Startseite Why say it that way?: evasive answers and politeness theory
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Why say it that way?: evasive answers and politeness theory

  • Jessica Marsh

    Jessica Marsh has a Master of Studies degree in General Linguistics and Comparative Philology from the University of Oxford. She is currently a PhD student at the University of Surrey, where her research focuses on some of the interpersonal functions of the German particle mal and its relationship to politeness and face management.

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 7. Februar 2019

Abstract

Examples of evasive answers frequently appear in discussions of non-literal meaning comprehension. A considerable amount of work on this topic has focused on how this kind of non-literal meaning is generated. Of the researchers who have dealt with speakers’ motives for using evasive answers, and how hearers’ awareness of these motives affects their interpretations, the majority have focused on evasive answers that are not intended to be recognized as such – in Gricean terms, those that violate the Maxim of Relation. Comparatively little research has dealt with answers that are blatant in their failure to answer the question – that is, those that flout Relation.

This paper proposes that the majority of answers in the latter category can be understood using Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) model of politeness – in particular, that evasive answers are motivated by considerations for both speaker and hearer’s positive face-wants. Evasive answers are defined according to Roberts’ (2012) model of “the question under discussion” and characterized in terms of violating, infringing, or flouting Grice’s (1975) Maxim of Relation. Various contexts in which the latter category of evasive answers occur are identified and discussed with reference to their role in avoiding face-threatening acts. Potential exceptions to the proposition that blatantly evasive answers can be explained using Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) model of politeness are identified, and problems with treating violating, infringing, and flouting as clearly distinct categories are discussed.

About the author

Jessica Marsh

Jessica Marsh has a Master of Studies degree in General Linguistics and Comparative Philology from the University of Oxford. She is currently a PhD student at the University of Surrey, where her research focuses on some of the interpersonal functions of the German particle mal and its relationship to politeness and face management.

References

Bašnáková, Jana, Joss van Berkum, Kirsten Weber, & Peter Hagoort. 2015. A job interview in the MRI scanner: How does indirectness affect addressees and overhearers? Neuropsychologia 76. 79-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.03.030.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.03.030Suche in Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Esther N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. 56-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Suche in Google Scholar

Bull, Peter. 1994. On identifying questions, replies, and non-replies in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13(2). 115-131. DOI: 10.2307/3791379.10.1177/0261927X94132002Suche in Google Scholar

Bull, Peter. 2003. The microanalysis of political communication: Claptrap and ambiguity. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203417843Suche in Google Scholar

Bull, Peter & Kate Mayer. 1993. How not to answer questions in political interviews. Political Psychology 14(4). 651-666. DOI: 10.2307/3791379.10.2307/3791379Suche in Google Scholar

Chen, Rong. 2001. Self-politeness: A proposal. Journal of Pragmatics 33(1). 87- 106. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00124-110.1016/S0378-2166(99)00124-1Suche in Google Scholar

Clayman, Steven E. 2001. Answers and evasions. Language in Society 30. 403-442.10.1017/CBO9780511613623.007Suche in Google Scholar

Dascal, Marcelo. 1983. Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind: Thought in language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/pb.iv.1Suche in Google Scholar

Davis, Deborah & Thomas Holtgraves. 1984. Perceptions of unresponsive others: Attributions, attraction, understandability, and memory of their utterances. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 20(5). 383-408. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1031(84)90034-910.1016/0022-1031(84)90034-9Suche in Google Scholar

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar, part 1. (ed. Kees Hengeveld). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar

Dillon, James T. 1990. The practice of questioning. New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of politeness theory. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315760179Suche in Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2). 219-236. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-NSuche in Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 2005. Whither politeness. In Robin T. Lakoff & Sachiko Ide (eds.), Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness. 65-83. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/pbns.139.07fraSuche in Google Scholar

Galasiński, Dariusz. 1996. Pretending to cooperate: How speakers hide evasive actions. Argumentation 10(3). 375-388.10.1007/BF00182202Suche in Google Scholar

Galasiński, Dariusz. 2000. The language of deception: A discourse analytical study. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.10.4135/9781452220345Suche in Google Scholar

Goody, Esther N. 1978. Towards a theory of questions. In Esther N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. 17-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Grice, H. Paul. 1981. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 183-198). New York, Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra. 1991. Evasive answers: How politicians respond to questions in political Interviews. In Paddy Scannell (ed.), Broadcast Talk. 76-99. London: SAGE Publications.Suche in Google Scholar

Kasper, Gabriele. 1990. Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2). 193-218. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(90)90080-W10.1016/0378-2166(90)90080-WSuche in Google Scholar

Katz, Jerrold J. 1968. The logic of questions. In B. van Rootselaar & J. F. Staal (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science III, Vol. 52. 463-494. Amsterdam: North- Holland Publishing Company.10.1016/S0049-237X(08)71212-6Suche in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.10.4324/9781315835976Suche in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313Suche in Google Scholar

Lewis, David. 1969. Convention: a philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Pfister, Jonas. 2010. Is there a need for a maxim of politeness? Journal of Pragmatics 42(5). 1266-1282. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.001.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.001Suche in Google Scholar

Riley, Kathryn. 1993. Telling more than the truth: Implicature, speech acts, and ethics in professional communication. Journal of Business Ethics 12(3). 179-196.10.1007/BF01686446Suche in Google Scholar

Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(Article 6). 1-69. DOI:10.3765/sp.5.610.3765/sp.5.6Suche in Google Scholar

Taguchi, Naoko. 2005. Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal 89(4). 543-562. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00329.x10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00329.xSuche in Google Scholar

Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas N. 1991. Critical faults and fallacies of questioning. Journal of Pragmatics 15. 337-366. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(91)90035-V.10.1016/0378-2166(91)90035-VSuche in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-09-15
Accepted: 2018-01-03
Published Online: 2019-02-07
Published in Print: 2019-02-04

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 25.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/pr-2016-0047/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen