References

1. Bar-Hillel Ye. Indexal Expressions / Yehoshua Bar-Hillel // Mind. – 1954. – vol. 63. – P. 359-379.

2. Donnellan K. Reference and Definitive Descriptions / Keith Donnellan // The Philosophy of Language / [A. P. Martinich (ed.)]. – New York : Oxford University Press, 1990. – 2^nd ed. – P. 235-247.

3. Grice H. P. Further Notes on Logic and Conversation / Paul H. Grice // Studies in the Way of Words / H. Paul Grice. – Cambridge, Mass : Harvard University Press, 1989. – P. 41-57.

4. Grice H. P. Logic and Conversation / Paul H. Grice // Studies in the Way of Words / H. Paul Grice. – Cambridge, Mass : Harvard University Press, 1989. – P. 22-40.

5. Grice H. P. Meaning / Paul H. Grice // Studies in the Way of Words / H. Paul Grice. – Cambridge, Mass : Harvard University Press, 1989. – P. 213-223.

6. Grice H. P. Presupposition and Conversational Implicature / Paul H. Grice // Studies in the Way of Words / H. Paul Grice. – Cambridge, Mass : Harvard University Press, 1989. – P. 269-282.

7. Kaplan D. Demonstratives / David Kaplan // Themes from Kaplan / [Joseph Almog, John Perry, Howard Wettstein (eds.)]. – New York : Oxford University Press, 1989.

8. Montague R. Pragmatics / Richard Montague // Formal Philosophy : Selected Papers of Richard Montague / [R. Thomason (ed.)]. – New Haven : Yale University Press, 1974. – P. 95-118.

9. Stalnaker R. Context and Content / Robert Stalnaker. – Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1999.

Tasks and Questions

1. Do you agree with R. Stalnaker that the problems of pragmatics have been treated informally by philosophers in the ordinary language tradition, and by some linguists, but logicians and philosophers of a formalistic frame of mind have generally ignored pragmatic problems?

2. How does R. Montague treat “indexicality”? Do you agree with him? Prove your answer.

3. Why has R. Stalnaker’s approach to indexicality been much more influential than R. Montague’s one?

4. Why does D. Kaplan call what he is doing semantics of indexicals and demonstratives?

5. What is refentialism? Dwell on its aspects.

6. How does the refentialist conception of what is said fit with H. P. Grice’s theory of conversation?

7. Analyze theories of contexts and contents by D. Kaplan and R. Stalnaker. What advantages and disadvantages of each theory can you name?

Seminar 6. Politeness Theory

Issues Discussed:

1. Politeness and its types

2. Techniques to show politeness

3. Linguistic devices to show politeness

4. P. Brown and S. Levinson’s politeness theory

5. Positive and negative face

6. Face-threatening acts

7. Politeness strategies

8. Choice of strategy

9. Criticism of the politeness theory

10. G. Leech’s politeness maxims

Politeness and Its Types

Politeness is best expressed as the practical application of good manners or etiquette. It is a culturally defined phenomenon, and therefore what is considered polite in one culture can sometimes be quite rude or simply strange in another cultural context.

While the goal of politeness is to make all of the parties relaxed and comfortable with one another, these culturally defined standards at times may be manipulated to inflict shame on a designated party.

The British social anthropologists Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson identified two kinds of politeness, deriving from Erving Goffman's concept of face [8]:

• Negative politeness: Making a request less infringing, such as "If you don't mind..." or "If it isn't too much trouble..."; respects a person's right to act freely. In other words, deference. There is a greater use of indirect speech acts.

• Positive politeness: Seeks to establish a positive relationship between parties; respects a person's need to be liked and understood. Direct speech acts, swearing and flouting Grice's maxims can be considered aspects of positive politeness because:

• they show an awareness that the relationship is strong enough to cope with what would normally be considered impolite (in the popular understanding of the term);

• they articulate an awareness of the other person's values, which fulfils the person's desire to be accepted [2].

Some cultures seem to prefer one of these kinds of politeness over the other. In this way politeness is culturally-bound.