Volume 9, Issue 2

This article engages with the notions of discernment and volition, developed by Ide (1989), in order to consider how the concept which these phenomena describe could be reintroduced into second-wave critical analysis of politeness and impoliteness. It is our contention that these terms have been used in a way which polarizes cultures, so that various East Asian cultures are characterized as ‘discernment cultures’ whilst Western cultures are seen as ‘volitional’. We argue that this polarization is problematic as it does not capture politeness behaviour beyond certain stereotypes, and as such it fails to address the complexities with which a cross-cultural examination of politeness needs to cope. Nevertheless, we believe that the cross-cultural phenomenon which Ide attempted to capture should not be completely ignored. Thus, we reconceptualize the notions of discernment and volition, by focusing on discernment, and we integrate this concept into a framework (Kádár 2013) based on convention and ritual, hence providing a way of using the term discernment in crosscultural (and intercultural) analysis.

Honorifics have traditionally been analyzed as markers of “deference” and have been connected with positive values such as “respect”, “dignity” and “elegance”. However, in this paper, I demonstrate that these readings only apply to normative and stereotypical patterns of honorifics use. When applied in other contexts, where their use is not normally expected, honorifics take on different social meanings, including sarcasm. Through the analysis of Korean television dramas, I show that sarcastic applications of honorifics may be applied both for “mock” impoliteness and “genuine” face-threatening impoliteness. Although these sarcastic usages occur most frequently between intimates (i.e., where the use of honorifics is marked), there also exist devices for being sarcastic towards adult strangers (even though in such contexts honorifics may be considered unmarked and normative). Crucially, my examples demonstrate that honorifics may communicate sarcasm in and of themselves. This sarcastic meaning is strongest when honorifics are applied in ways that remains “relevant”; in other words, when they make reference to knowledge or social norms shared by the community of practice. The findings confirm once and for all that honorifics are not “deferential” in an absolute sense. More broadly, the paper clarifies the position of sarcasm and irony within impoliteness theory.

In this paper we apply the framework of relational work, or the work individuals invest in maintaining their relationships (Locher and Watts 2005), to the analysis of prenatal screening (PS) for Down Syndrome of Chinese clients in Hong Kong. PS has traditionally followed a nondirective principle that calls for an unbiased presentation of information and women’s autonomous decision- making regarding testing. However, in Chinese contexts, healthcare providers appear extremely directive; and women, in turn, explicitly express their expectations of being led in decision-making (Zayts et al. 2013). These observations lend support to previous politeness studies of Chinese institutional contexts wherein hierarchical communication has been described as “listening-centered, asymmetrical and differential” (Gao and Ting-Toomey 1998: 48). More recent politeness studies, however, warn against such stereotyping at a cultural level (Eelen 2001; Mills 2003, 2004; Watts 2003). In this paper, rather than using culture as an a priori explanatory variable to account for the directive stance of the healthcare providers, we argue that using the framework of relational work enables researchers to focus on how meaning is created and negotiated at the micro-level of an interaction, and to move away from “grand generalizations” about culture specific behaviors and expectations.

Politeness research has much to offer work that explores the complexities of gate-keeping in a community of practice. In this article I draw upon principles and terminology from politeness research to explore the tension that arises when members of a particular community of practice (a university field hockey team) who are morally opposed to homosexuality are confronted with the fact that some of their teammates are openly gay. This line of investigation relies upon a redefinition of politeness2: I define politeness2 as the moral compulsion to respect the boundaries around different levels of social structure, which include (but are not limited to) sets of attitudes, perspectives and priorities. In the hockey players’ community of practice, two moral priorities are in conflict: an aversion to homosexuality on the one hand, and a desire for a friendly, socially inclusive club on the other. I investigate the various evaluative resources participants draw upon/produce in this community, which include evaluation schemes based upon the labels “rude” and “im/mature”. I claim that the label “im/mature” – and concepts related to this label – function in this community as a means of concealing the conflict between the two moral priorities and maintaining a commitment to both.