Facework and (Im)politeness in Political Exchanges

  • Karen TracyEmail author


This chapter begins with a description of the six features of political exchanges that make facework and politeness demands different from those of ordinary conversation. Then, the chapter reviews what we have learned about (Im)politeness in parliamentary discourse and broadcast interviews with political figures, as well as a number of other less frequently studied kinds of political situations. The next section is an exploration of a case: citizen testimony in US state legislative committees regarding same-sex marriage, and the chapter’s final section offers directions for future study.


Ordinary Citizen Public Meeting Political Exchange State Hearing Political Talk 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ädel, A. 2010. How to Use Corpus Linguistics in the Study of Political Discourse. In Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, ed. M. McCarthy and A. O’Keeffe, 591–604. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Ancarno, C. 2015. When Are Public Apologies ‘Successful’? Focus on British and French Apology Press Uptakes. Journal of Pragmatics 84: 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, D.E. 2008. Verbal Aggression and Impoliteness: Related or Synonymous? In Impoliteness in Language, 181–210. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Archer, D. 2011. Facework and Im/politeness Across Legal Contexts: An Introduction. Journal of Politeness Research 7 (1): 1–19.Google Scholar
  5. Arundale, R.B. 2006. Face as Relational and Interactional: A Communication Framework for Research on Face, Facework, and Politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 2: 193–216.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, A. 1984. Language Style as Audience Design. Language in Society 13 (2): 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, P., and S.C. Levinson. 1978. Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. In Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, ed. E.N. Goody, 56–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 1987. Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bull, P.E. 2000. Equivocation and the Rhetoric of Modernisation: An Analysis of Televised Interviews with Tony Blair in the 1997 British General Election. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 19: 222–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. 2008. ‘Slipperiness, Evasion and Ambiguity’: Equivocation and Facework in Non-committal Political Discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 27 (4): 3240332.Google Scholar
  11. Buttny, R. 2009. Wal-Mart’s Presentation to the Community: Discursive Practices in Mitigating Risk, Limiting Public Discussion, and Developing a Relationship. Discourse & Communication 3 (3): 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buttny, R., and J. Cohen. 2007. Drawing on the Words of Others at Public Hearings: Zoning, Wal-Mart, and the Threat to the Aquifer. Language in Society 36: 735–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clayman, S.E. 2007. Answers and Evasions. In Discourse Studies, ed. T.A. Van Dijk, vol. I, 20–61. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Clayman, S.E., and J. Whalen. 1989. When the Medium Becomes the Message: The Case of the Rather-Bush Encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction 22: 241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conover, P.J., D.D. Searing, and I.M. Crewe. 2002. The Deliberative Potential of Political Discussion. British Journal of Political Science 32: 21–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Craig, R.T., K. Tracy, and F. Spisak. 1986. The Discourse of Requests: Assessment of a Politeness Approach. Human Communication Research 12: 437–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Culpeper, J. 2005. Impoliteness and Entertainment. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 35–72.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2008. Reflections on Impoliteness: Relational Work and Power. In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. D. Bousfield and M. Locher, 17–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2011. Impoliteness: Using and Understanding the Language of Offense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davies, B.L. 2011. Discusive Histories, Personalist Ideology and Judging Intent: Analysing the Metalinguistic Discussion of Tony Blair’s Slave Trade Apology. In Discursive Approaches to Politeness, ed. Linguistic Research Group, 189–219. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Eelen, G. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Fracchiolla, B. 2011. Politeness as a Strategy of Attack in a Gendered Political Debate: The Royal-Sarkozy Debate. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2480–2488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garces-Conejos Blitvich, P. 2009. Impoliteness and Identity in the American News Media: The ‘Culture Wars’. Journal of Politeness Research 5 (2): 273–303.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2012. Politics, ‘Lies’, and Youtube: A Genre Approach to Assessments of Im/politness on Obama’s 9/9/2009 Presidential Address. In New Perspectives on (Im)politeness and Interpersonal Communication, ed. L. Fernandez Amaya et al., 62–90. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2013. Introduction-Face, Identity and Im/politeness. Looking Backward, Moving Forward: From Goffman to Practice Theory. Journal of Politeness Research 9 (1): 3–33.Google Scholar
  26. Garcia-Pastor, M.D. 2008. Political Campaign Debates as Zero-Sum Games: Impoliteness and Power in Candidates’ Exchanges. In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. D. Bousfield and M. Locher, 101–123. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  27. Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. 1st ed. Garden City: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  29. Gordon, C. 2004. ‘Al Gore’s Our Guy’: Linguistically Constructing a Family Political Identity. Discourse & Society 15 (4): 607–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harris, S. 2001. Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse. Discourse & Society 12: 451–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ———. 2006. Politeness and Power: Making and Responding to ‘Requests’ in Instituional Settings. Text 23 (1): 27–52.Google Scholar
  32. Harris, S. 2011. The Limits of Politeness Revisited. In Discursive Approaches to Politeness, ed. Linguistic Research Politeness Group, 85–108. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  33. Harris, S., K. Grainger, and L. Mullany. 2006. The Pragmatics of Political Apologies. Discourse & Society 17 (6): 715–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haugh, M. 2013. Impoliteness, Social Practice and the Participation Order. Journal of Pragmatics 58: 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ———. 2015. Im/Politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hausendorf, H., and A. Bora, eds. 2006. Analysing Citizenship Talk: Social Positioning in Political and Legal Decision-Making Processes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  37. Heffer, C. 2005. The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. Bakingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Herbst, S. 2010. Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics. Philadelphia: Temple Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hernandez-Flores, N. 2008. Politeness and Other Types of Facework: Communicative and Social Meaning in a Television Panel Discussion. Pragmatics 18 (4): 681–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Holtgraves, T. 2005. Social Psychology, Cognitive Psychology and Linguistic Politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 73–93.Google Scholar
