SpringerLink
Log in

On (Im)politeness

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
(Im)politeness at a Slovenian Call Centre

Part of the book series: Advances in (Im)politeness Studies ((AIMS))

  • 65 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides a comprehensive literature review on the concept of face, Goffman’s theoretical framework, and the study of (im)politeness, encompassing both traditional and contemporary approaches to analysing these phenomena within interactions. The primary focus lies in exploring the intricate relationship between face and (im)politeness, particularly within the complex and contextually rich environment of customer service.

(Im)politeness is in the eyes and ears of the beholder

–Jonathan Culpepper (2011: 394)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 93.08
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
EUR 117.69
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Criticism mostly came from Chinese and Indo-Chinese cultures, where differences were found in the level of importance cultures place on negative or positive face/politeness.

  2. 2.

    Culpeper (2008) asserts that different types of norms (e.g., situational, cultural, and personal) may overlap. However, the extent of the overlap still needs to be further explored.

  3. 3.

    It may be inappropriate of an employee to ask his/her superior out on a date but it is not necessarily impolite.

  4. 4.

    However, referring to emotions as self-conscious is ill-advised given that one cannot know how conscious or unconscious speakers actually are.

  5. 5.

    Mills (2003) on the other hand argues that when no evaluations are made by the interactants to a particular behaviour as impolite, impoliteness stays only at the ‘potential’ level.

  6. 6.

    However, Archer (2008) argues against the assumption that in courtroom interaction questions are always used coercively.

  7. 7.

    According to Brown and Levinson’s (1987), exercising power over someone is seen as threats to the addressee’s negative face, i.e., freedom from action and imposition.

  8. 8.

    Mosegaard Hansen (2016) refers to such behaviour as “neutrally polite”, in that no particular form of politeness, i.e., negative vs positive (Brown and Levinson, 1987), seems normative.

  9. 9.

    Provided it is assumed that the agents’ jobs, to a lesser or greater extent, depend on the customers using the company services, which is why they will gear their efforts towards making the customer feel valuable.

  10. 10.

    In some settings, such as on social media, facework is also emergent through the absence of responses, considering that message recipients are notified when the message is posted on their Facebook page.

  11. 11.

    Within the framework of Brown and Levinson’s theory, however, Chen (2001) proposed a binary model of politeness to others and self-politeness, arguing that speakers also have face needs. Hence, in certain situations they need to perform various speech acts using (mitigating) strategies so as not to threaten their own face. All the strategies are directed both to the negative and positive face of the speaker (see also Chap. 7, Sect. 7.2.4).

References

  • Afifi, W., & Burgoon, J. (2000). Behavioural violations in interactions: The combined consequences of valence and change in uncertainty on interaction outcomes. Human Communication Research, 26(2), 203–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, D. (2008). Verbal aggression and impoliteness: Related or synonymous? In M. Locher & D. Bousfield (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 181–207). Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, D. (2011a). Facework and im/politeness across legal contexts: An introduction. Journal of Politeness Research, 7(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, D. (2011b). Cross-examining lawyers, facework and the adversarial courtroom. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3216–3230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, D., & Jagodziński, P. (2015). Call centre interaction: A case of sanctioned face attack? Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 46–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, D. (2015). Slurs, insults, (backhanded) compliments and other strategic facework moves. Language Sciences, 52, 82–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, D., Grainger, K., & Jagodzinski, P. (2020). In: D. Archer, K. Grainger & P. Jagozinski (eds.) Introduction: Politeness in professional contexts. (pp. 1–22). Politeness in Professional Contexts. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arundale, R. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arundale, R. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2, 193–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arundale, R. (2009). Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: An alternative to Goffman. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, Communication and Social Interaction (pp. 33–54). Equinox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arundale, R. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2078–2105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banse, R., & Scherer, K. (1996). Acoustic profiles in vocal emotion expression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 614–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1453–1469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2009). The handbook of business discourse. Edinburgh University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bax, M. (2009). Generic evolution. Ritual, rhetoric, and the rise of discursive rationality. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 780–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beebe, L. (1995). Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In J. Alatis, C. Straehle, B. Gallenberger, & M. Ronkin (Eds.), Linguistics and the education of language teachers: Ethnolinguistic, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects (pp. 154–168). Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, S. (2001). Changing faces: Nurses as emotional jugglers. Sociology of Health and Illness, 23(1), 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56–311). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, R. (2001). Self-politeness: A proposal. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: ‘The weakest link.’ Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 35–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In M. A. Locher & D. Bousfield (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 17–44). Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J. (2009). Impoliteness: Using and understanding the language of offence. Retrieved from: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/impoliteness/

  • Culpeper, J. (2011a). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J. (2011b). Politeness and impoliteness. In K. Aijmer & G. Andersen (Eds.), Sociopragmatics (Vol. 5, pp. 391–436). Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J., & Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English language. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J., & Hardaker, C. (2017). Impoliteness. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Kadar (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (Im)politeness (pp. 199–226). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1545–1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, B. L. (2018). Evaluating evaluations: What different types of metapragmatic behaviour can tell us about participants’ understandings of the moral order. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 121–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debray, C. (2020). Managing rapport in team conflicts: Dealing with “the elephant in the room.” In D. Archer, K. Grainger, & P. Jagodzinski (Eds.), Politeness in professional contexts (pp. 129–150). John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analysing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3–65). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dynel, M. (2015). The landscape of impoliteness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 329–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. St. Jerome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, T., Harrington, L., Mullany, L., Atkins, S., Churchill, D., Winter, R., & Patel, R. (2020). Learning to manage rapport in GP trainee encounters: A discursive politeness approach. In D. Archer, K. Grainger, & P. Jagodzinski (Eds.), Politeness in professional contexts (pp. 25–54). John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, Y. (1998). An introduction to the social psychology of insults in organizations. Human Relations, 51(11), 1329–1354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcés-Conejos, P., Bou-Franch, P., & Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2010). A genre-approach to im-politeness in a Spanish TV talk show: Evidence from corpus-based analysis, questionnaires and focus groups. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7, 689–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcés-Conejos, P., Bou-Franch, P., & Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2013). Identity and impoliteness: The expert in the talent show Idol. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 97–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyer, N. (2010). Teasing and ambivalent face in Japanese multi-party discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2120–2130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Intentions in the experience of meaning. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal of Interpersonal Relations, 18(3), 213–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grad, A., & Leeming, H. (1996). Slovenian-English Dictionary. DZS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grainger, K. (2011). ‘First order’ and ‘second order’ politeness: Institutional and intercultural contexts. In L. P. R. Group (Ed.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 167–188). Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grainger, K. (2020). Take care of yourself: Negotiating moral and professional face in stroke rehabilitation. In D. Archer, K. Grainger, & P. Jagodzinski (Eds.), Politeness in professional contexts (pp. 85–106). John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 237–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society, 12(4), 451–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, S. (2003). Politeness and power: Making and responding to ‘requests’ in institutional settings. Text, 23(1), 27–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, S. (2011). The limits of politeness re-visited: Courtroom discourse as a case in point. In L. P. R. Group (Ed.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 85–108). Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (2007). The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 84–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (2008). The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In I. Kecskes & J. Mey (Eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer (pp. 45–85). Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (2009). Face and interaction: Foreword. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 1–30). Equinox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (2010a). Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2106–2119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (2010b). Intercultural (im)politeness and the micro-macro issue. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 139–166). Walter de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (2010c). When is an email really offensive?: Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.002

  • Haugh, M. (2013a). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (2013b). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (2015). Im/politeness implicatures. Mouton de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (2000). Conversation analysis at century’s end: Practices of talk-in-interaction, their distributions, and their outcomes. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47, 201–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J., & Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humour and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 139–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J., Marra, M., & Schnurr, S. (2008). Impoliteness and ethnicity: Māori and Pākehā discourse in New Zealand workplaces. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 193–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J., Marra, M., & Vine, B. (2012). Politeness and impoliteness in ethnic varieties of New Zealand English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1063–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hultgren, A. K. (2019). Globalizing politeness? Towards a globalization-sensitive framework of mediated service encounters. In P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, M. D. Hernández-López & L. Fernández-Amaya (Eds.), Technology mediated service encounters (pp. 97–120). John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 2(3), 223–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Işık-Güler, H., & Ruhi, S. (2010). Face and impoliteness at the intersection with emotions: A corpus-based study in Turkish. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7, 625–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izadi, A. (2016). Over-politeness in Persian professional interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 102, 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kádár, D. Z. (2017). Politeness, impoliteness and ritual: Maintaining the moral order in interpersonal interaction. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kádár, D. Z., & Márquez Reiter, R. (2015). (Im)politeness and (im)morality: Insights from intervention. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kádár, D., Parvaresh, V., & Márquez Reiter, R. (2021). Alternative approaches to politeness and impoliteness: An introduction. Journal of Politeness Research, 17(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 193–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M. (1997). Varieties of rudeness: Types and functions of impolite utterances. Functions of Language, 4(2), 251–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M. (2008). Impoliteness and emotional arguments. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 243–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M., & Stopfner, M. (2017). Ideology and (Im)politeness. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Kadar (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistics (Im)politeness (pp. 61–83). Macmillan Publisher.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kunst-Gnamuš, O. (1991). Vljudnost in posrednost pri izrekanju zahtev (Politeness and directness in requests). Jezik in Slovstvo, 37(1/2), 9–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. In Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292–305).

