With this framework, one can see politeness strategies in regularities of scientific style—such as the use of pronouns and of passives—that are usually explained in terms of conventions.
The analysis also accounts for some otherwise unexplained stylistic features, such as the use of adverbs in establishing solidarity, and the use of personal attribution in hedging.
While previous monographs on politeness have tended to concentrate on one or sometimes two languages, the present volume utilises data drawn from as many as nine languages, including some ‘key languages’ in politeness research such as English and Japanese, as well as some lesser-studied languages, such as Georgian.
Before introducing the goals, methodology and contents of this collection, we will briefly discuss ways in which ‘culture’ is represented in contemporary politeness studies, in comparision with its theorisation in other fields (Lévi-Strauss 1955, Hodder 1982).
Multilingua— Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8, 223-248.
Formal Forms and Discernment: Two Neglected Aspects of Universals of Linguistic Politeness. Politeness and Conversational Universals—Observations from Japanese. Multilingua—Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8, 207-221.
The specific items for the politeness scale were developed based on the distinction between negative and positive politeness as described by politeness theory.
The results suggest an inverse relationship between politeness and complaining behavior.
Taking a corpus of articles by molecular geneticists, I assume a simple model of a two-part audience, and focus on two kinds of impositions: claims and denials of claims.
With this framework, one can see politeness claims and denials of claims.