Abstract
At the core of the new approaches to verbal interaction lies the idea of intersubjectivity placing a great emphasis on the creation of social relations. Interaction implies not only following particular conventional principles or some discursive strategies, but also adopting certain social behaviours. In 1975 Grice mentioned in his article
Keywords: Interactionspeech actinterpersonal relationshipintersubjectivitysocial behaviour
Introduction
The co-development of the conversational text complies with a number of rules concerning the organisation and structuring of the interaction as well as with a series of rituals that highlight the
For a long period of time, researchers such as H. P. Grice (1975), O. Ducrot (1984) or D. Maingueneau (1990; 1991) laid emphasis in their studies only on the observation of conversational principles or discursive rules. However, conversational linguistics has lately focused on the principles concerning social behaviour and conversational routines, so that we can state that “politeness is a phenomenon which is pertinent from a linguistic point of view” (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1996, p, 50).
Problem Statement
The positioning of individuals towards one another during interactions defines the very nature of interpersonal relationships. By analysing such positioning, pragmaticists have identified several types of structure: symmetrical, complementary, and hierarchical relationships, respectively; structures undergoing constant dynamics, which can lead to more or less significant imbalances, and the
Research Questions
Starting from the idea that politeness is the fundamental balancing principle, especially in an asymmetrical relationship, the questions raises in the present study regard the way in which the politeness principle manifests itself at the linguistic level, which governs social relations and the measure in which the speech acts performed by the person that finds itself in a superior position are perceived as aggression and thus entail stigmatizing the behaviour of the person’s in inferiority, as well as pathologies of the interactional exchange.
Purpose of the Study
Our paper is structured in two parts. In the first part, the paper presents some theoretical aspects concerning the definition of politeness as a linguistic phenomenon. The second section deals with the analysis of speech acts performed by Eugène Ionesco’s characters from the play entitled
Research Methods
Our analysis of Face Treatening Acts and Face Enhancing Acts in
Findings
Theoretical Framework
6.1.1. The Theory of Politeness Developed by P. Brown & S. Levinson
One of the most elaborate theoretical frameworks that approach the problematics of linguistic politeness is represented by the model developed by P. Brown & S. Levinson (1987). This theory is based on the concept of
As a consequence, there are two accepted meanings of politeness: a positive politeness, which regards the positive face of the interlocutor, and a negative one that implies
The territory (negative face) must be understood as personal space, but not only in a material sense, as corporal or temporal space, but also as a cognitive or affective dimension. During the interaction, the individuals express the desire to preserve their faces (
Although the theory they propose claims to be a universal one (Brown & Levinson analyse the functioning of totally different languages: English, Tamil, Tzeltal, Japanese, Malgash), there are situations that are culturally different and so the explanatory efficiency of this theory reveals its limits (197). One of the criticisms brought to the model proposed by the two researchers results especially from the fact that the expression of politeness depends on specific cultural contexts. However, we can state that “
Catherine Kerbrat Orecchioni’s Revisions - to Brown & Levinson’s Model
G. Kasper formulates another critical idea concerning this theory, according to which individuals’ actions are influenced by continuous verbal threats, being constrained all the time to protect their faces: “
Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni considers that Brown & Levinson proposed a general framework that enables the description of politeness phenomena in diverse societies. The revisions she proposes to the two practitioners’ model attempts to harmonize universal principles with cultural variations. Hence, the five principles of politeness (Principles oriented towards the addressee:
Avoid or soften the threats to a) the negative face of the addressee b) the positive face of the addressee.
Produce Anti Face Threatening Acts for the a) the negative face of the addressee b) the positive face of the addressee.
Principles oriented towards the speaker:
Do your best not to overtly lose your a) negative face b) positive face.
Avoid or soften the threats to your a) negative face b) your positive face.
Produce Threatening Acts for your a) negative face b) positive face (Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1992, p. 184).) she puts forward are universal but, at the same time, variable depending on the constraint imposed by the community and on the particular conditions and forms of their application.
Politeness is the Norm
We can assert that politeness constitutes the norm, the cases in which politeness norms are given up being considered deviations, their transgression being more or less serious. Conversational activities are regulated by the principle of reciprocity regarding perspectives, a principle which lies at the basis of the complementarity or symmetry of interactional roles, and which leads to the selection of the suitable strategy (negotiation, cooperation etc.)
Ethno-methodologists highlighted the existence of routine structures or
As a consequence, politeness is the norm, impolite behavioural patterns being marked, usually preceded by justifications, hesitations, or other ritualized formulas.
Face Threatening Acts and Face Enhancing Acts in The Lesson by Eugène Ionesco
In
Pupil [turns quickly with a lively and self-assured manner; she gets up, goes toward the Professor, and gives him her hand]: Yes, Professor. Good morning, Professor. As you see, I’m on time. I didn’t want to be late.
Professor: That’s fine, miss. Thank you, you didn’t really need to hurry. I am very sorry to have kept you waiting... I was just finishing up... well... I’m sorry... You will excuse me, won’t you?...” (Ionesco, 1958, p. 47).
We should notice that the Professor’s act of apologizing is not preceded by any insult such an act would normally presuppose. The Pupil’s reaction to the Professor’s excuses takes place indirectly, through denegation: “
The Professor continues in the first part of the lesson to excuse himeslf, most often for imaginary insults: “Pupil : Oh! I don’t know them [the chief cities] all yet, Professor, it’s not quite that easy, I have trouble learning them.
Professor: Oh! It will come… you mustn’t give up… young lady… I beg your pardon… have patience… little by little… You will see, it will come in time… What a nice day it is today… or rather, not so nice… Oh! But then yes it is nice. In short, it’s not too bad a day, that’s the main thing… ahem… ahem… it’s not raining and it’s not snowing either.
Pupil: That would be most unusual, for it’s summer now.
Professor: Excuse me, miss, I was just going to say so… but as you will learn, one must be ready for anything” (Ionesco, 1958, p. 48).
The preparatory condition of the apologizing act (the existence of an insult addressed to the Pupil, for which the Professor is responsible) is rarely realized. Such a fact takes place in the situation presented below when, after the exit of the Maid that interrupted the lesson, the Professor states: “
When the Pupil does not manage to give answers to the Professor’s questions, he blames himself, thus assuming the responsibility. The act of apologizing is performed implicitly, with the Professor admitting his mistake, which is represented by the transgression of the modality principle: “
The transformation of the relations between the Professor and the Pupil is announced in the stage directions: “The Professor enters. He is a little old man with a little white beard. [...] Excessively polite, very timid, his voice deadened by his timidity, very proper, very much the teacher. He rubs his hands together constantly; occasionally a lewd gleam comes into his eyes and is quickly repressed. During the course of the play his timidity will disappear progressively, imperceptibily; and the lewd gleam in his eyes will become a steady devouring flame in the end. From a manner that is inoffensive at the start, the Professor becomes more and more sure of himself, more and more nervous, aggressive, dominating, until he is able to do as he pleases with the Pupil, who has become, in his hands, a pitiful creature. Of course, the voice of the Professor must change too, from thin and reedy, to stronger and stronger, until at the end it is extremely powerful, ringing, sonorous, while the Pupil’s voice changes from the very clear and ringing tones that she has at the beginning of the play until it is almost inaudible” (E. Ionesco, 1958: 46-47), as well as in the Maid’s predictions and threats: “Maid: [...] Excuse me, Professor, but take care, I urge you to remain calm. [...] Professor, especially not philology, philology leads to calamity... [...] All right, Professor, all right. But you can’t say that I didn’t warn you! Philology leads to calamity! ” (Ionesco, 1958, pp. 50-60).
The Professor’s timidity gradually makes room for violence and aggression, which are materialized by means of a series of threatening acts for the positive and negative faces of the Pupil. Verbal aggressions occur, such as: threats (“
60-76).
