Sifianou - 2013 - The Impact of Globalisation On Politeness and Impoliteness PDF

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
The impact of globalisation on politeness and impoliteness

Maria Sifianou *
National and Kapodistrian, University of Athens, School of Philosophy, Faculty of English Studies,
Panepistimioupoli Zographou, 157 84 Athens, Greece
Received 22 October 2012; received in revised form 7 May 2013; accepted 31 May 2013
Abstract
Globalisation tends to be perceived as one of the most powerful forces shaping todays world. In its simplest sense, globalisation
refers to the acceleration of processes of interconnectedness in every aspect of social life. It is assumed that this will lead to the
homogenisation of the world under the influence of the omnipresent American culture. However, since globalisation is a process rather
than an end state, its consequences are contingent on various factors and are, therefore, uncertain and unpredictable.
Discourse practices fall within the heart of this interconnectedness not least because it entails various kinds of interaction. In this
paper, I would like to consider if and to what extent globalisation affects the expression of politeness and impoliteness. I will draw my
evidence from the service sector, primarily in Greece and in England. More specifically, I will consider issues of formality and informality
and terms of address, drawing from naturally occurring data and research findings. Such evidence may offer indications as to the kinds of
changes that increased interconnectedness may produce. Without denying the homogenising power of globalisation, it is argued that
greater interconnectedness does not necessarily mean cultural homogenisation but rather change arising out of various sources.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Im-Politeness; Globalisation; Formality/Informality; Service encounters
1. Introduction
The expanding use of certain formulaic expressions, such as Hi, how are you today? and Have a nice day or the
use of customers first names in some service contexts in Britain have been explored in the relevant literature and have
frequently been attributed to the influence of American culture. Such innovations are disliked by many service employees
and customers alike and are even perceived by some as signs of impoliteness (see, e.g., Cameron, 2007:134). For
instance, Cameron (2007:134) contends that [t]his kind of service-talk is no longer something the British remark on with
outraged astonishment, as they often did when it was new; yet I suspect it still grates on many British ears. We do not care
for false friendliness, and we still find some. . . [such] techniques rude -- intrusive, pushy, over-familiar. Interestingly, for
both the emergence and expansion of such new practices in service contexts and the assumed increase in impoliteness,
the blame is laid on globalisation through the simple explanation that traditional British politeness norms are being
displaced by essentially American ones. Since U.S. norms are based on showing intimacy rather than respectful distance,
they strike many conservative Britons as impolite (Cameron, 2007:135).
This trend has also been noted and evaluated in various blogs. For some bloggers, it is perceived simply as a social
convention, part of business etiquette, which they either accept as such or dislike because it is perceived as automatic and
mostly insincere. Some suggested appropriate responses along the lines of Im fine, thank you, and you?, whereas
others put forward more literal or more creative responses such as Do you really want to know or are you just being
* Tel.: +30 210 727 7809; fax: +30 210 727 7864.
E-mail address: msifian@enl.uoa.gr.
0378-2166/$ -- see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.016
M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102
87
polite? What transpires from such views is that this kind of innovative verbal conduct is seen as polite but insincere, and a
conflict arises because it is viewed as inappropriate in the context of strangers who do not really care about each other.
In this paper, I would like to consider if and to what extent globalisation affects the expression of politeness and
impoliteness in the present-day sociocultural reality of major economic, political, social and cultural change. I will draw my
evidence from the service sector, primarily in Greece and in England. More specifically, I will consider issues of formality
and informality and, in particular, terms of address. Such evidence may offer indications as to the kinds of changes that
increased interconnectedness may produce. It is argued that increased interconnectedness does not necessarily mean
cultural homogenisation but rather change arising out of the confluence of local and global social forces; thus, local norms
and continuity should not be ignored. This paper starts with a brief outline of what globalisation is and how it can have such
diverse effects.
2. Globalisation, culture and politeness

Globalisation tends to be perceived as one of the most powerful forces shaping todays world. In its simplest form,
globalisation is supposed to refer to the acceleration of processes of interconnectedness in every aspect of social life,
most evidently in pervasive cultural symbols such as Coca-Cola and Madonna (Held et al., 2003:327; Turner, 2010), and
in discursive practices, which are the focus of this paper. In this context, language is viewed as a commodity and, like other
commodities, is seen as falling under the sweeping power of American culture and norms (Meyerhoff and Niedzielski,
2003:535; Heller, 2003). In fact, for some, globalisation is a cover term for Americanisation (see, e.g., Turner, 2010:6).
Even though there is much theoretical and empirical discussion on globalisation, there is very little agreement as to what
exactly it is. The term seems to be not only fashionable but it is also highly contested and variably used (see, e.g., Held
et al., 2003:1; Bauman, 2000: 1; Block, 2004:14--15; Fairclough, 2006:1--7; Turner, 2010:9--10). For Garrett (2010:417)
globalization is often viewed as a catchword . . . whose meaning is vague and elusive, and which is consequently open
to variable interpretations. As Strange (1996:xiii, xii) vividly remarks, globalisation is a term that can refer to anything
from the Internet to a hamburger. It is one of those vague and woolly words, freely bandied about in the literature, but
whose precise meaning is seldom if ever clearly defined. There is no doubt then that this ambiguity of the term highlights
the complexity of the phenomenon itself.
Among the various threats attributed to globalisation, two are pertinent here: the homogenisation of the world under the
influence of the omnipresent American culture, and the insidious spread of English at the expense of lesser-used languages
(see, e.g., Trudgill, 2002:147). However, on the positive side there is the increase in intercultural encounters, with the
concomitant assumption of the facilitation of intercultural contacts (see, e.g., Block, 2004). As Turner (2010:6) observes,
globalisation studies have been characterised by either extreme pessimism or naive optimism but cautions us against such
simple dichotomies and further adds that we should not fail to see the complexities of the process and the interaction between
local cultures and global processes, resulting in a new dynamic between the local and the global (see also Blommaert, 2003).
In other words, as Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999:81) contend, globalisation should be seen as a dialectic of the
global and the local. Androutsopoulos (2010:204) insightfully observes that [g]lobalization is not a unidirectional process
by which linguistic or cultural elements are diffused and uncritically adopted. In Couplands (2010:5) words, globalisation
is better seen as a complex of processes through which difference as well as uniformity is generated, but in relation to
each other. The last two definitions also raise the issue of globalisation being a process rather than an end state
(Meyerhoff and Niedzielski, 2003:537). This complex interrelationship of the global and the local is frequently rendered by
the notion of glocalisation. Glocalization both highlights how local cultures may critically adapt or resist global
phenomena, and reveals the way in which the very creation of localities is a standard component of globalization
(Giulianotti and Robertson, 2007:134). In essence, globalisation is a motivating force for profound political, social,
economic and cultural change. However, any observed changes within this process should not be associated solely with
global convergence since globalization represents something other than straightforward Americanization or
Westernization (Dewey, 2007:335; see also Turner, 2010:6). Even the use of the English language itself seems to
be becoming less dominant on the internet and practically everywhere else (Snoddy, 2003:25; Block, 2004:23).
Consequently, as has been noted by many researchers (see, e.g., Fairclough, 1996:5), it is a mistake to perceive
globalisation as the unification of the world because inequalities are widening rather than shrinking. Rather paradoxically,
increased concern with globalisation has brought the local to the forefront, as is evidenced, for instance, in the resurgence
of local nationalisms (see, e.g., Meyerhoff and Niedzielski, 2003:537). The collapse of space, time and borders may be
creating a global village, but not everyone can be a citizen (United Nations Development Report, quoted in Dunne,
1999:22). This is a significant observation because access to globalised products is not available to whole communities
but only to certain elite minorities. As Blommaert (2003:609) suggests, a realistic look at globalisation processes indicates
that not everybody is part of such processes but only particular mediating actors. He (2003:613) further adds that
sociolinguistic globalisation does not occur everywhere, but in particular different yet interconnected places and not in
88
others, and this is a structural and systemic matter with deep historical roots, not a coincidental one. So one could
conclude that there are profound changes around the world but that change may or may not lead to homogenisation. It
seems that societies have to discover ways to adjust to a far more interrelated but also diversified and uncertain world than
the previous one was.
Despite the plethora of publications on globalisation in social theory and in cultural studies, linguistics, and more
specifically sociolinguistics, is lagging behind (but see, e.g., Coupland, 2003, 2010; Cameron, 2000a and elsewhere).
Linguistically related work has mostly focused on the spread of English and its power as the dominant language. Even
though such views have been problematised (see, e.g., Mufwene, 2002) what has attracted less attention is the diffusion
of certain discourse norms from the English-speaking world, which may displace established local ways of interacting
without displacing local languages as such (Cameron, 2003:28, emphasis in the original). The implication of this is that
local discourse practices are being increasingly affected by external forces to the extent that commonalities surpass
differences. In this connection, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999:80) state that generic forms, such as the interview,
transcend their locality and become techniques usable in others. However, one can argue here that such genres become
localised to satisfy local preferences. The genre may be transferred but its ideology or associated cultural values may be
ignored or viewed differently in the new context (Garrett, 2010:449). Cameron (2003:33), for instance, notes that a
McDonalds restaurant in Budapest will serve its customers in Hungarian, but the use of Hungarian will follow the norms of
interaction which prevail in the companys headquarters in Chicago. She further adds that if this style is successful, some
of its features may be adopted by local firms and local entrepreneurs may establish themselves as consultants offering
advice to local businesses. This is one of the ways that certain ideologies and communication practices spread.
And yet there are counter-examples, such as a Swedish McDonalds restaurant where servers address lone customers
using neither the norms of American informality nor the usual Swedish second person singular but rather an impersonal
construction like will there be fries with that? (Cameron, 2006:134), a re-emerging avoidance strategy which was dominant
in Swedish until the mid-seventies when it was replaced by the less formal singular (T) form (Clyne et al., 2009:8, 23). In
contrast, the Swedish firm IKEA requires the use of singular forms to single addressees even in its operations outside
Sweden (Cameron, 2006:133; Clyne et al., 2009: 62). If this practice were transferred to Greece and other places, I suppose,
it would be met with strange looks and even cutting remarks. As is well known, pronominal distinctions are common
strategies which may convey politeness and distance or intimacy but they are highly culturally bound and inappropriate use
may cause offence (see, e.g., Clyne et al., 2009; Formentelli, 2009; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2011).
The above examples indicate that the emerging picture is highly complex, so it seems rather simplistic to assume that it
is only external forces which influence local norms. Even if a certain degree of influence is attested by the use in certain
multinationals (e.g., McDonalds or Fridays), this does not mean that the whole (local and multinational) service sector will
be similarly affected. If, for instance, informality emerges as a common practice in various communities and in contexts in
which it was previously perceived as rather inappropriate, this innovation may not be as widespread or may reflect other
sources of origin (e.g., re-emerging older local norms or anti-establishment). Such informality may be better seen as a
case of variation, but variation does not necessarily lead to change. In the era of globalisation, interlocutors have access to
a wider range of resources which they can combine in different, novel and creative ways. They do not inevitably reproduce
imported global discourse practices but may change and reconstruct these practices in ways that seem more appropriate.
Thus rather than assuming that it is only powerful external forces which influence local discourse norms we should also
turn our attention to other factors, such as local norms and continuity and the possibility of confluence of local and global
social forces. I would like to consider the issue of politeness and impoliteness in this framework. Is the balance between
the internal and external forces which shape politeness conventions tipping over into impoliteness? To look at this, I will
briefly consider the use of formality and informality, focusing on the practices of address in a few service contexts. Service
contexts are of the prime exemplars of the globalised new economies, which are perceived as the driving forces behind
the commodification of language and discourse practices.
3. Formality and politeness
Formality is a multidimensional phenomenon and, thus, hard to define, largely because it subsumes many factors
including familiarity, seriousness and politeness (Trudgill, 1983:107; see also Pearce, 2005:69). However, formality and
politeness have been frequently treated as equivalent.1 In everyday parlance, in English at least, politeness is frequently
perceived as referring to the use of relatively formal and deferential language, as Spencer-Oatey (2008:2) notes. This
1
For instance, the formal V-form to address single others is commonly referred to as polite or deferential plural (see, e.g., Braun, 1988:46;
Sifianou, 1992:60, 80) when in fact it indicates social differences and distance but not necessarily politeness. As Flix-Brasdefer (2008:163,
quoted in Mugford, 2013:55) argues, students may use the V-form to address teachers not because they want to display politeness but because
they assume this form is expected.
89
same view is expressed by Blum-Kulka (1992:259), drawing on Garfinkel, 1967), who states that politeness intuitively
tends to be associated with formality; hence politeness is juxtaposed with informality. This well-established association
between formality and politeness is found in pre-theoretical social-norm views, where a higher degree of formality
implies greater politeness (Fraser, 1990:221). It is also found in various theories, such as Brown and Levinsons (1987)
face-saving view, where formality is almost equivalent to negative politeness. For Brown and Levinson (1987:70, 130), it
is formal, negative politeness that springs to mind when one thinks of politeness in Western cultures. Among the linguistic
realisations of negative politeness, Brown and Levinson include conventional indirectness, hedges on illocutionary force
and linguistic pessimism as to the outcome of a request. Linguistic features of negative politeness are among those which
have been identified as markers of formality (Wheeler, 1994:159). In contrast, positive politeness operates through the
use of directness and informality, whose linguistic realisations are often associated with presumptuousness, linguistic
optimism and even lack of politeness. Negative politeness is the heart of respect behaviour, just as positive politeness is
the kernel of familiar and joking behaviour (Brown and Levinson, 1987:129). In addition, the output of both positive and
negative politeness strategies is associated with elaborate constructions whose motivations include face-risk
minimisation. Such expenditures of effort seem to be intimately linked to polite usages across many cultures (Brown
and Levinson, 1987:94). In brief, politeness is assumed to be realised primarily through formal and elaborate style.
From a Critical Discourse Analysis perspective, Fairclough (see, e.g., 1995) argues that informalisation has become a
pervasive feature of various public discourse genres (e.g., media discourse) in Britain. Informalisation is associated with
two interrelated tendencies: conversationalisation and personalisation. Conversationalisation refers to the use in public
discourse of linguistic features associated with everyday interactions whereas personalisation involves the construction of
a personal relationship between producers and recipients of public discourse. Producers of such discourse aim at
simulating some kind of personal relationship with their audiences creating the impression that they know each other
personally. This may be welcomed by some recipients but despised by some others. Research findings indicate that
informalisation (apparent on all levels of linguistic analysis) constitutes a prevailing trend in mass media discourse (see, e.
g., Montgomery, 1999; Steen, 2003; Chovanec, 2009:116) but is affecting many other domains (see, e.g., Lorenzo-Dus
and Bou-Franch, 2013). A large-scale merging of private and public practices is indeed a hallmark of contemporary social
life (Fairclough, 1995:11). This more general trend of informalisation is attributed to broader changes in the media and the
public sphere more generally (see, e.g., Pearce, 2005:80).
This increase in informality in public contexts both in the U.S. (see, e.g., Lakoff, 2003, 2005) and in the U.K. (see, e.g.,
Fairclough, 1995; Cameron, 2003, 2007; Pearce, 2005) has been associated with the general trend towards the
casualization of everyday speech (Biber et al., 1999: 1099) and the increase in egalitarianism in Western cultures but
also with impoliteness to some extent. Lakoff (2003, 2005) links this increase in the use of informality (at the expense of
the traditional formal distance politeness) in contemporary U.S. with another trend, which she calls the erosion of the line
between public and private life, a view which echoes Faircloughs claims cited earlier. Lakoff (2005:35) provides the
example of telemarketers who invade the privacy of the home at the sacred dinner hours and who go so far as to
address the answerer by their first name (see also Cameron, 2007:134). Another of her examples involves addressing U.
S. Presidents by first names or even nicknames, as happened, for example with Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
Lakoff (2005) ascribes such a shift to informality to various sources, including increasing diversity, the Internet as a new
communicative channel, media competition for ratings and audience, and the rise of positive politeness. The rise in
positive politeness also underpins Camerons (2007) two proposed sources for the increase in impoliteness in the U.K.:
popular psychology and corporate culture. The former recommends the expression rather than the suppression of
peoples feelings, and the latter advocates the use of direct rather than indirect language by employees. The increase in
informality is also noted and condemned as a sign of impoliteness by popular writers such as Truss (2005). All these
sources of informality are seen, implicitly or explicitly, as a consequence of globalisation and, in particular, of
Americanisation. The western U.S.A. has for long been considered a positive politeness society (in comparison to Britain)
(Brown and Levinson, 1987:245) but it is now becoming an increasingly conventionalized-camaraderie society (Lakoff,
2005:34); the U.K. is assumed to have followed this example. For many British and American speakers informality is
assumed to ease interaction with strangers so that a quick move towards first name terms of address is frequently used to
this end (Bargiela et al., 2002:1).
However, this trend is not entirely new. Traces of it can be found in Brown and Gilmans (1960) classic study of the
pronouns of power and solidarity, which over forty years ago noted a trend towards the solidarity semantic. Over twentyfive years later, Wardhaugh (1986:256) also noted a recent dramatic shift to solidarity but added that we can expect
different societies to handle the T/V distinction differently, and about ten years later Wheeler (1994) attributed the spread
of casual variants to adolescent peer group networks. More recently, Bargiela et al. (2002) note this current increase in
informality and the use of first names by English native speakers in intercultural business contacts. The authors attribute
this to Americanisation of British culture. They do caution us, though, that not all British people feel comfortable with such
practices which may also create unease on the part of foreign language users. The authors also note that reciprocal first
name use is common between staff and students in British universities (see also Bousfield, 2008:94). In contrast, more
90
recently, Formentelli (2009) has noted an emerging use of formality, especially by young students, when addressing
lecturers in the University of Reading, despite their being encouraged by most lecturers to use first name address, and he
suggests further research on the issue.2
In Greek, a tendency for informality in certain media genres has been observed (see, e.g., Tzanne, 2001). Tsakona
(2012 and elsewhere) argues that Greek politicians often switch towards a less formal and more personalised style by
drawing on discourse resources that are perceived as incompatible with the specifics of the genre. Their assumed aim is
to construct an illusion of involvement and to distract the attention of the audience from the political issues discussed.
Nevertheless, formality still has a stronghold, and there are many situations where institutional formality is expected. A
clear example of this is the university context. Unlike in Britain or the U.S., it is almost unthinkable for Greek students to
use informal language and in particular first-name terms of address with faculty (see, e.g., Koutsantoni, 2005:104). Recent
research (Bella and Sifianou, 2012) exploring e-mail requests sent to faculty members by Greek students finds that the
single constant feature in these e-mails is the use of formality.3 A similar overall preference for formality was found by
Economidou-Kogetsidis (2011:2305) in her investigation of e-mails sent to lecturers by Cypriot-Greek students. However,
this is not the only context where formality seems to dominate. Research on Greek and British weather forecasts on
television (Sifianou and Tzanne, 1996) shows that the two national media differ in that Greek weather forecasts are more
formal when compared to the more informal British ones. For instance, in English, colloquial expressions like its
somewhat of a mixed bag weatherwise proliferate, whereas in Greek, lexical items are chosen from a rather limited,
domain-specific set, with some words ( cloudiness) or phrases ( y o o from west to
east), reflecting the once High variety of Greek.4
Further interesting evidence for the place of formality in Greek society is offered, I think, by the announcements heard
in the Athens Metro stations (Sifianou, 2010). Both the Greek and the English announcements are formal and verbose, the
underlying assumption probably being that verbosity expresses the degree of politeness required in the specific context.
For instance, in Athens, we hear the elaborate:
May I have your attention, please? For your own safety, you are kindly requested to keep clear of the red line at the
platforms edge. Thank you.
rather than something brief and comparatively less formal like the equivalent announcement one hears in the London
underground:
Please stand behind the yellow line.
(not to mention the well-known Mind the gap).5
This elaborate style is probably assumed to contribute to the construction of a serious institution, which can, therefore,
be trusted by passengers. The underlying assumption seems to be that in impressive surroundings, such as the Athens
Metro, the linguistic code should be equally impressive.6 What is interesting, from our point of view, is that both the English
and the Greek announcements heard at the Athens Metro stations reveal an interesting interplay between global and local
linguo-cultural influences. The way English is used in this context diverges from native English-speaker norms, and both
positive and negative politeness devices are combined to produce elaborate Greek and English announcements.
I think that the above examples and a number of others one could cite demonstrate clearly the prominent position of
formal discourse in Greek society. This preponderance of formality may sound at variance with the positive politeness
orientation that has so frequently been attributed to Greek society (see, e.g., Sifianou, 1992; Pavlidou, 1994; MakriTsilipakou, 2001; Tzanne, 2001; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2003). However, it is clear that there is no such contradiction,
Clyne et al. (2009:9) also note the controversial re-emergence of the V-form (ni) in Swedish service encounters which were abandoned in the
mid-seventies.
3
In our e-mail data, formality is realised in three ways: through their epistolary format (opening, main body, closing), through the use of
elaborate constructions and through the use of specific High variety lexical items and collocations, along with the formal second person plural (Vform) (Bella and Sifianou, 2012:93).
4
Greek was one of the classic diglossic examples discussed by Ferguson (1959), with o (Demotic, the peoples language) being the
Low variety and Koy (Katharevousa, the purified language) as the High variety. This diglossic situation was officially terminated in 1976,
after the downfall of the junta, when the Low variety was established as the official Greek language. However, Katharevousa suffixes, lexical items
and collocations are still found, especially in formal styles.
5
As one reviewer rightly pointed out there is a whole subculture of gap minding based on jokes on and appropriation of this phrase, as any
Google search can easily reveal.
6
The Athens Metro constitutes an impressive project, planned and executed in view of the then forthcoming (2004) Olympic Games, with astute
awareness of the fact that the eyes of the world would be turned on Greece. The Metro authorities tried to project traditional but also modern
cultural products, including museum-like showcases with exhibits found during the excavations at some central stations and works of art by
prominent contemporary sculptors at many others (Sifianou, 2010).
91
because this orientation does not mean that Greek society as a whole, or any society for that matter, can be clearly
categorised as either positively or negatively polite. As has been well-documented (see, e.g., Sifianou, 1992:39; Hirschon,
2001; Mills, 2009:1054), societies exhibit both positive and negative politeness orientations that interact in intricate ways,
which have not yet been fully explored. In relation to Greek, the positive politeness orientation relates primarily to in-group
relationships.
However, what I would like to argue at this point is that formality may indicate politeness, respect and distance, but
these are not its only functions. Formality may also be a sign of refinement, good education and cultivation. Formal
language may echo authority, expert scientific knowledge, objectivity and seriousness. So in a sense, users of formality try
to satisfy their own agenda, reflecting in a way some kind of egocentric behaviour (see, e.g., Watts, 1992:51; Locher,
2004:73; Koutsantoni, 2005; Kecsks, 2010; Mills, 2011:37). This is, I think, what a closer inspection of the above
examples reveals. For instance, British weather presenters use a highly conversational style, seeking to establish
familiarity and in-groupness with their audience. In contrast, Greek weather forecasts maintain distance between the
audience and the inaccessible source of knowledge and stress expert power by being presented in formal language which
echoes authority (Sifianou and Tzanne, 1996).7
The university context provides an interesting site, where socio-cultural trends blend with the academic culture and
inform the way language is used. Basic characteristics of the Greek university are the very large number of students
registered for any given course and the fact that attendance is not obligatory. These factors have significant repercussions
both for the teacher/student relationship and for overall interactional dynamics. In other words, students normally know
their teachers, but not the other way round, so social distance is rather high. In addition, the relationship is construed as
highly power-asymmetrical, with teachers having power as faculty members in a society and an educational system which
cultivate power differences in such contexts (see, e.g., Hirschon, 2001; Koutsantoni, 2005; Bella and Sifianou, 2012).
So the impact of the extant vertical and horizontal social distance can explain students use of formality. However this is
only one of the sources of formality because, as Hirschon (2001:36) contends, in Greek educated circles and academic
life, the skilful use of language is highly valued, a matter of pride in itself. Being concise is not a prevailing value, while
the ability to talk at length is. Hirschon (2001:36) further argues that the tradition of rhetoric, a classical Greek pursuit, has
an unacknowledged currency throughout contemporary Greece, in rural and urban groups, both in everyday and in more
formalised elitist contexts. So students must also be responsive to this value. Note that although it is generally assumed
that formality and negative politeness serve to protect the addressees negative aspect of face, it can be argued that such
devices are multidirectional. More specifically, the students use formality, on the one hand, to show the required respect to
their teachers, and, on the other, to present themselves as educated adults who can use elaborate forms of expression. In
other words, the extensive use of formality is not directed only at protecting the addressees negative aspect of face but
also at protecting or even enhancing, the speakers/writers own positive face (Bella and Sifianou, 2012). Thus selfpresentational concerns appear significant here, as they are in compliment responses as discussed by Ruhi (2006).
It seems to me that the assumed strong relationship between formality and politeness and consequently, between
informality and impoliteness is highly problematic. Neither politeness and impoliteness nor formality and informality are
direct opposites but rather are the ends of two continua. Why, then, is informality seen as an indication of impoliteness? A
simple answer to this could be that informality is impolite when used in the wrong context, and wrong context here
essentially means that there is a mismatch of pragmatic expectations in relation to politeness between producers and
recipients. And this is what most authors condemn: the use of informality in public contexts where formality used to be the
norm, a trend attributed to globalisation. In other words, this new style of public discourse in Britain and the U.S. simulates
friendship and even intimacy by adopting the discursive practices of everyday interaction between unrelated interlocutors
in public contexts. But is this impolite? Is globalisation to be blamed? I will now consider these questions in various service
contexts, because it seems to me that this trend is mostly evident in English business and commerce situations, and it has
been extensively discussed in these contexts.
4. Service contexts
In the era of globalisation, service industries dominate economies, and service to a great extent is accomplished
through interacting with people (Cameron, 2000a:16). In the past, we would say that the way language was used in
service contexts depended on various contextual factors, such as the degree of familiarity between interlocutors, the
7
As one of the anonymous reviewers rightly pointed out the way language is used by weather presenters who are not meteorologists may be
less formal than that used by meteorologists. However, subsequent research on Greek weather forecasts (Sifianou and Tzanne, 1999, 2001) not
only did not evidence any such difference but in fact revealed that in some instances the non-meteorologists preferred more formal scientific
diction. Despite signs of shift towards a more everyday style, the formal, scientific discourse was still dominant. It is of note in this connection, that
weather forecasts are frequently announced on television as weather bulletins rather than weather news.
92
specifics of the genre and culture-bound preferences. Nowadays, it is claimed that the sweeping power of globalisation
does not allow for such considerations. Powerful international companies set the norms which spread, given the
intensification of competition, so that some talk of the McDonaldization of society.8 The new philosophy is known as
customer care (Cameron, 2000a:338, 2007:133), and Boots (a health, beauty and pharmacy retail shop), for instance,
tells us on their web site that we, as their customers, are at the heart of their business, and they are committed to providing
us with exceptional customer and patient care. In fact, we will be cared for by expert, friendly people rather than mere
professional assistants. Two elements are prominent here: care and friendliness. Both characterise interactions between
people who are close, but they have been extended to interactions between unacquainted people, such as those in
service contexts.
Customer care and satisfaction are assumed to be closely intertwined with the way language is used. Nowadays,
language in service encounters is supposed to be friendly and thus informal, even employing first names if these are
known. In many cases, employees undergo communication training to be able to cope with this new trend. Some
employers try to regulate even trivial details of employees talk (Cameron, 2000a:324; but see, Kuiper and Flindall, 2000;
Koskina and Keithley, 2010), so interactions are scripted and highly routinised. When companies move to new locations
abroad, they carry their linguistic norms along with them, which is one of the ways that these norms spread. The scripted
salutations, the simulated friendliness and the relentless positive politeness coming from the English-speaking world
may eventually displace established local norms in service contexts, as Cameron (2003:27) observes. But is this a real
threat?
It is my contention that foreign practices are frequently adapted to suit culture-bound practices and values rather than
just being adopted or ignored wholesale. Sweden provides a well-documented example. In the 1960s and 1970s, there
was a public campaign urging Swedes to use the singular (informal) du pronoun to single others in an attempt to promote
social egalitarianism (Cameron, 2006:133; Clyne et al., 2009:7). Now, if employees of IKEA in Sweden are instructed to
address their customers with the solidary du, it would be interesting to explore whether or not their employees follow this
practice outside Sweden and, if so, how successful this is. Clyne et al. (2009:125) state that the transfer of Swedish
address rules into German-speaking countries by multinationals has led to difficulties in industrial relations and service
encounters. Similarly, in Greece such a practice would be unthinkable and it is indeed the case that IKEA employees in
Greece do not use the familiar address form, except for some very young employees, and then only to customers of their
own age. This practice is also evident in other settings, such as the university context, where the singular address form
among students is the norm, irrespective of degree of familiarity. Moreover, even if IKEA employees do use such familiar
forms successfully, does it mean that they are following English-speaking or Swedish-speaking norms? And irrespective
of whose norms they are, is this seen as polite or impolite? It is obviously polite in a Swedish context, where such
informality is conventional but impolite in others where it is not. There is nothing inherently polite or impolite about such
devices.
Most importantly, perhaps, the practices of large multinational companies, where employees may use a script, do not
encompass the whole spectrum of service contexts and it is rather unjustifiable to generalise from what occurs there. In
discussing the positive side of emotion management in the Greek telecommunications sector, Koskina and Keithley
(2010:211) note that most accounts have emerged from the study of large Anglo-Saxon organisations, arguably
influenced by American practices, and ignore features which may be prominent in small firms. So it seems instructive to
look at what happens in local businesses rather than generalise from what happens in some McDonald-type companies in
specific localities. I will now mention three pieces of research that do just that.
Economidou-Kogetsidis (2005) finds that the opening requests produced by Greek callers ringing an airlines call
centre are formal but significantly more direct than those produced by British English callers. This higher degree of
directness does not indicate impoliteness but rather a polite concern for non-imposition by not wasting the addressees
time. In fact, the author contends that directness is motivated by a concern for clarity and non-imposition (see also Mills,
2003:144). Even Brown and Levinson (1987:130) themselves, when discussing directness, admit that there is an
element in formal politeness that sometimes directs one to minimise the imposition by coming rapidly to the point, avoiding
the further imposition of prolixity and obscurity.
Looking at service encounters in a small Greek newsagents, Antonopoulou (2001) does not note any globalising
trends. She argues that the interaction of various factors, such as the gender of interlocutors, the degree of familiarity
between them and the fact that requests in such contexts are not perceived as face-threatening acts determine to a large
extent what is considered appropriate, polite behaviour. So conventional indirectness and other mitigating devices are not
8
The McDonaldization of society is a metaphor coined by Ritzer (1983) to describe what he saw as a pervasive trend in many sectors of
American society based on the success of fast food chains. His conviction is that this omnipresent trend will eventually lead to the homogenisation
of the world under the influence of the McDonalds style of operation. For Ritzer (1996:1), McDonaldization refers to the process by which the
principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as of the rest of the world.
93
encountered in this specific context. Even when the interlocutors are barely acquainted, no features of formal discourse
are present in these encounters with the exception of some V-forms. Both genders seem to be preoccupied with
expressing friendliness and concern by employing positive politeness devices. Interestingly, the situation is very similar to
that presented by Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2006) for small shops in the town of Lyons.
Similarly, Bayyurt and Bayraktarog lu (2001) examine service encounters in Turkey and how men and women use the
pronominal system and terms of address. They find that female customers favour using the V pronoun even in familiar
contexts, while males prefer making direct contact with sellers, utilising the T pronoun even in first-time encounters.
Interestingly, the authors observe that customers, regardless of their gender, become more formal and indirect in affluent
environments. The authors underline the importance of reliance on the family and familiarity; customers use kinship terms
(e.g., amka paternal uncle or abla big sister) with unrelated others in circumstances where they feel at home, and
become voluble in shops they visit frequently.
The above examples do not show any evidence of globalising trends but rather reflect local preferences. However, to
delve a bit more into the matter, I collected 320 instances from various face-to-face and telephone service contexts, such
as local shops, chain supermarkets, multinational companies and telecommunication companies in Athens. Sixty
students, who agreed to participate in this project, were instructed to audio record five to six brief service encounters in
which they participated using their mobile phones. They were also provided with an observation sheet they had to fill in for
each encounter, including pertinent information, such as name of shop, location and social characteristics of interlocutors
(e.g., age, gender, degree of familiarity).9
The data set is still being expanded as it awaits a detailed analysis, thus I would not wish to make any strong claims
deriving from it. However, an initial cursory glance has reinforced my intuitive hypothesis (which may or may not be
verified) that in local shops, interactions are informal but unacquainted interlocutors mostly use the formal plural, as in the
past. In fact, Terkourafi (2010: 281) notes an increase in the use of V forms in Greek. Singular (familiar) forms are used
between acquainted interlocutors, which becomes evident from additional personal enquiries, and by some young
employees addressing customers of their own age. Interestingly, there was no observed difference between Greekowned and multinational chain supermarkets or other multinational companies, such as Starbucks and Benetton.10
However, a change in usage was detected in telephone interactions with telecommunication companies but only as far as
the use of a script is concerned and not the use of informality. More specifically, these interactions are highly scripted,
employing High variety lexical items (see notes 4 and 12) and the V-form for addressing the caller; if names are used,
these are always last names, issues which are dealt with later.
Impressionistically speaking, in relation to various service encounters there seems to be an increase in the use of the
so-called conventional marker of politeness thank you, in some such encounters in Greece.11 These are examples of
what Terkourafi (2011:223, drawing on Aijmer, 1996) refers to as simple thanks in English, cases which used to pass
unacknowledged in Greek. For instance, neither shop assistants nor their clients would normally exchange thank yous in
the past. These typically involve instances in which the actions performed are considered to be part of ones obligations
and the exchange of thank yous signals the closing of an encounter rather than the expression of genuine gratitude
(Hymes, 1971:69; Sifianou, 1992:42; Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 2006:97; Terkourafi, 2011:223). If there is such an increase and
if devices originally addressing positive face concerns have been acquiring negative politeness functions (Terkourafi,
2010:281), such developments do not necessarily indicate that people in Greece have started following English norms of
politeness, where convention and politic behaviour (Watts, 2003) necessitate such devices. A related example of this is
offered by Ogiermann and Suszczynska (2011) who explore the different conceptualisations of politeness and their
different developments in Poland and Hungary after the fall of the Iron Curtain. In both contexts, the authors note an
increase in the use of polite formulas in various service encounters, an increase which they attribute to the change of the
political and economic systems in these countries. It is my contention that in a rapidly changing world, different localities
are trying to find their own pace, not only by imitating but also by creating their own new norms on the basis of local sociopolitical and economic changes and of assumptions of what is appropriate, polite behaviour which have implications on
patterns of language use.
If we turn now to the context of providing directory assistance to telephone subscribers, interesting differences between
Greece and the U.S. emerge. Change with respect to earlier interactional styles is immediately noticeable in the Greek
9
The students were all undergraduates in the Faculty of English Studies (University of Athens) attending my Discourse Analysis course. The
service providers were not informed about the recording because these were mostly brief interactions in a public place and anybody in the vicinity
could hear the exchange. Requesting informed consent either before or after the recording could have created significant annoyance to the
employees and to the waiting customers. However, their anonymity was ensured.
10
An exception to this is evident at Fridays, where once the customers are escorted and seated, waitresses offer the menus, introducing
themselves by first name, and at Plaisio, a Greek-owned electronics and office supply chain, where employees evidently follow a script.
11
This practice is evident even in open air markets and taxis, a fact that impressed me long before I started considering the issue of globalisation
and politeness in service encounters.
94
context but not in the direction of American English-speaking norms. In the past, such encounters were direct and to the
point (Sifianou, 1989). Nowadays, the caller is typically greeted with something like Good morning, this is X (last name)
or Good morning, XXXXX (the 5-digit number the caller has dialled), Position XX (the assistants number) plus the
polite routine opening How can I help you?12 Such interactions end with the equally polite closing routine Thank
you for calling us and the brand new utterance Well be glad to be of service to you again. All this is a rather recent
innovation, which is sometimes produced in a forced and unnatural manner and sounds rather strange to the
unaccustomed ear. Such innovations do not always meet with approval, as postings on the AntiCallCenter blog clearly
demonstrate. Such practices are in sharp contrast to what Lakoff (2005:32--33) reports for America, where the telephone
company Pacific Bell instructed operators, who already introduced themselves by their first name, to drop their pleases
for reasons of economy and efficiency. On the other hand, the practices in Greece may reflect interactional patterns
attested in the U.K. telephone service sector, where employees are trained through specific scripts and styling practices to
perform in specific ways (see, e.g., Cameron, 2000b). However, it is noteworthy that in Greek during certain festive
periods, ritualistic seasonal greetings, like Merry Christmas, are also exchanged, although well-wishing utterances are
not restricted to these periods but are also frequent for example on the first day of the week or of the month, when wishes,
such as (Have a) nice week/month may be exchanged. Although I cannot tell whether such expressions result from the
prescriptive intervention of the institution or from employees free decisions as to what is appropriate linguistic behaviour,
my contention remains the same. In either case, such well-wishing utterances should not be unquestionably seen as an
appropriation of the American Have a nice day since their function is different: the American routine is a leave-taking
utterance while the Greek one accompanies greetings (e.g., Good morning, good week). In Greek, they most probably
reflect the culturally entrenched use of various more or less obligatory situational formulas (Tannen and ztek, 1981).
Such use may indicate local resistance to wholly imported practices, or the way in which the local and the global are in a
dialectic relationship and enrich a certain pattern.
There are two noteworthy issues here. First, this kind of innovation is towards the formal end of the spectrum. However,
it is worth noting that this kind of formality expresses distance (through V forms) but it also expresses care for the customer
and an offer of assistance for the current and future encounters. More talk and volubility may be used as involvement
strategies (Scollon and Scollon, 1995:39). Secondly, Greek informants asked about this overall innovation recognised its
formality yet rarely classified it as an instance of politeness (Sifianou and Tzanne, 2010; see also Ogiermann and
Suszczynska, 2011 for related assessments by Polish and Hungarian speakers). This means that despite the assumed
close association between formality and politeness, for these informants, at least, the two are viewed as different devices
serving different functions.
5. Discussion
There are undoubtedly overgeneralisations, gaps and many loose ends regarding the issues raised here, since this is a
first attempt to explore a highly complex issue -- that of the interplay between globalisation and im-politeness. My empirical
data is admittedly limited, but additional evidence from prior research allows me to suggest three things.
First, instead of seeing globalisation as a homogenising force we should see it as a force underpinning possible change
which adds to the local available resources. As Blommaert (2005:139) observes, globalisation generates a reorganisation
of norms in which transferred codes become local resources, embedded in local patterns of value-attributions.
Secondly, instead of trying to explain every apparent change in terms of globalisation, we should also consider internal
socio-historical developments and the multiplicity of factors that can affect variation and change.
Third, instead of considering the practices of only big multinational companies, we should also consider local
businesses when exploring these issues, because, as mentioned earlier, globalised products and discourse practices are
not available to whole communities.
These observations lead me to another, arguably significant, issue. Even though we customarily talk about change due
to globalisation, it may be more appropriate to talk about variation or perhaps change in progress, especially in
sociolinguistically informed research, since, as mentioned earlier, globalisation is a process and what we are currently
experiencing is variation rather than change. For instance, the Hi, how are you? greeting is evidenced only in some
service encounters in some communities and informalisation of public discourse is described as a trend evident in some
areas rather than an overarching phenomenon. This suggestion is in accord with Meyerhoff and Niedzielskis (2003:534)
argument that recent innovations in some New Zealand variants, which have been attributed to globalisation, might be
better seen as reflecting a broadening of the vernacular base.
12
In this context, it is of note that the literal translation of this utterance into English is How can I be of service to you/plur.?, that is, the High
variety y be of service is used rather than the vernacular bo help.
95
Sociolinguists have been primarily concerned with sound variation and change (but see, e.g., Cheshire, 2003 on
syntactic variation). There are several different approaches to variation but I think that some of its basic principles may
assist in understanding that language change is a complex issue and cannot have just one source, globalisation. For
instance, a useful distinction is that between changes from above and changes from below, which explains the
introduction of prestige variants in contrast to the introduction of less prestigious vernacular variants. This kind of
distinction generally refers to single stratified communities; that is, it is internal to language and is contrasted with change
that is external in nature, a result of borrowing from other languages. However, borrowings may but may not replace local
counterparts but function along with them (see, e.g., Terkourafi, 2011) with contingent degrees of prestige. It is an agreed
principle in sociolinguistics that language change has its origins in social and regional variation. In other words, the basis
for change over time is current variation which does not mean that all variation will lead to change. Mills (2009:1056)
suggests that this same principle applies to changing social norms. Rather than assuming that cultures and language
groups are homogeneous in their usage, we need to be aware of the heterogeneity within cultural groups and it is from this
variation that language change in relation to impoliteness norms occurs.
Both linguistic forms and the traditions that enjoy prestige change over time, with changing social and political
conditions in history (Canagarajah, 2012 111). Sociolinguists offer a variety of examples not only of language change but
also of the arbitrariness of forms which are considered prestigious. For instance, there is no inherent linguistic value
attached to post-vocalic [r] which renders it prestigious in New York but not so in many parts of the U.K. There are, of
course, socio-historical reasons for this variation, as Trudgill (2010) illustrates. Similarly, while [h]-dropping in English
currently is connected with uneducated language users or slovenly speech, it was the top social classes in England who
followed this practice well into this century.13 It is noteworthy that initial [h] has recently re-emerged in the speech of young
Londoners who belong to ethnic minority groups (Holmes, 2008:143--144). A similar case is that of the [in] pronunciation of
the present tense participle (e.g., hunting), which is currently stigmatised but which throughout the nineteenth century
denoted the linguistic habits of the extreme upper levels of society (Mugglestone, 2003:131) and constitutes an example
of stable variation without change (Mesthrie et al., 2009:111).
Like language change, a change in norms may involve simplification, creativity, imitation or adaptation of others norms
and values. So, change should not be seen as the straightforward imitation or the imposition of others norms since it is a
natural and inevitable process for languages and societies (Trudgill, 2002, 2010; Mills, 2009), which globalisation may
accelerate. When languages come into contact, simplification -- a process involving the loss of redundancy and increase
in transparency (Trudgill, 2002:66) -- often occurs. Indirectness and formality include features of redundancy and opacity.
Variation in the degree of directness or the level of formality and politeness deemed appropriate by different groups in
specific instances may be an obstacle to effective communication (cf. Bargiela et al., 2002). Thus, a solution to
overcoming such difficulties may be simplification rather than homogenisation or Americanisation.
Thus, without ignoring globalising forces, it stands to reason that patterns of politeness change in a way not very
different from other kinds of sociolinguistic processes. What is considered polite at a certain period of time by a specific
group may receive a different value at a different point in time (Watts, 2003; Mugglestone, 2003; Kdr and Culpeper,
2010). In fact, as far back as 1979, Lakoff (1979: 74) observed that just as the rules of grammar change over time, so there
is some evidence that our present-day rules of rapport have shifted from focussing on camaraderie in the Middle Ages to
distance in the Renaissance, and back to camaraderie again. More specifically, she says that
during the thirteenth century various stylistic modalities were in flux in Europe. People were beginning to develop a
notion of privacy: they began building houses with separate rooms, wearing more constraining and concealing
clothing. About this time too, I believe, last names were being devised and used . . . So we can infer from this sort of
evidence that European society during this era was shifting from a target of Camaraderie to one of Distance.
So it may be the case that what we are currently experiencing in the U.S. and Britain in particular is a shift back to
camaraderie.
An area closely related to politeness which supports this cyclical movement of practices is the use of T/V systems. On
the basis of research findings, Clyne et al. (2009:5, 9, 16) argue that there is evidence of cyclical developments in French,
German and Swedish address patterns, where Swedish is quoted as an example of a system that has changed from being
characterised by a high degree of formality to extreme informality. In France, the student and workers uprising in the late
1960s brought a sense of egalitarianism, which was reflected in the younger generations greater use of informal tu. This,
however, turned out to be a temporary phenomenon, and vous re-emerged because of social hierarchies reasserting
themselves. Nowadays, as social relationships have become more informal, the use of tu has again become more
widespread especially among the younger generation.
13
For a detailed overview of the complexities of the development and the patterns of use of and attitudes towards this sound, see Mugglestone
(2003).
96
Cameron (2007:135) offers an interesting observation when arguing that the similarity in orientation in Britain and the
U.S. is not so much a matter of American cultural influence but rather a result of the spread of the same social conditions
which enabled such practices to thrive in the U.S. In relation to grammatical change, Trudgill (2002:148) refers to the wellknown historical and anthropological problem of diffusion versus independent development. The notion of independent
development sounds, to a certain extent at least, reasonable here (cf. Meyerhoff and Niedzielski, 2003), especially given
the scepticism of some English people towards American practices. It is of note that even though Americanisms have
been irksome to some British ears for quite some time, recently complaints about the use of Britishisms in American
English have emerged (see, e.g., http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686). However, if the picture is not that
clear in relation to American influence on British language and culture, then evidently it is much more obscure in relation to
other cultures which do not share the same language.
To my mind, Camerons observation has wider implications. It suggests that rather than looking at American influence
on British or any other culture, we should also look at the socio-historical development of the cultures themselves. As Mills
(2009:1056) contends, there is a range of different politeness norms in play across a society and language group. So it is
not unreasonable to suggest that some such forms have come to the surface. It looks as if the familiar stereotype of the
British upper- or middle-class person as being reserved and undemonstrative has been overtaken in favour of more
working-class, solidary behaviour (cf. Cameron, 2007:131). A comprehensive and theoretically-grounded analysis of this
topic is provided by Wheeler (1994). He combines Brown and Levinsons (1987) politeness theory with tenets of change in
variationist sociolinguistics to affirm that changes in the prestige norms diachronically originate in casual style varieties
(which are only contingently associated with low-status social groups), features of which he associates with positive
politeness devices. Following Brown and Levinson (1987:18), he advocates that this is possible because positive
politeness is inherently unstable, being associated with the natural escalation of intimacy and casualness in interaction,
thus involving renewal. In contrast, negative politeness is more stable because it lacks this escalating feedback loop.
Negative politeness includes more conventionalized, formal forms and archaisms, and renewal is fed by formerly casual
variants. Moreover, negative politeness is associated with distance and hierarchy whereas positive politeness is
associated with an egalitarian, solidary ethos. Clyne et al. (2009) have noted a number of sociopolitical events and
developments in Europe (e.g., the student movements in France and Germany, the end of the Cold War and the strong
social democrat movement in Sweden and Finland) which have had a significant impact on language use (particularly
among the younger generation and members of the bourgeoisie who were sympathetic to these developments). Thus, the
expansion in the use of positive politeness devices, which are based on solidarity, also resonates with the development of
egalitarian ideals.
When such changes are in progress, they strike everybody with their newness. Some accept them for what they are
whereas others condemn them as wrong, inappropriate and impolite, in some cases at least, and in others such initiatives
are dropped. An extreme example of this is the greeter that was introduced in a Scottish supermarket, who welcomed
customers and handed them a basket saying Enjoy your shopping experience. This practice, which to me is reminiscent
of hypercorrection, was soon dropped because many perceived it as ludicrous (Cameron, 2007:134). What I am trying to
argue here is that globalisation enriches the cultural resources available (Mills, 2009; Mills and Kdr, 2011), but if the new
model is constructed or entirely alien it may be rejected. In other words, there must be a substratum inviting any change
irrespective of its source. In relation to cultural products, Held et al. (2003:374) conclude that [n]o cultural message, no
aesthetic artefact, no symbol passes through time and space into a cultural vacuum. The cultural context of production
and transmission must always in the end encounter an already existing frame of reference in the eyes of the consumer or
receiver. Moreover, strong local practices may resist change. Weak local practices may be easier to change or may work
together with the global practice that enters their linguo-cultural system.
I believe that in relation to Greek, formality is one such strong local practice. It may draw on classical rhetoric, as
Hirschon (2001:36) suggests, or it may be related to the long history of Greek diglossia or perhaps both. Irrespective of its
source, it seems that formality is still dominant in certain contexts. This does not mean that informality has no place in
Greek. On the contrary, the high value placed on orality and its relationship to diglossia has been well documented (see, e.
g., Tannen, 1980; Georgakopoulou, 1994; Tziovas, 2001). In Greek culture, both orality and literacy are bearers of equally
strong traditions and exhibit a notable symbiosis diachronically, with far-reaching implications for various cultural
phenomena and intellectual practices (Tannen, 1980; Georgakopoulou, 1994:28; Tziovas, 2001:119).14 Tannen
(1980:326) associates the use of language which emphasizes the relationship between communicator and audience
with the so-called oral tradition and that which downplays communicator/audience interaction with the literate one.
Interestingly, she notes a link between orality and literacy and camaraderie and distance communicative styles,
respectively, which in more recent terms could be rendered as positive and negative politeness strategies. Tsakona
14
For instance, Tziovas (2001:120) notes the slow development of the novel in contrast to the bloom of poetry with Nobel-prize poets (G. Seferis
and O. Elytis).
97
(2009, 2012 and elsewhere) describes various informal conversational resources that Greek politicians use strategically
to achieve a range of aims, including the illusion of involvement with their audience. She argues that such practices may
reflect the recent trend of conversationalisation propounded by Fairclough but may also be accounted for in terms of the
orality evident in Greek culture, and further suggests that diachronic studies on Greek political discourse would be
illuminating in this respect. Despite what the terms orality and literacy may denote, the strategies associated with the
one or the other tradition are used in both modes of communication and in various settings and should be seen as a
continuum rather than as a binary opposition.
In brief, I contend that traces of language change in Greece (or any community for that matter) should not be seen as
reflecting merely globalising practices, but should be interpreted within their socio-historical context. Greeks frequently
express ambivalence about their cultural affiliations, both including and excluding themselves from Europe (Herzfeld,
1987). For the average Greek, European norms and values represent, on the one hand, progress and a source of pride
given the contribution of Greek in shaping western civilisation and, on the other, the threat of corruption and a danger to
ethnic identity. Conversely, indigenous norms and values have been associated not only with authenticity but also with
backwardness. Greeces integration into the then European Economic Community (current European Union) in 1981,
which has been noted by many (see, e.g., Frangoudaki, 1992; Hirschon, 2001:26; Terkourafi, 2010:281) as one source of
profound sociopolitical and linguistic changes, has helped intensify such contrasting ideologies. This ambivalence both
encourages and deters the imitation of foreign practices since the external reference group is seen as superior but
simultaneously as inferior.15 Such a situation can easily lead to a constructed ideal of what constitutes politeness which
draws from various sources. This includes islands of formality and informality which may interact, such as formal scripts
seasoned with well-wishing utterances and the use of conventional markers of politeness in some service encounters,
practices which were not common in the past.
6. Concluding remarks
The dominant position of America in terms of economic, political and media culture is undeniable. The English
language is exceptional in its present international role, maybe to an extent without a historic precedent (see, e.g., Trudgill,
2002:150; Dewey, 2007:333). The borrowing of English vocabulary into other languages is frequently discussed as an
example of English, and more specifically of American, influence. But, I believe, we should not overgeneralise from what
happens on the lexical level, just because there is alleged evidence in some of our daily interactions. Despite popular
beliefs that Greek is threatened from English loans, Anastasiadi-Symeonidi (1996) suggests that these are not justified
because such loans have low statistical frequency and do not affect the structure of the language. On the basis of a corpus
of conversational data, Terkourafi (2011) shows that borrowings like thank you, sorry and please into Cypriot Greek do not
replace their Greek counterparts but are simply used for different functions. All this is not an attempt to deny that
hegemony may still be an issue or to trivialise the politics of ongoing exploitation and oppression (Meyerhoff and
Niedzielski, 2003:549). What I have tried to argue is that instead of priviledging the dominance of English norms, we
should also look at the cultures themselves when discussing language change. The literature tends to overemphasise
how local communities are changing because of globalisation. This obscures the importance of continuity in such
processes, which is as important as change, as Blommaert (2010:101) observes. Pan and Kdr (2011) clearly
demonstrate for Chinese that despite large-scale socio-political changes and apparent changes in politeness norms, in
essence there is considerable continuity between the earlier and modern language use. In the case of Greece, two equally
strong, century-long traditions (orality/literacy and relatedly high/low variety in a diglossia situation) seem to have had
equally strong impacts on current language use. There is abundant social and stylistic variation which may be one source
of apparent current changes.
Consequently, the situation regarding the homogenising force of globalisation may not be as threatening as some
present it. To my mind, globalisation does not represent straightforward Americanisation, and neither the West nor the U.
S.A. is in control of global economies, as the recent financial state of affairs clearly demonstrates (cf. Dewey, 2007:333).
The expansion in the use of English is not only seen as threatening other languages but also as threatening the quality of
the English language itself (see Trudgill, 2002:151), which means that English influences but it is also influenced by other
languages. What applies to language may well apply to its norms of behaviour. When cultural patterns and norms come in
contact, the influence is, I believe, reciprocal (see, e.g., Canagarajah, 2012). But contact which will aid the diffusion of
linguistic innovations requires quality face-to-face interaction; simple exposure to electronic media is not as crucial for
language change as it has been assumed (see, e.g., Trudgill, 2002:149; Meyerhoff and Niedzielski, 2003:537; Holmes,
2008:224).
15
In a recent TV panel discussion, a well known young novelist (Soti Triantafyllou) described this ambivalence very vividly as our superiorinferiority complex. This, to my mind, is related to what Meyerhoff and Niedzielski (2003) call cultural cringe.
98
Recent discursive or postmodern approaches to im-politeness, even though not a unified category (see, e.g., Haugh,
2007; Mills, 2011), are all discourse-based and share the conviction that politeness is situated, an evaluation rather than a
stable given. An increasingly common assumption among politeness researchers is that politeness and impoliteness
themselves are situated evaluations arising in and through interaction (Haugh et al., 2013:8--9, emphasis in the original)
in complex ways. If this is the case, then what is im-polite cannot be determined or predicted globally, even within the same
community or genre (e.g., service encounters) but must be considered at the specific local level bearing in mind the
possibility of differing assumptions even by the interlocutors themselves. For instance, as Coupland et al. (1992:228) note,
the How are you enquiry is required as a first turn by the assistant on the west coast of the U.S. whereas in Britain,
service encounters do not open in this way. Similarly, it is a common part in openings in New Zealand supermarket
checkouts (Kuiper and Flindall, 2000), whereas in Britain the recent increasing tendency in its use is perceived by some as
strange, even as impolite (see, e.g., Cameron, 2007:134). However, attributing impoliteness to such formulas is a perfect
example of evaluation based on intuition because they are not normally followed by metalinguistic comments, follow up
behaviour or challenges which would indicate that they have been indeed perceived as impolite. If there is a return turn, it
would probably indicate that they are perceived as normal, appropriate behaviour. Explanations attributing inquisitiveness
or undue friendliness to such well-being enquiries again reflect personal, subjective evaluations, as these may be
perceived as formulaic and may receive no response (Kuiper and Flindall, 2000:191). As has been frequently argued,
utterances are multifunctional and structures, whether direct or indirect, formal or informal, are not inherently polite or
impolite; they are attributed such evaluations on the basis of assumed speakers intentions and addressees expectations
and various other contextual factors (see, e.g., Sifianou, 1992:113; Cameron, 2007:130).
Thus informality does not necessarily imply impoliteness any more than formality implies politeness. Why is it, then,
that people resent informality and first-name use in certain service contexts? Some say that it is fake friendliness and thus
inappropriate or even unacceptable. But this is not really the problem because neither a greeting nor a compliment is
always genuine and all our courtesies are not always sincere. As Xie (2007:257, drawing on Gu, 1990), argues, sincerity
can never be one of the cardinal principles of politeness; there is no necessary correspondence between politeness and
sincerity simply because one can be polite either sincerely or insincerely. Essentially, as Pinto (2011:218, 219) argues,
(in)sincerity cannot be measured or (dis)confirmed because the addressee can only make an evaluation, and even
speakers themselves may have difficulty in accessing their own true feelings. If anything, it is negative politeness that has
been deemed insincere whereas positive politeness has been associated with truthfulness. As observed by GarcsConejos Blitvich (2009:278), politeness in Brown and Levinsons (1987) theory is strategic and does not arise from true
emotions. She also makes the interesting remark that it is impoliteness but not necessarily politeness that is associated
with true emotions. Pinker (2007:440) goes a step further and talks about fictitious benevolence and fictitious
solidarity: the former referring to the practice of habitually asking people how they are doing and the latter to the practice
of routinely using bogus terms of endearment (e.g., mate or buddy) (see also Pinto, 2011: 223). However, to my mind,
such views ignore the fact that utterances are multifunctional and the innocuous How are you? as it occurs in some
service encounters may have lost much of its relational overture and may be a mere signal of acknowledgement of the
customer (Coupland et al., 1992:217; Pinto, 2011) or may simply function as a kind of greeting.16 As Ferguson (1981:31)
reminds us, our familiar Hi is a weakened form of How are you? even though for most speakers the two are not related any
more. So what seems to be happening here is an elaboration of the opening phase of service encounters in England. I,
therefore, would like to suggest that it is not the assumed insincerity which causes resentment but the lack of
conventionalisation of a pattern in a specific context. ODriscoll (2007:477) discusses the impact of the unexpected on the
face of the addressee which gives rise to FTAs in service contexts.
Those English people, who resent the How are you? in service encounters, seem to be confronted with the kind of
situation that non-native speakers of English are faced with, that is, discrepancies between literal meaning and
function, such as Can you/Would you interrogative requests (Coulmas, 1981; Kecsks, 2000; Christie, 2007).
Routines that are appropriate in specific contexts are conventionalised (Terkourafi, 2001; Culpeper, 2011). This
conventionalisation facilitates interaction, since it is a resort to a successful solution of a recurrent problem
(Coulmas, 1981:8). When new norms appear which are not conventionalised, they pose difficulty, especially in fleeting
encounters. This is, I believe, one of the problems with How are you? in some British service encounters. It has been
conventionally used between acquainted interlocutors and its extension of use to unrelated others strikes many as
inappropriate. But as Lakoff (1979:73) suggests, the new intimacies are really no more intimate than the old
uninvolvements were truly uninvolved. In other words, it seems to be an example of variation and like many such
examples, it is contested by some.
The extension in using this utterance to unrelated others may bear some semblance to the use of kinship terminology
to address unrelated others, which provided the basis for the development of polite address terms. The tricky nature of
16
In fact, Sacks (1975:68, 69) calls it a greeting substitute, which can replace or follow greetings.
99
encounters with strangers can be minimised by accepting them temporarily into the group by means of such address
terms (Ehlich, 1992:85). In service encounters, relationships are fleeting and informality may serve similar ends.
In conclusion, globalisation involves complex sets of current variation, resulting in a vast literature, which makes the
exploration of related issues not only difficult but also confusing (Fairclough, 2006:3, 5). With this as a backdrop, I tried to
investigate attested changes in discourse practices, more specifically in politeness devices used in service encounters.
Without denying the powerful homogenising force of globalisation, I have tried to show that any observed changes should
not be attributed solely to globalisation without considering processes of variation and change internal to the specific
language and strong local practices. Positive and negative politeness strategies are found in all societies and their choice
by interactants may indicate various sources, such as subversion and protest, egalitarian and anti-deference moves
against dominant practices. Such devices are invested with different values at different periods of time and appear to
follow a cyclical movement. Consequently, ignoring their synchronic and diachronic contingent nature and ascribing
inherent politeness or impoliteness to either of them is unjustified. In addition, strong extant local practices may resist
change or may contribute to new practices combining features from both global and local resources. What might appear at
first sight to reflect the influence of a global practice may at closer inspection reflect some local tradition, as in the case of
the trend of informalisation in Greek politicians discourse. Thus since globalisation is a set of processes, their
developmental trajectory is not only contingent on various factors but also uncertain and unpredictable.
Acknowledgements
This is a revised and expanded version of the paper that was presented at the 6th International Symposium on
Politeness, Middle East Technical University, Ankara (Turkey) July 2011. I would like to express my gratitude to S
kriye
Ruhi and the members of the organising committee for their kind invitation. I should also record my special thanks to Eleni
Antonopoulou, Jean Hannah, Irene Philippaki-Warburton and Peter Trudgill not only for their constructive comments on
an earlier version but also for their being a constant source of support and encouragement. I should also extend my thanks
to Jim ODriscoll for valuable comments on an earlier version of the presentation and to Robert F. Halls for his suggestions
for stylistic improvement. My sincere thanks are also due to Michael Haugh for his encouragement to proceed with the
publication of the presentation and to Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini for generously providing me with her expert
assistance whenever I requested it. Finally, my sincere thanks go to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive
criticism and insightful comments. Needless to say that the usual disclaimers hold.
References
Aijmer, Karin, 1996. Conversational Routines in English. Addison Wesley Longman, New York.
Anastasiadi-Symeonidi, Anna, 1996. To ogo o o yvi
#o gvo oyo The vocabulary of Modern
Greek and the European linguistic pluralism. http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/modern_greek/studies/europe/B7/index.html
(accessed 10.10.12).
Androutsopoulos, Jannis, 2010. Localizing the global on the participatory web. In: Coupland, N. (Ed.), The Handbook of Language and
Globalization. Wiley, Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 203--231.
Antonopoulou, Eleni, 2001. Brief service encounters: gender and politeness. In: Bayraktarog lu, A., Sifianou, M. (Eds.), Linguistic Politeness
across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 241--269.
Bargiela, Francesca, Boz, Corinne, Gokzadze, Lily, Hamza, Abdurrahman, Mills, Sara, Rukhadze, Nino, 2002. Ethnocentrism, politeness and
naming strategies. Working Papers on the Web 3. , http://extra.shu.ac.uk/wpw/politeness/bargiela.htm (accessed 16.2.08).
Bauman, Zygmunt, 2000. Globalization: The Human Consequences. Polity Press, Oxford.
Bayyurt, Yasemin, Bayraktarog lu, Arn, 2001. The use of pronouns and terms of address in Turkish service encounters. In: Bayraktarog lu, A.,
Sifianou, M. (Eds.), Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 209--240.
Bella, Spyridoula, Sifianou, Maria, 2012. Greek student e-mail requests to faculty members. In: Ruiz de Zarobe, L., Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.),
Speech Acts and Politeness across Languages and Cultures. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, pp. 89--113.
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, Finegan, Edward, 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English.
Longman, London.
Block, David, 2004. Globalization, transnational communication and the Internet. International Journal on Multicultural Societies 6, 13--28.
Blommaert, Jan, 2003. Commentary: a sociolinguistics of globalization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 607--623.
Blommaert, Jan, 2005. In and out of class, codes and control: globalisation discourse and mobility. In: Baynham, M., De Fina, A. (Eds.),
Dislocations/Relocations: Narratives of Displacement. St Jerome, Manchester, pp. 127--142.
Blommaert, Jan, 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, 1992. The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli Society. In: Watts, R.J., Ide, S., Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness in
Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 255--280.
Bousfield, Derek, 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Braun, Friederike, 1988. Terms of Address. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Brown, Roger, Gilman, Albert, 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Sebeok, T.A. (Ed.), Style in Language. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge,
MA, pp. 253--276.
100
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
Originally published as Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In: Goody, E. (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in
Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1978, pp. 56--289.
Cameron, Deborah, 2000a. Good to Talk? Living and Working in a Communication Culture. Sage, London.
Cameron, Deborah, 2000b. Styling the worker: gender and the commodification of language in the globalized service economy. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 4, 323--347.
Cameron, Deborah, 2003. Globalizing communication. In: Aitchison, J., Lewis, D.M. (Eds.), New Media Language. Routledge, London, pp. 27-35.
Cameron, Deborah, 2006. Language: European you-nity. Critical Quarterly 48, 132--135.
Cameron, Deborah, 2007. Redefining rudeness. In: Gorji, M. (Ed.), Rude Britannia. Routledge, London, pp. 127--138.
Canagarajah, Suresh, 2012. Postmodernism and intercultural discourse: world Englishes. In: Bratt Paulston, Ch., Kissling, S.F., Rangel, E.S.
(Eds.), The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication. Wiley/Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 110--132.
Cheshire, Jenny, 2003. Social dimensions of syntactic variation: the case of when clauses. In: Britain, D., Cheshire, J. (Eds.), Social Dialectology:
In Honour of Peter Trudgill. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 245--261.
Chouliaraki, Lilie, Fairclough, Norman, 1999. Discourse in Late Modernity. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Chovanec, Jan, 2009. Simulation of spoken interaction in written online media texts. Brno Studies in English 35, 109--128.
Christie, Christine, 2007. Relevance theory and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 3, 269--294.
Clyne, Michael, Norrby, Catrin, Warren, Jane, 2009. Language and Human Relations: Styles of Address in Contemporary Language. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Coulmas, Florian, 1981. Introduction: conversational routine. In: Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational Routine. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 1--17.
Coupland, Nikolas, 2003. Introduction: sociolinguistics and globalization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 465--472.
Coupland, Nikolas, 2010. Introduction: sociolinguistics in the global era. In: Coupland, N. (Ed.), The Handbook of Language and Globalization.
Wiley/Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 1--27.
Coupland, Justine, Coupland, Nikolas, Robinson, Jeffrey D., 1992. How are you? Negotiating phatic communion. Language in Society 21, 207-230.
Culpeper, Jonathan, 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dewey, Martin, 2007. English as a lingua franca and globalization: an interconnected perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17,
332--354.
Dunne, Tim, 1999. The spectre of globalization. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 17, 17--33.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria, 2003. Requesting strategies and cross-cultural pragmatics: Greek and English. University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, UK, (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis).
Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria, 2005. Yes, tell me please, what time is the midday flight from Athens arriving? Telephone service encounters and
politeness. Intercultural Pragmatics 2, 253--273.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria, 2011. Please answer me as soon as possible: pragmatic failure in non-native speakers e-mail requests to
faculty. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 3193--3215.
Ehlich, Konrad, 1992. On the historicity of politeness. In: Watts, R., Ide, S., Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory
and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 71--107.
Fairclough, Norman, 1995. Media Discourse. Edward Arnold, London.
Fairclough, Norman, 1996. Border crossings: discourse and social change in contemporary societies. In: Coleman, H., Cameron, L. (Eds.),
Change and Language. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 3--17.
Fairclough, Norman, 2006. Language and Globalization. Routledge, London.
Flix-Brasdefer, Csar J., 2008. Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A Contrastive Study of the Realization and Perception of Refusals.
John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Ferguson, Charles A., 1959. Diglossia. In: Giglioli, P.P. (Ed.), Language and Social Context. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, pp. 232--251.
Ferguson, Charles A., 1981. The structure and use of politeness formulas. In: Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational Routine. Mouton, The Hague, pp.
21--35.
Formentelli, Maicol, 2009. Address strategies in a British academic setting. Pragmatics 19, 179--196.
Frangoudaki, Anna, 1992. Diglossia and the present language situation in Greece: a sociolinguistic approach to the interpretation of diglossia and
some hypotheses on todays linguistic reality. Language in Society 21, 365--381.
Fraser, Bruce F., 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 219--236.
Garcs-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, 2009. Impoliteness and identity in the American news media: the Culture Wars. Journal of Politeness Research
5, 273--303.
Garfinkel, Harold, 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Garrett, Peter, 2010. Meanings of globalization: East and West. In: Coupland, N. (Ed.), The Handbook of Language and Globalization. Wiley/
Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 447--474.
Georgakopoulou, Alexandra, 1994. Modern Greek oral narratives in context: cultural constraints and evaluative ways of telling. Text 14, 371--399.
Giulianotti, Richard, Robertson, Roland, 2007. Forms of glocalization: globalization and the migration strategies of Scottish football fans in North
America. Sociology 41, 133--152.
Gu, Yueguo, 1990. Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 237--257.
Haugh, Michael, 2007. The discursive challenge to politeness research: an interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research 3, 295--317.
Haugh, Michael, Davies, Bethan L., Merrison, Andrew John, 2013. Situating politeness. In: Davies, B., Haugh, M., Merrison, A.J. (Eds.), Situated
Politeness. Bloomsbury, London, pp. 1--23.
Held, David, McGrew, Anthony, Goldblatt, David, Perraton, Jonathan, 2003. Global Transformations. Polity, Oxford.
Heller, Monica, 2003. Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 473--492.
Herzfeld, Michael, 1987. Anthropology through the Looking-glass. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
101
Hirschon, Rene, 2001. Freedom, solidarity and obligation: the socio-cultural context of Greek politeness. In: Bayraktarog lu, A., Sifianou, M.
(Eds.), Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 17--42.
Holmes, Janet, 2008. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 3rd ed. Pearson Education, London.
Hymes, Dell, 1971. Sociolinguistics and the ethnography of speaking. In: Ardener, E. (Ed.), Social Anthropology and Language. Tavistock,
London, pp. 47--93.
Kdr, Dniel Z., Culpeper, Jonathan, 2010. Historical (Im)politeness: an introduction. In: Culpeper, J., Kdr, D.Z. (Eds.), Historical
(Im)Politeness. Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 9--36.
Kecsks, Istvan, 2000. A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 605--625.
Kecsks, Istvan, 2010. The paradox of communication: socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society 1, 50--73.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine, 2006. Politeness in small shops in France. Journal of Politeness Research 2, 79--103.
Koskina, Aikaterini, Keithley, Don, 2010. Emotion in a call centre SME: a case study of positive emotion management. European Management
Journal 28, 208--219.
Koutsantoni, Dimitra, 2005. Greek cultural characteristics and academic writing. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 23, 97--138.
Kuiper, Koenraad, Flindall, Marie, 2000. Social rituals, formulaic speech and small talk at the supermarket checkout. In: Coupland, J. (Ed.), Small
Talk. Pearson Education, Harlow, pp. 183--207.
Lakoff, Robin T., 1979. Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style. In: Orasanu, J., Slater, M., Adler, L. (Eds.), Language, Sex, and Gender.
Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 327. pp. 53--80.
Lakoff, Robin, 2003. The new incivility: threat or promise? In: Aitchison, J., Lewis, D.M. (Eds.), New Media Language. Routledge, London, pp. 36-44.
Lakoff, Robin, 2005. Civility and its discontents: or getting in your face. In: Lakoff, R.T., Ide, S. (Eds.), Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic
Politeness. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 23--43.
Locher, Miriam A., 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Bou-Franch, Patricia, 2013. A cross-cultural investigation of email communication in Peninsular Spanish and British English.
Pragmatics and Society 4, 1--25.
Makri-Tsilipakou, Marianthi, 2001. Congratulations and bravo. In: Bayraktarog lu, A., Sifianou, M. (Eds.), Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries:
The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 137--178.
Mesthrie, Rajend, Swann, Joan, Deumert, Ana, Leap, William L., 2009. Introducing Sociolinguistics, 2nd ed. Edinburgh University Press,
Edinburgh.
Meyerhoff, Miriam, Niedzielski, Nancy, 2003. The globalisation of vernacular variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 534--555.
Mills, Sara, 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mills, Sara, 2009. Impoliteness in a cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 1047--1060.
Mills, Sara, 2011. Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In: LPRG (Eds.), Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 19--56.
Mills, Sara, Kdr, Dniel Z., 2011. Politeness and culture. In: Kdr, D.Z., Mills, S. (Eds.), Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 21--44.
Montgomery, Martin, 1999. Speaking sincerely: public reactions to the death of Diana. Language and Literature 8, 5--33.
Mufwene, Salikoko S., 2002. Colonisation, globalisation, and the future of languages in the twenty-first century. International Journal on
Multicultural Societies 4, 1--48.
Mugford, Gerrard, 2013. Thats not very polite! Discursive struggle and situated politeness in the Mexican English-language classroom In:
Davies, B.L., Haugh, M., Merrison, A.J. (Eds.), Situated Politeness. Bloomsbury, London, pp. 53--72.
Mugglestone, Lynda, 2003. Talking Proper: The Rise of Accent as Social Symbol. Oxford University Press, New York, (First published in 1995).
ODriscoll, Jim, 2007. Brown & Levinsons face: How it can---and cant---help us to understand interaction across cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics
4, 463--492.
Ogiermann, Eva, Suszczynska, Magorzata, 2011. On im/politeness behind the iron curtain. In: Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Kdr, D.Z. (Eds.),
Politeness across Cultures. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 194--215.
Pan, Yuling, Kdr, Dniel Z., 2011. Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese. Continuum, New York.
Pavlidou, Theodossia, 1994. Contrasting German-Greek politeness and the consequences. Journal of Pragmatics 21, 487--511.
Pearce, Michael, 2005. Informalization in UK party election broadcasts 1966-97. Language and Literature 14, 65--90.
Pinker, Steven, 2007. The evolutionary psychology of off-record indirect speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics 4, 437--461.
Pinto, Derrin, 2011. Are Americans insincere? Interactional style and politeness in everyday America. Journal of Politeness Research 7, 215--238.
Ritzer, George, 1983. The McDonaldization of society. Journal of American Culture 6, 100--107.
Ritzer, George, 1996. The McDonaldization of Society. Revised ed. Sage, London.
Ruhi, Skriye, 2006. Politeness in compliment responses: a perspective from naturally occurring exchanges in Turkish. Pragmatics 16, 43--101.
Sacks, Harvey, 1975. Everyone has to lie. In: Sanches, M., Blount, B.G. (Eds.), Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use. Academic Press, New
York, pp. 57--79.
Scollon, Ron, Scollon, Suzanne W., 1995. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Blackwell, Oxford.
Sifianou, Maria, 1989. On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behaviour: England versus Greece. Language in Society 18, 527--544.
Sifianou, Maria, 1992. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Sifianou, Maria, 2010. The announcements in the Athens Metro stations: an example of glocalisation? Intercultural Pragmatics 7, 25--46.
Sifianou, Maria, Tzanne, Angeliki, 1996. Lovely day isnt it?: Weather forecasts in their socio-cultural context. In: Ribeiro Pedro, E. (Ed.),
Discourse Analysis: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Discourse Analysis. Edicoes Colibri & Associacao Portuguesa de
Linguistica, Lisboa, pp. 357--366.
Sifianou, Maria, Tzanne, Angeliki, 1999. Po oo o Ago: M g g v v o o
(Many beaufort in the Aegean: Some considerations on the language of weather forecasts on Greek television). In: Mozer, A. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Greek Language. Ellinika Grammata, Athens, pp. 665--672.
102
Sifianou, Maria, Tzanne, Angeliki, 2001. K g o o: T o o. (And now our weather news:
Weather forecasts on Greek television). In: Proceedings of the Conference Journalism and Language, ESIEA, Athens, pp. 233--242.
Sifianou, Maria, Tzanne, Angeliki, 2010. Conceptualizations of politeness and impoliteness in Greek. Intercultural Pragmatics 7, 661--687.
Snoddy, Raymond, 2003. Modern media myths. In: Aitchison, J., Lewis, D.M. (Eds.), New Media Language. Routledge, London, pp. 18--26.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 2008. Introduction. In: Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.), Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. 2nd
ed. Continuum, London, pp. 1--8.
Steen, Gerard J., 2003. Conversationalization in discourse: stylistic changes in editorials of The Times between 1950 and 2000. In: Lagerwerf, L.,
Spooren, W., Degand, L. (Eds.), Determination of Information and Tenor in Texts: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Discourse. Nodus
Publikationen, Mnster, pp. 115--124.
Strange, Susan, 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tannen, Deborah, 1980. Implications of the oral/literate continuum for cross-cultural communication. In: Alatis, J.E. (Ed.), Georgetown Roundtable
on Languages and Linguistics 1980: Current Issues in Bilingualism. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp. 326--347.
Tannen, Deborah, ztek, Cmert, 1981. Health to our mouths. Formulaic expressions in Turkish and Greek. In: Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational
Routine. The Hague, Mouton, pp. 37--54.
Terkourafi, Marina, 2001. Politeness in Cypriot Greek: a frame-based approach. University of Cambridge, (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation).
Terkourafi, Marina, 2010. Finding face between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft: Greek perceptions of the in-group. In: Bargiela-Chiappini, F.,
Haugh, M. (Eds.), Face, Communication and Social Interaction. Equinox, London, pp. 269--288.
Terkourafi, Marina, 2011. Thank you, sorry and please in Cypriot Greek: what happens to politeness markers when they are borrowed across
languages? Journal of Pragmatics 43, 218--235.
Trudgill, Peter, 1983. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
Trudgill, Peter, 2002. Sociolinguistic Variation and Change. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Trudgill, Peter, 2010. Investigations in Sociohistorical Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Truss, Lynne, 2005. Talk to the Hand: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of Everyday Life (or Six Good Reasons to Stay Home and Bolt the Door).
Profile, London.
Tsakona, Villy, 2009. Linguistic creativity, secondary orality, and political discourse: the Modern Greek myth of the eloquent orator. Journal of
Modern Greek Studies 27, 81--106.
Tsakona, Villy, 2012. Linguistic creativity and institutional design: the case of Greek parliamentary discourse. Byzantine and Modern Greek
Studies 36, 91--109.
Turner, Bryan S., 2010. Theories of globalization: issues and origins. In: Turner, B.S. (Ed.), The Routledge International Handbook of
Globalization Studies. Routledge, London, pp. 3--22.
Tzanne, Angeliki, 2001. What youre saying sounds very nice and Im delighted to hear it!: some considerations on the functions of presenterinitiated simultaneous speech in Greek panel discussions In: Bayraktarog lu, A., Sifianou, M. (Eds.), Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries:
The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 271--306.
Tziovas, Dimitris, 2001. Residual orality and belated textuality in Greek literature and culture. In: Georgakopoulou, A., Spanaki, M. (Eds.), A
Reader in Greek Sociolinguistics: Studies in Modern Greek Language, Culture and Communication. Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 119--134.
Wardhaugh, Ronald, 1986. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Blackwell, Oxford.
Watts, Richard.J., 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: reconsidering claims for universality. In: Watts, R.J., Ide, S., Ehlich, K.
(Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 1--17.
Watts, Richard.J., 2003. Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wheeler, Max W., 1994. Politeness, sociolinguistic theory and language change. Folia Linguistica Historica XV/1-2, 149--174.
Xie, Chaoqun, 2007. Controversies about politeness. In: Dascal, M., Chang, H. (Eds.), Traditions of Controversy. John Benjamins, Amsterdam,
pp. 259--266.

Sifianou - 2013 - The Impact of Globalisation On Politeness and Impoliteness PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sifianou - 2013 - The Impact of Globalisation On Politeness and Impoliteness PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

The impact of globalisation on politeness and impoliteness

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

2. Globalisation, culture and politeness

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen