Babe-Bolyai University

Faculty of European Studies

The Concept of Politeness in Everyday and

Professional Discourse
DOCTORAL THESIS
SUMMARY

Thesis Supervisor:
Professor Ion Cuceu, Ph.D.
Ph.D. Candidate:
Veronica-Diana Armau,

Cluj-Napoca
2013

Contents
CHAPTER 1. Introduction____________________________________________
7
1. 1. Major research objectives ______________________________________________ 7
1. 1. 2. Applicability and innovation __________________________________________ 8
1. 2. Research structure, motivation and methodology ___________________________ 8
1. 3. Politeness. General considerations. _____________________________________ 13
1. 3. 1. Politeness concept. Definitions, essential aspects. _________________________ 17
1. 3. 2. Conceptualization of politeness _______________________________________ 23
1. 4. Conclusions Chapter 1 ________________________________________________ 38
CHAPTER 2. Theoretical perspectives on the politeness phenomenon ____________
2. 1. Politeness as a pragmatic phenomenon __________________________________
2. 1. 1. Development of sociological approaches of language _____________________
2. 1. 2. Context __________________________________________________________
2. 1. 3. Pragmatics: opinions, intentions, plans and actions ______________________
2. 1. 4. H. Paul Grices Cooperative Principle _________________________________
2. 2. Fundamental politeness approaches _____________________________________
2. 2. 1. Bruce Frasers contribution: Multifaceted perspective of politeness _________
2. 2. 2. The Social-Normative perspective _____________________________________
2. 2. 3. The Conversational Maxims view _____________________________________
2. 2. 4. The Face-saving view _______________________________________________
2. 2. 5. Frasers Conversational Contract View ________________________________
2. 3. Politeness as marked surplus ___________________________________________
2. 4. The pro-social or inclusive aspect of politeness ____________________________
2. 5. Conclusions Chapter 2 ________________________________________________

39
39
40
40
43
47
51
52
52
53
63
64
67
69
70

CHAPTER 3: Self-image and politeness ______________________________________

3. 1. General considerations related to the importance of the approach ___________
3. 2. Face / self-image concept ______________________________________________
3. 3. P.Brown&S.Levinsons face saving politeness model (1978, 1987) ___________
3. 3. 1. Politeness and threat ________________________________________________
3. 3. 1. 1. Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs) ______________________________________
3. 3. 1. 2. The sociological variables of P.Brown&S.Levinsons model _____________
3. 3. 2. Strategies for the achievement of positive and negative politeness __________
3. 4. Criticism of Brown&Levinsons politeness model _________________________
3. 4. 1. Universality vs. cultural specificity ____________________________________
3. 5. Relational management: Helen Spencer Oatey ____________________________
3. 5. 1. Face management and the Sociality Rights _____________________________
3. 5. 2. Interactional pragmatic principles ____________________________________
3. 6. Teaching the pragmatic concept of face __________________________________
3. 6. 1. Motivation of the approach __________________________________________
3. 6. 2. Importance for the chosen context ____________________________________

72
72
73
78
79
81
83
85
88
91
93
94
95
97
97
98

3. 6. 3. Advantages of the pedagogical approach _______________________________ 99

3. 7. Conclusions Chapter 3 _______________________________________________ 101
CHAPTER 4: Professional discourse and politeness __________________________
4. 1. Professional discourse. Definitions. General considerations. _______________
4. 1. 1. Introduction ______________________________________________________
4. 1. 2. The concept of discourse. General considerations. ______________________
4. 1. 3. Professional discourse in a changing world ____________________________
4. 1. 4. Professional discourse. Definitions and concepts. _______________________
4. 1. 5. Professional discourse - distinctive elements ___________________________
4. 2. The concept of politeness in business communication _____________________
4. 2. 1. Transactional and interactional discourse _____________________________
4. 3. Politeness in Europe _________________________________________________
4. 3. 1. The Linguistic Politeness Research Group (LPRG) _____________________
4. 3. 2. European particularities related to politeness manifestations _____________
4. 3. 3. Promoting national identity through politeness _________________________
4. 3. 4. Gender and communities of practice __________________________________
4. 5. Conclsions Chapter 4 ________________________________________________

103
103
103
103
105
108
110
112
114
117
120
121
126
131
134

CHAPTER 5: Oral competence and politeness ______________________________

5. 1. Introduction ________________________________________________________
5. 2. Oral competence and the multilingual workplace _________________________
5. 2. 1. Contextual manifestations _________________________________________
5. 2. 3. Oral discourse user: Students profile ________________________________
5. 2. 5. Difficulty of oral discourse engagement _______________________________
5. 3. Politeness and oral discourse __________________________________________
5. 3. 1. Politeness systems and interactional relations management _______________
5. 4. The concept of power and politeness in oral communication ________________
5. 4. 1. Power and social relations _________________________________________
5. 4. 2. Power and status _________________________________________________
5. 4. 3. Power, politeness and the professional context _________________________
5. 4. 4. Impoliteness _____________________________________________________
5. 5. Conclusions Chapter 5 _______________________________________________

135
135
135
137
139
144
150
152
154
157
158
159
162
164

CHAPTER 6. Case studies _______________________________________________ 165

6. 1. Introduction ________________________________________________________ 165
6. 1. 1. Context __________________________________________________________ 165
6. 2. Case study 1.Questionnaire:Politeness and teachers in higher education ______ 166
6. 2. 1. Methodology. Mixed research ______________________________________ 166
6. 2. 2. Case study subjects: Teachers of modern languages, Babe-Bolyai University
Cluj-Napoca ____________________________________________________________ 167
6. 2. 3. Interpretation of results ____________________________________________ 169
6. 4. Conclusions Case study 1 _____________________________________________ 203
6. 4. Case study 2: Opinion interview:Politeness and students ___________________ 204
6. 4. 1. Context __________________________________________________________ 204
6. 4. 2. Methodology. Qualitative research ___________________________________ 206
6. 4. 3. Case study 2 participants ___________________________________________ 207
3

6. 4. 4. Data interpretation. Interview Politeness and students __________________ 208

6. 5. Conclusions Case study 2 _____________________________________________ 244
7. Thesis conclusions.249
Bibliography ___________________________________________________________ 256
Main annexes Case studies 1 and 2 _________________________________________ 272
Index...336

Key words: concept of politeness, politeness theories, approaches to politeness, politeness

maxims, discourse, professional discourse, oral discourse, pragmatics, professional pragmatic
competence, the social-inclusive approach, relational management, communication, academic
context, mixed research, questionnaire, interview.

Summary
1. Introduction
Over the last twenty years, the politeness phenomenon has recorded significant
developments and contributions demonstrating that it fully enjoys an overwhelming and
increasing popularity among researchers and practitioners alike. This fact has especially become
apparent after the publication of the body of research belonging to Goffman (1967), Lakoff
(1973), Grice (1975), Leech (1983), Fraser (1975, 1981) and in particular to Brown & Levinsons
emblematic description of politeness models functioning and manifestations (1978, 1987). In
recent years, the number of publications related to the comprehensive study of politeness has
grown impressively transforming this multilayered phenomenon into an area of major interest
within academic fields of study such as pragmatics, anthropology, sociolinguistics, discourse
analysis, culture, organizational management, communication and even cognition. In this context,
we

would

like

to

mention

the

important

analyses

on

politeness

presented

by

Escandell-Vidal,1996; Foley 1997; Grundy, 2000; Johnstone, 2002; Wardhaugh, 1998; Xie,
2000; Zhuang, 2001; Watts, 2003; Locher, 2004; Spencer Oatey, 200, 2002, 2004); Bargiela
-Chiappini, 2006. The study of the politeness phenomenon is a complex endeavor, one that is
constantly confronted with the difficulty of being thoroughly described by one single research
4

