Cited by 890Discourse Analysis in Language StudiesLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesLinguistics and Language Analysis

The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles

MYERS, G.·1989·Applied Linguistics

Abstract

Recent studies of the pragmatics of politeness have drawn on conversational data. I argue that their model can be extended to some genres of written texts. There have been two obstacles to such an extension: the lack of a definite addressee for published texts, and the dificulty of defining relevant cultural variables. Taking a corpus of articles by molecular geneticists, I assume a simple model of a two-part audience, and focus on two kinds of impositions: claims and denials of claims. With this framework, one can see politeness claims and denials of claims. With this framework, one can see politeness strategies in regularities of scientific style—such as the use of pronouns and of passives—that are usually explained in terms of conventions. The analysis also accounts for some otherwise unexplained stylistic features, such as the use of adverbs in establishing solidarity, and the use of personal attribution in hedging. With these positive and negative politeness strategies in mind, we can understand better the social significance of the occasional instances in which the writer makes an imposition without redress, or makes the imposition indirectly or chooses not to make it at all. Comparisons with popularizations, a genre in which the writer has a different kind of relation to the reader, and thus uses different kinds of politeness devices, show that these devices arise in response to the interaction embodied in the text.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/applin/10.1.1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In example (45), personal attribution-for me-is used, and the reviewer attributes responsibility of the message to herself, not the writer, mitigating the universality and generalizability of her evaluation.

    “In addition, it is worth noting that personal attribution-for me-is used in (45). In this way, the reviewer attributes the responsibility of the message to herself, not the writer, mitigating the universality and generalizability of her evaluation (K. Hyland, 1996; Myers, 1989).”
  • The reviewer employs the politeness tactic of using an in-group identity marker us, showing solidarity with the anonymous writer taking the same class.

    “The reviewer employs the politeness tactic of using an in-group identity marker us (Myers, 1989), showing solidarity with the anonymous writer taking the same class.”

Authors
MYERS, G.
Affiliations
University of Bradford (GB)
Corresponding author
MYERS, G.
Venue
Applied Linguistics
Published
1989-03-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
1-35
ISSN
  • 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-450X
OpenAlex
W2011854777
Cited by
890
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 36
FWCI
121.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
politeness, scientific writing, positive and negative politeness, imposition, addressee, molecular genetics, passives, pronouns, adverbs, solidarity, hedging, personal attributions, popularization, written discourse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review