Brown and Levinson's politeness theory specifies five strategies for achieving politeness. Although the strategies are presented as ordered and mutually exclusive, there is reason to believe that they are neither The authors offer an alternative means of classifying requests that is grounded in the phenomenology of the social actor and depends on three message features: explicitness, dominance, and argument. Separate samples of judges viewed video clips of one college student attempting to influence another and provided judgments ofpoliteness (n = 100), explicitness and overall dominance (n = 435), linguistic dominance (n = 80), or argument (n = 60). A regression analysis predicting politeness was conducted using message as the unit of analysis. The results showed a strong, negative relationship between politeness and dominance and weaker, positive associations with explicitness and argument.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, R. G. (1989). Conceptual and methodological issues in studying friendship in older adults. In R. G. Adams & R. Bliezner (Eds.), Older adult friendship (pp. 17-41). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Allan, G. (1989). Friendship: Developing a sociological perspective. Boulder, CO: Westview.
3.
Ambady, N., Koo, J., Lee, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1996). More than words: Linguistic and nonlinguistic politeness in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 996-1011.
4.
Aronsson, K, & Satterlund-Larsson, U. (1987). Politeness strategies and doctor-patient communication. On the social choreography of collaborative thinking. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 1-27.
5.
Becker, J. A., Kimmel, H. D., & Bevill, M. J. (1989). The interactive effects of request form and speaker status on judgments of requests. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 521-531.
6.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.
7.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1992). The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 255-280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
8.
Braun, F. (1988). Terms of address: Problems ofpatterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
9.
Brehm, S., & Brehm, J. (1981). Psychological reactance:A theory offreedom and control. New York: Academic Press.
10.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56-289). London: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1989). Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies. Language and Society, 18, 159-212.
13.
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Hale, J. L., & deTurck, M. A. (1984). Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research, 10, 351-378.
14.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 194-214.
15.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19-41.
16.
Cody, M. J., Canary, D. J., & Smith, S. W (1994). Compliance-gaining goals: An inductive analysis of actors' goal types, strategies, and successes. In J. Daly & J. Wiemann (Eds.), Communicating strategically: Strategies in interpersonal communication (pp. 33-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Cody, M. J., McLaughlin, M. L., & Jordan, W J. (1980). A multi-dimensional scaling of three sets of compliance-gaining strategies. Communication Quarterly, 28, 34-46.
18.
Cohen, J. (1987). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences (Rev. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Coupland, N., Grainger, K, & Coupland, J. (1988). Politeness in context: Intergenerational issues [review article]. Language and Society, 17, 253-262.
21.
Craig, R. T., Tracy, K, & Spisak, F. (1986). The discourse of requests: Assessment of a politeness approach. Human Communication Research, 12, 437-468.
22.
Dillard, J. P. (1989). Types of influence goals in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 293-308.
23.
Dillard, J. P., Palmer, M. T., & Kinney, T. A. (1995). Relational inference in an influence context. Human Communication Research. 21, 331-353.
24.
Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Samp, J. A. (1996). Framing social reality: The relevance of relational judgments. Communication Research, 23, 703-723.
25.
Ervin-Tripp, S., Guo, J., & Lampert, M. (1990). Politeness and persuasion in children's control acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 307-331.
26.
Falbo, T. (1977). Multidimensional scaling of power strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 537-547.
27.
Falbo, T., & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 618-628.
28.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
29.
Harkness, C. D. (1990). Competition for resources and the origins of manipulative language. In J. P. Dillard (Ed.), Seeking compliance: The production of interpersonal influence messages (pp. 21-40). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch-Scarisbrick.
30.
Hays, R. B. (1988). Friendship. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 391-408). New York: John Wiley.
31.
Held, G. (1992). Politeness in linguistic research. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 131-153). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
32.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. N. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 719-729.
33.
Hornstein, G. A. (1985). Intimacy in conversational style as a function of the degree of closeness between members of a dyad. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 671-681.
34.
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251-265.
35.
Janney, R. W., & Arndt, H. (1992). Intracultural tact versus intercultural tact. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 21-41). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
36.
Katriel, T., & Philipsen, G. (1981). "What we need is communication": "Communication' as a cultural category in some American speech. Communication Monographs, 48, 302-317.
37.
Kellermann, K, & Cole, T. (1994). Classifying compliance-gaining messages: Taxonomic disorder and strategic confusion. Communication Theory, 4, 3-60.
38.
Kemper, S., & Thissen, D. (1981). Memory for the dimensions of requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 552-563.
39.
Kim, M. S., & Wilson, S. R. (1994). A cross-cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting. Communication Monographs, 61, 210-235.
40.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.
41.
Kleiner, B. (1996). Class ethos and politeness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 155-175.
42.
Krauss, R. M. (1987). The role of the listener: Addressee influences on message formulation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 81-98.
43.
Langer, E., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of "placebic" information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 635-642.
44.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
45.
Lim, T.-S. (1990). Politeness behavior in social influence situations. In J. P. Dillard (Ed.), Seeking compliance: The production of interpersonal influence messages (pp. 75-86). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch-Scarisbrick.
46.
Lim, T.-S., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 17, 415-450.
47.
Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1967). Compliance-gaining behavior: A synthesis and model. Sociological Quarterly, 8, 317-328.
48.
Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1987). Relational dimensions of interpersonal dynamics. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes (pp. 117-139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49.
Pan, Y. (1995). Power and linguistic behavior: Analysis of politeness phenomena in Chinese official settings. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 462-481.
50.
Penman, R. (1990). Facework and politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 15-38.
51.
Planalp, S. (1993). Friends' and acquaintances conversations II: Coded differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 339-354.
52.
Planalp, S., & Benson, A. (1992). Friends' and acquaintances' conversations: Perceived differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 483-506.
53.
Rawlins, W K (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
54.
Roloff, M. E., Janiszewski, C. A., McGrath, M. A., Burns, C. S., & Manrai, L. A. (1988). Acquiring resources from intimates: When obligation substitutes for persuasion. Human Communication Research, 14, 364-396.
55.
Rule, B. G., Bisanz, G. L., & Kohn, M. (1985). Anatomy of a persuasion schema: Target, goals, and strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1127-1140.
56.
Schreier, M., Groeben, N., & Blickle, G. (1995). The effects of (un-)fairness and (im-)politeness on the evaluation of argumentative communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 260-288.
57.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.B.K. (1983). Face in interethnic communication. In J. C. Richards & R. W Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 156-188). London: Longman.
58.
Shimanoff, S. B. (1977). Investigating politeness. In E. O. Keenan & T. L. Bennet (Eds.), Discourse across time and space (pp. 213-241). Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press.
59.
Solomon, D. H. (1997). Adevelopmental model of intimacy and date request explicitness. Communication Monographs, 64, 99-118.
60.
Sonnenschein, S. (1986). Development of referential communication skills: How familiarity with a listener affects a speaker's production of redundant messages. Developmental Psychology, 22, 549-552.
61.
Suttles, G. D. (1970). Friendship as a social institution. In G. J. McCall, M. M. McCall, N. K. Denzin, G. D. Suttles, & S. B. Kurth (Eds.), Social relationships (pp. 95-135). Chicago: Aldine.
62.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of argumentation theory: A critical survey of classical backgrounds and modern studies. Dordrecht-Holland: Foris.
63.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: W W Norton.
64.
Willbrand, M. L., & Rieke, R. D. (1991). Strategies of reasoning in spontaneous discourse. In J. A. Andersen (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 14, pp. 414-440). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
65.
Wilson, S. R. (1992). Face and facework in negotiation. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and negotiation (pp. 176-205). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
66.
Wilson, S. R., Aleman, C. G., & Leathem, G. B. (in press). Identity implications of influence goals: Arevised analysis of face-threatening acts and application to seeking compliance with same-sex friends. Human Communication Research.
67.
Wilson, S. R., Kim, M. S., & Meischke, H. (1991-1992). Evaluating Brown and Levinson's politeness theory: A revised analysis of directives and face. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 25, 215-252.
68.
Wiseman, R. L., & Schenck-Hamlin, W J. (1981). A multidimensional scaling validation of an inductively-derived set of compliance-gaining strategies. Communication Monographs, 48, 251-270.
