Co-operative principle and Politeness Principle
analysis on American sitcom big bang theory
Abstract
This paper entitled “Co-operative principle analysis on american sitcom big bang theory” discusses the analysis with the reference to linguistic theories, especially theories of pragmatics involving the cooperative principle in the overwelmingly popular american sitcom big bang theory.
First, the survey of Grice’s cooperative principle in pragmatics is mentioned as the theory foundation of this paper,which includes four maxims within. The maxims of conversation are respectfully the maxim of quality, the maxim of quantity, the maxim of relevance and the maxim of manner. And Leech’s Politeness Principle.
Then, brief introduction of american sitcom is the next part. From the point of historical and contemprary view.
Finally, comes the analysis of big bang theory (season4,episode8 and episode 9) with the reference of the cooperative principle theory in pragmatics.
Literature view
Pragmatics
In 1962, John Austin(1962) published his book How To Do Things With Words in Oxford. In 1970, John Searle (1970) published Speech Acts.The titles of these two publications, in themselves, highlight this fact: word and action are the one. An important approach to the act of speech lies in questioning not only what is said, and the manner in which it is said explicitly, but also what is left unsaid or said ambiguously, irrelevantly, indirectly. The latter is sometimes as effective as or even more effective than what is said plainly and clearly. The speaker’s intention and the effects of his words are subtler if we differntiate between what is apparent, immediate and what is effective but implicit, reflecting the speaker’s deep and true intentions. That gives rise to new discipline that often involves the inference of the meaning between the line, behind the line and beyond
the line, resulting in a new subject:Pragmatics.
Pragmatics is a systematic way of language studying in context. It seeks to explain meaning that cannot be explained by semantics only. As a field of language study, pragmatics is fairly new, practical and involves many other disciplines. We can say the study of pragmatics covers things that semantics has overlooked. As a branch of knowlege belonging to linguistic science, its roots lies in the work of Amerian philosopher Paul Grice(1975) on Conversational Implicature and the Cooperative Principle, and on the work of Stephen Levinson, Penelope Brown and Geoff Leech on politeness. The theories of the Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle have provided insights into interpersonal interactions.
Grice’s theory of implicature
Unlike many tother topics on pragmatics, implicature does not have an extended history. The key ideas were proposed by Grice in the William James lecture delivered at Harvard in 1967 and still only partially published (Grice, 1975, 1978). The proposals were relatively brief and only suggestive of how future work might proceed.
Before we review Grice’s suggestions it would be as well as to make clear that the other major theory associated with Grice, namely his theory of meaning-nn is not generally treated as having any connection with his theory of implicature (cf. Walker,1975). In fact there is a connection of an important kind. If, as we indicated, Grice’s theory o f meaning-nn is constructed as a theory of communication, it has the interesting consequence that it gives an account of how communication might be achieved in the absence of any conventional means for expressing the intended message.
A corollary is that it provides an account of how more can be communicated, in his rather strict sense of non-naturally meant, than what is actually said. Obviously we can, given an utterance, often drive a number of inferences from it; but not all those inferences may have be en communicative in Grice’s sense, i.e. intended to be recognized as having been intended. The kind of inferences that are called implicatures are always of this special intended kind, and the theory of implicatures sketches one way in which such inferences, of a non-conventional sort, can be conveyed while meeting the criterion of communicated
messages sketched in Grice’s theory of meaning-nn.
Grice’s second theory, in which he develops the concept of implicature, is essentially a theory about how people use language. Grice’s suggestion is that there is a set of over-arching assumptions guiding the conduct of convention. These arise, it seems, from basic rational considerations and may be formulated as guidelines for the efficient and effective use of language in conversation to further co-operative ends.
Cooperative Principle
Grice identifies as guidelines of this sort four basic maxims of conversation or general principles underlying the efficient co-operative use of language, which jointly express a general co-operative principle. These priciples are expressed as follows:
The co-operative principle
Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged
The maxim of Quality
Try to make your contribution one that is true, specifically:
(1)do not say what you believe to be false
(2)do not say that for which yu lack adequate evidence
The maxim of Quantity
(1)make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the
exchange
(2)do not make your contibution more informative than is required
The maxim of Relevance
Make your contributions relevant
The maxim of Manner
Be perspicuous, and specifically:
(1)avoid obscurity
(2)avoid ambiguity
(3)be brief
(4)be orderly
In short, these maxims specify what participants have to do in order to converse in a mximally efficient, rational, co-operative way: they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly, while providing sufficient information.
Violation of maxims
In a word, the principle requires the convrsation to be precisely informative, truthful, relevant and explicit. It is interesting and important to note that while conversation participantts nearly always observe the CP, they do not always observe these maxims strictly. Assuming that the Cooperative Principle is at work in most conversation, we can see how hearers will try to find meaning in utterances that seem meaningless or irrelevant. We may also, sometimes, find it useful deliberately to infringe or disregard one maxim or some maxims under the Cooperative Principle –as what we do when we receive an unwelcome call from a telephone salesperson. Suppose “A"is the salesperson and “B” is one of us picking up the ringing phone.
A: Hello! We have something special for our old customer like you. Please comes as soon as possible to witness its fantastic effect on your skin!
B: Oh, sorry! I’am afraid that I have to time this weekend. I’am doing some extra work now. Thank you anyway.
As a matter of fact, B is at home, sitting in front of the TV and enjoying a film through DVD. B is not speaking the truth, so the maxim of quality under the Cooperative Principle is violated. Very often, we communicate particular non-literal meannings by appearing to “violate” or “flout”one or soem of these maxims. There must be some
reason for these.
Politeness Principle
The Cooperative Priciple account for the relationship between the literal meaning and actual meaning, explaining how the “Conversational Implicature”is produced and understood, but it does not explain why people violate the conversational maxims so as to express themselves in a vague or an indirect wya. And Leech’s Politeness Principle is proposed as the complementary to Grice’s Cooperative Principle.
In the book Principle s of Pragmatics published in 1983, Leech (1983) defines politeness as forms of behavior that establish and maintain comity and he proposes what he terms “The Politeness Principle” as a way of expaining how politeness operates in conversational exchanges, indicating the ability of participants in a social interaction to engage in interaction in an asmosphere of relative harmony. Leech’s maxims of Politeness Priciple are:
1.TACT MAXIM
(a)Minimize cost to other [（b）Maximize benefit to other]
2.GENEROSITY MAXIM
(a)Miminize benefit ot self [（b）Maximize cost to self]
3.APPROBATION MAXIM
(a)Minimize dispraise of other [（b）Maximize praise of other]
4.MODESTY MAXIM
(a)Minimize praise of self [（b）Maximize praise of other]
5.AGREEMENT MAXIM
(a)Minimize disagreement between self and other
(b)Maximize agreement between self and other]
6.SYMPATHY MAXIM
(a)Minimize antipathy between self and other
(b)Maximize sympathy between self and other]
Leech (1983) points out that it is not that all of the maxims and sub-maxims are
equally important. Rather, of the twinned maxims 1-4, 1 appears to be a more powerful constraint on conversational behavior than 2, and 3 than 4. This reflects a more general law that politeness is focused more strongly on other than on self. Moreover, it is obvious that within each maxim, sub-maxim (b) seems to be less important than sub-maxim(a), which illustrates the more general law that negative politeness or avoidance of discord is a more weighty consideration than positive politeness or seeking concord.
