Alessandro Gargiulo CP07821

Presentation of Alessandro Gargiulo CP/07821

politeness as a strategic weapon in "gosford park": flouting maxims trough social masking

start

Television menu

introduction

scene 1 (The arrival)

Scene 2 (Servants)

Scene 3 (Afternoon tea)

Scene 5 (Interrogation)

Final Verdict

Scene 6 (Confession)

Scene 4 (Dinner table)

INTRODUCTION

hypothesis

In Gosford Park,the co-operation principle and politeness are not used to achieve harmony. Instead, they are used as a shield (social masking) to hide secrets. Second, as a weapon to attack others through sarcasm without breaking social rules. And third, as a tool for deception, where characters exploit Grice's maxims to mislead the police without telling direct lies .

PLOT ->

INTRODUCTION

Methodology

POLITENESS

IMPOLITENESS

P: The first linguist to take interest in politeness was Robin Lakoff, who said "It is more important in a conversation to avoid offences than achieve clarity"; -Principle of clarity -> be clear, -Principle of politeness -> be polite (avoid offence). Lakoff's Maxims of Politeness: -Don't impose, -Give options, -Make the hearer feel good.

Is with Culpeper's work that an alternative strategy appears: impoliteness. It consists in five usages, -Bald on record -> direct and explicit FTA, -Positive impoliteness -> damage addressee's positive face's wants, -Negative impoliteness -> damage addressee's negative face's wants, -Sarcasm or mock politeness -> FTA is performed with insincere polite strategies, -Withhold politeness -> absence of politeness where is expected.

INTRODUCTION

Methodology

FACE THREATENING ACT

CONCEPT OF FACE

The FTA is an action or an utterance that damages another person's public-image. The speaker can decide to use FTAs or not, by being: -On record -> perform the act explicitly with no ambiguity, -Off record -> perform the act indirectly, with ambiguity and obscure language. Only by being 'on record', the speaker can use polite strategies to compensate the threat, this happens: -When one can lose respect, -When one can't act freely, -When one feels their face can be damaged

The concept of Face was first developed by Goffman and later broaden by Brown and Levinson. Face is the image everyone has of themselves; there are two kinds of face: -Positive face -> desire to be approved by others, -Negative face -> desire to be free and not imposed on.

INTRODUCTION

Methodology

CO-OPERATIVE PRINCIPLE AND MAXIMS

IRONY AND SARCASM

Paul Grice (1975) formulated the Co-operative Principle founded on the assumption that a speaker should obey four maxims to make a conversation functional: 1)QUALITY (BEING TRUE) 2)QUANTITY (BEING BRIEF) 3)RELATION (BEING RELEVANT) 4)MANNER (BEING CLEAR) If a speaker does not follow the maxims, hearers should appreciate implied meanings. We call this flouting the maxims. Flouting means that the speaker implies a different function from the literal meaning of the words used.

Irony violates quality by saying the opposite of what we mean, Irony is often used in a friendly fashion. Sarcasm is less friendly and frequently used to make criticisms. It is usually obvious. Banter expresses a negative sentiment and implies a positive one. It is considered an offensive way of being friendly. It is common between people with a close relationship.

TECHNIQUE USED

RED: Calling names/ Dehumanization: to use derogatory nominations and to belittle identities YELLOW: Ridicule/ Mock politeness: belittle someone using sarcasm and using polite language to convey hidden hostility PURPLE: Power: impose upon someone or influence their behavior, based on their social status and authority.

GREEN: Positive Politeness ORANGE: Face Threatening Act LIGHT BLUE: negative Politeness BLUE: Impoliteness Hedging: The use of vague, indirect, or cautious language to soften a statement, avoid commitment, or protect oneself from the potential consequences of something

SCENE 1, Fake courtesy between Lady Trentham (Constance) and Sir Wiliam McCordle

William: Constance. Welcome. Constance: If he has to call me by my christian name, why can't he make it "Aunt "Constance"? I'm not the upstairs maid. Sylvia: You know what he's like. Constance: I see he's still got that vile dog. Sylvia: It's so typical. The ones you hate live forever. Have you had a horrid journey? Constance: Fairly horrid. Sylvia: You must be frozen. Come and have some tea.

contexts

SCENE 1 ANALYSIS

William: Constance. Welcome .Constance: If he has to call me by my christian name, why can't he make it "Aunt Constance"? I'm not the upstairs maid. Sylvia: You know what he's like.

claiming a title to repair negative face against an imposed informality. comparison to a servant to diminish status Bald on record strategy to exercise Power by forcing a social closeness that Constance rejects as status-degrading Positive Politeness to Seek agreement

SCENE 1 ANALYSIS

Constance: I see he's still got that vile dog. Sylvia: It's so typical. The ones you hate live forever. Have you had a horrid journey? Constance: Fairly horrid. Sylvia: You must be frozen. Come and have some tea.

