CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE GLOBALIZED WORLD Faculty of Econo !c" an# Bu"!n$"" A# !n!"t%at!

on Al$&an#%u Ioan Cu'a (n!)$%"!ty of Ia*!+ Ro an!a+ May ,t-+ ./00

Alon1 t-$ No%t-2Sout-3 W$"t2Ea"t D!)!#$4 T-$ Ca"$ of L!n1u!"t!c Pol!t$n$"" St%at$1!$" !n Cont$ 5o%a%y En1l!"- an# Ro an!an

Pol!t$n$"" can be seen as deviation from maximally efficient communication (Grice1967;Searle 1975). P6 B%o7n 8 S6 L$)!n"on (1978 1987 Politeness: some universals in language usage) see !oliteness as a rational and rule"#overned as!ect of communication$ aimed !redominanly at maintainin# social co%esion t%rou#% t%e maintenance of individuals& public face$ construed as a double 'ant( a 'ant of freedom of action and freedom from im!ositions (negative face)$ and a 'ant of a!!roval and a!!reciation (positive face). G6 L$$c- (198) Principles of Pragmatics) !osits a Grand Strate#y of *oliteness$ !rovidin# a very #eneral ex!lanation for communicative !oliteness !%enomena$ accordin# to '%ic% in order to be !olite$ a s!ea+er communicates meanin#s '%ic% (a) !lace a %i#% value on '%at relates to t%e ot%er !erson (ty!ically t%e addressee)$ (,a-or .onstraint) and (b) !lace a lo' value on '%at relates to t%e s!ea+er (,inor .onstraint). 96 Hou"$ (/005 1*oliteness in Germany( Politeness in Germany2&) !rovides a com!re%ensive descri!tive and ex!lanatory frame'or+ for t%e analysis of !oliteness$ includin# bot% universal and culture lan#ua#e"s!ecific levels( 1. a fundamental biolo#ical and !syc%olo#ical level ( coming together vs. noli-me-tangere); /. a !%iloso!%ical level to ca!ture biolo#ical drives in terms of a finite number of !rinci!les$ maxims or !arameters; ). an em!irical descri!tive level to deal 'it% t%e !articular o!en"ended set of norms$ tendencies and !references; 3. a lin#uistic level at '%ic% sociocultural !%enomena become #rammaticali4ed and lexicali4ed in s!ecific lan#ua#e forms$ suc% as %onorifics and ot%er systemic distinctions.

5n#lis% 6 t%e lan#ua#e of understatement 7omanian 6 t%e lan#ua#e of em!%atic overstatement 8ranslation of understatements !resents difficulties( (? X

rather ludicrous (? destul de ridicol); pretty awful (? destul de ngrozitor); X can hardly be described as abia dac! poate fi descris drept ); somewhat of an understatement (? ntr-o oarecare m!sur! o atenuare); are "ou at all worried? (?e#ti ctu#i de pu$in ngri%orat&!?)

5n#lis% is exce!tional in t%e many +inds and de#rees of indirect re9uest it allo's; 5n#lis% re9uests are also associated 'it% syntactic and lexical do'n#raders do'ntoners %ed#es$ e.#. ou couldnt tid" up' could "ou? (ne#ation of !re!aratory condition) (2 (u po$i s! faci ordine' nu-i a#a?) :in 7omanian$ a #enuine 9uestion; )*m wondering if "ou could tid" up? (a"5$ct < sub-ectivi4er) (? +! ntreb dac! nu po$i s! faci ordine?) :not used in 7om.; ) was wondering if "ou could tid" up? (tense < as!ect < sub-ectivi4er) Im afraid "ou*re going to have to tid" up, (sub-ectivi4er) (+! tem c! va trebui s! faci ordine,) ) was wondering if "ou would mind awfull" if ) as-ed "ou to tid" up? (? +! ntrebam dac! te-ar deran%a foarte mult dac! te-a# ruga s! faci ordine?) .ir' ma" ) ma-e so bold as to sa" that ) wanted to as- "our daughter*s hand in marriage? :all unusual in 7omanian; =ndirect re9uests are muc% less fre9uent in 7omanian com!ared to 5n#lis%$ as are %ed#es.