Introduction of American sitcom
What is sitcom?
A situation comedy, often shortened to sitcom, is a genre of comedy that features recurring characters in a common environment such as a home or workplace, accompanied with jokes as part of the dialogue. Such programs originated in radio, but today, sitcoms are found almost exclusively on television as one of its dominant narrative forms.A situation comedy may be recorded before a studio audience. Some also feature a laugh track.
History of sitcom
Comedies from past civilizations, such as those of Aristophanes in ancient Greece, Terence and Plautus in ancient Rome, ?udraka in ancient India, and numerous examples including Shakespeare, Molière, the Commedia dell'arte and the Punch and Judy shows from post-Renaissance Europe, are the ancestors of the modern sitcom. Some of the characters, pratfalls, routines and situations as preserved in eyewitness accounts and in the texts of the plays themselves, are remarkably similar to those in earlier modern sitcoms such as I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners. The first television sitcom is said to be Pinwright's Progress, ten episodes being broadcast on the BBC between 1946 – 1947. In the U.S., director and producer William Asher, has been credited with being the "man who invented the sitcom,"[3] having directed over two dozen of the leading sitcoms, including I Love Lucy, during the 1950s through the 1970s.
Big bang theory
The Big Bang Theory is an American sitcom created by Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady, both of whom serve as executive producers on the show, along with Lee Aronsohn, who is also one of the head writers. It premiered on CBS on September 24, 2007.
Main cast of Big bang theory
?Johnny Galecki as Leonard Hofstadter, Ph.D. – Leonard is an experimental physicist with an IQ of 173 who received his Ph.D. when he was 24 years old. He shares an apartment with colleague and friend Sheldon Cooper. The writers
immediately implied a potential romance between him and neighbor Penny, and
their sexual tension is a frequently explored drama. The original protagonist,
Leonard's role was downplayed in favor of Sheldon. Leonard is increasingly seen
as assisting Sheldon with social skills.
?Jim Parsons as Sheldon Cooper, Ph.D. – Originally from East Texas, he was a child prodigy who began college at the age of 11 (after completing the fifth grade), started graduate studies at 14, and earned his first Ph.D. at 16. A theoretical
physicist focusing on string theory, he possesses a master's degree, two PhDs, and an IQ of 187. He exhibits a strict adherence to routine; a lack of understanding of
irony, sarcasm, and humor; he is also uninterested in many of the romantic hijinks between Leonard, Howard, and Raj. These characteristics are the main sources of his humor and the basis of a number of episodes. Sheldon shares an apartment
with Leonard Hofstadter, across the hall from Penny, and relies on both for advice in social situations.
?Kaley Cuoco as Penny – She is the attractive blonde, "born and raised in Omaha, Nebraska", who lives across the hall from Sheldon and Leonard. She hopes for a
career in acting, and has been to casting calls and auditions but has not been
successful thus far. To pay the bills, she is a waitress at The Cheesecake Factory.
To date, her last name has not been revealed. During the fourth season, Kaley
Cuoco broke her leg in a horse-riding accident. When she returned, after missing
two episodes, she was shown working as a bartender at the Cheesecake Factory,
instead of in her normal employment as a waitress. Her cast was concealed, and no mention of the unseen broken leg was made.
?Simon Helberg as Howard Wolowitz, M.Eng. – He works as an aerospace engineer. He is Jewish, and lives with his mother, his father left when he was 11 and has to date never learned why. Unlike Sheldon, Leonard, and Raj, Howard lacks a Ph.D. He defends this by pointing out that he has a master's degree in
Engineering from MIT and the apparatus he designs are built and launched into space, unlike the purely abstract work of his friends. He provides outrageous
pick-up lines and fancies himself a lady's man with suitably unimpressed
reactions from Penny; however, he has shown limited success with other women.
He is a polyglot.
?Kunal Nayyar as Rajesh Koothrappali, Ph.D. – Rajesh, who originally comes from New Delhi, India, works as a particle astrophysicist at Caltech. He is very shy around women and is physically unable to talk to them unless he drinks
alcohol (or thinks he has been drinking alcohol). However, he has had much
better luck with women than his overly confident best friend Howard. His parents, Dr. and Mrs. V.M. Koothrappali, are seen via webcam. In the third season, he works for Sheldon because his research has run into a dead-end and he does not want to return to India.
?Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle, Ph.D. (recurring seasons 1 & 3, starring season 2) –Leslie is an experimental physicist who has casual sex with both Howard and
Leonard during the show's airing. She does not get along well with Sheldon and frequently mocks him. Gilbert was promoted to main cast during the second
season, but demoted again once the writers realized they could not produce
quality material for her for every episode.
?Mayim Bialik as Amy Farrah Fowler (guest season 3, recurring and starring season 4), a woman Raj and Howard meet on an online dating site using a faux account for Sheldon. She is essentially a female duplicate of Sheldon and she and
Sheldon become friends although - as Sheldon claims - she is a girl and is his
friend, but she is not his "girlfriend".
Melissa Rauch as Bernadette (recurring season 3, starring season 4), a waitress and co-worker of Penny paying her way through graduate school microbiology
studies. Bernadette is introduced to Howard by Penny. At first she and Howard do not get along, as they appear to have nothing in common. When they find out that they both have overbearing mothers, they feel a connection.
Analysis on the lines with the references of Cooperative Principle and Politeness Priciple
Study subject
All the lines are from the season4, episode8 and episode9.
Here is a scene. From S4E8 (season 4, episode 8)
ok, help me out here. How does an archeology professor get that good with a whip? (hearing the music of the movie on TV)
(laugh track)
（夺宝奇兵）
eat, pray, love.(laugh track)
eat, pray, run away from a Giant Boulder(美食，祈祷和骑着捷安特变速自行车出走), I’ll read it.（laugh track）
Raj is murmuring in Howard’s ears.
t care if eat, pray, love changed your life, i am not reading it. (saying to Raj)
She also designed the iconic red and bl ack jacket in Michael Jackson’s Thriller video, which I’ve never viewed in its entirety, as I find zombies dancing in choreographed synchronicity implausible. (laugh track) And also, it’s really scary. (laugh track)
track)
on the big screen at the Colonial.
hing it now. Why would I want to see it again on Friday?
of previously unseen footage.
；Exactly. They say it finally solves the submarine controversy.
；Did... Leonard? I’am not expert, but i believe what we just heard from Penny was sarcasm.
Penny is pointing her nose, implying that Sheldon is right. (laugh track)
be together.
no, we wouldn’t. (laugh track)
Raj is murmuring in Howard’s ears.
(high pitchlaugh track)
Penny and leonard are eye contacting , Penny is shaking her head implying Leonard not say anything. Leonard has a face showing he is kind of confused or his compromisement.
Analysis
1. In sentence two, Howard did obey the maxim of relevance but violate the maxim of quality of Cooprative Principle. It’s common in daily conversation, es pecially when sense of humor comes out.Sometimes a speaker has to flout a maxim in order to observe another.
2. In sentences three ane four, Leonard and Penny both kind of flout the maxims of approbation of Politeness Principle, just dispraising each other and showing each other’s unacceptableness on hobbies.
3. In sentence five, Leonard just obeied the maxim of relevance and maxim of generosity, which creates a huge humor.
4. In sentence eight, Sheldon observes the maxim of relevance, but flouts the maxim of quantity and manner. To some extend, it is just the most effective utterance to audiance when we see him by his personality. As he is a child prodigy, less skillful in social interaction and geeky.
5. In sentence nine and ten, Leonard violates the maxim of sympathy of Politeness Pricipel. So does Sheldon. With this sarcasm, definitely will bring laughter.
6. In sentences 14, 15, 16, Penny is using irony or antiphrase, meaning that 21 seconds are two short to go again to see. Leonard doesn’t notice that but Sheldon does which he kind of never did before or usually did.
7. In sentence 19, the cool thing could be a pun, on one hand, Leonard means the movie thing, which is the previously unseen footage will be on the next Friday. On the other hand, according the context of they (Penny and Leonard) have been broken up, Raj and Howard consider and imply that something sexual.
8. In sentence 21, in view of the illustration above, analysis seven, not imply anymore but inference.
Another scene from S4E9 (season 4, episode 9)
Penny’s farther comes to see his daughter considering that Penny and Leonard are still together, actually not. So Penny and Leonard just decieve him by acting like a couple. And th e other day, Penny and Leonard are talking at the door of Leonard and Sheldon’s apartment. When Sheldon comes over and show them the up-date roommate agreement, concerning they have been together again.
together, and if I can figure out a way to do so and sound sincere, I will. (laught
track) In the meantime, I’d like to go over some proposed changes to the
roommate agreement specifically to address Penny’s annoying pers onal habits.
I have a list. (laught track) FYI, overuse of the phrase “oh, my god” is number
12. (laught track)
I’ll have no track with plots. (laught track)
Penny and Leonard are looking each other , Penny says in a low voice which Sheldon
cann’t hear.
annoying habits shall we discuss?
Agreement. As such, he bears responsibility for all your infractions and must pay all fines. (laught track)
an escrow account. (laught track) sign here. (laught track) (Sheldon sending Leonard a pen)
Analysis
1.In sentence one, although Sheldon is saying that he is kind of happy for them getting
back together, his arrangement to roommate agreement thing just not like what he said. It is an example of observation of Tact Maxim and violation of Generosity
Maxim in Politeness Principle.
2.In sentence two, Sheldon is flouting Generosity Maxim and Approbation Maxim.
3.In sentence six, actually it is a sarcasm, with the form of palying words. Penny says
track, afoot as truck and feet. She is just pretending that she does not understand what Sheldon saying about the plot and track thing.
Conclusion
As language we use in our daily life is to conduct interpersonal communication and social interaction, most of the time it may be not the meaning we tend to consider at the first place. Usually we just ovserve the pragmatic principles, like Grice’s Co-operative Principle and Leech’s Politeness Principle, but at times we don’t. And both that just generate laugher and humor.
References
[1] Stephen C. Levinson, Pragmatics, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,
Cambrideg University Press, 101.
[2] Li qing, On Co-operative Principle& Politeness Principle in Diplomatic Language Strategy, 2005
[3] https://www.doczj.com/doc/6c141442.html,/wiki/Sitcom
[4] https://www.doczj.com/doc/6c141442.html,/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory
中西方礼貌原则对比分析 不同文化类型中的“礼貌原则”存在着差异，这些差异在礼貌用语中有充分的体现。礼貌是对比语言学中语用对比研究一个不可忽略的问题，在迥异的中西方文化中更是如此。中西方两种文化的礼貌原则有着较大的差异，了解这种差异对我们的现实生活具有指导意义。 一、中西方“礼貌原则”的理论研究 1．西方文化中的礼貌概念 西方“礼貌”理论中较有影响的理论框架当属Brown & Levinson的“面子论”及Leech的“礼貌原则”。两种理论对礼貌的内涵及外延作了较为系统深刻的研究，对不同文化领域的礼貌研究都有一定影响和借鉴意义。Brown＆Levinson的“面子”概念建立在Gofman的定义基础上。根据Gofman的理论，面子对每一个人来说是最神圣的、不可侵犯的，对每一个交际者来说是最基本的、不容忽视的。但Brown＆Levinson 的面子概念更为具体，他们认为所有理性的社会成员都具有面子。他们根据个人需要把面子分为两类：消极面子(negative face)，即个人拥有行动自由、不受干涉的权利；积极面子(Positive face)，即个人的正面形象或“个性”包括希望这种自我形象受到赞许的愿望。面子有双层性，而且构成面子的双方面是相互矛盾的。在交往时，一方面我们需要与对方有所关联，或者关注对方，并且要向对方表示出我们的关注。面子的“关联”方面就是积极面子，Levinson把它称之为积极礼貌(Positive politeness)。“积极面子”所常用的语篇方略是：恭听对方谈话，对其表示兴趣，表示与对方有共同之处，相互以名字称呼等。如：“Agree，I have always believed that，too．”另一方面，我们要维护一定的独立性，并且向对方表示我们也尊重他们的独立需求。面子的“独立”方面就是消极面子，Levinson把它称之为消极礼貌(negative politeness)。实施消极面子的方略主要有：最低限度地推测别人的需求和兴趣，不把自己的意见强加于人，给别人以充分选择的余地。比如向别人建议时，可能会说“I’d enjoy going out for coffee，but I imagine you are very busy．”实施消极面子的所用方略的关键是不强加于人，使对方享有充分的自由和独立。在现实生活中，交际行为大都是威胁面子的，有时威胁积极面子，比如对别人的观点看法表示反对，抱怨或指责他人工作干得不好，有时说不敬的话或忌讳语电是对积极面子的威胁，这是因为说话者不顾及他人的社会价值。有时一些行为会威胁消极面子，比如命令、请求等，如果对方按照命令或请求去做，就等于他自己的行为自由受到了阻碍，受到了别人的强加。为了避免或减少对面子的威胁，并使正常交际进行下去，说话者要为自己和对方的面子做出一定的努力，这就是礼貌。 2．中国文化中的礼貌概念
基于礼貌原则研究的相关评述趋势探究 资料来源：大学生教育资源 摘要：礼貌原则的研究从上世纪七十年代以来一直受到各领域学者的关注。本文概述了在语用学领域里礼貌原则的研究历史及现状，讨论礼貌原则研究中存在的问题，指出礼貌原则研究中存在的问题与研究人员的预设，语料的真实性，研究过程的布控等方面有着密切关系。本研究希望能够展示出礼貌原则研究现状，并对今后的同类研究有所帮助。 关键词：礼貌原则面子普遍适用性 早期礼貌的研究学者如Lakoff，Brown＆Levinson和Leech 主要在语用学范围内研究礼貌现象，寻找具有普遍适用性的礼貌原则。他们以言语行为理论为依据，注重说话人的意图，从普通说话人归纳出具有理性和面子的“典型人”。他们认为不同文化至少在本质上都是统一的，都对什么是礼貌有着共同的理解。因此这些学者尝试从接触到的语料中归纳礼貌原则。 后人针对早期的礼貌原则中存在的一些问题，如文化制约性、静态化、理想化等问题做了诸多实验性研究，以图突破前人的研究框架，寻求更具活力、更有普遍性适用性的礼貌原则。 一、早期的礼貌原则研究评述 (一)早期的礼貌原则研究概述
礼貌的概念源于美国社会学家Erving Goffman关于“面子”的着作《礼仪的相互作用：面对面的行为论集》。Goffman在书中说到面子是一个人在交往中按照能被其他人接受的方式有效地为自己确立的正面的社会价值，并通过自身社会属性的认可实现自我形象。它是人类行为和自我体现的指导，是一种在社会中自我保护的内在的情感支持。[1人们在日常交际活动中，为了使自己的行为有面子会去做“面子工作’：。“面子工作”是相互的，即一个人要想保全自己的面子首先必须努分保全他人的面子。[~]Goffman认为，这解释了人们在交际中为何礼貌行事。Goffman 对面子的研究激起了礼貌原则的研究浪潮。 1973年，早期研究礼貌原则的学者RobinLakoffE~提出了三个关于礼貌的基本条件1．不要强加于人。2．给他人与选择。3．与对方友善，使对方感觉良好。后人对这三个条件不断地进行质疑、验证和修改。 其中颇有影响力的是GeoffreyLeech的礼貌原则。利奇的礼貌原则包含六大准则：得体准则：慷慨准则：赞扬准则；谦虚准则：赞同准则：同情准则。Fraser认为这些准则注重使交际对象感觉良好219—236，可被视为是Lakoff三个礼貌条件的延展。 Br0wn＆Levinson认为，为了建立某种社会关系，人们必须认可并留意交际对象的面子，即他们的公众自我形象、自我感觉。他们认为交际双方必须尊重彼此对自我形象的期待，考虑对方的感受，避免“威胁面子的行为”。当威胁面子的行为无可避免时，
礼貌原则及其在言语交际中的实际运用 陶胜 (湘潭职业技术学院 湖南 湘潭) 【摘要】 人们在言语交际中不仅要遵循合作原则,同时也要遵循礼貌原则,这样才能达到相互的友好交流。本文阐述了Leech提出的礼貌原则的六准则并通过实例分析了礼貌原则在言语交际中的实际运用。 【关键词】 礼貌原则 言语交际 准则 运用 成功的会话需要交际双方的合作,即双方必须遵守一些基本的原则。美国语言学家H.P.Grice于1975年提出了言语交际的合作原则(Co-operative Princi p le):说话时交际双方要相互合作,要遵守合作原则的四大准则———量的准则、质的准则、关系准则和方式准则。但是,人们在实际交际中往往不遵守这些准则,甚至故意违反这些准则。在对合作原则之下的各准则普遍性提出质疑的同时,B r own,Levins on和Leech等学者经过进一步研究,提出了语言使用的礼貌问题。Leech指出,出于礼貌,说话人在言语交际中会故意违反合作原则,让听话人去意会说话人的真正意图。Leech提出了言语交际中要遵守的礼貌原则,意以此来拯救合作原则,圆满地解释了为什么人们在言语交际中要故意违反合作原则。礼貌是人类文明的标志,是人类社会活动的一条重要准绳。作为一种社会活动,语言活动也同样受到这条准绳的约束。大多数情况,人们说话交际是由人们的社会关系决定的,一种语言行为必定是一种社会行为。在交际中我们必须考虑社会所能接受的各种因素,使用恰当的语言,运用合适的礼貌原则,促成有效的言语交际。 1 Leech礼貌原则的六准则 在社会交际活动中,人们必须遵守一些特定的原则,才能达到相互的友好交流。这些原则包括交际时要宽宏、谦虚、同情、得体等,英国著名语言学家Leech提出了礼貌原则的六项准则,其中每条准则都包含两条次准则。 1.1 得体准则(TactM axi m) 使他人受损最小,使他人受惠最大。 Lend me your car!(不礼貌) Could you lend me your car?(礼貌) 112 慷慨准则(Gener osity Maxi m) 使自身受惠最小,使自身受损最大。 You must come and have dinner with us.(礼貌) W e must come and have dinner with you.(不礼貌) 113 赞扬准则(App r obati on Maxi m) 尽力缩小对他人的贬损,尽力夸大对他人的赞扬。 A:Do you like these app les? B:I’ve tasted better.(含蓄礼貌地评判) 114 谦逊准则(ModestyMaxi m) 尽力缩小对自身的赞扬,尽力夸大对自身的贬损。 How stup id of me!(礼貌) How s mart of me!(不礼貌) 115 赞同准则(Agree mentM axi m) 尽力缩小自身和他人之间的分歧,尽力夸大自身和他人之间的一致。 A:That dress she is wearing is beautiful,don’t you think s o? B1:Yes,abs olutely.(礼貌) B2:I don’t think it’s beautiful at all.(不礼貌) 1.6 同情准则(Sy mpathy Maxi m) 尽力缩小自身对他人的厌恶,尽力夸大自身对他人的同情。 A:My kitten died last week. B1:So we won’t be annoyed by that nasty little ani m al any more.(不礼貌) B2:It’s most unfortunate that you l ost your pet.(礼貌) 人们在交际中一般都应遵守以上礼貌原则的各项准则,从以上各项准则中,我们可以得出这样的规律:说话人说话时应尽量多尊重别人,多给别人一些方便,尽可能多让自己吃一点亏,从而使交际双方都感到受尊重,同时又反过来使对方获得对自己的好感。当然,人们并非在任何时候、任何场合都要恪守礼貌原则,例如在紧急的情形下,或在意外事件中,在激烈争辩或紧张工作的场合,或在十分亲密友好的朋友间,礼貌原则可能会让位于话语的内容,屈居于次要地位。 参考文献 [1] Byra m.M.Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Educati on,Multilingual Matters46.MultilingualMatters L td,1989. [2] 川上郁雄.「「日本事情」教育における文化の問題」[J].「21世紀 の日本事情」創刊号, 京:くろしお出版,1999. [3] 李!奉.「転 期を迎えた日本語教育に求められるもの」[J].「日 本語教育」119号,2003.[4] 倉地 美.「対話からの1文化理解」[M].頸草 房,1992. [5] 原綾乃.「留学生と日本人学生の交流促進を目的とした ψ 教育の実践」[J].「日本語教育」117号,2003. [6] 国立国語研究所日本語教育 ψ日本語教育研究室.「1文化 接触と日本語教育」[J].「日本語学」8号,1989. [7] 细川英雄.「ことばと文化を結ぶ日本語教育」[M]. 京:凡人社, 2002. 2007年6月 双语学习?教育创新?
本科生毕业设计（论文）封面 （ 2017 届） 论文（设计）题目 作者 学院、专业 班级 指导教师（职称） 论文字数 论文完成时间 大学教务处制
英语原创毕业论文参考选题 一、论文说明 本写作团队致力于英语毕业论文写作与辅导服务，精通前沿理论研究、仿真编程、数据图表制作，专业英语本科论文3000起，具体可以找扣扣805990 0749，下列所写题目均可写作。部分题目已经写好原创。 二、原创论文参考题目 1、(英语毕业论文)浅析《恋爱中的女人》中劳伦斯的爱情观 2、(英语毕业论文)从礼貌原则分析发盘的语言技巧 3、(英语毕业论文)浅析《愤怒的葡萄》中主要人物的性格特征（开题报告+论文+文献综述） 4、(英语毕业论文)A Study of Narrative Strategies in Beloved 5、(英语毕业论文)《月亮与六便士》中查尔斯?思特里克兰德的追寻自我 6、(英语毕业论文)从奥运菜单看中式菜肴英译名规范化程度（开题报告+论文） 7、(英语毕业论文)中西饮食文化中的差异（开题报告+论文） 8、(英语毕业论文)从幽默取材看中英传统价值差异(开题报告+论文) 9、(英语毕业论文)美国情景喜剧《老友记》中幽默的翻译研究（开题报告+论文） 10、(英语毕业论文)加工层次理论指导下的商务英语词汇学习 11、(英语毕业论文)Yellow Peril–the Image of Fu Manchu in the West 12、(英语毕业论文)《月亮与六便士》中查尔斯?思特里克兰德的追寻自我 13、(英语毕业论文)互文性理论指导下的公示语汉英翻译 14、(英语毕业论文)文化负迁移对翻译的影响（开题报告+论文） 15、(英语毕业论文)奇幻作品中所反映的欧洲民族神话—以《指环王》为例（开题报告+论文+文献综述） 16、(英语毕业论文)商务谈判中的模糊语的使用 17、(英语毕业论文)论艾略特《荒原》中的宗教信仰与价值观(开题报告+论文+文献综述) 18、(英语毕业论文)分析《贵妇画像》中伊莎贝尔的个性特点（开题报告+论文+文献综述） 19、(英语毕业论文)从高校课桌文化透视当代大学生的内心压力（开题报告+论文+文献综述） 20、(英语毕业论文)公示语的功能、语言特点及翻译 21、(英语毕业论文)《呼啸山庄》中的爱与复仇(开题报告+论文) 22、(英语毕业论文)从关联理论解读《家庭战争》的幽默（开题报告+论文+文献综述+外文翻译） 23、(英语毕业论文)中西方家庭教育对比研究——从《傅雷家书》和《致儿家书》的对比(开题报告+论文) 24、(英语毕业论文)从《阿甘正传》看个人主义对美国文化的影响 25、(英语毕业论文)从归化和异化的角度对《小妇人》的两个中文译本的比较研究（开题报告+论文+文献综述） 26、(英语毕业论文)语言经济学视角下的商务英语信函写作（开题报告+论文+文献综述）
The Relationship between Cooperation Principle and Politeness Principle in Verbal Communication Abstract: Cooperation principle, a center major theory in pragmatics, is proposed by Oxford linguist philosopher H. P. Grice, but cooperation principle itself converses endless to consummate. Sometimes, because of politeness and different occasions, people violate cooperation principle, which leads to the produce of conversational implicature. English famous linguist G. N. Leech proposed politeness principle theory, and thought politeness principle and cooperate principle may mutually make up for the profit, and politeness principle may save cooperate principle. Key words; Cooperation principle, politeness principle, conversational implicature, relations Introduction: The cooperation principle explained the relations between the words’ literal significant and its practical significant and how the conversational implicature is produced, but cooperation principle had not explained why people did have to violate the conversation criteria to implicitly, indirectly express our own intention. In order to make up this kind of insufficiency, G. N. Leech put up with politeness principle to “rescues” the cooperation principle. This article will introduce the relations between cooperation principle and politeness principle, with the insufficiency of cooperation principle as well as the daily conversation which actually observe politeness principle but violate cooperation principle to achieve arts of speaking. ⅠCooperation principle and politeness principle In daily life, people don’t usually say things directly, but tend to imply them. In Grice’s theory, the two participants of the conversation communicate with each other smoothly because they keep some basic principles, which make them cooperate with each other and understand each other. Our talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession of disconnected remarks, and would not be rational if they did. They are characteristically, to some degree at last, cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or set of purpose, or at least a mutually accepted direction.（胡壮麟，2006，P191）In other words, we seem to follow some principle like the following: “Make your conversational contri bution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.” To specify the cooperation principle, Grice introduced four categories of maxims as follow: QUANTITY:
“礼貌原则”和“面子理论”在跨文化交际中的应用 研究 篇一：语用学中的面子理论和礼貌原则的应用 摘要 中国饮食文化博大精深、源远流长是来华外宾了解中国文化的一个重要窗口。菜铺上的菜名对人们有着很好的指示作用,它传神的表达出菜本身的特点和美好寓意。与此同时,随着我国日益与国际接轨,中国菜越来越受外国友人的亲睐。 但由于中国饮食烹饪方式多样，文化内涵丰富，相关专业性强，因而容易导致中国菜名的英译错误。同样的，英语广告是一种跨文化的交际活动，在翻译过程中，必须考虑到两种不同文化形成的语用原则。语用学在实际应用中涉及多方面的理论，包括面子理论和礼貌原则。关键词：中国菜名;面子理论;礼貌原则 Abstract chinesedietculture,withalonghistory,isrichandprofound,whichhasbecomea nimportantwindowfortheforeigngueststogetacquaintedwithchineseculture. chinesedishnamesonthemenuhaveagoodindicationforpeople.Itvividlyexpr essesthecharacteristicsofthefoodandgoodmoral.Atthesametime,asourcount ryincreasinglyhasinterfacedwithinternational,chinesedishesarebecomingm oreandmorepopularamongforeigners.
however,differentchinesefoodcookingways,richfoodcultureandprofessiona lstrongbringaboutdifficultiesfortranslation.Theapplicationsofpragmaticsin cludingfacetheoryandpolitenessprincipleintheareaofdiet.samely,advertise mentisancross-culturalactivity,soweshouldconsiderthepragmaticsprinciple bothinchineseandenglish.pragmaticsinvolvesvariousaspectsoftheroies,incl udingfacetheoryandpolitenessprinciple. Keywords:chinesedishnames;Facetheory;politenessprinciple Theapplicationofpragmaticsinadvertisement 英语广告advertisement一词产生自拉丁语advertere，意为“唤起大众对某种事物的注意，并诱于一定的方向所使用的一种手段。”而成功的商业广告是则是通过文字信息、非文字信息(如音乐、图片等)或图文并茂的方式来吸引消费者以期实现销售目的。然而,在广告所采取的各种形式中,语言一直是最重要和最根本的。众所周知，广告翻译是一种跨文化的交际活动，在这个翻译过程中，必须考虑到两种不同文化形成的语用原则。如果翻译准确，则可使持两种语言的人成功地实现交际，达到商标的目的。反之，就容易 产生失误。 一、避免语用失误广告翻译的几点注意 1、跨文化语用失误（cross-culturalpragmaticfailure） （1）品牌的翻译避免直译上海产“白翎”钢笔，其英译为“whiteFeather”,在英语国家无人问津,其原因在于英语中有句成语“toshowthewhitefeather”意思是“临阵逃脱”,而“白色羽毛”象征
合作原则、会话含义及礼貌原则 摘要：“合作原则”（cooperative principle）是美国哲学家Grice 提出的一套假想的原则，合作原则这条根本原则可以具体体现为四条准则，即数量准则，质量准则，关联准则和方式准则。但是在实际的日常生活中人们并不总是遵循这四条准则，其实也就是因为对合作原则下的这四条准则的违反才产生了“会话含义”(conversational implicature)。但是Grice 并没有解释人们为什么要违反“合作原则” （cooperative principle）。在此之后，Leech 又提出了“礼貌原则”(politeness principle)，作为对合作原则的补充。Leech 认为在日常会话中，人们往往因为遵守礼貌原则而违反了合作原则。但是实际上，人们并不总是因为礼貌才违反合作原则的。 关键词：合作原则；会话含义；礼貌原则 一．合作原则和它的四个准则 合作原则（cooperative principle）是Grice1967年在哈佛大学的一次演讲中提出的，他认为，合作原则是一切成功的语言交际活动的基础，所以我们可以这样认为，所有参加交谈的人在他们进行交谈活动时采取的是合作的态度。 首先让我们来搞清楚什么是合作原则。它是一套设想的准则，如果在交谈过程中交谈双方都希望更好的理解对方的话语意思，就得遵循合作原则，Grice把它具体化为四条准则。 质量准则（quality maxim）——也就是说要尽量说真话 （1）不要说自己认为是不真实的话； （2）不要说缺乏足够证据的话 例1： A：你认为他适合做这个工作吗？ B：当然了，完全适合。 数量准则（quantity maxim） A：使自己所说的话达到现时的交际目的所要求的详尽程度； B：不能使自己所说的话比要求的更详尽。
用合作原则和礼貌原则分析《士兵突击》选段 摘要：本文使用语用学上的合作原则和礼貌原则，对《士兵突击》中的选段进行简要的语用分析，揭示该作品语言中的语用特点在烘托人物性格方面的作用。 关键词：合作原则；礼貌原则；士兵突击 一. 合作原则和礼貌原则 合作原则最初是由Grice提出的。Grice认为人们在交际过程中必须要遵循一般的原则——合作原则，即根据目前交际的目的或方向，使谈话始终符合交际的需要（何自然，陈新仁，2004：32）。在合作原则之下，Grcie 细分出了体现合作交际的四条准则，共九条次则,即：（1）质的准则：努力使你说的话真实。A. 不要说你认为是假的话。B不要说你认为缺少足够证据的话。（2）量的准则：A话语应包含有满足交际所需的信息。B话语不应包含超过交际所需的信息。（3）关系准则：要有关联。（4）方式准则：说话要清楚明白。A避免晦涩B避免歧义C要简练D要有条理。 根据Grice的理论，这四条准则是合作原则的基本准则。然而，在日常交际中，很多时候说话人并不完全遵循合作原则的这四条基本的准则，却照样可以顺利地完成交际，建立和谐的人际关系。这是因为人们在违反合作原则时为了达到礼貌的目的遵循了另一种原则，使自己的话语带有一种特殊的含义，实现特殊的交际目的。这就是 Leech 在后来的研究中从修辞学和语体学的角度提出的礼貌原则。 根据Leech 的理论，礼貌原则是对合作原则的补充。礼貌是人类文明的标志，是人类社会活动的一条重要准则。作为一种社会活动，语言活动也同样受到这条准绳的约束。因此礼貌原则是增加和维护交际双方和睦关系的一种原则。Leech提出了制约人们言语交际的六
英汉语用礼貌原则跨文化交际运用探析 礼貌是不同文化背景的人都必须遵守和维护的准则，但不同文化背景的社会具有不同的礼貌准则。本文通过对比利奇和顾曰国分别提出的礼貌原则，分析两者的差异及成因，指出在跨文化交际中应遵循文化认同的原则。 标签：跨文化交际礼貌原则语用失误文化认同 作为一种普遍的社会现象，礼貌是各民族广泛使用的文明手段，是一种约定俗成的行为规范，它是不同文化背景的人都要遵守的一种社会行为准则。从这层意义上讲，礼貌具有普遍性。但是，不同文化背景的社会阶层具有不同的礼貌准则，所以，礼貌又具有文化差异性。我们有必要了解英汉两种不同文化体系下的语用礼貌差异，这是进行积极有效的跨文化交际的前提。 一、中英文化礼貌准则比较 （一）英语文化礼貌准则及应用 在西方学者有关礼貌准则的论述中，人们较为熟知的是格莱斯（Grice，1975）的合作原则，利奇（Leech，1983）的礼貌原则，布朗和列文森（Brown&Levinson，1978/1987）的面子保全论以及Lakoff（1973）的礼貌准则。 1.格莱斯指出，所有的谈话者都要遵循“合作原则”（cooperative principle）它包括四项准则： 1）数量准则：所提供的信息量要符合谈话的要求。 2）质量准则：所说的话要真实。 3）相关准则；所说的话要与前面的内容相关。 4）方式准则：说话要简洁、清楚，有条不紊，不含糊其辞。[1] 2.利奇（1983）在格莱斯的理论基础上从修辞学、语体学的角度出发，提出了“礼貌原则”（politeness principle），以弥补合作原则的不足。 利奇认为，合作原则只能要求我们遵循合作原则下的质量关联方式准则，约束我们在交际中说什么和如何理解对方有意违反某项准则而获得言外之意，但不能解释人们为何要拐弯抹角地说话，即为什么有如此大量的间接语言行为。利奇的礼貌原则共有六条准则，每条准则又包含两条次准则：[2] 1）得体准则（tact maxim）：a.尽量使他人少吃亏；b.尽量使他人多受益。电话铃响了，人们往往说“Could you possibly answer the phone？”而不是“Answer the
国外有不少学者对跨文化交际中礼貌用语的使用有过研究。在20世纪70年代后期，首先由Brown&Levinson发表《语言运用中的普遍问题：礼貌现象》。80年代，英国语言学家利奇对交际活动中的礼貌原则进行了归纳和分类中国学者中，礼貌研究的代表人物主要是徐盛桓和顾曰国。徐盛桓提出礼貌原则的新构想。1992年，顾曰国总结了中国文化礼貌中的四个基本要素，即尊敬他人、谦虚、态度热情和温文尔雅；归纳了与汉语言文化有关的五条礼貌准则。1997年，蒋玉新提出，正是文化差异导致了行为举止、问候语、社会价值观等方面的差异。2002年，戈玲玲认为语用失误主要源自不同的文化背景。 本选题在以往研究范围的基础上，基于礼貌原则的理论研究，将英汉礼貌用语进行对比研究，旨在探究跨文化交际中礼貌用语使用失误的内在原因，以礼貌原则的视角探究中西方礼貌用语的文化差异和语用差异，这样即可以更透彻的了解中国文化，也有助于跨文化交际的顺利进行。 本选题侧重对礼貌用语的概念，分类和使用不当的原因进行阐述、对比，以英汉礼貌用语为主要研究对象，运用对比分析的研究方法，具体分析英汉礼貌用语在内涵，使用方法，文化背景上的差异，结合Grice的合作原则，Leech的礼貌原则和顾曰国的中国礼貌研究等相关理论，和一些跨文化交际双方礼貌用语使用失误进行典型案例分析。重点在于运用语言学和语用学理论以及礼貌原则的视角来解决跨文化交际中的实际问题。 本选题的难点在于相关资料过多，礼貌用语产生的背景过于复杂，交际失败案例过于零散，归纳总结时稍有难度。本选题注重实用性，但是理论到实际是有一定的差距和难度。相关理论相对抽象，用来指导实践并不具备直观性。
礼貌原则在商务英语信函中的应用 篇一：英语礼貌原则在商务信函中的具体应用 英语礼貌原则在商务信函中的具体应用 摘要：商务英语信函中的礼貌原则是一个非常重要的话题。作 为国际商务活动中的重要载体，商务英语信函是国际贸易双方进行 书面商务信息沟通的重要手段，在国际商务交际中起着举足轻重的 作用。本文介绍了英语礼貌原则，以及其在商务信函中的具体应用。 关键词：礼貌原则；商务英语信函 随着全球经济一体化进程的不断发展，世界范围内的经济合作与 交流也在不断增多。人们不可能跟自己的贸易伙伴一一亲自会面协 商。这时商务信函就成了取代亲自
拜会的一种便宜有效的沟通媒 介。遵循礼貌原则有助于促进和发展同客户的关系，在促进达成新 的业务方面起着积极的作用。 一、英语礼貌原则 在语言学的框架内，英语礼貌原则一般可以细分为如下几类： 1、策略原则 即尽量减少他人付出的代价，增加对他人的益处。这一原则较为 适用于当我们在向别人发出动作时。根据这一原则可以得出以下两个结论。 首先，就祈使句而言，提供比要求要礼貌一些。如：have some more sugar 就比clean up the floor 要礼貌。 其次，在表示请求时，间接比直接要礼貌一些。所以根据礼貌由 浅至深的程度，直接的祈使句不如普通的疑问句礼貌，普通的疑问 句又不如首先提出“是否可以做出
请求”的疑问句礼貌。例如： pass me the sugar. can you pass me the sugar? can i probably ask you to pass me the sugar? 这三句话的礼貌程度是逐步加深的。请求越来越不明显，从而给 听者更大的拒绝的自由。 2、慷慨原则 即尽量减少对自己的益处，增加自己付出的代价。这一原则较为 适用于当我们自己要发出动作时。当发出提供性的动作时，直接比 间接礼貌，如： let me set the table. i was wondering if i could possibly set the table. 当发出请求时，间接比直接礼貌。如： i want to borrow your car. could i possibly borrow your car? 3、称赞原则
不礼貌原则综述 不礼貌现象，和礼貌现象一样，也是我们沟通的一种非常重要的语用现象。尽管与礼貌现象相比，之前的研究忽略了不礼貌现象。在某种程度上，无论在国外还是国内仍然有不少相关的研究发现，并且当今关于不礼貌现象的研究越来越受到重视。本文是一篇关于不礼貌现象研究的文献综述，作者旨在从以下几部分展示一个关于不礼貌现象研究清晰的轮廓：不礼貌的定义，不礼貌策略及其回应策略，国内外不礼貌研究的领域。同时，从该文献综述中可以看出，目前国内外对该话题的研究已取得不少成果，但仍有进一步研究的空间。 不礼貌是日常言语交际中普遍存在的现象，被认为是交际策略之一。像礼貌原则一样，不礼貌原则也在我们的生活中扮演着重要的角色。由于不礼貌原则的重要性，本文将对国内外不礼貌原则的研究进行回顾并提出进一步的发展空间。 1不礼貌的定义 对“不礼貌”定义并不容易，研究者之间也没有统一的定义。这是因为不礼貌本身与许多因素密切相关，如社会基本准则、社会阶层、社会权力、不同的文化背景等。Watts（2003：9）指出，“...不礼貌是过去、目前乃至将来都有争议的术语。”Culpeper（1996）结合了Goffman（1967）和Brown & Levinson（1987）的观点，试图将“礼貌”的反面“不礼貌”定义为“使用旨在产生相反效果的策略，即社会中断的策略”。随后，Culpeper（2003）将不礼貌定义为“一种旨在攻击面子，从而导致社会冲突和不和谐的交际策略”。此后学者对不礼貌提出了不同的定义。 Mills（2005）提出，在一些谈话中，不礼貌行为是违反社会行为规范的。Bousfield（2008）提出，“不礼貌是礼貌的对立面，而不是试图减轻面子威胁行为，不礼貌是一种故意进行的口头威胁行为。” 在中国，关于不礼貌的研究尚且不多。主要有以下学者试图定义“不礼貌”。杨子和于国栋（2007）把言语不礼貌的话语定义为直接或间接损害了他人面子的话语，在交际中会引起受话人以及第三者尴尬、不愉快等。李元胜（2006）把不礼貌解释为在一定条件下违背了语言规范下的话语，从而产生正面和负面的交际价值”。丁崇明（2001）以反复的形式分析了不礼貌的话语。他指出，重申不同于重复，有其自身的特点。重申并不总是带来不礼貌的语用效果，因为它们与提问者的心理期望和社会因素密切相关。 从以上的研究者们的定义来看，近二十年来，中外学者对“不礼貌”的研究越来越重视。 2不礼貌策略 随着对不礼貌研究的深入，学者们提出了与布朗和莱文森的礼貌策略相平行
试论会话中合作原则与礼貌原则之间的关系 一．会话中的合作原则 会话含义理论是理解自然语言的一种学识，它是由格莱斯于1967年在哈佛大学的讲座中提出。这个理论提出，谈话的参与者都必须有把谈话进行下去的愿望。所谓成功的言语交际需要会话双方互相合作互相配合,要求每一个交谈参与者在整个交谈过程中，所说的话符合这一次交谈的目标或方向。正是交谈者的这种配合，使得他们能够持续地进行有意义的语言交际。交谈者在交际中所遵循的那些原则和准则就是所谓的“合作原则”，即Cooperative Principle,简称CP。 合作原则又可以具体体现为四条准则 1)质量准则( The Maxim of Quality): A.不要说自已认为是不真实的话。 B.不要说自己缺乏足够证据的话。 2)量的准则( The Maxim of Quantity): A.使自己所说的话达到(交谈的现实目的)所要求的详尽程度。 B.不能使自己所说的话比所要求的更详尽。 3)关联准则( The Maxim of Relation): 说话要贴切。 4)方式准则(The Maxim of Manner) 表达要清楚 A.避免晦涩的词语 B.避免歧义
C.说话要简要(避免赘述) D.说话要有条理 但是，后来人们发现，在实际交往中，人们不可能时时刻刻都遵循这四条准则，甚至有时是故意违反这些准则。那么我们就可以从人们故意违反这些准则中来，探究隐含在语言之下的那些言外之意，有时会达到幽默的效果，有时却会引起听者的误解，以至于有时说话者不得不额外的注以解释。例如在（1）对话中： 女孩：我漂亮吗？ 男孩：你带眼镜的时候很漂亮。 在这个对话中女孩所期待的回答是:是的，你很漂亮。这样也遵守了合作原则。但偏偏男孩没这样回答，也就是说他违反了合作原则，所以令女孩产生了误解，她完全有理由这样想：“那就是说我不带眼镜的时候很丑了”。而男孩为了不让女孩误解，赶紧接着说“你不带眼镜的时候更漂亮。”以此来消除前句话有可能带来的负面的效果。 例（2）He is a machine. (3) Tom has wooden ears. 上面这两句话都违背了质量准则里的第一条，因为人不可能是机器，人的耳朵也不可能是木制的。但是我们却可以从中推导出特殊的会话含义。比方说，说他是个机器，可能是想描述“他工作努力”，“他只知道干活”，“他不理解女孩的心”等，视具体情景而定。而（3）则可能说他对音乐，或其他的能用耳朵来听的东西没有鉴赏能力等等。 （4）A: Where does John live?
浅析语用学中的礼貌原则 摘要：本文主要从语用学的角度对语言交际中的礼貌现象进行了研讨，以旨更全面地向读者展示语用礼貌观。本文共分四部分：（1）礼原则的由来；（2）礼貌原则的解析；（3）礼貌策略；（4）礼貌原则的应用。加深对礼貌原则的理解可以有助于提升自身的语用能力。 关键词：语用学礼貌原则教学应用 一.礼貌原则的由来 (一)礼貌的界定。 在众多关于礼貌的各种文献中，围绕“礼貌”一词进行的研究主要有五个方面，具体如下： (1)礼貌是人们在交际中的一种现实目的(Politeness as areal-world goa1)。人们在说话过程中运用礼貌原则的目的就是取悦他人。 (2)礼貌是一种敬重(Politeness as the deference)。 (3)礼貌是一种语体(Politeness as the register)。语体是指“与社交语境有关的系统化变体”(Lyons，1977)。或者指在一定场合下人们说话或写作时的语言变化(Holliday，1978)。 (4)礼貌是一种话语表层现象(Politeness as an utterancelevel phenomenon)。该观点认为，礼貌是一种表层语法编码，该观点主要是离开语言运用的实际环境去研究礼貌问题。 (5)礼貌是一种语用现象(Politeness as a pragmatic phi—nominee)。该观点在语用学界已经成为人们的一种共识(Thomas，1995)。总之．在语用学领域，人们关心的不是说话人是否真正对他人友善，而是他说了什么，以及他的话语对听话人产生了什么影响。把礼貌看成敬重、语体，是一种社会语言学现象，不属于语用学的范围，而把礼貌看成一种话语表层现象，就是脱离了语境去谈礼貌，这是一种超理想化的理论，因为语言形式是和语境、说话人和听话人之间的关系紧密联系的。（二）)礼貌原则提出的必要性。 在英语语用学习领域中，提及言语行为理论(Speech ActTheory)．人们会很自然地联想到美国语言哲学家格赖斯(H．P．Grieve)的会话含义学说(Convocational Implicate)，即为了保证会话的顺利进行，谈话双方必须共同遵守一些基本原则，尤其是用来解释会话结构的“合作原则”(Cooperative Principle)。合作原则和四项有关质量、数量、相关、方式的次准则(Quantity，Relation，Manner)用以指导说话人和听话人如何成功地进行会话。不论他们遵循或是违背这项原则，都会产生会话含义，也就是一种特殊的非自然意义。 在合作原则中．Grieve指出谈话的双方必须怀着一个相同的愿望，且双方的话语能相互理解，共同配合。然而，谈话的一方若未能遵守“合作原则”，并非为了说谎或是出于故意，有时他可能由于礼貌或语境的需要。说了一些违反合作原则的话。当另一方觉察到对方的话没有遵守合作原则时，他就迫使自己越过对方话语的表面意义去设法领会说话人话语中的弦外之音。寻求说话人在什么地方体现着合作原则，由此产生会话含义，也就是一种特殊的非自然意义。后来学者们注意到．谈话双方不遵守合作原则有时是出于礼貌上的需要．所以在讨论合作原则的同时，应充分考虑礼貌原则(Politeness Principle)。语言学家利奇(G．N．Leech)曾指出，礼貌原则完善了会话含义学说，解释了合作原则无法解释的现象，因此，礼貌原则和合作原则是互为益补的关系，用Leech的话说，礼
礼貌原则在汉语中的应用 摘要：礼貌原则是一套规约人们日常行为的准则．礼貌原则也是语用能力的一种。加深对礼貌原则的理解可以有助于提升自身的语用能力。该文章就是从语用学的角度对礼貌原则进行了浅析。 关键词：语用学礼貌原则 礼貌原则在汉语里有什么体现呢，可以从积极礼貌语言、消极礼貌语言和隐性礼貌语言这几个方面来分析。 一、积极礼貌语言 积极礼貌就是讲话人在表达难以避免的有损面子的话语时，采取补偿行动，对受话人的积极面子（即希望受到恭维和赞扬）加以保护。在语言交际活动中，批评、埋怨、取笑、反驳、挑战等都有可能损害受话人的积极面子，道歉、认错等则有可能损害说话人的积极面子。这时候往往要采用积极礼貌语言手段对受话人的面子加以保护。通常一下几种体现： 1、赞扬：对受话人的某些方面例如服饰、物品、兴趣、爱好等表示特别赞赏，使之感到脸面光彩，从而乐于为你效劳。例如向人借东西时这样说：“哟，你做的这个新发型真好看！……能把你的自行车借我一下吗？”这样就比较容易奏效。
2、体贴：对受话人的愿望、需要等表示特别的关心和体贴，使之感到十分亲切，从而愉快地接受邀请或建议。例如邀请别人进餐时说：“哎，你不是挺喜欢吃酸菜鱼的吗？前面有一家川味馆，咱们去尝尝吧。” 3、暄叙：通过尽情叙谈的方法表示非常乐意与对方交谈，使之感到你将其视为亲密的朋友。例如，对初次来访的客人说：“来来，你看我家，客厅乱成了什么样子！椅子没放好，沙发上全是书，小孩子的玩具到处乱丢，先到书房坐坐吧。”这样很容易消除客人的拘束感。 4、昵称：用比较亲密的称呼来拉近距离，打动对方，使之满足自己的请求或按照自己的希望去做。例如，向年长者问路，称对方为“同志”肯定不如称“老大爷”、“老大娘”的效果好。不过要注意，对文化层次和地位较高的人这种方法不太适宜。 5、重复：对对方的话语或者话语中的核心词语进行重复，以表示赞成、同情、感慨等。例如： 甲：刚才进校门时摔了一跤，真倒霉！ 乙：刚才摔跤了？没伤着吧？这场雨真够呛！ 6、善意谎言：为使对方面子上过得去或不使对方为难撒一些善意的小谎，说一些言不由衷或违背事实的话。例如：