Native observers’ evaluations of ritual frame indicating expressions in Chinese
-
Hui Li
Hui Li, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Department of English and International Studies, China Foreign Affairs University. His research interests include face and politeness theories, conversation analysis and functional grammar.
and
Jie Ji
Jie Ji, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Department of English and International Studies, China Foreign Affairs University. Her research interests include corpus linguistics and politeness theories.
Abstract
Ritual frame indicating expressions (henceforth RFIEs) is a concept that re-conceptualizes expressions that are conventionally understood as politeness markers and provides insight into the interface between expressions and politeness. This study supplements previous studies on RFIEs, which are mostly conducted from an analyst perspective, by analyzing native observers’ evaluations of a participant’s use of Chinese RFIEs in the speech act of request. It is found that the use of RFIEs was evaluated as either excessively limao (Chinese politeness1) or limao. The underlying reason for the former evaluation is that the expressions were interpreted as deference markers, and the underlying reason for the latter evaluation is that the expressions were interpreted as civility markers. This study demonstrates that, at least in the speech act of request, RFIEs may indicate different ritual frames for different native observers, which calls for the incorporation of the (meta)participant’s perspective in the study of RFIEs. It also supplements the current view on the usage of conventional politeness-related expressions in Chinese.
Funding source: Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China
Award Identifier / Grant number: 3162020ZYKC04
About the authors
Hui Li, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Department of English and International Studies, China Foreign Affairs University. His research interests include face and politeness theories, conversation analysis and functional grammar.
Jie Ji, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Department of English and International Studies, China Foreign Affairs University. Her research interests include corpus linguistics and politeness theories.
-
Research funding: This work was funded by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (No. 3162020ZYKC04).
很烦老公对别人礼貌过了头。为什么说话要带那么多敬语?[18]
‘It annoys me that my husband is excessively limao (Chinese politeness1) to others. Why does he speak with so many limao expressions?’
不知道大家身边有没有那种特别礼貌的人?我老公就是这样。我有时候很烦很烦他这样, 今天终于受不了把他训了一顿。也许大家要说我JP, 礼貌是好事, 怎么会受不了, 可我真是受不了那种过头的礼貌。
‘I don’t know if there are excessively limao people around you. My husband is such a person. Sometimes, I am really annoyed by him. Today, I couldn’t stand him anymore and dressed him down. You may say I am a weirdo because limao is a good thing. How can’t I stand it? But I really can’t stand that kind of excessive limao.’
拿个中午的例子吧, 他要去某机关开个证明, 所以就事先打电话问下那单位要带些什么材料, 这是很简单很简单的事吧?电话通后他就问:”先是请问是…吗”, ”麻烦问下我…”(很正常), 最后”还有麻烦您我想问下能不能告诉我”。靠, 一句话就带这么多那种敬语, 有必要吗?有必要吗?挂掉电话后我说你有必要把自己摆的那么卑微吗?礼貌是应该的, 可是要说那么多”不好意思”, ”请问”, ”麻烦”吗?难道是我太计较了?我太没素质了?可我真受不了他说话这礼貌的样子。
‘Taking what happened around noon today for example. He planned to get a certificate from an institution, so he called in advance to ask what materials would be needed. A very simple thing, right? After he got through, he first asked, “请问是…吗?” (‘could you tell me if this is…?’). Then he asked, “麻烦问下我…” (‘may I ask if…?’), which is very normal. And finally he asked, “麻烦您我想问下能不能告诉我” (‘could you please tell me…?’) Shit! Is it necessary to use so many limao expressions in a single sentence? Is it necessary? After he hung up, I said, “did you have to abase yourself like that?” Of course, one should be limao to others, but is it necessary to use so many “不好意思” (‘sorry’), “请问” (‘may I ask’) and “麻烦” (‘excuse me’)? Am I making a fuss? Don’t I know anything about etiquette? But I just can’t stand his limao way of speaking.’
每次都是这样。给移动客服打电话咨询也是这样。首先说”请问”、”麻烦”什么的这是应当的礼貌。可是他问一个问题就来个”请问”, 然后就是”麻烦”, 或许有些其它类似词我不记得了。我们去饭店吃饭也是这样。服务员很久没上菜, 要我就直接很不客气了, 而他叫人上菜也是麻烦上菜快点。人家看你好说话就是不先给你上。有次去一大排挡吃饭, 很多人, 比我们后来的两桌都上了。我当时那个气啊, 直接走人。那服务员忙说菜已经下锅了。我理都不理, 拉他走人。要他还在那一个劲的很礼貌的催人家上菜。
‘He was like this all the time. When he called the customer service of China Mobile, he first used “请问” (‘may I ask’) and “麻烦” (‘excuse me’), which showed his due limao. But every time he asked a question, he used “请问” (‘may I ask’) and “麻烦” (‘excuse me’) and maybe some other similar expressions. He was like that when we were at a restaurant. The waiter procrastinated. If I had been him, I would have hurried the waiter impatiently. But he used the expression “麻烦” (‘excuse me’) when asking the waiter to serve the dishes quickly. The waiter considered him a pushover and ignored his request. When we were at a very crowded food stall, the people who arrived later than us at other two tables got served first. I was so angry that I wanted to leave right away. The waiter immediately said that the food was cooking, but I ignored him and pull my husband out of the place. If he had been me, he would have continued to urge the waiter with limao.’
我们去买房子, 介绍房子时我就靠沙发上看房子的宣传册, 偶尔问下销售员问题。他在那很仔细的听销售员介绍, 可人家销售员眼睛是盯着我说, 因为人家一眼就看出是谁做主买房了, 他永远是那么客气的麻烦别人拿户型图给他看看好不好, 拿相关证件给他看看好不好, 我都被气死了。为什么做人一点气魄都没有?
‘When we went to buy an apartment, I just lay on the couch, read the brochure and occasionally asked the salesperson some questions. He listened to the salesperson’s introduction very carefully. But the salesperson kept looking at me while giving the introduction because they could clearly tell I was the decision-maker. He constantly asked the salesperson in a keqi way to show him the diagram of the apartment and some relevant documents, using expressions like “麻烦” (excuse me) and “好不好” (literally ‘good or not’, used as a tag question following a request). I was so angry. Why didn’t he have the boldness?’
做人礼貌是应该的。可是像他这样, 我宁愿他野蛮点。很多行业是看人脸色的。你越好说话, 人家只会越看不起你。社会就是这样, 不是卑微的礼貌就能换来更多尊重。每次说他, 他就会说那好, 以后我对你要强势点怎样怎样的…他妈的, 我真是被气死了。外人能跟家人朋友一样吗?连他爸都说他没气魄, 如果当官都没威信。我想就是给他个官坐坐, 也是要被人欺负死, 首先被拉出来背黑锅的。
‘It’s right to be limao. But for a person like him, I’d rather he be rude. People in many lines of business are snobs. The more they find you a pushover, the more they will look down upon you. The society is just like this. Self-abased limao cannot get you more respect. Every time I say this to him, he will be like, “ok. I’ll be more aggressive to you”. Shit! I was so angry. Can you treat outsiders in the same way as you treat your families and friends? Even his father said that he was lacking in boldness and that if he were a government official, he would have no authority. I think even if he got a position in the government, he would be bullied by others and taken as a scapegoat.’
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2009. Please: A politeness formula viewed in a translation perspective. Brno Studies in English 35(2). 63–77.Search in Google Scholar
Billig, Michael. 1988. Methodology and scholarship in understanding ideological explanation. In Charles Antaki (ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods, 199–215. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals of language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Rong, Juliane House & Dániel Z. Kádár. 2021. Ritual frame indicating expressions: An interview with Juliane House and Dániel Z. Kádár. Contrastive Pragmatics 2. 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10023.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Songcen 陈松岑. 2001. Limao yuyan [Polite language]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan [The Commercial Press].Search in Google Scholar
Clayman, Steve & John Heritage. 2014. Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Paul Drew & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.26.03claSearch in Google Scholar
Edley, Nigel. 2001. Analysing masculinity: Interpretive repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions. In Margaret Wetherell (ed.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis, 189–228. London and Milton Keynes: Sage and The Open University.Search in Google Scholar
Eelen, Gino. 2001. A Critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.Search in Google Scholar
Gleason, Jean Berko, Rivka Y. Perlmann & Esther Blank Greif. 1984. What’s the magic word: Learning language through politeness routines. Discourse Processes 7. 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538409544603.Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1955. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 18. 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008.Search in Google Scholar
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2). 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-o.Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2014. Im/politeness implicatures. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110240078Search in Google Scholar
He, Qizhi 贺其志. 1982. Guangyu limao yuyan [On polite language]. In Beijing Language Association (ed.), Limao he limao yuyan [Politeness and polite language], 76–79. Beijing: Beijing Chubanshe [Beijing Publishing House].Search in Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 1989. Politeness in English and German: The functions of please and bitte. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, 96–119. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
House, Juliane & Gabriele Kasper. 1981. Politeness markers in English and German. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech, 157–186. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Ide, Sachiko. 1982. Japanese sociolinguistics: Politeness and women’s language. Lingua 57. 357–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(82)90009-2.Search in Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. 2017. Politeness, impoliteness and ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781107280465Search in Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Michael Haugh. 2013a. Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates. Journal of Pragmatics 58. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.009.Search in Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Michael Haugh. 2013b. Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139382717Search in Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Juliane House. 2019. Ritual frame and “politeness markers”. Pragmatics and Society 10(4). 639–647. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18079.kad.Search in Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Juliane House. 2020a. Revisiting the duality of convention and ritual: A contrastive pragmatic inquiry. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 56(1). 83–111. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2020-0003.Search in Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Juliane House. 2020b. Ritual frames: A contrastive pragmatic approach. Pragmatics 30(1). 142–168. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19018.kad.Search in Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Juliane House. 2021a. “Politeness marker” revisited – A contrastive pragmatic perspective. Journal of Politeness Research 17(1). 79–109. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2020-0029.Search in Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Juliane House. 2021b. Ritual frames and mimesis: Analysing military training in Chinese universities. Language & Communication 80. 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.05.006.Search in Google Scholar
