Factors in the perception of speaker politeness: the effect of linguistic structure, imposition and prosody
-
Nikos Vergis
Nikos Vergis researches the mechanisms that underlie our ability to understand what speakers mean beyond what is said. He is mainly concerned about how interlocutors derive meanings when taking into account various sources of information such as the speaker’s affective state. His research takes as a starting point theoretical frameworks in pragmatics (Gricean pragmatics, Speech Act Theory, Im/Politeness theories) and incorporates insights from research on the psychology of social and moral emotions, and social cognition.
und
Marc D. Pell
Marc D. Pell has a broad interest in how humans communicate their emotions, attitudes and intentions in speech. Much of his research has studied how a speaker’s tone of voice conveys meaning in spoken language, and how adult listeners use these cues as a source of pragmatic information for understanding another person’s emotions and cognitive state. He holds appointments as James McGill Professor and Director of the School of Communication Sciences and Disorders at McGill University (Montreal, Canada).
Abstract
Although linguistic politeness has been studied and theorized about extensively, the role of prosody in the perception of (im)polite attitudes has been somewhat neglected. In the present study, we used experimental methods to investigate the interaction of linguistic form, imposition, and prosody in the perception of (im)polite requests. A written task established a baseline for the level of politeness associated with certain linguistic structures. Then stimuli were recorded in polite and rude prosodic conditions and in a perceptual experiment they were judged for politeness. Results revealed that, although both linguistic structure and prosody had a significant effect on politeness ratings, the effect of prosody was much more robust. In fact, rude prosody led in some cases to the neutralization of (extra)linguistic distinctions. The important contribution of prosody to (im)politeness inferences was also revealed by a comparison of the written and auditory tasks. These findings have important implications for models of (im)politeness and more generally for theories of affective speech. Implications for the generation of Particularized Conversational Implicatures (PCIs) of (im)politeness are also discussed.
About the authors
Nikos Vergis researches the mechanisms that underlie our ability to understand what speakers mean beyond what is said. He is mainly concerned about how interlocutors derive meanings when taking into account various sources of information such as the speaker’s affective state. His research takes as a starting point theoretical frameworks in pragmatics (Gricean pragmatics, Speech Act Theory, Im/Politeness theories) and incorporates insights from research on the psychology of social and moral emotions, and social cognition.
Marc D. Pell has a broad interest in how humans communicate their emotions, attitudes and intentions in speech. Much of his research has studied how a speaker’s tone of voice conveys meaning in spoken language, and how adult listeners use these cues as a source of pragmatic information for understanding another person’s emotions and cognitive state. He holds appointments as James McGill Professor and Director of the School of Communication Sciences and Disorders at McGill University (Montreal, Canada).
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2016-04373) to MDP. We would like to thank Xiaoming Jiang for his help with some aspects of the analysis, and Therese Koch for preprocessing and organizing part of the raw data.
Funding
Funder Name: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Funder Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000038, Grant Number: RGPIN-2016-04373
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational Routines in English. Longman, London.Suche in Google Scholar
Ambady, Nalini, Jasook Koo, Fiona Lee & Robert Rosenthal. 1996. More than words: Linguistic and nonlinguistic politeness in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70(5). 996-1011.10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.996Suche in Google Scholar
Anolli, Luigi, Rita Ciceri & Maria Giaele Infantino. 2002. From “blame by praise” to “praise by blame”: Analysis of vocal patterns in ironic communication. International Journal of Psychology 37(5). 266-276.10.1080/00207590244000106Suche in Google Scholar
Argyle, Michael, Veronica Salter, Hilary Nicholson, Marylin Williams & Philip Burgess. 1970. The communication of inferior and superior attitudes by verbal and non‐verbal signals. British journal of social and clinical psychology 9(3). 222-231.10.1111/j.2044-8260.1970.tb00668.xSuche in Google Scholar
Argyle, Michael, Florisse Alkema & Robin Gilmour. 1971. The communication of friendly and hostile attitudes by verbal and non‐verbal signals. European Journal of Social Psychology 1(3). 385-402.10.1002/ejsp.2420010307Suche in Google Scholar
Arndt, Horst & Richard W. Janney. 1985. Politeness revisited: Cross-modal supportive strategies. IRAL, XXIII (4). 281-300.10.1515/iral.1985.23.1-4.281Suche in Google Scholar
Arndt, Horst & Richard W. Janney 1987. InterGrammar: Toward an Integrative Model of Verbal, Prosodic and Kinesic Choices in Speech (Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 2). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110872910Suche in Google Scholar
Astruc, Lluïsa, Maria del Mar Vanrell & Pilar Prieto. 2016. Cost of the action and social distance affect the selection of question intonation in Catalan. In Meghan E. Armstrong, Nicholas Henriksen, & Maria del Mar Vanrell (Eds.). Intonational Grammar in Ibero-Romance: Approaches across linguistic subfields. 91-114. John Benjamins.10.1075/ihll.6.05astSuche in Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Douglas J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 390-412.10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005Suche in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steven Walker. 2014. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1(7).10.18637/jss.v067.i01Suche in Google Scholar
Baumeister, Roy F., Ellen Bratslavsky, Catrin Finkenauer & Kathleen D. Vohs 2001. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4). 323-370. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.32310.1037/e413792005-154Suche in Google Scholar
Baxter, Leslie A. 1984. An investigation of compliance‐gaining as politeness. Human communication research 10(3). 427-456.10.1111/j.1468-2958.1984.tb00026.xSuche in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?. Journal of pragmatics 11(2). 131-146.10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5Suche in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House, & Gabriele Kasper. 1989. Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: an introductory overview. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House, & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.) Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. 1-36. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Suche in Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2013. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.51, retrieved 2 June 2013 from http://www.praat.org/Suche in Google Scholar
Borràs-Comes, Joan, Rafèu Sichel-Bazin, & Pilar Prieto. 2015. Vocative intonation preferences are sensitive to politeness factors. Language and Speech 58. 68-83.10.1177/0023830914565441Suche in Google Scholar
Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in interaction (Vol. 167). Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/pbns.167Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman 1989. Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in society 18(02). 159-212.10.1017/S0047404500013464Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1978/1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, Lucien & Pilar Prieto. 2017. (Im)politeness: Prosody and gesture. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Daniel Kádár (Eds.). The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness. 323-355. New York: Palgrave.10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_14Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, Lucien, Bodo Winter, Kaori Idemaru, & Sven Grawunder 2014. . Journal of Pragmatics 66. 45-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.011.10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.011Suche in Google Scholar
Caballero, Jonathan, Nikos Vergis, Xiaoming Jiang, & Marc D. Pell. 2018. The sound of im/politeness. Speech Communication 102. 39-53.10.1016/j.specom.2018.06.004Suche in Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia & Richard W. Janney. 1994. Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics 22. 325-373.10.1016/0378-2166(94)90115-5Suche in Google Scholar
Cheang, Henry S. & Marc D. Pell. 2008. The sound of sarcasm. Speech Communication 50(5). 366-381.10.1016/j.specom.2007.11.003Suche in Google Scholar
Cheang, Henry S. & Marc D. Pell. 2011. Recognizing sarcasm without language: A cross-linguistic study of English and Cantonese. Pragmatics & Cognition 19(2). 203-223.10.1075/bct.55.02cheSuche in Google Scholar
Chen, Aoju, Carlos Gussenhoven, & Toni Rietveld. 2004. Language-specificity in the perception of paralinguistic intonational meaning. Language and Speech. 4. 311-35010.1177/00238309040470040101Suche in Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Dale H. Schunk. 1980. Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition 8(2). 111-143.10.1016/0010-0277(80)90009-8Suche in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 1(1). 35-72. doi:10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.3510.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35Suche in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011a. “It’s not what you said, it’s how you said it!” Prosody and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Ed.). Discursive Approaches to Politeness. 57-83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110238679.57Suche in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011b. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511975752Suche in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield, & Anne Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of pragmatics 35(10). 1545-1579.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2Suche in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Michael Haugh, & Valeria Sinkeviciute. 2017. (Im)politeness and mixed messages. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Dániel Kádár (Eds.). The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness 357-379. New York: Palgrave.10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_13Suche in Google Scholar
Estellés Arguedas, Maria & Marta Albelda Marco. 2014. Evidentials, politeness and prosody in Spanish: A corpus analysis. Special Issue: The prosodic expression of linguistic im/politeness in Romance Languages. Journal of Politeness Research 10(1). pp. 29-62.10.1515/pr-2014-0003Suche in Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce & William Nolen. 1981. The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27. 93-109.10.1515/ijsl.1981.27.93Suche in Google Scholar
Gili Fivela, Barbara & Carla Bazzanella. 2014. The relevance of prosody and context to the interplay between intensity and politeness. An exploratory study on Italian. Special Issue: The prosodic expression of linguistic im/politeness in Romance Languages. Journal of Politeness Research 10(1). 97-126.10.1515/pr-2014-0005Suche in Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1999. Discreteness and Gradience in Intonational Contrasts. Language and Speech 42. 283-305.10.1177/00238309990420020701Suche in Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2002. Intonation and Interpretation: Phonetics and Phonology. In Bernard Bel & Isabelle Marlien (Eds.). Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002. 47-57. Aix-en-Provence, France.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2002-7Suche in Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. Paralinguistics: Three biological Codes. In Carlos Gussenhoven (Ed.). The phonology of tone and intonation. 71-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511616983.006Suche in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2007. The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 39(1). 84-110.10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.004Suche in Google Scholar
Hidalgo Navarro, Antonio. (Ed.). 2014. Special issue: The prosodic expression of linguistic im/politeness in Romance Languages. Journal of Politeness Research 10(1).10.1515/pr-2014-0002Suche in Google Scholar
Hidalgo Navarro, Antonio & Adrián Cabedo Nebot. 2014. On the importance of the prosodic component in the expression of linguistic im/politeness. Special Issue: The prosodic expression of linguistic im/politeness in Romance Languages. Journal of Politeness Research 10(1): 5-27. doi:10.1515/pr-2014-000210.1515/pr-2014-0002Suche in Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas. 2005. Social Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, and Linguistic Politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 1. 73-93.10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.73Suche in Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas & Joong-Nam Yang. 1992. Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: general principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of personality and social psychology 62(2). 246.10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.246Suche in Google Scholar
Horton, John J., David G. Rand, & Richard J. Zeckhauser. 2011. The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics 14. 399-425.10.3386/w15961Suche in Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 1989. Politeness in English and German: the functions of please and bitte. In Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper (Eds.) 96-119. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Suche in Google Scholar
Hübscher, Iris, Joan Borràs-Comes, & Pilar Prieto. 2017. Prosodic mitigation characterizes Catalan formal speech: The Frequency Code reassessed. Journal of Phonetics 65. 145-159.10.1016/j.wocn.2017.07.001Suche in Google Scholar
Jiang, Xiaoming & Xiaolin Zhou. 2015. Who is respectful? Effects of social context and individual empathic ability on ambiguity resolution during utterance comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 6. 1-16.10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01588Suche in Google Scholar
Jiang, Xiaoming & Marc D. Pell. 2016. The feeling of another’s knowing: how “mixed messages” in speech are reconciled. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 42 (9). 1412-1428.10.1037/xhp0000240Suche in Google Scholar
Jiang, Xiaoming & Marc D. Pell. 2017. The sound of confidence and doubt. Speech Communication 88, 106-126.10.1016/j.specom.2017.01.011Suche in Google Scholar
Kallia, Alexandra. 2004. Linguistic politeness: the implicature approach. Multilingua 23(1/2). 145-170.10.1515/mult.2004.003Suche in Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, P. Bruun Brockhoff, & R. Haubo Bojesen Christensen. 2016. lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models. Ver. 2.0-32.Suche in Google Scholar
Laplante, Debi, & Nalini Ambady. 2003. On how things are said: Voice tone, voice intensity, verbal content, and perceptions of politeness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22(4). 434-441. http://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X0325808410.1177/0261927X03258084Suche in Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. The logic of politeness: Or minding your P’s and Q’s. In Karen Adams, Nancy Conklin, Claudia Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark, & Ann Weiser (Eds.) 292-305. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.Suche in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.10.4324/9781315835976Suche in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Leichty, Greg & James L. Applegate. 1991. Social‐cognitive and situational influences on the use of face‐saving persuasive strategies. Human Communication Research 17(3). 451-484.10.1111/j.1468-2958.1991.tb00240.xSuche in Google Scholar
LimeSurvey Project Team / Carsten Schmitz 2015. / LimeSurvey: An Open Source survey tool/LimeSurvey Project, Hamburg, Germany. URL http://www.limesurvey.orgSuche in Google Scholar
Lin, Hsin-Yi, Kwock-Ping John Tse, and Janice Fon. 2006. An acoustic study on the paralinguistic prosody in the politeness talk in Taiwan Mandarin. In Antonis Botinis (Ed.). Proceedings of ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Experimental Linguistics. Athens, Greece.10.36505/ExLing-2006/01/0037/000037Suche in Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., & Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1. 9-33.10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9Suche in Google Scholar
McKinnon, Sean, & Pilar Prieto. 2014. The role of prosody and gesture in the perception of mock impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 10. 185-219.10.1515/pr-2014-0009Suche in Google Scholar
Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615238.006Suche in Google Scholar
Morton, J. Bruce & Sandra E. Trehub. 2001. Children’s understanding of emotion in speech. Child development 72(3). 834-843.10.1111/1467-8624.00318Suche in Google Scholar
Murray, Iain R. & John L. Arnott 1993. Toward the simulation of emotion in synthetic speech: A review of the literature on human vocal emotion. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 93(2). 1097-1108.10.1121/1.405558Suche in Google Scholar
Nadeu, Marianna, & Pilar Prieto. 2011. Pitch range, gestural information, and perceived politeness in Catalan. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 841-854.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.015Suche in Google Scholar
Ofuka, Etsuko, J. Denis McKeown, Mitch G. Waterman, & Peter J. Roach. 2000. Prosodic cues for rated politeness in Japanese speech. Speech Communication 32(3). 199-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(00)00009-110.1016/S0167-6393(00)00009-1Suche in Google Scholar
Ogiermann, Eva. 2009. Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 5(2). 189-216.10.1515/JPLR.2009.011Suche in Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1984. An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of fo of voice. Phonetica 41. 1-16.10.1159/000261706Suche in Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1994. The frequency code underlies the sound symbolic use of voice pitch. In Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols, and John J. Ohala (Eds.) Sound Symbolism. 325-347. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511751806.022Suche in Google Scholar
Orozco, Leonor. 2008. Peticiones corteses y factores prosódicos. In Esther Herrera Z. & Pedro Martín Butragueño (Eds.). Fonología Instrumental. Patrones fónicos y variación. 335-355. México: El Colegio de México.Suche in Google Scholar
Paolacci, Gabriele, Jesse Chandler, & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis. 2010. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5. 411-419.10.1017/S1930297500002205Suche in Google Scholar
Pell, Marc D. 2006. Judging emotion and attitudes from prosody following brain damage. Progress in brain research 156. 303-317.10.1016/S0079-6123(06)56017-0Suche in Google Scholar
Pell, Marc D., Silke Paulmann, Chinar Dara, Areej Alasseri, & Sonja A. Kotz. 2009. Factors in the recognition of vocally expressed emotions: A comparison of four languages. Journal of Phonetics 37(4). 417-435.10.1016/j.wocn.2009.07.005Suche in Google Scholar
Pell, Marc D., Abhishek Jaywant, Laura Monetta, & Sonja A. Kotz. 2011. Emotional speech processing: Disentangling the effects of prosody and semantic cues. Cognition & Emotion 25(5). 834-853. doi:10.1080/02699931.2010.51691510.1080/02699931.2010.516915Suche in Google Scholar
Porath, Christine L., Trevor Foulk, & Amir Erez 2015. How incivility hijacks performance. Organizational Dynamics 4(44). 258-265.10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.09.002Suche in Google Scholar
Rigoulot, Simon, Karyn Fish, & Marc D. Pell. 2014. Neural correlates of inferring speaker sincerity from white lies: An event-related potential source localization study. Brain Research 1565. 48-62.10.1016/j.brainres.2014.04.022Suche in Google Scholar
Riskin, Arieh, Amir Erez, Trevor A. Foulk, Amir Kugelman, Ayala Gover, Irit Shoris, Kinneret S. Riskin, & Peter A. Bamberger 2015. The impact of rudeness on medical team performance: A randomized trial. Pediatrics 136. 3: 487-495.10.1542/peds.2015-1385Suche in Google Scholar
Rothermich, Kathrin & Marc D. Pell. 2015. Introducing RISC: A new video inventory for testing social perception. PloS one 10(7). e0133902.10.1371/journal.pone.0133902Suche in Google Scholar
Rozin, Paul & Edward B. Royzman. 2001. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and social psychology review 5(4). 296-320.10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2Suche in Google Scholar
Scherer, Klaus R., D. Robert Ladd, & Kim EA Silverman. 1984. Vocal cues to speaker affect: Testing two models. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76(5). 1346-1356.10.1121/1.391450Suche in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (Vol. 626). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173438Suche in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in society 5(01). 1-23.10.1017/S0047404500006837Suche in Google Scholar
Schneider, Klaus P. & María Elena Placencia. 2017. (Im)politeness and regional variation. In & Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Daniel Kádár (Eds.). The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness. 539-570. New York: Palgrave.10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_21Suche in Google Scholar
Schnoebelen, Tyler, & Victor Kuperman. 2010. Using Amazon Mechanical Turk for linguistic research. Psihologija 43(4). 441-464.10.2298/PSI1004441SSuche in Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria & Angeliki Tzanne. 2010. Conceptualizations of politeness and impoliteness in Greek. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(4). 661-687.10.1515/iprg.2010.029Suche in Google Scholar
Snow, Rion, Brendan O’Connor, Daniel Jurafsky, & Andrew Y. Ng. 2008. Cheap and fast—but is it good? Evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks. In Mirella Lapata & Hwee Tou Ng (Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 254-263. New York: ACM.10.3115/1613715.1613751Suche in Google Scholar
Suri, Siddharth, & Duncan J. Watts. 2011. Cooperation and contagion in web-based, networked public goods experiments. PloS one 6(3). e16836.10.1371/journal.pone.0016836Suche in Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2003. Generalised and particularised implicatures of linguistic politeness. In: Peter Kühnlein, Hannes Rieser & Henk Zeevat (Eds.) Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium. PBNS 114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 149-164.10.1075/pbns.114.09terSuche in Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2005. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 1. 237-262.10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237Suche in Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 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/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110208344.1.45Suche in Google Scholar
Trees, April R. & Valerie Manusov. 1998. Managing face concerns in criticism: Integrating nonverbal behaviors as a dimension of politeness in female friendship dyads. Human Communication Research 24(4). 564-583.10.1111/j.1468-2958.1998.tb00431.xSuche in Google Scholar
Vergis, Nikos & Marina Terkourafi. 2015. The role of the speaker’s emotional state in (im)politeness assessments. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 34(3). 316-342.10.1177/0261927X14556817Suche in Google Scholar
Watts, Richard. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615184Suche in Google Scholar
Watts, Richard, Sachiko Ide, & Konrad Ehlich. 1992. Introduction. In Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich (Eds.). Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 1-17. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110886542Suche in Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2000. The attitudinal effects of prosody, and how they relate to emotion. In ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop (ITRW) on Speech and Emotion. Newcastle, Northern Ireland, UK, ISCA Archive, September 5-7. http://www.isca-speech.org/archive_open/speech_emotionSuche in Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2002. Attitudinal intonation and the inferential process. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002 Conference. 11-13 April 2002. 11-15.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2002-2Suche in Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2004. The intonation of please-requests: a corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics 36(9). 1521-1549. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.00310.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.003Suche in Google Scholar
Winter, Bodo & Sven Grawunder. 2012. The phonetic profile of Korean formal and informal speech registers. Journal of Phonetics 40(6). 808-815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2012.08.00610.1016/j.wocn.2012.08.006Suche in Google Scholar
Appendix A
Levels of imposition (low/high) are separated by a slash.
DR | PDR | CIR | |
1 | Lend me a nickel/hundred. | Please lend me a nickel/hundred. | Can you lend me a nickel/hundred? |
2 | Pick up my jacket/children. | Please pick up my jacket/children. | Can you pick up my jacket/children? |
3 | Show me your photo/birthmark. | Please show me your photo/birthmark. | Can you show me your photo/birthmark? |
4 | Read me the menu/novel. | Please read me the menu/novel. | Can you read me the menu/novel? |
5 | Give me a tissue/massage. | Please give me a tissue/massage. | Can you give me a tissue/massage? |
6 | Throw me a towel/party. | Please throw me a towel/party. | Can you throw me a towel/party? |
7 | Hang up the picture/curtains. | Please hang up the picture/curtains. | Can you hang up the picture/curtains? |
8 | Turn down the music/award. | Please turn down the music/award. | Can you turn down the music/award? |
9 | Get me the pencil/ladder. | Please get me the pencil/ladder. | Can you get me the pencil/ladder? |
10 | Pay for my sandwich/dinner. | Please pay for my sandwich/dinner. | Can you pay for my sandwich/dinner? |
11 | Carry my notebook/suitcase. | Please carry my notebook/suitcase. | Can you carry my notebook/suitcase? |
12 | Buy me a muffin/smartphone. | Please buy me a muffin/smartphone. | Can you buy me a muffin/smartphone? |
13 | Clean up the counter/garage. | Please clean up the counter/garage. | Can you clean up the counter/garage? |
14 | Install the update/washer. | Please install the update/washer. | Can you install the update/washer? |
15 | Replace the lightbulb/front tire. | Please replace the lightbulb/front tire. | Can you replace the lightbulb/front tire? |
16 | Open the window/cottage. | Please open the window/cottage. | Can you open the window/cottage? |
17 | Send me your email/homework. | Please send me your email/homework. | Can you send me your email/homework? |
18 | Pass him your message/bank card. | Please pass him your message/bank card. | Can you pass him your message/bank card? |
19 | Make me some coffee/cupcakes. | Please make me some coffee/cupcakes. | Can you make me some coffee/cupcakes? |
20 | Bring me the hammer/rent cheque. | Please bring me the hammer/rent cheque. | Can you bring me the hammer/rent cheque? |
21 | Repeat the question/workout. | Please repeat the question/workout. | Can you repeat the question/workout? |
22 | Put on your mittens/costume. | Please put on your mittens/costume. | Can you put on your mittens/costume? |
23 | Lift up the flashlight/sofa. | Please lift up the flashlight/sofa. | Can you lift up the flashlight/sofa? |
24 | Rewrite the number/story. | Please rewrite the number/story. | Can you rewrite the number/story? |
25 | Warm up my latte/body. | Please warm up my latte/body. | Can you warm up my latte/body? |
26 | Hand me your sweater/wallet. | Please hand me your sweater/wallet. | Can you hand me your sweater/wallet? |
27 | Fill in your address/complaints. | Please fill in your address/complaints. | Can you fill in your address/complaints? |
28 | Take out the butter/garbage. | Please take out the butter/garbage. | Can you take out the butter/garbage? |
29 | Clear out the drawer/closet. | Please clear out the drawer/closet. | Can you clear out the drawer/closet? |
30 | Tidy the hallway/cabin. | Please tidy the hallway/cabin. | Can you tidy the hallway/cabin? |
31 | Take off your glasses/T-shirt. | Please take off your glasses/T-shirt. | Can you take off your glasses/T-shirt? |
32 | Check on the oven/baby. | Please check on the oven/baby. | Can you check on the oven/baby? |
33 | Remove the cover/diaper. | Please remove the cover/diaper. | Can you remove the cover/diaper? |
34 | Describe your uncle/feelings. | Please describe your uncle/feelings. | Can you describe your uncle/feelings? |
35 | Arrange the flowers/workshop. | Please arrange the flowers/workshop. | Can you arrange the flowers/workshop? |
36 | Pile up the papers/boxes. | Please pile up the papers/boxes. | Can you pile up the papers/boxes? |
37 | Drive us to campus/Boston. | Please drive us to campus/Boston. | Can you drive us to campus/Boston? |
38 | Find me the scissors/answer. | Please find me the scissors/answer. | Can you find me the scissors/answer? |
Appendix B
Written Task
R output for main effects of the two critical variables in the model that took CIR as a reference category.
CIR as reference category | b | SE | t | p | |
Structure | CIR vs. DR | -1.446521 | 0.034259 | -42.22 | < 2e-16 *** |
CIR vs. PDR | 0.438646 | 0.034259 | 12.80 | < 2e-16 *** | |
Imposition | H vs. L | 0.136875 | 0.034590 | 3.96 | 7.69e-05 *** |
R output for main effects of the two critical variables in the model that took PDR as a reference category.
PDR as reference category | b | SE | t | p | |
Structure | PDR vs. DR | -1.88517 | 0.03445 | -54.72 | < 2e-16 *** |
PDR vs. CIR | -0.43865 | 0.03426 | -12.80 | < 2e-16 *** | |
Imposition | H vs. L | 0.22368 | 0.03445 | 6.49 | 9.23e-11 *** |
R output for main effects of the two critical variables in the model that took DR as a reference category.
DR as reference category | b | SE | t | p | |
Structure | DR vs. CIR | 1.446521 | 0.034259 | 42.22 | < 2e-16 *** |
DR vs. PDR | 1.885167 | 0.034449 | 54.72 | < 2e-16 *** | |
Imposition | H vs. L | 0.144737 | 0.034449 | 4.20 | 2.70e-05 *** |
Auditory Task
Main effects
R output for main effects of the three critical variables in the model that took CIR as a reference category.
CIR as reference category | b | SE | t | p | |
Structure | CIR vs. DR | -0.49653 | 0.02518 | -19.72 | < 2e-16 *** |
CIR vs. PDR | 0.09931 | 0.02518 | 3.94 | 8.00e-05 *** | |
Imposition | H vs. L | 0.07689 | 0.02517 | 3.05 | 0.002257 ** |
Prosody | P vs. R | -1.23067 | 0.02517 | -48.89 | < 2e-16 *** |
3-way interaction | 0.18462 | 0.05035 | 3.67 | 0.000246 *** |
R output for main effects of the three critical variables in the model that took PDR as a reference category.
PDR as reference category | b | SE | t | p | |
Structure | PDR vs. DR | -0.59584 | 0.02518 | -23.67 | < 2e-16 *** |
PDR vs. CIR | -0.09931 | 0.02518 | -3.94 | 8.00e-05 *** | |
Imposition | H vs. L | 0.05469 | 0.02517 | 2.17 | 0.0298 * |
Prosody | P vs. R | -1.40214 | 0.02517 | -55.70 | < 2e-16 *** |
3-way interaction | -0.12336 | 0.05035 | -2.45 | 0.0143 * |
R output for main effects of the three critical variables in the model that took DR as a reference category.
DR as reference category | b | SE | t | p | |
Structure | DR vs. CIR | 0.49653 | 0.02518 | 19.72 | < 2e-16 *** |
DR vs. PDR | 0.59584 | 0.02518 | 23.67 | < 2e-16 *** | |
Imposition | H vs. L | -0.02262 | 0.02517 | -0.90 | 0.369002 |
Prosody | P vs. R | -1.34416 | 0.02517 | -53.40 | < 2e-16 *** |
3-way interaction | -0.18462 | 0.05035 | -3.67 | 0.000246 *** |
Pairwise comparisons
R output and Cohen’s d in pairwise comparisons with a focus on structure.
Structure | Imposition | Prosody | b | SE | t | p | Cohen’s d |
CIR vs. DR | H | P | -0.49702 | 0.02246 | -22.13 | < 2e-16 *** | 0.58 |
CIR vs. PDR | H | P | 0.09991 | 0.02245 | 4.45 | 8.72e-06 *** | -0.11 |
DR vs. PDR | H | P | 0.59693 | 0.02245 | 26.59 | <2e-16 *** | -0.65 |
CIR vs. DR | L | P | -0.59598 | 0.02220 | -26.84 | < 2e-16 *** | 0.71 |
CIR vs. PDR | L | P | 0.07935 | 0.02220 | 3.57 | 0.000353 *** | -0.09 |
DR vs. PDR | L | P | 0.67533 | 0.02220 | 30.42 | <2e-16 *** | -0.74 |
CIR vs. DR | H | R | -0.60822 | 0.02523 | -24.10 | < 2e-16 *** | 0.67 |
CIR vs. PDR | H | R | -0.07357 | 0.02523 | -2.92 | 0.00355 ** | 0.07 |
DR vs. PDR | H | R | 0.53464 | 0.02523 | 21.19 | <2e-16 *** | 0.58 |
CIR vs. DR | L | R | -0.52654 | 0.02710 | -19.43 | <2e-16 *** | 0.56 |
CIR vs. PDR | L | R | 0.02738 | 0.02709 | 1.01 | 0.312 | |
DR vs. PDR | L | R | 0.55391 | 0.02710 | 20.44 | <2e-16 *** | 0.56 |
R output and Cohen’s d in pairwise comparisons with a focus on imposition.
Structure | Imposition | Prosody | b | SE | t | p | Cohen’s d |
DR | H vs. L | R | 0.08059 | 0.02153 | 3.743 | 0.000184 *** | -0.10 |
PDR | H vs. L | R | 0.09663 | 0.02822 | 3.42 | 0.000623 *** | 0.09 |
CIR | H vs. L | R | -0.004523 | 0.026928 | -0.17 | 0.867 | |
DR | H vs. L | P | -0.02262 | 0.02137 | -1.06 | 0.29 | |
PDR | H vs. L | P | 0.05469 | 0.02319 | 2.36 | 0.0184 * | 0.06 |
CIR | H vs. L | P | 0.07689 | 0.01991 | 3.86 | 0.000114 *** | 0.10 |
R output and Cohen’s d in pairwise comparisons with a focus on prosody.
Structure | Imposition | Prosody | b | SE | t | p | Cohen’s d |
DR | H | P vs. R | -1.34416 | 0.02173 | -61.87 | <2e-16 *** | 1.60 |
PDR | H | P vs. R | -1.40214 | 0.02619 | -53.53 | <2e-16 *** | 1.38 |
CIR | H | P vs. R | -1.23067 | 0.02425 | -50.75 | <2e-16 *** | 1.33 |
DR | L | P vs. R | -1.24095 | 0.02265 | -54.78 | <2e-16 *** | 1.43 |
PDR | L | P vs. R | -1.36020 | 0.02668 | -50.98 | <2e-16 *** | 1.31 |
CIR | L | P vs. R | -1.31209 | 0.02482 | -52.87 | <2e-16 *** | 1.41 |
Comparison of Written and Auditory Tasks
Comparison of Written and Auditory Tasks. Within each structure, the written form (W) is compared with polite (AP) and rude (AR) prosodic realizations in the auditory task.
DR | b | SE | t | p | ||
Imposition | Low | W vs. AP | 1.28754 | 0.09669 | 13.316 | <2e-16 *** |
W vs. AR | 0.04659 | 0.09669 | 0.482 | 0.631 | ||
High | W vs. AP | 1.45549 | 0.09389 | 15.502 | <2e-16 *** | |
W vs. AR | 0.11133 | 0.09389 | 1.186 | 0.24 | ||
PDR | ||||||
Imposition | Low | W vs. AP | -0.002464 | 0.145095 | -0.017 | 0.986 |
W vs. AR | -1.362662 | 0.145095 | -9.392 | 4.06e-14 *** | ||
High | W vs. AP | 0.1649 | 0.1477 | 1.116 | 0.268 | |
W vs. AR | -1.2372 | 0.1477 | -8.376 | 3.15e-12 *** | ||
CIR | ||||||
Imposition | Low | W vs. AP | 0.44262 | 0.11530 | 3.84 | 0.000262 *** |
W vs. AR | -0.86947 | 0.11530 | -7.54 | 1.05e-10 *** | ||
High | W vs. AP | 0.50661 | 0.11528 | 4.395 | 3.69e-05 *** | |
W vs. AR | -0.72406 | 0.11528 | -6.281 | 2.16e-08 *** | ||
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Impoliteness in reader comments on the Al-Jazeera channel news website
- Factors in the perception of speaker politeness: the effect of linguistic structure, imposition and prosody
- Three-year-olds infer polite stance from intonation and facial cues
- Do indirect requests communicate politeness? An experimental study of conventionalized indirect requests in French email communication
- Book Reviews
- Grainger, Karen and Sara Mills. 2016. Directness and Indirectness Across Cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Hardback ISBN 978-1-157-34038-2. 177 pp. Price Hb GBP 44.99; e-book GBP 35.99.
- Sharifian, Farzad. 2017. Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 171 pp., Paperback ISBN 978-90-272-0412-7. Price Hb EUR 95
- Wei-Lin Melody Chang. 2015. Face and Face Practices in Chinese Talk-in-Interaction. Sheffield: Equinox. Hardback ISBN-13 978-1-78179-134-9. 172pp., Price: HB £75.00 / $100.00
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Impoliteness in reader comments on the Al-Jazeera channel news website
- Factors in the perception of speaker politeness: the effect of linguistic structure, imposition and prosody
- Three-year-olds infer polite stance from intonation and facial cues
- Do indirect requests communicate politeness? An experimental study of conventionalized indirect requests in French email communication
- Book Reviews
- Grainger, Karen and Sara Mills. 2016. Directness and Indirectness Across Cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Hardback ISBN 978-1-157-34038-2. 177 pp. Price Hb GBP 44.99; e-book GBP 35.99.
- Sharifian, Farzad. 2017. Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 171 pp., Paperback ISBN 978-90-272-0412-7. Price Hb EUR 95
- Wei-Lin Melody Chang. 2015. Face and Face Practices in Chinese Talk-in-Interaction. Sheffield: Equinox. Hardback ISBN-13 978-1-78179-134-9. 172pp., Price: HB £75.00 / $100.00
