bousfield d. & grainger k. introduction. politeness research - retrospect & prospect (2010)

7/29/2019 Bousfield D. & Grainger K. Introduction. Politeness Research - Retrospect & Prospect (2010)

1/22

Politeness research: Retrospect and prospect

DEREK BOUSFIELD and KAREN GRAINGER

In the opening editorial of the Journal of Politeness Research: Language,Behaviour, Culture, Chris Christie (2005: 1) outlined the aims, aspira-tions, and publications manifesto of the present journals editorial board.As Christie then explained:

The primary concern is to provide an international and multidisci-plinary forum for research into linguistic and non-linguistic polite-ness phenomena, and for research that draws on or develops anymodel of politeness.

The aim is to foster the advancement of theories of politeness; tofurther the development of methodologies for describing and ex-plaining politeness phenomena; and to broaden our understandingof social and cultural phenomena by publishing reports of empiricalstudies across cultures, languages, and interactional contexts thatare based on rigorous methodologies deriving from sound modelsof politeness.

The journal is aimed primarily at researchers, but it has alwaysbeen the editorial boards intention to ensure that the articles thatappear in the journal are accessible to both undergraduate and

graduate students with an interest in issues around politeness.

Under Christies editorship, not only has the journal achieved its aims,and maintained its original premises, but it has exceeded them to thebenefit of the research community as a whole. A brief review of thearticles published since the journals inception shows this to be the case.Both up-and-coming, early career researchers and well-established, in-ternationally renowned academics have contributed ground-breaking,high impact papers across a range of topics and from a plethora of

theoretical bases and epistemological paradigms. The journal couldnever be accused of languishing in a state of mid-table mediocrity in

Journal of Politeness Research 6 (2010), 161182 1612-5681/10/0060161DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2010.009 Walter de Gruyter

Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated | 130.102.42.98Download Date | 7/19/13 11:40 AM


2/22

162 Derek Bousfield and Karen Grainger

terms of the breadth and quality of the papers it has carried and theprogression of knowledge and understanding such papers have pro-voked. The debate, for example, on 1st order vs. 2nd order approaches to

politeness is alive and well both in the pages of this journal and beyond.Moreover, as we show in this retrospective overview, academic interestin politeness is not confined to the desks, labs, minds, data sets andresearch projects of theoretical and applied linguists alone; socialpsychologists, cognitive psychologists, communication researchers, sty-listicians, TESOL specialists and sociologists (to name but a few) fromacross the globe have all contributed to the widening debate on the phe-nomenon. Furthermore, research on impoliteness (and its associatedconcept, rudeness), as part of a growing debate on perceptions of ris-ing aggression in sections of society (see Bousfield 2008: 127128), has

also flowered, thanks, in no small part, to the journal and its publishingethos. Christie and her colleagues on the editorial team and the advisoryboard have a lot to be both proud of and pleased about concerning thegrowth in remit, applicability, importance and impact of papers pub-lished in The Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour andCulture.

2005: The launch and establishment of the journal

Since 2005, some 67 peer-reviewed, academic papers have been publishedin the journal. The first issue of the first volume presented papers dis-cussing and (re)introducing issues and positions which were to presagemany of the debates that we see in current issues of the journal.

The opening issue in 2005 set the standard high with robust andthought-provoking contributions from across the disciplines and acrossthe world. Locher and Watts clearly set out the stall for a first order(emic), or relational work approach to the study, appreciation and evalu-ation of politeness. They argue that politeness is, in fact, a small(er)part of facework than had hitherto been considered (than in, for exam-

ple, Brown and Levinson 1987). In what seems to be a largely givenconcept in 2010, Locher and Watts argue that Brown and Levinsons(1987) seminal work on politeness is, actually, not a study about prag-matic politeness per se, but is rather a treatise on sociolinguistic facemitigation. Locher and Watts (2005) close reading of five examples froma range of naturally occurring interactions allow them to argue that thework individuals invest in negotiating relationships with others (whichincludes impolite, polite and politic/appropriate behaviour) is a usefulconcept in investigating and partially untangling the discursive struggle

over the term and understanding of politeness. In effect, Locher andWatts (2005) re-iterate and extend earlier work (see Watts 1992) in sug-



3/22

Politeness research: Retrospect and prospect 163

gesting not so much a progression of politeness theory, but rather an

important shift in perceptions of it.Culpepers paper in this issue extends earlier work (Culpeper 1996,

Culpeper et al. 2003) on the study and analysis of impoliteness, andfanned the nascent flames of this research area by exploring the interac-

tions that take place in a television game show The Weakest Link. Cul-peper (2005) convincingly links both the academic study (etic) and lay

appreciation (emic) of impoliteness with the concept of entertainment.

Given that impoliteness is a form of aggression it should come as no

surprise that the two are linked. After all, as far back as ancient times

aggressive interactions have been seen as central modes of cultural enter-

tainment (e. g., gladiatorial combat in the Roman amphitheatre).

Holtgraves (2005) provided an exploration of politeness as a social

construct with its roots and implications intersecting cultural schemata

and individuals social, cognitive and linguistic processes. In a highly

readable paper, Holtgraves argues that a fuller understanding of polite-

ness can only be understood by considering these socio-cultural un-

derpinnings which, themselves, can be better explored and understood

through the study of politeness and how it is used from the perspective

of those processes listed above. He explores the concepts of face and

face-work from socio-cognitive perspectives and discusses the relevance

of politeness phenomena for central areas of psychological research and

enquiry including cross-cultural communication, language productionand comprehension and person perception and impression management.

Preempting and in many ways, preparing for a longer, deeper

and wider exploration of im/politeness which she edited in 2007 for the

Journal of Pragmatics, Helen Spencer-Oatey (2005) provided an elabo-

rate and comprehensive exploration of the bases and interrelationships

between im/politeness, face and her previously presented (2000, 2002)

notion of rapport management; more specifically with the perception

of it. Spencer-Oatey (2005) discusses the factors that influence peoples

dynamic perceptions of rapport, and proposes that there are three keyelements: behavioural expectations, face sensitivities, and interactional

wants of the discursive participants. She unpacks peoples judgements

about rapport management in relation to these elements to put her

framework on an emic footing.

Holmes and Schnurr (2005) present one from a series of publications

arising out of the Wellington Language in the Workplace Project in

the final paper of the first issue of the first volume. Blending both quali-

tative and quantitative methods in their approach, they illustrate the

issues and implications of using humour as a means of politeness atwork (from a relational perspective). More specifically, they explore how



4/22


two women leaders within two different communities of practice usehumour from a gendered perspective as an approach to politeness.

The second issue of the first volume consists of an interesting collection

of papers that offer further perspectives on the nature of politeness andimpoliteness in interaction. Terkourafi (2005), for example, reconsidersthe difference, and crucially, the similarities between traditional, Gri-cean approaches to the study of im/politeness (Brown and Levinson1987) and the more recent post-modern view typified by Locher andWatts (2005), Watts (2003). Having identified the common, underlyingassumptions for each type, Terkourafi shows how departing from suchperspectives can lead to the formation of a frame-based view, whichis dependent upon schematic assumptions of the interactants. Ultimately,the frame-based view becomes a layered aspect of im/politeness, standing

alongside the traditional and post-modern approaches which, together,allow greater consideration of the phenomena at different degrees ofgranularity.

Expanding the application of im/politeness research within broadcastdomains beyond those already explored (in, for example, Culpeper 1996,2005, Culpeper et al. 2003), Piirainen-Marsh (2005) looks at the manage-ment of impoliteness and adversarial utterances through detailed analy-ses of question-answer sequences in confrontational, televised interviews.The discussion here centres on interviewers micro-level practices in

shaping damaging question turns, and respondents practices in defeat-ing damaging implicatures and resisting attempts at being controlled lin-guistically. Overall, Piirainen-Marsh argues that im/politeness researchshould be based on premises that are consistent with work in conversa-tion analysis.

The remaining three contributions to this issue are concerned withvarious contextual influences on conventional expectations of polite be-haviour. Lakoff (2005) discusses the politics of Nice, and the US soci-etal expectation that politicians behaviourally conform to principles ofpoliteness in their public (and private) interactions. Indeed, Lakoff s pa-per explores the increasingly blurred line between public and privateselves, and the increasing number of women playing a central part inpublic and political life and what this all means for the uses of, andsocietal expectations surrounding, politeness in the US.

Mills, in the same issue, argues that the notion of nice behaviour isrelevant to the complex and fluid relationship between impolitenessand gender in interaction. Rejecting the notion of either concept hav-ing concrete realization within conversation (or, indeed, without), Millsargues that both impoliteness and gender are co-constructed by partici-

pants as the conversational exchange unfolds. Both concepts, Mills con-siders, are largely constructed around notions of nice (see Lakoff



5/22


2005), supportive, co-operative behaviour in terms of whether such ste-reotypes of female behaviour are accepted and affirmed or rejected andresisted. Further, despite evidence to suggest the competitiveness of

women and their contributions in interaction, Mills successfully arguesthat the judgement of women as being stereotypically nice(r, than men),can lead to womens assertiveness being categorized as impolitenessby those who buy into the stereotype.

Burts (2005) paper considers socioculturally based recommendationsas to how women should respond to the face-threatening scenario ofbeing invited to participate in courtship with a man in whom she hasno interest. Older Hmong immigrants to the US and younger Hmong-Americans differ in their recommended linguistic tactics with the formerpreferring direct and unmitigated utterances and the latter preferring

mitigation and face-saving utterances in the form of excuses or attemptsto postpone. Burt links the differences to not only the age of the partici-pants, but also to the assumptions on the part of each as to the pre-vailing conditions within which the original invitations to courtship aremade. The older women appear to presume situations similar to thosein Laos when they, themselves, were young women; namely, the lack ofwomens relative power overall when compared to Hmong men. By wayof contrast, Hmong-American women operate under the assumption ofdifferent conditions where there is a situation of more equal power rela-

tions and greater scope and possibilities for womens lives. Burt thereforeargues that greater power actually occasions increased use of verbal po-liteness, and lesser power, an increased use of bald, on record strategies,which, she claims, Brown and Levinson (1987) do not predict.

2006. Consolidation and growth: The rise of the special issues

Volume two began with the first special issue of the journal. Guest editedby Mills and Beeching, this issue focused on the issues of politeness inworkplace settings and included papers from an international range ofauthors and data sources. As Mills and Beeching say (2006: 1):

Some papers focus more closely on the workplace (Bargiela-Chiap-pini and Harris; Mullany); others more closely on politeness in dif-ferent cultural settings (Kerbrat-Orecchioni; Beeching on French;Arnaiz on Spanish) and others on cross-cultural phenomena (Dallerand Yldz on Western European cultures such as the UK and Ger-many in contrast with Turkey, Belarus and Uzbekistan; Traversoon French and Syrian). The studies, moreover, cover a range of

levels of analysis from an extralinguistic to a macro- and micro-linguistic level. The subject of some studies involves a broad con-



6/22


sideration of cultural factors, including power and distance, that ofothers involves an exploration of speech events and linguistic ritu-als, whilst still others study the implementation of politeness at a

micro-level. All of the researchers acknowledge the primacy of theBrown and Levinson politeness framework yet many attempt toadjust the theory so that it accounts in a more satisfying way for thesometimes apparently contradictory nature of the empirical datainvestigated.

The second issue of the 2006 volume opened with a theoretical paperfrom Arundale that cogently argues for a constructivist notion of face,in which face is seen as a dynamic phenomenon, rather than a stableentity which individuals have. In effect, Arundale argues that the self

is co-constructed in interaction and, further, he recasts Brown and Lev-insons (1987) notions of positive and negative face in terms of the dialec-tal opposition between needing to connect with others of our species,and needing to be free and separate from them (cf. Terkourafis [2008]discussion of approach and withdraw which drew on Durkheims[1915] work). By framing face in this way, Arundale is able to argue fora broad-scope, integrated account of face-oriented behaviour from oneextreme (outright threat) to the other (outright support). He, therefore,sidesteps earlier concerns regarding politeness models being conceptually

biased in that they do not account for aggressive or impolite behaviour(See Eelen 2001).The remaining three papers in this issue examine im/politeness phe-

nomena in various cross-cultural settings. Cashmans paper extends earlywork on impoliteness by testing whether the impoliteness strategies iden-tified and elaborated upon in Culpeper (1996, 2005) and Culpeper etal. (2003) are found in bi-lingual Spanish/English speaking childrensspontaneous interactions. The central concerns of the paper are basedaround the types of linguistic behaviour used in impoliteness, and re-sponses to such impoliteness. Cashman finds Culpepers (2005) iteration

to be useful in explaining the interactions and further, she concludes thatspeakers responses to utterances were crucial in defining impoliteness.

Byon (2006) explores the use and viability of indirectness and honorif-ics as politeness tokens in Korean requests. Questioning the universalcorrelation between politeness and linguistic indirectness, by utilizing astudy of 50 Korean native speakers responding through DCTs, Byonshows how Koreans manipulate honorific elements along with the direct-ness level of their speech acts to indicate the social meaning of politeness.Further, he shows that the manipulation of honorifics, along with the

selection of a certain directness level, is triggered by socio-cultural con-straints unique to Korean society. Finally, he finds that the direct link



7/22


between politeness and linguistic indirectness is not endorsed in the caseof Korean, and hence he argues that the link between indirectness andpoliteness has to be understood from a language- and culture-specific

perspective and is not universal.Wouk (2006) completes the second issue of the 2006 journal with herpaper dealing with strategies of apologizing in Lombok Indonesia. LikeByon, above, Wouk utilizes DCTs to argue that the category of takingon responsibility, as defined in the seminal Cross-Cultural Study ofSpeech Act Realisation (CCSARP) manual is problematic, and in needof reconsideration (p. 277) in that many expressions considered as beingused to signal the taking of responsibility, are actually used for a widerange of very different purposes by Indonesians.

2007. Expansion and development of approaches to politeness

Volume three began with a special issue on apologies guest edited byGrainger and Harris, who say (2007: 1):

The apology is a speech act which has deep and wide social andpsychological significance. In both popular and academic notionsof politeness it is perhaps the example par excellence of politenessat work. As Holmes (1998: 217), rightly, contends, the apology is

quintessentially a politeness strategy. In both public and privateinteraction, the need for an apology signifies that something hasgone wrong and needs to be put right.

Contributors to the special issue include Kampf and Blum-Kulka, writ-ing on apology events in young Israeli peer discourse, where they find arich and diverse range of apology strategies being used by 46 year olds;Davies, Merrison and Goddard utilize a credit-deficit model of polite-ness by exploring how student apologize to staff via email. They suggestthat, whilst apologies from students to staff are seen as minor, often

a discoursal adjunct to the interactions wider business, apologies areemployed to pay debts/gain credit within this institutional relationship(p.39). They consider the nature and role ofbut-justification apologies,which appear to be designed to show that although the student using thebut-justification accepts (and apologizes for) an infraction of expectedbehaviour, such behaviour should not be seen as being indicative of thestudents behaviour generally in their role as a student.

Kasanga and Lwanga-Lumu report on a contrastive study on apolo-gies between South African English varieties and South African Sets-

wana. Their study, utilizing DCTs, finds that there is, as might be pre-dicted, a range of significant differences in the use of pragmalinguistic



8/22


resources available to apologize in Setswana and nativized English.Building on this, they theorize the need for a group- or community-wideview of face, not an individual one.

Koutsantonis paper explores the enactment of apologies in Greek re-ality TV and the implications of apologies for the relationship pertainingbetween the interactants. In her paper she identifies constituent elementsof an offence (cf. the discussion of an antecedent offending event inCulpeper et al. [2003]) and the weightiness of it which seems to requireremedial apology facework; the implications of face, social distanceand power in determining the weightiness of an offence; and she exploresthe degree to which all of the above are culturally determined. In thisway, she theorizes about wider Greek culture and society beyond thereality TV gameshow environment by exploring how the interactants

manipulate their personal relationships and foreground Greek traditionsand values by explicitly attempting to contravene them. As with Culpep-ers (2005) paper, the voyeuristic nature of both offence-causing andnorm-breaching cannot be ignored.

The final paper in this special issue is by Kadar and represents a de-parture from the tradition of synchronic language study evidenced bycontributors to the journal thus far. Kadar looks at the historical strate-gic use and application of apologies in Chinese society and culture. Re-constructing the formal peculiarities of the historical Chinese apology

(HCA) as a way into re-considering the concept of discernment, Kadarlooks at ritualized formulae of apology. He shows that the characteristicsof the latter correlate with elevating/denigrating terms of address withinHCA. In a pragmatic turn, Kadar shows how, despite the highly fixedcontextual application schemata in which HCA appropriately take place,in a number of cases, speakers deviated from these contexts and attainedpersonal discoursal goals.

The second issue of volume three was, once again, theoretically richwith potentially influential developments in the field. It began withLeech revisiting and extensively revising his earlier approach to polite-ness (1983). In considering whether or not there is an East-West divideto the understanding, and use, of politeness, Leech is able to argue thatthere is not and exemplifies this by extending his (1983) maxim-basedapproach to become the Grand Strategy of Politeness (GSP). The GSP,Leech argues, is simply this: In order to be polite, a speaker communi-cates meanings which place (a) high value on what relates to the otherperson (typically the addressee), and low value on what relates to thehearer. The GSP, he claims, is exemplified in common linguistic behav-iour patterns in the performance of polite speech acts (requests, offers,

compliments, apologies, thanks and expected responses to the same).Utilizing support from Chinese, Japanese, Korean and English, Leech



9/22


argues that the GSP provides a very general explanation for communica-tive politeness phenomena in both Eastern and Western languages;hence, despite evident differences, there is no divide in Eastern or

Western politeness.Pizziconi also looks at the question of politeness in Eastern and West-ern languages. She explores the lexical mapping and conceptualizationof politeness in British English and Japanese. She does this by means ofconducting measurements of the semantic domains which, she argues,constrain the expressive choices of speakers of these languages. By elicit-ing native speakers similarity judgements of paired lexical items andmapping them onto bi-dimensional spaces, Pizziconi is able to interpretthe nature of the two principal dimensions which she considers contrib-ute to the distribution of those items.

ODriscolls paper is concerned with perceptions of, recognizing andgauging the severity of Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs). Whilst upholdingthe usefulness of Brown and Levinsons concept, ODriscoll argues thatFTAs are entirely pragmatic in nature as opposed to being intrinsicallyassociated with particular types of Speech Act. FTAs are re-defined here,as any move which predicates a change in face status of one or more ofthe interactants. The identification of FTAs, ODriscoll argues, ulti-mately rests with those same interactants. The severity of a FTA is theproduct of two factors: (1) the amount of face change it predicates, and

(2) the saliency of face at the time the utterance/act was communicated;further, the values of these factors are determined, ultimately, by partici-pant reactions.

Christie, herself, provides the next paper, suggesting an oft under-explored connection between Relevance Theory and Politeness (thoughsee Watts 2003). She begins by outlining some arguments which havepreviously attempted to apply relevance theory to the study and under-standing of politeness and then provides an account of some key differ-ences between the relevance theory approach and the Gricean frame-work which underpins classic approaches to politeness (Brown and Lev-inson 1987, Leech 1983). This allows Christie to explore methodologicalimplications arising from adopting relevance theory in politeness re-search which, in turn, allows her to suggest differences in focus in analyz-ing politeness as a result of adopting relevance theory.

