Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Politeness without routines: a case study in Hobongan and implications for typology

Politeness without routines: a case study in Hobongan and implications for typology Abstract In a partial report on field work conducted among the Hobongan in Indonesia during 2012–2015, I note that the language has very few idiomatic politeness routines (a couple of greetings with which to send people on their travels are notable exceptions). However, the language has many other ways to indicate politeness and impoliteness. One such strategy is lexical items to indicate curses; there are three lexical items that often combine with other terms to form idiomatic curses in the language, which suggests, in comparison to the idiomatic expressions of farewell, that impoliteness is more important than politeness, at least with regard to idiomatic expressions. Another strategy to maintain politeness is to participate in social rituals that can be observed but that do not necessarily co-occur with politeness routines. Although there are incantations, often associated with social rituals, they are too extensive to be considered politeness routines in the usual sense; impoliteness is indicated by a refusal to participate in the rituals. These rituals thus provide a fully pragmatic way to conduct politeness and impoliteness, not requiring stated terms. Perhaps the most common way to indicate politeness is through the use of many euphemisms, including ways to talk to and about people without using their given names (the use of given names is avoided in order to prevent evil spirits from being able to identify individuals); such euphemisms also include terms to avoid speaking directly about bodily functions and sexual activity that are not considered acceptable for polite Hobongan society. It has been noted that although a range of possibilities exist for politeness, including behavioral and pragmatic possibilities ( Burdelski 2012 ; Brown and Levinson 1987 ), the concepts used in politeness and impoliteness analyses are often fuzzy ( Eelen 2014 ). I suggest a typological approach to this clarification, perhaps ranking the importance of various politeness strategies in the languages of the world. For example, idiomatic politeness routines are ranked highly in English because they involve overlap between both lexical and situational information; by contrast, such idiomatic politeness routines are almost nonexistent in Hobongan, with situational politeness being more available. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Lodz Papers in Pragmatics de Gruyter

Politeness without routines: a case study in Hobongan and implications for typology

Perkins, Marla
Lodz Papers in Pragmatics , Volume 12 (1) – Jun 1, 2016
Download PDF
20 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/politeness-without-routines-a-case-study-in-hobongan-and-implications-TaNWzBZ9NF
Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 by the
ISSN
1895-6106
eISSN
1898-4436
DOI
10.1515/lpp-2016-0002
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract In a partial report on field work conducted among the Hobongan in Indonesia during 2012–2015, I note that the language has very few idiomatic politeness routines (a couple of greetings with which to send people on their travels are notable exceptions). However, the language has many other ways to indicate politeness and impoliteness. One such strategy is lexical items to indicate curses; there are three lexical items that often combine with other terms to form idiomatic curses in the language, which suggests, in comparison to the idiomatic expressions of farewell, that impoliteness is more important than politeness, at least with regard to idiomatic expressions. Another strategy to maintain politeness is to participate in social rituals that can be observed but that do not necessarily co-occur with politeness routines. Although there are incantations, often associated with social rituals, they are too extensive to be considered politeness routines in the usual sense; impoliteness is indicated by a refusal to participate in the rituals. These rituals thus provide a fully pragmatic way to conduct politeness and impoliteness, not requiring stated terms. Perhaps the most common way to indicate politeness is through the use of many euphemisms, including ways to talk to and about people without using their given names (the use of given names is avoided in order to prevent evil spirits from being able to identify individuals); such euphemisms also include terms to avoid speaking directly about bodily functions and sexual activity that are not considered acceptable for polite Hobongan society. It has been noted that although a range of possibilities exist for politeness, including behavioral and pragmatic possibilities ( Burdelski 2012 ; Brown and Levinson 1987 ), the concepts used in politeness and impoliteness analyses are often fuzzy ( Eelen 2014 ). I suggest a typological approach to this clarification, perhaps ranking the importance of various politeness strategies in the languages of the world. For example, idiomatic politeness routines are ranked highly in English because they involve overlap between both lexical and situational information; by contrast, such idiomatic politeness routines are almost nonexistent in Hobongan, with situational politeness being more available.

Journal

Lodz Papers in Pragmatics – de Gruyter

Published: Jun 1, 2016

There are no references for this article.