Mexican politeness an empirical study on the reasons underlying/motivating practices to construct local interpersonal relationships

3. Discussion

Results from the research indicate that respondents view the enactment of politeness from both individual, interactional and societal viewpoints, as they seek to construct interpersonal relationships. Spanish-language first- and second-wave approaches provide useful insights into Mexican relational talk, especially in terms of strategic and ritual politeness (first wave) and valorising and discursive politeness (second wave). However, a third-wave approach may be more productive in trying to theorise politeness practises and extend understanding to other communicative contexts.

Spanish-language first-wave approaches that focus on strategic politeness (Bernal 2018: 133) help understand the reciprocal motivation of interactants who enact politeness strategies as part of a quid pro quo, especially with regards to mostrar respeto, hacer el bien, ser servicial and acomedirse. For instance, with mostrar respeto (show respect), 12 participants asserted that they demonstrated respect because they expected to be respected in turn. This also seemed to be the case with hacer el bien (help others without seeking reciprocal action), where 18 respondents said that they expected to be repaid in kind in the future. A similar situation can be seen with ser servicial (cater to others' needs), where 16 participants reported that it portrays them in a positive light, and they hope to be helped in a similar way in the future. A similar situation can be found in acomedirse (ready and willing to help), where 12 participants said that they expected to be helped out in the future. At the same time, politeness strategies also reflect Bravo's (2008) affiliative stance as also seen in interactants' answer to why they mostrar respeto, hacer el bien, ser servicial and acomedirse. Rather than engaging in these politeness practices as a way of avoiding face threatening acts (Brown and Levinson 1987), Mexican respondents' answers revealed that they were more focused on developing comity and harmonious and cordial relationships. However, in the category of dar su lugar (recognise others' social status), 15 respondents said that they enact this practice as a way of adhering to cultural and societal norms. Since the use of these strategies tends to reflect the beginning of social and transactional relationships, their strategic use may be due to interactants trying to determine how evolving relationships might further develop and therefore can perhaps be better understood in terms of ritual politeness which `occurs in meeting situations' (Bernal 2018: 266).

Second-wave discursive approaches reflect valorising politeness (Bernal 2018), as interactants try to enhance and further relationships while showing affiliative appreciation for the ongoing relationship. This can readily be seen in mostrar confianza, mostrar carino, echar carrilla and vacilar, where politeness patterns and practices are more focused on developing, consolidating and reinforcing relationships. For instance, in mostrar confianza (demonstrate closeness, certainty and trust), 22 respondents said that they engaged in this practice as part of relational work. On the other hand, mostrar carino (display fondness, affection and warmth towards others) revealed both interactional (16 replies) and personal (12 replies) motivations. The same situation can be seen with echar carrilla (good-natured teasing), which reflects the same practices: interactional (13 replies) and personal (10 replies). On the other hand, vacilar (joking/pulling someone's leg) is more focused on interactants having fun: personal (15 replies) and interactional (9 replies).

Whilst the research has identified the possible motivation behind a range of politeness strategies, a deeper understanding can be attained by developing a theoretical framework which explains how social harmony, comity, solidarity, supportiveness, camaraderie and commonality are achieved which seem to go beyond first- and second-wave explanations. At first blush, interactional relationships in Mexican Spanish have a strong transactional element, especially with initial contacts as interactants expect to be acknowledged on a similar basis if they engage in practices such as mostrar respeto, hacer el bien, ser servicial and acomedirse. The results in this study therefore question the perception that Mexican interactants are primarily focused on disinterestedly satisfying the needs of others (as argued by Grinsted 2000). So, while interactants may show genuine interest in recognising the status of others and supporting their wellbeing, they may still expect to be reciprocated in turn. Secondly, Mexican politeness strategies contain a strong emotional dimension (i.e. mostrar confianza and mostrar carino), as well as a ludic dimension (i.e. echar carrilla and vacilar). More research needs to be conducted into the emotional and ludic dimensions as they represent a much more dynamic and evolving individually motivated nature of politeness which are strongly related to the development, consolidation and even deterioration of a given relationship.

Conclusion

An understanding of local politeness practices provides insights into how interpersonal relationships are developed, constructed and maintained as interactants pursue both personal, interpersonal and societal goals within a given community. Politeness patterns and practices need to be studied and analysed as motivated language use and not just in terms of simple relational work. Rather than `matching linguistic forms with politeness values and assessing their appropriateness' (Ogiermann and Garces-Conejos Blitvich 2019: 2), this research points to a third-wave approach that matches interactants' perceptions with possible theoretical understandings. Since this investigation focused on middle-class Mexican professionals, future research needs to examine the social dimension to motivation and choice by examining other social groups.

So, whilst relational phenomena such as showing respeto, confianza and carino (along with camaraderie, afiliacion and reciprocidad) need to be further identified, illustrated and exemplified, a greater understanding can be achieved by constructing a theoretical framework around their use as reported by the interactants themselves. This can be achieved by using taped or videotaped data followed by interviewing participants and discussing with them why a certain politeness practice was employed. However, this paper should be seen as an initial attempt to identify practices and identify what the users themselves claim to be doing. In the case of everyday Mexican Spanish politeness practices, these insights highlight how choices and motivations influence interlocutors as they construct, develop and maintain interpersonal and transactional relationships.

References

1. Arundale, Robert. 2010. Constituting face in conversation: face, facework, and interactional achievement, Journal of Pragmatics 42(8). 2078-2105.

2. Bayraktaroglu, Arin. 1991. Politeness and interactional imbalance. International Journal ofthe Sociology of Language 92. 5-34.

3. Bayraktaroglu, Arin. 2001. Advice-giving in Turkish: “Superiority” or “solidarity”? In Arin Bayraktaroglu and Maria Sifianou (eds.). Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries: The case of Greek and Turkish, 177-208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

4. Bernal, Maria. 2018. Teaching sociopragmatics; Face-work, politeness and impoliteness in L2 Spanish colloquial conversation. In Domnita Dumitrescu & Patricia Lorena Andueza (eds.) L2 Spanish Pragmatics: From Research to Teaching, 131-150. London/New York: Routledge.

5. Bravo, Diana. 2008. The implications of studying politeness in Spanish-speaking contexts: A discussion. Pragmatics18 (4). 577-603.

6. Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

7. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011a. Im/politeness and im/politeness. In Gisle Andersen and Karen Aijmer (eds.) Pragmatics of Society, 393-438. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

8. Culpeper Jonathan. 2011b. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Curco, Carmen. 2007. Positive face, group Face, and affiliation: An overview of politeness studies on Mexican Spanish. In Maria Elena Placencia and Carmen Garcia (eds.) Research on Politeness in the Spanish-Speaking World, 105-120. Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum.

10. Curco, Carmen. 2011. El papel de la imagen positiva en la expresion de la cortesia en Mexico, Conferencia Magistral, Segundo Coloquial Regional del Programa EDICE-Mexico, Uni- versidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon.

11. Czerwionka, Lori. 2014. Participant perspectives on mitigated interactions: The impact of imposition and uncertainty. Journal of Pragmatics 67. 112-130.

12. Fant, Lars. 1989. Cultural mismatch in conversation: Spanish and Scandinavian communicative behaviour in negotiation settings. Hermes Journal of Linguistics 3. 247-265.

13. Fйlix-Brasdefer, J. Cйsar. 2006. Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (12). 2158-2187.

14. Fйlix-Brasdefer, J. Cйsar. 2008. Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A Contrastive Study of the Realization and Perception of Refusals. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

15. Fйlix-Brasdefer, J. Cйsar. 2012. Pragmatic variation by gender in market service encounters in Mexico. In J. Cйsar Fйlix-Brasdefer and Dale Koike (eds.) Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts: Methodological Issues, 17-48. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

16. Fйlix-Brasdefer, J. Cйsar & Gerrard Mugford (forthcoming). Politeness research in the SpanishSpeaking world. In Dale Koike and J. Cйsar Fйlix-Brasdefer (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Pragmatics. London/New York: Routledge.

17. Fernandez-Amaya, Lucia. 2019. Disagreement and (im)politeness in a Spanish family members' WhatsApp group. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23 (4). 1065-1087.

18. Fitch, Kristine. 2007. Two politeness dilemmas in Colombian interpersonal ideology In Maria Elena Placencia & Carmen Garcia (eds.), Research on Politeness in the Spanish-Speaking World. 245-260. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

19. Fraser, Bruce. 1990. Perspectives on politeness, Journal of Pragmatics 14. 219-236.

20. Garcia, Carmen. 2008. Different realizations of solidarity politeness: Comparing Venezuelan and Argentinean invitations. In Klaus P. Schneider and Anne Barron (eds.) Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Pragmatics Beyond New Series 178, 269-305.Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

21. Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, New York: Double Day Books.

22. Grinsted, Annette. 2000. Categorias gramaticales y pragmatica en el espanol mexicano y el peninsular, Moderna Sprak 94 (2). 205-213,

23. Grundy, Peter. 2000. Doing Pragmatics, London: Arnold.

24. Halliday, Michael A.K. 1997/1973. Language in a social perspective. In Nikolas Coupland & Adam Jaworski (eds.) Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook, 31-38. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

25. Haugh, Michael. 2007. The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research 3 (2). 295-317.

26. Hernandez-Lopez, M de la O. 2019. Relational work in Airbnb reviews, Russian Journal of Linguistics 23 (4). 1088-1108. DOI: 10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-1088-1108

27. Hickey, Leo. 2004. Politeness in Spain. In Leo Hickey & Miranda Stewart (eds.) Politeness in Europe, 317-330. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

28. Jucker, Andreas H. & Larssyn Staley. 2017. (Im)politeness and developments in methodology.

29. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Daniel Z, Kadar (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, 403-429. Palgrave Macmillan United Kingdom.

30. Kadar, Daniel Z. 2017. Politeness, Im/politeness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31. Kadar, Daniel Z. & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding Im/politeness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

32. Larina, Tatiana. 2015. Culture-Specific Communicative Styles as a Framework for Interpreting Linguistic and Cultural Idiosyncrasies. International Review of Pragmatics 7 (2). 195-215.

33. Leech, Geoffrey.1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

34. Locher, Miriam A. & Tatiana V. Larina. 2019. Introduction to politeness and impoliteness research in global contexts. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23 (4). 873-903. DOI: 10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-873-903

35. Maiz Arevalo, Carmen. 2018. «Solo un poquito»: El uso y funciones del diminutivo en espanol peninsular en dos grupos de Facebook. Circulo de Linguistica Aplicada a la Comunica- cion (CLAC). Volumen monografico `La atenuacion en los discursos digitales en espanol', 73. 33-52.

36. Marquez-Reiter, Rosina. 2019. Navigating commercial constraints in a service call. In Pilar Garces-Conejos Blitvich, Lucia Fernandez-Amaya & Maria de la O Hernandez-Lopez (eds.) Technology Mediated Service Encounters, 121-144. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

37. Marquez Reiter Rosina & Maria Elena Placencia. 2005. Spanish Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave: Macmillan.

38. Mills, Sara. 2017. English Politeness and Class, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

39. Mugford, Gerrard. 2011. That's not very polite! Discursive struggle and situated politeness in the Mexican English-language classroom. In Situated Politeness. Edited by Bethan L. Davies, Michael Haugh and Andrew John Merrison, 53-72, London/New York: Continuum.

40. Mugford, Gerrard. 2013. Foreign-language users confronting anti-normative politeness in a Mexican university. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10. 101-130.

41. Mugford, Gerrard. 2014. Examining first-order localised politeness: Mexican positive impoliteness practices, Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 2 (1). 99-126.

42. Mugford, Gerrard & Maria Luisa Arias Moreno. 2017. La refutacion de la percepcion de des- cortesia en los adultos jovenes: la deteccion de practicas interpersonales de tu/usted en Mexico, Discurso & Sociedad 11 (1). 134-162.

43. Ogiermann, Eva & Pilar Garces-Conejos Blitvich. 2019. Im/politeness between the Analyst and Participant Perspectives: An Overview of the Field. In Eva Ogiermann & Pilar Garces- Conejos Blitvich (eds.), From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness, 1-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44. Placencia, Maria Elena. 2019. Responding to bargaining moves in a digital era: Refusals of offers on Mercado Libre Ecuador. In Pilar Garces-Conejos Blitvich, Lucia Fernandez- Amaya & Maria de la O Hernandez-Lopez (eds.), Technology Mediated Service Encounters, 173-197. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

45. Placencia, Maria Elena & Carmen Garcia (eds.). 2007. Research on Politeness in the SpanishSpeaking World. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

46. Scollon Ron & Suzanne Scollon. 1995. Intercultural Communication, Oxford: Blackwell.

47. Sifianou, Maria. 1995. Do we need to be silent to be extremely polite? Silence and FTAs. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 5 (1). 95-110.

48. Spencer-Oatey, Helen (ed.) 2008a. Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Culture. London: Continuum.

49. Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2008b. Face, (Im)Politeness and Rapport. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.) Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Culture, 12-47. London: Continuum.

50. Terkourafi, Marina & Daniel Z. Kadar. 2017. Convention and Ritual (Im)politeness. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Daniel Z, Kadar (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, 171-195. Palgrave Macmillan United Kingdom.

51. Watts Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix

Do you follow these Mexican relational practices? I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions. All answers will be treated anonymously.

Размещено на allbest.ru