Haugh launches a systematic critique of the discursive approach topoliteness research in the final paper in the third volume. Recognizingthat the discursive approach, and those working within the paradigm(e. g., Watts 1992, 2003), have mounted the most systematic and sus-tained challenge to traditional approaches to politeness (e. g., Brown and

Levinson 1987), Haugh, nevertheless illuminates a number of inconsist-encies flowing from the epistemological and ontological assumptions



10/22


which underlie it. He brings into sharp relief the question of how discur-sive researchers can identify instances of im/politeness without imposingthe analysts understandings on the data something discursive re-

searchers themselves explicitly reject in the traditional approaches. Hesuggests that any theory of im/politeness needs to examine how im/po-liteness is interactionally achieved through the evaluations of the interac-tants that emerge as the interaction plays out. This, according to Haugh,necessarily involves finding evidence of those evaluations (prior to mak-ing claims as an analyst) either by reference to the explicit commentsmade by interactants themselves, or through identifying instances of re-ciprocal concern on the part of the responder(s) when considering thenorms of the situation and the interactants. The latter, Haugh argues, ismore common than the former. By considering im/politeness in this way,

Haugh suggests that the field can develop into a theory within a broaderapproach to facework and interpersonal communication.

2008. Venturing into the dark side: Impoliteness and beyond

The first issue of the fourth volume of the journal tackles both politenessand impoliteness across an interesting array of speech acts, languagesand cultures. Marquez Reiter provides an intra-cultural exploration ofstrategies for delivering acceptable-to-all-parties apologies, looking at

non-emergency service calls to two separate service providers in Monte-video. Whilst there were similarities in the overall, or global, organiza-tion and delivery of apologies, variation was observed based on the factsthat the offences were regarded as non severe and, perhaps more impor-tantly, on the fact of the corporate micro-cultures of the different serviceproviders. Indeed one provider organized apologies around justificationsfor the service shortfall coupled with explicit expressions of apology;whilst the other organized apologies around excuses and attempts toevade responsibility. What is deemed to be most effective in the short-term goals of the interaction might not be the most effective in keeping

a loyal customer base and, as such, studies such as this show the impactvalue of research into politeness quite clearly.

Felix-Brasdefer explores and compares face considerations in dispre-ferred responses in two varieties of Spanish: Mexican and Dominican.Concentrating on the role and nature of refusals between equals of vary-ing social distance, Felix-Brasdefer studied thirty six male university stu-dents in 108 face-to-face interactions. Applying Scollon and Scollons(2001) framework of face, Felix-Brasdefer found that although situa-tional variation was, predictably, normal between both groups, the Mexi-

can-Spanish speakers used a significantly higher number of refusal stra-tegies that their Dominican-Spanish speaking counterparts.



11/22


The contributions of Sharifian and Economidou-Kogetsidis both ad-dress issues in the acquisition of pragmatic strategies in a second lan-guage. In considering how culturally dependent schemata relate to po-

liteness, Sharifian explores the relationship between speech acts and cul-tural conceptualizations. Using a DCT methodology, he concentrates onexamining the degree to which compliment responses produced by Per-sian speakers in their L1 and L2 in this case, English are informedby Persian cultural schemata of modesty. Such schemata appear to berooted in the cultural-spiritual traditions of Iranian society. These tradi-tions motivate interactants to downplay or negate received compliments,re-route the compliment to a family member, friend, associate, or God;or otherwise suggest reduced effectiveness of their own talents, skillsand achievements (and thus imply the compliment is not appropriate or

needed), whilst also returning compliments to the complimenter. Sharif-ian notes that compliment responses differed from L2 to L1 (where whatappeared in L2 may be absent in L1), and that the underlying, guidingschemata may be instantiated differently depending, of course, upon thecontext in which it is communicated. Sharifian, thus, points explicitly tothe dynamic relationship between language and cultural concepts and heends his paper by exploring the implications of the findings for the teach-ing and learning of English as an international language.

Economidou-Kogetsidis paper examines the way in which Greek non-

native speakers of English use lexical and phrasal downgraders and ex-ternal supportive moves in order to soften the force of their Englishrequests in power-asymmetrical situations. Economidou-Kogetsidis ar-gues that such situations are more demanding for speakers, requiring, asthey do, greater pragmatic skills. Such skills are, in her view, particularlydifficult for non-native speakers to acquire and use in L2. As a result,the paper concentrates on exploring the extent to which learners use ofmitigating devices differs from that of native speakers of English. Sherelates differences in politeness, including reliance on social variablessuch as power, familiarity and level of imposition, to culture.

Stewarts paper in this volume explores the idea that face-protectionstrategies in French language workplace interactions may be deemed ma-nipulative and hence impolite. Stewart explicitly sets out to tackle thecriticism of Brown and Levinsons (1987) approach that their model isunable to account for impoliteness. Drawing from a corpus of naturallyoccurring spoken French where the interactants share a rapport chal-lenge orientation (Spencer-Oatey 2000), Stewart explores how speakersexploit ambivalence inherent in spoken discourse as a face protectivedevice. Blending Goffmans (1981) and Linnells (1994) work on footing

and alignment with Chiltons (1994) approach to the strategic use oflanguage in interaction, Stewart enhances Brown and Levinsons model



12/22


to demonstrate that face protection may be part of a strategy to coerceand delegitimize others, and to ensure that ones own representation ona situation prevails; a manipulative interactional resource which may be

deemed as impolite by those on the receiving end. In this, a pragmatic/critical discourse analysis crossover, Stewart suggests that Brown andLevinsons model can provide a useful framework with which to considerimpoliteness.

Bousfield and Culpeper guest edited the second issue of the fourthvolume with a special issue on the topic of impoliteness. Drawingresearchers from across the globe and from differing research back-grounds, their collection, entitled Impoliteness: Eclecticism and Diaspora,explores, as the title suggests, the increasing number of areas interestedin the study of the phenomena and the applicability of the findings

therein. Karen Tracy provides the first paper of this special issue with alook at reasonable hostility; an exploration of emotionally markedcriticism of past and proposed future actions of public persons and bod-ies. Such reasonable hostility, she maintains, is necessary for the ablefunctioning of democratic bodies.