approach. The Social-Normative approach, the Conversational Maxims approach, the

Conversational Contract perspective, The Face-saving model or the Social inclusion
interpretation of politeness through effective and efficient relational management represent some
of the main directions of studying politeness in its sociolinguistic and pragmatic manifestations.
The forms the politeness may take in a given society vary enormously. If we try to understand
politeness as "the sum of all those tactics that help maintain the minimum level of harmony in an
interactional exchange", the phenomenon is redefined once again as a multifaceted, dynamic
manifestation, constantly present at discourse level (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 2005) and not as a
marginal phenomenon limited by and restricted to a series of established generic formulas
proposed in good behavior or appropriate conduct books. Politeness varies from a situational
context to another, from one region to another, sometimes within the same space coordinates and
it therefore depends on important sociolinguistic parameters such as the distance between
speakers, the distribution of power, the cognitive load, the degree of interactional imposition or
the social and cultural background the participants are embedded in. The above-mentioned
parameters vary all the more so depending on the communicative situation and the type of
interaction we take part in whether public or private, informal or institutional, direct or mediated
by means of modern technology.
Politeness guidelines regulate interpersonal relationships to ensure the adoption of cooperation
and harmony perceived as social goods. However, the need for rule enforcement in particular
situations implies the possibility of some conflicts to emerge and threaten the smooth negotiation
of meanings and communicative roles. Politeness annihilates or mediates such threats as it
normally gives credit to the needs and wants expressed by discourse participants that are
endowed with reason and willingness to reach a certain goal. Even in such confrontations that
involve equal status, the lack of convergence of interests or decisional instability may be
managed in a communicatively appropriate manner by means of rules. Given the existing
pressures on achieving interactional goals, there is a constant tension between the social and
intentional goals pursued by interactants. These inaccuracies or discrepancies may be shaped up
and creatively modified and shaded by and through politeness the fulfillment of various functions
such as achieving personal, group, social or professional interactional goals or promoting ones
identity and self-image.
In this dissertation, we propose the analysis of the politeness concept as part of a wider
5

socio-pragmatic phenomenon, which has a fundamental impact on the way we communicate and
relate to those around us, but perhaps more importantly, to ourselves. To this end, we will focus
our research approach on four main aspects, namely the presentation of the theoretical research
directions in the field integrating pragmatic politeness within modern approach models, situating
politeness within the context of professional discourse and its oral manifestations; moving on, we
will consider and analyse two case studies in order to confer applicability to our study and
analyze the ways in which politeness is perceived by interactants who are differentiated by status,
training/expertise and expectations in the professional context.
2. Major research objectives
This paper focuses on the analysis of pragmatic politeness, with an emphasis on its
social-inclusive aspect as the basis for the management of establishing effective, functional
relations in everyday and professional communication contexts.
The meaningful administration of the interpersonal relationships is mediated by politeness as a
system for applying a series of communication strategies manifested in interactions that include
polite, impolite or situationally appropriate behavior. Politeness is the interface between the
self-image perceived by the individual and the perception of this image processed by the other
discourse participants.
Socio-linguistic and pragmatic politeness is relatively a new scientific field; research in this field
dates back to approximately 30 years ago. Therefore, politeness theories and conceptualizations
are still strongly debated, undergoing a constant (re)formulation for different contexts and
cultures.
In this paper, we perceive politeness as a set of strategies used to establish and maintain
self-image in interactions in order to express concern for those with whom we communicate as
related to our social inclusion, to solving or avoiding conflicts in oral exchanges. My
understanding of politeness is based on the one hand on Erving Goffmans (1967) concept of face
and the influential politeness model presented by Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987) documenting
and supporting the management of self-image (face) and, on the other hand, on the
social-inclusive interpretation of politeness as an essential incentive for establishing and
developing meaningful relationships (Spencer-Oatey, 2002, 2004).

Research applicability and innovation

This dissertation is based on rigorous research of the politeness phenomenon, reviewing
the most important theories and approaches that focus on the role the politeness principle plays in
shaping up oral discourse. Furthermore, it records data and results applied to highly relevant
target groups in the academic environment. We believe that this thesis may have important
practical implications and applications due to the interpretation of the importance attached to
politeness by real social actors in various contexts. For these reasons, the present paper may be
useful to specialists in areas such as professional communication, education, modern language
instruction and methodology, conflict management, mediation, cognition, information technology
or communications.
3. Research structure, motivation and methodology

This paper focuses on several aspects which have been a major part of my research
preoccupations and activities over the last ten years. This project has been cumulative in many
respects mainly because of the amount of time spent analysing the comprehensive content body
of research debated upon. The empirical support gathered to evidence the steps taken in
researching pragmatic politeness together with relevant ideas behind a few studies developed
here date back several years. Thanks to the time element and the number of persons who were
involved in this research, giving me guidance and advice of an essential nature in order to clarify
theoretical or methodological issues, this paper is a joint effort of these individuals (professors,
colleagues, students) whom I would like to thank for each contribution.
This thesis is tributary to the extremely fascinating research in the field of politeness and,
in our approach, we give credit to the perspectives and conceptualizations of politeness emerged
in the last thirty years (e.g. the fundamental model of politeness proposed by Brown and
Levinson (1978, 1987)1 presenting the sociolinguistic and pragmatic aspects of the politeness
phenomenon with an emphasis on the social-inclusive research of politeness. This social facet is
largely due to my professional orientation and the inclusion of my doctoral project within the
scientific field of humanities. The dissertation discusses the most relevant approaches in the field

1 Penelope Brown i Stephen C. Levinson, Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1978; 1987.

of politeness focusing on authors who have had essential contributions in outlining the main
theories, principles, strategies and concepts of politeness. It researches how the interactional
pragmatic intentions are manifested at sociolinguistic and behavioral level having major social
impact on the quality of communication. We will also insist on some necessary issues influencing
our analysis in order to contextualize it appropriately: aspects connected to professional discourse
with its sensitive representations in oral discourse instances, constantly focusing on the relevance
of both professional/oral discourse for the practical contribution to our work: the analysis of the
perception of the politeness concept and the importance given to the politeness phenomenon in
general by two categories of subjects that interact in the same environment the academic
environment.
The reason for my decision to concentrate on the politeness phenomenon in this thesis is that it
plays a most important role in everyday and professional verbal interactions. The politeness rules
and conventions govern cooperative behavior in human interactions. Politeness strategies are
used by speakers to achieve goals such as "promotion and maintenance of harmonious
relations.2
As related to the choice of oral discourse in a professional context, this decision is connected to
the fact that social-inclusive politeness is relatively under-analyzed in this regard, the most
notable existing studies focusing on the interaction taking place within domestic, informal,
institutional or professional contexts, exclusively from a (socio) linguistic perspective, without
insisting on the social relevance of politeness with the specific purpose of analyzing it with
reference to certain categories of interactants and variables. Politeness is an important social
phenomenon, which enhances the effectiveness and relevance of everyday and professional
interactions, modeling behaviors and attitudes toward mutual understanding and achievement of
interactional goals.
The main objectives of our thesis are:
1. Presentation of the research undergone in the field of politeness in the last
twenty

years

(approximately)

with

particular

focus

on

its

conceptualization, its specific manifestations and the concept self-image /

face management (facework). The examination of the way the participants
establish and maintain social relationships with politeness strategies is also

included.
Incorporating politeness within the professional discourse field (in this paper the phrase
professional discourse is used with reference to the educational process related oral interactions
between current and future professionals).
Description of the features and particularities of the target groups and their need to address
relational management effectively in the proposed context.
Analysis and interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data obtained on administering
questionnaires and opinion interviews to the subjects of the target groups.
Classification of the obtained interpretations within a social- inclusive model of politeness to
foster an effective management of interpersonal relations

consequently proposing new

potentially rich research directions starting from this model.

Our research is socially anchored. It will consider attitude, behaviour and sociolinguistic
variable interpretations in a very practical and concrete manner - pragmatic analysis of the
politeness concept in its entirety at the level of professional oral discourse engaged in in the
academic environment. The specific contexts that we chose to study in this thesis are, by their
very own function, generally formal; hence, -in our view- a purely linguistic analysis would
neither serve the rich diversity of the chosen target groups orientations towards politeness nor
their interactional interests. Our main objective is to analyze the role of the politeness concept as
it is perceived within the (semi) controlled professional oral discourse manifestations. We believe
that the case studies presented will shed necessary light on the politeness perceived not only at
the individual, but also at the group level. Although, to date, there have been numerous
publications focusing on linguistic politeness, these were able to provide but a segment of a
whole (e.g. favoured linguistic structures in applying politeness strategies in a particular group).

The present doctoral thesis consists of six chapters.

Chapter I includes the presentation of the main objectives and coordinates of the paper, its
research methodology and it also provides an overview of the politeness phenomenon providing
much needed definitions of basic theoretical concepts.
Chapter II, called Theoretical Perspectives on the Politeness Phenomenon, pragmatically
2 Jenny Thomas, Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics, London, Longman, 1995, p. 158.

contextualizes politeness offering definitions, explanations and descriptions of its main

approaches as a sociolinguistic and pragmatic phenomenon. Starting with Grice's Cooperative
Principle, we will focus on the most important directions within the study of politeness
phenomenon: The Social Normative approach, the Conversational Maxims perspective, the
Face-saving view of politeness, the perspective of Conversational Contract and the Relational
management approach; these approaches have shaped up politeness research in transforming it
into a research area that is extremely well grounded theoretically and conceptually. Therefore, the
above approaches are highly relevant for the study. We present the most remarkable contributions
of the politeness researchers, defining the key terms and concepts that will be used in this thesis.
We will analyse how politeness is related to interactions at individual and group level. Chapter II
also makes an important connection with the management of interrelations that impact the quality
of life of individuals and the groups or communities of practice they belong to. Impoliteness, the
other important facet of politeness, is schematically introduced as it involves some twin processes
that may become apparent in interactions.
Chapter III provides an insight into the politeness model of Penelope Brown & Stephen C.
Levinson that constitutes the foundation of the study of modern politeness, substantiating the role
that self-image has in understanding interactions and their corresponding goals. We analyze the
most influential theory of politeness focussing on the concept of self-image / face as well as the
strategies of positive and negative politeness that may induce its maintenance, saving or even its
loss, bringing into discussion the face threatening acts (FTAs) which are inherent to any
interaction individuals participate in whether in everyday or professional contexts. The face
concept is also approached from a global perspective, moving from the emblematic interpretation
given by Erving Goffman to the multifaceted perceptions of face associated with different
cultures, environments and groups.
Chapter IV is called Professional Discourse and Politeness and it offers an overview of
professional discourse, its distinctive features in the dynamic working environment introducing at
the same time reasons lying behind the complexity of oral discourse engagement; it also features
politeness as a powerful tool that fosters conflict avoidance and mediation of wants and needs
interactants display in oral exchanges. We will analyze the concept of professional discourse by
presenting an array of relevant definitions, fundamental constructs that are relevant in the context
of our thesis insisting on some of its differentiating elements. Business communication and
10

politeness concept will be analyzed in terms of transactional and interactional discourse. This
chapter also includes an overview of politeness research in Europe as we believe that this new
area of research with its multiple nuances and controversies is becoming increasingly attractive
for specialized researchers in Europe and worldwide. Some European particularities of politeness
and the issues associated with the desire to promote national identity through politeness are also
addressed.
Chapter V, Oral Competence and Politeness, provides the link between advanced oral
competence and politeness being a binding chapter that makes the transition to the Case Studies 1
and 2 (Chapter 6), focusing on oral speech in the context of a multilingual workplace and the
specific tasks and responsibilities associated with it. We document the profile of the oral
discourse user which this thesis concentrates on; we also revise the more relevant characteristics
of oral speech as an extremely private and dynamic manifestation of professional discourse,
pointing out some aspects that lead to the well accepted difficulty being proficient in a modern
language while transmitting the message politely. We will make the connection between
politeness and oral discourse bringing onto the discussion table the role that the concepts of
power and status have in interactions individuals regularly participate in.
Chapter VI represents the practical application of our thesis and includes Case study 1
(Politeness and Teachers) and Case study 2 (Politeness and Students) offering an interpretation
of the results of the quantitative and qualitative research of the politeness concept as it is
perceived by the selected target groups. We insisted on the description of the subjects profile, the
context in which they have been analysed and the methodology used to achieve the set objectives.
Case Study 1 includes the interpretation of the data obtained after administering a questionnaire
on pragmatic politeness and on the complex ways in which it influences oral interactions between
professors and students in academic environment. The sample consists of 55 teachers of modern
languages activating at higher education level. Case Study 2, on the other hand, presents the
qualitative interpretation of the views expressed by a representative sample of students who have
answered a series of 30 questions on manifestations of politeness, as well as the interpretation of
its role in their daily and professional life.
The paper ends with a section devoted to the Thesis Conclusions that we have drawn from our
research. We have also included in this section of the paper a summary of the most important
points of view presented in each chapter of the thesis which are accompanied by the appropriate
11

conclusions for each of the corresponding six chapters; suggestions for potential future research
directions and the importance and novelty brought forward by our investigation are included in
this part of the dissertation.
The significance of the study is - in our opinion - one worthy of consideration in the complex
context of higher education in a European university in which multilingualism and
multiculturalism play an important role. The results of the present study - in our opinion - may
present theoretical and practical interest for researchers and practitioners in the field of
sociolinguistic and pragmatic politeness, for teachers who appreciate the benefits of engaging in
oral discourse activities, modern language educators, professionals in various fields of connected
to professional communication and decision makers within academic instruction.

4. Research methodology

With reference to the methodology used in the practical application of the work, we have
chosen a bi-dimensional mixed investigative method combining qualitative with quantitative
research. In our first Case study, we have administered questionnaires to 55 modern language
teachers in order to obtain data on their perception of the importance attached to politeness in the
oral interactions they participate in; we have also sought to identify a set of variables whose
analysis has generated the interest for the purpose of this study.
As related to the second Case study the research objective has been to obtain qualitative data
through face to face discussions that have resulted from organising the semi controlled opinion
interviews with students belonging to the Faculty of European Studies and the Faculty of
Economics and Business Administration. We have thoroughly analysed their answers to
questions included in an interview protocol that has followed some well-specified coordinates
leading to extremely interesting interpretations of politeness under certain categories of analysis.
The benefits of the use of these particular research methods, the underlying reasons behind the
decision, the thorough description of the target groups and the analysis and interpretation of the
data obtained are presented in Chapter 6 (case studies 1 and 2) of this thesis.

5. Conclusions and suggestions for further research

The researchers interests have been and are constantly focused on developing
12

communicative competences that offer educators and students within academic language
instruction the possibility of becoming valuable participants in their oral interactions with other
goal-driven discourse participants. Socio-pragmatic skills underlie ones training as an effective
specialist and communicator altering the quality of the relationships we create at work and in our
personal lives.
Our interest in the role of politeness theory in this equation is the basis of the present doctoral
project that will enhance my own training as a teacher and a professional. The practical
applications that have been introduced and analysed will help me optimize the quality of teaching
learning process I participate in within the Department of Modern Languages and Business
Communication of the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, "Babes-Bolyai"
University, Cluj-Napoca.
In her Introduction to the chapter entitled Theories of Politeness, Jenny Thomas has noted
that over the past twenty years of pragmatic language research, such an increasing interest has
been recorded in relation to studying the phenomenon of politeness that the politeness theory may
be seen as a sub-discipline of pragmatics.3 On virtually the same note, in his Preface of his
highly acclaimed study emblematically entitled Politeness the outstanding politeness researcher
Richard J. Watts (2003) has admitted with a hint of (British) humour that writing the
Introduction to politeness is like being in mortal combat with a many-headed hydra. You have
barely severed one head that a few more grow in its place.4 Thus, Watts made reference to the
impressive research literature on the issue of politeness.
We join Richard Watts in the above mentioned opinion stating the generosity of
approaches and interpretations of the phenomenon of politeness to date. It is a complex construct
and a highly difficult area to define precisely because of the multitude of points of view
expressed. Therefore, in this thesis we have chosen to contextualise an interpretation of politeness
by connecting it to the social-inclusive approach of the relational management at a specific level
of analysis. However, hereof, some limitations of the study may also result. Although our goal
was not to analyze linguistic sequences of politeness, future research might focus on such
priority. Other areas of interest might be represented by studies meant to assess issues related to

3 Jenny Thomas, Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics, London, Longman, 1995, p. 149.
4 RICHARD J. WATTS, POLITENESS, CAMBRIDGE, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2003, P. 2.: WRITING THE
INTRODUCTION TO POLITENESS IS LIKE BEING IN MORTAL COMBAT WITH A MANY-HEADED HYDRA. YOU HAVE BARELY

13

the authentic manifestation of interactions at the work place by analysing the intricate ways oral
discourse and politeness may overlap or diverge in business communication. Differences and
similarities of pragmatic politeness may be a practical goal for future cross-cultural studies that
involve, for example, students of a different nationality (not Romanian) who are part of different
exchange opportunities and study at Babe-Bolyai University.
In what concerns the applicability of the present paper, we consider our approach as one
that may be useful to the professionals in the field of communication, pragmatics, sciences of
education, sociology or sociolinguistics. Politeness animates human relations transforming
communication into interactions that encourage social harmony. Hypocrisy, lack of honesty or
projecting false points of view through manipulation represent (im)politeness strategies that may
certainly be used in interactions in promoting ones self-image individually or professionally.
However, in our opinion, in situations that involve real interactants in authentic contexts the
strategies mentioned above may not create or enforce long-term benefits. Self-esteem, positive
self-image and overall individual and group well-being are bound to be affected. Politeness thus
becomes the interface between the individual and the others as the unique act of manifestation
and declaration of honest objectives for moral survival.