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech, G. (1977). Language and tact. (LAUT series A paper 46.). University of Trier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, T.-S. (2009). Face in the holistic and relativistic society. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 250–268). Equinox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Limberg, H. (2008). Impoliteness and threat responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1376–1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locher, M. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication (Vol. 12). Mouton de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Locher, M. (2006). Advice online: Advice-giving in an American internet health column. John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Locher, M., & Bousfield, D. (2008). Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language. In M. A. Locher & D. Bousfield (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 1–13). Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locher, M., & Watts, R. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 9–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locher, M., & Watts, R. (2008a). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In D. Bousfield & M. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language (pp. 77–99). Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Locher, M., & Watts, R. J. (2008b). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, 21, 77–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malle, B. F. (2006). Intentionality, morality, and their relationship in human judgment. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 6(1–2), 87–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mao, L. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 451–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mapson, R. (2020). Intercultural (im)politeness: Influences on the way professional British sign language/English interpreters mediate im/polite language. In D. Archer, K. Grainger, & P. Jagodzinski (Eds.), Politeness in professional contexts (pp. 151–178). John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Márquez Reiter, R. (2000). Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A contrastive study of requests and apologies. John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Márquez Reiter, R. (2005). Complaint calls to a caregiver service company: The case of Desahogo. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(4), 481–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Márquez Reiter, R. (2008). Intra-cultural variation: Explanations in service calls to two Montevidean service providers. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Márquez Reiter, R. (2009). How to get rid of a telemarketing agent? Facework strategies in an intercultural service call. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 55–77). Equinox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Márquez Reiter, R. (2013a). Fabricated ignorance: The search for good value for money. Pragmatics, 23(4), 661–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Márquez Reiter, R. (2013b). The dynamics of complaining in a Latin American for-profit commercial setting. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Márquez-Reiter, R., & Orthaber, S. (2018). Exploring the moral compass: Denunciations in a Facebook carpool group. Internet Pragmatics, 1(2), 241–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Márquez Reiter, R., Orthaber, S., & Kádár, D. (2015). Disattending customer dissatisfaction on Facebook: A case study of a Slovenian public transport company. In E. Christopher (Ed.), International management and intercultural communication: A collection of case studies (pp. 108–127). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, I., & Stewart, M. (2001). Interactional pragmatics, face and the dialogue interpreter. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting (pp. 51–70). St Jerome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. (2002). Rethinking politeness, impoliteness and gender identity. In L. Litoselliti & J. Sunderland (Eds.), Gender identity and discourse analysis (pp. 69–89). John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. (2009). Impoliteness in a cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1047–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. (2011). Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In L. P. R. Group (Ed.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 19–56). Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. (2017). Sociocultural approaches to (im)politeness. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of linguistic (Im)politeness (pp. 40–60). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, N., & Haugh, M. (2015). Agency, accountability and evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 207–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosegaard Hansen, M. (2016). Patterns of thanking in the closing section of UK service calls: Marking conversational macro-structure vs managing interpersonal relations. Pragmatics and Society, 7(4), 664–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullany, L. (2008). “Stop hassling me!” Impoliteness, power and gender identity in the professional workplace. In D. Bousfield & M. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 231–251). Mouton De Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, I. R., & Arnott, J. L. (1993). Toward the simulation of emotion in synthetic speech: A review of the literature on human vocal emotion. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93(2), 1097–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nidorfer-Šiškovič, M. (2008). Vljudnost v elektronskih sporočilih – jih pišemo ali govorimo? In M. Košuta (Ed.), Slovenščina med kulturami: Slovenski slavistični kongres Celovec (pp. 339–346). Slavistično društvo Ljubljana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, M. (2007). Medkulturne razlike v reševanju medosebnih konfliktov. (Master’s Thesis), of Ljubljana, Ljubljana. Retrieved from http://dk.fdv.uni-lj.si/magistrska/pdfs/mag_Novak-Marjeta.PDF

  • O’Driscoll, J. (1996). About face: A defence and elaboration of universal dualism. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Driscoll, J. (2007). Brown and Levinson’s face: How it can—and can’t—help us to understand interaction across cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(4), 463–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Driscoll, J. (2017). Face and impoliteness. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Kadar (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (Im)politeness (pp. 89–118). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ogiermann, E. (2009). On apologising in negative and positive politeness cultures. John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Orthaber, S., & Márquez Reiter, R. (2011). ‘Talk to the hand’. Complaints to a public transport company. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3860–3876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orthaber, S., & Márquez Reiter, R. (2015). Thanks for nothing: Impoliteness in service calls. In Ş Ruhi & Y. Askan (Eds.), Exploring (Im)politeness in specialized and general corpora: Converging methodologies and analytic procedures (pp. 11–39). Cambridge Scholar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orthaber, S., & Márquez Reiter, R. (2016). When routine calls for information become interpersonally sensitive. Pragmatics and Society, Special issue: (Co-)Constructing Interpersonally Sensitive Activities Across Institutional Settings, 7(4), 639–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qi, X. (2014). Globalized knowledge flows and Chinese social theory. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Penman, R. (1990). Facework and politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse. In K. Tracy & N. Coupland (Eds.), Multiple goals in discourse (pp. 15–37). Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pino, M. (2015). Responses to indirect complaints as restricted activities in therapeutic community meetings. In F. H. G. Chevalier & J. Moore (Eds.), Producing and managing restricted activities: Avoidance and withholding in institutional interaction (pp. 271–304). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, D. (2011). Are Americans insincere? Interactional style and politeness in everyday America. Journal of Politeness Research, 7(2), 215–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, A. (2012). Do participants’ reports enhance conversation analytic claims? Explanations of one sort or another. Discourse Studies, 14, 499–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Praprotnik, T. (2003). Jezik v (kon)tekstu računalniško posredovane komunikacije. Monitor ISH: revija za humanistične in družbene znanosti, 5(3–4), 39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J. (1991). In defence of a prototype approach to emotion concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(1), 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnurr, S., Marra, M., & Holmes, J. (2007). Being (im)polite in New Zealand workplaces: Maori and Pakeha leaders. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 712–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2007). Sprache und Emotion. A. Francke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shimanoff, S. B. (1994). Gender perspectives on facework: Simplistic stereotypes vs. complex realities. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework. Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 159–208). State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective. Calendron.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinkeviciute, V. (2018). Conversational humour and (Im)politeness. A pragmatic analysis of social interaction. John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snoj, M. (1997). Slovenski etimološki slovar (Etymologist dictionary of Slovenian). Založba Mladinska knjiga.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. Continuum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 529–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (pp. 11–47). Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terkourafi, M. (2002). Politeness and formulaicity: Evidence from cypriot Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 3, 179–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(2), 237–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terkourafi, M. (2008). Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In D. Bousfield & M. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 45–76). Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, K. (2008). Reasonable hostility’: Situation-appropriate face-attack. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 169–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, K. (2011). A facework system of minimal politeness: Oral argument in appellate court. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture, 7(1), 123–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, K. (2020). Judicial questioning: How context shapes facework strategies. In D. Archer, K. Grainger, & P. Jagodzinski (Eds.), Politeness in professional contexts (pp. 251–272). John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, K., & Tracy, S. J. (1998). Rudeness at 911: Reconceptualizing face and face attack. Human Communication Research, 25(2), 225–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Bom, I., & Mills, S. (2015). A discursive approach to the analysis of politeness data. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 179–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, R. (2003). Politeness: Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, R. (2005). Linguistic politeness research: Quo vadis? In R. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language (pp. xi-xlvii). Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932

  • Wichmann, A. (2000). Intonation in text and discourse. Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • **e, C. (2018). Introduction: (Im)politeness, morality and the internet. Internet Pragmatics, 1(2), 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • **e, C. (2021). Introduction: Approaching (Im)politeness philosophically. In: X. Chaoqun (Ed.), The philosophy of (Im)politeness. Advances in (Im)politeness studies (pp. 1–14). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zummo, M. L. (2018). Troubled talk in cross-cultural business emails. A digital conversation analysis of interactions. CULTUS Journal of Intercultural Mediation and Communication, 10(2), 57–75.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Translation Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia

    Sara Orthaber

Authors
  1. Sara Orthaber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Orthaber, S. (2023). On (Im)politeness. In: (Im)politeness at a Slovenian Call Centre. Advances in (Im)politeness Studies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43320-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43320-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-43319-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-43320-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation