Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 25:3 (2015) ► pp.477–499

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

The influence of the addressers’ and the addressees’ gender identities on the addressers’ linguistic politeness behavior

Some evidence from criticisms in Taiwanese media discourse

Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 September 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.25.3.07tan
People’s power and status can be manifested through the language they use. It was generally perceived that men’s speeches are more assertive and direct than women’s because of men’s higher social status in the societies. Yet, studies have argued that there should be no difference in terms of men and women’s linguistic politeness behaviors if they are in the same power position; instead, the addressees’gender is the critical determinant to the addressers’linguistic performances. This research provided some evidence from evaluative communications in TV reality talent shows to further verify whether or not the addressers’ and the addressees’ gender id entities are significantly correlated to the addressers’ linguistic politeness behavior, focusing specifically on their use of mitigating strategies for criticism amelioration. The current analysis referred to Brown and Levinson’s(1987) politeness theory and face notion. Results manifested that it is the addressers’ gender instead of the addressees’ gender that was related to the addressers’ communication style in this particular situational context. Specifically, male judges utilized more mitigating utterances than female judges did. The major implication of the findings is that the functions of politeness devices that speakers perceive and the situational information of the speech context leave greater influences on the addressers’ politeness behavior than the gender of their addressees.
References (55)
Bashiruddin, A., J. Edge, and E. Hughes-Pélégrin (1990) Who Speaks in Seminars? Status, culture and gender at Durham University. In R. Clark, N. Fairclough, R. Ivanic, N. McLeod, J. Thomas, and P. Meara (eds.), Language and Power. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching, pp. 74-84.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, and G. Kasper (1989) Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brouwer, D., M. Gerritsen, and D. de Haan (1979) Speech differences between women and men: On the wrong track? Language in Society 81: 33-50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brouwer, D. (1982) The influence of the addressee’s sex on politeness in language use. Linguistics 201: 697-711.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P. (1980) How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, and F. Furman (eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger,pp. 111-136.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., and S.C. Levinson (1987) Politeness: Some universalsin language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coates, J. (1996) Women Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Bie, M.L.W. (1987) Classroom interaction: Survival of the fittest. In D. Brouwer, and D. de Haan (eds.), Women’s Language, Socialization and Self-Image. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 76-88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeFrancisco, V.L. (1998) The sounds of silence: How men silence women in marital relations. In J. Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 484-494.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duijm, K. (1987) Learning to ‘be’ at school: Authority and warmth in the classroom. In D. Brouwer, and D. de Haan (eds.), Women’s Language, Socialization and Self-Image. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 89-113.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edelsky, C., and K. Adams (1990) Creating inequality: Breaking the rules in debates. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 91: 171-190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Færch, C., and G. Kasper (1989) Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, and G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood: Ablex, pp. 221-247.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fishman, P.M. (1978) Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems 251:397-406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1976) Interaction Ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1980) Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry 501: 272-302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975) Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haas, A. (1979) The acquisition of genderlect. Annals of theNew York Academy of Sciences: Language, sex, and gender 3271: 101-113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1984) Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 81: 345-365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1988) Sex differences in seminar contributions. BAAL News-Letter 311: 33-41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1989) Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics 101: 194-213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1990) Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society 191: 155-199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1993a) Women’s talk in public contexts. Discourse and Society 31: 131-150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1993b) New Zealand women are good to talk to: An analysis of politeness strategies in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 201: 91-116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1995) Women, Men, and Politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T., and J.N. Yang (1990) Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 591: 719-729. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
House, J., and G.Kasper (1981) Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in standardised communication situation and pre-patterned speech. New York: Mouton Publishers, pp. 157-185.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ide, S., M. Hori, A. Kawasaki, S. Ikuta, and H. Haga (1986) Sex difference and politeness in Japanese. International Journal of the Society of Language 58:225-236.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Itakura, H., and B.M. Tsui (2011) Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese and English book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics 431: 1366-1379. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, D.M., and D.H. Roen (1992)Compliment and involvement in peer reviews: Gender variation. Language in Society 211:27-57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnstone, B., K. Ferrara, and J.J. Bean (1992) Gender, politeness, and discourse management in same-sex and cross-sex opinion-poll interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 181:405-430. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1994) Politeness. In R.E. Asher (ed.), The Encycopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 3206-3211.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kitagawa, C. (1979) A source of femininity in Japanese: In defence of Robin Lakoff’s ‘Language and Woman’s Place’. Papers in Linguistics 101: 275-298. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, R (1973) The logic of politeness: Or, mindingyour p’s and q’s. In Proceeding of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society . Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 292-305.
. (1975)Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G.N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ng, S.H., and J.J. Bradac (1993) Power in Language. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Barr, W., and B. Atkins (1980) Women’s language or powerless language. In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, and N. Furman (eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger, pp. 93-110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reid, J. (1995) A study of gender differences in minimal responses. Journal of Pragmatics 241: 489-512. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rundquist, S. (1992) Indirectness: Agender study of flouting Grice’s maxims. Journal of Pragmatics 181: 431-449. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scollon, R., and S. Wong-Scollon (1991) Topic confusion in English-Asian discourse. World Englishes 91: 113-123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1975) Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole, and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, pp.59-82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skewis, M. (2003) Mitigated directness in Honglou meng: Directive speech acts and politeness in eighteen century Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 351:161-189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swacker, M. (1979) Women’s verbal behavior at learned and professional conferences. In B.L. Dubois, and I. Crouch (eds.), The Sociology of the Languages of American Women. San Antonio: Trinity University, pp. 155-160.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tanaka, L. (2009) Communicative stances in Japanese interviews: Gender differences in formal interactions. Language and Communication 291:366-382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, D.F. (1990) You Just Don’t Understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watts, R.J. (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
West, C. (2010) Turn-taking in doctor-patient dialogues. In P.J. Brown, and R.L. Barrett (eds.), Understanding and Applying Medical Anthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, pp. 375-384.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
West, C., and D. Zimmerman (1983) Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, and N. Henley (eds.), Language, Gender, and Society. Rowley: Newbury House, pp. 86-111.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, M.-C. (2005) Sociolinguistic competence in the complimenting act of native Chinese and American English speaker. Language and Speech 481: 91-119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Y. (1995) Indirectness in Chinese requesting. In G. Kasper (ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 69-118.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D., and C. West (1975) Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, and N. Henley (eds.), Language, Gender, and Society. Rowley: Newbury House, pp. 105-129.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Tang, Chihsia
2023. Mandarin Chinese peer advice online: a study of gender disparity. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 59:1 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Makarova, Veronika & Elham Pourmohammadi
2020. Age and gender in Iranian ‘taaroff’ politeness system. International Journal of Language and Culture 7:2 ► pp. 164 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue