Accessing politeness axes: forms of address and terms of reference in early English correspondence

How to do things with slurs: Studies in the way of derogatory words

“…However, if S nonetheless gets away with the confrontational linguistic act, and H for whatever reason does not retaliate, ''S [thereby] succeeds in actually altering the public definition of his relationship to H: that is, his successful exploitation becomes part of the history of interaction, and thereby alters the agreed values of D [social distance between S and H] or P [relative power between S and H]'' (Brown and Levinson, 1978, p. 228). Social distance typically refers to the symmetrical notions of social similarity and familiarity whereas social power typically refers to the asymmetrical notions of differences in relative social rank and relative social control (Nevala, 2004). Further, it has been noted by scholars that for most Americans power typically implies distance whereas solidarity typically implies closeness (Tannen, 1993, p. 26).…”

“…in a constant state of evolution'' (Parker-Ryan, 2012, Section 1). Indeed, Jucker and Taavitsainen (2003) argue that the choices that speakers make concerning the address forms that they use are always ''culturally dependent and change in the course of time as old criteria become obsolete and come to be replaced by new criteria'' (p. 4; see also Nevala, 2004;Fitzmaurice, 2010).…”

“…Lexical choices are choices that confront all language-users on a regular basis, and Nevala (2004) observes that when a speaker encounters a lexical choice of this kind, ''the speaker not only has to take into account his/her relationship with the hearer, but also has to decide how to present the referent in a situationally appropriate manner'' (p. 2126). Accordingly, the speaker will be expected to choose (a) just in case the speaker considers it most appropriate to convey hatred or contempt towards their target, or (b) just in case the speaker considers it most appropriate not to convey hatred or contempt towards their target, and further, the speaker will be prima facie expected to be held accountable for their choice.…”

What’s in a name? A discussion of what medical students and junior doctors call their senior colleagues, and why it matters

“…(D. A. Morand, 2000) Politeness theory posits that subordinates use greater amounts of polite language, which includes honorifics such as 'sir' or 'Dr', than do superiors. (Brown & Levinson, 1987;Nevala, 2004) The explanation is that subordinates are careful not to offend their superiors (for example by seeming to lack deference or claim over-familiarity by using a first name) especially when dependent on them for something and therefore needing to keep goodwill flowing. Conversely however, there is evidence that reducing social distance within teams improves team-working, and that the perception of hierarchy prevents medical students asking for help.…”

Positive or Negative Emotions: The Speaker’s Choice

“…Researches from pragamatic perspective show that address terms commonly function as greeting; addressing or referring; politeness strategies in communication; markers of speakers' identity and indicators of social culture (Zhao, 1997;Li and Li, 2002;Liu, 2003;Xiao, 2003;Nevala, 2004). Cognitive linguistics holds the view that the choice of address terms is involved in a complex mental process which is based on the language users' cognitive perception of the social relationship between the interlocutors, their perception of the formality of the interaction as well as their emotive involvement.…”