Bibliography
Adegbija, E., A comparative study of politeness phenomena in Nigerian English,
Yoruba and Ogori, n Multilingua, vol. 8, 1990, p. 58.
Alasuutari, P., Researching Culture. Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies, n
Londra, Thousand Oaks, 1995.
Alessandro, D. i Charles, G. (editori), Rethinking Context: Language as an
Interactive Phenomenon, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Alvesson, M. i Deetz, S. , Doing Critical Management Research, Londra, Sage
Publications, 2000.
SEVERED ONE HEAD WHEN A FEW MORE GROW IN ITS PLACE.

14

Alvesson, M. i Skoldberg, K. , Reflexive Methodology, New Vistas for Qualitative

Research, Londra, Sage Publications, 2000.
Arundale, Robert, Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework
for research on face, facework, and politeness, n Journal of Politeness Research, vol.2, nr.2,
Mouton de Gruyter, 2006.

Austin, John L., How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University
Press, 1962.
Austin, J. L. , Quand dire, cest faire, Editions du Seiul, Paris,1970.
Bach, K. i Harnish M., Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Massachussetts,
MIT Press,1979, 1982.
Bachman, L. F. i Palmer, A. S. , Language Testing in Practice. Oxford, Oxford
University Press,1996.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. i Harris, S., Managing Language: the discourse of corporate
meetings, Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1999.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. i

Nickerson, C., Genres, Media and Discourses, Londra,

Longman, 1999.
Bargiela-Chapini, F. i Harris, S. , Business as a site of language contact, n Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, vol.23, 2003, pp. 155-169.
Bargiela-Chiappini F. i Haugh, M. (editori), Face, Communication and Social
Interaction, Equinox, London, 2009.

15

Bargiela-Chiappini F. i Kadar, D. (editori) Institutional Politeness in (South) East

Asia, n Special Issue of the Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 20/2, 2010.

Bargiela- Chiappini, F. (editori), A Handbook of Business Discourse. Edinburgh,

Edinburgh University Press, 2009.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. i Harris, S., Politeness at Work: Issues and Challenges,
Journal of Politeness Research 2, pp. 7-33, 2006.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Face and Politeness: New (Insights) for Old (Concepts),
Journal of Pragmatics 35, 2003, pp. 1-46.
Bargiela- Chiappini, F., Intercultural Business Discourse, n Candlin, C., i M.Gotti
(editori), n Intercultural Aspects of Specialized Communication,Bern:Peter Lang, 2004,
pp.29-51.

Bates, E., Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics, New York, Academic
Press, 1976.
Baxter, L. A., An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness, n Human
Communication Research, 10,1984, pp.427-456.
L.Beamer, i I.Varner, Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace, Boston,
Mc Graw-Hill Irwin Inc, 2001.
R. de Beaugrande, User-Friendly Communication Skills in the Teaching and
Learning of Business English, n English for Specific Purposes 19, 2000, pp. 331-349.
Beebe, Leslie M., Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence,
n James E. Alatis, Carolyn A. Straehle, Brent Gallenberger i Maggie Ronkin (editori),
Linguistics and the Education of Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguistics and
16

Sociolinguistic Aspects, Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics.

Georgetown, Georgetown University Press, 1995, pp. 154-168.
Bellier I. i T.M. Wilson, Building, imaging and experiencing Europe: Institutions
and identities in the European Union, n I. Bellier i T. M. Wilson (editori), An
Anthropology of the European Union: Building, Imaging and Experiencing the New Europe,
Oxford, Berg, 2000, pp. 5-17.
Bergvall, V., Bing, J. i Freed, A. (editori), Rethinking Language and Gender
Research: Theory and Practice. New York, Longman, 1996.
Blommaert, J. i Bulcaen, C., Critical Discourse Analysis, n Annual Review of
Antropology, vol. 29, 2000, pp. 447-466.
Blyler, N. i Thralls, C. , Professional Communication: The Social Perspective, California,
Newbury Park, Sage, 1992.
Blum-Kulka, S. i Olshtain, E., Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic
failure, n Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol.8, 1986, pp. 165-180.
Blum-Kulka, S. , Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different?, n
Journal of Pragmatics, nr. 11, pp. 131-146.
Blum-Kulka, S. You dont touch lettuce with your fingers: parental politeness in family
discourse, n Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 14, 1990, p. 267.
Bousfield, Derek, Impoliteness, preference organization and conducivity, n
Multilingua 26 (1-2), 2007a, pp.1-33.
Bousfield, Derek, Beginnings, middles, and ends: A biopsy of the dynamics of
impolite exchanges,n Journal of Pragmatics vol. 39, 2007b, pp.2185-2216.
17

Bousfield, Derek, Impoliteness in Interaction, Philadelphia and Amsterdam, John

Benjamins,2008.
Bousfield, Derek i Locher, (editori), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its
Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, n Language, Power & Social Process Berlin,
Mouton de Gruyter, 2008.
Bousfield, Derek, Richard Watts: Politeness, n Journal of Politeness Research
vol. 1, 2005, pp. 296-300.
Brown, P. , Women and politeness: A new perspective on language and society, n
Reviews in Anthropology, vol.3, 1976, pp. 240-249.
Brown, Gillian i Yule George, Teaching the spoken language. An approach based on
the analysis of conversational English, Cambridge Language Teaching Library, Cambridge
University Press, 1983.
Brown G. i Yule G. Discourse analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978; 1987.
Brown, Penelope, How and why are women more polite: some evidence from a
Mayan community, n S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker i N. Furman (editori), Women and
language in literature and society, New York, Praeger, p. 114.
Burt, Susan M., External and internal conflict- conversational co(1980) deswithching
and the theory of politeness, n Sociolinguistics, vol.19, 1990, pp. 21-35.
Bygate, Martin, Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral
18

language, n M. Bygate, P. Skehan i M. Swain (editori ), Researching Pedagogic Tasks,

Harlow: Pearson Education, 1992, pp.23-48.
Bygate, Martin, Teaching and testing speaking, n M. H. Long & Catherine J.
Doughty (editori), The Handbook of Language Teaching , Londra, 2009, pp. 412-440.
Cameron, D. , Rethinking language and gender studies: some issues for the 1990s, n
Sara Mills (editor ), Language and Gender: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Harlow,
Longman,1995, pp.31-44.
Cameron, D., The language-gender interface: challenging co-optation,n V.
Bergvall et al. (editori) Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice.
Harlow, Longman, 1996.

Cameron , D. , Working with Spoken Discourse, Londra, Sage, 2001.

Carr, M., Chinese Face" in Japanese and English, n The Review of Liberal Arts,
1993, p. 90.

Chomsky, Noam, Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Ma, MIT Press, 1965.

Chomsky, Noam, Language and mind. New York, Pantheon, 1968.

Chomsky, Noam, Rules and representations. New York, Columbia University Press,
1980.
Chomsky, Noam, New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 2000.
Chriss, J. , Habermas, J., Goffman, and Communicative Action: Implications for
Professional Practice, n American Sociological Review, vol. 60, nr. 4,1995, pp.545-565.

19

Cicourel, A.V., The interpenetration of communicative contexts: examples from

medical encounters, n Duranti- Gaoodwin, 1992, pp.291-310.
Cicourel, A. , apud Sigurd Dhondt, Jan-Ola Ostman i Jef Verschueren (editori), The
Pragmatics of Interaction, Jon Benjamins Publishing Company, 2009, p. 6-34.

Clyne, Martin Inter-Cultural Communication at Work: Discourse Structures across

Cultures, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Coates, J. , Women Talk. Oxford, Blackwell, 1996.

Coates, J. (editor ), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford, Blackwell, 1997.

