A new critique of the binary first- and second-order distinction in politeness research

House, Juliane; Kádár, Dániel Z.

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2023.06.001

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The presented approach shows, that lay people’s intuitive conceptions of politeness (politeness 1 ) are a valuable addition to theories and align in certain aspects with theoretical frameworks (politeness 2 ). Similar to other scholars (e.g., House and Kádár, 2023 ), we therefore argue that this strict binary distinction might limit politeness research, as it would exclude the valuable insights that can be gained by combining the two perspectives as in the current study. In future research, we would like to focus more on the theoretical insights from these data (this would be beyond the scope of the current paper, which focuses on insights for HRI research).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

“… Locher and Watts, 2005 , p. 15; referred to as first order politeness or “politeness 1 ”) and the theoretical view on politeness, including, for example, the above-mentioned theory by Brown and Levinson (1987) , referred to as second order politeness or “politeness 2 ” ( Watts, 1992 ; Locher and Watts, 2005 ). Scholars have discussed this binary distinction, criticizing its simplicity by emphasizing the need for more perspectives on the complex phenomenon of politeness ( House and Kádár, 2023 ). House and Kádár (2023) , for example, combine these two perspectives in their approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholars have discussed this binary distinction, criticizing its simplicity by emphasizing the need for more perspectives on the complex phenomenon of politeness ( House and Kádár, 2023 ). House and Kádár (2023) , for example, combine these two perspectives in their approach. In this paper, we compare our bottom-up findings based on laypersons’ perspectives on politeness (arguably politeness 1 ) with theories on politeness (politeness 2 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Should robots be polite? Expectations about politeness in human–robot interaction

Lumer,

Buschmeier

2023

Front. Robot. AI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interaction with artificial social agents is often designed based on models of human interaction and dialogue. While this is certainly useful for basic interaction mechanisms, it has been argued that social communication strategies and social language use, a “particularly human” ability, may not be appropriate and transferable to interaction with artificial conversational agents. In this paper, we present qualitative research exploring whether users expect artificial agents to use politeness—a fundamental mechanism of social communication—in language-based human-robot interaction. Based on semi-structured interviews, we found that humans mostly ascribe a functional, rule-based use of polite language to humanoid robots and do not expect them to apply socially motivated politeness strategies that they expect in human interaction. This study 1) provides insights for interaction design for social robots’ politeness use from a user perspective, and 2) contributes to politeness research based on the analysis of our participants’ perspectives on politeness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Should robots be polite? Expectations about politeness in human–robot interaction

Lumer,

Buschmeier

2023

Front. Robot. AI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Conduct politeness versus etiquette politeness: a terminological distinction

Jucker

2023

Journal of Politeness Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues for a distinction between “conduct politeness” and “etiquette politeness”, where the former refers to the propriety of what people do and the latter to the decorum of how people do things. In everyday discourse, the distinction is often fuzzy, but as a second order distinction the terminology provides a useful analytical tool. In the history of politeness in English, a bifurcation into the two types of politeness can be observed in the eighteenth century, and today the distinction provides additional conceptual clarity of the changing theoretical focus during the three waves of politeness theory. After a review of the historical link between morals and manners, a brief case study focuses on their separation in the eighteenth century. A final discussion applies the distinction to the paradox that politeness is often seen as a positive thing that, unfortunately, is on the decline and as a negative thing because it is insincere, superficial and hypocritical.

show abstract

A new critique of the binary first- and second-order distinction in politeness research

Cited by 2 publications

References 29 publications

Should robots be polite? Expectations about politeness in human–robot interaction

Should robots be polite? Expectations about politeness in human–robot interaction

Conduct politeness versus etiquette politeness: a terminological distinction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About