CC BY
150
УДК 8.81.42
И. С. лебедева, Е. Б. Кужевская
Лебедева И. С., кандидат филологических наук,
доцент кафедры грамматики и истории английского языка
факультета английского языка Московского государственного
лингвистического университета; e-mail: [email protected]
Кужевская Е. Б., кандидат философских наук,
доцент кафедры иностранных языков Московского университета
МВД России им. В. Я. Кикотя; е-таН: [email protected]
стратегии вежливости в бизнес-коммуникации
Конверсационные тактики занимают важное место в преподавании английского языка как языка делового общения. Важной составляющей эффективной коммуникации является знание стратегий вежливости, позволяющее собеседникам успешно взаимодействовать и избегать конфликтных ситуаций. В статье рассматриваются примеры реализации стратегий вежливости в конкретных ситуациях общения с целью определить их прагматическое воздействие. Авторы также проводят сравнительно-статистический анализ частотности использования ключевых конверсационных тактик в деловом общении, а также средств их реализации.
Ключевые слова: конверсационные стратегии; теория вежливости; «лицо»; стратегии вежливости; положительная вежливость; отрицательная вежливость; бизнес-коммуникация.
i. s. Lebedeva, E. B. Kuzhevskaya
Lebedeva I. S., PhD (Philology), Associate Professor
at the Department of Grammar and History of English,
Faculty of the English Language, Moscow State Linguistic University;
e-mail: [email protected]
Kuzhevskaya E. B., PhD (Philosophy), Associate Professor,
Department of Foreign Languages, Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia named after V. Y. Kikot; e-mail: [email protected]
strategies of P0LiTENEss iN business communication
Knowledge of conversational strategies is a crucial component of communicative competence. Much attention is given to teaching these strategies in Business English classrooms. Knowledge of linguistic politeness as a strategy of speech behavior allows interlocutors to maintain a felicitous pattern of communication and prevent conflict. The present research focuses on realization of politeness strategies in Business English. Within the framework of the study politeness strategies were subjected to thorough analysis in the course of which their overall pragmatic effect on Hearer was revealed. The study contains comparative statistics illustrating how these strategies are applied
62 l/CN I
by speakers in different business environments. Raising awareness of politeness strategies and acquiring practical skills help Speaker and Hearer understand implied meanings conveyed in different communicative situations and adjust their speech behavior to achieve the aims of communication, which ensures success in business.
Key words: conversational strategies; politeness theory; face; politeness strategies; positive politeness; negative politeness; business communication.
Introduction
Conversational strategies have long been the object of research conducted by many linguists [Brown, Levinson 2014; Fraser 1990; Haugh 2007; Ide 1989; Kâdâr, Haugh 2013; Lakoff 1973; Leech 1983; Mao 1994; Matsumoto 1988; Savic 2014; Spencer-Oatey 2008; Spencer-Oatey 2011; Watts 2003], especially those whose interests lie in the study of business communication [Fletcher 1999; Holmes, Schnurr 2005; Holmes, Stubbe 2015; Lakoff 1989; Mullany 2007]. A crucial component of conversational strategies in business is Politeness Strategies. Linguistic politeness as a conversational strategy aims to establish and maintain a felicitous pattern of relationship between communicants and prevent conflict. How successful business activities are depends on business contacts with potential customers, suppliers and business partners. Effectiveness of business communication is ensured by its strategic correctness.
Materials and Methods
The present research provides an analysis of P. Brown and S. Levinson's [Brown, Levinson 2014] politeness strategies and their manifestations in business communication. The paper sheds light on whether there is a link between a businessperson's communicative needs and intentions and the choice of strategies of politeness. Besides, the study of verbal behavior viewed as the choices the speaker makes in communication reflects the attention given by modern linguistics to the study of functioning of language in context.Awareness ofpoliteness strategies helps equally understand verbal expression and implicature, crucial for business. The present research aims to study politeness strategies in modern business conversations obtained from authentic Business English textbooks: N. Brieger and J. Comfort's [Brieger, Comfort 1993] Business Management English Series: Personnel. Pearson PTR Interactive; N. Brieger and J. Comfort's [Brieger, Comfort 1992] Business Management English Series: Marketing. Pearson PTR
Interactive; J. Hughes and J. Naunton's [Hughes, Naunton 2007] Business Result: Intermediate Student's Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press; J. Hughes and J. Naunton's [Hughes, Naunton 2008] Business Result: Upper-Intermediate Student's Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press; M. Puzo's [Puzo 2010] The Godfather. Penguin Group (USA) Inc., as well as Internet sources.
