Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
Diplomarbeit
Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
einer/eines Magistra/Magisters der Philosophie
an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
vorgelegt von
Anja ZOTTLER
am Institut für Anglistik
Begutachterin: Reitbauer Margit, Ao.Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr.phil.
Graz, 2017
Eidesstattliche Erklärung
Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich die vorliegende Diplomarbeit selbstständig verfasst habe, keine
anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel benutzt wurden und die den benutzten
Quellen wörtlich und inhaltlich entnommenen Stellen als solche kenntlich gemacht wurden.
Die Arbeit habe ich bisher keinem anderen inländischen oder ausländischen Prüfungsamt in
gleicher oder vergleichbarer Form vorgelegt. Sie wurde bisher auch nicht veröffentlicht. Die
Arbeit entspricht den Regeln und Grundsätzen der guten wissenschaftlichen Praxis und ist frei
von unbefugter Verwertung fremden geistigen Eigentums. Ich erkläre mich damit
einverstanden, dass die Arbeit mit Hilfe eines Plagiatserkennungsdienstes auf enthaltene
Plagiate überprüft wird. Die vorliegende Fassung entspricht der eingereichten elektronischen
Version. Im Falle der Verletzung der Rechte eines Dritten wird die Universität Graz von
jeglichen ihr gegenüber geltend gemachten Ansprüchen schad- und klaglos gehalten. Dies gilt
insbesondere für die Urheber- und Persönlichkeitsrechte Dritter und erstreckt sich auf die Dauer
des gesetzlichen Urheberrechts.
____________________ ____________________
Ort und Datum Unterschrift
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2
2. Introduction: Multilingualism and Changing Behaviour of Multilinguals ................. 4
2.1. Definitions of Bi- or Multilingualism .......................................................................... 4
2.2. Extent of Multilingualism ............................................................................................ 5
2.3. Types of Multilingualism ............................................................................................ 6
2.4. Different Perspectives on Multilingualism over Time ................................................ 7
2.5. A First Insight into Research on Multilinguals’ Changing Behaviour ........................ 7
3. Forms of Multilingual Behaviour .................................................................................... 8
3.1. Changing Self-Perception ............................................................................................ 9
3.2. Cognitive Restructuring ............................................................................................. 10
3.3. Cross-Linguistic Influence ........................................................................................ 11
3.4. Code-Mixing .............................................................................................................. 14
4. Reasons for Behavioural Changes in Multilinguals ..................................................... 16
4.1. Linguistic and Cultural Differences .......................................................................... 16
4.1.1. Pavlenko’s Findings ........................................................................................... 17
4.1.2. Multiculturalism ................................................................................................. 17
4.1.3. Conceptualisation ............................................................................................... 18
4.2. Learning Context ....................................................................................................... 19
4.3. Language Emotionality .............................................................................................. 21
4.4. Language Proficiency ................................................................................................ 22
5. Politeness and Face ......................................................................................................... 22
5.1. Approaches to Politeness ........................................................................................... 23
5.2. Leech’s (cf. 1983) Politeness Principle and Maxims of Politeness ........................... 24
5.3. Brown and Levinson’s (cf. 1987) Approach to Politeness ........................................ 25
5.3.1. The Concept of Face .......................................................................................... 26
5.4. Dealing with FTAs .................................................................................................... 27
5.5. Influences on the Choice of Politeness Strategies ..................................................... 28
5.6. Impoliteness ............................................................................................................... 30
5.6.1. Influences on the Perception of Impoliteness .................................................... 31
5.6.1.1. Face ............................................................................................................. 31
5.6.1.2. Intentionality ............................................................................................... 32
5.6.1.3. Emotionality – Perlocutionary Effect ......................................................... 33
5.6.1.4. Cultural and Social Norms .......................................................................... 34
5.7. Brown and Levinson’s (cf. 1987) Realisation of Politeness Strategies ..................... 35
5.7.1. Bald on Record ................................................................................................... 35
5.7.2. Positive Politeness .............................................................................................. 37
5.7.3. Negative Politeness ............................................................................................ 38
5.7.4. Off Record .......................................................................................................... 41
5.8. Culpeper’s (cf. 2011) Realisation of Impoliteness .................................................... 42
5.8.1. Conventionalised and Non-Conventionalised Impoliteness .............................. 42
5.8.2. Affective Impoliteness ....................................................................................... 44
5.8.3. Coercive Impoliteness ........................................................................................ 44
5.8.4. Entertaining Impoliteness ................................................................................... 45
6. Empirical Study .............................................................................................................. 46
6.1. Aim ............................................................................................................................ 46
6.2. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 46
6.3. Interview .................................................................................................................... 47
6.3.1. Part I: General Information ................................................................................ 47
6.3.2. Part II: Linguistic Background ........................................................................... 49
6.3.2.1. Intercultural Experience .............................................................................. 51
6.3.2.2. Self-Perception ............................................................................................ 54
6.3.3. Part III: Politeness Strategies ............................................................................. 57
6.3.3.1. Differences between English and German .................................................. 57
6.3.3.2. Importance of Politeness and Manners ....................................................... 60
6.3.3.3. Language Emotionality ............................................................................... 62
6.3.3.4. Expressing (Im)Politeness .......................................................................... 63
6.4. Performing (Im)Politeness: Mock-emails ................................................................. 66
6.4.1. Request ............................................................................................................... 67
6.4.1.1. Form of Address, Introductory Phrase, Farewell ........................................ 68
6.4.1.2. Politeness Strategies .................................................................................... 69
6.4.2. Complaint ........................................................................................................... 71
6.4.2.1. Form of Address, Introductory Phrase, Farewell ........................................ 71
6.4.2.2. Politeness Strategies .................................................................................... 73
6.4.2.3. Functions of Impoliteness ........................................................................... 74
6.4.3. Comparison of the Results of the Requests and Complaints.............................. 76
6.5. Evaluation of Impoliteness: Videos ........................................................................... 76
6.5.1. Summary of the Participants Answers to the Video Questionnaires.................. 77
6.5.2. Comparison and Analysis of the Participants’ Answers to the Video
Questionnaires ................................................................................................................... 83
7. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 85
8. References ........................................................................................................................ 87
Appendix .................................................................................................................................... I
I) Figures .............................................................................................................................. I
II) Graphs ......................................................................................................................... II
III) Tables ......................................................................................................................... IV
IV) Transcripts of the Survey of the Participants .......................................................... XVI
a.) AUT 1 ................................................................................................................. XVI
b.) AUT 2 ............................................................................................................... XXV
c.) AUT 3 ........................................................................................................... XXXIV
d.) AUT 4 ............................................................................................................... XLIV
e.) UK ........................................................................................................................ LIII
f.) S ........................................................................................................................ LXIV
g.) US ................................................................................................................... LXXII
V) Legend: Text Analysis .................................................................................... LXXXIV
2
1. Introduction
Regardless of the culture we live in, language plays a highly important role in our interaction
with each other. Interpersonal interaction is closely connected to both language and culture,
whereby every culture has its own set of rules and conventions that influence how we perceive
the world and behave in it. The same holds true for language, as we use it to make sense of the
world by conceptualising and naming our surroundings. However, considering the enormous
number of different cultures and languages worldwide and their great diversity it is
understandable that different cultures and languages make sense of the world in different ways.
When members of various cultures meet, these differences can either create problems or enrich
individuals and broaden their horizons in various ways. One of the most noteworthy
developments of today’s world is the process of globalisation. The world has become small and
intercultural encounters have become the norm rather than the exception, which also entails a
meeting of different languages. In today’s world, knowing more than one language is not a rare
asset anymore but practically inevitable. Taking all this into account, it does not come as a
surprise that we can find a great number of people in our society who belong not only to
different language groups but also to different cultures. Multilingualism and multiculturalism
are widespread phenomena that shape today’s world to a great extent.
Every language and culture follows its own rules for communicating and interacting
with each other. In this respect, politeness plays an important role to ensure that we get along
with each other and thereby considerably shapes the way we communicate with one another.
However, in order for politeness to work, the people interacting with each other need to have a
shared concept and understanding of politeness, which is where potential problems in
intercultural communication can arise. When second language speakers apply the norms and
conventions of their native culture and language to their second language, it can create problems
and misunderstandings when they interact with native speakers. This thesis is interested in
whether multilingual people use and perceive (im)politeness differently depending on the
language they use.
In order to explore this question, I will begin with an overview of multilingualism and
(im)politeness research. Since both are very well researched and broad areas, I will focus on
the subareas that are most relevant for the scope of this thesis. First, Iwill examine selected
ways of defining bi- or multilingualism byfocusing on approaches by Francoise Grosjean (cf.
3
2013) and Aneta Pavlenko (cf. 2006) that form the basis for the definition of bi- or
multilingualism I use in this thesis. Afterwards, I will briefly address the global extent of
multilingualism to illustrate the relevance of research on multilingualism. Next, I will present
different types of multilinguals, provide a brief overview of how the perspective on
multilingualism has changed over time, and give a first insight into research on multilinguals’
changing behaviour. Furthermore, I will elaborate on the specific ways in which multilinguals’
behaviour changes with language use and explore reasons for this phenomenon. Afterwards, I
will discuss the concepts of politeness and face. For this purpose, I will present two approaches
that have been very influential in politeness research, namely Geoffrey Leech’s (cf. 1983)
politeness principle and maxims of politeness and Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson’s
(cf. 1987) approach to politeness. In addition, I will take a closer look at impoliteness by largely
drawing on Johnathan Culpeper’s (cf. 2011) approach. Afterwards, I will investigate ways of
realising politeness strategies according to Brown and Levison (cf. 1987) and ways of realising
impoliteness according to Culpeper (cf. 2011).
For the second part of this thesis I conducted a qualitative empirical study on
multilinguals’ changing use and perception of (im)politeness. The data for this study was
collected in face-to-face meetings with a total of seven participants who all classify as
multilingual, according to the definition of multilingualism used in this thesis. The study is
divided into three parts. The first part consists of an interview, whereby the participants’
answers form the basis for the analysis of the following two sections, namely the use of
(im)politeness in the form of mock-emails and the evaluation of impoliteness displayed in two
videos found on www.youtube.com. For the analysis of the mock-emails, I will apply Brown
and Levinson’s (cf. 1987) politeness strategies in a slightly simplified way and Culpeper’s (cf.
2011) functions of impoliteness.
4
2. Introduction: Multilingualism and Changing Behaviour of
Multilinguals
The aim of the following chapter is to give an introduction to the broad field of research on
multilingualism. There is no real consent on how to define terms such as bi- or multilingualism
or who classifies as multilingual. Therefore, this chapter aims to clarify the approaches and
definitions used in this thesis. I will predominantly draw on approaches and definitions by
Francoise Grosjean and Anetta Pavlenko, which will be briefly explained in the following. This
chapter will also provide an overview of the global extent of multilingualism and its relevance
in a global context, different types of multilingualism, briefly reflect on how the perception of
and attitude towards multilingualism has changed over time, and present an introduction to the
specific area of research on the changing behaviour of multilinguals depending on the language
they use.
2.1. Definitions of Bi- or Multilingualism
There are numerous definitions of bi-or multilingualism and differing opinions on how the
concepts are commonly described and who classifies as bi- or multilingual. Depending on the
context and which linguistic approach is being used, scientists have come up with multiple
definitions that differ in precision and focus.
Grosjean defines multilingualism “as the use of two or more languages (or dialects) in
everyday life” (Grosjean 2013:5) and thereby uses a very broad definition with a strong focus
on language use. Pavlenko (cf. 2006: 2) provides a very similar definition but states explicitly
that she neglects proficiency in either of the languages in her definition. She also differentiates
between bilinguals, meaning speakers who only use two languages, and multilinguals who use
more than two languages in their everyday lives.
In this thesis, I will use ‘multilingual’ as an umbrella term that includes both the use of
only two and the use of more than two languages in everyday life. My decision is based on
Grosjean’s definition of ‘multilingual’ that also acknowledges the existence and use of different
dialects in addition to standard language. Therefore, when a person uses both dialect and the
standard variation of the same language, he or she can already be described as bilingual. In light
of this, the term ‘bilingualism’ appears to be more restrictive and will therefore not be used.
5
As mentioned above, the primary factor in Grosjean’s and Pavlenko’s definition of
multilingualism is language use as opposed to proficiency and fluency. There is a general belief
that multilinguals have equal skills in two or more languages, master them perfectly, and are
equally fluent in these languages. However, this is a misconception, as a multilingual’s level of
proficiency greatly depends on the need for the use of the different languages. (cf. Grosjean
2013: 7) The more domains of life a language is used in, the more fluent a speaker is in this
particular language. This also influences other aspects of language such as vocabulary or style.
If a speaker does not use a language for a specific domain, it is unlikely that he or she will have
the necessary vocabulary or style to deal with this domain in this particular language. (cf.
Grosjean 2013: 12) Therefore, language use and frequency appear to be more important and
reliable for describing and classifying multilingualism.
2.2. Extent of Multilingualism
There is no common consent about the exact number of living languages or about the exact
number of countries worldwide. These numbers greatly depend on the source and the criteria
used. According to Lewis, Simons and Fenning (cf. 2016, online), there is currently a total of
7 097 living languages worldwide. Worldatlas.com (cf. 2016, online) recognises 194
independent countries, excluding partially recognised states such as Kosovo, Palestine or
Taiwan. This results in an average of 36.6 languages per independent country. Needless to say,
the worldwide distribution of population and languages is uneven. Thus, this average number
does not reflect a realistic distribution of languages over the world, but rather aims to illustrate
the necessity and relevance of multilingualism.
Grosjean (cf. 2013: 6) states that although there is no clear data on a global scale, it has
repeatedly been shown that at least half of the wold’s population is multilingual.
Multilingualism does not depend on age or social class and can be found in most countries of
the world. In North America, 35 per cent of Canadians and18 to 20 per cent of the population
of the United States are multilingual. Multilingualism is even more common in Africa and Asia,
because of the great number of different languages that are commonly used in everyday life.
According to the European Commission (cf. 2012: 12), 54 per cent of Europeans speak one
additional language well enough to hold a conversation in it, while 25 per cent are
conversational in two additional languages and 10 per cent in three additional languages.
6
2.3. Types of Multilingualism
Various attempts have been made to classify different types of multilinguals. There is no real
consensus on what defines multilingualism or how it can be measured. (cf. Pienemann and
Keßler 2007: 247) However, we can make a main distinction based on how languages are
acquired. On a wider scale, we can also differentiate based on the age of acquisition and thus
between childhood or early multilingualism and adult multilingualism. In light of this,
childhood multilingualism can take place either in a simultaneous or successive mode of
acquisition (cf. Yip 2013: 119). As it is acquired later on in life, adult multilingualism is, by its
nature, a successive form of language acquisition.
According to Paradis (cf. 2007: 17), simultaneous multilingualism takes place when
children receive input from two or more different languages as infants and toddlers. At this age,
they are not yet able to understand that the linguistic input they are exposed to comes from two
different sources. At the same time, multilingual children “have to acquire two linguistic
systems in the same amount of time that monolinguals acquire one” (Paradis 2007: 17).
However, they usually do not receive an equal amount of input in both languages, which is why
they often become more proficient in one language than the other. This indicates that one
language usually becomes more dominant than the other. (cf. Paradis 2007: 17)
Sequential childhood multilingualism, on the other hand, takes place when children have
already established one or two languages before learning another one. A possible benefit of this
mode of acquisition is that sequentially multilingual children are already more cognitively
mature when learning the new target language. Thus, they potentially show a quicker
acquisition process for the added language. (cf. Paradis 2007: 24-25) Nevertheless, according
to Li (cf. 2013: 145), the native language, meaning the language acquired first, is usually
dominant, more pronounced and used more frequently.
According to Li (cf. 2013: 145-146), successive, meaning sequential language
acquisition can happen throughout one’s entire life. In contrast to childhood multilingualism,
the study of (adult) successive language acquisition differentiates between first (meaning the
native) and second language. There seem to be age-related differences between child
multilinguals and adult multilinguals. While child multilinguals appear to easily acquire
multiple languages simultaneously and successively, adult multilinguals seemingly face more
significant problems in this regard.
7
2.4. Different Perspectives on Multilingualism over Time
The question whether multilinguals show different personality traits or even entirely different
personalities depending on the language they use has continuously raised interest and debates
over the years. In the early 20th century bilingualism was widely seen as a problem. Along with
their language(s), bilinguals were also said to change their political and moral views, which
made them appear unreliable. (cf. Pavlenko 2006: 2)
The second half of the 20th century brought some slight improvements in the sense that
the benefits of multilingualism were finally being acknowledged. However, the general notion
remained that multilinguals were mostly seen as having two differing and incompatible
personalities, thus causing split personalities or even schizophrenia. The problem of having
different personalities and identities based on language was called linguistic schizophrenia. (cf.
Pavlenko 2006: 3)
In contemporary research this negative outlook on multilingualism has greatly changed
for the better, as the advantages of multilingualism are clearly being foregrounded. Pavlenko
says that “in [her] own view, the bilingual turn in academia is a natural consequence of
globalization, transnational migration, and increased ethnolinguistic diversity in the Western
world. The dramatic increase of linguistic diversity outside of academia made multilingualism
impossible to ignore” (Pavlenko 2014: 19-20).
2.5. A First Insight into Research on Multilinguals’ Changing Behaviour
As a result of an increased interest in multilingualism and in its effects and benefits for speakers,
researchers have examined various aspects of multilinguals’ (linguistic) behaviour. The overall
aim is to understand multilingual behaviour better, to gain a deeper understanding of the
underlying processes and to highlight the advantages of multilingualism.
A study conducted by Aneta Pavlenko (cf. 2006: 10) shows that the majority of
multilinguals perceive themselves differently depending on the language they use. A total of 65
per cent of the participants affirmed that they feel like a different person when they use their
different languages. Only 26 per cent negated, 6 per cent gave an ambiguous answer and 3 per
cent did not answer at all. Pavlenko discovered four main sources for this changing self-
perception in her study: “(1) linguistic and cultural differences; (2) distinct learning contexts;
8
(3) different levels of language emotionality; (4) different levels of language proficiency”
(Pavlenko 2006: 10).
There has been increased interest in the question as to whether Benjamin Whorf’s
principle of linguistic relativity, according to which language influences the way we think and
perceive the world, can also be applied to multilingualism. Numerous studies conducted show
that speakers indeed evaluate aspects of the world differently depending on the language they
use. (cf. Athanasopoulos 2011: 30) Other studies indicate that language-specific principles
influence the way speakers organise information and that linguistic categories also have an
impact on the focus of attention in a certain situation. (cf. Schmiedtová, von Stutterheim and
Carrol 2011: 66-67)
Thirdly, Grosjean (cf. 2013: 23) mentions the aspect of culture and context as a major
influence. In Grosjean’s view, it is not the language that leads to a change of behaviour, but
rather context. Multilinguals that are also bicultural adapt their behaviour to the current context,
meaning the culture they act in, and to the culture of their interlocutors. However, this is not
the case for monocultural multilinguals. This theory shows some obvious connections to
Whorf’s theory of linguistic relativity.
Fourthly, multilinguals usually assign a different degree of emotionality to their
different languages. For multilinguals, their first language generally feels more emotional. (cf.
Harris, Gleason and Ayçiçeği 2006: 257) Nevertheless, this mainly holds true for sequential
multilinguals according to a study conducted by Harris, Gleason and Ayçiçeği (cf. 2006: 276-
277). Simultaneous multilinguals, on the other hand, showed similar reactions in both of their
two languages, which indicates the importance of the age of acquisition.
3. Forms of Multilingual Behaviour
This chapter examines typical ways in which multilinguals’ behaviour can change depending
on the language they use. As mentioned in the previous chapter, such forms of multilingual
behaviour are a changing self-perception, cognitive restructuring, cross-linguistic influence or
transfer, and code-mixing.
9
3.1. Changing Self-Perception
As briefly mentioned above, the long established concept of linguistic relativity commonly
claims that language influences the way we perceive the world. Thus, every language leads its
speakers to hold a different view of and attitude towards the world. (cf. Pavlenko 2014: 2) This
seems to be even more interesting in the context of multilingualism. If one language already
shapes a speaker’s perception of the world, which influence do two or more languages have?
Does a multilingual speaker switch between the perceptions suggested by the different
languages, or rather develop an entirely new outlook based on all languages together? When
language influences a speaker’s perception of the world to this extent, it only appears logical
that it also influences how a speakers sees him- or herself. If it is true that language is capable
of shaping the way we see the world, then it is also capable of shaping the way we see ourselves.
Again, this becomes particularly interesting when we take a look at multilingual speakers.
Following a postmodernist approach to reality and identity, reality is not something
absolute. Rather every individual perceives a personal reality. By trying to understand and make
sense of this reality, the individual’s mind constructs a subjective reality. Along these lines,
postmodernists also view identity as subjective and not absolute. This means that individuals
can play different roles in society and their individual communities. (cf. Hemmi 2014: 76)
Referring to Wenger (1998), Hemmi (cf. 2014: 76) additionally claims that these multiple
identities also depend on how individuals view themselves and on the social context. Hemmi
(cf. 2014: 76-77) presents four characteristics of identity, based on Wenger (1998), according
to whom identity is:
(1) temporal, meaning that identity is limited by and stands in relation to time,
(2) ongoing, indicating its dynamic and ever-changing character,
(3) flexible regarding how it changes, in the sense that it does not follow linear change, and
(4) dependent on interaction, meaning that it changes as a result of interaction.
A sociocultural perspective on identity examines at the impact of society on the
development the individuals. Furthermore, it focuses on how cultural beliefs and the interaction
with others shape an individual’s personal development and perception. (cf. Hemmi 2014: 77)
Referring to Holquist (cf. 1978: 37), Hemmi also states that “people establish their
understandings of who they are by actively negotiating their position and self-images through
conversations and activities involving others” (Hemmi 2014: 77).
10
As briefly mentioned earlier, Pavlenko (cf. 2006: 6) conducted a study on multilingual’s
changing self-perception. The guiding questions of this study were:
(1) do some bi- and multilinguals feel that they become different people when they change languages; (2)
how do they make sense of these perceptions; and (3) what prompts some bi- and multilinguals to see
their language selves as different, while others claim to have a single self. (Pavlenko 2006: 6)
As stated above, a great majority of the participants confirmed that they feel like different
persons when they use different languages. Pavlenko (cf. 2006: 12-13) gives some examples of
responses to the survey, for instance, thata of a 33-year old female speaker of Italian, French,
English, Spanish and Amharic, who said: “Yes when I am in the country were the language is
spoken. I think differently.” A 42-year-old female speaker of Russian, English, Hebrew and
Ukrainian provided another interesting statement: “Absolutely. Speaking a different language
means being a different person belonging to a different community character type emotional
type.” (Pavlenko 2006: 6) The four main reasons for a changing self-perception based on the
results of Pavelnko’s (cf. 2006: 10) study will be examined in more detail later on.
3.2. Cognitive Restructuring
Athanasopoulos tries to answer the question of whether the ability to speak multiple languages
may restructure the speaker’s cognition. Asking this question appears to be logical when
applying Whorf’s theory of linguistic relativity, which sees “language as an attention-directing
mechanism” (Athanasopoulos 2011: 30), to multilingualism. (cf. Athanasopoulos 2011: 30)
Athanasopoulos (cf. 2011: 31) points out that many studies overlook multilingualism as an
influencing factor, though is widely-spread and the norm for the majority of the world’s
population. Overlooking the influence of multilingualism can influence the results of studies
conducted in this field, so that, for example, areas of conceptualisation appear to be universal
and not language-dependent. After examining such studies, Athanasopoulos, however noted
that they did not consider the fact that the study participants were multilingual, which
influenced the results. (cf. Athanasopoulos 2011: 31)
Pavlenko (cf. 2014: 81) draws the conclusion that “lexical categorization sys-tems shape
‘language effects’ only in the context of practice where such dis-tinctions are obligatory”.
Categorical perception, therefore, depends on the speaker’s engagement with the material
surroundings. The reason for this is that humans have always stretched the boundaries of
language in order to engage with the material world in new and different ways. To do so, they
11
inevitably had to create new modes to engage with the world. Only after such new systems
establish themselves and have been repeatedly revised, do they become encoded and thereby
enter a language. Thus, the main role of language is to communicate these systems, not to create
them. (cf. Pavlenko 2014: 124) Within such systems, the role of language (in the sense of lexical
categories) is to focus the selective attention of the speakers to enable them to recognise these
categories and make differentiations based on certain qualities or characteristics. (cf. Pavlenko
2014: 82) ‘Language effects’ are thus “stabilized patterns of selective attention and co-
activation of linguistic forms and their muli-modal representations, acquired in interactions
with the material world” (Pavlenko 2014: 82).
Linguistic categories are not the same in all languages. In fact, there are considerable
differences in the meanings expressed in different languages and in what is encoded in linguistic
categories. Research has long been interested in the question to what extent these deviations in
categorisation cause differences in the mental processes of selecting and organising information
preceding the actual performance of speech acts. Such differences involve meanings that are
chosen to be uttered and how they are expressed. Another question is how the mental
representations of different languages influence each other in the case of multilingual speakers.
Particularly in second language acquisition and, thus, successive multilingualism, the question
is whether speakers can truly acquire the structures of the second language by overcoming the
categories of their first language. Even though speakers may express themselves correctly with
regard to form in their second language, they may still have a so-called ‘discourse accent’.
‘Discourse accent’ means that they express information based on the categories of their first
instead of the second language. (cf. Gullberg 2011: 145-146) This makes the utterance sound
non-nativelike although there are no obvious mistakes. Gullberg (cf. 2011: 160) examines
several studies and draws the conclusion that most speakers indeed show some kind of shift (to
different extents) towards the norms of the target language. Although only few studies suggest
a full conceptualisation towards the target language, restructuring is generally possible.
However, like most other aspects of language and language acquisition, conceptualisation
should be seen as a gradual, dynamic and changing process that is dependent on context.
3.3. Cross-Linguistic Influence
According to Yip (cf. 2013: 130), cross-linguistic influence (CLI) is commonly described as
the effects that the knowledge and use of a language have on one another. Yip (cf. 2013: 131)
12
also states that CLI mostly occurs when one language dominates the other. Jarvis and Pavlenko
(cf. 2007: 28-29) differentiate between CLI and transfer by referring to CLI as a
psycholinguistic phenomenon at the level of the individual and to transfer as a phenomenon at
the level of society. They justify this distinction by pointing out that CLI and transfer use
different ways of data collection and analysis. When examining transfer, the main interest is,
thus, on the effects an external language has on an entire speech community. Transfer, therefore,
focuses on external language. CLI, on the other hand, is concerned with internal languages of
individual speakers. Jarvis and Pavlenko (cf. 2007: 30) also use the expressions ‘societal’ and
‘individual’ CLI to refer to the aforementioned differentiation. This thesis focuses on CLI as a
psycholinguistic phenomenon and, like in Jarvis and Pavlenko (cf. 2007: 3), the terms ‘CIL’
and ‘transfer’ will be used interchangeably.
CLI can be divided into many specific types of transfer that can be summarised into two
broader categories, namely linguistic and conceptual transfer. The former focuses on linguistic
forms and structures while the latter concerns the mental concepts underlying these forms and
structures. Linguistic transfer can affect phonology, orthography, lexis, semantics, morphology,
syntax, discourse pragmatics and sociolinguistics. (cf. Jarvis and Pavlenko 2007: 61-62)
Conceptual transfer can be divided into two categories based on the type of the underlying
concepts. These can either be language-independent or language-mediated. (cf. Jarvis and
Pavlenko 2007: 114)
According to Jarvis and Pavlenko (cf. 2007: 111), linguistic transfer occurs in all the
aforementioned areas of language competence. It can be positive as well as negative and affect
the perception as well as the production of language. Furthermore, it works in different
directions, not only from the first to the second language but also vice versa. Linguistic transfer
can also be found in both spoken and written language. Particularly in the case of lexical
transfer, the effects can either be intentional or unintentional and can involve either implicit or
explicit knowledge. Shoebottom (cf. 2017, online) gives some examples of differences between
German and English and how they may affect native speakers of German learning English as a
second language (ESL). For instance, German and English use the same alphabet, except that
German also features three umlaut sounds (ä, ö and ü) and ß (called ‘scharfes S’ in German).
English pronunciation, on the other hand, has a distinct /th/ sound that does not exist in German.
These differences, among others, can lead to problems in pronunciation and spelling.
Jarvis and Pavlenko (2007: 112) describe conceptual transfer as “similarities and
differences in conceptual categories corresponding to lexical and grammatical categories of the
13
source and recipient languages.” Jarvis and Pavlenko (cf. 2007: 113-115) understand
conceptual development as a developmental process that originates in experience. This process
then results in either language-independent or language-mediated types of conceptual
representation. Language-independent concepts are not intended to be expressed linguistically
and are developed in an experimental way. Language-mediated concepts, on the other hand, are
influenced by word learning and vice versa during the process of language socialisation. During
the language acquisition process children learn to adapt the individual concepts and categories
of their native language and make conceptual distinctions based on them. Drawing on a
differentiation by Slobin (cf. 2001), Jarvis and Pavlenko (cf. 2007: 115) claim that language-
mediated concepts can be ‘lexicalized’, meaning concepts that are connected to words, and
‘grammaticized’, meaning concepts that are based on morphosyntactic categories.
Jarvis and Pavlenko analyse CLI and conceptual transfer in the areas of “objects,
emotions, personhood, gender, number, time, space, and motion” (Jarvis and Pavlenko 2007:
122). They chose these eight categories in particular, because previous studies had shown that
speakers of different speech communities feature systematic differences in their verbal and non-
verbal behaviour in these areas. Malt and Ameel (cf. 2011: 191-192), for instance, examine
multilingual object naming in more detail and conclude that different languages also use
different patterns of categorising objects according to their names. In addition, their studies
show that sequential multilinguals often face problems when acquiring the patterns that are
common in the language(s) they learned later in life, although they may have the necessary
vocabulary and may even be fully immersed in the respective language environment. However,
simultaneous multilinguals do not use the same patterns as monolinguals from the respective
languages either. Rather, they combine the patterns of all their languages. Concerning the
conceptualisation and categorisation of emotions, the participants of the study agree that there
are indeed cross linguistic differences in the way emotions are encoded. Reasons for such
differences may be different outlooks on the nature of emotions as well as differences in
grammatical categories. The English language, for instance, mostly draws on adjectives and
pseudo-participles to expresses emotions. In other languages, however, there are numerous
ways to express emotions. Multilingual speakers with languages that use different conceptual
categories, therefore, tend to transfer the characteristics of one language to the other. (cf. Jarvis
and Pavlenko 2007: 125-127)
14
3.4. Code-Mixing
The term ‘code-mixing’ describes multilinguals’ natural mixing of their languages in one
sentence. Two types of code-mixing are code-switching and borrowing. (cf. Yip 2013: 133) We
refer to code-switching when a speaker uses different languages alternatingly. This means that
there is a total shift from what Grosjean (cf. 2013: 14-15) calls the base language to the other
language before the speaker then switches back to the base language again. In the case of
borrowing, an element from one language is integrated into the other. (cf. Grosjean 2013: 18-
19)
Yip (cf. 2013: 125) stresses that Grosjean’s model of language mode as particularly
important in this context. According to Grosjean (cf. 2013: 14), multilinguals always have to
make two fundamental decisions when they encounter a communicative situation. Firstly, they
need to decide on which language to use in this particular situation and secondly, whether the
other language should be included in some way. Grosjean explicitly defines language mode “as
the state of activation of the bilingual’s languages and language processing mechanisms at a
given point in time” (Grosjean 2013: 15). Concerning the question of language choice, Grosjean
(cf. 2013: 15) sees multilinguals as operating on a continuum ranging from a monolingual mode
to a bilingual mode. Where exactly on this continuum the speakers operate heavily depends on
the individual situation and their interlocutor(s). They can also move up and down on the
continuum. A study conducted by Grosjean (cf. 2008) reveals that the extent to which a
multilingual speaker code-mixes greatly depends on the topic and their interlocutor. Based on
the addressee’s assumed level of multilingualism as well as his or her attitude towards
multilingualism and code-mixing influences, the speakers situate themselves at different points
on the language mode continuum. When they have the impression that the person they are
talking to is proficient enough in both languages and in addition is open to multilingual speech,
they tend to code-switch and borrow more. However, when they have the opposite impression
of their interlocutor, multilingual speakers also tend to reduce the amount of code-mixing in
their speech, moving more towards the monolingual end of the continuum.
Concerning the influence of topic, Grosjean’s (cf. 2008: 22-23) complementary
principle proves to be of great importance. The main point of the complementary principle is
that multilingual speakers do not use all their languages for all situations and domains of life
equally. Some domains may be limited to one language while others may be covered in both
(or all) languages. This means that “the level of fluency attained in a language […] will depend
on the need for that language and will often be domain specific” (Grosjean 2008: 23). Grosjean
15
(cf. 2008: 25-26) draws on a study conducted by Gasser (cf. 2000) that reveals a connection
between the complementary principle and code-mixing. The study shows that multilinguals
tend to mix languages significantly more when they are asked to talk about topics in the
language they usually do not use for this domain.
In the case of child multilinguals (meaning simultaneous multilinguals) code-mixing is
a rather natural behaviour that is mostly based on the input they receive and is usually part of
the input they are exposed to. Child multilinguals then copy code-mixing in their own output.
In addition, the way the parents or caregivers react to children’s mixing also has an influence
on their development of code-mixing. Parents or caregivers can either question or correct the
children’s mixed utterances or simply move on. This significantly depends on the parents’ or
caregivers’ cultural background and the attitudes towards multilingualism and code-mixing it
entails. (cf. Yip 2013: 133-134)
Successive (adult) multilinguals also code-mix in the process of second language
acquisition. Conceptual changes in multilinguals’ minds as part of the language acquisition,
happen in different processes. As with language mode, these processes take place on a
continuum instead of chronologically. (cf. Jarvis and Pavlenko 2007: 155) According to Jarvis
and Pavlenko (cf. 2007: 155), these processes are
(1) the internalisation of the new language concepts that are completely different to the native
language concepts,
(2) the restructuring of existing concepts by including elements of the target language,
(3) the convergence by creating a single new concept that is different from both the native and
the target language,
(4) shifting to the concepts of the target language within a certain domain and
(5) the attrition of old concepts that are irrelevant for everyday life. These concepts are often
exchanged with new ones.
Code-mixing can occur as verbal manifestation of the first language in some of the
aforementioned processes. For example, code-switching can happen during the internalisation
and attrition processes, while borrowing occurs during the internalisation, restructuring and
attrition processes. Code-mixing can, thus, be seen as proof of the internalisation of new
concepts in multilinguals’ mind. (cf. Jarivs and Pavlenko 2007: 156-157)
16
4. Reasons for Behavioural Changes in Multilinguals
This chapter aims to examine and explain why multilinguals may change their behaviour
depending on the language they use. The reasons that are given in the following are based on
the results of a study conducted by Anetta Pavlenko (cf. 2006).
As briefly mentioned earlier, Pavlenko (cf. 2006) carried out a study on the changing self-
perception of multilinguals. The study focuses on the questions of whether multilinguals feel
like a different person depending on the language they use, how they understand these changes
and what leads some multilinguals to perceive themselves as different people in their languages
while others do not. For this purpose, Pavlenko draws on a web questionnaire she created
together with Jean-Marc Dewaele. The questionnaire was accessible on the website of Birkbeck
College from 2001 to 2003 and consisted of 34 closed and open-ended questions about “gender,
age, education level, ethnic group, occupation, languages known, dominant language(s),
chronological order or language acquisition, context of acquisition, age of onset, frequency of
use, and self-rated proficiency” (Pavlenko 2006: 6). The majority of participants was well-
educated with only 11 per cent who had a high school diploma or less. Thus, the results cannot
be seen as representative for the collective multilingual population, though they allow insights
into how multilinguals’ minds work.
Within the framework of this thesis, I will draw on the four main reasons for a changing
self-perception discovered in this study. Although Pavlenko (cf. 2006) focused on the
participants’ self-perception in her study, I will use the reasons for a changing self-perception
she discovered to examine behavioural changes in multilinguals. I have decided to do so,
because the way we perceive ourselves greatly influences the way we think and, thus, behave.
Moreover, the areas that Pavlenko presents as reasons for a changing self-perception also come
up repeatedly as reasons for changes in multilinguals’ behaviour. I will therefore use Pavlenko’s
results as a starting point to examine the areas of linguistic and cultural differences, learning
context, language emotionality and language proficiency as reasons for changes in the
behaviour of multilinguals.
4.1. Linguistic and Cultural Differences
Pavlenko’s first source for the changing self-perception of multilinguals are differences in their
“distinct verbal and non-verbal repertoires and cultural perspectives offered to them by their
17
languages and cultures” (Pavlenko 2006: 11). Along these lines, Grosjean (cf. 2008) highlights
the role of culture and claims that changes in multilinguals’ behaviour actually originate in
cultural differences instead of linguistic ones. However, Pavlenko (cf. 2011) also examined
how the way different languages categorise and conceptualise the world influence the way
multilingual speakers perceive it.
4.1.1. Pavlenko’s Findings
Pavlenko (cf. 2006: 12) observes that a unifying notion in the participants’ responses is that
they perceive language and culture as a unity that also influences how native speakers of a
language express themselves, linking language and culture to personality. Non-native speakers
are not familiar with certain cultural perspectives. Therefore, to sound native-like, they have to
make assumptions about the norms of the culture corresponding to the language they are
speaking. Responses that suggest such a perspective on language, culture, and personality were
mostly made by multicultural speakers.
4.1.2. Multiculturalism
Grosjean (cf. 2008: 213) highlights the importance of multiculturalism and claims that many of
the advantages and disadvantages that are usually attributed to multilingualism are actually
linked to multiculturalism. He defines culture as reflecting “all the facets of life of a group of
people: its organization, its rules, its behaviors, its beliefs, its values, its traditions, etc.”
(Grosjean 2008: 213) Furthermore, he differentiates between major and minor cultures. The
first are defined by nationality, religion and linguistic as well as social aspects, among others.
Minor cultures are defined by, for example, hobbies, sports or occupation. These are often
understood as complementary. This means that one individual can be a member of several
minor cultures at the same time. Major cultures are often seen as mutually exclusive, meaning
that an individual can only belong to one major culture. Belonging to two major cultures is not
acceptable and is likely to create problems. (cf. Grosjean 2008: 213-214) However,
multilingualism and multiculturalism do not necessarily go hand in hand, as there are
multilinguals that are monocultural, monolinguals that are multilingual, and multilinguals that
are also multicultural. (cf. Grosjean 2013: 22)
18
On this basis, multicultural people can be characterised by three main traits. Firstly, they
participate in two or more cultures. This applies to immigrants who live in a country that is not
their home country, but also operate in a community of their home country/culture. Secondly,
they adapt to the cultures they are operating in at the moment, which means that they change
aspects such their attitudes, values, behaviours or languages depending on the cultural situation
they are currently engaged in. Thirdly, “[t]hey combine and blend aspects of the cultures
involved” (Grosjean 2008: 214). Some of their beliefs, attitudes, behaviours, values and other
cultural characteristics are taken from only one of their cultures while others are a mixture of
both (or several) cultures. (cf. Grosjean 2008: 214)
According to Grosjean (cf. 2008: 215), one of the significant differences between
multicultural persons and multilinguals is that multilinguals are usually able to turn one of their
languages off (to a certain extent) and (almost) fully switch to a monolingual mode. However,
this does not apply to multicultural people, because there are certain aspects that they can
control and adapt to the individual situation and others they cannot. These are aspects in which
the mixture of both cultures is constantly present. Grosjean (cf. 2013: 22) states that
multicultural people operate on a continuum, very much like multilinguals do. This continuum
ranges from a monocultural mode to a multicultural mode. To begin with, they need to choose
a cultural base. To operate within this base culture, they must switch off their other culture(s)
as well as possible. As mentioned before, this may not be entirely possible. Nevertheless,
multicultural multilinguals can adjust their behaviour to the situation to a great extent.
4.1.3. Conceptualisation
As mentioned above, different languages categorise and conceptualise and thus perceive the
world differently. Pavlenko (cf. 2011: 199) conducted a study on differences in word-to-referent
mapping in multilinguals that investigated in what way (non-)equivalence of translations,
contexts and the age of acquisition influence how multilinguals map words onto referents of
the external world.
The mapping process is guided by internal representations – linguistic categories – of
these referents. There can be considerable differences in the way different speakers refer to the
same object. A single speaker can even name the same object differently on different occasions.
(cf. Pavlenko 2011: 199) As Sachs and Coley (cf. 2006: 209) point out, certain concepts may
exist in one language but not in another, particularly in the case of abstract concepts. The
19
authors use the example of emotions, as there are numerous emotion terms that can be found in
one language but not in another. German, for instance, has the term Schadenfreude, “a feeling
of pleasure at the bad things that happen to other people” (Oxford Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary 2010: 1365) that does not exist in English. For an English speaker it is necessary to
give an extended explanation to convey the same meaning. Pavlenko (2011: 199) states that
learning a new language therefore also means re-naming the world according to the language
that is being acquired. Some people may perceive this as a process of combining new forms
and already existing categories, while others may view it as entailing a severe change in the
way they understand and experience the world or even as something in between.
Pavlenko (cf. 2011: 231-232) draws some highly interesting conclusions. The mapping
process is highly complex and essentially involves three main processes. Firstly, it requires the
speakers’ selective attention to certain characteristics of the element they want to name, such
as events, objects or phenomena. Secondly, they need to match these characteristics with their
linguistic categories, and thirdly, recall the words connected to these categories.
However, Pavlenko (cf. 2011: 232) points out that formulating a linguistic utterance is
not a completely independent process, but is influenced by the context. These influences can be
verbal or non-verbal, such as the interlocutor’s preceding utterance, his or her reaction or a
violation of privacy. Referring back to some of her prior publications, she states that external
influences can trigger only one language and the categories embedded in it. In this case, the
attempt to activate the other language is likely to lead to code-switching or may even impede
fluency. Such language-specific responses suggest that word-to-referent mapping is, in fact,
language-specific. This, in turn, supports the hypothesis that cognition is dependent on and
influenced by language.
4.2. Learning Context
According to Pavlenko (cf. 2006: 13), dual language socialisation consists of the three major
points of distinct contexts (where, when with whom the language socialisation takes place),
distinct time periods (when the socialisation takes place) and distinct groups of people (with
whom the socialisation takes place). This becomes very obvious in the response of an 18-year-
old male participant of Pavlenko’s survey who speaks French, Dutch, Italian, and English:
I feel much more sophisticated when I speak English probably because I learnt it from sophisticated
people in a private college in York some time ago. When I speak Dutch I feel like a more precise person.
20
I learned to use it in a very precise and accurate way and for example never to mix up one word with
another. (Pavlenko 2006: 12)
He explicitly describes how, where, when, and with whom his language socialisation in
English takes place and how this influences the way he perceives himself. In addition, he also
points out in what way this differs from his language socialisation in one of his other languages.
In her study, Pavlenko (cf. 2006: 13) concludes that the context of language socialisation not
only has an impact on the way speakers perceive themselves differently but also becomes
visible in the way they speak.
Concerning the age of acquisition, it has been proven that it is more difficult for adult
learners to change systems they have already learned or create new ones than it is for young
children. (cf. Li 2013: 151-154) This phenomenon is usually explained by referring to the
critical period. For first language acquisition the critical period is generally said to last from
birth until puberty, whereby the critical period refers to the period of time in which linguistic
input is processed most easily and the acquisition of language is most productive. (cf.
Lenneberg 1967)
Overall, adult learners turn out to struggle most with speech accent. While young
children easily acquire a new phonological system, adult learners have continuous problems
with pronunciation. They struggle more with learning phonemes that are similar but not
identical to the system they are already familiar with than learning ones that are completely
new. This also applies to speech perception. The age of acquisition has major impact on whether
a speaker will eventually perceive speech on a native-like level. (cf. Li 2013: 151-154)
Li (cf. 2013: 156-157) also addresses possible difficulties in object naming for
sequential multilinguals. As pointed out above, different languages use different lexical
categories. In some cases, such lexical categories of different languages may overlap but still
differ in some ways. These differences originate in the characteristics the languages use for
their categorisation so that there may not be actual translation equivalents for certain words
between one language and another. It is also possible that one language has several words to
differentiate a certain object based on its exact characteristics while another language may and
only uses one word. However, Malt and Ameel (cf. 2011: 192) conclude in their study that both
simultaneous and sequential multilinguals struggle with the task of object naming. Although it
is considerably harder for sequential multilinguals to reach a native-like standard, simultaneous
multilinguals likewise deviate from monolingual speakers.
21
4.3. Language Emotionality
Pavlenko (cf. 2006: 18) discovered that speakers of multiple languages often feel very
differently about their languages and themselves when they use these languages. In general, the
first language is described as feeling more natural and real, while languages that are learned
later in life feel unauthentic or fake. Some participants of Pavlenko’s study describe this very
precisely. “I don’t feel quite real in German sometimes […]. I feel I’m acting a part”, “I feel
less myself when speaking any language other than German but not in a bad sense”, “Your
voice demeanour tone body language and role expectations change” or “I think there’s always
a bit of acting involved when you speak a foreign language” (Pavlenko 2006: 18-19).
Pavlenko (cf. 2006: 19) links this to language proficiency. Languages that are learned
later in life require the speaker to deal with linguistic repertoires they are less familiar with and,
thus, make them feel more artificial. A female speaker of Welsh and English aptly describes
this feeling “I feel more at ease in my mother tongue. It’s like being at home with all the usual
familiar worn and comfortable clutter around you. Speaking the second language is like being
you but in someone else’s house” (Pavlenko 2006: 19).
Another reason might be that speakers of multiple languages also experience
emotionality differently in different languages. This can either lead to a favouring of the first
language, or, in some cases, also to a preference of the second language. While the first case is,
once again, related to language proficiency, the latter is linked to personal experiences made in
the individual languages. Therefore, the first language can also trigger negative emotions
linked, for instance, to traumata experienced during childhood in this language. Language
exposure therefore evokes memories and emotions connected to events experienced in the
respective language. (cf. Pavlenko 2006: 20-22) Consequently, a person who learns a language
later in life may also feel freer and more liberated than in their native language. The words of a
new language are still perceived as clean and neutral compared to words of the first language
that often trigger very strong associations with anxieties or taboos. Thus, multilinguals can find
it easier to talk about traumatic experiences (they made in their first language) in their second
language, because it feels less real and painful and the words of the second language feel less
powerful. (cf. Pavlenko 2014: 280)
22
4.4. Language Proficiency
As mentioned before, Pavlenko (cf. 2006: 19) suggests that multilinguals might prefer their
native language to their second language, because they are more proficient and, thus, more
comfortable in it. She refers to a study conducted by Heinz (2001) to illustrate the importance
of language proficiency. This study reveals that multilinguals with a lower proficiency in their
second language feel more comfortable and freer in their first language. The opposite is the case
for multilinguals whose proficiency in their first language is gradually decreasing in favour of
their second language. (cf. Pavlenko 2006: 21)
According to Grosjean (cf. 013: 10), a multilingual’s language configuration is very
dynamic and can change considerably over a person’s lifespan. A language can gain or lose
importance with events and changes that happen in a speaker’s life. It can either improve,
remain stable or suffer from attrition. Pavlenko (cf. 2014: 23) describes two different types of
multilinguals according to their proficiency, namely balanced and dominant multilinguals.
Balanced multilinguals have more or less equal skills in all their languages while dominant
multilinguals feel more comfortable in one of their languages. However, the dominant language
does not necessarily have to be the more proficient one (although this is often the case) and
language proficiency can differ with the functions of language, as mentioned previously.
The functions of languages essentially refer to the different domains of life that they can
be used in. Multilinguals usually do not use all their languages for all domains of their lives
equally, but rather acquire and use each for specific purposes and areas of life. The level of
fluency and proficiency in their languages therefore depends on how frequently they use them.
A language will be more fluent and proficient the more domains of life it is used for. However,
they will have more difficulties speaking about an area of life in a language that they usually
would not use in this situation. (cf. Grosjean 2013: 11-12)
5. Politeness and Face
The following section is dedicated to politeness and impoliteness. To begin with, I will explore
two general ways of approaching the linguistic field of politeness: a pragmalinguistic
perspective and a cultural perspective. I will then examine Leech’s politeness principle and
maxims of politeness and Brown and Levinson’s approach to politeness and the concept of face.
Within the scope of politeness, I will further elaborate on ways of dealing with face-threatening
23
acts by drawing largely from Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987) and on influences on the choice
of politeness strategies. I will then focus on impoliteness. I will deal with factors that influence
how impoliteness is perceived, as described by Culpeper (cf. 2011). Next, the realisation of
politeness strategies, as described by Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987), and the realisation of
impoliteness, as described by Culpeper (cf. 2011), will be examined.
5.1. Approaches to Politeness
There are generally two different ways of defining politeness, depending on the perspective.
First-order politeness indicates assumptions about politeness commonly held by a group of
speakers. It is highly context-dependent and draws on concrete language use as well as the set
values and norms held by a speech community. This type of politeness is usually analysed
bottom-up. In contrast, second-order politeness takes on a context-independent perspective and
aims to define theories and models of universal significance. A top-down approach is usually
used here in order to analyse the underlying mechanisms of politeness. Generally speaking,
politeness is not a static concept, but is rather highly dynamic and dependent on culture, context
and language. (cf. Bonacchi 2013: 51-52)
A pragmalinguistic perspective on politeness focuses on speech acts. (cf. Bonacchi
2013: 53) Speech acts are basically actions carried out by a speaker using an utterance and they
consist of illocutions, meaning the underlying intentions, locutions, which are the actual verbal
realisations, and perlocutions, which are the effects the utterance has on the addressee and the
external world. (cf. Bonacchi 2013: 53-55) Speech acts can be direct or indirect. In the case of
direct speech acts, the intention behind an utterance correlates with the function of the structure
used to perform it. For example, we use an interrogative structure to form questions, whereas
we use an imperative structure to form commands. When a speech act is indirect, the actual
function of the utterance does not line up with its structure. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 132)
However, indirect speech acts require the addressee to understand them as such and react
accordingly. The addresser usually assumes that the addressee realises the illocution of the
utterance. (cf. Bonacchi 2013: 55)
Another way of looking at politeness is from a cultural angle. Politeness is closely linked
to cultural norms and customs and can be described as the sum of norms for appropriate, polite
behaviour. It also defines the judgement of interpersonal interaction. Moreover, understanding
the concept of politeness can shed light on the underlying set of values of different cultures and
24
languages. However, like culture and language, politeness is not static or fixed but changes
constantly. For instance, verbal behaviour that was considered inappropriate in the past may be
perfectly acceptable by now. The way we encode acts of politeness heavily depends on the
conventions of the speech community, culture or language. (cf. Bonacchi 2013: 92-93) From
my own experience, in a formal, academic context in Austria it is still common to address the
recipient of an email by his or her surname, including all academic titles. In the English-
speaking world, however, I have noticed that it is common practice to address each other by
first names and not include academic titles.
5.2. Leech’s (cf. 1983) Politeness Principle and Maxims of Politeness
One of the earlier but still fundamental theories on politeness are Leech’s (cf. 1983) politeness
principle (PP) and politeness maxims. The politeness principle draws on the cooperative
principle (CP) coined by Grice (cf. 1975). The CP basically gives four maxims of
communication: quantity (be as informative as necessary), quality (say what is true), relation
(be relevant) and manner (be clear and comprehensive). (cf. Grice 1975) These maxims are not
static, but rather vary depending on the context and the degree to which they are being applied.
They can even contradict one another and be abandoned. Moreover, the way in which these
maxims operate and how exactly they take shape can be related to cultural differences. (cf.
Leech 1983: 8-9) However, the CP fails to properly explain any sort of deviation. This is where
the PP comes into play, by complementing the CP and aiming to explain such exceptions of the
CP. Speakers may violate communicative maxims and remain very indirect in order to be polite.
(cf. Leech 1983: 80-81)
According to Leech (cf. 1983: 82), the CP needs the PP in order to work. The CP
generally assumes that both speaker and addressee are being cooperative. However, in order to
maintain the addressee’s willingness to cooperate the speaker needs to apply the PP. In other
words, “unless you are polite to your neighbour, the channel of communication between you
will break down, and you will no longer be able to borrow his mower” (Leech 1983: 82). Yet,
when politeness is exaggerated, though, a speech act becomes ironic and the irony principle
(IP) becomes effective. Leech describes the IP as follows: “If you must cause offence, at least
do so in a way which doesn’t overtly conflict with the PP, but allows the hearer to arrive at the
offensive point of your remark indirectly, by way of implicature” (Leech 1983: 82).
25
Leech (cf. 1983: 132-133) defines six maxims of politeness: tact, generosity,
approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy. In general, these maxims operate on a scale
rather than a black and white distinction. The maxim of tact ranges from minimising the cost to
maximising the benefits for the addressee; the maxim of generosity from minimising the
benefits to maximising the costs for oneself (the speaker); the maxim of approbation from
minimising dispraise to maximising praise for the addressee; the maxim of modesty from
minimising praise to maximising dispraise of oneself; the maxim of agreement from minimising
disagreement to maximising agreement between the speaker and the addressee; and the maxim
of sympathy from minimising antipathy to maximising sympathy between the speaker and the
addressee. Not all of them are of equal importance and Leech stresses that the first four are
more powerful than the last two.
As with the CP, there are also cultural differences when it comes to the PP. Politeness
is a social and cultural construct that defines norms of behaviour for particular settings. These
norms can be valid for a whole culture or for a smaller speech community. They are also
influenced by the groups a participant may belong to, such as sex or age, and are very context-
specific. (cf. Leech 1983: 84)
5.3. Brown and Levinson’s (cf. 1987) Approach to Politeness
The most influential approach to politeness was established by Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987)
and served as the basis for most research after it was introduced. It bases politeness on the
notion of face as described by Goffman (cf. 1971). Face is seen as being constantly at risk.
Therefore, from this angle, politeness is mainly concerned with saving face. Thus, major focus
is given to the way participants deal with face-threatening acts (FTAs). (cf. Kasper 2009: 157-
160) In Brown and Levinson’s (cf. 1987: 1) view, the underlying aim of politeness is to
establish and maintain peace between participants and ensure a peaceful and cooperative
communication.
Firstly, Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987: 59-60) base their theory on the general
assumption that the participants of an interaction have both positive and negative face and act
rationally, meaning in a way that will satisfy their wants. Secondly, there is a mutual interest in
maintaining each other’s face. The reason for this is that face consists of desires that can only
be satisfied by others. Thirdly, some speech acts threaten face by nature, so-called face-
threatening acts (FTAs). Fourthly, the speaker will generally try to minimise threats to the
26
addressee’s face by all means, unless the want to threaten the other’s face as efficiently as
possible is greater than the want to maintain the other’s face. Fifthly, participants will choose a
strategy that is more effective in minimising a threat the stronger their own face is threatened.
Sixthly, when facing an FTA, a participant will only choose a strategy that involves the minimal
risk necessary and appropriate for the respective FTA.
5.3.1. The Concept of Face
The concept of face takes on a major role when dealing with politeness. Face describes a
speaker’s public self-image and refers to the way speakers look at themselves from a social and
emotional angle and their expectations that others recognise this. In this sense, politeness means
being aware of and considering someone else’s face. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 61-62) If
this is not the case and a speaker performs a speech act that poses a threat to another speaker’s
self-image, he or she performs a FTA. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 65) “[A]ny rational agent
will seek to avoid these face-threatening acts, or will employ certain strategies to minimize the
threat.” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 68) Face thus has an emotional value, which is why
speakers always strive to protect their face. It can be maintained, enhanced or lost and requires
constant attention in interaction with others. When interacting with each other, speakers usually
cooperate in maintaining face. The reason for this is the mutual vulnerability of face, meaning
that a speaker can be expected to defend his or her face by threatening the other’s face when
threatened. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 61)
There are two types of face that are defined by what we desire in an interaction from
our interlocutor. Negative face means the speakers desire “that his actions be unimpeded by
others” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 62). Positive face is a speaker’s desire for his or her wants
to be approved of and accepted by others. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 101) Strategies to
avoid threats to a speaker’s face can either be directed towards the speaker’s positive face (cf.
Brown and Levinson 1987: 101) or the speaker’s negative face (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987:
129). The concept of face and the underlying desires connected to it appear to be universal. A
reason for this universality may be that “notions of face naturally link up to some of the most
fundamental cultural ideas about the nature of the social persona” (Brown and Levinson 1978:
13). However, the realisation of this concept can vary considerably between cultures and
societies. There can be differences in what is perceived as face-threatening, who holds special
rights to protect their face, and what is particularly appreciated in terms of personal style. Such
27
cultural differences about what is considered good and appropriate behaviour can potentially
lead to conflicts between members of different cultures or societies. (cf. Brown and Levinson
1987: 13-14)
5.4. Dealing with FTAs
As mentioned above, performing a FTA always involves a risk for one’s own face as well.
Therefore, a speaker will usually strive to avoid threatening someone else’s face in order to
protect his or her own face. However, if a potentially face-threatening act cannot be avoided,
the speaker will try to weaken it and thus minimise the threat. How a speaker eventually
communicates a FTA depends on the speaker’s want to pass on the message, to be efficient and
to maintain the addressee’s face. The speaker will only refuse to minimise the threat if the desire
to be efficient is greater than the desire to maintain the other’s face. (cf. Brown and Levinson
1987: 68)
FTAs can either be performed on record or off record. On record means that the
illocution, the speaker’s communicative intention, is obvious and direct while off record means
that the speaker’s intentions are ambiguous. This gives the speaker more leeway to negotiate
the real intention behind the speech act and reduces the sense of obligation and commitment
that an on record speech act entails. However, the line between on and off record is blurred
when it comes to conventionalised indirectness. In this case, an indirect way of performing a
FTA is so commonly used that it eventually gets conventionalised. Therefore, it cannot be
described as off record anymore. Although a conventionalised FTA still holds its off record
form, it is, in fact, on record. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 69-70)
Based on these notions of face mentioned above, there are also two different types of
politeness, namely positive and negative politeness. Positive politeness focuses on the
addressee’s positive face, meaning his or her positive self-image. The speaker signalises that
his or her desires and interests essentially line up with the addressee’s. Such an assurance by
the speaker minimises a potentially threatening act to the addressee’s face. (cf. Brown and
Levinson 1987: 70) The basic aim of positive politeness strategies is to establish a safe and
close atmosphere between the participants and create a situation in which their face cannot be
threatened. They also indicate that the participants are willing to cooperate with each other. (cf.
Bonacchi 2013: 65)
28
According to Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987: 70), negative politeness is concerned with
the addressee’s negative face, his or her desire to remain self-determined and free. The speaker
thus tries to (partially) satisfy the addressee’s desires by avoiding possible threats by assuring
the addressee that he or she “recognizes and respects the addres-see’s negative-face wants and
will not (or will only minimally) interfere with the addressee’s freedom of action” (Brown and
Levinson 1987: 70). Bonacchi (cf. 2013: 66) says that the speaker tries to weaken possibly face-
threatening acts that might impede the addressee’s freedom by using indirect speech acts. In
order for this speech act to work, both participants need to share the same background
knowledge and the addressee needs to realise and understand the speaker’s intentions correctly.
5.5. Influences on the Choice of Politeness Strategies
In their analysis of politeness strategies, Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987: 15-17) firstly state that
the participants’ ranking of politeness strategies is fundamentally based on a cost/benefit
relation. Speakers choose what strategy to use based on an assessment of the risks each strategy
entails. Secondly, they differentiate between the overt behaviour of the speaker vs. how the
addressee perceives and thus ranks a speech act. Thirdly, they give three fundamental
sociological factors that determine what level of politeness a speaker will use in an interaction,
namely “relative power (P) of H [addressee] over S [speaker], the social distance (D) between
S and H, and the ranking of the imposition (R) involved in doing the face-threatening act (FTA)”
(Brown and Levinson 1987: 15).
Some studies indicate the importance of social distance for the assessment of politeness
and the choice of politeness strategies. The choice of verbal elements to express positive or
negative politeness is generally closely linked to the social relationship between the
participants. There are considerable cultural differences in the choice and assessment of
politeness strategies based on cultural concepts, norms, and beliefs. (cf. Brown and Levinson
1987: 15-18) According to Watanabe (cf. 2011: 72), problems in intercultural communication
and second language use do not necessarily have to originate in the participants’ insufficient
formal knowledge of the target language. Rather, the cause for misunderstandings can be
insufficient knowledge of communication strategies in the target language. The communicative
strategies of one language cannot necessarily be applied to another language without causing
interferences. Attempts to do so may even be perceived as rude.
29
When deciding on what strategy to use, speakers not only consider the possible risks but
also the advantages of each strategy as well as any other relevant circumstances. Going on
record usually is of advantage, because the speaker gets credit for being honest and outspoken,
which indicates that the speaker trusts the addressee and is not trying to manipulate in any way.
It takes away the risk of causing misunderstandings but can also be a means of leverage. Off
record strategies provide the benefit of getting credit for tactfulness. They also take away
responsibility in case the addressee understands speech act as face-threatening. It also gives
both participants the option to earn credit. The addressee can get credit for showing that he or
she cares for the speaker, who, in turn, avoids to perform a possibly threatening act. (cf. Brown
and Levinson 1987: 71)
Positive and negative politeness can both be performed either on or off record.
Performing positive politeness on record indicates that the speaker’s and the addressee’s wants
line up. It also expresses that the speaker appreciates and approves of the addressee and in this
way minimises potential threats to the addressee’s face. Off record strategies for negative
politeness give the speaker the chance to show respect for the addressee but also keep up social
distance, which is an advantage. In addition, the speaker can provide the addressee with ways
to refuse without losing face or to earn credit by following an implicit request and thus appear,
generous, for instance. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 71-72)
Fig. 1. Circumstances determining choice of strategy (Brown and Levinson 1987: 60)
30
5.6. Impoliteness
Culpeper (cf. 2011: 19) points out that there is no real consensus on how impoliteness or
rudeness is to be defined. Bonacchi (2013: 78-79) draws attention to the fact that different
languages have different ways of addressing impoliteness/rudeness. For example, while English
usually sees ‘impoliteness’ and ‘rudeness’ as synonymous, the German equivalents,
Unhöflichkeit and Grobheit, hold different meanings. The first one describes an intentionally
face-threatening act, whereas the latter indicates uncivilised linguistic behaviour. In this thesis,
I am adhering to the English conventions and choose to use impoliteness and rudeness
synonymously. However, Culpeper (2011: 19-21) compares multiple definitions of
impoliteness/rudeness and finds two major similarities in most descriptions. First of all, face
and similar concepts are mentioned repeatedly and play an important role. Secondly,
intentionality is gives as a characteristic for impolite or rude behaviour in many descriptions.
In addition, he draws attention to the role of social norms and context, as mentioned in some of
the definitions he consults. He also points out that “[i]mpoliteness always involves emotional
consequences for the target (victim)” (Culpeper 201: 21). Thus, he sums up that “the key
notions under scrutiny are face, social norms, intentionality and emotions” (Culpeper 2011: 21).
Factors that influence what is perceived as impolite will be discussed in more detail later on.
Bonacchi (cf. 2013: 79-80) makes some highly interesting observations about
impoliteness that can serve to describe it further and explain why there is considerably less
research on impoliteness than on politeness: (1) Impolite repertoire is, in general, much smaller
than polite repertoire. Polite behaviour is far better and more broadly encoded and offers more
conventionalised and ritualised forms of expression. There are considerably less norms and
standards for impolite behaviour. (2) Impoliteness is more context-sensitive than politeness and
is predominantly defined by its perlocutionary effect on the addressee. What the addressee
perceives and interprets as impolite greatly depends on the individual context. (3) The way acts
of impoliteness are carried out depends on the underlying intention or illocution and the
(perlocutionary) effect, as Culpeper (cf. 2011: 21) has pointed out. However, there is still very
little research and data on these underlying mechanisms of impoliteness. (4) A common
problem is that the terms rudeness, impoliteness, and verbal aggression are used inconsistently.
Acts of impoliteness can be seen as operating along a continuum defined by the intensity of the
offence. (5) There has been very little research on paraverbal and nonverbal forms of
impoliteness so far. However, nonverbal aspects are of particular importance when it comes to
impolite behaviour, which is why further research in this area is highly important.
31
5.6.1. Influences on the Perception of Impoliteness
Our perception of what we regard as impolite depends on a number of factors. Face plays an
important role here as well, like it does for our perception of what is polite. A speech act is
perceived as impolite if it threatens or violates the receiver’s face. Another important question
is whether a speech act is perceived as intentional. Questionable behaviour is perceived as more
impolite when committed intentionally. Another influencing factor is emotionality or the
emotional effect a speech act has on the receiver. If it evokes negative feelings, it is more likely
to be perceived as impolite. In addition, what is interpreted as impolite also depends on cultural
and social norms. A certain behaviour is more likely to be seen as impolite when it counteracts
such norms and habits.
5.6.1.1. Face
In his attempt to describe what might be perceived as impolite by a recipient, Culpeper (cf.
2011: 25) discusses the role of face. He states that an action is perceived as impolite if it makes
a person feel bad about him- or herself. This in turn is influenced by how others evaluate an
individual’s behaviour, attributes or any other aspects about the person. He therefore draws on
Spencer-Oatey’s (cf. 2002; 2007) types of face that are an extension of Brown and Levinson’s
(cf. 1987) ego-centred understanding of face.
Spencer-Oatey (cf. 2002; 2007) differentiates between ‘quality face’, ‘social identity
face’ and ‘relation face’, as summed up by Culpeper (cf. 2011: 27). Spencer-Oatey defines
‘quality face’ as our “fundamental desire for people to evaluate us positively in terms of our
personal qualities” and being “concerned with the value that we effectively claim for ourselves
in terms of such personal qualities as these, and so is closely associated with our sense of
personal self-esteem” (Spencer-Oatey 2002: 540). This type of face operates on the level of the
individual. In my opinion, it shows close relations to Brown and Levinson’s (cf. 1987) concept
of face. ‘Social identity face’ focuses on the individual as a member of a group or society.
Spencer-Oatey cf. (2002: 540) describes it as a person’s desire for others to acknowledge and
maintain his or her social identity or role. It is linked to our understanding of public worth.
Concerning ‘relational face,’ Culpeper (cf. 2011: 27) sums up Spencer-Oatey’s (cf. 2007) view
of the importance of a rational perspective under the term ‘relational face’. Spencer-Oatey uses
the term ‘rational’ to refer “to the relationship between the participants (e.g. distance-closeness,
equality-inequality, perceptions of role rights and obligations), and the ways in which this
32
relationship is managed or negotiated” (Spencer-Oatey 2007: 647). Culpeper (cf. 2011: 28-29)
points out that ‘relational face’ is a subcategory of ‘social identity face’. Although there is a
potentially problematic overlap between these two, he also states that “roles can span both
social identity face and relational face or be more focused on one type” (Culpeper 2011: 29).
Whether a role is about social identity or relational face depends on whether a participant feels
addressed as a member of a larger group defined by this role. In this case he or she is would
speak on behalf of this group or as an individual taking on this role in concrete interaction with
other individuals. I understand this as roles operating on a continuum between a collective and
an individual perspective, the former situation being situated at the collective end of the
continuum, the latter situation at the individual end.
5.6.1.2. Intentionality
Culpeper (cf. 2011: 49) mentions intentionality as a characteristic feature commonly assigned
to impolite behaviour. However, intentionality must not be confused with intentions. The term
‘intention’ describes the wish for a certain outcome (desire) and the assumption of a plan of
how to achieve this outcome with certain actions (belief). Desire and belief are thus both
necessary for intentions. Intentionality, on the other hand, is more complex and consists of
intention, skill (meaning a person’s ability to achieve a certain outcome), and awareness.
Culpeper (cf. 2011: 50-51) states that potentially impolite behaviour usually creates
much stronger responses if it is perceived to be intentional. In general, when people judge
potentially impolite behaviour, they consider their assumptions about the speaker’s intentions
and intentionality. This has a major influence on their judgement of the utterance. Potentially
impolite behaviour is considered less offensive when the offence happens incidentally or
accidentally. We can thus define three types of offence, namely intentional, incidental, and
accidental offence. A subtype of accidental offence is failed politeness. When a participant
makes false assumptions about a particular situation or misjudges how much politeness work
is necessary and appropriate, it results in an offence.
Despite the above argumentation, Culpeper (cf. 2011: 51-52) claims that intentionality
is not fundamentally essential for impoliteness. He illustrates this with an example from his
own research in which a woman felt seriously offended (she assigned the gravity of offence
four points on a five-point scale) by a (male) friend who commented on her weight gain,
although she only gave it one point for intentionality. Other studies show similar results that
33
underpin this observation. In addition, Culpeper (cf. 2011: 52) provides a possible explanation
for the woman’s reaction. She took her friend’s comment as an insult (although it was not
intentional) because the conveyed information alone already made the offensive effect
predictable. Thus, her friend’s failure to (intentionally) prevent these consequences made him
responsible for the outcome.
5.6.1.3. Emotionality – Perlocutionary Effect
Results of empirical studies give reason to believe that emotions are represented as schema-like
structures in our minds. (cf. Culpeper 2011: 57) Russell (cf. 1991:37-39) proposes something
similar and states that “[e]motion, love, anger, happiness, and anxiety express concepts that
influence people’s life. We interpret each other’s actions and temporary states by means of
these concepts and guide our behavior accordingly” (Russel 1991: 37). He thereby suggests that
the meaning of emotion terms and the concepts these terms express are represented as scripts
in our minds that are constituted by a sequence of subevents. Emotions are in fact made of these
subevents. These sequences are not obligatory descriptions, but rather prototypes. The degree
to which an actual event matches this script can vary considerably, whereby the script is used
as a source for comparison and evaluation for a real-life event.
Culpeper (cf. 2011: 57-58) refers to the role of context and norms. Like schema-like
representations of emotions, people also have norms for the appropriateness and display of
emotions. Based on their evaluation and judgement of a situation, they decide on what emotion
and what form of display is appropriate. For instance, displaying happiness at a funeral is
considered inappropriate. People consciously have prescriptive and experiential norms for
emotions for individual situations. This defines their choice and judgement of emotions in
individual situations.
Shaver et al (cf. 1987: 1065-1569) conducted a survey on the labelling of emotion words
and they concluded that a three-stage hierarchy applicable. On a superordinate level, they
merely differentiate between positive and negative emotions. On a basic level they label five
categories, namely love, joy, anger, sadness, and fear – the basic emotions. Initially, they also
included surprise, but revoked it later because this category is less differentiated. Thus, they
argue against making it an independent category. Each of these basic emotions can be further
divided into subordinate emotions. The naming of these subordinate emotions is generally
based on differences in intensity and context. For instance, the category of love includes
34
subordinate emotions such as adoration, affection, desire or arousal. Anger includes emotions
like wrath, bitterness, disgust, envy or jealousy and examples for the category of sadness are
depression, agony, hurt, grief, sorrow, regret, remorse or alienation. It goes without saying that
all five basic emotion categories entail many more subordinate emotions.
Culpeper (cf. 2011: 58) concludes that impoliteness is usually associated with negative
emotions on the superordinate level, sadness and anger, in particular, on the basic level, and the
subordinate categories of “neglect and suffering, and disgust, rage, exasperation and irritation”
(Culpeper 2011: 58). Furthermore, he states that acts of impoliteness that stem from
counteracting sociality rights tend to evoke negative emotions, e.g. contempt, anger and disgust,
that aim to condemn the other. Impolite behaviour that originates in a violation of face rather
seems connected to emotions that focus on the self, such as shame or embarrassment. If the
violation of face is perceived as unfair, it can additionally include emotions of the first kind.
(cf. Culpeper 2011: 62)
5.6.1.4. Cultural and Social Norms
Bonacchi (cf. 2013: 92-95) points out that (im)polite behaviour is not inherent but rather
acquired and learned within a cultural or social setting. It allows insight into the underlying
value systems, concepts, and norms of the interpersonal interaction of a culture. The author
defines politeness as a set of strategies for appropriate and adequate communication that are
situational and focused towards the receiver. The underlying aim is to maintain a balance
between the participants. The concrete realisation of these norms varies between speech
communities, be it a culture, social group or smaller speech community. (Im)politeness also
serves to define and establish identity or membership to a certain group, community or culture
as well as the role of the participants. This can deal with social roles, power relations and
hierarchy or relations on a more individual, personal level. (Im)politeness can therefore only be
defined and understood by considering individual, cultural, social and situational influences.
Culpeper (cf. 2011: 31-32) suggests that people follow social norms for certain reasons.
Firstly, they adhere to conventions out of self-interest and rationality, meaning that they strive
to avoid being sanctioned or punished for violating the norms. Norms and conventions are
thought to exist before self-interest and rationality come into play. The latter only serve to
uphold these existing norms: “what counts as rational or in one’s self-interest will be determined
in the light of social norms” (Culpeper 2011: 32). Studies have shown that, in order to maintain
35
norms, people are willing to take effort and (to a certain extent) accept inconveniences. In the
case of impoliteness, however, “the balance of costs/benefits often suggests [that] an ‘irrational’
choice is taken” (Culpeper 2011: 32).
The second reason that Culpeper (cf. 2011: 33) gives are habits. In certain cases,
“[r]egularities of behaviour can become social norms” (Culpeper 2011: 33). He explains this
by referring to Opp (cf. 1982), who claims that behaviours conducted on a regular basis turn
into expectations. Expectations, in turn, provide a feeling of certainty that people value and
appreciate. Thus, violations of social norms are generally not appreciated. However, Culpeper
(cf. 2011: 33-34) points out that this does not necessarily have to be the case in every situation.
There is also the possibility that a participant is pleasantly surprised another person’s deviation
from the norm. However, his main point is that the social choices made by an individual
inevitably have social implications on others.
5.7. Brown and Levinson’s (cf. 1987) Realisation of Politeness Strategies
As stated above, Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987: 91-92) generally assume that speakers act
reasonably to satisfy their own wants and protect their own face by minimising FTAs to the
other’s face. The four super-strategies positive politeness, negative politeness, off record and
bald on record describe the goal the speaker wants to achieve. In order to reach their goal,
speakers can use an array of means. It is possible that these means are simply more specific
desires that can be acquired by a further set of means. This continues until we finally reach the
actual linguistic means that are necessary to satisfy all the wants that lead to them. Thus,
strategies form a hierarchical order leading from the super-strategies (highest-order strategies)
to higher-order strategies to lower-order strategies and finally to output strategies (the actual
linguistic means chosen to achieve the set goals).
5.7.1. Bald on Record
Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987: 94-95) describe the strategy of bald on record as speaking
according to Grice’s (cf. 1975) maxims briefly described in chapter 4.2. However, they also
point out that these maxims rather describe the underlying assumptions of a conversation and
that participants do not necessarily speak according to them. A prominent reason for such
deviations from the maxims is that the speaker’s want to show awareness of face, which makes
36
politeness a major source of deviation from Grice’s maxims. Nevertheless, the maxims still
apply on an underlying level and are necessary for the illocution of the utterance. The bald on
record strategy generally comes into use when conducting a maximally efficient FTA is more
important to the speaker than to maintain the addressee’s face. The speaker can either ignore
the addressee’s face, consider it irrelevant and thus refrain to minimise the threat at all, or draw
on implications to minimise the threat.
Not minimising the threat is acceptable when an utterance has to be made with
maximum efficiency because it is very urgent or the speaker feels very desperate. When both
participants are aware of this, no face-saving strategy is needed. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987:
95-96) Some excellent examples of the bald on record strategy are imperatives, such as:
(1) Help! (compare the non-urgent ‘Please help me, if you would be so kind’)
(2) Watch out!
(3) Your pants are on fire!
[…]
(6)[…]
Get up, get up! (There’s a) big snake! (Brown and Levinson 1987: 96)
Further reasons for choosing to speak bald on record can be that the speaker feels the need to
be maximally efficient because of difficulties in communication (such as noisy surroundings or
a bad phone connection) that impede their understanding; instructions or recipes (e.g. Add all
ingredients and mix thoroughly.); the speaker is more powerful and thus does not fear that the
addressee will be uncooperative (e.g. Go open the door, James.); the speaker wants to be rude
(e.g. Shut up. You are annoying me.); but also when the speaker wants to give advice or
warnings to show that he/she cares about the addressee (e.g. Watch out! There is a car coming.);
or permitting a request made by the addressee (e.g. Yes, you can use the car.). (cf. Brown and
Levinson 1987: 97-98)
The second kind of the bald on record strategy is oriented towards face. In this case, the
participants try to predict the wants of the other so they can fulfil them before the other actually
addresses them. The speaker invites the addressee before the latter has to openly impose on him
or her. Such invitations are most common in greetings, farewells and offers. All three of these
speech acts have the potential to be face-threatening. However, the speaker usually evaluates
the risk in every situation. If the risk is great, the speaker is likely to use other strategies to avoid
a threat to face. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 98-99) However, if the risk is small and there
37
are no other face wants to be considered, an invitation will usually “be delivered baldly on
record” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 99).
5.7.2. Positive Politeness
Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987: 101-103) state that positive politeness resembles regular
conversations between people somewhat close to each other in many ways. They generally
exchange “interest and approval of each other’s personality, presuppositions indicat-ing shared
wants and shared knowledge, implicit claims to reciprocity of obligations or to reflexivity of
wants, etc.” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 101). Positive politeness, which is the desire for
approval and acceptance, is not bound to an individual situation or certain FTA, but can rather
be extended onto the participants’ wants in general. It differs from regular linguistic behaviour
only in the use of exaggeration elements. The use of exaggeration indicates that the speaker still
wants the addressee’s positive face to be satisfied, even though the speaker might not fully share
the addressee’s desires. Positive politeness is strongly associated with intimacy and is very
powerful in saving and maintaining face. It is “used as a kind of metaphorical extension of
intimacy, to imply common ground or shared wants to a limited extent even between strangers
who perceive themselves, for the purposes of the interaction, as somehow similar” (Brown and
Levinson 1987: 103).
There are generally three types of positive politeness mechanisms. The first is claiming
common ground, whereby the speaker wants to indicate that the speaker and the addressee have
certain shared desires. To establish such a connection, the speaker can display approval and
interest in some of the addressee’s wants, emphasise that both belong to the same group or
community or indicate that both share a perspective without paying attention to group
membership. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 103) The second is showing that the speaker and
the addressee cooperate. This means that they share certain goals. The speaker can achieve this
by showing awareness of the addressee’s wants, that “S wants what H wants for H, or […] that
H wants what S wants for himself” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 125) or that they can mutually
benefit from a cooperation. The third is that the speaker fulfils some of the addressee’s wants.
These wants do not necessarily have to be specific, but can rather be “human-relations wants
such as […] the wants to be liked, admired, cared about, understood, listened to, and so on”
(Brown and Levinson 1987: 29). This also indicates that the speaker shares some of the
addressee’s wants. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 129)
38
5.7.3. Negative Politeness
Negative politeness aims to minimise individual threats to the addressee’s negative face,
meaning the addressee’s want to be unimpeded and free. Therefore, it is very specific and
restricted to the imposition at hand and aims to create social distance (whereas positive
politeness aims to create intimacy). Negative politeness is particularly important in Western
cultures where it is the most conventionalised and elaborated form of politeness. (cf. Brown
and Levinson 1987: 129-130)
The easiest way to achieve it is to be direct, meaning bald on record. However, this
interferes with the want to maintain the addressee’s negative face, which is why output
strategies for negative politeness are never fully direct. On the other hand, in some cases it is
actually considered more polite to come to the point quickly, to be more direct and not to bother
the other person by taking up too much time. Nevertheless, the desire to be direct and bald on
record collides with the desire to save and maintain the other’s negative face. Thus, a mixed
strategy between bald on record and negative face saving strategies is required and can be found
in conventional indirectness. In order to find such a compromise, both desires, namely the desire
to be direct and the desire to not coerce the addressee (another strategy that will be discussed
in more detail later on), need to be partially satisfied. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 130)
Brown and Levinson created a chart to illustrate the way negative politeness works. In order to
show the clash between these two opposing desires mentioned above and the compromise
between them, conventional indirectness, the following section was taken from the original
chart and modified accordingly:
It must be noted that this is a modified excerpt from the original chart that only provides the
choices of strategies leading to the output strategy of conventional indirectness. The original
chart and negative politeness in general include further alternative strategies.
Give H option
not to do act
Don’t coerce H
(where x involves H
doing A)
clash
Be direct Be direct
Negative politeness
Do FTA x
(a) on record
(b) plus redress to H’s want
to be unimpinged upon
Be conventionally
indirect
Be indirect
Fig. 2. Chart of strategies: Negative politeness (conventional indirectness) (cf. Brown and
Levinson 1987: 131)
39
According to Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987: 132-133), indirect politeness combines the
desires to be direct and the desire to be indirect by using “phrases and sentences that have
contextually unambiguous meanings […] which are different from their literal meanings”. In
this way, an utterance can be expressed on record, while simultaneously indicating the speaker’s
actual desire for indirectness. An example of conventional indirectness is: Can you please open
the window? By including please in the sentence, it becomes clear that this is a request although
it takes the shape of a question. Thus, the utterance can no longer be understood literally.
Context is also of particular importance for conventionalised indirectness. Without syntactic
marking, utterances like the above only lose their ambiguity in the right context. In this way,
they lose their status as simple indirect speech acts in order to become negative politeness
strategies. Indirect speech acts are only conventionalised for particular situations and contexts.
Therefore, the meaning of Can you open the window? (without please as an indicator for a
request here) is unambiguous when the participants are in a room with a closed window and the
addressee is obviously able to follow the request. However, in a different context, for instance,
if the addressee is bound to a wheelchair, this utterance is ambiguous. It could either be a request
to open the window, or a request for information about the physical capability of the addressee
(if he or she is physically able to perform the action of opening the window). In the latter case,
the speech act is not conventionalised.
There are a number of further strategies of negative politeness. One that was already
briefly mentioned above, is not to coerce the addressee. One way to achieve this is to go bald
on record by giving the addressee the option to refuse in order to not force agreement. However,
the speaker still strives to be indirect in order to maintain the addressee’s face, which is why
this want clashes with the lower-order strategy of being direct. This clash then results in the
output strategy of conventionalised indirectness as illustrated above. Another way of not
coercing the addressee is to minimise the imposition (e.g. I just wanted to ask if you could lend
me a wee bit of money.). The speaker can do this by explicitly clarifying distance, power and
the severity of the imposition and thereby indicate that the imposition is small or that the speaker
does not have the power to coerce the addressee. The latter results in the output strategy of
giving deference. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 172-173)This can either be achieved if the
speaker degrades him- or herself, or if the speaker lifts the addressee up (e.g. Excuse me, sir,
would it be possible to close the window?). (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 178) In addition,
the speaker can choose to be pessimistic. In this case, the speaker explicitly expresses doubt
that the addressee will perform the action the speaker desires (e.g. I don’t suppose I could
borrow your notes by any chance?). (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 173)
40
Another higher-order strategy for negative politeness is to not presume or assume. This
means that the speaker is careful not to make any presumptions or assumptions about the
addressee’s desires or interests and thus maintains a distance. This can be done by either using
questions or hedges. The former falls into the category of conventional indirectness, which has
already been described above. Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987: 145) state that a hedge “is a
particle, word, or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase
in a set; it says of that membership that it is partial, or true only in certain respects, or that it is
more true and complete than perhaps might be expected”. Examples of hedges are particles
such as quite, rather, pretty (good/sure/nice), sort of, verbs such as think, believe, guess or
assume that change (in this case weaken) the force of the utterance or phrases, like I wonder if
or the attachment wasn’t it. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 144-147)
The next strategy given by Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987: 187) is for the speaker to
show that he or she does not want to impinge on the addressee. This can be done by
communicating that the speaker is aware of and considers the addressee’s negative face wants
and will not intrude into the addressee’s personal space without good reason. The first way to
convey this is to apologise right away for the intrusion. In doing so, the speaker shows
reluctance to threaten the addressee’s negative face and, thus, weakens the impingement. The
second way is to indirectly signal that the speaker is reluctant to impose on the addressee. In
order to do so, the speaker can dissociate himself or the addressee from the imposition, by
implicitly assigning the responsibility for the FTA to someone else or a collective, for instance
by using “One shouldn’t do things like that” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 197) or “We regret to
inform you…” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 202).
Finally, Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987: 209) suggest the strategy of redressing some of
the addressee’s other wants as compensation for a FTA. However, these cannot be any of the
addressee’s wants but need to be derived from the overruling desire of negative face, namely
the want to be unimpeded in one’s personal freedom. This can be done by giving deference to
the addressee, an output strategy already mentioned earlier, or by acknowledging that the
speaker owes the addressee if he or she imposes on him or her with a FTA. An example for
making this explicit in requests is making an offer: “I’d be entirely grateful if you would…”
and “I could easily do it for you” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 210).
41
5.7.4. Off Record
The last super-strategy given by Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987: 211-212) is off record which
basically means that an utterance can be understood and interpreted in more than one way. Off
record utterances are generally indirect. This offers the speaker a way to avoid taking
responsibility for the possible effect of a FTA because it is up to the addressee how to interpret
it. Furthermore, it provides the speaker with a number of alternative interpretations to draw
from. One of the most important reasons for the speaker to go off record is probably the want
to preserve face.
Context is of particular importance for off record strategies. Some of the most common
off record strategies are irony, sarcasm, metaphors, rhetorical questions, and understatements.
In fact, such off record strategies are likely to actually be on record, because of the context they
are used in. The knowledge the participants derive from the context can lead to only one
possible way of interpreting a speech act. Thus, the degree to which a speech act can be
classified as off record depends on the viability of the alternative interpretation(s). This means
the less viable another interpretation is, the more off record an utterance is. However, there is
still the issue of “the vulnerability of mutual knowledge (the difficulty of ‘knowing’ what is
inside anyone else’s head)” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 212). By drawing on this, a speaker
can possibly get away with a fairly obvious off record utterance. Although both participants
might actually know about the speaker’s true intention, the speaker can still claim to be
innocent. (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987: 212)
Two ways to achieve such ambiguity in indirect speech acts are, firstly, to provide the
addressee with hints that hopefully lead him or her to interpret the speech act as intended. These
hints can be made by deliberately violating the maxims of communication. Once again, context
is very important in order for these hints to work. They can be made by pointing out possible
reasons for performing a certain action to hint at the desire for the action to be conducted (It’s
so hot in here can mean Open a window or Turn the heating down); giving clues associated
with what is expected of the addressee; making presuppositions (e.g. She is occupying the
bathroom again. The use of again presupposes that this has happened repeatedly and might
express annoyance.); using understatements (e.g. That was kind of nice I guess.), overstatements
(e.g. You do this all the time!); tautologies (e.g. It is how it is.); contradictions (e.g. I love it but
I hate it.); being ironic (to say the opposite of what is actually meant); and using metaphors or
rhetorical questions. Another way to create ambiguous indirect utterances is to be. The same
effect can also be achieved by over-generalising (e.g. Good kids eat up their vegetables.);
42
displacing the addressee (seemingly addressing the FTA at someone else) or by leaving an
utterance incomplete (e.g. Well, if you had listened to me…). (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987:
213-227)
5.8. Culpeper’s (cf. 2011) Realisation of Impoliteness
In order to describe how impoliteness can be realised, Culpeper (cf. 2011) describes different
forms of impoliteness. First of all, he differentiates between conventionalised and non-
conventionalised impoliteness. These forms are defined by linguistic and cultural conventions
in a certain context. Further forms of impoliteness are affective impoliteness, coercive
impoliteness, and entertaining impoliteness. These forms differ depending on the intention with
which the act of impoliteness is conducted.
5.8.1. Conventionalised and Non-Conventionalised Impoliteness
To begin with, Culpeper differentiates between conventionalised (cf. Culpeper 2011: 113) and
non-conventionalised impoliteness (cf. Culpeper 2011: 155). Conventionalised impoliteness
describes expressions that, over time, have acquired associations with the (im)polite context
they are used in and thereby become conventionalised. Consequently, such conventionalised
formulae already convey the notion of impoliteness in themselves. Their negative effects can,
therefore, hardly be eliminated anymore. In some cases, however, this is still possible. (cf.
Culpeper 2011: 113-116) At this point, Culpeper draws on Tracy and Tracy’s (cf. 1998: 231)
distinction between context-tied and context-spanning strategies. The former are dependent on
a specific context and can therefore possibly be neutralised in other contexts. The latter, in
contrast, do not depend on context and, thus, maintain their impolite character in various
situations. Culpeper describes such conventionalised impoliteness formulae as “utterances […]
to which somebody, typically the target, displayed evidence that they took the utterance as
impolite” (Culpeper 2011: 134). Some conventionalised impoliteness formulae are insults (e.g.
You godforsaken moron.; Take your disgusting, filthy hands off me.; You are a pathetic little
shit.); pointed criticism or complaints (e.g. That was terribly bad.); unpalatable presuppositions
and/or questions (e.g. Why do you have to be such a burden?; What did you mess up again?);
condescensions (e.g. You act like a kid.); message enforcers (e.g. Listen,…; Are we clear?);
dismissals (e.g. fuck off; get out of my sight); silencers (e.g. shut up); threats (e.g. You’ll get
43
your ass kicked for that.); and negative expressions (e.g. screw you; go die). Needless to say,
this list is incomplete. In addition to further verbal ways of expressing impoliteness, there are
also numerous non-verbal impoliteness behaviours such as rolling one’s eyes or spitting. (cf.
