Chapter One Background to the Study 1.1. Introduction
8The interest of linguists in analysing conversational texts has gradually shifted from the traditional focus on the linguistic structure to investigating language use as a social phenomenon. The functional approach to language studies goes beyond the study of sentences in abstraction to describing the use of language in concrete situations. In other words, a study about a language is not just about the linguistic or formal studies of language but what language is used to achieve in real situations. Speakers formulate their utterances in order to achieve their intentions and goals of communication. In order to achieve this goal, one needs not just the basic linguistic competence, that is, competence in phonology, morphology, semantic and syntactic competence but, also, competence in the pragmatic use of language. Thomas Holtgrave citing Hymes holds that ‘to use language to communicate successfully requires much more than linguistic competence’ (‘Speaking’ 207). He goes further to say that one must be able to translate intentions into words and do so in such a way that these intentions will be recognized by the recipient (‘Speaking’ 207). According to him, all interactants must be able to do this in such a way so as to avoid offending each other. This according to him is referred to as pragmatic competence (‘Speaking’ 207). This shows that apart from trying to understand the structure of language, language users should also know how to use language in order to achieve the desired goal. Niroomand Masoumeh citing Scollon and Scollon holds that the violation of pragmatic rules is bound to lead to communication breakdown (2). Obviously, this suggests that
1
2
competence, whether linguistic or pragmatic competence should be learned and developed systematically. Language is the principal means of communication amongst human beings. Invariably, the possession of it makes us human. Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman & Nina Hyams put it succinctly in these words: The possession of language, perhaps more than any other attribute, distinguishes humans from other animals. To understand our humanity, one must understand the nature of language that makes us human. According to the philosophy expressed in the myths and religions of many peoples, language is the source of human life and power. (284) It is deduced that language is the exclusive preserve of humans. Without language, it will be difficult for humans to live and interact in society. Humans use language to convey and receive information in society. It is an important means of communication. Given the importance of language, different scholars have tried to define language in varied ways. John Lyons quoting Edward Sapir writes that ‘language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions and desires by means of voluntarily produced symbols’(3). From the foregoing, it is only humans that have the innate ability to use language effectively using symbols which are consciously produced.
Moreover, there are some basic properties which every language is expected to possess. One of such properties is arbitrariness. Marianne Jorgensen and Phillips Louise remark that the meaning we attach to words is not inherent in them but a result of social conventions whereby we connect certain meanings with certain sounds (10). This simply means that there is no relationship between speech sounds and the meanings they represent. In other words, there is no
3
link between form and meaning or between the signal and the message. This further explains why different languages have different names for the same object. Conversely, there are sporadic situations in all languages of onomatopoeia, that is a situation where form is directly related to meaning as in kokorookoo meaning roaster, gbam-gbam meaning zinc, kom-kom meaning an empty tin, kpom-kpom, meaning a knock at door as noticed in the Igbo language. From this, it is possible to predict the meaning of a word and once the meaning is predicted, it is then, possible to predict the form. However, most of the words in all languages are non-onomatopoeic. On the other hand, the obvious case of arbitrariness in language makes it such that the users have to associate a particular form to a particular meaning which must be learnt independently. Lyons makes it explicit in these words: The fact that the link between form and meaning at the level of the vocabulary-units of language-systems is, in general, arbitrary has the effect that a considerable burden is placed upon memory in the language acquisition process. The association of a particular form with a particular meaning must be learned for each vocabulary-unit independently. (19)
From this, it could be seen that the arbitrariness of language has advantages and disadvantages. However, it can be argued that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages since it makes the system ‘more flexible and adaptable’ but ‘more difficult and laborious to learn’ (Lyons 19). The property of arbitrariness is peculiar to human language. In animal communication, there seems to be a relationship between the conveyed message and what it signifies. The set of signal used in animal communication is limited and predictable. For example, in animal communication, each form coincides with a definite signal. George Yule has it that ‘each variety of animal communication consists of a fixed and limited set of (vocal or gestural) forms. Many of these
4
forms are used only in specific situations (e.g. establishing territory) and at particular times (e.g. during the mating season)’ (22). Another property of language is duality. Duality in language simply means that every language has two levels of structure: the primary level and the secondary level. At the primary level the individual sounds do not convey any meaning. In other words, they are semantically empty. At the secondary level, the sounds are combined with one another to produce meaning. All human language systems have both levels of structure. This quality is extremely rare in other communication systems including animal communication systems. Yet, another property of human language is organization. It is only human language that can be organized to produce meanings. The organization is carried on from very simple to most complex structures. The individual units are combined with one another in order to form phrases; phrases are further combined to form clauses, and these clauses are in turn, combined to form the sentences. Besides, productivity is another feature of the human language. The human language continues to grow because novel utterances are continuously created in languages. This feature is also noticed among children who, most times, produce sentences which they have never heard before. On the part of adults, situations often arise that they manipulate words in order to describe such situations, thereby producing new sentences and expressions. The property of productivity makes human language creative in nature. It also explains why it is possible to have infinite number of expressions in a particular language. On productivity as a feature of human language Larry Andrews contends as follows:
5
Animal languages do not possess productivity. A cicada, for example, has four fixed sounds, not five and not three. A vervet monkey has 36 signals it can emit, not 35 and not 37. Given this aspect of permanence, these animals cannot change their systems of communications. Neither the vervet monkey, the cicada, nor any other animal we might consider has the potential for the creation of new sounds or new strings of sound combinations and permutations. Human language, on the other hand, is anything but permanent; it is extraordinarily productive. (11)
1.2. Statement of the Research Problem
Politeness is a universal phenomenon observed in all cultures and languages. In the university setting and everywhere, it is a major behaviour that determines the success or breakdown of communications. Given the importance of politeness in interpersonal communications, researches on politeness have been carried out between doctors and patients in the hospital
17
setting, market interactions, political interviews, telecommunication providers and their clients and even in some government-owned public institutions like the post office in most geopolitical zones in Nigeria. The researcher therefore intends to fill the gap in knowledge by carrying out a similar research in the university setting in Anambra State, Nigeria. More often than not, some undergraduates consciously or unconsciously exhibit or use impolite expressions to their lecturers, non-academic staff, bus drivers, tricycle drivers, food vendors, small business operators, fellow students and other members of the university staff. This impolite language use/behaviour, in turn, leads to impolite responses. Such impolite responses often result in quarrels, frictions, misunderstanding, conflicts, wrong impressions, disharmony, bad feelings and incompatibility. Although, some undergraduates try to maintain polite usages, others do not have a clear understanding of what constitutes polite or impolite behaviour/usage. Sometimes, unexpressed behaviour/action could connote impoliteness and rudeness which the student may or may not be aware of. Actions such as students intruding into their lecturers’ discussions uninvited are viewed as impolite behaviour which can also lead to rude responses. In addition, the use of formulaic expressions such as, thank you, sorry, please, I beg your pardon as used by undergraduates may be used in ways that negate politeness and expresses impoliteness without students’ knowledge. Adopting a gentle tone of voice may suggest politeness whereas a harsh tone when used even in greeting, compliment or apology may still be viewed as an act of impoliteness. Again, words like mandated, kindly and so on may equally be used in a way that constitutes a face threatening act to the addressee.
Against this background and gap in the employment of politeness strategies as observed among undergraduates, this study, therefore, seeks to examine the strategies of politeness,
18
impoliteness, face management tact and face threatening acts among undergraduates in selected universities in Anambra State, Nigeria. 1.3. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to examine the dominant politeness, impoliteness strategies, face management tact and face threatening acts in the conversations of undergraduates in selected universities in Anambra State, Nigeria. The specific objectives of the study are: (1)To identify and examine the dominant politeness, impoliteness, face management and face threatening strategies employed in the conversations of undergraduates in the selected universities (2)To discuss the sociolinguistic phenomena and functions of the strategies in realizing the overall pragmatic functions of maintaining harmony (or otherwise) in their interactions (3)To determine the socio-cultural features that influence polite or impolite behaviour in students’ interactions (4)To find out whether or not there are differences and similarities in the strategies employed by students of Nnamdi Azikiwe University and Madonna University undergraduates
19
1.4. Research Questions In order to achieve the above objectives effectively, the study seeks to provide answers to the following questions:
(1) What are the dominant politeness, impoliteness, face management and face threatening strategies in the conversations of undergraduates in the selected universities?
(2) What are the sociolinguistic phenomena and functions of the strategies in realizing the overall pragmatic functions of maintaining harmony (or otherwise) in their interactions?
(3) Are there socio-cultural features that influence polite or impolite behaviour in students’ interactions?
(4) Are there differences and similarities in the strategies employed by students of the two universities in their interactions?
1.5. Scope