Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental Approaches to Linguistic (Im)politeness

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the methods, findings and theoretical implications of the major experimental approaches to (Im)politeness. Empirical research examining Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, including the role of social variables in the production and perception of politeness, is critically reviewed. This is followed by a review of research on some of the social and cognitive consequences of politeness, including reasoning, person perception, and persuasion. The cognitive and neurophysiological processes involved in the comprehension of politeness are considered, as are deficits in politeness that are associated with certain disorders. The authors argue that empirical approaches to (Im)politeness are particularly useful for theory testing and they illustrate this approach with an extended case study. Possible future research directions are discussed.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There continues to be some controversy surrounding the logic of null hypothesis testing (e.g. Levine et al. 2008).

References

  • Ambady, N., J. Koo, F. Lee, and R. Rosenthal. 1996. More than Words: Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Politeness in Two Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 996–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S.E. 1946. Forming Impressions of Personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 41 (3): 258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, I. (1988). The Representational Validity of a Theory of Politeness. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association Convention, New Orleans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, L.A. 1984. An Investigation of Compliance-Gaining as Politeness. Human Communication Research 10 (3): 427–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blankenship, K.L., and T. Holtgraves. 2005. The Role of Different Markers of Linguistic Powerlessness in Persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 24 (1): 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum-Kulka, S. 1987. Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different? Journal of Pragmatics 11 (2): 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum-Kulka, S., B. Danet, and R. Gherson. 1985. The Language of Requesting in Israeli Society. In Language and Social Situations, ed. J.P. Forgas, 113–139. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnefon, J.F. 2014. Politeness and Reasoning: Face, Connectives, and Quantifiers. In Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, ed. T.M. Holtgraves, 387–406. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnefon, J.F., and G. Villejoubert. 2006. Tactful or Doubtful? Expectations of Politeness Explain the Severity Bias in the Interpretation of Probability Phrases. Psychological Science 17: 747–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnefon, J.F., A. Feeney, and G. Villejoubert. 2009. When Some Is Actually All: Scalar Inferences in Face-Threatening Contexts. Cognition 112: 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnefon, J.F., W. De Neys, and A. Feeney. 2011a. Processing Scalar Inferences in Face-Threatening Contexts. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, and T. Shipley. Cognitive Science Society: Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnefon, J.F., A. Feeney, and W. De Neys. 2011b. The Risk of Polite Misunderstandings. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20: 321–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnefon, J.-F., E. Dahl, and T.M. Holtgraves. 2015. Some But Not All Dispreferred Turn Markers Help to Interpret Scalar Terms in Polite Contexts. Thinking & Reasoning 21: 230–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradac, J.J., and A. Mulac. 1984. A Molecular View of Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles: Attributional Consequences of Specific Language Features and Communicator Intentions. Communications Monographs 51 (4): 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronwen, I. 2010. “Well, That’s Why I Asked the Question Sir”: Well as a Discourse Marker in Court. Language in Society 39: 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. 1988. More than P’s and Q’s. PsycCRITIQUES 33 (9): 749–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R., and A. Gilman. 1989. Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies. Language in Society 18 (02): 159–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, N.A., and R.J. Koper. 1998. The Efficacy of Powerful/Powerless Language on Attitudes and Source Credibility, 203–215. Persuasion: Advances Through Meta-Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L.L. 1999. Gender, Interpersonal Power, and Social Influence. Journal of Social Issues 55 (1): 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, M., L.J. MacGregor, and D.I. Donaldson. 2007. It’s the Way that You, Er, Say It: Hesitations in Speech Affect Language Comprehension. Cognition 105: 658–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, F., and L. Nyquist. 1977. The Female Register: An Empirical Study of Lakoff’s Hypotheses. Language in Society 6 (03): 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crucian, G., L. Huang, A. Barrett, R. Schwartz, J. Cibula, J. Anderson, et al. 2001. Emotional Conversations in Parkinson’s Disease. Neurology 56 (2): 159–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Neys, W., and W. Schaeken. 2007. When People are More Logical Under Cognitive Load –Dual Task Impact on Scalar Implicatures. Experimental Psychology 54: 128–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demeure, V., J.F. Bonnefon, and E. Raufaste. 2009. Politeness and Conditional Reasoning: Interpersonal Cues to the Indirect Suppression of Deductive Inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 35: 260–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, B., E.A. Lind, B.C. Johnson, and W.M. O’Barr. 1978. Speech Style and Impression Formation in a Court Setting: The Effects of “Powerful” and “Powerless” Speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 14 (3): 266–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeney, A., and J.F. Bonnefon. 2013. Politeness and Honesty Contribute Additively to the Interpretation of Scalar Expressions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32: 181–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forgas, J.P. 1999a. Feeling and Speaking: Mood Effects on verbal Communication Strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25 (7): 850–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1999b. On Feeling Good and Being Rude: Affective Influences on Language Use and Request Formulations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76 (6): 928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B., and W. Nolen. 1981. The Association of Deference with Linguistic Form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27: 93–110. doi:10.1515/ijsl.1981.27.93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, B. 2010. Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, P., J. Busch, and J.J. Bradac. 1991. Powerful Versus Powerless Language: Consequences for Persuasion, Impression Formation, and Cognitive Response. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 10 (2): 115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City: Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, M.H., J.H. Pederson, D.J. Manning, and D.W. Wetter. 1990. Pardon My Gaffe: Effects of Sex, Status, and Consequence Severity on Accounts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (4): 610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A.J.L., and A. Corner. 2011. Communicating Environmental Risks: Clarifying the Severity Effect in Interpretations of Verbal Probability Expressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 6: 1571–1578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A.J.L., A. Corner, and U. Hahn. 2009. Estimating the Probability of Negative Events. Cognition 110 (1): 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, B., I. Sachiko, I. Shoko, A. Kawasaki, and T. Ogino. 1986. Universals of Linguistic Politeness: Quantitative Evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics 10 (3): 347–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeks, J.C.J., and H. Brouwer. 2014. Electrophysiological Research on Conversation and Discourse Processing. In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, ed. T.M. Holtgraves, 365–386. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves, T. 1986. Language Structure in Social Interaction: Perceptions of Direct and Indirect Speech Acts and Interactants Who Use Them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (2): 305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. The Linguistic Realization of Face Management: Implications of Language Production and Comprehension, Person Perception, and Cross-Cultural Communication. Social Psychology Quarterly 55: 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. Yes, but... Positive Politeness in Conversation Arguments. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16 (2): 222–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. Preference Organization and Reply Comprehension. Discourse Processes 30: 87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves, T., and B. Lasky. 1999. Linguistic Power and Persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18 (2): 196–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves, T., and P. McNamara. 2010. Parkinson’s Disease and Politeness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29 (2): 178–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves, T., and J.N. Yang. 1990. Politeness as Universal: Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Request Strategies and Inferences Based on Their Use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 719–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. Interpersonal Underpinnings of Request Strategies: General Principles and Differences Due to Culture and Gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 (2): 246–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves, T., K. Fogle, and L. Marsh. 2013. Pragmatic Language Production Deficits in Parkinson’s Disease. Advances in Parkinson’s Disease 2: 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosman, L.A., and J.W. Wright. 1987. The Effects of Hedges and Hesitations on Impression Formation in a Simulated Courtroom Context. Western Journal of Communication (Includes Communication Reports) 51 (2): 173–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, X., and X. Zhou. 2015. Impoliteness Electrified. ERPs Reveal the Real Time Processing of Disrespectful Reference in Mandarin Utterance Comprehension. In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on (Im)Politeness, ed. M. Terkourafi, 239–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, X., Y. Li, and X. Zhou. 2013. Is It Over-Respectful or Disrespectful? Differential Patterns of Brain Activity in Perceiving Pragmatic Violation of Social Status Information During Utterance Comprehension. Neuropsychologia 51 (11): 2210–2223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juanchich, M., and M. Sirota. 2013. Do People Really Say It Is “Likely” When They Believe It Is Only “Possible”? Effect of Politeness on Risk Communication. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 66: 1268–1275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juanchich, M., M. Sirota, and C.L. Butler. 2012. Effect of the Perceived Functions Linguistic Risk Quantifiers on Risk Perception, Severity and Decision Making. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 118: 72–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, J.M., B. MacWhinney, and D. Mayhew. 1977. Pragmatics in Memory: A Study of Natural Conversation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16 (5): 549–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., R.C. Young, E.A. Heerey, C. Oemig, and N.D. Monarch. 1998. Teasing in Hierarchical and Intimate Relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (5): 1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutas, M., and S.A. Hillyard. 1980. Event-Related Brain Potentials to Semantically Inappropriate and Surprisingly Large Words. Biological psychology 11 (2): 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, R.T. 1973. The Logic of Politeness: Minding Your P’s and Q’s. In Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, R. 1975. Linguistic Theory and the Real World. Language Learning 25 (2): 309–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, B.L. 1996. Face and Politeness in Pharmacist-Physician Interaction. Social Science & Medicine 43 (8): 1189–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, K.W., G. Paul, T. Robbins, and C. Marsden. 1992. L-Dopa and Frontal Cognitive Function in Parkinson’s Disease. Advances in Neurology 60: 475–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech, G.N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Vol. 285. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leichty, G., and J.L. Applegate. 1991. Social-Cognitive and Situational Influences on the Use of Face-Saving Persuasive Strategies. Human Communication Research 17 (3): 451–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, T.R., R. Weber, C.R. Hullett, H.S. Park, and L.L.M. Lindsey. 2008. A Critical Assessment of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing in Quantitative Communication. Research Human Communication Research 34: 171–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, F.M., L.L. Lapointe, B.E. Murdoch, and H.J. Chenery. 1998. Language Impairment in Parkinson’s Disease. Aphasiology 12 (3): 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, T.S., and J.W. Bowers. 1991. Facework Solidarity, Approbation, and Tact. Human Communication Research 17 (3): 415–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, L.J., M. Corley, and D.I. Donaldson. 2010. Listening to the Sound of Silence: Disfluent Silent Pauses in Speech Have Consequences for Listeners. Neuropsychologia 48 (14): 3982–3992. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.09.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacWhinney, B., J.M. Keenan, and P. Reinke. 1982. The Role of Arousal in Memory for Conversation. Memory & Cognition 10 (4): 308–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, M.L., M.J. Cody, and H. O’hair. 1983. The Management of Failure Events: Some Contextual Determinants of Accounting Behavior. Human Communication Research 9 (3): 208–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, P., and R. Durso. 2003. Pragmatic Communication Skills in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease. Brain Language 84 (3): 414–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, P., R. Durso, and E. Harris. 2008. Alterations of the Sense of Self and Personality in Parkinson’s Disease. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 23 (1): 79–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menza, M.A., L.I. Golbe, R.A. Cody, and N.E. Forman. 1993. Dopamine-Related Personality Traits in Parkinson’s Disease. Neurology 43 (3 Part 1): 505–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okamoto, S., and W.P. Robinson. 1997. Determinants of Gratitude Expressions in England. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16 (4): 411–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, A., M. James, P. Leigh, B. Summers, C. Marsden, N. Quinn, et al. 1992. Fronto-Striatal Cognitive Deficits at Different Stages of Parkinson’s Disease. Brain 115 (6): 1727–1751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pighin, S., and J.F. Bonnefon. 2011. Facework and Uncertain Reasoning in Health Communication. Patient Education and Counseling 85: 169–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pighin, S., J.F. Bonnefon, and L. Savadori. 2011. Overcoming Number Numbness in Prenatal Risk Communication. Prenatal Diagnosis 31: 809–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S., M.A. Nowak, and J.J. Lee. 2008. The Logic of Indirect Speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (3): 833–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raizen, A., N. Vergis, and K. Christianson. 2015. Using Eye-Tracking to Examine the Reading of Texts Containing Taboo Words. In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on (Im)Politeness, ed. M. Terkourafi, 213–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, J.S. 1967. Recopition Memory for Syntactic and Semantic Aspects of Connected Discourse. Perception & Psychophysics 2 (9): 437–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J., and V. Thompson. 2008. ‘At Least One’ Problem with ‘Some’ Formal Reasoning Paradigms. Memory and Cognition 36: 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scollon, R., and S.B. Scollon. 1981. Narrative, Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication. Vol. 7. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirota, M., and M. Juanchich. 2012. To What Extent Do Politeness Expectations Shape Risk Perception? Even Numerical Probabilities are Under Their Spell! Acta Psychologica 141: 391–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slugoski, B.R. 1995. Mindless Processing of Requests? Don’t Ask Twice. British Journal of Social Psychology 34 (3): 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slugoski, B.R., and W. Turnbull. 1988. Cruel to be Kind and Kind to be Cruel: Sarcasm, Banter and Social Relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7 (2): 101–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A., and J. Saintcyr. 1995. The Neuropsychology of Parkinsons Disease. Brain Cogn 28 (3): 281–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terkourafi, M. 2001. Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A Frame-Based Approach. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/9573

