Politeness¶
Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Gumperz, J. J. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
Cited by¶
8 citations across 8 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Cooperative Principle and Gricean Maxims
- Cross-cultural understanding requires explicit maxim-norm negotiation.
This sourceBrown-Levinson Politeness face-threatening acts conversational maxims.
- Cross-cultural understanding requires explicit maxim-norm negotiation.
- Pragmatic Politeness Strategies
- At foundation, the framework operates on two interdependent concepts:
This sourceBrown-Levinson Politeness face-threatening acts conversational maxims.
- At foundation, the framework operates on two interdependent concepts:
- Pragmatics
- Organizational communication. "Let's circle back" means decline, defer, or genuine continuation depending on speaker, forum, and history; workplaces develop pragmatic conventions newcomers must learn separately from the literal vocabulary.
This sourceStudies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Foundational account of indirect speech and face-management, in which the degree of indirection scales with the face threat and the power distance between interlocutors — the conventions newcomers must learn beyond the literal vocabulary.
- Organizational communication. "Let's circle back" means decline, defer, or genuine continuation depending on speaker, forum, and history; workplaces develop pragmatic conventions newcomers must learn separately from the literal vocabulary.
Domain-specific¶
- Face Management
- Almost any substantively significant speech act — a request, a criticism, a refusal, an offer, a disagreement — threatens one or both of these wants for one or both parties, constituting what Brown and Levinson called a face-threatening act (FTA)
This sourceThe source volume of the face-threatening-act model, whose glossary defines the FTA and whose ladder scales redress to the weight of the threat. Sets the weight of a face-threatening act as a function of three variables - social distance, power, and the rating of the imposition - each taking a value in particular circumstances. The 1987 volume confirms its title, authors and its Tamil–Tzeltal–English data base; it does not itself establish that it is the defining formulation (its core first appeared in 1978). Claims, from a three-language data base, that hierarchy, social distance and ranking of imposition together set the weightiness of a face-threatening act.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“polite c.i. conversationally implicates fta [face-threatening] act s speaker h hearer, addressee p power”
- Almost any substantively significant speech act — a request, a criticism, a refusal, an offer, a disagreement — threatens one or both of these wants for one or both parties, constituting what Brown and Levinson called a face-threatening act (FTA)
- Interpersonal Communication
- Common-ground is built and updated incrementally; misunderstandings are detected and repaired mid-sequence through communication repair moves; the relational layer is maintained, threatened, and restored through face-management work (Brown and Levinson's politeness theory is the canonical formalization)
SupportedVerified against the source
- Common-ground is built and updated incrementally; misunderstandings are detected and repaired mid-sequence through communication repair moves; the relational layer is maintained, threatened, and restored through face-management work (Brown and Levinson's politeness theory is the canonical formalization)
Mechanisms¶
- Diplomatic Language
- Linguists Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson mapped exactly these moves as politeness strategies that mitigate face-threatening acts.
This sourceDevelops politeness strategies for performing and mitigating face-threatening acts.
- Linguists Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson mapped exactly these moves as politeness strategies that mitigate face-threatening acts.
- Politeness/Directness Adjustment
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 3 of 8 citations: 2 supported, 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:bb09345ce885 · see in the full table