5n#lis% :u$"t!on!n1 ta1" reflect t%e culture of non"interference and !ersonal s!ace$ im!lyin# t%at differences in o!inion are ac+no'led#ed. 8a#s 'it% im!eratives$ functionin# as %ed#es$ %ave several variants$ 'it% sli#%tly different functions( /lose the door' will "ou &won*t "ou& could "ou& would "ou? 7omanian uses as ta#s nu?' da?' nu-i a#a?' bine?' adev!rat?$ '%ic% are in fact similar to t%e invariant ta#s right? and 01?$ '%ic% are more forceful as t%ey refer to evidence and do not leave t%e addressee muc% c%oice but to confirm t%e s!ea+er&s ex!ectations. 7omanian does not %ave t%e same !ro!ensity for ta#s$ or it 'ould sound ridiculously re!etitive; nu-i a#a? does not see+ a#reement but rat%er ac+no'led#ement of s!ea+er&s 1trut%&. =n t-$ $&5%$""!on of o5!n!on$ t%e list of 5n#lis% e!istemic verbs$ >is !robably 'it%out !arallel in ot%er lan#ua#es of t%e 'orld( ) e2pect$ ) believe$ ) suppose$ ) assume$ ) imagine$ ) gather$ ) presume$ ) guess$ ) suspect$ ) ta-e it$ ) understand$ ) trust$ ) wonder$ ) feel3 (?ier4bic+a /006( /09); t%ese reflect t%e cultural em!%asis on e!istemolo#ical accuracy and !recision =n 7omanian o!inions are ty!ically ex!ressed strai#%tfor'ardly if not forcefully; distin#uis%in# neatly bet'een fact and o!inion is not a !riority$ as t%e restricted use of cred' probabil' and dup! p!rerea mea indicates.8ranslatin# utterances 'it% ) suppose& guess& rec-on by cred& probabil& presupun& dup! p!rerea mea is not al'ays !ossible$ as t%ese sound formal and intellectual and so do not al'ays fit t%e context.

@rom t%e 7omanian vie'!oint$ accordin# to Aaleria GuBu 7omalo (/005)$ t$% " of a##%$"" are t%e most im!ortant !oliteness resource in 7omanian$ '%ic% %as not t'o address !ronouns ( 4&5)$ li+e ot%er 5uro!ean lan#ua#es$ but four " tu& dumneavoastr!& dumneata (no' dated)& 6omnia ta& voastr! (ceremonious). 7omanian em!loys a common !oliteness strate#y( t%e im!ersonali4ation of t%e addressee by usin# a !lural instead of sin#ular. .urrently in 7omanian$ not only t%e familiar tu is #ainin# #round$ but also a %andful of inter-ections of address '%ic% are ty!ical of !o!ular 7omanian s!eec% 6 bre (of 8ur+is% ori#in)$ b!(i)' f! and m!, Cnli+e 5n#lis%$ 7omanian favours o!enly !rovo+in# one&s interlocutor t%rou#% t%e use of suc% inter-ections and vocatives. =n t%e 17t% century$ 5n#lis% sin#ular thou$ already 'it% ne#ative connotations$ under'ent a !rocess of sociodialectal narro'in#$ so t%at "ou came to be used in t%e sin#ular as 'ell as in t%e !lural in su!ra" local uses of 5n#lis%$ '%ic% sets 5n#lis% in a sin#ular !osition amon# 5uro!ean lan#ua#es. 5n#lis% "ou %as been termed a #reat social e9ualiser$ democratic as it is; in fact$ it can also be seen as a distance" builder$ since as t%e default address !ronoun$ it cannot convey t%e intimacy si#nalled by t%e c%oice of a 8"form. 8%us 5n#lis% "ou im!oses less distance t%an 7omanian 1!oliteness !ronouns& '%ile bein# muc% less intimate t%an 7omanian tu, =n Dn#lo"Saxon culture$ t%e absence of an intimate 8"form of address reflects and fosters t%e culturally ex!ected !syc%olo#ical distance bet'een individuals and t%e value attac%ed to personal space and privac"$ a notion '%ic% resists translation into ot%er lan#ua#es. 7ic% systems of $&5%$""!)$ #$%!)at!on are a c%aracteristic of cultures in '%ic% emotions and affections are dis!layed overtly$ e.#. 7omanian s!rm!lu$!' pisicu$!' ploicic!' ghetu$! a.s.o; n 5n#lis% t%e corres!ondin# system of ex!ressive derivation is extremely limited. 8%e Dn#lo"Saxon et%not%eory of basically *rotestant 5uro!ean middle"class bac+#round identifies emotion !rimarily 'it% irrationality and sub-ectivity. 8%is is also reflected in t%e emer#ence in modern 5n#lis% of t%e 'ord dispassionate$ t%e dictionary meanin# of '%ic% is >free from emotion$ calm$ im!artialE. 7elated to t%is$ is t%e conce!t of reasonableness as reflected in t%e several meanin#s associated 'it% t%e ubi9uitous ad-ective reasonable' a 'ord 'it%out corres!ondents in ot%er 5uro!ean lan#ua#es. Fi+e ot%er Sout%ern 5uro!ean cultures$ 7omanian culture values t%e unin%ibited emotional ex!ression; many features of t%e 7omanian et%no#ra!%y of s!ea+in# can be accounted for in terms of t%is cultural attitude$ e.#. cordial im!eratives and im!ositives 6 trebuie s! mai serve#ti& servi$i; mai r!mi& r!mne$i etc. Dccordin# to ,ar#areta ,anu ,a#da (/00)b( 98)$ >unin%ibited emotional self"assertionE is ty!ical of t%e in%abitants of t%e Sout%ern !art of 7omania. 8ransylvanians %o'ever manifest more restraint and more concern for verifiable facts. 7omanian favours t%e overt ex!ression of emotions$ and never more so t%an at !resent$ in t%e current de#raded socio"economic environment.