Kampf, Zohar, Chudy Dana, Roni Danziger & Mia Schreiber. 2021. “Wait with falling in love”: Discursive evaluation of amicable messages conveyed by opponents. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 40(2). 188–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x20944977.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1972. Language in context. Language 48(4). 907–927. https://doi.org/10.2307/411994.Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Lee-Wong, Song Mei. 1994. Qing/Please – A polite or requestive marker? Observations from Chinese. Multilingua 13(4). 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1994.13.4.343.Search in Google Scholar
Li, Hui. 2022. Keqi (客气) in historical Chinese: Evidence from metapragmatic comments. Journal of Politeness Research 18(2). 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2019-0045.Search in Google Scholar
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1984. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.10.2307/1772278Search in Google Scholar
Pan, Yuling & Daniel Kádár. 2011. Historical vs. contemporary Chinese linguistic politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 1525–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.018.Search in Google Scholar
Pizziconi, Barbara. 2003. Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language. Journal of Pragmatics 35. 1471–1506. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(02)00200-x.Search in Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan & Margaret Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Schlund, Katrin. 2014. On form and function of politeness formulae. Journal of Politeness Research 10(2). 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2014-0012.Search in Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 1992. The use of diminutives in expressing politeness: Modern Greek versus English. Journal of Pragmatics 17(2). 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90038-d.Search in Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa & Anssi Peräkylä. 2012. Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(3). 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260.Search in Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa & Anssi Peräkylä. 2014. Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society 43(2). 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404514000037.Search in Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wetherell, Margaret. 1998. Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society 9. 387–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009003005.Search in Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2004. The intonation of please-requests: A corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics 36(9). 1521–1549. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(04)00061-x.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Shoukang 张寿康. 1982. Qiantan limao yuyan jianji “ninmen” de yongfa [On polite language and the usage of “ninmen”]. In Beijing Language Association (ed.), Limao he limao yuyan [Politeness and polite language], 80–82. Beijing: Beijing Chubanshe [Beijing Publishing House].Search in Google Scholar
Zhou, Ling & Shaojie Zhang. 2018. Reconstructing the politeness principle in Chinese: A response to Gu’s approach. Intercultural Pragmatics 15(5). 693–721. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0024.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- “Can I have a cup of tea please?” Politeness markers in the Spoken BNC2014
- Two phenomena behind the terminology of face
- Mitigating strategies and politeness in German requests
- Conceptualization of first-order politeness in Russia: an exploratory study
- Grand strategy of politeness in new social networks: revisiting Leech’s politeness theory among Iranian EFL learners using Telegram
- When the Norwegian ‘politeness marker’ vennligst becomes impolite
- Native observers’ evaluations of ritual frame indicating expressions in Chinese
- “You can f*** get lost already”: (Responding to) impoliteness in the (in-)authentic discourse of comedy and crime TV series and movies
- Impoliteness among multilingual Facebook users in Congo Brazzaville
- Book Review
- Grundtvig, A. 2021. English is context: Practical pragmatics for clear communication. Stuttgart: DELTA Publishing, Ernst Klett Sprachen GmbH, 144 pp., ISBN 978-3-125-01742-9. Price: € 28,50.
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- “Can I have a cup of tea please?” Politeness markers in the Spoken BNC2014
- Two phenomena behind the terminology of face
- Mitigating strategies and politeness in German requests
- Conceptualization of first-order politeness in Russia: an exploratory study
- Grand strategy of politeness in new social networks: revisiting Leech’s politeness theory among Iranian EFL learners using Telegram
- When the Norwegian ‘politeness marker’ vennligst becomes impolite
- Native observers’ evaluations of ritual frame indicating expressions in Chinese
- “You can f*** get lost already”: (Responding to) impoliteness in the (in-)authentic discourse of comedy and crime TV series and movies
- Impoliteness among multilingual Facebook users in Congo Brazzaville
- Book Review
- Grundtvig, A. 2021. English is context: Practical pragmatics for clear communication. Stuttgart: DELTA Publishing, Ernst Klett Sprachen GmbH, 144 pp., ISBN 978-3-125-01742-9. Price: € 28,50.
