Cover not available
Part of
It's different with you: Contrastive perspectives on address research
Edited by Nicole Baumgarten and Roel Vismans
[Topics in Address Research 5] 2023
► pp. 397–422

Chapter 16
Address and politeness

A theoretical exploration

| University of Sheffield

This chapter sets out to explore the theoretical relationship between address and politeness. It explores the nature of address and discusses the concept of “address theory”, the need for such a theory, and what it should encompass. It analyses, for the first time, the theoretical contrasts between address and politeness by means of a chronological discussion of politeness theory and its treatment of address, as well as a critical discussion of the handling of politeness theory by the address literature. It concludes, with Terkourafi (2005), that each of the approaches to politeness surveyed has its merits, and observes that, despite frequent references to politeness, the address literature engages in reflection on politeness (theory) only sporadically. It also calls for a debate about the need for a (separate) address theory, including the continued use of the labels T and V, which is widespread in both address research and politeness research.

Keywords: address theory, politeness theory, deixis, second person pronouns, vocatives
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Address
    • 2.1What is address?
    • 2.2Address theory
  • 3.Politeness theory
    • 3.1First wave politeness theory and address: Brown and Levinson
    • 3.2Address, volitional vs. discernment politeness and an optimistic view of face
    • 3.3The discursive turn and address
    • 3.4Third-wave politeness theory and address
  • 4.Address and politeness
    • 4.1The Kiel address project and politeness
    • 4.2Address research and politeness theory
    • 4.3Address theory, politeness theory, or both?
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tar.5.16vis
References
Aalberse, Suzanne
2004 Waer bestu bleven? Verdwijning van het pronomen du in een vergelijkend perspectief. Nederlandse Taalkunde 9.3. 231–252.Google Scholar
2009 Inflectional economy and politeness: morphology-internal and morphology-external factors in the loss of second person marking in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Alberdi-Larizgoitia, Xabier
2018 Forms of address in Basque. Pragmatics: quarterly journal of the International Pragmatics Association 28.3. 303–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Friederike
(1988) Terms of Address. Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York & Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Friederike, Armin Kohz & Klaus Schubert
1986 Anredeforschung: Kommentierte Bibliographie zur Soziolinguistik der Anrede. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger & Marguerite Ford
1961 Address in American English. Journal of abnormal and social psychology 62. 375–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman
1960 [1972] The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Pier Paolo Giglioli (ed.), Language and social context, 252–282. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
1989 Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society 18. 159–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson
1978 Universals of language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Esther N. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness, 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
1987 Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burt, Susan Meredith
2019 Person-referring expressions, reference nominals, and address nominals. Informalization in an Illinois neighborhood social group. In Bettina Kluge & María Irene Moyna (eds.), It’s not all about you. New perspectives on address research, 397–413. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, Michael, Catrin Norrby & Jane Warren
2009 Language and human relations. Styles of address in contemporary language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, Haruko M.
2006 Japanese politeness as an interactional achievement: Academic consultation sessions in Japanese universities. Multilingua 25. 269–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, Manuela
2014 Beyond T and V – Theoretical reflections on the analysis of forms of address. American Journal of Linguistics. 3.1. 17–26.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
2010 Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 3232–3245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Oliveira, Sandie Michelle
2013 Address in computer-mediated communication. In: Susan Herring et al. (eds.), Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication, 291–313. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eelen, Gino
2001 A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan
1972 Sociolinguistic rules of address. In John B. Pride & Janet Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics, 225–240. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan, Jiansheng Guo & Martin Lampert
1990 Politeness and persuasion in children’s control acts. Journal of Pragmatics 14.2. 307–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce & William Nolen
1981 The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27. 93–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilman, Albert & Roger Brown
1958 Who says “tu” to whom? ETC: A Review of General Semantics 15.3. 169–174.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1972 Interaction ritual. Essays on face-to-face behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
1981 Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1975 Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and John L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. Vol, 3. Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael & Jonathan Culpeper
2018 Integrative pragmatics and (im)politeness theory. In Cornelia Ilie & Neal R. Norrick (eds.), Pragmatics and its Interfaces, 213–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes
2003 Politeness distinctions in second person pronouns. In Friedrich Lenz (ed.) Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person, 185–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hwang, Juck-Ryoon
1990 “Deference versus “Politeness” in Korean Speech. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 82. 41–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ide, Sakido
1988 Introduction. Multilingua 7.4. 371–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8.2–3. 223–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Daniel & Michael Haugh
2013 Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, Gabrielle
1990 Linguistic politeness: current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14.2. 193–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
1992 Les Interactions Verbales. Vol 2. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
1997 A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in-interaction. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association 7.1. 1–20.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2010a S’adresser à autrui. Les formes nominales d’adresse en français. Chambéry: Université de Savoie.Google Scholar
2010b The case for an eclectic approach to discourse-in-interaction. In Jürgen Streeck (ed.), New Adventures in language and interaction, 71–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2014 S’adresser à autrui: Les formes nominales d’adresse dans une perspective comparative interculturelle. Chambéry: Université de Savoie.Google Scholar
Kluge, Bettina & María Irene Moyna
(eds.) 2019 It’s not all about you. New perspectives on address research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kraska-Szlenk, Iwona
2018 Address inversion in Swahili: Usage patterns, cognitive motivation and cultural factors. Cognitive Linguistics 29.3. 545–583. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach
1973 The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. In Claudia Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark & Ann Weiser (eds.), Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
2005a Civility and its discontents. In Robin T. Lakoff & Sachiko Ide (eds.), Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness, 23–43. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005b The politics of nice. Journal of Politeness Research 1(2). 173–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2014 The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko
1989 Politeness and conversational universals – observations from Japanese’. Multilingua 8.2–3. 207–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter & Rom Harré
1990 Pronouns and People. The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Neveu, Franck
2003 Grammaires de l’adresse. Aspects de la discontinuité syntaxique. Cahiers de praxématique 40. 27–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogiermann, Eva & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
2019 Im/politeness between the analyst and participant perspectives: An overview of the field. In Eva Ogiermann & Pilar Garces-Conejos Blitvich (eds.), From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness: Multilingual and Multicultural Perspectives, 1–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Richard W.
1980 Review of Esther Goody, ed., Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. RELC Journal 11.2. 100–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John
1969 Speech Acts. An Essay on the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1976 A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in society 5, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina
2005 Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 1. 237–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, 45–74. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ton, Thoai N. L.
2019 A literature of address studies from pragmatic and sociolinguistic perspectives. In Bettina Kluge & María Irene Moyna (eds.), It’s not all about you. New perspectives on address research, 23–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vismans, Roel
2015 Negotiating address in a pluricentric language: Dutch/Flemish. In Catrin Norrby & Camilla Wide (eds.), Address practice as social action. European perspectives, 13–32. London: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Jojoën tussen u en je. Over de dynamiek van het gebruik van Nederlandse aanspreekvormen in het radioprogramma Casa Luna. Internationale neerlandistiek 54.2. 117–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Address negotiations in Dutch emails. In Bettina Kluge & María Irene Moyna (eds.), It’s not all about you. New perspectives on address research, 253–279. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard
1989 Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8. 2–3. 131–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In Richard J. Watts, Sakido Ide & Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language, 43–69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
2016 Terms of Address in European Languages: A Study in Cross-Linguistic Semantics and Pragmatics. In Keith Allan, Alessandro Capone & Istvan Kecskes (Eds.), Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use, 209–238. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 9. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar