CC BY
22Oriental Renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences Scientific Journal Impact Factor Advanced Sciences Index Factor
О
R
VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 5 ISSN 2181-1784 SJIF 2022: 5.947 ASI Factor = 1.7
MEANS OF EXPRESSINGPRINCIPLES OF POLITENESS
Nabijonova Gulnoza
2st year master of Faculty of foreign language and literature Toshkent State Pedagogical University Tel:+998936703142
This article is dedicated theories of politeness from different linguistic view points of English and Uzbek languages. It deals with comprehensive perspectives on politeness and its theories. It studies some different functions and strategies. The research aim is explaining politeness and its theories about their importance in daily communication, revealing the structural aspects the principles of politeness in English and Uzbek languages, to explore scientifically the features similarities and differences of languages.
Keywords: functions, politeness, functions, negative politeness, positive politeness, negative face, positive face, speech etiquette, language, culture, gender, positive face, negative face.
Эта статья представляет собой специальные теории вежливости из разных лингвистических точек зрения на английском и узбекском языках. Он имеет дело с исчерпывающими взглядами на вежливость и ее теории. Он изучает некоторые разные функции и стратегии. Цель исследования -объяснить вежливость и ее теории об их важности в повседневном общении, выявляя структурные аспекты принципы вежливости на английском и узбекском языках, чтобы научно исследовать особенности сходства и различия языков.
Ключевые слова: функции, вежливость, функции, негативная вежливость, позитивная вежливость, негативное лицо, позитивное лицо, этикет речи, язык, культура, пол, позитивное лицо, негативное лицо.
INTRODUCTION
Politeness is expressed differently in various languages. It is based on using closeness and relationships as the social distance between the speaker and the hearer. The level of politeness depends on the social relationship between the speaker and the hearer and determines the level of formality that is used in their conversations. Different cultures also cause different views, which affect the idea of politeness and
ABSTRACT
АННОТАЦИЯ
Oriental Renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences Scientific Journal Impact Factor Advanced Sciences Index Factor
O
R
VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 5 ISSN 2181-1784 SJIF 2022: 5.947 ASI Factor = 1.7
lead to the differences in various aspects. In a word, when we are communicating with people from different cultures, it is important to know what is appropriate to their cultures and act accordingly. Therefore, Brown & Levinson believe that politeness is considered as a social norm and exists in particular linguistic forms when people use it appropriately with others. To be polite is to behave appropriately according to the hearer's wants. Politeness is defined as an evaluation of the speaker's behavior by the hearer. Politeness can be described as 'what we think is appropriate behavior in particular situations in an attempt to achieve and maintain successful social relationships with others.
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
Culture, politeness, knowledge and behavior can be seen in one's speech. This perception is expressed in linguistics through the concept of "speech etiquette" ("Politeness"). In English, the term "Politeness" is derived from "smooth" and "polish", which is the word of "politus" in Greek, and at the end of XVII century and at the beginning of XVIII, it was spread widely. Speech etiquette is a process that is understood in terms of individual culture and values. Speech etiquette is developed according to environment, the situation in the family and society, as well as other form factors in childhood. Speech etiquette can be different according to nations particular features in different nations. The different aspects of speech have been learnt only by linguists, but also, their cultural concepts are important in sociolinguistics. So, the speech etiquette is one of the major factors in relationships between the countries, nations. Although speech etiquette had been an event since ancient times, learning process was started late - in the middle of XX century. East, in particular, the attention to this matter was given from the twenties of the last century in East, especially, in Uzbek linguistics, and from the fifties of XX century in West linguistics. "Speech etiquette" - "Politeness" was started to use from the sixties of the last century in West linguistics.
Consequently, politeness indicates that the speaker uses an appropriate language according to the context and to the hearer's needs. Accordingly, we study the most famous theories of politeness that formulate different principles and rules for politeness strategies.
Grice's cooperative principle and maxims. Grice's interpretation of linguistic politeness is embodied in his Cooperative Principle. The CP is based on the assumption that speakers aim to communicate in a maximally efficient way. The CP requires that a speaker must 'make your contribution such as is required, at the stage
Oriental Renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences Scientific Journal Impact Factor Advanced Sciences Index Factor
o
R
VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 5 ISSN 2181-1784 SJIF 2022: 5.947 ASI Factor = 1.7
at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. Grice also proposed four maxims of conversation: quality, relation, manner and quantity. Respectively, the maxims 'specify what participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, rational, co-operative way: they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly, while providing sufficient information. Leech's politeness principle. Leech proposed the Politeness Principle (PP) to uphold the CP when Grice's maxims of conversation are flouted. The role of the PP is 'to maintain the social equilibrium and the friendly relations which enable us to assume that our interlocutors are being cooperative in the first place. Vitally, the PP plays a role in a speaker's choice of appropriate expression of his communicative intention. He claims that the CP and PP interact in the interpretation of indirectness and both these principles are required to account for pragmatic interpretations.
Brown and Levinson's politeness theory. Goffman defined the sociological concept of 'face' as 'the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself. Given this definition, Brown and Levinson claim that face 'must be constantly attended to in interaction'. Contrary to Grice's CP but similar to Leech's approach, Brown and Levinson posit that instances in which Grice's maxims are flouted can be explained by the fact that the speaker is actually attempting to 'ensure politeness'. Brown and Levinson's theory distinguish positive and negative face and, hence, positive politeness and negative politeness. Negative face denotes 'the want of "every competent adult member" that his action be unimpeded by others' and positive face refers to 'the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others'. Essentially, 'to maintain face is to fit in'. Brown and Levinson posit that some speech acts are inherently face threatening acts (FTAs). They consider requests to be an example of a FTA as they threaten the hearer's negat ive face because of the imposition involved. Similar to Leech in attempting to account for cross-cultural politeness, Brown and Levinson posit that a speaker's choice of politeness strategy in performing a FTA is predicated on social distance, power distance and absolute ranking of impositions of the culture.
'Traditionally, we are more likely to be aware of negative politeness in conversations where there is a clear difference in factors such as power relations. Senowarsito finds that the speech act can be classified as polite if the speech doesn't consist of any speakers' force, gives the chance to the speaker to do something, and provides comfort to the hearer. The various theories of politeness attempt to explicate directness of utterances. While these theories overlap or complement one another, debate remains as to the universality of pragmatics norms the interaction. In a
Oriental Renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences Scientific Journal Impact Factor Advanced Sciences Index Factor
o
R
VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 5 ISSN 2181-1784 SJIF 2022: 5.947 ASI Factor = 1.7
conclusion, we can say that Politeness has an essential role in Uzbek and English society in particular linguistic forms when people use it in a suitable way in their utterances for different social categories.
The relation between politeness, gender and language is not just about the words used to describe men and women but also how words are used and to what ends. When it comes to the matter of language use, the difference between the sexes is hardly a matter of dispute.
The positive face is the wish of every member for his/her wants to be desirable to at least some others. It should be the interest of all participants in a conversation to enable each other to save their face, minimizing face-threatening acts. As Watts describes it "politeness strategies will therefore be those which aim at supporting or enhancing the addressee's positive face (positive politeness) and at avoiding transgression of the addressee's freedom of action and freedom from imposition (negative face)." "Positive face", in their definition, is the wish to "be desirable to at least some others", whereas negative face is the wish to have one's "actions unimpeded by others". Based on the belief that people from every culture have similar face needs, Brown and Levinson's politeness theory claims that most relationships between people are stable and maintained by universal rules in respect of maintaining each other's face. However, this universal claim about the theory later attracted the greatest criticism. Janney and Arndt state that one of the key concepts of Brown and Levinson is face but "the notion that politeness is motivated by the desire to maintain face is problematical for many scholars". Brown and Levinson's politeness theory is based on the presupposition that "certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face". However, this universal claim about the theory later attracted the greatest criticism. Janney and Arndt state that one of the key concepts of Brown and Levinson is face but "the notion that politeness is motivated by the desire to maintain face is problematical for many scholars". Brown and Levinson's politeness theory is based on the presupposition that "certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face". Brown and Levinson argue that not only „face," but also the strategies of face redress, are universal. They further claim that the underlying rational, motivational, and functional foundations of politeness are assumed to be, to some extent, universal, and are assumed to influence, and be reflected by, speech in many different languages and cultures.
Aims at summarizing the interactions from the above mentioned, we may say that the theory and approach of politeness is a widespread, applicable and pragmatic phenomenon, namely a type of communicative conduct seen in man's languages and
Oriental Renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences Scientific Journal Impact Factor Advanced Sciences Index Factor
o
R
VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 5 ISSN 2181-1784 SJIF 2022: 5.947 ASI Factor = 1.7
human society. Politeness drew the attention and interest of a lot of researchers into conducting researches and papers about it since the years of nineteen seventies, and carries on to be a main focus for research in fields and domains related to social interaction. Studying the phenomena of politeness may give an insight into extensively conflicting issues out of widely different interests.
CONCLUSION
The various theories of politeness attempt to explicate directness of utterances. Principle could be applied to the classroom context and could bring another stratum of data to the current research. It is also quite crucial to note that in all four lessons the students were adults and quite respectable learners, usually with a university degree, and therefore politeness had an appropriate place. It would be interesting to compare these results with lessons involving young learners.
REFERENCES
1. Brown, HD (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
2. Fraser (1990) ("Perspective on Politeness.") Journal of Pragmatics 1, 2190-236.
3. Leech, GN (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
4. Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness: Some universals in language Use. -Cambridge: CUP, 1987.
5. Muminova Aziza Arslonovna. Uzbek Speech Etiquette: 'You' Expressing Politeness and Affection. (Uzbek Rechevoy Etiquette : Bulletin of the University of Rossiyskogo Druzhba narodov .
6. Hudoynazarov I. Sociolinguistics. Karshi 2008.
7. Husanov, Gulomov. Culture of communication. Uzbekistan State National University. 2009
8. https://prezi.com/m7hs1zhrhqewvc/british-politeness/ British Politeness