Coates J. , Language, gender and career,n S. Mills (editor), Language and Gender:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives, London, Longman, 1997, pp. 13-30.
Coates J. i D. Cameron, Women in Their Speech Communities, Londra, Longman,
1988.
Cohen Louis i Manion Lawrence, Research Methods in Education, Routledge, 1997.
Cohen, Philip i Levesque, Hector, Rational interaction as the basis for
communication, n Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, & Martha E. Pollack, Intentions in
communication, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1990, pp.221-256.
Cohen, Philip, Morgan, Jerry i Pollack, Martha E. Intentions in communication.
Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1990.
Cole, P. i Morgan, J. L. (editori) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, Academic
Press, New York, 1975.
Collins, Alan M. i Quillian, M. R. How to make a language user, n E. Tulving &
20

W. Donaldson (editori ), Organization of memory, Academic Press, New York, 1972.

Cook-Gumperz, J. i Messerman, L. , Local identities and institutional practices:
Constructing the record of professional collaboration, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1999.
Cook, V. J., Multilingual universal grammar as the norm, n I. Leung (editor) Third
language acquisition and universal grammar, Bristol, Multilingual Matters, 2009, pp.55-70.
M.Coulthard, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, Londra, Longman, 1997.

Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages:

Learning,

Teaching,

Assessment.

Retrieved

from

http://www.

coe.

int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/Framework_EN. pdf July 10, 2010

Crawford, M. , Talking Difference: On Gender and Language, Londra, Sage, 1995.

Creswell, J. W. i Plano Clark, V. L. Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 2007.
Creswell, J. W. i Tashakkori, A., Developing Publishable Mixed methods
Manuscripts, n Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2 (1), 2007, pp.107-111.
Culpeper, Jonathan, Towards an anatomy of impoliteness, n Journal of
Pragmatics,vol. 25,1996, pp.349-367.
Cuceu Ion, Colindatul cu mti n Transilvania, la Masa rotund: Mti populare i
ritualuri tradiionale, organizat de Institutul Arhiva de Folclor a Academiei Romne i
Facultatea de Litere, 2006.
Cummins, J. , Language development and academic learning, n Malave, L. i G. Duquette
(editori), Language, culture and cognition, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, 1991, pp.161-175.
Culpeper, Jonathan, (Im)politeness in drama, n Jonathan Culpeper, Mick Short i
21

Peter Verdonk (editori), Studying Drama: From Text to Context, London, Routledge, 1998,
pp.83-95.

Culpeper, Jonathan, Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence, Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press, 2011.

van Dijk T.A., (editor), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, New York, Academic
Press,1985.

van Dijk T. A., Communication Yearbook 12 Sage, Los Angeles, 1989, pp.18-59.
van Dijk T. A., Social cognition and discourse, n H. Giles i W. P. Robinson
(editori), Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, John Wiley and Sons, New York,
1990, pp.163-186.

Van Dijk T.A. (editor), Looking ahead: discourse analysis in the 1990s. Text special
anniversary issue 10-12, 1990.

Van Dijk T. A., News as Discourse , Earlbaum, Norwood, 1991.

Dimitrova-Galaczi,

E.

Issues

in

the

definition

and

conceptualisation

of

politeness,Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers, n TESOL & Applied

Linguistics, vol. 2(1), 2005.
Drew, P. i J . Heritage (editori ), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,1992, pp.3-65.
Drew, P., Out of Context: an Intersection between Domestic Life and the
Workplace, as Contexts for (Business) Talk, n Language and Communication, 22,
pp.477-494.

22

O' Driscoll, Jim About face: A defence and elaboration of universal dualism, n
Journal of Pragmatics, vol 25,1996, pp.1-32.

Durkheim, E., The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, London, Longman, 1974.

Eelen G. , A Critique of Politeness Theories, Manchester, St Jerome, 2001.

Ehlich, Konrad On the historicity of politeness n Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide i
Ehlich Konrad (editori) Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice,
ediia a doua revizuit i completat, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 2005, p. 126-149.
Ehlich, K. i Wagner, J. , The discourse of business negotiation, Walter de Gruyter, & Co, Berlin,
1995.
Ellis, M. , Design & evaluation of a task-based syllabus for developing speaking
skills, n M. Pawlak (editor ), Investigating English Language Learning & Teaching, Adam
Mickiewicz University, Poznan, 2008, pp.333-346.

Ellis, R. , The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, Oxford University Press,
1994.

Ellis, R., Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 2003.

Ellis, M., Developing speaking skills in the teaching of English at the advanced level.
Design, implementation and evaluation of a task-based syllabus for trainees in pre-service
education, Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Warsaw, Poland, 2004.
Erbert L. i K. Floyd, Affectionate Expressions as Face Threatening Acts: Receiver
Assessments, n Communication Studies, vol. 55, nr. 2, 2005, p. 254.

Fairclough, N. , Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1992.

23

Fairclough, N. , Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, New

York, Longman, 1995.
Fillmore, C. J., On fluency, n D. Kempler i W. Yang (editori), n Individual
differences in language ability and language behaviour, New York, Academic Press, 1979,
pp.85-102.
Fishman, P., Interaction: the work women do, n B. Thornes et al. (editor )
Language, Gender and Society, Rowley. Mass., Newbury House, 1983, pp. 89-101.

Fox Kate, Watching the English. The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour, Hodder and
Stoughton Ltd, London, 2004.
Fraser, C. i Scherer, K. (editori ), Advances in the Social Psychology of Language,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Fraser, Bruce, The concept of politeness. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual
Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English (NWAVE), Georgetown
University, 1975.
Fraser, Bruce, Perspectives on politeness, n Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 14, 1990,
pp. 219-236.
Fraser, Bruce i Nolen, William, The association of deference with linguistic form,
n International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 27, 1981, p. 96.

Gee, J. P. , Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, Falmer, New York,
1990.
Gimenez, J., New media and conflicting realities in multinational corporate communication. A
case study, n International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40, 2002,
24

pp.323-343.
Gimenez, J., Business E-mail Communication: Some Emerging Tendencies in
Register, n English for Specific Purposes 19, pp.237-251, 2001.
Giles, H. i N. Coupland,The role of language in ethnic group relations, n J. C.
Turners i H. Giles (editori), Intergroup Behaviour, Oxford, Blackwell, p. 212, 1992,
pp.193-243.
Goffman, Erving, On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social
interaction",n Psychiatry vol.18, 1955, pp.213-251.
Goffman, Erving, Embarrassment and social organization, n American Journal of
Sociology 62 (3), 1956, pp.264-271.

Goffman, Erving, Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior, Garden City,

New York, Anchor Books, 1967.

Goffman, Erving , Interaction Ritual, New York, Anchor Books, 1967.

Goffman Erving, Viaa cotidian ca i spectacol, traducere de Simona Drgan i Laura
Albulescu, Bucureti, Comunicare. ro, 2007.
Goody, Esther N., Towards a theory of questions, n Esther N. Goody (editor),
Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 1978, pp.17-43.

Goodwin, C., Conversational organisation: Interaction between speakers and hearers,

New York, Academic Press, 1981.
Goodwin, M., Cekaite, A. i Goodwin, C., Emotion as Stance, n M.L. Sorjonen
25

i A. Perakyla (editori), Emotion in Interaction, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012,

pp.16-41.
Gmez Morn, R. , Padilla Cruz, M. , Fernndez Amaya, L. i Hernndez Lpez, M. (editori),
Pragmatics Applied to Language Teaching and Learning, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge
Scholars Publishing, 2009.
Gotti, M., Intercultural Trends in Specialised Discourse. British and American
Studies, 13, 2007, pp.215-230.
Green, Georgia M, Pragmatics and natural language understanding, 2nd edition, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers, 1996.
Green, Georgia M., Pragmatics and syntactic description, n Studies in the
Linguistic Sciences 1, 1, Urbana, IL, Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois, 1981,
pp27-38.
Grice, H. Paul, Logic and conversation, n P. Cole i J. Morgan (editori ), Syntax
and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press, 1975, pp.41-78.

Grice, H. Paul, Studies in the Way of Words, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University
Press, 1989.

Grundy, Peter, Doing Pragmatics, Londra, Arnold, 2000, p.164.

Gu, Yuego Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese, n Journal of Pragmatics,
vol. 14,1990, pp.237-257.
Guilloteaux, M. & Dornyei, Z., Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented
investigation of the effects of motivation strategies on student motivation, TESOL Quarterly,
42, No. 1., 2008, pp.55-77.
Gumperz, J. , Linguistic and social interaction in two communities,n American
26

Anthropologist, 66,1964, pp.137-152.

Gumperz, J. (editor), Language and Social Identity. Cambridge, Cambridge University

Press, 1982.

Gumperz J., Discourse Strategies, Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Gumperz,J., Contextualization and understanding, n Charles Goodwin i
Alessandro Duranti (editori), Rethinking Context. Language as an Interactive Phenomenon,
Cambridege, Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Gunnarson Britt-Louise, Professional Discourse, London;New York,Continuum, 2009.

Gunnarson, B. , Promoting Images: The Discursive Construction of a Bank, in

Lundquist, L. , Picht, H. , Qvistgaard, J. , LSP Identitz and Interface Research, Knowledge and
Society. Vol. I. , Copenhaga: LSP Centre, Copenhagen Business School, 1998.
Gunnarson, B., The professionals view on discourse: images work, organizational
ideas and national culture. Lucrare prezentat la cel de-al 12-lea Simpozion European cu tema
Limba n Scopuri Speciale, inut la Bolzano, Italia,1999.
Gunnarson, B. , Linnel, P. i Nordberg, B., The Construction of Professional Discourse, Londra,
Longman 1997.

Habermas J. , Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry 13, 360-75,

1970.

Habermas, J. Ratiunea Comunicativa v. Ratiunea centrata in subiect. Discursul

filosofic al modernitatii. 12 prelegeri. Bucuresti, ALL EDUCATIONAL, 2000.
Habermas, J., Preliminarii la o Teorie a Competentei Comunicative,n Idei
27

Contemporane. Cunoastere si Comunicare. Bucuresti. Editura Politica, 1985.

Harris, Philip R. , Robert T. Moran i Sarah V. Moran, Managing Cultural
Differences: Global Leadership Strategies for the 21st Century, ediia a 6a, Oxford, Elsevier
ButterworthHeinemann, 2004, pp. 48-49.
Harris,S., Politeness and power: Making and responding to requests in institutional settings,
n Walter de Gruyter , Journal of Politeness 23(1), 2003, pp.27-52.

Halliday, M.A.K., Explorations in the Functions of Language, Londra,Edward Arnold,

1973.
Held, Gudrun, Politeness in Linguistic Research, n Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide i
Konrad Ehlich (editori), Politeness in Language, 1990.
Held, Gudrun, Politeness in Linguistic Research, n Watts, R. Ide, S. i Echlich, K, (editori)
Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter,
1992, pp.131-153.
Herdina, P., i Jessner, U., A dynamic model of multilingualism: Perspectives of
change in psycholinguistics,Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, 2002.

Herman, V. , Dramatic Discourse. Dialogue as interaction in plays. Londra,

Routledge. 1995.
Hickey,L., i Stewart,M., (editori), Politeness in Europe, Clevedon, Multilingual
Matters.

Holmes Janet, An introduction to sociolinguistics,London and New York, Longman

Group UK Limited, 2005.

28

Holmes, J. i Schnurr, S., Politeness, Humour and Gender in the Workplace: Negotiating
Norms and Identifying Contestation, n Journal of Politeness Research 1, 2005, pp. 121149.
Holmes, J. i Schnurr, S., Doing Femininity at Work: More than just Relational
Practice, n Journal of Sociolinguistics 10/1, 2006, pp. 31-51.
Hill, B. , Ide, S. , Kawasaki, A. , Ogino, S., Universals of politeness: Quantitative
evidence from Japanese and American English, n Journal of Pragmatics 10, 1986, p. 349.
Ho, David On the Concept of Face," n American Journal of Sociology, vol. 81 (4),
1976, p. 883.
Hofstede, Geert, Managementul structurilor multiculturale : Software-ul gndirii,
traducere de Gabriela Ochian, Bucureti, Editura Economic, 1996.
Holmes, J., Womens talk in public contexts,n Discourse and Society, 1992,
pp.131-150.

Holmes, J. , Women, Men and Politeness. New York: Longman, 1995.

Holmes J and Meyerhoff M. , The community of practice: theories and methodologies

in language and gender research. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21,173-81, 1999.
Holmes Janet i Maria Stubbe, Power and Politeness in the Workplace. A
Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work, Perarson Education Limited, 2003.

Holmes, J., An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, Londra, Longman Group UK, 1997.

Holmes, J., i Marra, M. , Having a laugh at work: how humour contributes to
workplace culture, School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University
of Wellington, Wellington, 2002.
29

Holtgraves, T. i Yang, J. N., Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of

request strategies and inferences based on their use, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 1990.

Holtgraves,T. , The Linguistic Realisation of Face Management. Social Psychology

Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2,1992, pp.141-159.
Horwitz, E. Horwitz i Cope, It aint over til its over: On foreign language anxiety,
first language d E. K. eficits, and the confounding of variables, n Modern Language Journal,
vol. 84, 2000, p. 31.
House, Juliane, Politeness in Germany: Politeness in Germany?", in: Leo Hickey i
Miranda Stewart (editori), Politeness in Europe, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, 2005,
pp.13-28.
Huntington,S. , The Clash of Civilizations,n Foreign Affairs,Summer,1993.
Hymes, D., On communicative competence,n Sociolinguistics, J. Pride and J.
Holmes (editori ), London,Penguin, 1972, pp.269-293.
Huang, Shuanfan Two Studies of Prototype Semantics: Xiao 'Filial Piety' and Mei Mianzi 'Loss
of Face'," n Journal of Chinese Linguistics, vol. 15, 1987, p. 71.
Hymes, D., Models of the interaction of language and social life, n J. Gumperz i D.
Hymes (editori), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New
York, Holt,Rinehart and Winston,1972, pp.35-71.

Iedema, R. , Scheeres, H. , From Doing to Talking Work: Renegotiating Knowing,

Doing and Identity, n Candlin, C. , Sarangi, S. , ediie special de Lingvistic Aplicat, vol.
24. 2003.

30

Ide, Sachiko, On the Notion of Wakimae: Toward an Integrated Frame of Linguistic

Politeness, n Mosaic of Language: Essays in Honour of Professor Natsuko Okuda, Mejiro
Linguistic Society (MLS), 1989b, pp. 298-305.
Sachiko Ide, Formal forms of discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic
politeness. , n Multilingua, vol. 8, 1989, p. 243-311.
Ide,Sachiko, Prefaa la The search for integrated universals of linguistic politeness,
Multilingua, vol. 12,1993.
Janney, Richard W. i Horst Arndt, Universality and relativity in cross-cultural
politeness research: A historical perspective, n Multilingua, vol. 12, 1993.
Janney, R. W. i Arndt, H. , Intracultural tact versus intercultural tact, n In R. J.
Watts, S. Ide & K. Ehlich (editori), Politeness in language,Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992;
2005, p. 27-28.

Jerome Fukusima, Saeko, Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and
Japanese, Bern, Peter Lang, 2000.
Ji, S., Face and polite verbal behaviors in Chinese culture, n Journal of
Pragmatics, vol. 32, 2000, p. 1060.

Jucker, Andreas, Review of Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad

Ehlich (editori ), Politeness in Language, n Multilingua 13,1994, pp.329-334.
de Kadt, Elizabeth, The concept of face and its applicability in the Zulu language n
Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 29, nr. 4, 2000.
Kasper, Gabrielle Linguistic politeness: Current research issues, n Journal of
Pragmatics, vol. 4, 1990.
31

Kasper, Gabrielle, Politeness,n R. E. Asher et al. (Editor), Encyclopedia of

language and linguistics, Edinburgh, Pergamon and University of Aberdeen press. , 1994, p.
3206.
Kasper, Gabrielle, Politeness,n Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola stman, Jan Blommaert i Chris
Bulcaen (editori), Handbook of Pragmatics,Amsterdam, Benjamins, 1-20, 1996, pp.1-20.
Kecskes, I. i Papp, T. Foreign language and mother tongue, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum,
2000.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine, Les interactions verbales, vol. 2, Paris, A. Colin,1990.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine, La Conversation, Paris, Editions du Seuil,1996.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine, Les actes de langage dans le discours. Theorie et

fonctionnement, Paris, Editions Nathans, 1996.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine,Politeness in small shops in France, n Sara Mills i
Katherine Beeching (editori), Journal of Politeness Research, Special Issue: Politeness at
Work, 2006, p. 83.
Kern, R. G., Literacy and advanced foreign language learning: Rethinking the
curriculum. , n H. Byrnes i H. H. Maxim (editori), Advanced foreign language learning: A
challenge to college programs, AAUSC Issues in Language Program Direction, Boston, MA,
Heinle, 2003, p. 3.
Kopytko, R., Against rationalistic pragmatics, Journal of Pragmatics, 23, p. 488,
1995.

