The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From 'Sorry, I don't good English': Japanese L2 students' written peer feedback in the face-to-face and anonymous review modes (2023) · cites this paper as 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.”
From 'Sorry, I don't good English': Japanese L2 students' written peer feedback in the face-to-face and anonymous review modes (2023) · cites this paper as Myers, 1989
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong
Flowerdew, J. (1999) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80125-8 · Cited by 250 · see citing works
The student laboratory report genre: A genre analysis
Parkinson, J. (2017) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.esp.2016.08.001 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Hedging praise in English and Japanese book reviews
Itakura, H. (2013) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.003 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Yao, M., Wei, Y., & Wang, H. (2023) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04759-6 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Kim, S. (2023) · Journal of Writing Research · doi:10.17239/jowr-2023.15.02.02 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
The Connections Between STEM Learning Outcomes in a STEM Hackathon
Chen, Y., & Teo, T. W. (2026) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-026-10369-y
- Authors
- MYERS, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Bradford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- MYERS, G.
- Venue
- Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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