گستاخی نشاندار در نمایشنامۀ پلکان

پژوهش حاضر درپی بررسی نمود رفتارهای زبانی تهدید کننده یا سازندۀ وجهه در نمایشنامۀ پلکان اثر اکبر رادی براساس نظریۀ ترکورافی (2008) است که براساس آن رفتارهای زبانی به پنج دستۀ ادب بی نشان، ادب نشاندار، بی ادبی، گستاخی بی‌نشان و گستاخی نشاندار تقسیم می شود. تعیین الگوی رفتار زبانی با بیشترین فراوانی در کل نمایشنامه، شناسایی الگوهای زبانی شخصیت های فرادست و فرودست، تشخیص الگوی رفتار کلامی شخصیت های نمایش با شخصیت اصلی در موقعیت فرودستی او و همچنین بررسی نحوۀ تغییر الگوی کلامی شخصیت اصلی در عبور از پلۀ فرودستی تا پله های فرادستی از اهداف این پژوهش است. براساس نتایج، در میان الگوهای کلامی، گستاخی نشاندار دارای بیشترین فراوانی در پلکان است و در الگوی کلامی شخصیت های فرادست تمایلی برای حفظ و ساخت وجهۀ فرودستان وجود ندارد؛ وجهۀ فرودستان از روی عمد و با بیشترین استفاده از گستاخی نشاندار از سوی شخصیت های فرادست تهدید می شود. الگوی کلامی شخصیت های فرودست از تنوع بیشتری برخوردار است و آنان از گستاخی بی نشان بیشتر از سایر الگوهای کلامی استفاده می کنند. به‌علاوه، الگوی کلامی شخصیت اصلی داستان درگذر از موقعیت فرودستی به موقعیت فرادستی از بی ادبی به گستاخی نشاندار تغیر می کند و هرچه از پلکان موقعیت و جایگاه بالاتر می رود، از گستاخی نشاندار بیشتری استفاده می کند.

Marked Rudeness in Pellekan

The present article is intended to investigate the face making/ threatening linguistic behaviors of the characters in Pellekan, a play by Akbar Radi, based on the Terkourafi rsquo;s model (2008) which divides linguistic behaviors into five categories of unmarked politeness, marked politeness, impoliteness, unmarked rudeness and marked rudeness. Its effort focuses on specifying the most frequently used linguistic behavior in the play, finding the dominant linguistic behavior of the superior characters as well as determining how the main character behaves /is behaved in superior/inferior positions. The findings based on the research data show the prevalence of the marked rudeness in Pellekan; there is no tendency on the part of the superior characters to save and construct the inferiors rsquo; faces which are threatened by the frequent use of marked rudeness on purpose. The Linguistic behaviors of the inferior characters are more varied and they make use of unmarked rudeness more than the other linguistic behaviors. Furthermore, the main character rsquo;s linguistic behavior, moving from inferiority to superiority, changes from impoliteness to marked rudeness; the more superior position he occupies the more his use of marked rudeness will be.1. IntroductionPellekan is a play by Akbar Radi, one of the most famous playwrights of Iran, wherein the reader is encountered with ldquo;clearcut faces of close and distant relatives rdquo; (Radi, 2000, qtd. in Talebi, 2003, p.49). Moving from the lowerclass of the society to the upperclass, Bolbol rsquo;s language behavior changes ostensibly which merits scholarly attention. It is investigated based on Terkourafi rsquo;s (2008) model which discriminates among different language behaviors, namely: unmarked politeness, marked politeness, impoliteness, unmarked rudeness, marked rudeness. In marked and unmarked politeness, face construction is the focus of the attention; in impoliteness face threatening is accidental whereas in marked and unmarked rudeness face threats are regarded as intentional. It is hypothesized that the linguistic behaviors of the characters are tended toward rudeness in general and to the marked one in particular. The more the main character goes up the ladder of power and wealth the more he is willing to be markedly rude. Research Question(s)1. Which linguistic behavior is more predominant in Pellekan? 2. How the superior and inferior characters are differ in terms of linguistic behaviors? 3. How is the main character treated in inferiority positions and how he treats others when he goes up the ladder to superiority? 2. Literature ReviewLiterary texts are the main venue to represent characters in interaction and in fact it is this part that drew most attention. Brown and Levinson rsquo; Literary texts are the main venue to represent characters in interaction and in fact it is this part that drew most attention. Brown and Levinson rsquo;s theory of politeness (1978, 1987) was adopted in Brown and Gilman (1989), Jucker (2016, Bouchara (2009), RossenKnill (2011), Chun and Yun (2010), Chikogu (2009), Simpson (2005) and hellip;Culpeper (1998, p. 83) believes that ldquo;impoliteness generates the disharmony and conflict between characters which generates audience interest and often moves the plot forward rdquo;. Furthermore he (2005 and 2011) contended that impoliteness was committed to amuse and interest the audience. Chapman and Clark (2014) have focused on pragmatic stylistics in films. They were mainly concerned with impoliteness as a linguistic means of characterization, plot developments and characters rsquo; intentions. In Persian, RafieSakhaei focused on characters dialogues in Iranian plays based on Brown and Levinson rsquo;s politeness theory. Investigating (im)politeness among in the Persian youngsters rsquo; novels, Rahmani et. al. (2016) concluded that the youth characters made more use of impoliteness strategies among peers and of politeness strategies in talking with other characters. Namvar (2019) focused on verbal impoliteness patterns in Madaraneh with Culpeper discourse theory framework. Mahmoodi Bakhtiari et. al. (2016) found negative impoliteness as the dominant linguistic impoliteness pattern in Sayyadan. Rahmani (2018) studied characters reactions to impoliteness based on Bousfield (2008) impoliteness model and found out that men and powerful characters react more offensively, while women and less powerful characters react defensively. 3. Methodology3.1. Terkourafi rsquo;s Division of Linguistic Behavior Terkourafi defines unmarked politeness as making use of an expression in a context in which face constituting behavior is expected. ldquo;It constitutes the addressee rsquo;s face (and, through that, the speaker rsquo;s face) directly - that is, without first recognizing the speaker rsquo;s intention rdquo; (Terkourafi, 2008, p. 69). She defines unmarked rudeness as a conventionalized expression which is facethreatening. ldquo;It threatens the addressee rsquo;s face (and thereby constitutes the speaker rsquo;s face) directly - that is, without first recognizing the speaker rsquo;s intention rdquo; (Ibid.p. 70). Marked politeness ldquo;occurs when the expression used is not conventionalized relative to the context of occurrence; it constitutes the addressee rsquo;s face (and, through that, the speaker rsquo;s face) following recognition of the speaker rsquo;s face constituting intention by the hearer rdquo; (Ibid.). Terkourafi rsquo;s marked rudeness or rudeness proper is an intentional facethreatening expression or action perceived by the hearer and which is not conventionalized to the context. It threatens the addressee rsquo;s face as well as the speaker rsquo;s face. In her definition of impoliteness the addressee rsquo;s face (hence that of the speaker) is threatened unintentionally. 32. MethodThe dialogues of the play are investigated to find out each character rsquo;s frequencies of the linguistic behaviors identified by Terkourafi, and then they are inserted in special tables prepared for this purpose. In order to specify the dominant linguistic behaviors of the characters in inferior and superior positions, those dialogues were chosen wherein a participant was either in power position. Their relative frequencies were inserted in different tables. Using the data in the tables, the questions are answered. 4. ResultsAfter investigating Pellekan based on Terkourafi rsquo;s (2008) model of linguistic behavior, it was found out that the characters made use of marked rudeness more than the other types (marked rudeness=47, unmarked rudeness=26, marked politeness =7, impoliteness=6 and one unmarked politeness). Generally, the superior characters rsquo; dominant linguistic behavior is marked rudeness while those of the inferior characters are more varied, still with an inclination toward unmarked rudeness. The characters in inferior positions made use of unmarked rudeness when they are encountered with their superiors rsquo; marked rudeness. Their use of marked politeness behavior is an indication of their inclination to construct their superiors rsquo; face. The dominant linguistic behavior of the protagonist of the play is impoliteness in inferior position and the more he goes up the ladder to power, the more his linguistic behavior tends towards marked rudeness.