and a reporter: (2.25) Excelencia, o senhor acha que . . . 'Excellency, do you think that . . .' If interaction is sustained, as must be the case in an interview situa­ tion, the pronoun 0 senhor is used. It should be noted that many Bra­ zilians now begin to communicate with an official or dignitary using the honorific and then change to 0 senhor/a senhora. This mixture, reported by Azevedo (1981), Jensen (1982, 1984), and others suggests a weakening of the honorific system in general and a move toward a simplification of the system to express deference.5 Moreover, from my observations of middle-class Carioca adolescents and younger children, even 0 senhor/a senhora is becoming obsolete, with a sim­ plification of the forms of address to voce and, in special circum­ stances, tu.6 2.6. Conclusion This brief discussion of politeness and deference is intended to serve as a background to the discussions on politeness realizations that follow in the next three chapters. Since the notion of politeness var­ ies so greatly, it is important to refine our working definition of it, as that definition shapes the ideas and theory to be discussed in subse­ quent chapters.

Chapter 3

A Pragmatic Hierarchy of Politeness in Directives

3.1. Background of a Pilot Study on Directives Grammatical elements in an utterance, for example, intonation, verb tense, deictic elements, and lexical items, can contribute to the perception of an utterance as polite. Chapter 2 briefly presented some conventional markers of politeness in Brazilian Portuguese, such as por favor 'please'. These and other conventions used for po­ liteness in the context of directives, and how they contribute in con­ veying degrees of politeness to reflect a pragmatic scale of po­ liteness, are discussed here.1 Before proceeding, it should be clarified that the term "directive" henceforth will be used to denote those ways of getting someone to do something that is not of benefit but rather of cost to the addressee. To gather data on directives used by educated Brazilians in three types of relationship between speaker and listener, I interviewed forty-five native informants of the city of Rio de Janeiro. All partici­ pants had at least a high school education, and their ages ranged from eighteen to sixty. The twenty-four female and twenty-one male informants were mostly from lower-middle- to upper-middle-class socioeconomic background. Interviews were conducted at the infor­ mants' homes or places of work. I asked informants in individual tape-recorded interviews to pre­ tend they were in three situations in which a person X of social ranking or relationship Y came to their house and sat in a chair re­ served for their very strict father. They were to tell X (embodied in the investigator) that X could not sit there. Person X represented three different relationships to the informant: (1) a stranger of a much higher social ranking than the speaker; (2) a person of approxi­ mately the same social ranking as the informant, and who was con­ sidered to be a good friend; and (3) a child whom the speaker knew well. In each case, a specific person was named to represent X, for example, the governor of the state, a close friend, or a particular

Pragmatic Hierarchy of Politeness in Directives

37

child. In spite of the fact that the situations posed offer only a lim­ ited view of directives, the data gathered allow some insights into the hierarchical order of politeness in Brazilian Portuguese. 3.2. Variation in the Form of the Directive According to the data collected from the interviews, the principal directive utterances in the directive acts expressed across the three registers referred to in the preceding section could be classified and ranked in one of the following illocutionary forms: {a) orders, [b) as­ sertions, (c) requests, (d ) suggestions, (e) hints, or (/) avoidance of giving the required directive. They are defined and exemplified in the following discussion and illustrated in figure 3. The order of pre­ sentation of the various forms reflects their position in a pragmatic hierarchy of directive force ranging from more to less force. 3.2.1. Orders In an order, the speaker expresses the directive in an explicit manner through a direct command, as in (3.1) Sai daqui. 'Get out of here' According to Bach and Harnish (1979), the speaker assumes in this directive form and in assertions (to be discussed in section 3.2.2) that explicitness is acceptable to the addressee, since the speaker is usually in a position of real power with respect to the addressee. This is sufficient reason for the latter to carry out the action.2 As will be discussed later, however, the speaker can also assume that explicitness is acceptable when there are feelings of social proximity or solidarity with the listener. The listener could respond negatively but would be confronting authority or the feelings of solidarity di­ rectly and would then have to face the consequences. In establishing a hierarchy of directives, the existence of a baseor least-marked form of the directive for politeness is posited. In col­ loquial Brazilian Portuguese, this is most commonly expressed as a direct order in the present indicative verb form, as in example (3.1). This form may be considered the base form because it is the closest to the expression of the directive proposition itself. Along the same lines, Haverkate (1979:1) states that the forms of direc­ tives in Spanish (e.g., requests and orders) are variants of the same "impositive act."

38

Language and Social Relationship

Figure 3 . Relationship between speaker and addressee in directives

Orders Speaker in a higher position of control than addressee; directive is explicit.

Assertions and Suggestions Speaker in a higher position of control than addressee,* directive is more implicit, but force is still strong.

Requests Speaker assumes a lower position of control than addressee, allowing the latter more options with which to respond to the directive. Force is considerably weaker than that of orders, assertions, and suggestions.

Hints Speaker appears not to assume any position with respect to control. Directive couched in other communication, which the addressee may or may not grasp. Force is thereby nullified.

Avmdanrp

Speaker gives some other communication, avoiding the directive entirely.

key:

S = speaker A = addressee D = directive X = com m unication other than directive

Pragmatic Hierarchy of Politeness in Directives

39

3.2.2. Assertions Assertions are declarations made by the speaker that usually express some want or need or a simple fact that implies the directive, for example, (3.2) Eu quero que voce sente aqui. 'I want you to sit here' (3.3) Olha, meu filho, nao pode sentar ai nao. 'Look, my son, you can't sit there' The directive proposition is not as explicitly expressed as in orders, but the force is so direct that the listener hears it as explicitly com­ municated. While it is true that there are differences between direct orders and assertions, both are considered to be direct forms since they are both quite explicit in force. It is recognized, however, that the direct order is more explicit, since the need or want statement is a declaration from which it is expected or hoped that the addressee will act. These forms convey very little consideration of the ad­ dressee's desires to comply with the directive. On the other hand, the addressee has to comply, to flatly refuse, or to think of a way to negotiate with the speaker, for example, (3.4) Que tal a gente jogar bola primeiro? 'How about our playing ball first?' in reply to a request for help in fixing the speaker's car. The more direct forms of orders or assertions are the most-explicit and least-polite forms of directives. They also occur only in the im­ perative and declarative constructions, respectively. However, the force of a form cannot be captured solely in morpho-syntactic terms. For example, the following utterance in an imperative form can be spoken with a certain intonation under certain circumstances that could allow it to be heard as a plea: (3.5) (A beggar on the street) Me da uma esmola. 'Give me some charity' Or, by adding the confirmatory tag question tal 'Okay?' the direc­ tive can be heard as a request, such as (3.6) (An adult to her colleague) Senta ai, ta? 'Sit there, okay?' (and then I'll bring you some coffee).

40

Language and Social Relationship

3.2.3. Suggestions In a suggestion, the speaker appears to include the listener in the de­ cision-making process of carrying out the directive or states an opin­ ion that indirectly expresses it but seems to allow the listener the option of following it or not. Due to the implicitly strong force of the directive, the addressee does not have many options with which to respond, other than compliance or silence, without appearing un­ cooperative. The speaker can be in any position of real power in rela­ tion to the addressee, but assumes a higher position through the use of suggestions, for example, (3.7) Olha, A., vamos sentar nessa outra aqui, que papai esta querendo sentar nesta cadeira. 'Look, A., let's sit in that other (chair) here, since Dad wants to sit in this chair' (3.8) Eu acho melhor voce sentar aqui. 'I think it would be better for you to sit here' The suggestion directive is more indirectly expressed through grammatical options such as the use of the nos 'we' pronoun or cor­ responding verb inflection, as in example (3.7), or strategies such as stating an opinion that the addressee should carry out the directive, exemplified in (3.8). Regarding the degree of relationship to the force of the utterance type, suggestions show a range of force due to the variation in syn­ tactic form. Suggestion formulae (e.g., Que tal, Tente), include de­ clarative, interrogative, and imperative constructions. Those that seem to carry more force are imperatives and declaratives expressing assertions; they simply state the speaker's opinion. The inter­ rogative type of suggestion, on the other hand, since it appears to be more addressee-oriented, is weaker in force than the declara­ tive type.

3.2.4. Requests Requests are ways of asking the listener to comply with the direc­ tive. The speaker assumes a position of less linguistic power and au­ thority than that of the addressee. The latter has more options with which to respond than he or she has with orders, since the addressee is supposedly in the higher position and is being asked to do the ac­ tion of his or her own will, as in (3.9) Da para voce se mudar? Is it all right for you to move?'

Pragmatic Hierarchy of Politeness in Directives

41

(3.10) Poderia sentar-se em outro local? 'Could you sit in another place?' Since the addressee is being asked (and not necessarily expected) to comply with the directive, and since most requests occur in the form of an interrogative, which is usually associated with a greater degree of freedom for the addressee, requestive force is weaker than that of suggestions. Requests are usually expressed in my data in a question format accompanied by an explanation. The directive proposition expressed through an interrogative re­ quest changes the force of the directive by putting the speaker in a theoretically subordinate position to the addressee because he or she is asking instead of ordering the addressee to comply with the direc­ tive. The addressee now has the option to refuse without as much confrontation with the speaker as would occur with an order, since the addressee would not be challenging the speaker's authority (Brown and Levinson 1978:74-75). Requests also appear with the performative verb expressed, such as (3.11) Pediria para 0 senhor se mudar. 'I would (like to) ask you to move'3

3.2.5. Hints Hints are ways in which the speaker makes an allusion to the action desired, but never expresses directly what that action is. The speaker can be in any position of power in relation to the addressee, but is probably on the same level or in a lower position, since the speaker does not want to be direct. Among other responses, the lis­ tener has the option of ignoring the directive completely by pretend­ ing not to understand the hint without causing an affront to the speaker, for example, (3.12) Voce roubou o trono do papai, voce esta usando 0 trono! (laughter) 'You stole Dad's throne, you're using his throne!' In hints, the base form is the underlying proposition for the direc­ tive, but the directive is not overtly expressed at all. Instead, the speaker uses discourse strategies that mask the directive and as­ sumes the addressee will understand because of shared cultural and linguistic knowledge. Of course, there is greater risk that the ad­ dressee will not understand the implicit directive, or will ignore it.

42

Language and Social Relationship

3.2.6. Avoidance of the Directive or the Problem The directive or the problem can be avoided through some form of diversion or the invention of another story, or by ignoring the prob­ lem completely, such as (3.13) Boneca, vamos fazer uma coisa. Vamos aqui dentro com titio, que titio vai mostrar umas coisas para voce. 'Doll, let's do something. Let's go inside with uncle, because uncle is going to show you some things' 3.2.7. No Response No response implies being unable or unwilling to deal with the situation. The difference in these options and the corresponding variation in force is based on variation in the three dimensions of a directive mentioned earlier: [a) the speaker's relationship to the addressee; (b) the directness in illocutionary force with which the directive is conveyed; and (c) the options left to the addressee with which to re­ spond to the directive. Complete avoidance of the directive through a diversion or no re­ sponse could be included in the hierarchy, but these options are not directives, since they fail to communicate the propositional intent. By using diversions, the speaker may be successful in getting the ad­ dressee to perform the action desired, but through entirely different means than a directive speech act. For this reason, diversions are not considered part of a directive hierarchy. 3.3. Intonation Intonation is as important a component in speech acts as their syn­ tactic, lexical, and pragmatic elements. Several structurally and lex­ ically identical structures could be heard as an order, a request, an entreaty, or other forms through variation in intonation, for example, (3.14) Me da isso! 'Give me that!' (command intonation) (3.15) Me da isso (in a coaxing tone of voice) '(Come on,) give it to me' (entreaty intonation) (3.16) Me da isso? 'Will you give me that?' (interrogative intonation) Moreover, if a speaker believes a given directive proposition is ob­ vious enough so the listener can understand it without verbaliza­

Pragmatic Hierarchy of Politeness in Directives

43

tion, the issuer of the directive could communicate the intent, for example, through a one-word utterance and an intonation pattern usually associated with, say, orders and a deictic gesture. To express to a listener who has just entered the room that the speaker wants the latter to sit down, the speaker could simply say "O " or "A qu i” 'Here' with a command intonation pattern and point to a chair. An entire chapter could be devoted to the intonational aspect of the directive; however, an analysis of the intonation types will not be discussed here, since the more technical aspects of intonation lie beyond the scope of this study. Suffice it to say that speakers know a range of intonational options that help them convey the intent of an utterance. The three forms of intonation mentioned here will be re­ ferred to in subsequent chapters. 3.4. Social Variables and the Directive Experiment As discussed earlier, the social variables of social distance and power and the weight of the imposition have a direct influence on the pro­ duction of polite forms. Any change in the status of any one social variable will be reflected in the language employed by the speaker. One does not use the same directive forms with a nonintimate stranger of higher status as with one's child, and speakers have at their command a range of options to deal most appropriately with each situation. In the experiment described in section 3.1, one would expect to see the most explicit directive forms, that is, orders, used most in situations in which the speaker does not need to be concerned with politeness, since the speaker has more linguistic control than the listener has and real power in the interaction. One such situation is that of an adult issuing a nonthreatening directive to a familiar child. The more implicit directive forms would be ex­ pected in situations in which more politeness is required, that is, in the formal register to express a face-threatening directive in which the listener holds higher rank and status than the speaker. I derived the numerical frequencies and percentages in the follow­ ing discussions by extracting the main directive utterance from the entire directive speech act, classifying it as one of the directive forms described earlier, and tabulating the results. In a few cases in which the main directive utterance comprised two different direc­ tives, a separate category, labeled "Mixture," was established. These directives most commonly contained both an order and an assertion. I shall also review the options used in the data to soften a directive according to the relationship between speaker and addressee. Since the speaker usually attempts to elicit a positive reaction from the

44

Language and Social Relationship

listener in order to exact compliance with the directive, he or she normally uses some method of softening the illocutionary force of the utterance.