  41. Hutchby, I. 2011. Non-neutrality and Argument in the Hybrid Political Interview. Discourse Studies 13 (3): 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ilie, C. 2004. Insulting as (Un) parliamentary Practice in the British and Swedish Parliaments. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, ed. P. Bayley, 45–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kampf, Z. 2008. The Pragmatics of Forgiveness: Judgments of Apologies in the Israeli Political Arena. Discourse & Society 19: 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. ———. 2009. Public (Non-)apologies: The Discourse of Minimizing Responsibility. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 2257–2270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kampf, Z., and B. Blum-Kulka. 2011. Why are Israeil Children Better at Settling Disputes than Israeli Politicians? In Politeness Across Cultures, ed. F. Bargiela-Chiappini and D.Z. Kadar, 85–105. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kanpp, M.L., R. Hopper, and R.A. Bell. 1984. Compliments: A Descriptive Taxonomy. Journal of Communication 34 (4): 12–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Katriel, T. 1986. Talking Straight: Dugri Speech in Israeli Sabra Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kienpointner, M. 1997. Varieties of Rudeness: Types and Functions of Impolite Utterances. Functions of Language 4: 251–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lakoff, R.T. 2005. The Politics of Nice. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 173–191.Google Scholar
  50. Locher, M., and R.J. Watts. 2008. Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating Norms of Linguistic Behavior. In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. D. Bousfield and M. Locher, 77–99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Magistro, E. 2011. National Face and National Face-Threatening Acts: Politeness in the Europeaan Constitution. In Situated Politeness, ed. B.L. Davies, M. Haugh, and A.J. Merrison, 232–252. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  52. ———. 2013. The Challenges of ‘Translating’ Polite Discourse for the EU Multilingual Community. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 23 (1): 60–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mills, S. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mullany, L. 2009. Introduction: Applying Politeness Research to Health Care Communication. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 5 (1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mullany, L. 2011. Frontstage and backstage: Gordon Brown, the ‘bigoted woman’ and im/politeness in the 2010 UK general election. In Discursive approaches to politeness, ed. L.R.P. Group, 133–165. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  56. Murphy, J. 2014. (Im)politeness During Prime Minister’s Questions in the U.K. Parliament. Pragmatics and Society 5 (1): 76–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. ———. 2015. Revisiting the Apology as a Speech Act: The Case of Parliamentary Apologies. Journal of Language and Politics 14 (2): 175–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Driscoll, J. 2011. Some Issues with the Concept of Face: When, What, How, and How Much? In Politeness Across Cultures, ed. F. Bargiela-Chiappini and D.Z. Kadar, 17–41. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ochs, E., and C. Taylor. 1992. Family Narrative as Political Activity. Discourse & Society 3: 301–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pomerantz, A. 1986. Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims. Human Studies 9: 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. ———. 1989. Introduction to the Section (The Dan Rather/George Bush Episode on CBS News). Research on Language and Social Interaction 22 (1): 213–326.Google Scholar
  62. Robles, J.S. 2011. Doing Disagreement in the House of Lords: ‘Talking Around the Issue’ as a Context-Appropriate Argumentative Strategy. Discourse & Communication 5 (2): 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schnurr, S., and A. Chan. 2009. Politeness and Leadership Discourse in New Zealand and Hong King: A Cross-Cultural Study of Workplace. Journal of Politeness Research 5: 131–157.Google Scholar
  64. Sidnell, J. 2010. The Design and Positioning of Questions in Inquiry Testimony. In ‘Why Do You Ask?’ The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. S. Ehrlich and A. Freed, 20–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Sivenkova, M. 2008. Expressing Commitment When Asking Multiunit Questions in Parliamentary Debates: English–Russian Parallels. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 27: 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Spencer-Oatey, H. 2005. (Im)politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpacking their Bases and Interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 95–119.Google Scholar
  67. Ting-Toomey, S., ed. 1994. The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and Interpersonal Issues. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  68. Tracy, K. 1990. The Many Faces of Facework. In The Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, ed. H. Giles and P. Robinson, 209–226. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  69. ———. 2007. The Discourse of Crisis in Public Meetings: Case Study of a School Board’s Multimillion Dollar Error. Journal of Applied Communication Research 35: 418–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. ———. 2008. ‘Reasonable Hostility’: Situation–Appropriate Face Attack. Journal of Politeness Research 4: 169–191.Google Scholar
  71. ———. 2010. Challenges of Ordinary Democracy: A Case Study in Deliberation and Dissent. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  72. ———. 2016. Discourse, Identity, and Social Change in the Marriage Equality Debates. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tracy, K., and J.S. Robles. 2013. Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  74. Walsh, K. 2004. Talking About Politics: Informal Groups and Social Identity in American Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  75. Wilson, J., and K. Stapleton. 2012. Discourse in the Shadows: Discursive Construction and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Discourse & Society 23 (1): 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Winkin, Y., and W. Leeds-Hurwitz. 2013. Erving Goffman: A Critical Introduction to Media and Communication Theory. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  77. Yemenci, A. 2001. Analysis of the Use of Politeness Maxims in Interruptions in Turkish Political Debates. In Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish, ed. A. Bayraktagoglu and M. Sifanou, 307–339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations