Archivio blog

lunedì 6 aprile 2020

TOOLS FOR WORKING IN THE FIELD OF LINGUISTIC PRAGMATICS

The analysis model of linguistic politeness is divided into a positive face (ability to involve the other in communication by attributing acknowledging to his person) and a negative face (interacting with the other while maintaining a certain degree of autonomy available for the other speaker). So any linguistic act could fall into this dichotomy when you come into contact with another person. When an act remains neutral, it mainly means that negative politeness is preferred. How we can create a bond of solidarity with each other is the hidden purpose of the positive face work and therefore we can list all the cultural values ​​related to this type of linguistic action, such as the reduction of social distance, avoidance of uncertainty, short-term orientation , a certain degree of collectivism and a sense of satisfaction in this kind of relationship. In the same way negative politeness could be connected with the cultural dimensions of Hofstede as a desire to keep social distance high in order to maintain a certain status quo in social life, a strong avoidance of uncertainty because others are not allowed to change the course of one's existence, long-term orientation as things are already pre-established in advance, a certain degree of individualism and a sense of restriction as an always latent element in one's life.

To speak in a situation of linguistic politeness, a speaker refers to the evaluation of three elements:


    the social distance between the interlocutors

    relative power between them (roles, status)

    the degree of imposition allowed by that culture in that given situational context.


Today, in a historical moment of questioning the previous cultural models, above all by subordinate groups that later became central in the music, cinema and art scene (rap, performance, cinema on crime, music videos), the concept of impoliteness or absence of consideration for the interlocutor's face plays a certain role and meaning. Kebrat-Orecchioni (2005) will speak extensively about this concept of "impoliteness" while to add the cultural aspect of linguistic acts I have resorted to the socio-pragmatic interactional principles of Spencer-Oatey and Jiang. Ultimately, the role of rights and duties in face play are very important because they include the costs and benefits of the speaker and listener within the language acts. We then have principles of interactional socio-pragmatics linked to personal style: being direct-indirect, clear \ vague, friendly-distant, modest-affirmed, habitual-novelty. It is very probable that these principles may also be cultural in nature. Are there any cultures where you are more direct or indirect, clear or vague, friendly or distant, modest-established, habitual or innovative? Understanding what the belief present in a given interaction may be is essentially understanding how an element such as culture has spread in the body of society with considerable success becoming a cultural fact (Sperber).

In fact, to return to the foundations of our approach, we have in pragmatics the so-called cooperation principles of Paul Grice as an ideal and perhaps also imposing type of reception of the message, which is processed in such a way as to be "acceptable" by a group of speakers in harmony with the underlying cultural values ​​in that given community of speakers.


For Grice there are maxims that are certainly ideal models on how to use the language in a laboratory world. For example, the maximum of quantity:

"Make your contribution as requested"

    "Do not make your contribution more informative than expected"


The number of words to make one's contribution relevant may vary according to the culture and conversational style of that particular person. In other contexts, limiting oneself to a very limited response can be understood as a distant and disrespectful response to the need for recognition by the others speakers, who generally tends to avoid to make requests. Also this linguistic act performed may implies a form of recognition for the positive face of the other person.


The highest quality (tell the truth):

- don't say what you think is false

- don't say what you can't prove


The maxim of truth is certainly the one that is least respected by many people who say what they cannot prove with the intention of increasing their need for a "positive face" understood as social recognition.


The maxim of relation (you have to talk about things relevant or relevant to the other interlocutor).

 This maxim is practically completely absent in a lot of conversation in the Italian language, where a speaker tends to monopolize the interaction by speaking only of the issues concerning his own person. This is a very important topic in order to understand the reasons that have pushed people away from the face-to-face conversation and to take refuge in the virtual one (this is my thought).

The maxim of manner


- be insightful and especially:


avoid the darkness

- avoid ambiguity

- be short

- be ordered


In the context of the Italian language, the message is often obscure, therefore this principle is happily ignored in the Italian cultural reality where nobody intends to take responsibility for their words and therefore they all become meaningless. Furthermore, in the tradition of social distance between intellectuals and people since the times of fascism, the myth has been created that speaking in a dark way makes your message more important. In short, you can always redefine the content of your message by adhering to the rule of darkness.

Avoiding ambiguity is another maxim that is not very respected in the Italian context.

Be brief as a maxim it finds even less application even if it is expanding perhaps among young people.

Being ordained is another principle that finds many difficulties in its complete implementation.


To continue with the tools of the cooperation we find the maxims of politeness of Leech (1983), which can be integrated with those of Grice. The maxims of politeness are a tool to protect one's own cultural world of reference because politeness remains a universal cultural phenomenon but which finds true application inside a national, regional and sometimes even local level.
When only the politeness maxim prevails without leaving room for the maxims of conversation we can easily imagine that the content of the conversation will be reduced in light of the maintenance of the status quo present in that given communication.

The maxims of touch

"Minimize costs for each other and maximize benefits for each other." In other words, it is necessary to reduce any form of threat to the negative face and to strengthen the need for a positive face or to leave the negative face of the other interlocutor unchanged in order to maintain a good relationship with the other interlocutor. Usually the good relationship is a form of asymmetrical relationship that is incorporated as a "natural, obvious fact" within the interaction. Language in this way fully reflects the social structures represented within that society.


The maximum of generosity, that is, you minimize the benefits for yourself and maximize the costs for yourself. In practice, interaction must weigh on your sense of responsibility.


Maximum approval


Minimize criticism for the other and maximize compliments for the other by enhancing the positive face of the interlocutor as the preferred way to adhere to the maximum approval.


Maximum of modesty


Minimize compliments for yourself and maximize compliments for each other
Minimize compliments for yourself and maximize compliments for each other


Agreement maximum


Minimize disagreement between oneself and the other and maximize agreement between oneself and the other.


Maximum of sympathy


Minimize dislike between oneself and the other

Maximize sympathy between yourself and each other


In light of the strong presence of oriental speakers it is useful to keep in mind the model proposed by Gu (1990) pointing out the importance of the maxim of denigration of the self:


- denigrate yourself

- elevates the other


In light of these first tools of analysis, it will be necessary to keep in mind that every time we speak we must keep in mind the fact that every "speech" in the sense of speech analysis represents a "linguistic event" in harmony with the SPEAKING method of Dell Hymnes.

One could reflect to understand in which cultural situation such text writing takes place, who the writer and audience is for which this message is intended. What is the purpose of this message and what are the results pursued (goals-ends). What is the form of the message, the content of the message. What is the key to reading this message. What is the message transmission channel. What are the rules of interaction and the rule of interpretation.
What are the genres involved in that message.

Ultimately, the analysis of the components proposed by Hymnes starts from those that Duranti considers the most important, namely the goals-objectives (for what reason what is said is said) and in what physical, psychological and cultural situation we find ourselves.


A crucial point concerns the linguistic acts divided into three:


- locutory (phonic aspect of the statement)

- illocutionary (it is the communicative intention of the speaker)

- perlocutory (it is the linguistic effect obtained at the other interlocutor in terms of response to our previous statement).


For example if I say "It's late":

1. is information

2. is an invitation to hurry

3. it is an invitation to keep calm

4. it's time to leave


According to Searle, these linguistic acts can be:

- representative (describes, affirms a present situation).

- managers (they make things happen to the other such as ordering, advising, praying)

- commissives (they are commitments for the future such as promising, threatening, offering)

- expressive (the speaker expresses his psychic orientation to establish and maintain social contacts (thank, greet, wish, report).
 
Finally a last tool very powerful but not very popular in this field of linguistic analysis is the "etymological method" for redefining the concepts used represented another valid way to deal with linguistic and cultural issues. For example, the word "society" on the etymological level means socius (companion) understood as the union of companions, alliance. A form of agreement between several people to share all or part of the assets to share the profit or the losses in common.

For example, the term "individualism" comes from an individual, that is, something that is not divisible, a person cannot be divided.


 " Collectivism" is a person gathered together with other people with a common purpose.


In the concept of "person" we find the idea of a mask within a society capable of rights and duties. On the language level we see how the speaker is the first person, the listener is you and the speaker is often the third person. Everything can be multiplied to the plural form to best represent the surrounding social world.
 
These are some working tools that I use to work with oral language corpus.

Nessun commento:

Posta un commento