Trapped in a space that offers no possibility of escape (the apartment in the middle of which the Professor’s study is found), the three characters go through reverse metamorphoses. This space of confinement is like a labyrinth for the characters, the only possibility of escaping being death. From a polite, well-bred, dynamic young woman, the Pupil becomes an amnesic and transforms into a passive object, staring into the void space, suffering from a terrible tooth ache. Contrariwise, the Professor loses his shyness and becomes authoritative, aggressive, and indifferent to the physical suffering of his pupil. Unconsciousness and repressed sexuality become intermingled in the Professor’s case; the thirst for power and his sexual desire constitute the two drives that he subsides or recedes whenever he stabs a pupil. Ionesco explains, in
The Maid, an insignificant figure at the beginning (her role was that of taking the Pupil to the Professor’s study), starts to exert a considerable influence on the Professor. After committing the murder, she resumes her function from the start of the play: the door bell rings, a new pupil enters, the same replies from the beginning of the play are exchanged. The repetition suppresses any liberation possibility: once the Pupil is assassinated, the Maid reveals the Professor’s madness: it is the fortieth lesson of the day, it is the fortieth murder. The objects present on the scene at the beginning of the play (backpacks, notebooks) materialize the previous murders. The stage directions at the end of the play (“
In this play, the laws of discourse and of social behaviour clearly express the changes in power relations between characters. The transformations they go through leave an imprint in their discourses, especially at the level of the speech acts performed.
Conclusion
The asymmetric interaction (Professor - Pupil) is organized according to specific structural rules, and belongs to a type of hierarchical relation, with differences among the actors being a matter of statute, imposed through the institutional context. Their actions are in accordance to a politeness code that has as main function the stabilisation and balancing of the interpersonal relationship. Not paying attention to and not assuming statute roles results in pathological developments of the asymmetrical relationship, which makes a hierarchical difference turn into oppression and even outright aggression.
The laws of discourse and social behaviour allow for strategies of balancing the structure of interpersonal relationships. If these are transgressed, the relationship between the interlocutors becomes pathological, to the effect that they will not be able to communicate other than by means of a pre-established and rigid scheme.
The rigidization of the statute adopted by a person on a superiority position (Professor) manifests itself through speech acts at the verbal and non verbal level, and through face threatening acts for the positive and negative faces of the person in inferiority (student). It represents a way of expression and imposition of power. Along the lesson, the Pupil adopts as a means of communication the symptom (the tooth ache), a means of expression that becomes pathological and translates its progressive alienation as the play moves on, as well as the communication’s slipping from normalcy to pathology
References
- Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge Univerity Press.
- Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.
- Durkheim, E. (1995). Elementary Forms of Religious Life, trans. K. E. Fields. New York: Free Press [1912].
- Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon.
- Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.
- Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (41–58). New York: Academic Press.
- Ionesco, E. (1958). Four Plays: The Bald Soprano; The Lesson; Jack, or the Submission; The Chairs, translated by Donald M. Allen. New York: Grove Press, Inc.
- Ionesco, E. (1977). Antidotes. Paris: Gallimard.
- Jarowski, A. & Coupland, N. (1999). The Discourse Reader. London: Routelege.
- Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues. Jurnal Of Pragmatics, 14 (2), 193-218.
- Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1992). Les interactions verbales, II. Paris: Armand Colin.
- Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1996). La conversation. Paris: Seuil.
- Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1997). Variations culturelles et universaux dans le fonctionnement de la politesse linguistique. In D. Luzzati, J. Cl. Beacco, R. Mir-Samii, M. Murat & M. Vivet (eds.), Le Dialogique. Colloque international sur les formes philosophiques, linguistiques, littéraires et cognitives du dialogue (pp. 151-159). Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt, New York, Paris, Wien: Peter Lang.
- Maingueneau, D. (1990). Pragmatique pour le discours littéraire. Paris: Bordas.
- Maingueneau, D. (1991). L’analyse du discours. Paris: Hachette.
- Moeschler, J. (1989). Modélisation du dialogue Représentation de l’inférence argumentative. Paris: Hermes.
- Traverso, V. (1999). L’analyse des conversations. Paris: Armand Colin.
- Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. & Jackson, D. D. (1972). Une logique de la communication. Paris: Seuil.
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
30 July 2017
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-026-6
Publisher
Future Academy
Volume
27
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-893
Subjects
Teacher training, teaching, teaching skills, teaching techniques,moral purpose of education, social purpose of education, counselling psychology
Cite this article as:
Bălăită, R. (2017). Managing Interpersonal Relationships. In A. Sandu, T. Ciulei, & A. Frunza (Eds.), Multidimensional Education and Professional Development: Ethical Values, vol 27. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 39-47). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.07.03.6