Politeness and social signals

In the literature, politeness has been researched within many disciplines. Although Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness (1978, 1987) is often cited, it is primarily a linguistic theory and has been criticized for its lack of generalizability to all cultures. Consequently, there is a need for a more comprehensive approach to understand and explain politeness. We suggest applying a social signal framework that considers politeness as a communicative state. By doing so, we aim to unify and explain politeness and its corresponding research and identify further research needed in this area.

Politeness and honesty contribute additively to the interpretation of scalar expressions

Scalar terms have been the focus of much recent attention. People can interpret such terms narrowly, for example, interpreting A or B to convey A or B but not both, on the grounds that a speaker would have explicitly used a more informative term (i.e., and) had he or she been in a position to do so; or they can interpret such terms broadly (A or B or both). Examined here are the effects of politeness contexts and self-rated honesty on people’s interpretation of the scalar connective or. In two experiments, it is shown that participants are less likely to adopt the narrow interpretation when the communicative context is face threatening, and that regardless of context, participants high in self-rated honesty adopt the narrow interpretation to a greater extent than those low in self-rated honesty. These results are consistent with the claim that an assumption of honesty underlies certain pragmatic inferences and suggest that personality may be an important source of individual differences in language interpretation.

Κύριε, Δέσποτα, Domine: Greek Politeness in the Roman Empire

Why did the Greeks of the Roman period make such extensive use of the vocative κύριε, when Greeks of earlier periods had been content with only one vocative meaning ‘master’, δέσποτα? This study, based primarily on a comprehensive search of documentary papyri but also making extensive use of literary evidence (particularly that of the Septuagint and New Testament), traces the development of both terms from the classical period to the seventh century AD. It concludes that κύριε was created to provide a translation for Latin domine, and that domine, which has often been considered a translation of κύριε, had a Roman origin. In addition, both κύριε and domine were from their beginnings much less deferential than is traditionally supposed, so that neither term underwent the process of ‘weakening’ which converted English ‘master’ into ‘Mr’. δέσποτα, which was originally far more deferential than the other two terms, did undergo some weakening, but not (until a very late period) as much as is usually supposed. These findings in turn imply that Imperial politeness has been somewhat misunderstood and suggest that the Greeks of the first few centuries AD were much less servile in their language than is traditionally assumed.