Holmes, Marra and Schnurr explore impoliteness and ethnicity in NewZealand workplaces. Noting that Maori New Zealanders are more likelyto be bicultural than are Pakeha New Zealanders, they note that it isMaori (discoursal and interactional) norms which are more likely to be

ignored in most New Zealand workplaces which has the potential to giverise to offence and institutional (unintended) insult.

Hutchby, taking a conversation analytic line, specifically looks atparticipants orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impoliteacts. Offering an alternative to sociolinguistic policies of establishing thelinguistic features that characterize impolite speech acts, Hutchby ex-plores the ways that members themselves orient to actions in interactionas impolite equating this concept with rude and/or insulting be-haviour. The analysis draws on data from a range of settings includingordinary conversation, small claims courts, counselling sessions andbroadcast talk to examine how, in such interactional environments, in-sults or episodes of rudeness may be produced, reported and respondedto.

Kienpointner examines the role of emotions in the creation and com-munication of impoliteness/rudeness (which, for the purposes of this pa-per, he sees as synonymous). Exploring the nature of destructive argu-ments and their link to negative emotions and impoliteness, Kien-pointner demonstrates that they ultimately serve some vital purpose orinterest of the interactant.

Jay and Janschewitz, continuing the exploration of emotions, concen-trate their study on swearing. Noting that swearings main purpose is



13/22


to express anger and frustration, they adopt a cognitive psychologicalframework in order to account for the phenomena in a variety of dif-ferent contexts. They are able to show that the appropriateness of

swearing is deemed to be contextually variable dependent on, amongstother things, the perceived offensiveness of the lexeme used, speaker-hearer relationship and situational (social and physical) context.

In the final paper in the collection, Watts fuses a discursive approachto the topic of impoliteness with that of Conceptual Blending Theory(CBT). In his approach conceptualizations of impoliteness are con-strued in the process of real-time interaction, in that it rests on lay mem-bers ongoing interpretations of what constitutes inappropriate forms ofbehaviour rather than on a theoretical concept that we choose to labelimpoliteness. Watts rejects the term impoliteness (preferring the

term rudeness contra Culpeper 2008), arguing that the term wouldonly take on the mirror opposite of whatever is understood to be polite-ness, and that lay members, if they comment on such behaviour at all,are more likely to use terms such as rude, offensive or aggressivethan impolite.

2009. From health care to the media

The first issue of volume five is a special issue on politeness in health

care settings, guest edited by Mullany. This collection of papers pro-vides new empirical evidence from a wide selection of health care settingsand examines how linguistic practices relate to broader institutionalnorms, practices and wider conceptualisations of politeness (Mullany2009: 2). Two of the papers deal with the hospital setting. Graham, inHospitalk examines hierarchical structures and how they inform politelanguage in interdisciplinary discharge rounds. Noting that communica-tion between different types of medical caregivers is an under-researchedarea, she adopts an ethnographic discourse analysis approach in orderto examine interactions during an interdisciplinary discharge rounds

meeting at a major urban teaching hospital. Graham notes that in ateaching hospital, there is potential conflict between physicians-in-train-ing and other members of caregiving teams; while physicians occupy ahigher position on the administrative and social hierarchy of the hospi-tal, other caregivers (e. g., registered nurses, who have sometimes hadover 20 years of medical experience and spend much more time withpatients than medical doctors) must determine how to be polite/politicin voicing their opinions and suggestions regarding patient care. Sheexplores politeness strategies used by various members of caregiving

teams (e. g., registered nurses, social workers) to negotiate patient caredecisions within the hospital hierarchy. Results indicate that mitigating



14/22


strategies are an integral part of the communicative process within theinstitutional hierarchy of a teaching hospital.

Zayts and Kang adopt a discursive approach to analyzing verbal behav-

iour in an L2 English context in the genetic counselling department of aHong Kong hospital. They illustrate how the sociocultural context acombination of the language used and the medical institutional settingin which interactions take place shapes the notion of politic behaviour.

Backhaus looks at communication between staff and residents in aJapanese elderly care facility. He discusses the role of politeness in thisspecial type of health care setting from a cross-cultural perspective.Backhaus attempts to outline common communicative features in insti-tutional elderly care which extends beyond national cultural boundaries.

The remaining two papers both look at advice-giving settings. Brown

and Crawford explore patterns of politeness in a corpus of material froma UK study of telephone encounters between NHS Direct health advi-sors and callers presenting with a need for advice over medication. Giventhe complex layering of politeness communicated by the advisers, Brownand Crawford surmise that there are important implications of their pa-per beyond just understanding politeness, but also illuminating wherepoliteness is communicated by an institutionally more powerful interac-tant to one who is, relatively, less so.

Harrison and Barlow explore the role and nature of politeness strate-

gies around advice-giving in an online arthritis workshop. Given thatparticipants in the online workshop are asked to make weekly actionplans around diet and exercise as a means of controlling their conditions,and that the major online activity for participants is to give feedback toeach other on these action plans, Harrison and Barlow convincingly ar-gue that participants online carry out face-threatening acts such as givingadvice and criticizing elements of others action plans. They note thatparticipants use a variety of strategies to mitigate their feedback, includ-ing indirect suggestions framed as generic declaratives or rhetorical ques-tions coupled with widespread positive face enhancing politeness stra-tegies.

In the second issue of the fifth volume we see discussions of powerand identity in professional contexts, as well as papers offering a varietyof new perspectives on cross-cultural speech act realization. Drawing onnaturally-occurring data recorded in business meetings in New Zealandand Hong Kong, and using Locher and Watts (2005) framework foranalyzing relational work, Schnurr and Chan explore how leaders fromtwo white-collar organizations achieved their various workplace objec-tives while simultaneously adhering to culture-specific politeness norms

and expectations. The analysis focuses on just one of the discursive stra-tegies which these leaders employ when performing relational work: that



15/22


of humour. Schnurr and Chan argue that norms regarding appropriateways of integrating the competing discourses of power and politeness atwork are strongly influenced by wider cultural expectations.

The work of Lorenzo-Dus also looks at how power and business lead-ership is managed. She examines impoliteness in the television showDragons Den (BBC2, UK). Like past work on impoliteness within ex-ploitative reality television programmes (see Culpeper 2005), Lorenzo-Dus explores face-threatening behaviour by those involved in the in-teraction within the studio. Her analysis reveals a number of patternsunderlying both the interactional structure of impoliteness containingsequences and the linguistic realizations of impoliteness in Dragons Den.These patterns point to a clear interactional power imbalance betweenthe expert dragon and the contestant. They also highlight the power

held by the shows presenter over the audiences perceptions of whathas occurred, as the presenters voice-overs, along with careful editingpractices, appear to set the interactions against the contestant, dictatetheir development and, importantly, close off impoliteness containingsequences in such a way that the dragon invariably seems to have theupper hand.

