Advertisement

Communicating Solidarity with the Reader: Linguistic Politeness Strategies in EFL Methodology Textbooks

  • Joanna Nijakowska
Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

My attempt in this paper is to demonstrate how the mechanism of establishing common ground with readers is reflected in textbooks aimed at foreign language teachers and trainees. The study draws on the framework of linguistic politeness (Brown and Levinson 1987), informed by the metadiscourse framework (Myers 1989, 1992; Hyland 1998, 2000, 2005c, 2009). While written academic discourse has been extensively researched, there seems to be a gap concerning its detailed analysis devoted to politeness strategies, especially with reference to foreign language teacher education. Viewing academic writing as interpersonal social engagement naturally invites linguistic politeness framework for its analysis. The study uses the apparatus offered by the politeness theory to address writer-reader interaction patterns in written academic discourse with reference to EFL methodology textbook genre. The research questions I intend to answer are as follows: What are the facework patterns and regularities that govern the way writers express solidarity and seek common ground with readers in methodology textbooks in the field of EFL teacher education? Is there a preference towards the use of particular politeness strategies? Tentative results confirm writers’ preference towards certain politeness strategies, demonstrating their solidarity with the readers through intensifying interest to readers, claiming common opinion/attitude, showing concern for readers’ needs, including writer and readers in the activity, giving reasons, giving gifts, as well as promising/offering.

Keywords

Common Ground Academic Discourse Discourse Participant Textbook Author Negative Face 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arundale, R. B. 2006. Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 2: 193–216.Google Scholar
  2. Arundale, R. B. 2009. Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: An alternative to Goffman. In Face, communication and social interaction, eds. F. Bargiela-Chiappini and M. Haugh, 33–54. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. 2003. Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1453–1469.Google Scholar
  4. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. 2009. Facing the future: Some reflections. In Face, communication and social interaction, eds. F. Bargiela-Chiappini and M. Haugh, 307–326. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Biber, D. 2006. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 97–116. (doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001).Google Scholar
  6. Bogdanowska-Jakubowska, E. 2010. Face: An interdisciplinary perspective. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
  7. Bousfield, D. 2008. Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  8. Bremner, S. 2006. Politeness, power, and activity systems. Written requests and multiple audiences in an institutional setting. Written Communication 23: 397–423. (doi:  10.1177/0741088306293707).Google Scholar
  9. Bremner, S. 2008. Intertextuality and business communication textbooks: Why students need more textual support. English for Specific Purposes 27: 306–321. (doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2008.01.001).
  10. Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson (1987/1978). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Culpeper, J. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349–367.Google Scholar
  12. Culpeper, J. 2010. Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3232–3245. (doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007).Google Scholar
  13. Culpeper, J., D. Bousfield and A. Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1545–1579. (doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2).Google Scholar
  14. Cutting, J. 2008. Pragmatics and discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Eelen, G. 2001. A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
  16. Ermida, I. 2006. Linguistic mechanisms of power in Nineteen Eighty-Four: Applying politeness theory to Orwell’s world. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 842–862. (doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.05.008).Google Scholar
  17. Freddi, M. 2005. Arguing linguistics: Corpus investigation of one functional variety of academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 5–26. (doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2003.09.002).Google Scholar
  18. Gil-Salom, L. and C. Soler-Monreal. 2009. Interacting with the reader: Politeness strategies in engineering research article discussions. International Journal of English Studies, Special Issue: 175–89.Google Scholar
  19. Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  20. Graham, S. L. 2007. Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 742–759. (doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017).Google Scholar
  21. Hatipoğlu, x. 2007. (Im)politeness, national and professional identities and context: Some evidence from e-mailed ‘Call for Papers’. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 760–773. (doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.014).
  22. Haugh, M. 2007. Emic conceptualisations of (im)politeness and face in Japanese: Implications for the discursive negotiation of second language learner identities. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 657–680. (doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.005).Google Scholar
  23. Hyland, K. 1994. Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes 13: 239–256.Google Scholar
  24. Hyland, K. 1998. Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 437–455.Google Scholar
  25. Hyland, K. 1999. Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes 18: 3–26.Google Scholar
  26. Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  27. Hyland, K. 2001a. Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic writing. Written Communication 18: 549–574. (doi:  10.1177/0741088301018004005).
  28. Hyland, K. 2001b. Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20: 207–226.Google Scholar
  29. Hyland, K. 2003. Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54: 251–259. (doi:  10.1002/asi.10204).Google Scholar
  30. Hyland, K. 2005a. Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education 16: 363–377. (doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2006.05.002).
  31. Hyland, K. 2005b. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7: 173–192. (doi:  10.1177/1461445605050365).
  32. Hyland, K. 2005c. Metadiscourse: Exploring writing in interaction. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  33. Hyland, K. 2009. Academic discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  34. Hyland, K. and F. Salager-Meyer. 2008. Scientific writing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 42: 297–338. (doi:  10.1002/aris.2008.1440420114).
  35. Hyland, K. and P. Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25: 156–177.Google Scholar
  36. Janney, R. W. and H. Arndt. 2005. In Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice. (second revised and expanded edition), eds. R. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich, 21–41. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  37. Jansen, F. and D. Janssen. 2010. Effects of positive politeness strategies in business letters. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2531–2548.Google Scholar
  38. Kuhi, D. and B. Behnam. 2011. Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguists: A comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication XX: 1–45. (doi:  10.1177/0741088310387259).
  39. Locher, M. A. 2006. Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua 25: 249–267.Google Scholar
  40. Matsumoto, Y. 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 403–426.Google Scholar
  41. Meier, A. J. 1995. Defining politeness: Universality in appropriateness. Language Sciences 17: 345–356.Google Scholar
  42. Myers, G. 1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics 10: 1–35.Google Scholar
  43. Myers, G. 1992. ‘In this paper we report…’ Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics 17: 295–313.Google Scholar
  44. Park, J. 2008a. Linguistic politeness and face-work in computer-mediated communication. Part 1: A theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59: 2051–2059. (doi:  10.1002/asi.20916).Google Scholar
  45. Park, J. 2008b. Linguistic politeness and face-work in computer mediated communication, Part 2: An application of the theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59: 2199–2209. (doi:  10.1002/asi.20926).Google Scholar
  46. Parkinson, J. and R. Adendorff. 2004. The use of popular science articles in teaching scientific literacy. English for Specific Purposes 23: 379–396. (doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2003.11.005).
  47. Paxton, M. 2007. Tensions between textbook pedagogy and the literacy practices of the disciplinary community: A study of writing in first year economics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6: 109–125. (doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2007.04.003).
  48. Pilegaard, M. 1997. Politeness in written business discourse: A textlinguistic perspective on requests. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 223–244.Google Scholar
  49. Spencer-Oatey, H. 2005. (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 95–119.Google Scholar
  50. Spencer-Oatey, H. 2007. Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 639–656. (doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004).Google Scholar
  51. Swales, J. M. 1995. The role of the textbook in EAP writing research. English for Specific Purposes 14: 3–18.Google Scholar
  52. Terkourafi, M. 2005. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1: 237–262.Google Scholar
  53. Terkourafi, M. 2007. Toward a universal notion of face for a universal notion of cooperation. In Explorations in pragmatics. Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects, eds. I. Kecskes and L. R. Horn, 313–344. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  54. Walko, Z. 2007. EFL research articles through the lens of pragmatic politeness. WoPaLP 1: 1–16.Google Scholar
  55. Watts, R. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Watts, R., S. Ide and K. Ehlich (eds.). 2005. Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice. (second revised and expanded edition). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  57. Werkhofer, K. T. 2005. Traditional and modern views: The social constitution and the power of politeness. In Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (second revised and expanded edition), eds. R. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich, 155–199. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ŁódźLodzPoland

Personalised recommendations