Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting
Transcript of Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting
![Page 1: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Linguistic Routines and Politeness in Greeting
and Parting
An analysis of John Laver’s article by A.Vigneron
![Page 2: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline Introduction Raymond Firth’s view The importance of face (and FTAs) Risk/Routinization equivalent evolution Paul Grice’s Cooperative principle Grice’s 4 maxims vs Politeness and Face Ervin-Tripp’s flow chart Formulaic greeting and parting Conversational phases and routine choice Norm and deviation : conversational implicature Phatic communion Initial phase : Acknowledgment and Re-negotiation Final phase : Mitigation and consolidation Conclusion
![Page 3: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Introduction
Permanent tension between› Efficiency (Grice)› Politeness (Brown and Levinson)
Linguistic routines :› Are polite behaviour tools› Help reduce FTA
Norm is key any deviation = negotiation of social relationship between participants (cf. slides 9 & 10)
![Page 4: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Raymond Firth’s view
Main function of routine linguistic material = ceremonial / ritual function
« Sociological observations suggest [it] is highly conventionalized (…) greeting and
parting behavior may be termed ritual since it follows patterned routines (…) and it has
adaptative value in facilitating social relationships. »
R.Firth 1972
![Page 5: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The importance of face (and FTAs)
Face = key notion in routines
Negative F : want of member that his actions be unimpeded by others negative politeness
Positive F : want of member that his wants be desirable to -at least some- others positive politeness
Non-respect of Grice’s 4 maxims arises from attention to Face and FTAs! (cf. slide 7 & 8)
![Page 6: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Risk / Routinization equivalent evolution
Maximum FTA risk uses maximum routinization conversely
Maximum routinization reveals maximum FTA risk
Formality and politeness display equivalent evolution to keep FTA at the same level
Circumstance variation existence of link between formality / politeness / risk / face
![Page 7: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Paul Grice’s Cooperative principle
Grice’s 4 maxims› Quantity : be as informative as necessary› Quality : be truthful› Relation : be relevant› Manner : be clear, concise and unambiguous
Assumption : purpose of conversation = maximally effective exchange of information
Notion of conversational implicature arises : taking into account that the 4 maxims MUST be fulfilled… what is S doing?
![Page 8: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Grice’s 4 maxims vs Politeness and Face
« One powerful and pervasive motive for not talking Maxim-wise is the desire to give some attention to face (…) Politeness is then a major deviation from such rational efficiency. »
Brown & Levinson 1978
Need for maximum efficiency : Help! , Fire! , … Imperative for actions directly in H’s interest :
Take care , Enjoy , Be good …
![Page 9: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Ervin-Tripp’s flow chart
![Page 10: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Formulaic greeting and parting
Follows Ervin-Tripp’s flow chart Address usage is reciprocal between equals
and non-reciprocal between unequals
Adult / non-adult Setting identity is official rather than personal Dispensation : higher rank accepting ‘closeness’ Relatives & well-acquainted / inferiors / children
= formulaic phrase
![Page 11: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Conversational phases and Routine choice
Initial (marginal) : politeness ++ Medial (main conversational body): Grice’s
maxims + / politeness – Final (marginal) : politeness ++
Social status of H Degree of acquaintance between S/H Situational factors : occasion/setting Characteristics os S/H : age, gender, social class
![Page 12: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Norm and deviation : conversational implicature
« When there is agreement about a normal address form to alters of specific statuses, then any deviation is a message. »
Ervin-Tripp 1969
« How can (the S’) saying what he did say be reconciled with the supposition that he is observing the overall Cooperative Principle?»
Grice 1975
Two movements :› Social step : acquaintance , intimacy growth› Social distancing
![Page 13: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Phatic communion Laver : S can signal his perception of formality /
acquaintance / social relationship Initial + Final phases
Initial :› Defuse the hostilty of silence when speech is expected› Initiatory : cooperate, emotionally neutral, solidarity
(accepting interaction)› Exploratory : interaction consensus , mutual
acknowledgment Final :
› Cooperative parting› Consolidates relationship betwwen S/H
![Page 14: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Initial phase : Acknowledgment and Re-negotiation
Neutral category : factors known to S+H (weather) Self-oriented : personal factors of S Other-oriented : factors of H
Any 3 : well-acquainted Neutral : anyone (no FTA) Other-oriented : S>H (threat : H’s F- / treat H’s F+) Self-oriented : S<H (threat : S’ F- / treat S’ F+)
![Page 15: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Final phase : Mitigation and Consolidation
Reparatory acts for breaking the relationship Self and other –oriented (neutral very rare) Omission = implicature of rejection
Mitigatory = F- : external compulsion to leave / needs of H & external compulsion to leave
Consolidatory = F+ : esteem / arrangement for continuation of relationship / consolidation of network of acquaintances
![Page 16: Laver's linguistic routines : greeting & parting](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062316/58d161a21a28aba3468b53d1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Conclusion Importance of FTAs and Grice’s maxims
(their interplay) Norm & deviation implicature
Routines = strategies for negotiation and control of social identity and relationships.