英语论文网

　[ Abstract] 　Politeness is culture2s pecific . It has differentmanifestati ons in different cultures . This essay is intended to explore the differences bet ween English politeness and Chinese politeness .
　　Politeness is part of s ocial acti onswhich can be manifes2ted in communicati on bymeans of language aswell as the act .Since this thesis mainly deals with the comparis on of polite2ness in different cultures fr om the pers pective of linguistics,polite behaviors (polite act) will not be included in our dis2cussion .
I 1Studi es of Politeness i n English ContextThe English ter m“polite”can be traced back t o the 15thcentury, which etymol ogically derives fr om LateMedievalLat2in“politus” , meaning“s moothed, refined” . Accordingly, apolite person at that time would be defined as a person withrefined courteous manners . The English word“courteous”borr owed from French can be found an etymological connec2tion with the word“court” . According to Ehlich, the word‘courteous’was first adop ted to mean refined manners of theupper classes in court, and then was used by the feudalknights in theMiddle Ages to claim their distincti on from thecommon peop le .① With the collap se of the feudal hierarchy,courteous or polite behaviors aim to maintain the equilibriumof inter personal relationship s within the s ociety . And nowa2days, peop le sometimes would use politeness as a strategy t onegotiate to gain benefits for themselves .Politeness is regarded as linguistic universal . It is em2bedded in every language with differentmanifestations depen2ding on its s pecific culture . Researches on linguistic polite2ness have been l ong done from many pers pectives and manylinguists have res pectively p roposed their own app roaches t othis point . Whereas with whatever app r oaches the linguistsstudy politeness, there is www.51lunwen.organ imp licit unanimous definition ofpoliteness in s p ite of the fact that none of the researchers ex2p licitly give the definiti on of politeness②. They unanimouslyconcep tualize politeness as strategic conflict avoidance③.
I nthe field of politeness research, t wo names (Br own and Levin2son) are found to be most distinguished for their face2savingview, which is now universally acknowledged .According to Brown and Levinson, “face”derives fr omt wo s ources, Goffman’ s notion of face and the English ter ms“l osing face”and“saving face” , which are believed t o be o2riginated fr om the translation of theMandarin mià nzi (面子 )and liǎ n (脸) ( ass ociated with the meaning of honor in Chi2nese) in the English community in China . Goffman regards“face”as a sacred possessi on of an individual . He als o ex2p lains that during the encounter, the conversati onalists are inthe common belief of speaking in a p r operway s o as to main2tain the face of the partici pants . Seen in this light, Goffman’s“face”is a public image in an interacti on . I f one wants hisface t o be cared for, he should care for other peop le’ s face .Based on Goffman’ s face theory, Br own and Levins onmake a further study . They define face as“the self2image thatevery member wants t o claim for himself” . They als o clai mthat“face is s omething that is emotionally invested, and thatcan be l ost, maintained or enhanced, and must be constantlyattended t o in interaction” ④. Due t o the vulnerability of face,every participant in an interaction is concerned with his/herface and every one wants his/her fac