The act of criticizing William behind his back constitutes a Face Threatening Act (FTA). Constance commits this FTA by mocking him Sylvia manages the social fallout using hedging and supportive politeness

SCENE 2 De-individuation Downstairs & The "Old Customs" in the servants room

Mrs Wilson: Ah, Mr Weissman, there you are. Mrs Croft: I'm dealing with this. What is it, Mr Weissman? Henry: Well, to start with my name is Denton. Henry Denton. Mrs Wilson: You are here a s valet to M r Weissman. That means you will be known, below stairs, as Mr Weissman for the duration of your stay. You'll find we keep to the old customs. It avoids confusion. He would answer back but decides against it. Henry: It's about M r Weissman's diet -

contenxts

SCENE 2 ANALYSIS

using a wrong name to assert dominance and ignore the visitor's identity. Bald on record impoliteness to she exercises Power By correcting them, Henry threatens their Positive Face and their authority Bald on record command to reassert control and to minimize the Rank of position, she frames the instruction as "old customs" to make the imposition seem like a social necessity Henry realizes the Social Distance and the disparity in Power . He uses a Hedge to soften his request, showing he understands the risks of further FTAs.

Mrs Wilson: Ah, Mr Weissman, there you are. Mrs Croft: I'm dealing with this. What is it, Mr Weissman? Henry: Well, to start with my name is Denton. Henry Denton. Mrs Wilson: You are here a s valet to Mr Weissman. That means you will be known, below stairs, as Mr Weissman for the duration of your stay. You'll find we keep to the old customs. It avoids confusion. (He would answer back but decides against it.) Henry: It's about M r Weissman's diet -

SCENE 3 Weaponized Politeness & The "Middle-Class" Attack during tea time

contexts

Ivor: "The Lodger". Constance: It must be so disappointing... When something just flops like that. After all the hard work. Ivor: Yes, I suppose it is rather disappointing.

Constance: Tell me, how much longer do you think you'll go on making films? Ivor: That depends how much longer the public wants to see me in them. Constance: I expect it's hard to know when it's time to throw in the towel... What a pity about that last one of yours. What was it? "The Dodger"

SCENE 3 ANALYSIS

using a metaphor for failure to imply he is past his prime and using Mock politeness showing ignorance about the title to belittle the work's significance Constance performs a FTA by directly attacking Ivor's professional competence. By "forgetting" the title, she employs a strategy of Off-record Impoliteness, masking her aggression as simple forgetfulness, this is a clear attempt to damage Ivor's Positive Face

Constance: Tell me, how much longer do you think you'll go on making films? Ivor: That depends how much longer the public wants to see me in them. Constance: I expect it's hard to know when it's time to throw in the towel... What a pity about that last one of yours.What was it? "The Dodger"

SCENE 3 ANALYSIS

emphasizing the failure of his professional efforts and using Mock politeness appearing empathetic while actually emphasizing the futility of his work Constance is doing a FTA intended to cause distress. She is not genuinely curious, she is showing her social Power by forcing Ivor to talk about his failures in public Hedging and using an adjective that acknowledges her criticism while maintaining emotional distance to protect his own face. By agreeing with her, he minimizes the conflict and avoids an escalation of the FTA

Ivor: "The Lodger". Constance: It must be so disappointing... When something just flops like that. After all the hard work. Ivor: Yes, I suppose it is rather disappointing.

SCENE 4 The formal dinner and the co-operation decline

Sylvia: He's just bought some new business or other. What is it, William? What have you bought? William: A manufacturing concern in Leeds. As a matter of fact, we make the cloth for the soldiers' uniforms. Sylvia: Which William sells to the government. So he makes money out of the war, and then he makes money out of the peace. Perfect. Louisa: Sylvia, please... Sylvia: Well, it's true. He bought his baronetcy with the profits, didn't you, William? And then he bought me. William: That’s enough, Sylvia. Sylvia: Is it? I don’t think so. Not nearly enough. William: I said enough!

contexts

SCENE 4 ANALYSIS

Mock politeness using praise to ironically highlight a moral flaw and shame William Sylvia uses irony to perform a FTA. By calling his profiteering "perfect," she signals her disapproval damaging William's Positive Face by exposing his lack of morality Hedging and attempting to avoid a conflict to protect the collective face of the group

Sylvia: He's just bought some new business or other. What is it, William? What have you bought? William: A manufacturing concern in Leeds. As a matter of fact, we make the cloth for the soldiers' uniforms. Sylvia: Which William sells to the government. So he makes money out of the war, and then he makes money out of the peace. Perfect. Louisa: Sylvia, please...

SCENE 4 ANALYSIS

reducing his social achievement to a mere financial transaction Dehumanization: reducing herself to an object to attack his pride FTA aimed at William's professional and personal identity, she uses Bald on record scorn to strip him of his status. Bald on record impoliteness by using a direct imperative to assert authority because his Power is being publicly challenged using a loud command and explicit rejection of communication to enforce power and stop the threat, William uses power as a tool of oppression to end the discourse. By using a command, he signals detrimental consequences

Sylvia: Well, it's true. He bought his baronetcy with the profits, didn't you, William? And then he bought me. William: That’s enough, Sylvia. Sylvia: Is it? I don’t think so. Not nearly enough. William: I said enough!

SCENE 5 The interrogation and the flouting of grice's maxims

Thompson: Now, Lady Trentham, did you notice anyone leaving the room or behaving in a suspicious manner shortly before the discovery? Constance: My dear man, in this house, everyone behaves in a suspicious manner. It is the national pastime. Thompson: Quite so. But I meant specifically near the gun room or Sir William's study. Constance: I am a guest, Inspector, not a night watchman. I generalise, I do not watch.

contexts

Thompson: Even so, surely you must have seen something? Constance: I see only what I choose to see, Inspector. And I choose to see very little. Thompson: That is not a very helpful attitude. Constance: It is the only attitude I have.

SCENE 5 ANALYSIS

Constance uses a patronizing address term. This is a classic aristocratic strategy to assert Power by reducing the Inspector's professional identity to a generic "man," increasing the Social Distance comparing the Inspector's role to a low-status job to belittle him Constance commits an FTA against the Inspector's Positive Face by mocking his status BY equating his professional investigation with a menial labor role supportive politeness

Thompson: Now, Lady Trentham, did you notice anyone leaving the room or behaving in a suspicious manner shortly before the discovery? Constance: My dear man, in this house, everyone behaves in a suspicious manner. It is the national pastime. Thompson: Quite so. But I meant specifically near the gun room or Sir William's study. Constance: I am a guest, Inspector, not a night watchman. I generalise, I do not watch.

SCENE 5 ANALYSIS

Hedging and using an indirect, vague response. Constance uses Negative Politeness to withhold information. By framing her refusal as a personal "choice" rather than a direct resistance, she protects her own Negative Face (her autonomy) Thompson attempts to reassert his authority through a direct abd critical evaluation of her character. This is an FTA against her Positive Face. However,his power is limited; he cannot use Bald on record commands on a Lady, so he must use a moral critique

Thompson: Even so, surely you must have seen something? Constance: I see only what I choose to see, Inspector. And I choose to see very little. Thompson: That is not a very helpful attitude. Constance: It is the only attitude I have.

SCENE 6 The final revelation of Mrs Wilson (The deception)

Mary: You knew who he was. You knew it from the moment he arrived. That's why you changed his name, why you didn't want him known. Mrs Wilson: An unblemished life, Mary. That is what we strive for downstairs. No identity, no history. Just the service. Mary: But he killed him. He killed Sir William. And you're going to let him get away with it?

contexts

Mrs Wilson: What the police do not know will not hurt them. Sir William took my child. Robert took his revenge. Mary: But you can't just keep quiet. Mrs Wilson: The account is closed, Mary. We do not reopen it. Mary: You mean you're going to live with it? Just like that? Mrs Wilson: We have lived with it for years. One more day will not kill uso.

SCENE 6 ANALYSIS

Mrs. Wilson uses this statement to define the "Downstairs" reality. It is a Bald on record assertion of the hierarchy she manages. She is not debating; she is defining the rules of existence for the servants, exercising total Power over their professional and personal identity.

Mary: You knew who he was. You knew it from the moment he arrived. That's why you changed his name, why you didn't want him known. Mrs Wilson: An unblemished life, Mary. That is what we strive for downstairs. No identity, no history. Just the service. Mary: But he killed him. He killed Sir William. And you're going to let him get away with it?

SCENE 6 ANALYSIS

Mary is attempting an FTA against Mrs. Wilson's current position of silence. By questioning her ethics, she threatens Mrs. Wilson’s Positive Face Wilson shuts this down immediately saying, "The account is closed,"。She is using a metaphor. She is comparing the secret of the murder to a financial account that has been finalized. Mrs. Wilson uses Positive Politeness to bind Mary to her using inclusive "us" to demand solidarity and force Mary into a shared moral burden

Mrs Wilson: What the police do not know will not hurt them. Sir William took my child. Robert took his revenge. Mary: But you can't just keep quiet. Mrs Wilson: The account is closed, Mary. We do not reopen it. Mary: You mean you're going to live with it? Just like that? Mrs Wilson: We have lived with it for years. One more day will not kill us.

THE FINAL VERDICT

-The Shield: . Represents how characters use politeness to hide secrets and true identities .-The Weapon: Represents how characters use politeness to attack each other without breaking social rules. -The Deception: Represents how Grice’s Maxims are manipulated to deflect investigations. -Genuine Cooperation: This proves that genuine, cooperative conversation is virtually non-existent in Gosford Park

the initial hypothesis is confirmed. Politeness in this environment is not a tool for social harmony, but a sophisticated system of power management. This analysis proves that the characters systematically replace Grice’s 'Co-operation' with strategic manipulation. In conclusion, the dialogue in Gosford Park is a performance where language is used to hide the truth rather than reveal it, transforming etiquette into the ultimate tool for survival and deception.

THANKS!