The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Politeness Theory and Relational Work
Open accessAbstract
In this paper we briefly revisit politeness research influenced by Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory. We argue that this research tradition does not deal with politeness but with the mitigation of face-threatening acts (FTAs) in general. In our understanding, politeness cannot just be equated with FTA-mitigation because politeness is a discursive concept. This means that what is polite (or impolite) should not be predicted by analysts. Instead, researchers should focus on the discursive struggle in which interactants engage. This reduces politeness to a much smaller part of facework than was assumed until the present, and it allows for interpretations that consider behavior to be merely appropriate and neither polite nor impolite. We propose that relational work, the “work” individuals invest in negotiating relationships with others, which includes impolite as well as polite or merely appropriate behavior, is a useful concept to help investigate the discursive struggle over politeness. We demonstrate this in close readings of five examples from naturally occurring interactions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
Bourdieu, P. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9781503621749 · Cited by 17,271
Politeness : Some Universals in Language Usage
Brown, P. (1987) · Cited by 11,894
Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.
Gamson, W. A., & Goffman, E. (1975) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2064022 · Cited by 10,570
Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior.
Tiryakian, E. A., & Goffman, E. (1968) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091926 · Cited by 7,500
Leech, G. (2016) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315835976 · Cited by 7,359
Foxman, D., & Bateson, G. (1973) · The Western Political Quarterly · doi:10.2307/446833 · Cited by 7,225
Language as social semiotic : the social interpretation of language and meaning
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978) · Cited by 5,776
(1981) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,644
The Elementary Forms of Religious Life
Durkheim, E., & Swain, J. W. (1916) · The American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.2307/3405938 · Cited by 3,400
Cited by
The Utility and Ubiquity of Taboo Words
Jay, T. (2009) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01115.x · Cited by 264
Jay, T., & Janschewitz, K. (2008) · Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture · doi:10.1515/jplr.2008.013 · Cited by 192
Understanding grooming discourse in computer-mediated environments
Lorenzo-Dus, N., Izura, C., & Pérez-Tattam, R. (2016) · Discourse, Context & Media · doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2016.02.004 · Cited by 101
The pragmatics of manipulation: Exploiting im/politeness theories
Sorlin, S. (2017) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.002 · Cited by 97
“Cause ur special”: Understanding trust and complimenting behaviour in online grooming discourse
Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Izura, C. (2017) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.004 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2005-01-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1612-5681 (ISSN-L)
- 1613-4877
- OpenAlex
- W2068343953
- Cited by
- 1,382
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 124.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Politeness Theory and Relational Work. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
- The paper
- Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness Theory and Relational Work. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.