3.4.1. “Caretaker” Register In this register, social distance is at a minimum and the adult speaker enjoys total power and control over the child in ordering the child to vacate the chair. The data in figure 4 show that the m ost commonly used directive form in this situation was the direct order. This finding supports the prediction of explicit directives in this reg­ ister. What is also shown, however, is that some informants com ­ bined these orders with other less-direct directive forms. These other forms may have been utilized to soften the force of the direct order.

Figure 4. Directives given by more-educated respondents

Pragmatic Hierarchy of Politeness in Directives

45

A review of the data reveals that the direct orders are usually given in the verb form corresponding to that of the present indica­ tive, as in (3.17) Toma. 'Take it' which is usually recognized as the syntactically unmarked form of the verb instead of the normatively correct imperative form: (3.18) Tome. 'Take it' Thus, the results seem to indicate that in a situation of little dis­ tance, little consciousness of the imposition, and great control by the speaker, the tendency is to choose the direct order direc­ tive form. As shown in table 1, the frequent orders and assertions used in the caretaker register are most commonly accompanied by the lexical option of the vocative. Other strategies include some term of kin­ ship or endearment, for example, (3.19) Sai dai, molequinho. 'Get out of there, you rascal' Brown and Levinson (1978: x13) note that the use of "in-group ad­ dress forms," such as "pal" or "honey," has the effect of turning a command into a request. Slang expressions, such as (3.20) Sai dai, molequinho, que eu vou te dar um esporro danado. 'Get out of there, you rascal, because I'm going to give you a damn hard time' tag questions, and explanations often accompany the directive. All of them build a feeling of solidarity with the addressee, as does the use of the pronoun nos/a gente 'we'. However, the warnings of sanc­ tions serve to reinforce the gravity of the directive and ensure that the addressee will comply: (3.21) O vovo vai chegar, e vai ficar zangado. 'Grandpa is coming, and he's gonna get angry' 3.4.2. “Peer” Register In the informal "peer" register, used with a friend of the same social rank and status, there should be no social distance between the two

46

Language and Social Relationship

and no presupposition of power by either speaker or addressee. The speaker chooses to communicate a perception of who has control in the situation through a particular form of the language. In the re­ sults of this experiment (fig. 4), the most commonly employed direc­ tives are direct orders and requests. This shows some vacillation be­ tween the most-explicit form and the other more-polite forms. This vacillation can be attributed to individual personality traits (i.e., more or less assertiveness), to the degree of familiarity with the ad­ dressee, and to a perception of the gravity of the imposition. The data suggest that in situations in which there is no difference in real power between speaker and addressee, the speaker gives linguistic clues about the position of control he or she desires in the situation. As in the caretaker register, directives in the peer register, usually in the form of orders, requests, and suggestions, are softened through the lexical options of the vocative. An explanation is almost always given along with the directive (see table 1). Moreover, in this register marked for informality, much softening of the directive is done through other strategies to build solidarity with the hearer. This is accomplished through the use of jokes and laughter, such as (3.22) Voce sabe que esta cadeira e do chefe da tribu, e ele e uma pessoa muito sistematica, muito cheia de coisa, e ele ta para chegar ai. 'You know that this chair belongs to the chief of the tribe, and he is a very structured person, full of quirks, and he is about to arrive' slang, seen in (3.23) Meu pai nao gosta, e tal, e depois ele da uma bronca em mim, sabe como e que e. 'My dad doesn't like it, and then he'll give it to me, you know how it is' tag questions— ta, ne 'right?' sabe 'you know'—and the speaker's own criticism of the request or situation, as in (3.24) O, H., nao senta ai, que o velho nao gosta. O velho ta gamado nisso. 'Oh, H., don't sit there, because the old man doesn't like it. The old man has a thing about it' The last option shifts the blame of the imposition on the addressee onto the shoulders of the third party who caused the situation to be a problem. This allows the speaker to disclaim the imposition, save face, and share a certain bond with the addressee in criticizing or

47

Pragmatic Hierarchy of Politeness in Directives

Table 1. Frequency of Linguistic Options and Strategies in Directives by Register (more-educated respondents) Caretaker f % A. Form of address Vocative (also name only or o, o, olha)

Peer 0/o /

Voce 0 senhor/Excelencia Tu/te

22 12 0 2

49 27 4

31 23 0 0

Terms of endearment/ nicknames

9

20

2

35 4 1

78 9 2

B. Verb tense and m ood Present indicative Subjunctive/imperative Conditional Conditional/imperfect subjunctive

0

—

—

69 51

Formal f %

17 1 19 0

38 2 42

4

0

—

28 4 4

62 9 9

17 5 6

38 11 13

4

9

6

13

3 1 3

7 2 7

1 2 1

2 4 2

5 9 5 7 0 4

11 20 11 16

9 4 7 7

9

4 2 3 3 0 0

38 4 0 9 4 6 0

84 9 — 20 9 13 —

22 13 3 6 6 0 0

— —

—

C. Structure

Sera que Da para Impersonal expression D. Attempt at solidarity Jokes/laughter Slang Tag questions Criticism of situation Kinship terms

Nos/a gente E. Other strategy Explanations Asking for favor Thanks for understanding Begging forgiveness Asking not to be offended Warning of sanctions Belittling request n

1 1 0

0 5 5 0 14 5

26 3 0 1 1 5 1

= 45.

/ = frequency. % = percentage of informants7responses.

2 2 —

—

11 11 —

31 11

58 7 —

2 2 11 2

—

—

—

49 29 7 13 13 — —

48

Language and Social Relationship

ridiculing the request. Some informants also include a warning of the consequences or sanctions, for example, (3.25) Se tiver alguem sentado nela, Deus me livre, tampa seus ouvidos, sai de perto, porque . . . 'If there is someone sitting there, God help me, cover your ears, get out of there, because . . .' which serves the purpose of reinforcing the urgency of the directive and the request for action, but also reinforces the idea that the direc­ tive is actually coming from a third party and not from the speaker. Other strategies sometimes used in the peer register to emphasize the speaker's position subordinate to the addressee include asking forgiveness before or after issuing the directive, such as (3.26) Voce me desculpa. 'You will forgive me' or asking the addressee not to take offense, as in (3.27) Nao leva a mal. 'Don't take it wrong' 3.4.3. “Formal” Register In this situation, with a nonintimate person of much higher rank and social status, the speaker holds the inferior position in control and/or power to the listener and there is great social distance be­ tween them. For this reason, the directive will be an imposition on the listener, and the speaker must mitigate its force in order to in­ duce the listener to comply, thus saving the face of both parties. The data from this formal situation (fig. 4) show that most informants employed requests, although some respondents showed a tendency toward the more indirect hints, avoidance strategies, and no re­ sponse. It may be that more hints are not seen in this register be­ cause they require the presupposition of shared knowledge to lead to inference of the true message, which is not always possible between nonintimates. There is also a greater risk that the addressee will not understand the implicit directive or will simply choose to ignore it. One strategy used by several respondents in the formal and care­ taker registers, but very little in the peer register, was to avoid the problem by inventing another story to motivate the addressee to move from the chair or by luring the addressee away with an entice­ ment; the latter was utilized mostly with children (fig. 4). In speak­ ing to children, it is often easier to invent another story or a diver­

Pragmatic Hierarchy of Politeness in Directives

49

sion for which children will probably not perceive the real motive. It is possible that there is "story invention" in the formal register be­ cause the speaker has two choices: either to give the directive, try­ ing to soften it in the most polite way to fit the occasion, or to decide not to give it. In not giving it, the speaker can make up another story in an attempt to achieve the desired results or can forget about the problem completely. In fact, several informants who willingly gave directives in the caretaker and peer registers found it too difficult to do in the formal register. In this register, explanations accompany most directives and di­ rectives are usually in the form of requests, as seen in table i . Aside from the present indicative tense, several informants utilized the subjunctive, the conditional verb form, and the conditional/imper­ fect subjunctive structure in expressing their requests. The most frequent lexical softeners are the vocative (or simply o, o, or olha, or the person's name) and the subject pronoun of respect o senhor, or the person's formal title, such as Excelencia,4Also seen in this register are many more strategies that inform the addressee that the speaker recognizes the imposition of the directive, given the speaker's inferior social or power position in relation to the ad­ dressee. The speaker must ask the addressee to carry out the action as a favor. For this reason, the expressions por favor, ter a bondade, and por gentileza were used by several informants. Other strategies that accomplish the same effect are thanking the addressee for understanding the situation— (3.28) Se o senhor pudesse levantar e sentar em qualquer uma outra, eu agradeceria muito a gentileza e a compreensao, n'e. 'If you could get up and sit in any other, I would appreciate very much the courtesy and understanding' asking the addressee for understanding, as in (3.29) O senhor me acompanha. 'You understand' and asking the addressee not to take offense, such as (3.30) Nao vai ficar chateado. 'Don't be upset' A strategy not seen in the other two registers is letting the addressee know that it is very difficult for the speaker to ask this imposition, for example,

50

Language and Social Relationship

(3.31) Nao sei como lhe pedir para se levantar desta cadeira. 'I don't know how to ask you to get up from this chair; None of these strategies are used much in speaking to peers and are very seldom employed with children. This pattern indicates that when speakers are in a position subordinate to the addressee due to real circumstances and do not place themselves there through lin­ guistic strategies, they must underscore their inferior position with strategies to indicate respect and acknowledgment of a great imposi­ tion on the addressee. In sum, the results of this limited experiment indicate a direct correlation between the various strategies used, the speaker's per­ ception of the social situation, and choices of linguistic appropri­ ateness according to the rules of politeness. The data indicate that the choice of softeners reflects very clearly the speaker's recognition of the addressee's position. Informants utilize strategies in speaking to children that attempt to decrease the inherent distance in power and rank between adult and child. Given that social difference, how­ ever, these strategies (using the addressee's name or terms of endear­ ment or kinship) can also reinforce the distance by creating a feeling of condescension. On the other hand, speaking to a peer requires some building of solidarity, and the strategies employed largely re­ flect attempts to do so, including attempts to establish solidarity with the addressee through the use of slang, tags, jokes, and the speaker's own criticism of the situation; asking the addressee to for­ give the imposition or not to take offense; and giving warnings of sanctions, to shift the responsibility from the speaker to the person who caused the situation to be a problem and to emphasize the need for cooperation. In the formal register, strategies utilized for soften­ ing, such as asking forgiveness from the addressee for the imposi­ tion, or asking that the addressee not take offense at the directive, emphasize the speaker's inferior real-life power and status position. The requests employed illustrate much diversity in format and the use of other tense forms besides the present indicative, such as the conditional/imperfect subjunctive construction. The data indi­ cate that the more-educated respondents rely on syntactic options to express formality and politeness. These options are learned through formal education and exposure to the formal register and include lexical strategies that express the same notions. In general, the data seem to indicate that softening strategies for politeness are used ei­ ther to neutralize social distance or to emphasize that there is in­ equality. Moreover, as observed here and in other real-life situations, softening strategies are also employed to defuse the gravity of the

Pragmatic Hierarchy of Politeness in Directives

51

imposition, depending on the content of the proposition. The moti­ vation for this behavior can be accounted for by Brown and Levin­ son's "face-saving" notion and by Leech's Tact Maxim.

3.5. Data from the Experiment with Less-Educated Adults At this point, one may ask if less-educated adults in Rio de Janeiro would also use explicit directive forms in their interaction, espe­ cially in view of evidence in Naro and Lemle (1977) that the speech of the uneducated lower class in Brazil contains more verb forms showing few or no inflectional suffixes than does that of more highly educated adults (e.g., Eles fala T hey speak7[third person, sin­ gular]). Data were obtained from thirteen adult native speakers in Rio de Janeiro who were exposed to no more than eight years of for­ mal education. They participated in the same directive experiment described in section 3.1. The results are shown in figure 5. Most of

'JOTe: Since frequencies are so small, results are not statistically significant according to a chi-square analysis. 13

Figure 5. Directives given by less-educated respondents

52

Language and Social Relationship

these speakers who responded to the situation with a directive relied on the use of orders and assertions or a mixture of the two in speak­ ing to a child or a peer. In the formal register, although many of the informants employed more indirect forms, nearly one-third of the directives used were more direct (orders, assertions, and sugges­ tions), if one adds the mixed directives to them, in a situation in which one would expect the most indirect and polite forms. These results stand in contrast to those shown in figure 4, which demon­ strates that, of the directives employed by more educated speakers in the formal register, only five (11 percent) are the more direct forms of orders, assertions, suggestions, and the mixed category. Table 2 reveals that very few of these less-educated speakers use the syntactic options that the more-educated employ to soften their di­ rectives in the formal register, such as the conditional/imperfect subjunctive (e.g., Eu pediria que 0 senhor se sentasse ali 'I would ask that you sit there'). This shows that they probably have not acquired these options through exposure to the formal register or formal edu­ cation. Instead, they employ softening strategies that emphasize their lower power or status position by recognizing the imposition being made (e.g., asking for favors). In other words, they achieve the same effect—softening the illocutionary force—but through differ­ ent means than those used by the more educated.

3.6. Features of the Directive Speech Act in Brazilian Portuguese 3.6.1. Vocatives Some of the more frequently occurring elements of the directive forms of orders, assertions, suggestions, requests, and hints, accord­ ing to the data from the experiment, are illustrated in table 3 and figure 6. The data show that the orders, assertions, and suggestions, that is, the more-explicit directives, are usually prefaced by a voca­ tive or simply the hearer's name or o, 0, or olha 'look', whereas the requests and hints are not— (3.32) O, A., levanta da cadeira. 'Oh, A., get up from the chair'5 Vocatives can serve two purposes: (1) they can deictically ground the speech act by naming the addressee, thus calling attention to the message; and (2) they can personalize the content of the speech act. It is mainly in the latter case that they can be said to soften the speech act.

53

Pragmatic Hierarchy of Politeness in Directives

Table 2. Frequency of Linguistic Options and Strategies in Directives by Register (less-educated respondents) Caretaker f % A. Form of address Vocatives (or name only or 6, o, olha)

Voce O senhor/Excelencia Tu/te Terms of endearment/ nicknames

9 3

0 0

69 23

Peer %

/

%

9 5

69 38

4

31 15

8

1 2 0

0 1

— —

Formal

f

—

8 —

3

23

0

—

0

—

10 1 0

77

10 0 0

77

8 1 1

62

0

—

0

—

1

8

Verb tense and m ood Present indicative Subjunctive Conditional Conditional/imperfect subjunctive

Structure Sera que Da para

0 0

Impersonal expression (e.g., e m elhor voce)

0

8 —

— —

—

0 0

— —

1 0

— —

0

—

0 1

—

3

23

8 —

0

8 8

8 —

—

Attempt at solidarity Jokes/laughter Slang Tag questions Criticism of situation Kinship terms

Nos/a gente

0 0 2 0

—

15

—

5 3

38 23

1 0 2

5

38

9

69

1 0 2

8

—

15

0 0 2 1 0 0

— —

15

8 — —

Other strategy Explanations Asking for favor Thanks for understanding Begging forgiveness Asking not to be offended Warning of sanctions Belittling request n =

0 0 0 0 3

0

13.

/ = frequency. % = percentage of informants' responses.

— —

— —

23 —

3 4

0

— 15 23 31 —

7 3

54 23

1

8

3

23 15 15 —

2 2 0

% of Frequency

Figure 6. Percentage of frequency of some elements of directives by the form of the directive

55

Pragmatic Hierarchy of Politeness in Directives

Table 3. Frequency of Various Elements of Directives by the Form of the Directive Order = 34)

(n

Vocative Terms of endearment Kinship terms

Nos/a gente Present indicative Subjunctive/ imperative Conditional Conditional/ imperfect subjunctive Impersonal expressions Jokes/laughter Slang Tag questions Explanations Ask for favor Beg forgiveness Ask not to be offended

Assertion (n = 7)

Suggestion (n = 10)

Request (N = 33 )

(n

Hint = 15)

/

%

/

%

/

%

/

%

/

%

22

65

5

71

8

80

19

58

3

20

8 8 1

24 24 3 79

0 1 0 6

—

1 0

10

3

0 1

0 6

3 7

30 70

0 1 0 8

—

—

8 0

24

0 0

—

2 0

20

0

—

0

—

0

0

—

2

6

4

12 6

0 0 0

— — —

3

43

86

30 90

26

—

6 0 0

3 9

—

1 1

10 10

3

0

—

2

20

27

2 22 2 0 1

65

6

14 —

86

—

—

—

—

24

—

—

9 33

—

—

11

—

8

24

—

—

2

20

— — —

—

— —

0 0 0 1

—

0 0

4

2

27 13

3

20

12 0 0

80

10 8

3 79 30 24

9

27

0

—

3

f = frequency.

% = percentage of informants' responses.

3.6.2. Explanations Explanations seem to be important for the less-explicit directives. Explanations soften the force of the directive by allowing the ad­ dressee to know the reason behind it, thus giving consideration to the addressee's feelings. In some cases, our respondents gave an ex­ planation other than the real one, for example, saying that the chair the addressee had selected was broken. 3.6.3. Tag Questions Tag questions are common softeners for assertions, such as

— —

56

Language and Social Relationship

(3-33) Voce nao pode sentar ai nao, ne. 'You can't sit there, right7 and, to a much lesser extent, for suggestions. In these cases, the re­ spondents used the tag not as a check for comprehension, but rather to ask for understanding in the sense of sympathy. It is interesting to note that a tag question can soften an order, since it can allow the addressee to decide whether to perform the act, as in (3.34) Senta ai, ta? 'Sit there, okay?7 Lambrecht (personal communication) suggests that the softened force is achieved through the ambiguous interpretation of the tag; that is, this example represents a hedge between an order, an asser­ tion, and a request. 3.6.4. Diminutives Diminutives can serve to lessen the force of a request by belittling the object of the request or by making the request seem inconse­ quential, for example, (3.35) Me da um copinho de agua. 'Give me a little glass of water7 (3.36) So um pouquinho. 'Just a little bit7 Diminutives soften the force, since they are usually associated with people or things that are in fact physically small, or with terms of endearment. Diminutives help reinforce solidarity relations be­ tween adults and children in that the child knows that the language used is at the child7s level, as in (3.37) Lava a maozinha. 'Wash your little hand(s)7 3.6.5. Conflicting Use of Honorific Pronouns Conflicting use of honorific pronouns occurred in both the caretaker and the formal registers in the directive experiment; that is, there were instances in which an adult would use the honorific o senhor/a senhora 'you7in issuing the directive to a child, such as (3.38) O senhor vai fazer o seu dever. 'You [formal] are going to do your homework7

Pragmatic Hierarchy of Politeness in Directives

57

probably for one of two reasons: ( . +-> 2

^

i-G

4->

•M

P 't i

^

^J ’—

+J ^w ) ^ rj -4 — * -i-dH Jctij v. 71 >s bJO ^ P o 2 °!>s vhv Snn- J D G.

03 -xJ t> K>—->rG

i

5^

i

ij

i

O

cd

CD

h

2

QJ

'+O3

CD "

0 *jD 3^ - m Or_i' O4-*^ 5Z1 ' S _^_ t*““3j O^ O^

> rj

CD

#£j ^ "£ ^ 3>5

J3

P c/} ^ T3 *72 O ^Q o p^ K df ^l i ^ u ' - S ^ S ' ,—,( u W HM O S M. . g g ^ n f l 2 5 f o P ?|-- I rs*. ,D^ O ^ O r-^H ^ cfl ^_* SC2i ^Q 9 ^ ' ' 4-> Mt—'zl.2 T 3 ” • o T2 “ CD ^ —

.

.

to

(J T3

,y « .a-s

o '®

^

o j

k

'— ’

cd

^ 5

.

u z

00

u

£

h 3

s ^

S> ^cd & HOg ««o ^ _ , . bH! SEc33 LnJ •rH 2 '-'!^?? k j JO^ o £> ) reasons for choosing one request over another; and (c) spontaneous requests by the child to a figure representing an elderly woman. In addition, results from part of the experiment could indicate whether the type of addressee would influence the form of the request produced or, in other words, whether the children would accommodate their requests to the different addressees presented to them.

5.6.2. Results 5.6.2.1. Passive Judgments of Politeness. Overall, the children did not choose answers that would be judged as "correct" by adult stan­ dards: 52 percent of the answers reflected standard adult grammar, as judged against those of educated, adult native Brazilian Por­ tuguese speakers who also saw the options given. The scores may reflect the concerns discussed in Section 5.6.1, however, that some items may not be commonly heard by children in everyday language and therefore are not preferred by them. Table 8 summarizes the choices reflecting standard grammar made by the children for each type of item, within the three age groups; figure 9 graphically shows the developmental change for the answers given by the three age groups. Contrary to Bates's findings, my experiment did not show an over­ all dramatic trend toward answers that come closer to adult standard grammatical norms according to age. Instead, as figure 9 shows, while there is a definite improvement between the ages of three and four, the five-year-olds perform only slightly better than the fouryear-olds. Overall performance on the task showed that children per­ formed at a somewhat better-than-chance level at four to six years. As in the Bates experiment, the scores can be said to indicate that some kinds of judgment about pragmatic forms are acquired later than others and not that children do not acquire the concept of po­ liteness until later. Table 9 presents the order of difficulty of item types for all subjects, as well as the age level at which each type of item is discriminated at a better-than-chance level. Por favor 'please' was correctly identified

JJP ^ §

O 05

^ ^ * S «u

S> £ ^

^

« s

> \0

^ ^grS?

*; a,

o _

,P

z

i §

T3 ^

■M -§

5=3 ^ 4*> V5 4>a ■a T3 to

^ O *•*

o C3

y

>5 2 .• ^ 5? ^ Q ^ G^

C £3 « § ^

'g S ^

5 8

a.

§ 2 tj

^ N O (S

co un vo un

LO O 00 o « ■•« « «■

^ 2,-H 2

coeoun^-

CO vO ^t- (N

H fS

GO T t rH

CJ £

^

s

O 0 'S Si S

£

«3

fO IT) co fO

&^ - C O ^ t - - H L O S

^ d