The study is based on E. Goffman's [Goffman 1955] and P. Brown and S. Levinson's [Brown, Levinson 2014] theories of positive and negative Face, P. Grice's [Grice 1975] Conversational Maxims and P. Brown and S. Levinson's [Brown, Levinson 2014] theory of Politeness Universals.
P. Brown and S. Levinson's classification of strategies of politeness is applied to the present analysis of authentic business conversations [Brown, Levinson 2014].
Study and Results
1. Bald-on-recordpoliteness
P. Brown and S. Levinson treat the Bald-on-record strategy as "speaking in conformity with Grice's Maxims" [Brown, Levinson 2014, p. 94], which characterizes maximally efficient communication. The speaker wants to achieve maximum efficiency more than they want to protect Face. In cases of urgency, desperation or in noisy environments no face redress is necessary. Non-minimization also occurs where the FTA (Face Threatening Act) [Brown, Levinson 2014, p. 98] is performed in Hearer's interests (advice, warnings, granting permission). Welcoming/greetings, farewells and offers which are actually oriented to Face also go bold-on-record. Another reason for bald-on-record behavior is Speaker's reluctance to maintain Face, for example, Speaker is powerful. Direct imperatives stand out as clear examples of Bald-on-record usage.
2. Positive Politeness
Positive politeness is "redress directed to the addressee's positive face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the actions / acquisitions / values resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable. Redress consists in partially satisfying that desire by communicating that one's own wants (or some of them) are in some respects similar to the addressee's wants" [Brown, Levinson 2014, p. 101]. Positive politeness strategies include statements of
friendship and solidarity, compliments, hedges aimed at avoiding conflict or giving offense by highlighting friendliness, for example:
• Attending to Hearer, their interests, wants, and needs:
Ms. Anderson: Yes, that sounds fine [Yeu Anh Van 2018b].
Customer: That's fantastic! Can I trade stocks and bonds [Yeu Anh Van
2018c].
• Exaggerating interest, approval, and sympathy:
Susan: Yes, I think, you'll make an excellent team [Yeu Anh Van 2018a].
Using the adjective excellent that has a highly positive connotation Susan expresses her approval and praise for the interlocutor's activities. She wants to express her positive attitude to the team he made.
Janet: Excellent choice, and for your first course? [Yeu Anh Van 2018b]
• Intensifying interest to Hearer:
Communication has become a nightmare. Do you know what I mean? [Huges, Naunton 2007, p. 156].
Comparing communication with a nightmare (a case of exaggerating) Speaker involves Hearer in the conversation, seeks to make them interested in the delivered information.
• In-group identity markers (in-group address forms, dialect, jargon or slang, ellipsis) allow Speaker to claim the common ground with Hearer:
How do you feel about the merchandise we're pushing? [Yeu Anh Van 2018a]
• Seeking agreement (choosing safe topics for conversation, showing understanding and agreement with the utterance):
DM: I just want to add one thing. The person has to have good key board skills.
SM: Okay, I'll add as essential good key board skills. Fine [Brieger, Comfort 1993, p. 189-190].
• Avoiding disagreement in business communication manifests itself in the use of pseudo-agreement:
Jane Tegal: Well then. I'd like 75 units by the end of the month. Could I get an estimate before placing an order? [Beare 2018]
• Asserting common ground (gossip, small talk, personal-center switch, place switch, different presuppositions):
George: We haven't been very successful in our branding efforts, have we? [Yeu Anh Van 2018a]
• Joking as a positive-politeness technique is infrequent in business:
Well, we don't need a genius in that position, but let's say above average. [Brieger, Comfort 1993, p. 189-190]
Thanks Sandra. Well, it's a major headache. I've got two more people leaving on Friday, and I've heard that three more are going to hand in their notice in May. [Brieger, Comfort 1993, p. 195-196]
• Offer, promise:
Robert: I suggest we break up into groups and discuss how we can improve our message.
• Being optimistic:
Hopefully, the shareholders won't veto any further R&D allocation. [Yeu Anh Van 2018d]
Interviewer: Good evening, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions [Beare 2017].
This strategy helps minimize the size of the imposition of FTAs presupposing the idea that some facts should be taken for granted.
• Including both S and H in the activity is frequent in business communication.
Let's meet at four, shall we? [Yeu Anh Van 2018a]
Speaker suggests that everybody should meet at a certain time.
SM: Okay, in that case let's say "circumstances that enable attendance at work some Saturdays" [Brieger, Comfort 1993, p. 189-190].
