Evaluation of politeness: The case of attentiveness

Abstract

This paper attempts to fill a gap in politeness research by introducing the concept of behavioural politeness and including the hearer as a significant component in the proposed analytical framework, which is set in the context of a cross-cultural study. Research into politeness has predominantly focused on linguistic features and on the speaker. Little attention has been paid to politeness as a whole unit of behaviour, and to the perspective of the hearer/receiver, i. e. how the hearer/receiver would judge politeness. It is proposed that politeness manifested through behaviour, i. e. behavioural politeness, and evaluation of politeness by the hearer/receiver are also important, and this paper takes the evaluation of attentiveness as an example of behavioural politeness using subjects from three cultural backgrounds. An attempt is also made to characterise the cultures (British, Japanese and Swiss) involved in this study in order to clarify this significant variable.

25. Small talk, politeness, and email communication in the workplace

“…Various researchers have pointed to the crucial importance of context for the interpretation of pragmatic meaning (Fukushima 2004;Matsumoto 1988;Terkourafi 2001). Several scholars have also advocated a more sophisticated conceptualization of face in cultural settings (Gu 1990;Hatipoglu 2007;Hernández-Flores 2004;Hongladarom and Hongladarom 2005;de Kadt 1998) that takes into account contextual parameters such as gender, genre, position of the interlocutors, profesBrought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 6/14/15 3:03 PM sional identities, and the purpose and type of medium in which the interaction is carried out (Danet and Herring 2003;Herring 2007).…”

Introduction: Applying politeness research to health care communication

“…In this special issue, Backhaus argues in favour of a modified and extended version of Brown and Levinson's (1987) approach, drawing Brought to you by | Georgetown University Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 8:32 AM upon the recent work of Usami (2002), Fukushima (2004) and Geyer (2008). Brown and Crawford bring together selected elements of Brown and Levinson's (1987) analytical model with Watts' (2003) and Locher and Watts' (2005) concepts of relational work, stressing in particular the overarching importance of Bourdieu's (1977Bourdieu's ( , 1991 influential notions of habitus and capital when conceptualizing notions of politeness in health care communication.…”

(Im)politeness

“…20 Recently, Eelen's (2001) critique of some mainstream politeness paradigms and call for radical reconceptualizations of the very notion of (im)politeness and related issues have led many researchers in this domain to begin to elaborate new approaches. This, to a certain degree, yields the emergence of a shift of focus, namely, from the speaker to the hearer, from how the speaker produces (im)polite language to how the hearer evaluates (im)polite language (see, e.g., Eelen 2001;Fukushima 2004;Haugh and Hinze 2003;Mills 2003;Spencer-Oatey 2005;Terkourafi, forthcoming;Watts 2003;Xie et al 2005;Xie and Li 2006a). However, there is still much work to be done, and there are still many questions that need to be answered, some of which may be formulated as follows: When does evaluation begin, and when does it stop?…”

“…Evaluation appears to be such a commonsensical notion that any effort to define it might be dismissed as superfluous or unrewarding. As a result, some scholars employ the term without giving a definition (e.g., Eelen 2001;Fukushima 2004). As mentioned in passing earlier, however, what is seemingly commonsensical may turn out to be problematical.…”