This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wood, L. A. Articles by Kroger, R. O. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Politeness and Forms of Address

Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario NIG 2W1, Canada

Rolf O. Kroger

Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S lA1, Canada

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.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Cecconi Legal discourse and linguistic incongruities in Bardell vs. Pickwick: an analysis of address and reference strategies in The Pickwick Papers trial scene Language and Literature, August 1, 2008; 17(3): 205 - 219. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. A. Spiers The Use of Face Work and Politeness Theory Qual Health Res, January 1, 1998; 8(1): 25 - 47. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M.A. Nikolich and B.A. Sparks The Hospitality Service Encounter: the Role of Communication Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, January 1, 1995; 19(2): 43 - 56. [Abstract] [PDF]