CONVERSATIONAL FEATURES: POLITENESS

Key words: Conversational features, politeness, hesitations, redundancy,

repetition
3.1. Speaking part (explaining the topic).

Conversation proceeds on the basis of one turn after another. Turn belongs
to a single speaker. But how do we know when it is our turn to talk. Turns are
negotiated and renegotiated by participants during conversation. Continual
negotiation is a general feature of conversational organization. But how do we
achieve this organization?
3.2. Turn-taking and turn constructional units (TCU’s)(activity -1)
TCU’s are units of speech. The boundaries of these units are called turn
transition relevance points (TTRP’S). These are points at which intervention from
another speaker is syntactically or semantically possible. At a TTRP:

The current speaker selects the

next speaker, or (if this does not
operate)

Thecurrentspeakermaycontinue Thenextspeakerself-selects

3.3.Repair (simultaneous speech and silence)

Participants will not usually talk at the same time. Simultaneous speech and
silence are problems which need to be repaired. In simultaneous speech, one
person usually wins the right to speak and be attended to by the other participants.
When the turn taking rules (above) fail to operate, there is silence. Silence is a
problem which needs to be repaired. Who is the person who repairs the silences in
the conversation between Miss A and Mr B?

3.4. Adjacency pairs

Spoken interaction is often structured around pairs of adjacent utterances

(utterances which occur one after the other) in which the second utterance is
fuinctionally dependent on the first.
Question-answer: “how are you?” “fine”
Greetings: “good morning” “good morning”
 In these sequences we expect the first part to be followed by the second part.
If it is not there, we interpret it as rude, unfriendly or socially inept. Different types
of questions produce different types of response. For example, a tag-question
organizes a response better than an open question.
3.5. Discourse markers (markers of interaction).
These have the general function of moving the conversation on but they may
have specific functions, depending on the conversation:

to signal to the
listener that the to signal where
speaker wishes the
to continue conversation is
speaking (a going
filler)

For example, “well” may be used to indicate a) the opening of a

conversation, b) that the speaker is about to say something which is in conflict with
what has been said earlier.
1. Introduction
The culture of contemporeneity, reflected in discourse practices of daily
communication, functioning in various forms, ways and genres, correlates with the
category of everyday life, which in its turn, generates discourses and their
concepts. Thus, the analysis and description of the category of everyday life
through analyzing its discourses and concepts, enables to better understand the
nature of today’s language culture, the nature and tendencies in the developments
of culture in general. The culture of everyday life includes the whole complex of
human relations: the culture of communication and behavior, the culture of mass
media communication and the culture of life styles. In linguistic terms, the
category of everyday life presents a system of all processes of language
functioning, all forms and types of communication, manifested in forms of
individual or collective discourses.
The interest of modern science to the problem of everyday life is connected
with such questions as: perception of world picture by naïve consciousness,
archetypes of mass communication as a regulatory system of human behavior, as a
correlation of high and everyday forms of culture. Everyday life in a form of
common opinion reveals itself specifically in an ability to learn some cultural
codes that allow raising a personal social status. A system of fixed behavioral
reactions to the environment presents itself in the existence of various cultural
codes of behavior, which exist in a language as a special set of speech formulae of
social etiquette, regulating the choice of communicative forms, structures and set
phrases. In this respect it is interesting to analyze communicative behavior of the
people of Great Britain, which is regulated by the so called speech etiquette.
2. Speech etiquette and language norm Speech etiquette is an essential part
of culture, behavior and human communication. Social relationships and norms of
behavior are fixed in speech etiquette formulae. Etiquette norms are encoded in
sayings, proverbs, idioms, set phrases such as: Welcome! How do you do!
Farewell! Thank you! etc. Being an element of national culture, speech etiquette
has a clear national coloring. In linguistics etiquette is understood as a system of
rules and conventions that regulates social and professional behavior. In any social
unit there are accepted rules of behavior upheld and enforced by legal codes, or by
customs and enforced by group pressure. Regardless of the type of national culture,
any society possesses the etiquette, and every person knows the behavior expected
from him towards others and from others toward himself (Etiquette, 2015). The
word “etiquette” came from French and entered the English language about 1740-
1750. In French it meant memorandum, derivative of étiqu(i) (- to attach, stick)
(op.cit.). The sense developed in French from small cards written or printed with
instructions how to behave properly at court and/or from behavior instructions
written on a soldier’s billet for lodgings. At the beginning of the XVIII century
etiquette norms were mostly written in periodicals such as The Spectator, The
Tattler, where readers could learn what kind of conversations to have and what
subjects to talk about, if they wanted to look like educated gentlemen of a society.
Henry Hitchings, a famous British writer, critic and researcher assumes, the first
appearance of the word “etiquette” can be found in the collection of letters written
by the fourth earl of Chesterfield Philip Stanhope to his son, in which he gave
instructions how to become a gentleman (Hitchings, 2013). As Hutchings put it,
the word “etiquette” was then understood as a code of conduct, as an idea of self-
control, as a virtue. Manners are different from etiquette: etiquette in this modern
age is a quaint set of rules for the socially insecure – as old-fashioned as
debutantes. Manners, conversely, might be taken to mean natural grace, and
treating all with equal consideration. Hitchings sees it more formally: manners, a
word suggesting broad principles of behavior, and ‘etiquette’, which denotes the
actions that articulate those principles (McKay, 2013). Speech etiquette in a narrow
meaning of the term can be defined as a system of language means where etiquette
relationships are revealed. The elements of this system can be actualized at various
linguistic levels. At the lexical level etiquette relationships are marked with the
help of special expressions and set phrases (Thank you; Please; excuse me; Good-
bye; etc.), special forms of address (Mr., Miss, Mrs., Madame, Ms, etc). At the
level of grammar organization it is supported by polite forms of the language (the
use of pronouns in plural form: vous, вы); the use of interrogative sentences
instead of imperative ones (Could you possibly help me?) At stylistic level it is
expressed in the use of literary high flown language forms of official standard, and
the ban of obscene lexis which are replaced by euphemisms (Ryabova, 2013).
Etiquette is also marked at phonetic and prosodic levels of language which means
that a special intonation is used (of polite model). At the communicative level it
presupposes a prohibition to interfere into a conversation or to interrupt it, etc.
Speech etiquette can be analyzed from the point of view of language norm. Thus,
understanding of right cultural normalized types of speech includes in itself the
definite speech etiquette.
Specification of speech etiquette means that it does not only characterize
everyday life practices, but also it determines speech norms. Elements of speech
etiquette are present in everyday discourse practice of any person, who easily
recognizes these norms and expects from the communicator to use them in special
contexts. Elements of speech etiquette are set so deep that they are perceived by
naive consciousness as a part of everyday natural behavior. If a person doesn’t
know these norms or deliberately breaks them, it is interpreted as a wish to insult
somebody, or as a breach of breeding, or as his/her attribution to other culture, or
to a different social class. On the other hand, speech etiquette can be assessed in
the aspect of language norm. E.g., every person whose native language is English,
knows some conversational formulae, expressing excuse; though some expressions
are regarded as language norm (sorry, excuse me), while others are rejected, like
for e.g. “pardon”. The fact of avoidance of some expressions from language use
can already be regarded as an object of standardization: e.g. formulae of excuse are
adequate when the speaker disturbs his conversational partner, though to ask for an
excuse too often is not advisable, since the partner is put in an awkward position
by this. Besides, the breach of norms and rules of literary language, when it looks
like carelessness, is a breach of etiquette in itself. The borderline between an
everyday speech discourse and a norm in speech etiquette is flexible. Practical
implementation of speech etiquette usually differs from standard models not only
because of non-acquaintance of the communicants with the rules. The deviation
from the rule as well as strict adherence to it can testify the speaker's attitude to the
hearer or his/her perception of a situation.
3. Socio-pragmatic conditions of etiquette rules Speech etiquette is tied
with the communicative situation as such and with its parameters: personality,
time, place, theme and motive of communication and its purpose. Speech etiquette
presents a complex of linguistic phenomena that is connected with the addressee,
though the speaker’s personality is also important. This can be illustrated by the tu
– vous forms of address. A general rule says that vous-forms are used as a sign of
respect and greater formality of communication, while tu-forms are a sign of less
formal style of communication, a communication between equals. Though
realization of this principle can be actualized in different variants depending on the
age, race, or rank factors, or whether communicants are relatives, friends, or of the
same or different social status. Rules of etiquette can vary depending on the fact
whether the theme of conversation is a sad event or a happy one. There are special
rules of speech behavior connected with the place of conversation (dinner, office,
business meeting). Speech etiquette has different functions such as: establishing
contact between people; attracting attention to the hearer; individualization of a
communicant; expressing reverence to a communicant; revealing the status of the
event (friendly, official, businesslike, etc.); forming a favorable atmosphere to a
conversation; paying a positive influence on a communicant, etc.
4. Politeness strategies in communication A lot of researchers of the
English communicative behavior assume, that politeness is, evidently, a most
typical feature of their behavior. As a famous English social anthropologist Kate
Fox remarked, although many of the foreign visitors complained about English
reserve, they all tended to be impressed by our courtesy (Fox, 2004). The author
gave a detailed description of English politeness which the English demonstrate in
the road, in transport, on the way. The etiquette regulating this behavior is called
the negative politeness rule, meaning that it is concerned with other people’s need
not to be intruded or imposed upon (as opposed to positive politeness, which is
concerned with their need for inclusion and social approval). The restraint,
cautiousness and contactavoidance of English public-transport passengers – the
stand-offishness that foreigners complain about – are all characteristic features of
negative politeness. What looks like unfriendliness is really a kind of
consideration: they judge others by themselves, and assume that everyone shares
their obsessive need for privacy – so they mind their own business and politely
ignore them
The rule of negative politeness is part of a general communicative strategy of
politeness or tact maxim, which means that the communicant respects the desire of
the other not to communicate, not to interfere. Consequently, the speaker prefers to
use indirect speech acts, allowing “to keep the face”, i.e. instead of the forms of
imperative mood interrogative constructions are preferred, or declarative
statements, that express requests implicitly. For e.g. instead of strict order in the
form of imperative mood “Shut the door”, the preference will be given to
interrogative constructions with “please”: “Will you shut the door, please?” The
degree of politeness can be higher with the usage of subjunctive mood forms:
“Would you shut the door, please?” “Could you shut the door please?” The highest
form of negative politeness is a form of implicit request in an affirmative
statement: “There's a draught here”, expressing a presupposition “Shut the door,
please”. Together with the negative politeness rule the English use the positive
politeness rule in their communicative behavior, which means that the speaker
shows to the hearer that he understands his interests, approves and shares his needs
and goals. The form of this strategy is the use of inclusive pronoun “we”: “Let's
shut the door”. Or “We really should close the door”. Inclusive “we” can be used
in speech acts of prohibition: “We don't want to park here, do we?” As positive
politeness the plural form of pronoun, denoting address can be used: “Give us a
hand, son” (Renkema, 1993). The politeness principle of communication can be
actualized either as absolute politeness or as relative politeness. Absolute
politeness in terms of Geoffrey Leech can be associated with a scale, or a set of
scales, having a negative and a positive pole. Negative politeness consists in
minimizing the impoliteness of impolite illocutions (e.g. orders), and positive
politeness consists in maximizing the politeness of polite illocutions. As for
relative politeness, it can be stated that people can be polite relative to some norms
of behavior, which for a particular culture they regard as typical. For example, it is
commonly said that Japanese and Chinese are very polite in comparison with
Europeans. So the norm of politeness for a particular culture, and particular
illocution type is different, i.e. relevant. Thus, it is known that the British are
excessively polite (and perhaps insincere), when asking favors of others. A further
norm is one for a particular category of person, according to sex, age-group, social
status or class. Relative politeness is variable on many dimensions, according to
the standard or set of standards (Leech, 1996, p. 84). When the English bump into
each other they automatically say “sorry”, no matter whose fault was that. The
older people were slightly more likely to apologize than younger people. Fox
explains this phenomenon as the reflex apology: a reflex – an automatic, knee-jerk
response, not a considered admission of guilt. This is a deeply ingrained rule: when
any inadvertent, undesired contact occurs (and to the English, almost any contact is
by definition undesired), they say ‘sorry’. In fact, the English, due to Fox, think
that any intrusion, impingement or imposition of any kind, however minimal or
innocuous, generally requires an apology. They use the word ‘sorry’ as a prefix to
almost any request or question: ‘Sorry, but do you know if this train stops at
Banbury?’ ‘Sorry, but is this seat free?’ ‘Sorry – do you have the time?’ ‘Sorry, but
you seem to be sitting on my coat.’ They say ‘sorry’ if an arm accidentally brushes
against someone else’s when passing through a crowded doorway; even a ‘near
miss’, where no actual physical contact takes place, can often prompt an automatic
‘sorry’ from both parties. They often say ‘sorry’ when they mean ‘excuse me’ (or
‘get out of my way’), such as when asking someone to move so they can get past
them. An interrogative ‘sorry?’ means ‘I didn’t quite hear what you said – could
you repeat it?’ (or ‘what?’). Clearly, all these “sorries” are not heartfelt, sincere
apologies. Like ‘nice’, ‘sorry’ is a useful, versatile, all-purpose word, suitable for
all occasions and circumstances. When in doubt, say ‘sorry’. Englishness means
always having to say you’re sorry (Fox, 2004). Politeness principle of
communication is also registered in expressive speech acts that function as
illocutions of condoling, used in situations when people want to express their
desire to share the sorrow over some sad events, loss, grief, tragedy, etc. The
politeness of such speech acts is relative to the situation, atmosphere of formality,
sincerity of communication, their relationship and social distance. The illocution of
condolence speech acts is to express a psychological state determined by sincerity
condition concerning the situation of a certain proposition, e.g.: Sympathies to
your family on the passing of your sister. She will always be in our hearts.
In the sphere of expressive speech acts of condolence we can find at least two
groups of utterances: emotive speech acts and etiquette speech acts. Emotive
speech acts are those where sincerity principle and emotional force of the utterance
reveal deeper emotional feelings and truthfulness in saying that people are really
very sorry over the loss of someone, e.g.: Corbin, I’m very sorry to hear about the
loss of your father. I know he meant a lot to you; I’m really sorry to hear of your
recent loss of your dad. I extend my sincere sympathy to all of you at what I know
is very sad and mournful time. While etiquette speech acts of condolence
demonstrate more formal (and less sincere) register of communication, greater
distance (social, personal or any) between communicants, e.g.: I want you to know
that my thoughts are with you during this difficult time; I want to condole you and
I want you to know that I am here with you through it all if you need me. It must
be added that condolence speech acts actualize politeness principle as a part of
Maxim of Sympathy in communication, due to which the power of the Sympathy
Maxim means that the speaker extends condolence as an expression of sympathy
for misfortune, i.e. the event of the proposition is interpreted as unfortunate (such
as death) for the hearer. The illocution of condolence correlates with a number of
psychological states felt by the addressee, such as: sympathy; sadness: Dear Casey,
I am truly saddened by Sandra’s death; Grief: Yesterday I learned of the
unfortunate death of your son. There are no words to describe the utter grief that I
am feeling now; Shock: I cannot possibly imagine the shock and sorrow that has
been thrust on your family; Pain: How your heart must ache for him! Missing: He
was always such a fun person to be around and we will miss his great wit and
charm. The perlocution effect of condolence speech acts, felt by the hearer, can
possibly be as such: consolation: It is little consolation at this sad time, it should be
of some satisfaction to know that in his passing you can celebrate the end of a very
long and productive life; good memories: I can tell you though that the very best
way to mark his passing is by filling your mind with all of the wonderful memories
you have of happier times; peace and comfort: You find peace and comfort in
knowing that his loss is felt by all who knew and loved him. The act of condolence
usually is performed orally, but if it is not possible for any reason, it can be sent
via a letter of condolence. A condolence letter is an etiquette form of expressing
feelings of sympathy over a tragic or sad event. Being a strictly standardized form
of etiquette communication, a condolence letter has a rigid text structure. The
structure consists of the following parts: (i) a direct address or greetings; (ii) a
motive, containing an information about a sad event; (iii) the expression of
condolence as such, i.e. feelings or emotions experienced over the loss; (iv) words
about the deceased with good memories about him/her; (v) words addressed
towards the mourning persons; (vi) words offering any help; (vii) signature. For
example: (i) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sanborn, (ii) yesterday I learned of unfortunate and
untimely death of your son and my friend Jacob, (iii) there are no words to
describe the utter grief that I am feeling now, (iv )he will long be remembered as
the hard working, intelligent and loving man that he was, (v) may God bless you
and your family at this time, (vi) if there is anything that I can do to help you in
anything, please do not hesitate to call me at anytime, (vii) sincerely, Mrs. Preston.
So a condolence letter has a close text structure, being a form of a ritualized
discourse and it doesn’t allow any variations, because of strict etiquette rules and
norms accepted in the society, demanding to say politely only good thing of the
deceased.
5. Conclusion Thus, etiquette norms in speech behavior of the English is a
characteristic feature of their communicative culture, that determines the choice of
formulae and models of their everyday communication, revealing their class and
social status and operating within politeness strategy of socio-pragmatic
conditions.

Foydalanilgan adabiyotlar
1. Malcolm Mann, Steve Taylor-Knowles Destination (book 1&2) (2013)
Macmillan Education UK,
2. Michael McCarthy. (2017) English Vocabulary in Use. Advanced.
Cambridge. (2 kurs)
3. McCarthy, M. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP.
UK, 2009
4. Stephen H. Thewlis. (2007) Grammar Dimensions. Heinle & Heinle