politeness conference

Yesterday I spent the whole day in Nottingham for a Politeness Conference at Nottingham University. Before you ask, let me clear up a few misconceptions. No, politeness (as an academic study) is in no way related to sensitivity. No, we did not sit around and learn how to be polite to other people. No, there was nothing there about Robin Hood or Maid Marian. And no, we didn't analyze each other's politeness strategies. And yes, politeness really is an academic study -- it has been quite influential, especially in the linguistic study of pragmatics.

Politeness deals with how people display polite (and impolite) behavior. In linguistics, it is concerned with the language people use to be polite or impolite. It tries to make sense of statements like the following:

Can you pass the salt?

See, usually the person who says something like that knows that the person they're addressing literally is capable of passing the salt. So, why do they question it? Why do we put it in that way? Well, it's one way of being polite (namely, in this case, by being indirect) - it softens the blow of what the speaker is really trying to say. If we didn't make the utterance polite, we would end up saying something like, "Give me the salt." In some cases, that might be fine; but in other cases, that kind of statement might offend someone. So, this is what politeness is all about.

The conference was interesting. They were also launching the start of a new journal on politeness, so they gave us all free copies of the first issue. That made me glad, since there are some articles in there that I've been looking forward to using. However, for the most part, I was just annoyed by the sense of academic self-superiority that pervaded all the proceedings. I don't think that people in academia try to be superior -- but they really get accustomed to thinking that way. Never before in my life have been so distinctly aware of the Ivory Tower.

Don't get me wrong -- I did enjoy myself, and there were some really interesting things discussed. But I just kept wondering what the point of it all was. Who really cares whether or not 'face' is a real concept, or whether it's the same across cultures. Of course there are practical implications for it all -- such as teaching people how to be polite in other cultures, countries, and languages -- but in the long run, is it really going to matter whether or not our theory of politeness accurately reflects the way things are? It's like the classic question about the chicken and the egg -- you know, which one came first? Why does it matter? It might be interesting to theorize how things happened, but in the long run, it really doesn't make any difference which was first, because they're both here now. If we actually knew for certain that it was the chicken that came first, how would that change the way we do anything?

The older I get, the more of a pragmatist I become. And modern academia is really no place for a pragmatist.

Anyway, on a bit of a happier note, I'd like to recommend Walter E. Williams's online 'course' (a series of 10 articles) entitled "Economics for the Citizen." Dr. Williams had last fall semester off from teaching at George Mason University, so he wrote up this series of 10 articles to try and teach some basic economics for the average citizen. Very interesting stuff. Between Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, I sometimes wonder if I shouldn't have gone into economics. (Don't worry - I'm just kidding.)

Oh yeah, and I found out the other day that Jonathan Culpeper will be supervising my dissertation. I'm excited about that, since I'm using his framework on characterization for my dissertation. That, and I just generally like Jonathan. My dissertation, by the way (or, incidentally), is about the characterization of James and Lily Potter in the Harry Potter series.

I ask a simple question, and I get a parade. (30 points)