Kuhn, T. , S. , The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,Chicago, Chicago University

Press, Chicago, 1970.

32

Laine, E. J. Affective factors in foreign language learning and teaching: a study of

the filter, n Jyvaskyla Cross-Language Studies, nr. 13, 1987.

Lakoff, George, Counterparts, or, the problem of reference in transformational grammar. Paper
presented at the July 1968 Linguistic Society of America meeting, Urbana, IL, 1968.
Lakoff, R., Language in context, n Language, 48,1972, pp.907-927.
Lakoff, R., Language and woman's place, n Language in Society, 1973, pp.45-79.
Lakoff, R., Logic of politeness or minding your P's and Q's, n C. Colum et al. (editori), Papers
from the Nineth regional meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, Chicago Linguistic
Society, 1973, pp.292-305.
Lakoff,R., The limits of politeness: therapeutic and courtroom discourse, n
Multilingua,1989.

LDOCE, The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Londra, Longman

Pearson Education, 2003.

Leech, Geoffrey N., Principles of Pragmatics, Londra, Longman, 1983.

Leech, G. i J. Svartik, A Communicative Grammar of English. Londra, Longman,
1975.
Lencho, M. W., The changing face of Facebook: Building reflexivity into automated
online discourse routine, Topics in Linguistics: Discourse Analysis in a Digital World, 8/2,
2011, pp.34-40.
Le Pair, Rob Politeness in the Netherlans. Indirect Requests n Politeness in Europe,
n Leo Hickey i Miranda Stewart (editori), Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, 2005, pp. 66-83.
33

Levelt, W. J. M. Monitoring and self-repair in speech, n Cognition, vol. 14, 1983,

pp. 41-104.

Levinson S. Stephen. Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.

Lewis

Richard,

When

Cultures

Collide,

Nicholas

Brealey

International,

Boston-London, 2006, pp.324-330.

Lim, T. S. i J. W. Bowers, Facework: Solidarity, Approbation, and Tact," n Human
Communication Research, vol. 17, 1991, pp. 199-209.
Littlewood, W. T. , The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions, n
English Language Teaching Journal, 58/4, 2004, pp.319-326.
Locher A. Miriam i Sage L. Graham, Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics,
Stapleton Karzn, Swearing, 2004.

Locher A. Miriam, Power and Politeness in Action. Disagreements in Oral

Communication, Monica Heller i Richard Watts (editori), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin; New
York, 2004.
Locher, A. M., i Watts, R.J., Politeness Theory and Relational Work, Journal of
Politeness Research 1: 1, 2005, pp.9-33.
Locher, M., Politeness and Impoliteness in Computer-Mediated Communication,
Journal of Politeness Research 6/1, 2010, pp.1-15.
Luecht, R., Multistage Complexity in Language Proficiency Assessment: A
Framework for Aligning Theoretical Perspectives, Test Development, and Psychometrics, n
Foreign Language Annals, vol. 36, nr. 4, decembrie,2003, p. 528.
34

Luoma, S. , Assessing Speaking, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Manno, Giuseppe, Politeness in Switzerland: Between respect and acceptance, n
Leo Hickey i Miranda Stewart (editori), Politeness in Europe, Clevedon, Multilingual
Matters,2005, pp.100-115.
Mao, L. R., Beyond politeness theory: Face revisited and renewed, n Journal of
Pragmatics 21,1994, pp.451-486.
Marcus, H. R., i Kitayama, S., Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion and motivation, n Psychological Review, 98,1991, p.226.

Marga, A., Filosofia lui Habermas (The Philosophy of Habermas), Editura Polirom,
2006.

Marga, A. , O filozofie cuprinzatoare. in Discursul filosofic al modernitatii. 12

prelegeri/ Jurgen Habermas, Bucuresti, All Educational, 2000.
Marga, A. , Filosofia Unificrii Europene, Cluj-Napoca, EFES, 2004.
Marga, A. , Cotitura cultural. Die kulturelle Wende, Cluj University Press, 2000.
Marga, D., Repere n analiza discursului politic ,Cluj-Napoca, EFES, 2004.
Marga, D., Introducere n analiza discursului, cu referire la istorie i sfera
public,Cluj-Napoca, EFES, 2003.
Masumoto, Tomoko John G. Oetzel, John G. , Takai, Jiro, Stella Ting-Toomey i
Yumiko Yokochi, Yumiko, A Typology of Facework Behaviors in Conflicts with Best
Friends and Relative Strangers," n Communication Quarterly vol. 4(48), 2000, p. 400.
35

Y. Matsumoto, Reexamination of the universality of face, n Journal of Pragmatics,

vol. 12, 2004, p.405.

McCarthy, M. , Rethinking spoken fluency. ELIA 9, 11-29. Retrieved from

http://institucional. us. es/revistas/revistas/elia/pdf/ March16, 2010.
Meier, A. J. Defining politeness: Universality in appropriateness, n Language
Sciences, vol. 17(4), 1995a, p. 347.
Meier, Ardith J. , Passages of politeness", n Journal of Pragmatics 24, 1995,
pp.381-392.
Miller, K., Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts (ediia a
2-a), McGraw-Hill, Londra, 2005.
Miller, C. R. , Genre as Social Action, n Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 1984,
pp.151-167.

Mills, Sara, Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Mills, S. (editor), Language and Gender: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York;

Longman, 1995.
Mills, Sara, Rethinking politeness, impoliteness and gender identity, n J.
Sunderland i L. Litoselliti, Discourse Analysis and Gender Identity, 2002, Benjamins.
Morand, David , Language and power: An empirical analysis of lingustic strategies used in
superior-subordinate communication,n Journal of Organisational Behavior. Chichester,
May, 200. Vol. 21, 3, 2002, pg. 235.

Muijs, Daniel , Doing Quantitative Research in Education: with SPSS, Londra, Sage
36

Publications, 2004.

Mullany, L. , Gendered Discourse in the Professional Workplace, Basingstoke,

Palgrave, 2007.
Nickerson, C., Business Discourse and Language Teaching, Journal of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching 40, 2002, pp.375-391.
Nunan, D. , Task-based language teaching in the Asia context:Defining task, Asian
EFL Journal, 8, 3, 2006, pp.1-6.
Nwoye, O. G. Linguistic politeness and sociocultural variation of the notion of face,
n Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 18, 1992, p. 310.
ODriscoll, Jim About face: A defense and elaboration of universal dualism,
Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 25, 1996, pp. 8-20.
Olariu-Florin Teodor, Reguli, constrngeri i principii conversaionale: interaciunea
verbal ca univers agonal reglementat, Anuar de Lingvistic i Istorie Literar, Iai, tom
XLVIIXLVIII, p. 127164, 2007-2008.
Oller, J. W., Evidence for a general language proficiency factor: an expectancy
grammar, Die Neuren Sprachen, 75, 1976, pp.165-174.
Oller, J. Intelligence and language proficiency as sources of variance in self-reported
affective variables n Language Learning Journal,vol. 28, nr. 1, iunie, 1978, pp. 85-97.
Pan, Y., Scollon, S., i Scollon, R. , Professional Communication in International
Settings, Blackwell, Oxford, 2002.
Pan, Y. , Power behind linguistic behavior: Analysis of politeness phenomena in Chinese
37

official settings, n Journal of Language and Social Psychology, vol. 14, 1995, p. 480.
Paulston, C. B., Linguistic and communicative competence, n TESOL Quarterly,8,
1974, pp.347-362.
Pun Nicolae, Interculturalism, Globalization and Cultural Identity, n Studia
Europaea, nr. 1-2, 2002.

Placintar, E. , A Pragmatic Approach to Conversation Analysis. Cluj-Napoca, Editura

EFES, 2005.
Pleu Andrei, Despre frumuseea uitat a vieii, Bucureti, Humanitas, 2011.
Povoln, R., Some discourse markers used to express politeness in spoken academic
discourse, n Kuzniak, M. i Rozwadowska, B. (editori) Studies in Language and
Methodology of Teaching Foreign Languages, PASE Papers, Oficyna Wydawnicza ATUT,
Wroclaw, 2009, pp.155-164.
Robinson, P., Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: exploring
interactions in a componential framework, n Applied Linguistics, 22/1,2001, pp.27-57.
Ruxndoiu-Ionescu Liliana, Limbaj i comunicare. Elemente de pragmatic
universal. Editura All, Bucureti, 2003.
Ruxndoiu-Ionescu Liliana, Conversaia :Structuri i strategii. Sugestii pentru o
pragmatic a romnei vorbite, Editural ALL, Bucureti, 2003.
Sacks, H., Schegloff i G. Jefferson, A Simplest Systematics For the organization of
Turn-Taking for Conversation," n Language, 1974, pp. 696-735.

Saeko, Jerome Fukusima, Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and
38

Japanese. Bern: Peter Lang, 2000.

Sarangi, S. , Roberts, C. , Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical,

Mediation and Management Settings, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1999.
Sava, E. , Explornd un ritual, Cluj-Napoca, Editura Limes, Colecia Paradigme, 2007.

Scollon, Ron and Suzanne W. Scollon, Intercultural Coomunication: A discourse

Approach, Oxford, Blackwell, 2001.
Scollon R. i Suzanne W. Scollon, Face in interethnic communication, n J. C.
Richards i R. W. Schmidt (editori), Language and Communication, Londra, Longman, 1983,
pp. 156188.
Schegloff E. A. , On talk and its institutional occasions, n Drew Paul and Heritage John
(editori), Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings, Cambridge, University Press,1992,
pp.101-137.
Schmidt, R. W. Review of Questions and politeness: Strategies in social
interaction, n E. N. Goody (Editor), RELC Journal, vol. 11 1980, p. 104.
Scollon, R. i Scollon, S. B. K., Face in interethnic communication,n J. C. Richards
i R.W.Schmidt, (editori), Language and communication, Londra, Longman, 1983,
pp.156-188.

Scott, V. M., Double talk: Deconstructing monolingualism in classroom second

language, learning, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall, 2010, p. 163.

Searle, J. R. , Speech Acts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Searle, J. R. , The classification of illocutionary acts, n Language and Society 5,
1976, pp.1-24.
39

Searle, J. R. , Expression and Meaning. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,

1979.
Searle, J. R. , Conversation,n J. R. Searle et al (editori), On Searle and
Conversation, Amsterdam- Philadelphia, John Benjamins,1992, pp.7-30.

Sifianou, Maria, Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford, Clarendon

Press, 1992, p. 27.
Sifianou, Maria The use of diminutives in expressing politeness: Modern Greek
versus English, n Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 17, 1992, p. 156.
Silvestre, C., The construction of the subject: a diachronic perpective,n Lundquist,
L. , Picht, H. , Qvistgaard, J. , LSP Identity and Interface Research, Knowledge and Society,
Vol. I. , Copenhaga: LSP Centre, Copenhagen Business School, 1998.
Shore C. i Black A., A citizens Europe and the construction of European identity, n V. A.
Goddard, J. R. Llobera i C. Shore (editori), The Anthropology of Europe. Identities and
Boundaries in Conflict, Oxford, Berg, 1994, pp. 275-298.
Shumin, K. Factors to consider: Developing adult EFL students speaking abilities,
n English Teaching Forum, vol. 35, nr. 3, iulie, 1997.

Skehan, P., A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, Oxford University

Press, 1998.
Skehan P., Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction, n J. Willis i D.
Willis (editori), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching, Oxford, Heinemann,1996,
pp.17-30.
Spencer, W., Self-Work in Social Interaction: Negotiating Role-Identities, n Social
40

Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 2,1987, pp.131-142.

Spencer-Oatey, H., Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across

Cultures ,Londra, Continuum, 2000a, pp.8-18.
Spencer Oatey, H., Rapport Management: A Framework for analysis, n Helen
Spencer Oatey (editor), Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across
Cultures, Londra, Continuum, 2000b, pp.11-46.
Spencer-Oatey, H., Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to
Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations, Journal of
Pragmatics 14, 2002, pp.529-545.
Spencer Oatey, H. i J. Xiong, Face and Management of Rapport, 2003, accesat
online: http://www.intercultural.europacom.com/publications/4.pdf .

Spencer-Oatey,

H.,

Sociolinguistics

and

Intercultural

Communication,

Sociolinguistics 3, 2006, pp.2537- 2546.

Sperber, D. i Wilson D., Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of
comprehension,n N. Smith (editor), Mutual Knowledge, London, Academic Press, 1982,
pp.61-85.
Sperber, D. i Wilson, D., Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford, Basil
Blackwell, 1986.
Strauss, A., i Corbin, J., Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory, ediia a doua, Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications, 1998.

Stubbs, M., Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistics Analysis of Natural Language,

Oxford: Blackwell, 1983.
41

Tanaka, S., i Kawabe, S. , Politeness strategies and second language acquisition, n

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2),1982, pp.18-33.
Tannen

Deborah,

Gender

Differences,

Conversational

Coherence,n

Conversational organization and its developments, Dorval Bruce, Norwood, NJ, 1990.
Terkourafi, Marina, Beyond the micro-level in politeness research, n Journal of
Politeness Research 1, 2,2005, pp.237-262.
Thomas J., Meaning in interaction. An introduction to pragmatics, Londra, Longman, 1995.
Thorne, B. Kramarae, H. i Henley, N. (editori), Language, Gender and Society,
Rowley, Newbury House, 1983.

Toulmin, S., E., The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,1958.
Tracy, K., The many faces of facework, n H. Giles i W. P. Robinson (editori),
Handbook of language and social psychology, Chichester, John Wiley, 1990. p. 216.
Tulbure, Mariana Impactul politeii asupra locutorilor, Braov, 2011 (studiu,
Biblioteca Central Universitar Cluj-Napoca, Sala Profesorilor)

Van De Walle, Lieve, Pragmatics and classical Sanscrit: A pilot study in linguistic
Politeness, Amsterdam; Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1993, p.76.
Watts, Richard J. , Sachiko Ide i Konrad Ehlich (editori), Politeness in Language
Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 1992.

Watts, Richard J. , Politeness. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999; 2003.

Watts, Richard J. , Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic

42

behavior, n Multilingua, vol.8, 2/3,1989, pp.131-166.

Watts, Richard J., Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering
claims for universality, n: Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide i Konrad Ehlich (editori). Politeness
in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter,1992,
pp.43-70.
Werkhofer, Konrad T. Traditional and modern views: the social constitution and the
power of politeness, n Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide i Konrad Ehlich (editori), Politeness in
Language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, Berlin; New York, Mouton de Gruyter,
1992; 2005, pp. 155199.

Wenger, E. Communities of Practice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Wikki, Lissa, Politeness, face and facework: Current issues , A man of measure .
Festschrift in honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th birthday, n SKY Journal of Linguistics,
ediie special, The Lingusitic Association of Finland, Turku, vol. 19, 2006, pp. 322-332.
Wilkes-Gibbs, D., Studying language use as collaboration, n G. Kasper i E.
Kellerman (editori), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic
perspectives (pp. 238-274). London: Longman, 2004, pp.238-274.
Willis, J. i Willis, D., (editori). Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford,
Heinemann/MacMillan ELT, 1996.

Willis, J. , A framework for task-based learning, Harlow, Londra, Longman, 1996.

Wilson, J., Politically Speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford,
Blackwell, 1990.

Wodak, R., Disorders of Discourse. Londra, Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1996.
43

Wodak R., How do I put the problem?, 1981, pp.1-35.

Wodak R., Determination of guilt: discourses in the courtroom,n C. Kramare,
Schulty, W. M. OBarr (editori), Language and Power, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1984,
pp.89-100.
Wodak, R., The irrationality of power, n Communication Yearbook, vol. 12, 1989,
p. 21.
Wodak R., Strategies in text production and text comprehension: a new
perspective,n D.Stein (editor), Cooperating with Written Texts Mouton, The Hague, 1992,
pp.493-528.
Wodak R., Critical Linguistics and the study of institutional discourse,n P.
Srevenson, Sociolinguistics in the German-speaking Countries, Oxford University Press,
1994.
Wong Lee i M. Haugh, Anticipated versus inferred politeness, n Multilingua
vol.22, 2003, p. 403.
Yuego Gu, Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese, n Journal of Pragmatics, vol.
14, 1990.

Yutang, Lin, Between Tears and Laughter, Kessinger Publishing, (1943); 2005, p. 200.
Zhang, Y., Reading to speak: Integrating oral communication skills, n English
Teaching Forum, vol. 47, nr. 1, pp. 32-34.

Zaremba, A.J., Speaking professionally, Canada, Thompson South-Western, 2006, pp.

43-48.
44

45