A Cross-Cultural Study on Politeness and Facework Among Russian, American and Russian-American Cultural Groups
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Cross-Cultural Study on Politeness and Facework among Russian, American and Russian-American Cultural Groups Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ellen Bunker Graduate Program in Slavic and East European Languages and Cultures The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Daniel E. Collins, Advisor Brian D. Joseph Donald C. Winford Copyright by Ellen Bunker 2014 Abstract Politeness and facework are important aspects of communication that vary from culture to culture. They are influenced by factors such as the degree of social distance, the relative power of the participants, and the type of imposition or face-threatening act present in any given situation. Due to variation in the implementation of politeness and facework across cultures, locutions that may be interpreted as polite in one culture may be taken as rude in another, or they may simply fail to communicate the desired illocutionary force. This study investigates how differences in power, distance, and weight of imposition influence the choice of facework strategies across three participants groups: speakers of American English, Russian speakers residing in Russia, and Russian émigrés in the U.S. It evaluates their use of politeness by having them envision 12 social situations and write an email, text message, or dialogue as if they were actual participants in the situations presented. These responses were evaluated and categorized for each cultural group using Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory. Then the data for the three cultural groups were compared against each other to determine similarities or differences in the use of politeness and, in particular, to evaluate how differential power, distance and weight of imposition affected each group’s production of facework. The responses of the Russian-American participant group were also specially evaluated to ii assess whether there was any effect of L2 influence on their production of politeness and facework in their L1. The results of this study indicate that the use of positive politeness across the participant groups was relatively similar, while the use of negative politeness had more noticeable differences. In addition, the Russian-American groups did demonstrate clear L2 influence on their use of politeness and facework in the L1, but also diverged from both the American and Russian groups in some aspects of certain situations, which suggests that a politeness interlanguage may have formed. iii Dedication To my little girl Katya, who was patient with mommy while she wrote. Also, to my little girl who was on the way, and waited to enter the world till mommy was done. iv Acknowledgments Above all, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Collins, who has accompanied my post- graduate educational journey from its beginning to end. I have been thankful for his time, knowledge and patience, as I have grown as a student. I have also been grateful for his kindness and care as an advisor and department chair. I would also like to thank Dr. Joseph, who has willingly given encouragement and insight along the way as a committee member, and for his insight and intelligence as an educator. I has been appreciated as a student in the classroom, at forms and in the process of writing this dissertation. I would like to extend a special thanks to Dr. Winford, who was willing to help with this dissertation on short notice, and who I have also had the chance to learn from as a student. I have appreciated his kindness and insight as an educator and linguist. I am again very grateful for his willingness to serve on my committee. Lastly, I would like to thank my family, and in particular my parents – my mother, for her constant encouragement, and my father. Although my father passed away before my graduate studies, his influence and teachings have kept me working on when I wanted to give up. v Vita August 2002...................................................B.A. Russian /Spanish, Brigham Young University Spring 2007....................................................M.A. Russian, The Ohio State University September 2005-2011 ...................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Department Slavic and East European Languages and Cultures, The Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: Slavic and East European Languages and Cultures Specialization: Slavic Linguistics vi Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii Dedication ......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ v Vita .................................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables .................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................. 7 Chapter 3: Methodology .................................................................................................. 37 Chapter 4: American English Reponses and Data Analysis ............................................ 69 Chapter 5: Russian Responses and Data Analysis ......................................................... 120 Chapter 6: Russian-American Responses and Data Analysis ........................................ 171 Chapter 7: Comparison Across the AE, RR and RA Cultural Groups .......................... 221 Chapter 8: Conclusion ................................................................................................... 288 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 314 vii Appendices: Participant Surveys ................................................................................... 318 viii List of Tables Table Page 3.1 Distribution of participants by gender ........................................................................ 45 3.2 Distribution of participants by age.............................................................................. 46 3.3 Gender and age of participants by participant group.................................................. 47 4.1 Situation 1: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings ................................. 70 4.2 Situation 1: Positive politeness strategies used........................................................... 71 4.3 Breakdown of positive politeness strategy 15 for Situation 1 .................................... 71 4.4 Situation 1: Negative politeness strategies used ......................................................... 73 4.5 Situation 7: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings ................................. 74 4.6 Situation 7: Positive politeness strategies used........................................................... 74 4.7 Situation 7: Negative politeness strategies used ........................................................ 76 4.8 Situation 9: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings ................................. 77 4.9 Situation 9: Positive politeness strategies used........................................................... 78 4.10 Situation 9: Negative politeness strategies used ...................................................... 79 4.11 Situation 13: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings ............................ 81 4.12 Situation 13: Positive politeness strategies used ...................................................... 81 4.13 Situation 13: Negative politeness strategies used ..................................................... 82 4.14 Situation 3: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 83 4.15 Situation 3: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 84 4.16 Situation 3: Negative politeness strategies used ...................................................... 85 4.17 Situation 4: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 87 4.18 Situation 4: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 87 4.19 Situation 4: Negative politeness strategies used ...................................................... 88 4.20 Situation 5: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 91 4.21 Situation 5: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 91 4.22 Situation 5: Negative politeness strategies used ...................................................... 92 4.23 Situation 6: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 95 4.24 Situation 6: Positive politeness strategies used ........................................................ 96 4.25 Situation 6: Negative politeness strategies used ...................................................... 97 4.26 Situation 8: The AE participants’ weight of imposition ratings .............................. 99 4.27 Situation