Garces-Conejos Blitvichs contribution argues that identity theory canbe a useful analytical tool for those working with the relational approachto politeness. Her study focuses on the new news genre news as

confrontation

broadcast in the USA and it shows how impoliteness isinextricably linked to the co-construction of the identities of the host,the guests and the audience.

Ogiermann provides insights into cross-cultural variation in speech actrealization by analyzing English, German, Polish and Russian requests.She suggests that the relationship between indirectness and politeness isinterpreted differently across these cultures. As such, her analysis focuseson the variational differences between direct requests and conventionallyindirect requests. She shows that across the examined languages thereappears to be culture-specific preferences for syntactic and lexical down-graders for modifying the illocutionary forces of the request, thus reduc-ing the FTAs weightiness.

Garca utilizes Spencer-Oateys (2002, 2005) rapport management ap-proach to study blaming by Peruvian Spanish speakers. Results showthat participants started and developed the interaction maintaining arapport-challenging orientation in their pursuit of transactional goalsand violated the interlocutors identity and respectability face. When fi-nishing the interaction, however, they showed a rapport-maintenanceorientation; they continued violating the equity principle, albeit less

strongly. Male and female differences were found to be significantthroughout the interaction.



16/22


Finally, Bella investigates invitations and invitation refusals in Greek

role-play data. Bella argues that age is a determining factor both for theformat of the speech event of inviting/refusing and the politeness strate-

gies preferred for their realizations. The paper shows that those partici-pants from the younger age group appear to conceptualize and interpret

invitations as face-enhancing for the addressee and, thus, prefer positivepoliteness strategies; conversely, participants in the older group concep-

tualize invitations as FTAs and, thus, prefer the use of negative face-threat mitigating strategies intermingled with positive face-enhancing

strategies given the context in which they occur.

2010 (and beyond). Im/Politeness online and the prospects for the future

The first issue of the present, sixth, volume, is guest edited by Locher

and is a special issue dedicated to exploring politeness and impolitenessin computer-mediated communication. This collection deals with email

interaction, bulletin board system (BBS) communities and on-line dis-cussion and support fora. A paper by Haugh utilizes real-life email data,

through the use of which a university lecturer was dismissed, and ex-plores argumentivity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. This

dismissal gave rise to significant controversy, both off- and online, as towhether the email itself was simply intemperate and angry, or more

seriously offensive and racist. Through a close analysis of the inter-pretations of the emails by the lecturer and student, as well as online

evaluations made on blogs and discussion boards, it becomes apparent

that the inherent discursivity of evaluations of impoliteness arises not

only from different perceptions of norms, but also from the ways in

which commentators position themselves vis-a-vis these evaluations. It

also emerges that the relative level of discursive dispute is mediated by

the technological and situational characteristics of the CMC medium in

which these evaluations occurred.

Nishimura explores how impoliteness affects Japanese BBS communi-ties. She finds that impoliteness, defined as intentional face-attack, has

different effects on interactions, depending on the communitys implicit

norms and the forms in which impoliteness is communicated. The func-

tion of honorifics is identified as placing psychological distance between

people, while that of non-use is to place interactants in psychological

proximity. If non-honorifics are used to express impoliteness in a com-

munity where honorifics are the unmarked norm of linguistic practices

among people in distanced relationships, it has a marked effect on the

community and could lead to community dissolution. Nishimura theo-rizes that the psychological distance indicated by honorifics is ignored



17/22


by the non-honorifics and the face-attack is perceived more directlyand strongly.

Angouri and Tselinga draw on a sample of data from two Communi-

ties of Practice to explore the use and perception of impoliteness. Ana-lyzing 200 posts from two online fora (the members of which compriseGreek students and academics, respectively) within which disputes hadoccurred and were expressed, they explored instances of unmitigatedconfrontational disagreement that breaches the norms of unmarked be-haviour. They find that im/politeness is firmly embedded and indeedinterwoven in the micro (discoursal) and macro (social) contexts. Impo-liteness strategies employed by the participants appear to indicate differ-ing judgements of what constitutes marked behaviour and is contingenton factors such as the overall purpose of the communication, the co-

constructed norms of the forum, the relationship pertaining between in-teractants and the dynamic group identities which the interactants callupon. The fact that participants are online does not give carte blanchereasons for impoliteness to occur.

Planchenault argues that demonstrating that ones face wants be desir-able to fellow interlocutors is key to success for integration into an onlinecommunity of practice when first joining. Acceptance, Planchenault ar-gues, is increasingly important for marginal communities of practicesuch as transvestites. Drawing from a data set of texts of introduction,

authored by members of a virtual community of transvestites for aFrench-speaking website, Planchenault explores how the members lin-guistically and ideologically gender themselves and other members.Expectations of prototypical feminine talk involving politeness is fo-cused upon as a way of showing how members mediate and construct asense of community.

Upadhyay investigates the connection between impoliteness and com-puter-mediated communication through the examination of reader re-sponses to ideas and views expressed by professional journalists in onlinemedia. Discrediting ideological opponents, arguing against ideologicaloutgroups and communicating disagreements are, perhaps unsurpris-ingly, some of the reasons behind the use of readers/responders strategicimpoliteness in such fora. Underpinning the study with a social psycho-logical theory of identity, Upadhyay is able to clearly indicate that theuse of impoliteness is linked to the respondents identification of him- orherself to a particular group and its ideological position.

In the final paper in the special issue Darics explores politeness withina virtual team that communicates via computer mediated discourse(CMD). Proposing an interactionally grounded approach (see Haugh

2007, and the entry on this, above), Darics identifies and explores lin-guistic politeness phenomena not hitherto fully explored in CMD analy-



18/22


sis, namely strategies used for compensating for the limitations of themedium and designed to aid interaction management. She concludes bysuggesting that her analysis along these lines contradicts some previous

findings of CMD, and suggests other areas need to be re-visited and re-examined from an interactional perspective to more fully understandhow language functions in such text-based environments.

All of which brings us to the present issue of volume six. Here we seethe very best of the journals thematic threads continue with the papersby Ohashi, Hardaker and Brown. Ohashi explores the use of a combina-tion of linguistics and paralinguistics in cultural expressions and re-sponses to politeness and scrutinizes the role of bowing and appropriatelinguistic features in Japanese instances of thanking. Hardaker investi-gates the phenomenon of trolling which is interesting from an impo-

liteness perspective since it involves the purposeful attempt to antagonizeothers for ones own benefit and pleasure in asynchronous computermediated communication. Hardaker argues that in order to properlydefine this activity in terms of impoliteness theory, it needs to be in-formed by user discussions. Browns paper explores the role and natureof politeness and second language learning focusing on Westerners useof Korean speech styles. He discusses the cultural variability of whatit means to speak politely and argues for a dynamic model of faceconstruction in interactions involving L2 learners. This issue also in-

cludes a lengthy reply to a review of Felix-Brasdefers book Politeness inMexico and the United States, which takes up some interesting theoreti-cal and methodological themes. All four papers follow the tradition ofexploring and expanding the nature and breadth of research into im/politeness in different settings, situations and cultures.

Coming up in the seventh volume (2011), we will see Archer and Luch-jenbroers guest edit a special issue of the journal on im/politeness acrosslegal contexts. We can expect papers entitled Paedophiles and politenessin email communications: Its not about the children; Strategic politenessand impoliteness in trial examination and cross examination; The trials ofOscar Wilde; Power confrontation and verbal duelling in the arraignmentsection of XVII century trials; Oral argument in appellate courts: A com-municative practice with limited facework, and, potentially, much more.

The eighth volume (2012) will see Pan and Kadar guest edit a specialissue on politeness in Chinese; a collection of papers clearly designed toadvance this nascent but growing and fundamentally important field ofstudy some considerable way.

We should not and will not rest on our laurels. As such we send outthis call: We continue to welcome high quality submissions from new,

early career researchers and mature, established academics on all mattersto do with politeness, mitigation, impoliteness, rudeness, aggression,



19/22


facework and all associated areas in any type of communicative ex-change. The search for academic excellence, impact and applicabilitygoes ever on.

We heartily thank Chris Christie for her sterling efforts and guidinghand in establishing the journal and bringing it to the current place itenjoys. We have a tough act to follow.

E-mail: [email protected]@shu.ac.uk

References

Angouri, Jo and Theodora Tseliga. 2010. you HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARETALKING ABOUT! From e-disagreement to e-impoliteness in two online fora.

Journal of Politeness Research 6 (1). 57

82.Arnaiz, Carmen. 2006. Politeness in the portrayal of workplace relationships: Secondperson address forms in Peninsular Spanish and the translation of humour. Jour-nal of Politeness Research 2 (1). 123141.

Arundale, Robert B. 2006. Face as relational and interactional: A communicationframework for research on face, facework and politeness. Journal of PolitenessResearch 2 (2). 193216.

Backhaus, Peter. 2009. Politeness in institutional elderly care in Japan: A cross-cul-tural comparison. Journal of Politeness Research 5 (1). 5371.

Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca and Sandra Harris. 2006. Politeness at work: Issues andchallenges. Journal of Politeness Research 2 (1). 733.

Beeching, Kate. 2006. Politeness markers in French: Post-posed quoi in the tourist

office. Journal of Politeness Research 2 (1). 143

167.Bella, Spyridoula. 2009. Invitations and politeness in Greek: The age variable. Journal

of Politeness Research 5 (2). 243271.Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in the struggle for power. In Derek Bousfield

and Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay withpower in theory and practice, 127153. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Brown, Brian and Paul Crawford. 2009. Politeness strategies in question formulationin a UK telephone advisory service. Journal of Politeness Research 5 (1). 7391.

Brown, Lucien. 2010. Politeness and second language learning: The case of Koreanspeech styles. Journal of Politeness Research 6 (2). 243269.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in lan-

guage usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Burt, Susan Meredith. 2005. How to get rid of unwanted suitors: Advice from Hmong-American women of two generations. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (2). 219236.

Byon, Andrew Sangpil. 2006. The role of linguistic indirectness and honorifics inachieving linguistic politeness in Korean requests. Journal of Politeness Research2 (2). 247276.

Cashman, Holly R. 2006. Impoliteness in childrens interactions in a Spanish/Englishbilingual community of practice. Journal of Politeness Research 2 (2). 217246.

Chilton, Paul. 1994. Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London:Routledge.

Christie, Christine. 2005. Editorial. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1). 17.

Christie, Christine. 2007. Relevance theory and politeness. Journal of Politeness Re-search 3 (2). 269294.



20/22


Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards and anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmat-ics 25. 349367.

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show:The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1). 3572.

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2008. Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. InDerek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studieson its interplay with power in theory and practice, 1744. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter.

Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield and Anne Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness revis-ited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmat-ics 35 (10/11). 15451579.

Daller, Helmut and Cemal Yldz. 2006. Power distance at work: The cases of Turkey,successor states of the former Soviet Union and Western Europe. Journal of Polite-ness Research 2 (1). 3553.

Darics, Erika. 2010. Politeness in computer-mediated discourse of a virtual team. Jour-nal of Politeness Research 6 (1). 129150.

Davies, Bethan L., Andrew Merrison and Angela Goddard. 2007. Institutional apolo-gies in UK higher education: Getting back into the black before going into thered. Journal of Politeness Research 3 (1). 3963.

Durkheim, Emile. 1915. The elementary forms of the religious life. London.Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria. 2008. Internal and external mitigation in interlan-

guage request production: The case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Polite-ness Research 4 (1). 111137.

Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.Felix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar. 2010. A response to Pilar Garces-Conejos Blitvichs review

ofPoliteness in Mexico and the United States: A contrastive study of the realizationand perception of refusals. Journal of Politeness Research 6 (2). 274285.

Felix-Brasdefer, J. Cesar. 2008. Sociopragmatic variation: Dispreferred responses inMexican and Dominican Spanish. Journal of Politeness Research 4 (1). 81110.

Garca, Carmen. 2009. The performance of a rapport-challenging act (blaming) byPeruvian Spanish speakers. Journal of Politeness Research 5 (2). 217241.

Garces-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2009. Impoliteness and identity in the American newsmedia: The Culture Wars. Journal of Politeness Research 5 (2). 273303.

Goffman, Erving. 1980. Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Graham, Sage Lambert. 2009. Hospitalk: Politeness and hierarchical structures in

interdisciplinary discharge rounds. Journal of Politeness Research 5 (1). 1131.Grainger, Karen and Sandra Harris. 2007. Introduction. Special issue on apologies.

Journal of Politeness Research 3 (1). 19.Hardaker, Claire. 2010. Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication:

From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research 6(2). 215242.

Harrison, Sandra and Julie Barlow. 2009. Politeness strategies and advice-giving in anonline arthritis workshop. Journal of Politeness Research 5 (1). 93111.

Haugh, Michael. 2007. The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interac-tional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research 3 (2). 295317.

Haugh, Michael. 2010. When is an email really offensive?: Argumentativity and vari-ability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 6 (1). 731.

Holmes, Janet and Stephanie Schnurr. 2005. Politeness, humor and gender in theworkplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of PolitenessResearch 1 (1). 121149.

Holmes, Janet, Meredith Marra and Stephanie Schnurr. 2008. Impoliteness and eth-

nicity: Maori and Pakeha discourse in New Zealand workplaces. Journal of Polite-ness Research 4 (2). 193219.



21/22


Holtgraves, Thomas. 2005. Social psychology, cognitive psychology, and linguistic po-liteness. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1). 7393.

Hutchby, Ian. 2008. Participants orientations to interruptions, rudeness and otherimpolite acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research 4 (2). 221241.

Jay, Timothy and Kristin Janschewitz. 2008. The pragmatics of swearing. Journal ofPoliteness Research 4 (2). 267288.Kadar, Daniel Z. 2007. On historical Chinese apology and its strategic application.

Journal of Politeness Research 3 (1). 125150.Kampf, Zohar and Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 2007. Do children apologize to each other?

Apology events in young Israeli peer discourse. Journal of Politeness Research 3(1). 1137.

Kasanga, Luanga A. and Joy-Christine Lwanga-Lumu. 2007. Cross-cultural linguisticrealization of politeness: A study of apologies in English and Setswana. Journalof Politeness Research 3 (1). 6592.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2006. Politeness in small shops in France. Journal ofPoliteness Research 2 (1). 79103.

Kienpointner, Manfred. 2008. Impoliteness and emotional arguments. Journal ofPoliteness Research 4 (2). 243265.

Koutsantoni, Dimitra. 2007. I can now apologize to you twice from the bottom ofmy heart: Apologies in Greek reality TV. Journal of Politeness Research 3 (1).93123.

Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 2005. The politics of Nice. Journal of Politeness Research 1(2). 173191.

Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.Leech, Geoffrey. 2007. Politeness: Is there an East-West divide? Journal of Politeness

Research 3 (2). 167206.Linnell, Per. 1994. Approaching dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Locher, Miriam A. and Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work.Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1). 933.

Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria. 2009. Youre barking mad, Im out: Impoliteness and broad-cast talk. Journal of Politeness Research 5 (2). 159187.

Marquez Reiter, Rosina. 2008. Intra-cultural variation: Explanations in service callsto two Montevidean service providers. Journal of Politeness Research 4 (1). 129.

Mills, Sara. 2005. Gender and impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (2).263280.

Mills, Sara and Kate Beeching. 2006. Introduction. Special issue: Politeness at work.Journal of Politeness Research 2 (1). 16.

Mullany, Louise. 2006. Girls on tour: Politeness, small talk, and gender in manage-rial business meetings. Journal of Politeness Research 2 (1). 5577.

Mullany, Louise. 2009. Introduction: Applying politeness research to health care com-munication. Journal of Politeness Research 5 (1). 110.

Nishimura, Yukiko. 2010. Impoliteness in Japanese BBS interactions: Observationsfrom message exchanges in two online communities 6 (1). 3355.

ODriscoll, Jim. 2007. Whats in an FTA? Reflections on a chance meeting with Clau-dine. Journal of Politeness Research 3 (2). 243268.

Ogiermann, Eva. 2009. Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison ofEnglish, German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research 5(2). 189216.

Ohashi, Jun. 2010. Balancing obligations: Bowing and linguistic features in thankingin Japanese. Journal of Politeness Research 6 (2). 183214.

Piirainen-Marsh, Arja. 2005. Managing adversarial questioning in broadcast in-terviews. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (2). 193217.



22/22


Pizziconi, Barbara. 2007. The lexical mapping of politeness in British English andJapanese. Journal of Politeness Research 3 (2). 207241.

Planchenault, Gaelle. 2010. Virtual community and politeness: The use of femalemarkers of identity and solidarity in a transvestites website. Journal of Politeness

Research 6 (2). 83

103.Schnurr, Stephanie and Angela Chan. 2009. Politeness and leadership discourse inNew Zealand and Hong Kong: A cross-cultural case study of workplace talk.Journal of Politeness Research 5 (2). 131157.

Scollon, Ron and Suzanne Scollon. 2001. Intercultural communication, 2nd edn. Mal-den, MA: Blackwell.

Sharifian, Farzad. 2008. Cultural schemas in L1 and L2 compliment responses: Astudy of Persian-speaking learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research 4 (1).5580.

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. Rapport management: A framework for analysis. InHelen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and polite-ness theory, 1146. London: Continuum.

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2002. Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive inci-dents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of rela-tions. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5). 529545.

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2005. (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpack-aging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1).95119.

Stewart, Miranda. 2008. Protecting speakers face in impolite exchanges: The negotia-tion of face-wants in workplace interaction. Journal of Politeness Research 4(1). 3153.

Terkourafi, Marina. 2005. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal ofPoliteness Research 1 (2). 237262.

Terkourafi, Marina. 2008. Towards a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, andrudeness In Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in lan-

guage: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice, 4574. Berlinand New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Tracy, Karen. 2008. Reasonable Hostility: Situation-appropriate face-attack. Jour-nal of Politeness Research 4 (2). 169191.

Traverso, Veronique. 2006. Aspects of polite behaviour in French and Syrian serviceencounters: A data-based comparative study. Journal of Politeness Research 2 (1).105122.

Upadhyay, Shiv R. 2010. Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader re-sponses. Journal of Politeness Research 6 (1). 105127.

Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Watts, Richard J. 2008. Rudeness, conceptual blending theory and relational work.

Journal of Politeness Research 4 (2). 289317.Watts, Richard, J. 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behavior: Reconsider-

ing claims for universality. In Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich(eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice. Berlin andNew York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wouk, Fay. 2006. Strategies of apologizing in Lombok Indonesia. Journal of Polite-ness Research 2 (2). 277311.

Zayts, Olga and M. Agnes Kang. 2009. So, what test do you prefer? Negotiatingpolitic behaviour in an L2 prenatal genetic counselling setting in Hong Kong.Journal of Politeness Research 5 (1). 3351.

bousfield d. & grainger k. introduction. politeness research - retrospect & prospect (2010)

Documents