  • ———. 2005. Beyond the Micro-Level in Politeness Research. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 237–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, K. 1990. The Many Faces of Facework. In Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, ed. H. Giles and W.P. Robinson, 209–266. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troster, A.I., and S.P. Woods. 2003. Neuropsychological Aspects of Parkinson’s Disease and Parkinsonian Syndromes. In Handbook of Parkinson’s Disease, ed. R. Pahwa, K.E. Lyons, and W.C. Koller, 127–157. New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Berkum, J.J.A. 2012. The Electrophysiology of Discourse and Conversation. In The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ed. M. Spivey, M. Joanisse, and K. McRae, 589–614. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vergis, N., and M. Terkourafi. 2015. The Role of the Epeaker’s Emotional State in Im/Politeness Assessments. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 34: 346–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villejoubert, G., L. Almond, and L. Alison. 2009. Interpreting Claims in Offender Profiles: The Role of Probability Phrases, Base-Rates and Perceived Dangerousness. Applied Cognitive Psychology 23 (1): 36–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, L.A., and R.O. Kroger. 1991. Politeness and Forms of Address. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 10 (3): 145–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The writing of this chapter was partially supported by a grant (BCS-1224553) from the National Science Foundation awarded to the first author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological Science, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA

    Thomas Holtgraves

  2. Toulouse School of Economics, Toulouse, France

    Jean-François Bonnefon

Authors
  1. Thomas Holtgraves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-François Bonnefon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Holtgraves .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept of Linguistics & English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom

    Jonathan Culpeper

  2. School of Languages and Cultures, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Michael Haugh

  3. Dept of Linguistics and Modern Languages, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, United Kingdom

    Dániel Z. Kádár

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Holtgraves, T., Bonnefon, JF. (2017). Experimental Approaches to Linguistic (Im)politeness. In: Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., Kádár, D. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-37507-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-37508-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation