Cover not available

In: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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 16
Address and politeness

A theoretical exploration

 | University of Sheffield
Published online: 6 September 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tar.5.16vis
Abstract
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.
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
References (61)
References
Aalberse, Suzanne. 2004. Waer bestu bleven? Verdwijning van het pronomen du in een vergelijkend perspectief. Nederlandse Taalkunde 9.3. 231–252.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Alberdi-Larizgoitia, Xabier. 2018. Forms of address in Basque. Pragmatics: quarterly journal of the International Pragmatics Association 28.3. 303–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braun, Friederike (1988) Terms of Address. Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York & Amsterdam. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braun, Friederike, Armin Kohz & Klaus Schubert. 1986. Anredeforschung: Kommentierte Bibliographie zur Soziolinguistik der Anrede. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Roger & Marguerite Ford. 1961. Address in American English. Journal of abnormal and social psychology 62. 375–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society 18. 159–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1987. Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clyne, Michael, Catrin Norrby & Jane Warren. 2009. Language and human relations. Styles of address in contemporary language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, Haruko M. 2006. Japanese politeness as an interactional achievement: Academic consultation sessions in Japanese universities. Multilingua 25. 269–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2010. Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 3232–3245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eelen, Gino. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1972. Sociolinguistic rules of address. In John B. Pride & Janet Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics, 225–240. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce & William Nolen. 1981. The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27. 93–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilman, Albert & Roger Brown. 1958. Who says “tu” to whom? ETC: A Review of General Semantics 15.3. 169–174.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1972. Interaction ritual. Essays on face-to-face behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hwang, Juck-Ryoon. 1990. “Deference versus “Politeness” in Korean Speech. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 82. 41–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ide, Sakido. 1988. Introduction. Multilingua 7.4. 371–374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8.2–3. 223–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kádár, Daniel & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabrielle. 1990. Linguistic politeness: current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14.2. 193–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1992. Les Interactions Verbales. Vol 2. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.) 2010a. S’adresser à autrui. Les formes nominales d’adresse en français. Chambéry: Université de Savoie.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.) 2014. S’adresser à autrui: Les formes nominales d’adresse dans une perspective comparative interculturelle. Chambéry: Université de Savoie.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kluge, Bettina & María Irene Moyna (eds.) 2019. It’s not all about you. New perspectives on address research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kraska-Szlenk, Iwona. 2018. Address inversion in Swahili: Usage patterns, cognitive motivation and cultural factors. Cognitive Linguistics 29.3. 545–583. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005b. The politics of nice. Journal of Politeness Research 1(2). 173–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1989. Politeness and conversational universals – observations from Japanese’. Multilingua 8.2–3. 207–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter & Rom Harré. 1990. Pronouns and People. The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neveu, Franck. 2003. Grammaires de l’adresse. Aspects de la discontinuité syntaxique. Cahiers de praxématique 40. 27–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidt, Richard W. 1980. Review of Esther Goody, ed., Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. RELC Journal 11.2. 100–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay on the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in society 5, 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2005. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 1. 237–262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watts, Richard. 1989. Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8. 2–3. 131–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Liebscher, Grit, Cole Sutherland & Jennifer Dailey-O’Cain
2025. Functions of address in the German linguistic landscape. In Beyond Binaries in Address Research [Topics in Address Research, 6], ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 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