Table 1
Distribution of Positive Politeness strategies in Business Communication
600
3. Negative Politeness
Negative politeness is "redressive action addressed to the addressee's negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded. It is key to respective behavior [Brown, Levinson 2014, p. 129]. Negative Politeness is indirect and in business manifests itself in:
• Being conventionally indirect (use of conventional markers of indirectness and shift of tenses).
I'd like to go over some of our restructuring ideas with both of you... Do you think we could meet earlier? [Yeu Anh Van 2018a]
Ms. Anderson is placing an order [Yeu Anh Van 2018b]. Yes, could I have a dry martini1?
Which would you recommend? The tuna steak or tip of sirloin?
1 For more information concerning indirect requests, see Лебедева И. С. Социолингвистические аспекты просьбы // Вопросы прикладной лингвистики. 2018. № 1 (29). С. 17-30.
Table 2
Distribution of Negative Politeness strategies in Business Communication
1800
1600
conventionally imposition and H
indirect
• Hedging (avoiding direct answers, direct expression of attitudes, any direct descriptions or unequivocal statements):
George: In my opinion, the products we're offering are fine. Susan: I'm afraid I already have an appointment, then (Hedging the illocutionary force) [Yeu Anh Van 2018a].
• Being pessimistic gives redress to H's negative face by explicitly expressing doubt and manifests itself in the use of the negative (with a tag), the use of the subjunctive, and the use of remote-possibility markers.
But don't you need someone who's logical, too? [Brieger, Comfort 1993, p. 189-190]
• Minimizing the imposition is used when Speaker estimates the perceived danger of performing a speech act in a particular setting
as high and wants to redress it (the use of just, a little, a bit, a little bit, just a second, merely minimizes the intrinsic imposition of speech acts.)
Mr. Sanders: Mark, can we talk for a moment? [Yeu Anh Van 2018e] SM: Yes. I'll explain in a minute [Brieger, Comfort 1993, p. 195-196].
• Impersonating (use of point of view distancing markers, impersonal verbs, passive forms, avoiding the pronouns I and You).
It seems too much to me [Yeu Anh Van 2018e].
4. Off-record Politeness
A communicative act is off-record if it is impossible to attribute a single clear-cut communicative intention to it, which leads to the existence of more than one possible interpretations:
• Using contradictions consists in violating P. Grice's [Grice 1975] Quality Maxim (Speak the truth, be sincere). By stating two things that contradict each other, S makes looks as if they were not telling the truth. They, thus, encourage H to look for an interpretation that could reconcile the two contradictory propositions:
CM: But that's tremendously high. It means that almost a third of the
staff left during the year. SM: Well, yes and no. I should say at this point that this method as a little suspect because it doesn't take into account length of service, nor does it show how many left at the time of induction. So the picture may appear a little distorted [Brieger, Comfort 1993, p. 195-196].
• Use of rhetorical questions. According to P. Brown and S. Levinson "to ask a question with no intention of obtaining an answer is to break a sincerity condition on questions - namely, that S wants H to provide him with the indicated information" [Brown, Levinson 2014, p. 223].
How did things ever go so far? - He asked rhetorically. Well, no matter. A lot of foolishness has come to pass. It was so unfortunate, so unnecessary [Puzo 2010, p. 361].
Table 3
Distribution of Off-record Politeness strategies in Business Communication
Overgeneralizing aims to give Hearer an idea as to whether the general rule applies to them or not:
We mustn't forget our basic premise: that no one selection method is perfect [Briege, Comfort 1993, p. 197-205].
Conclusion
The aim of the paper was to apply P. Brown and S. Levinson's Theory of Politeness to the analysis of politeness strategies in English business conversations [Brown, Levinson 2014]. The analysis yielded the following results:
1 Bald-on-record as a conversational strategy is infrequent in business communication, given its straightforward and unequivocal character.
2. While communicating and negotiating ideas businesspeople seek to find common ground with the partner / partners, include all the participants into the activity to unite efforts and opinions. They suggest that everyone should act together to find a solution suitable to all. Neither exaggeration nor intensification sound appropriate, ideas are to be succinctly expressed.
3. The results of statistical analysis of Negative Politeness strategies points to their frequency in business communication. Unequivocal expressions of views and opinions have to be avoided. Attention is given to Hearer's negative face rather than Speaker's. Positive Politeness is not as common as Negative politeness.
4. Off-record Politeness is uncommon in business communication. There were only a few occurrences in our corpus. It means that business-people do not use such strategies as hints, irony, metaphors and over-generalization. By avoiding direct answers, they encourage the interlocutor to express their opinion, but they do it explicitly. Clarity is appreciated.
REFERENCES
Beare K. Dialogue: An Interview at the Shopping Mall. 2017. URL : www. thoughtco.com/dialogue-an-interview-at-the-shopping-mall-1210084 (accessed 6 January 2019). Beare K. Business English - Placing an Order. Placing an Order on the telephone. 2018. URL : www.thoughtco.com/business-english-placing-an-order-1210209 (accessed 6 January 2019). Brieger N., Comfort J. Marketing. Business Management English Series. London : Prentice Hall, 1992. Brieger N., Comfort J. Personnel. Business Management English Series. London : Prentice Hall, 1993.
Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2014. 345 p. Fletcher J. K. Disappearing Acts: Gender, Power, and Relational Practice at Work.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999. 166 p. Fraser B. Perspectives on Politeness // Journal of Pragmatics. 1990. № 14 (2). P. 219-236.
Goffman E. On-Face Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction //
Psychiatry: Journal of Interpersonal Relations. 1955. № 18 (3), P. 213-231. Grice P. Logic and conversation // Syntax and semantics. 3: Speech acts / Cole P.,
Morgan J. New York : Academic Press, 1975. P. 41-58. Haugh M. The Discursive Challenge to Politeness Research: An interactional
alternative // Journal of Politeness Research. 2007. № 3. P. 295-317. Holmes J., Schnurr S. Politeness, Humour and Gender in the workplace: negotiating norms and identifying contestation // Journal of Politeness Research. 2005. № 1. P. 121-149.
Holmes J., Stubbe M. Power and Politeness in the Workplace: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work. 2nd ed. Abingdon : Routledge, 2015. 200 p.
Hughes J., Naunton J. Business Result. Intermediate Student's Book. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2007.
Hughes J., Naunton J. Business Result. Upper-Intermediate Student's Book. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2008.
Ide S. Formal forms and Discernment: Two Neglected Aspects of Universals of Linguistic Politeness // Multilingua. 1989. № 8 (2/3). P. 223-48.
Kadar D., Haugh M. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2013. 295 p.
Lakoff R. The limits of politeness: therapeutic and courtroom discourse // Multilingua. Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication. 1989. № 8 (2/3). P. 101-130.
Lakoff R. The Logic of Politeness: Or, Minding Your p's and q's // Chicago Linguistic Society. 1973. № 8. P. 292-305.
Leech G. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman, 1983. 250 p.
Mao L. R. Beyond Politeness Theory: 'Face' Revisited and Renewed // Journal of Pragmatics. 1994. № 21. P. 451-86.
Matsumoto Y. Reexamination of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in Japanese // Journal of Pragmatics. 1988. № 12, P. 403-426.
Mullany L. Gendered discourse in the professional workplace. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. 236 p.
Puzo M. The Godfather. New York : Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2010. 377 p.
Savic M. Politeness through the Prism of Requests, Apologies and Refusals: A Case of Advanced Serbian EFL Learners. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014. 375 p.
Spencer-Oatey H. Conceptualising 'the Relational' in Pragmatics: Insights from Metapragmatic Emotion and (Im)Politeness Comments // Journal of Pragmatics. 2011. № 43. P. 3565-3578.
Spencer-Oatey H. Face, (im)politeness and rapport // Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory / H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.). London & New York : Continuum, 2008. P. 11-47.
Watts R. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 318 p.
Yeu Anh Van. ESP & Business English. ESP & Business English. Improving Brand Image. 2018a. URL : www.yeuanhvan.com/esp-business-english/business-dialogues/7363-improving-brand-image (accessed 6 January 2019).
Yeu Anh Van. ESP & Business English. Taking an Order. 2018b. URL : www. yeuanhvan.com/esp-business-english/business-reading/7410-taking-an-order (accessed 3 January 2019).
Yeu Anh Van. ESP & Business English. Telephone Banking - Business English Dialogues. 2018c. URL : www.yeuanhvan.com/esp-business-english/ business-dialogues/7368-telephone-banking-business-english-dialogues (accessed 5 January 2019).
Yeu Anh Van. ESP & Business English. Happy Shareholders. 2018d. URL : www. yeuanhvan.com/esp-business-english/business-dialogues/7376-business-eng-lish-happy-shareholders (accessed 6 January 2019).
Yeu Anh Van. ESP & Business English. Hardware Deductions. 2018e. URL : www. yeuanhvan.com/esp-business-english/business-dialogues/7391-business-eng-lish-hardware-deductions (accessed 6 January 2019).
Yeu Anh Van. ESP & Business English. Discussing Ideas at a Meeting. 2018f. URL : www.yeuanhvan.com/esp-business-english/business-dialogues/7377-business-english-discussing-ideas-at-a-meeting (accessed 6 January 2019).
