Politeness and Forms of Address

Abstract

The present paper considers the politeness of forms of address in terms of Brown & Levinson's (1987) theory of politeness. We present a conceptual analysis of the elements of politeness for six kinds of nominal address exchange and of the politeness expected for different categories of social relationship. These theoretical values are then compared to the politeness of address exchanges collected in a series of previous studies. The results of both the conceptual and empirical analyses are compatible with Brown & Levinson's assumption that negative politeness outweighs positive politeness. However, it appears that the formula for deriving the weightiness of face-threatening acts and hence politeness requires revisions that would give greater weight to status than to solidarity and incorporate the interaction of status and solidarity. We discuss the plausibility of the claim that negative politeness is more polite than positive politeness and consider the implications of our results for understanding the expression of solidarity and the relationship of affect to politeness.

“What's in a Name?”: Vocatives in Casual Conversations and Radio Phone-in Calls

“…In the field of pragmatics, Wood and Kroger (1991) argue that though previous research looked at forms of address in terms of status and solidarity, power, and distance, it was not integrated with a more general theory of language use, such as Brown and Levinson's politeness theory (1987). In an attempt to redress this, Wood and Kroger (1991) put Brown and Levinson's theory to the test, particularly to consider some forms of address and their relationship to politeness.…”

“…In an attempt to redress this, Wood and Kroger (1991) put Brown and Levinson's theory to the test, particularly to consider some forms of address and their relationship to politeness. They conclude that negative politeness in Brown and Levinson's terms (i.e., the need to protect the recipient from coercive threats to face) outweighs positive politeness (the need to avoid threats to face that suggest lack of esteem), and that status commonly takes precedence over solidarity, all of which is reflected in choice of address terms.…”

“…Vocatives are closely related to 'address terms' (Jefferson 1973) or 'forms of address' (Brown and Gilman 1960, Brown and Ford 1961, Wood and Kroger 1991, but as Leech (1999) points out, a term of address is any device used to refer to the addressee of an utterance, while a vocative is just one particular type of address term. Biber et al (1999) 1 show that vocatives can take many forms: endearments (honey), kinship terms (Daddy), familiarisers (dude), first name familiarised (Johnny), first name full form (John), title and surname (Mr. Smith), honorific (Sir), nickname (Speedy), and even elaborated nominal structures such as: those of you who want to bring your pets along.…”

Reconsidering power and distance

“…Olshtain) doctor/patient (e.g. Wood & Kroger, 1991) parent/child (e.g. Wood & Kroger, 1991) Equal: company executives (e.g.…”

“…Wood & Kroger, 1991) parent/child (e.g. Wood & Kroger, 1991) Equal: company executives (e.g. Holtgraves et al, 1989) co-workers (e.g.…”