Culpeper 2011: 135-136)
We speak of non-conventional impoliteness when participants interpret something that
“was said (or done) or not said (or done) in a particular context as impolite, despite the fact that
what was said (or done) was not ‘pre-loaded’ for impoliteness” (Culpeper 2011: 155). Culpeper
also refers to this as ‘implicational impoliteness’ and proposes three categories for classification
that depend on the way the implication is triggered. Firstly, ‘from-driven implicational
impoliteness’ is triggered by formal or semantic structures or aspects that have negative
consequences for a participant. (cf. Culpeper 2011: 155-157) Secondly, ‘convention-driven
impoliteness’ describes an incongruity between the form used and other behavioural aspects or
the broader context. This means that the (contextual) associations conventionalised formulae
entail do not match other aspects of the utterance. For instance, Could you please shut the fuck
up? combines both conventionalised politeness and impoliteness formulae. Such convention-
driven triggers are more difficult to identify because of their high implicitness. (cf. Culpeper
2011: 165-166)
Thirdly, context-driven interpretations of impoliteness are neither triggered by (formally
or semantically) marked or mismatched formulae. Although all forms of impoliteness are
judged based on context, the interpretation as impolite in this case derives solely from the
context and the expectations it entails. Context-driven triggers can be divided into unmarked
behaviour and the absence of behaviour. The former describes verbal behaviour that does not
appear to be impolite on the surface but still triggers impolite implications. The latter refers to
the withholding of politeness when it would be conventionally required. (cf. Culpeper 2011:
180-182) Brown and Levinson briefly address this as well. They state that “polite-ness has to
be communicated, and the absence of communicated polite-ness may […] be taken as absence
of the polite attitude” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 5).
Bearing all this in mind, Culpeper (cf. 2011: 220-221) defines three categories of
impoliteness: affective impoliteness, coercive impoliteness, and entertaining impoliteness.
These categories are predominantly concerned with the reasons why an act of impoliteness is
conducted. The basis for Culpeper’s categories are functions of impoliteness and the results
desired by conducting impolite behaviour.
44
5.8.2. Affective Impoliteness
Culpeper’s (cf. 2011: 221-223) first impoliteness category is affective impoliteness. The
terminology already suggests that emotions play a crucial role, as it is essentially “the targeted
display of heightened emotion, typically anger, with the implication that the target is to blame
for producing the negative emotional state” (Culpeper 2011: 223). More precisely, this means
that such negative emotions are often a result of frustration and can be released through verbal
aggression. Culpeper states that “[e]motional states go through a pro-cess of cognitive
appraisal, whereby the person judges what happened, why it happened, how angry he or she
feels, what might be possible courses of action, and so on” (Culpeper 2011: 221).
For both emotions and affective impoliteness, this judgment can be more instrumental
and strategic or more impulsive. The more targeted the more instrumental it is and the less
targeted the more impulsive it is. Regardless of how impulsive the reaction may be, however,
a speaker will never entirely skip judging and evaluating the situation. This is when contextual
monitoring happens. Contextual monitoring means that the context and the speaker’s evaluation
of the context influence his or her concrete choice of expressions. Consequently, one is likely
to use different means of expressing anger when surrounded by close friends or family than in
a business meeting, for instance.
5.8.3. Coercive Impoliteness
Culpeper (cf. 2011: 226) describes coercive impoliteness as an action that increases or
maintains the benefits of the speaker and is of disadvantage to the addressee. The interests of
the speaker and the addressee collide and the addressee’s freedom of action is restricted.
Bonacchi (cf. 2013: 159) uses a similar notion in her description of restrictive speech acts. In
this case, the speaker restricts the addressee’s freedom of action by controlling it and either
forcing the addressee to react in a way or preventing him or her from reacting at all. As
mentioned earlier, Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987: 172) point out the opposite as a negative-
politeness strategy. Coercive impoliteness is thus achieved by acting out what Brown and
Levinson advise not to do.
Culpeper (cf. 2011: 226-227) points out that such behaviour causes social harm to the
addressee and aims to increase the speaker’s power. To explain why an individual may choose
coercive impoliteness, he draws on Beebe (cf. 1995), who states three purposes of using
45
rudeness to gain power: “[t]o appear superior”, “get power over action”, “get power in
conversation” (Culpeper 2011: 227). Power is also mentioned by Brown and Levinson (cf.
1987) in relation to negative face. With reference to other similar theories, Culpeper (cf. 2011:
227-228) suggests that there is a higher possibility for coercive impoliteness when the power
relation between the participants is unequal. It is easier for a participant with more social power
to choose to be impolite, because there are less severe consequences for him or her. In cases of
equal power distribution coercive impoliteness is likely to be used to gain power. Bonacchi (cf.
2013: 157) claims that one may draw on impoliteness strategies to strengthen one’s own power
while weakening the other’s position, in case one finds no other way to gain authority. Culpeper
(cf. 2011: 228) points out that coercive impoliteness also poses some risks for the producer.
These negative costs such as social disapproval may actually outweigh the possible gain and
pose the risk of the target returning the imposition in the future.
5.8.4. Entertaining Impoliteness
Impoliteness for the purpose of entertainment is usually exploitative in nature, which means
that the entertaining effect for the observer happens at the cost of the target. However, the target
does not necessarily have to be aware of the impolite nature and true intention of a speech act.
The observer, however, needs to understand it for entertaining impoliteness to work. In fact,
impoliteness can be explicitly designed to entertain a certain audience. (cf. Culpeper 2011: 233-
234)
Culpeper (cf. 2011: 234-235) gives five sources of pleasure that can lead to the use of
entertaining impoliteness. The first is emotional pleasure that an observer can experience while
watching impoliteness. The second is aesthetic pleasure, meaning the creative use of language
for the purpose of being impolite. Creativity actually plays an important role for impoliteness,
because in order to win a verbal battle in an impolite dispute, one needs to be creative. The third
pleasure is voyeuristic pleasure that can be triggered by observing people’s reactions when they
face impoliteness because impoliteness often exposes their personal weaknesses. The fourth is
“[t]he pleasure of being superior” (Culpeper 2011: 235). Finally, the fifth pleasure is the
“pleasure of feeling secure” (Culpeper 2011: 235) and is related to the pleasure of feeling
superior.
46
6. Empirical Study
6.1. Aim
The aim of this study is to examine whether multilinguals use (im)politeness strategies and
perceive (im)politeness differently depending on the language they use. The participants were
mainly chosen based on their gender, first language and cultural background. The aim was to
achieve a balance between native speakers of English and native speakers of German as well
as members of both sexes. All German speaking participants are from Austria and all English-
speaking participants are originally from different English speaking countries. In additiono, it
must be noted that all participants have an academic background. They either hold a university
degree or are currently enrolled in a university programme. Although the participants are
perceived to be representative of their native cultures, it is important to bear in mind that they
cannot represent the norms, values and ideals of their entire nation or culture.
6.2. Methodology
For this thesis, I have decided to conduct a qualitative study since a quantitative study would
have greatly exceeded the scope of my project. The aim is to provide a first insight into potential
differences concerning multilinguals’ use and perception of (im)politeness. However, a
quantitative study might be of interest for future and more extensive work in this area or
research.
The data used for this study was gathered in face-to-face meetings with a total of seven
participants. The study consists of three parts: an interview section, performing (im)politeness
in the form of mock-emails, and a questionnaire on an English and a German video display acts
of impoliteness. In all sections, the participants were asked to answer in the language that felt
most natural to them, which gave them the option to switch between languages. In order to
collect the data from the interviews, I recorded the interviews and transcribed them afterwards.
For the most part, the transcripts represent the exact wording of the participants. However, in
some cases I shortened or simplified the participants’ utterances to make them more coherent
and easier to understand. For instance, in some cases I chose to leave out repetitions or filler
words such as uhm, ya, oh or like in the transcript. My decision is based on the fact that, the
content of the participants’ responses is more important for this study than the exact linguistic
implementations. However, when editing the transcripts in this manner, I was cautious not to
47
alter the message intended by the participants in any way. In addition, the transcripts exactly
represent the participants’ language choices.
I included direct quotes when it was necessary to convey fine nuances in meaning. For
answers in German, I used German to summarise the answers to the questionnaire on the videos
and occasionally for direct quotes. In such cases, however, I also provide an English translation
in the footnotes. When I translate direct German quotes, I followed the exact wording of the
original expression as closely as possible in order to preserve the original meaning. Thus, the
translations may appear clumsy at times. The complete transcripts, completed writing tasks,
and questionnaires of all participants can be found in the appendix.
6.3. Interview
The first part of the empirical study that was conducted for this thesis was an interview. As
stated above, the interview was recorded and later transcribed in a slightly simplified way. The
analysis of the two following sections, namely mock-emails and the evaluation of the videos,
will be based on the information and data collected in the interviews. The interview questions
were divided into three parts: general information, linguistic background and politeness
strategies. The following summary of the participants’ responses in the interview is based on
the transcripts of the interviews that can be found in the appendix.
6.3.1. Part I: General Information
The first part of the interview served to provide general information on the individual
participants. The aim was to elicit information such as their age, gender, country of origin,
current residence and their highest level of education to determine the distribution of
participants. In the process of selecting the participants, I aimed for a balance between
participants who originally come from a German-speaking country and those who originally
come from an English-speaking country. However, since I interviewed an uneven number of
participants, it was impossible to achieve the perfect balance. Concerning age and the highest
level of education, I aimed to find participants who belong to different age groups and hold
different academic degrees to provide a broad spectrum of participants. However, as mentioned
above, they all have an academic backgrounds. Therefore, as stated previously, it cannot be
expected that the participants in this study are representative of the norms and ideals of their
48
respective nations because they are members of very distinct social groups that do not constitute
the majority of the population of their native countries and, most importantly, because they are
all individuals.
The results show that my attempt at a balanced distribution of participants was rather
successful. Graphs 1 and 2 below illustrate the information elicited from the first two questions
of the interview concerning the participants’ gender and age.
Graph 1 shows that three of the seven interviewees are male and the remaining four participants
female. Considering the uneven number of participants, this distribution is as balanced as
possible. Graph 2 shows that four of the seven participants are younger than 30, two participants
are between 30 and 50 years old and one participant is above 50. Although there is a surplus of
participants belonging to the youngest age group, the other age groups are still represented and
thus there is a broad spectrum.
Questions 3 and 4 in the interview focused on
the participants’ countries of origin and their current
country of residence. As mentioned earlier and shown
by Graph 3, I aimed to find a balance between
participants from a German speaking country and
participants from an English speaking country. Four
of the seven participants belong to the first group and
they state that Austria was their country of origin. The
remaining three participants stated different English-
speaking countries as their country of origin. One
participant originally comes from the UK, one from
3
4
male female
42
1
0-30 30-50 50+
Graph 1: Gender of the Participants Graph 2: Age of the Participants
Graph 3: Country of Origin of Participants
4
1
1
1
Austria (AUT)
United Kingdom (UK)
Scotland (S)
United States of America (US)
49
Scotland, and one from the United States of America. Although Scotland is part of the UK, the
participants coming from the UK (cf. appendix: LIV) and Scotland (cf. appendix: LXIV)
deliberately differentiate between the two. Hence, I will do likewise by noting the participants’
cultural identities.
In the process of collecting and analysing the
data, I named each participant based on their answer
to this question to ensure anonymity. This resulted in
the abbreviations AUT 1 to 4 for the Austrian
participants, whereby the numbers refer to the order
in which the participants were interviewed, UK for
the participant from the United Kingdom, S for the
participant from Scotland, and US for the participant
from the United States of America. All seven
participants noted Austria as their current country of
residence, which was to be expected, since this study
was conducted in Austria.
The last question of this section was concerned
with the highest level of education of the participant, whereby Graph 4 illustrates the answers
to this question. Four of the participants stated that their school leaving examination (called
Matura in Austria) was the highest level of education they had completed so far. However, it is
important to note that all of them are currently studying English at university. Two participants
hold a master’s degree and one participant holds a Ph.D.
When comparing the data concerning age, country of origin, and the highest level of
education, it becomes apparent that their highest level of education correlates with their age, as
can be expected. The Austrian participants all belong to the youngest age group and thus, not
surprisingly, have completed the lowest level of education. Participants UK and US both belong
to the middle age group and hold a master’s degree. Participant S, who belongs to the last age
group, holds a Ph.D.
6.3.2. Part II: Linguistic Background
The second section of the interview focused on the participants’ linguistic background. The
questions aimed to collect information on the participants’ native language (also termed L1),
42
1
Matura / School Leaving
Examination
Master's Degree
Ph.D.
Graph 4: Highest Level of Education
50
second languages, and potential international experiences and yield information on whether
they perceive themselves as multilingual or multicultural.
Four of the participants stated German as their
native language and three participants stated English
as their native language. Graph 5 breaks down these
results and, once again, it becomes evident that the
distribution of participants concerning their native
language is rather balanced. Participants AUT 1 (cf.
appendix: XVI), AUT 2 (cf. appendix: XXVI), AUT
3 (cf. appendix: XXXV), and AUT 4 (cf. appendix:
XLV) are native speakers of German while
participants UK (cf. appendix: LIV), S (cf. appendix:
LXIV) and US (cf. appendix: LXXII) are native
speakers of English. This correlates with their cultural
background and was thus to be expected.
The results of question 7 In how many languages are you proficient enough to lead a
conversation? are summarised in Table 1 below. L1 stands for the participant’s native language,
L2 for the second language they learned, L3 for the third language they learned, and so on. All
participants stated that they considered themselves proficient enough to lead a conversation in
both English and German.
In addition, all the Austrian participants mentioned at least one additional language while the
participants from English-speaking countries mentioned German as their only additional
language. Furthermore, the Austrian participants had learned their second, third and- in two
cases- fourth language in school, while participants UK and US had also learned German as
their L2 in school. Participant S (cf. appendix: LXXIII), however, stated that, although she had
had a little bit of German in school, she only learned it when she came to Austria in her twenties.
4
3
German English
Graph 5: First Language of the
Participants
51
Table 1: In how many languages are you proficient enough to lead a conversation?
Legend: proficient enough to lead a conversation; ~ with difficulties; (~) only basic skills
6.3.2.1. Intercultural Experience
Question 8 investigated whether the participants had ever lived abroad for an extended period
of time. The participants who answered in the affirmative were additionally asked
supplementary questions on the circumstances of their stay abroad and their international
experiences. Five of the participants answered yes, one participant (AUT 2) (cf. appendix:
XXVI) negated and one participant (AUT 4) (cf. appendix: XLVI) only lived abroad for a short
period of time, as illustrated in Graph 6.
Two of the participants lived abroad to study,
one to work and three for both of these reasons. AUT 1
(cf. appendix: XVII) lived in Denmark for five months
as part of an Erasmus exchange programme. AUT 3 (cf.
appendix: XXXV) was also enrolled in the same
programme and stayed it in Scotland. AUT 4 (cf.
appendix: XLVI) spent four weeks, in Italy to work, a
rather short period of time. UK (cf. appendix: LV) has
been living in Austria for ten years in total, first as part
of his studies and later to work. S (cf. appendix: LXV)
had spent four months in France to study and has been
living and working in Austria for a total of 39 years. US
(cf. appendix: LXXIII) lived in Germany for one year and has been living
in Austria for a total of 25 years, for both to study and to work.
Language AUT 1 AUT 2 AUT 3 AUT 4 UK S US
German L1 L1 L1 L1 L2 L2 L2
English L2 L2 L2 L2 L1 L1 L1
Italian L3 ~ L3
French ~ L4 L3 ~ L3
Spanish (~) L4
5
1
1
Extended Period of Time
Short Period of Time
No
Graph 6: Stay Abroad
52
The participants who answered this question in the affirmative were also asked about
potential differences they have noticed between the culture of their host country and their native
culture. In their answers, most of the participants focused on ways in which the foreign culture
differs from their native culture. AUT 1, 3, and 4 compared Denmark, Scotland and Italy to
Austria, while UK, S, and US compared Austria to the UK, Scotland, and the U.S.
AUT 1 commented on the differences between Scandinavian and Austrian people and
stated that she perceive Scandinavians to be “offener, freundlicher, ruhiger, gelassener”1
(appendix: line 17). Regarding the differences between Austria and Scotland, AUT 3 (cf.
appendix: XXXVI) mentioned queueing and the phrase How are you? as a form of greeting and
described both as annoying. Concerning queuing, she elaborated that “[t]hey [the Scots] almost
missed their bus because they would queue so politely” (appendix: line 312). The reason why
AUT 3 felt annoyed and upset by the phrase How are you? is that, in her view, native speakers
of English do not use it as a sincere question and are not interested in a genuine answer. When
comparing Italians and Austrians, AUT 4 (cf. appendix: XLVI) emphasised that Italians
appreciate and value their interpersonal relationships such as family and friends more and act
them out more obviously. As an example, he pointed out that they always have dinner together
while this is not necessarily the case in Austria: “Man isst gemeinsam zu Abend, egal was man
zu tun hat, egal was sonst noch ansteht, es gibt ein gemeinsames Abendessen, was in Österreich
oft umgangen wird.”2 (appendix: lines 475-477)
UK (cf. appendix: LV) claimed that he perceives the UK and Austria to be rather similar
in most fundamental ways. However, he mentioned that differences become apparent in certain
everyday situations. Like AUT 3, UK also pointed out that British people “are obsessed with
queueing” (appendix: line 614) while “[p]eople just badge in” (appendix: line 615) in Austria.
US expressed severe difficulties with answering the question. Her explanation for this was that
she has been living in Austria for such a long time. However, US was still able to point out
some cultural differences she has noticed between the U.S. and Austria. However, she
emphasised that these differences were mostly cultural stereotypes and that she does not see
noticeable differences between individuals. In a broader sense, she claimed that “Austrians tend
to still be a bit more traditional” (appendix: line 905). However, the participant made sure to
emphasise that “[t]hat doesn’t mean that people in the States aren’t traditional, but maybe
because of the fact that, due to its makeup, it’s more multicultural. We [U.S. Americans] tend
1 more open, friendlier, calmer, more relaxed (my translation) 2 You have dinner together, no matter what else you have to do, no matter what else is up, there is shared dinner,
which is often avoided in Austria. (my translation)
53
to take on more traditions” (appendix: lines 907-909). Moreover, she stated that there have been
considerable changes towards a less traditional attitude since she first came to Austria. (cf.
appendix: LXXIV) Participant S (cf. appendix: LXV-LXVI) addressed two major differences
between Austria and Scotland. Firstly, she mentioned that Austrians pay much more attention
to hierarchy and social status. This becomes apparent in their use of academic titles, but also in
the way Austrians interact with each other depending on their social status. In Scotland, this
would be considered highly arrogant and ridiculous. Scots would not accept this kind of
behaviour, but would rather respond by making fun of the person displaying it. She said that
“[w]e [Scots] talk about ‘I ken your father,’ which means ‘I know your father, so don’t start
any of that with me” (appendix: lines 788-789). This leads to the second difference participant
S mentioned. She explains that bantering is very important in Scotland and that Scots only
bantered people they like a lot and feel very comfortable with, whereas Austrians are likely to
perceive this as aggressive behaviour.
The next follow-up question was 8.5. Do or did you feel immersed in the foreign
culture? Two participants, AUT 4 (cf. appendix: XLVII) and US (cf. appendix: LXXIV),
answered in the affirmative and have family ties to the foreign culture in question. AUT 4 had
spent a considerable amount of time in Italy for family reasons, while US’s family has German
roots and has therefore kept up German traditions. Thus, both participants had already been
accustomed to the culture of their host country before their stay. Two participants, AUT 1 (cf.
appendix: XVII) and AUT 3 (cff. appendix: XXXVI), also answered yes, but further inquiry
revealed that they had only participated in the foreign culture to a limited extent. Both stated
that they had only had restricted contact with local students. As an explanation for her answer,
AUT 1 (cf. appendix: XVII) claimed that she had been very cordially received and had thus felt
welcome. For AUT 3 (cf. appendix: XXXVI), the main reason was that she found Austria and
Scotland to be rather similar. Participant UK (cf. appendix: LVI) answered that he felt immersed
in Austrian culture to some extent. The reason for this is that he has both Austrian as well as
international friends and thus feels integrated rather than like an outsider. However, he claimed
that he was “not always mixing with Austrians all the time” (appendix: lines 626-627) and also
socialised a lot with other international people. Participant S (cf. appendix: LXVI) responded
that she felt integrated in the Austrian culture only with time. Upon her first arrival in Austria,
she could not speak any German, which she described as a huge barrier, and she had been
working in an English-speaking environment. She pointed out that, as a result, “people around
[her had been] convergent with [her] culture” (appendix: line 803). However, she also stated
that “things really got better when [she] started sharing [her] home with Austrians” (appendix:
54
lines 804-805). Participant US (cf. appendix: LXXV-LXXVI) pointed out another interesting
fact. She claimed that she did not feel like a foreigner because she has been living in Austria
for such a long time. However, she adds that others constantly make her aware of her foreign
roots: “[M]ore than me [participant US] seeing myself as foreign is that you are seen by others
as foreign” (appendix: lines 932-933).
6.3.2.2. Self-Perception
Questions 9 and 10 were concerned with whether the participants y perceive themselves as
multilingual and/or multicultural. As shown in Graph 7 below, four participants described
themselves as both multilingual and multicultural, two as multilingual and not multicultural,
and one as multicultural and not multilingual.
AUT 1 (cf. appendix: XVIII) does not perceive herself as multilingual but as
multicultural. The reason for this is that she defines multilingualism as having at least two native
languages and thus having been raised bi-or multilingually, or as being highly proficient in the
second language as a result of having lived abroad for several years. Although she sees herself
as fluent in her L2 (English), she does not think she is as proficient in it as she would be after
living in an English-speaking country for several years. Therefore, she does not meet her own
criteria to classify as multilingual. However, AUT 1 perceives herself as multicultural because
she identifies as European rather than Austrian. This perception mainly originates from her
family history because her family has roots in Italy and she has relatives in England.
Graph 7: Self-Perception – Multilingual/ Multicultural
- multilingual + multilingual
- multicultural
+ multicultural
AUT 1
AUT 2
UK
S
US
AUT 3
AUT 4
55
AUT 2 (cf. appendix: XXVI-XXVII) perceives himself as both multilingual and
multicultural, as he claims to have at least basic skills in six different languages, to be able to
lead a conversation in three (see Table 1 above) and to have almost native-like skills in one
additional language. Moreover, he can switch between different languages easily. Although
AUT 2 sees himself as Austrian, he also perceives himself as multicultural because he is from
a region that has been subject to several and strong influences from various cultures of
neighbouring countries. He further elaborates that, from a historical perspective, the Austrian
culture is a cultural melting pot, consisting of and combining multiple different cultural
influences: “Die österreichische Kultur ist de facto eine unglaublich vielschichtige, von
mehreren Volksschichten durchzogene Kultur. […] Es ist für mich trotzdem quasi eine Kultur,
die diese ganzen Einflüsse zusammenfasst.“3 (appendix: lines 175-177)
AUT 3 (cf. appendix: XXXVII) describes herself as multilingual but not multicultural.
She understands herself as multilingual because she feels proficient enough in her L2 (English).
However, she claims she does not feel bilingual, thus making a differentiation between the
terms multilingual and bilingual. Although she did not further explain her definition of
bilingualism, it can be assumed that she understands bilingualism as having two native
languages. Although AUT 3 claims to have an Austrian cultural identity because she was born
and raised in Austria, she stresses that she did not truly identify with Austrian culture. In her
opinion, language and culture are not necessarily connected.
AUT 4 (cf. appendix: XLVII) sees himself as multilingual but not as multicultural. He
understands himself as multilingual because he uses more than one language in his everyday
life. Furthermore, his specific areas of interest such as music are partially bound to the English
language, which is why he needs to use English on a daily basis. In his opinion, being
multilingual has become a necessity nowadays: “[I]ch sehe das nicht mehr als eine Option,
sondern als einen Standard. Den muss jeder haben, um sich in der heutigen Kultur zurechtfinden
zu können.“4 (appendix: lines 494-495) He does not perceive himself as multicultural because
he finds that Austrian culture plays a significant part in his life. He continues that, although
people may try to bring elements from other cultures to Austria, this does not actually change
the Austrian culture: “[W]ir gehen zwar auf einen Burger, aber das Schnitzel bleibt uns
3 De facto, the Austrian culture is an incredibly multilayered culture, combining many different social classes.
[…] Still, I see it as one culture that combines all these influences. (my translation) 4 I don’t see this is an option anymore, but rather a standard. Everyone needs to have it [this standard] to find
one’s bearings in today’s culture. (my translation)
56
trotzdem erhalten”5 (appendix: lines 498-499). This answer indicates that he is aware of and
recognises multicultural influences, but still sees them as foreign. In his opinion, elements of
other cultures that have been integrated in Austrian culture are not actually part of it. Thus, he
does not perceive himself or the Austrian culture, as fundamentally influenced by other cultures,
which is why he does not consider himself multicultural.
UK (cf. appendix: LVI-LVII) considers himself both multilingual and multicultural.
Similar to AUT 3, he does not feel that he is bilingual but states that “my [UK’s] level in
German is still reasonable. I can do pretty much everything I need to do in German or want to
do. So it’s not something that holds me back” (appendix: lines 630-631). Although UK claims
that he still has a British identity, he perceives himself as multicultural because the experience
of living in Austria has heightened his cultural awareness and as a result, he has “taken bits
from the different cultures [he has] been exposed to” (appendix: lines 640-641). He therefore
rather sees himself as being in between cultures.
S (cf. appendix: LXVI-LXVII) also perceives herself as both multilingual and
multicultural. Her reason for considering herself multilingual is that she uses more than one
language in her everyday life. Furthermore, the main cause why S regards herself as
multicultural is that she has various friends from different cultural backgrounds “and [they] just
live these cultures with one another” (appendix: line 811). As a result, she is exposed to different
cultural influences on a regular basis and engages in various cultures to a certain extent.
US sees herself as multilingual because she is proficient in two languages. Concerning
the question whether she perceives herself as multicultural, she answered that she rather
considers herself to be international: “I definitely don’t see myself as Austrian, but I definitely
don’t think I see myself as completely American. […] I always say I probably would fit
somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic. Everything kind of blends together after a while.”
(appendix: lines 984-986) Like participant UK, US takes bits from both cultures instead of
limiting herself to a single set of conventions. (cf. appendix: LXXVI-LXXVII)
To sum up, the majority of the participants consider themselves multilingual based on
their high level of proficiency in their L2 and their daily or at least frequent use of their L2.
Therefore, they meet and confirm Grosjean and Pavlenko’s definitions of multilingualism as
described at the beginning of this thesis. When it comes to the participants’ definition of and
criteria for multiculturalism, the answers were less consistent. Family history appears to be an
5 We might have a burger, but the ‘Schnitzel’ still survives. (my translation)
57
important criterion for AUT 1 (cf. appendix: XVIII) and US (cf. appendix: LXXIV). The second
criterion that was repeatedly mentioned was high exposure to different cultures. For participants
UK (cf. appendix: (LVI), US (cf. appendix: LXXVI-LXXVII), and S (cf. appendix: LXVI), this
happens on a daily basis because they have been living in a foreign country for an extended
period of time. AUT 1 (cf. appendix: XVIII) and AUT 2 (cf. appendix: XXVII) acknowledge
the influence of different cultures from a geographic and historical perspective. However, while
AUT 2 still prescribes to Austrian culture, AUT 1 does not identify as Austria, but rather as
European. US (cf. appendix: LXXVI) gave a response that was similar to that of AUT 1,
claiming that she perceives herself as international rather than American or Austrian, US (cf.
appendix: LXXVI), UK (cf. appendix: LVII) and S (cf. appendix: LXVII) all stated that they
considered themselves to be being in between cultures and explained this by having lived
abroad for a very long time.
6.3.3. Part III: Politeness Strategies
The third section of the interview was dedicated to the participants’ perception of and
experiences with (im)politeness and potential differences between German and English in this
regard.
6.3.3.1. Differences between English and German
Question 11 specifically asked the participants to compare the ways native speakers of German
and English interact with each other with regard to politeness and impoliteness. The
participants’ answers are be summarised in the following.
Drawing on personal experiences, AUT 1 (cf. appendix: XVIII-XVIV) mainly focused
on British native speakers of English in her answer. She pointed out that she perceives the social
distance to be greater in English. In addition, she claimed that English speakers tended to be
more reserved and less extroverted than Austrians, for instance. Therefore, British people are
more likely to interprete certain behaviours as impolite, while this is not the case in Austria.
This answer indicates that AUT 1 perceives native speakers of English to be more aware and
sensitive of behavioural norms.
AUT 2 (cf. appendix: XXVII-XXVIII) focused on formal aspects of German and
English. With reference to the historical development of the English language, he stated that
58
the English pronoun you was actually the polite form of address, while the originally informal
thou existed, but was no longer in use. Thus, the English language can be seen as more polite,
because it uses the polite form of address as a standard. However, by now this appears to have
turned into a linguistic convention rather than a deliberate strategy. In German, Sie and du are
still more distinctly differentiated, the first being the polite form of address, the latter the
informal form of address. However, AUT 2 emphasised that this did not mean that the German
du was impolite by its nature: “[W]obei das ‘Du’ durchaus höflich sein kann und ist, wenn ich
eben mit Personen zu tun habe, mit denen ich jetzt nicht in irgendeinem hierarchischen System
verbunden bin, oder die mir das ‘Du’ auch angeboten haben.“6 (appendix: lines 184-187)
Depending on the context, du can easily be used in a polite way. For instance, du is perfectly
acceptable when there is no hierarchical difference between the speaker and the addressee or
when one participant offers this form of address to the other.
AUT 3 (cf. appendix: XXXVII-XXXVIII) referred back to her answer to question 8.4.
and added an additional aspect. Similar to her answer to question 8.4., she pointed out the two
common British customs of queuing and asking How are you? as being different from customs
in Austria. In her answer to question 8.4., she expressed that she perceives the latter as highly
impolite because it was not a genuine question. In addition, she mentioned the different ways
of addressing someone who holds a higher hierarchical status, such as teachers. She added that
it is common practise to address teachers by their first names in an English-speaking context.
However, during her exchange, AUT 3 still refused to follow this convention because it felt odd
to her and rather adhered to the Austrian norm of calling her teacher Professor. In addition, she
stressed that titles were of great importance in Austria and that it is considered polite to include
someone’s academic titles when addressing them, so “we perceive it here [in Austria] to be
polite to show that we know everything they did in the academic world” (appendix: lines 355-
356).
AUT 4 (cf. appendix: XLVIII) claimed that he perceives the German language to be
lengthier than English. He explained that, while German uses several extensive phrases, English
conveys the same meaning in a shorter form, without being less polite: “Diese langen deutschen
Phrasen, die wir oft verwenden: ‘Störe ich dich gerade?‘, ‚Könntest du mir vielleicht…’ werden
auf Englisch stark verkürzt auf ‚Would you mind?‘“7. (appendix: lines 505-507) While AUT 4
6 ‘Du’ can easily be seen as polite when I interact with people without being connected to them as part of a
hierarchical system, or with people who offered ‘Du’ to me. (my translation) 7 These long German phrases that we use so often, ‘Am I disturbing you right now?’, ‘Could you possibly…’ are
heavily shortened in English to ‘Would you mind?’ (my translation)
59
is well accustomed to this behaviour in English and does not feel irritated or offended by it, he
would perceive the same behaviour in German as impolite.
UK pointed out that “in Britain, there is definitely more or a sort of attempt to politeness.
The forms of politeness are more important in certain situations” (appendix: lines 648-650). In
his opinion, there are more politeness strategies in English. However, he pointed out that this
excessive use of politeness strategies might be specific to Britain in particular, compared to
other English speaking countries. “The question I [participant UK] would ask is to whether we
are really politer. I mean, in some way, this is less honest. People in Britain, I think, often
pretend to be nice to someone or polite to someone when really, actually, they don’t mean it
that way.” (appendix: lines 659-662) Thus, the use of forms of politeness can be seen as more
conventionalised and superficial in Britain. In Austria, on the other hand, the use of politeness
appears to be more genuine and he states that interaction in Austria is “very abrupt and direct,
but it’s also more honest” (appendix: lines 678-679).
S (cf. appendix: LXVII) mainly repeated her answer to question 8.4. She mentioned
again that she perceives Austrians to be “much more aware of their social standing” (appendix:
lines 812-813). She claimed that, whereas Austrians are very aware of where they stand in a
hierarchical order, people in Scotland rather tend to hide their social standing.
US (cf. appendix: LXXVII) pointed out that face plays a very important role for native
speakers of English and that “we are definitely much more careful not to hurt anybody’s
feelings” (appendix: lines 988-989). During her time in Germany, however, she noticed that
people were more direct when interacting with each other. Regarding her stay in Germany, she
remembered that “sometimes people said things quite brutally to another person’s face that I
was a bit shocked by, which I would never have done. But the person that was hearing it didn’t
seem bothered at all” (appendix: lines 993-995).
Although the participants’ responses were very individual and focused on different
aspects, some general tendencies could be determined. To begin with, Austrians, or native
speakers of German, were generally perceived to have a rather direct way of interacting with
each other, as pointed out by UK (cf. appendix: LVIII) and US (cf. appendix: LXXVII). The
same can be assumed by the answers of AUT 3. The answers given by participants UK (cf.
appendix: LVII-LVIII) and AUT 3 (cf. appendix: XXXVIII-XXXVIX) indicate that politeness
is more conventionalised in English, meaning that it occurs more often, though the intentions
are not honest. In German, on the other hand, forms of politeness might be used less frequently,
60
but with rather genuine intentions and appear to be less conventionalised. In addition, AUT 3
(cf. appendix: XXXVIII) and S (cf. appendix: LXV) described Austrians as being very aware
of hierarchy and social standing. AUT 4 (cf. appendix: XLVIII) also expressed this by claiming
that, in German, he perceives the gap to people who are higher in the social hierarchy to be
greater than in English, which includes the extensive use of titles when addressing someone in
a formal setting. AUT 2 (cf. appendix: XXVIII) and AUT 4 (cf. appendix: XLIX) also
mentioned that German uses two different forms of address, Sie and du, in formal and informal
contexts and in connection with social hierarchy. Native speakers of English, on the other hand,
were characterised as being more reserved by AUT 1 (cf. appendix: XIX) and AUT 3 (cf.
appendix: XXXVIII). However, AUT 3 (cf. appendix: XXXVIII), AUT 4 (cf. appendix:
XLVIII-XLIX), and S (cf. appendix: LXVII) stated that they perceive the social distance to be
smaller in English, which is why social hierarchy appears to be less important or prominent.
6.3.3.2. Importance of Politeness and Manners
Question 12 was investigated whether the participants believe that the English or the German
language community places more importance on politeness and manners. One participant chose
the English language community, two the German one, two did not make a difference between
the two options, and two participants gave an ambiguous answer. The results are shown in
Graph 8.
AUT 1 (cf. appendix: XIX) answered
that, in her opinion, the English language
community places more importance on
politeness and manners. The reason for this is
that the English language seems to have more
underlying norms, as opposed to German.
However, she also suggested that added that
she might be the case for German, too, but she
might not be aware of it. Since German is her
native language, it is likely that she pays less
attention to such norms. When learning a
second language, however, the learner is
deliberately made aware of such aspects.
Graph 8: Which language community places more
importance on politeness and manners, English or
German?
2
12
2
German English
both equally ambiguous answer
61
AUT 2 (cf. appendix: XXVIII) and AUT 4 (cf. appendix: XLVIII-XLIX) find that the
German language community places more importance on politeness and manners. Although
AUT 2 (cf. appendix: XXVIII) pointed out that context plays a significant role in the perception
of politeness, he still finds it to be more obvious in German. As mentioned earlier, German
makes a clear distinction between the formal and informal way of addressing someone by using
different pronouns. Therefore, the speaker needs to make a deliberate choice when addressing
someone and thus needs to be more aware of the level of politeness appropriate in a certain
situation:
Wenn ich jetzt aber im Deutschen quasi zwangsweise das ‚Sie’ benutzen muss, um als höflich zu gelten,
dann schwingt natürlich der Gedanke an Höflichkeit und Manieren mit. Insofern würde ich in der Hinsicht
fast glauben, dass Deutsch eher Wert darauf legt, weil der sprachliche Unterschied einfach gegeben ist.8
(appendix: lines 195-199)
AUT 4 (cf. appendix: XLVIII-XLIX) drew a connection to different ways of dealing with
hierarchy in German-speaking and English-speaking communities. According to his view, there
is a bigger difference between formal and informal situations or situations that require a high
level of politeness as opposed to situations that require a low level of politeness in German.
Moreover, he perceives the gap between different hierarchical levels to be far greater in
German. In English, on the other hand, this gap appears smaller to him.
Participants S and US claimed that English and German pay equal attention to politeness
and manners. S answered: “I think both. But just differently. But I don’t think one language is
more polite than the other” (appendix S: 55) Participant US stated: “I’d say both. I wouldn’t
even make a difference.” (appendix US: 126)
Participants AUT 3 and UK gave an ambiguous answer to this question. AUT 3 (cf.
appendix: XXXVIII-XXXIX) claimed that, stereotypically, British people are said to be more
polite. However, she elaborated that “the way I see it, being reserved isn’t necessarily polite.
British people are supposed to be reserved, that’s a stereotypical idea and maybe they feel like
this is polite, but in my opinion it’s not so polite to just keep yourself to yourself and to push
people away” (appendix: lines 357-360). AUT 3 added that there might be fundamental
differences between cultures regarding the understanding of politeness. Therefore, one culture
might consider a certain behaviour as polite while another might consider it impolite. UK stated
8 When I deliberately need to use ‘Sie’ in German to be seen as polite, we automatically think of politeness and
manners. Therefore, in this regard, I would think that German places more importance on it, because of this
linguistic difference. (my translation)
62
that, in his view, “the English speaking community places more importance on the appearance
of politeness, on these forms and strategies […]. But the German speaking community is maybe
more honest about it“ (appendix: lines 680-682). This correlates with the participant’s answer
to the preceding question 11, where he claimed that the use of politeness is more
conventionalised in Britain than in Austria. (cf. appendix: LVII-LVIII)
6.3.3.3. Language Emotionality
Question 13 addressed the emotionality of language and asked the participants which language
they usually choose to express the negative emotions of anger and frustration. Participants UK
(cf. appendix: LVIII) and AUT 4 (cf. appendix: XLIX) chose their L1, while AUT 1 (cf.
appendix: XIX- XX) and US (cf. appendix: LXXVIII) likewise chose their L1, although they
added that they also use certain words or expressions from their L2. AUT 2 (cf. appendix:
XXVIII-XXIX) and S (cf. appendix: LXVII) claimed that they use both their L1 and L2 equally
and AUT 3 (cf. appendix: XXXIX) chose her L2. The results are summarised in Table 2 below.
AUT 1 AUT 2 AUT 3 AUT 4 UK S US
German
English
Both equally
L1 with borrowings
from L2
AUT 4 (cf. appendix: XLIX) claimed to use German and more specifically Styrian to
express negative emotions. He stresses that it felt most natural to him because it was his native
language and thus also the language of his childhood. He even made a distinct difference
between standard German and Styrian: “[W]enn ich grantig, frustriert bin, wüsste ich gar keine
Möglichkeit mich auf Hochdeutsch auszudrücken. Und gleichermaßen habe ich das nie als Kind
auf Englisch lernen können“9 (appendix: lines 537-538). UK (cf. appendix: LVIII) made clear
that he chooses English to convey his anger and frustration, though English is still his dominant
9 When I’m grumpy, frustrated, I wouldn’t even know how to express this in standard German. And, likewise, I
never had the chance to learn to do this in English as a child. (my translation)
Table 2: Language Emotionality
63
language and the language of his emotions. He claimed to automatically switch to English when
facing strong emotions.
AUT 1 (cf. appendix: XIX- XX) generally uses her L1 (German) to express anger and
frustration, but tends to use English swear words. According to AUT 1, a reason for this might
be that English is not her native language, which is why swearing in English might be more
likely to be tolerated in a German speaking context. US usually expresses her anger and
frustration in her L1 (English) but likes to use certain words from her L2 (German) because she
prefers them to the English equivalents. However, using English to express her negative
emotions is a deliberate choice. In the past she used to speak German when she was upset with
her children but later on deliberately decided to express her anger in English so her children
would not associate German with negative connotations.
AUT 2 (cf. appendix: XXVIII-XXIX) claimed to use the same expressions in both
German and English, whereby the decision which language he uses is very spontaneous and
depends on the situation. S responded that she feels equally comfortable in both English and
German and stresses that her choice of language she eventually chooses depends on the situation
and the person she is speaking to.
AUT 3 stated that she chooses English to express anger and frustration, mainly because
she always speaks English with her best friend. (cf. appendix: XXXIX)
I feel comfortable in both languages actually, expressing it and sometimes, if you experience something
in German, it’s easier to think about it in English […]. [I]t just makes sense, because if you want to
translate something that happened, you have to think more about it if you are translating, so if I’m mad
about something and tell her in English, but it happened to me in German, it’s a nice way of reflecting on
it and to relieve my anger and frustration. (Appendix: lines 380-385)
6.3.3.4. Expressing (Im)Politeness
Question 14 asked the participants in which language they find it easier to be polite or impolite.
Three participants, UK (cf. appendix: LIX), US (cf. appendix: LXXVIII-LXXIX) and S (cf.
appendix: LXVIII), answered English. One participants, AUT 1 (cf. appendix: XX), answered
German. Therefore, five of the participants indicated that it is easier for them to be polite or
impolite in their native language. Three, namely AUT 2 (cf. appendix: XXIX-XXX), AUT 3
(cf. appendix: XXXIX-XXXX), and AUT 4 (cf. appendix: XLIX), stated that they find it almost
just as easy to be polite or impolite in both English and German. However, they still noted a
64
tendency towards their L1 (German), as will be explained in more detail in the following. These
results are summarised in Graph 9.
AUT 1 (cf. appendix: XX) claimed that she finds it
easier to be polite or impolite in German, because it is her
native language. Consequently, her repertoire is far greater
in German, which leads her to believe that she can express
herself more eloquently in the language.
AUT 2 (cf. appendix: XXIX-XXX) claimed that he
feels almost equally comfortable with being polite in both
his L1 (German) and his L2 (English). When it comes to
impoliteness he noted a tendency towards German, saying
that “I would say it’s easier to be impolite in German,
because I’m way more proficient with the language, but […]
I enjoy it more to be impolite in English” (appendix: lines
207-208). The reason for this is that “[i]f you manage a language in a way that you can
artistically express yourself as being angry or curse in a very profound way, then you know
how a language works” (appendix: lines 210-211). Thus, he sees being impolite in a foreign
language as a sign of ultimate language proficiency. However, he pointed out that this is only
the case for his L2 (English) and that he does not feel proficient enough to do so in his L3 and
L4 (cf. appendix: XXIX).
AUT 3 (cf. appendix: XXXIX-XXXX) stated that it is just as easy for her to be polite
in English and German in spoken communication. When it comes to written communication,
however, it is easier for her to be polite in German. When writing in German she claims that
she simply knows which structures to use to sound polite, while she struggles more to find the
right words when writing in English. In spoken communication, however, she perceives it to be
easier to be polite in English because “you can put a lot of this politeness in the intonation and
pronunciation, so it just helps. In written you only have the words and not the intonation”
(appendix: lines 394-396).
AUT 4 (cf. appendix: XLIX) answered that he generally feels equally comfortable in
his L1 (German) and L2 (English), though it is easier for him to be impolite in German. He
suggested that the reason for this is that his repertoire is greater in his native language. In
1
3
3
L1 German
L1 English
both (tendency towards L1)
Graph 9: In which language is it
easier for you to be polite/impolite?
65
general, he perceives himself to be slightly more polite and articulate in German than in English.
Nonetheless, he considers these differences to be minor.
UK (cf. appendix: LIX) stated that it is easier for him to be polite or impolite in English,
because it comes automatically. When it comes to German, he noted that “I [participant UK]
sometimes feel like I’m too polite” (appendix: lines 688-689). He explained this by stating that
he tends to use the same expressions in German that he would use in English. Furthermore, he
claimed to notice this because “I’m [participant UK] trying to improve my German and trying
to sound as native-like as possible and I notice the way Austrians do this and then there is me.
Oh, I use ‘Danke’ ten times and they just say ‘Have some money’” (appendix: lines 691-693).
In order to sound more native-like, he tries to reduce these politeness markers in German.
Participant S (cf. appendix: LXVIII) also answered that it is easier for her to be polite
or impolite in her L1 (English): “I’ve got a greater repertoire in English. I think I can be more
vicious in English if I want to be, because I’ve got more of a feel. Even after all these years.”
(appendix: lines 821-822) However, she noted that context still plays an important role.
US (cf. appendix: LXXVIII-LXXIX) also claimed that she feels more confident about
using politeness in English. While she struggles less with using politeness in informal situations
in German, she feels less confident in formal situations. Particularly in written communication
she always has her texts checked by a native speaker of German. US noted that it is mainly an
issue of formality. “Informal I don’t really worry but it’s more a formality thing, because, you
know, you could upset somebody without really meaning to do it.” (appendix: lines 1027-1028)
She further suggested that she has a particularly heightened awareness of these issues because
she teaches English as a second language at university and thus notices where second language
learners have problems when it comes to formality. In addition, she observed that
when people think you have a pretty good control of the language they will excuse the grammar mistake
here and there, but they won’t excuse the politeness stuff. And that’s the stuff when they think you’re
getting it wrong they think you did it on purpose or that you are just ignorant. […] I know that you expect
a lot more of people who really seem to have their English completely under control […]. And you forget
that they might be putting on their L1 to maybe make some transfer there, or they just don’t know, because
how are they supposed to know? (Appendix: lines 1043-1051)
The answers summarised above show that all participants clearly favour their L1. The
main reasons for this are a greater repertoire and a subconscious knowledge of underlying
politeness norms and rules. However, the more proficient they feel in their L2, the more
confident they are with using politeness in formal situations as well. Particularly in written
66
communication most participants claimed to be more confident in their L1 than in their L2,
while they perceive spoken communication to be less challenging. When it comes to
impoliteness, most participants also stated that it is easier for them to be impolite in their L1. A
possible explanation for this is that expressions of impoliteness are usually avoided in the
second language classroom, while politeness is a reoccurring topic when learning a second
language. However, this selection does not happen in first language acquisition, because, as
AUT 2 pointed out, “it [impoliteness] is a part of language. And coursing, swearing, insulting
someone is a part of language and it is an important part of language, because you have to
express your feelings” (appendix: lines 228-230).
6.4. Performing (Im)Politeness: Mock-emails
For the second part of the empirical study, all participants were asked to complete two writing
tasks in English and German. This resulted in a total of four texts, two in English and two in
German. For each writing task the instructions were the same for both languages. This section
investigates whether participants perform (im)politeness differently depending on the language
they use, even if the conditions are the same. It must be noted that I did not edit or correct the
participants’ texts in any way, with one exception: participant S explicitly gave me permission
to proof-read her German texts because she claimed she always has her German texts checked
by a native speaker of German before she submits them. However, I only made minor
corrections concerning spelling or grammar and refrained from changing the sentence structure
or wording. All examples in the analysis below are thus presented exactly as they were written
by the participants and may contain occasional mistakes or slips.
For the analysis of the mock-emails I apply Brown and Levinson’s (cf. 1987) politeness
strategies and Culpeper’s (cf. 2011) functions of impoliteness that were presented earlier in this
thesis. In addition, I will examine the forms of address and farewell used by the participants as
well as the use of introductory phrases. It must be noted that Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987)
distinguish between numerous very specific strategies, including a total of fifteen for the
superstrategy of positive politeness, ten for the superstrategy of negative politeness and fifteen
for the super-strategy of off record. They categorise these strategies based on their underlying
intentions. In this thesis, I have decided to summarise the strategies based on these categories
instead of analysing all strategies individually. For my analysis I will use the categories
presented in Table 3 below. However, within the analysis of the mock-emails, I will also point
67
Table 3: Politeness Strategies (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987)
out specific strategies as defined by Brown and Levinson (cf. 1987) within these categories, to
highlight the underlying intention of the speech act.
6.4.1. Request
In the first writing task, the participants were asked to imagine that they have been asked to
write a paper or contribution to a book about their area of expertise. They have already had to
ask their professor or editor Dr. Lang for an extension of the deadline and now they needed a
second extension, because of an unexpected family issue that needed their immediate attention.
The instructions were given both in English and in German, whereby the participants were
asked to complete the task in both languages. The analysis of this task is based on Brown and
Levinson’s (cf. 1987) politeness strategies as described above.
Super-strategy Category
Bald on record (bR) Non-minimising the FTA/being direct (bR1)
FTA-oriented/“each participant attempts to foresee what the
other participant is attempting to foresee” (Brown and
Levinson 1987: 99) (bR2)
Positive politeness (P) Claiming common ground (P1)
Conveying that speaker and addressee are cooperators (P2)
Fulfilling some of the addressee’s wants (P3)
Negative politeness (N) Being direct/conventionally indirect (N1)
Not presuming or assuming (N2)
Not coercing the addressee (N3)
Communicating that the speaker does not want to impinge on
the addressee (N4)
Redressing other wants of the addressee (offering partial
compensation for the FTA) (N5)
Off-record (oR) Inviting conversational implicatures (oR1)
Being vague or ambiguous (oR2)
68
6.4.1.1. Form of Address, Introductory Phrase, Farewell
To begin with, I analysed the forms of address and farewell that the participants used as well as
their use of introductory phrases. The results are summarised in Table 4 in the appendix and
show that all seven participants used the common form of address Dear + (title and) last name
in the English texts. Only one participant omitted the academic title of the addressee, addressing
him as “Mr. Lang” (appendix: line 69). The remaining six participants collectively included the
addressee’s academic title as given in the instructions. In the German texts, all participants used
the formal form of address Sehr geehrte/r + title and last name. Dear is a very common form
of address in written English communication and is used in both formal and informal contexts.
In German, on the other hand, Sehr geehrte/r is only used in formal settings and highlights the
writer’s respect for the addressee. Thus, the different forms of address suggest a larger social
distance and awareness of social standing and hierarchy in German. This correlates with the
observations made by participants AUT 2, AUT 3, AUT 4 and S that were previously described
in chapter 5.1.
In both English and German six out of seven participants used introductory phrases in
their emails. However, there are slight differences concerning the type of introduction used in
English and German. Most of the introductory phrases in the English texts are longer than the
introductory phrases used in German. The central purpose of the English introductions is to
inform the addressee about the paper or contribution in question. In German, on the other hand,
the participants come to the point faster by using short introductory phrases that are immediately
followed by the request for an extension. Only one participant stated his problem right away
without using an introductory phrase, both in English and in German. However, he did not make
the request right away but described the problem first. One participant included an expression
of regret in the introduction to her German email before stating the problem. Another participant
expressed gratitude for the first extension of the deadline to begin the email. However, the
participant’s expression of gratitude is longer and more specific in the English version. A reason
for this might be that she is more proficient in English because it is her native language.
In German, four participants included a pre-closure before the actual farewell, while
only two participants did the same in English. In German, these pre-closures were used to beg
the addressee to understand their situation, to thank the addressee in advance, and to express
the hope that consent will be possible. In English, the pre-closures were only used to thank the
addressee in advance. One English pre-closure also includes the conventional phrase I look
forward to your response, which suggests that the writer expects a positive reply from the
69
addressee. Two of the pre-closures that were used in German suggest a larger hierarchical
distance between the writer and the addressee and thus make it appear necessary to beg the
addressee to understand. In contrast, the English pre-closures suggest that the writers already
assume that the addressee will understand their situation and cooperate. Although the pre-
closures are used for similar reasons in both languages, the fact that they occur more often in
German suggests that the participants feel a greater need to thank the addressee or ask for him
or her to understand. Once again, this indicates a larger social gap between the writer and the
addressee in German, while the social distance appears to be smaller in English.
The actual farewell is more diverse in English. In German six of the seven participants
used the phrase Mit freundlichen Grüßen, which is a common phrase in formal writing. In
English, the majority of the participants used the neutral to informal phrases With kind regards
and All the best. Only two participants, both of whom are native speakers of German, used the
formal farewell phrases Yours faithfully and Yours sincerely. Once again, this suggests a smaller
distance in the social hierarchy between the speaker and the addressee in English.
6.4.1.2. Politeness Strategies
The results of the analysis of politeness strategies show that there are distinct differences
between the English and German texts. The results are summarised in Tables 5 and 6 in the
appendix. To begin with, there are slightly more politeness strategies in the English texts
compared to the German ones. While I identified a total of 60 strategies in the English requests,
there is only a total of 55 strategies in the German requests. This correlates with the answers
given by participants UK (cf. appendix: LVII-LVIII) and AUT 3 (cf. appendix: XXXVII-
XXXVIII) in response to question 11 of the interview. Both claimed that they perceive
politeness to be more conventionalised in English and participant UK (cf. appendix: LVII-
LVIII) pointed out that forms of politeness appear to be more important in English than in
German. In addition, the strategies are allocated slightly differently to the super-strategies of
bald on record, positive politeness, and negative politeness in English and German.
To begin with, none of the participants used a bald on record strategy to make the request
in English. In contrast, five of the seven participants made the request baldly on record in
German, whereby two of them applied a bald on record strategy twice in their German texts.
This results in a total of seven uses of bald on record strategies in the German requests. All bald
on record strategies are used in order to be maximally efficient in conveying urgency. Brown
70
and Levinson (1987: 130) point out that “there is an element in formal politeness that sometimes
directs one to minimize the imposition by coming rapidly to the point, avoiding the further
imposition of prolixity and obscurity.” Taking into account that such a direct approach only
appears in the German texts, this confirms the observations made by participants S and US,
who pointed out that they perceive native speakers of German to be more direct in the interview.
The participants’ use of positive politeness strategies is rather similar in both English
and German. In English I identified a total of 26 and in German, a total of 21 positive politeness
strategies. This suggests that positive face is similarly important to the participants in both
English and German. In addition, positive politeness strategies are also used for the same
reasons in both languages. One participant used a P1 strategy once (to claim common ground)
in both languages and one participant used a P3 strategy twice (to fulfil the addressee’s want
for something) in both English and German. P2 strategies (to convey that the speaker and
addressee are cooperators) are the most common strategies in both languages. The only
difference is that there are only 18 P1 strategies in German, while there are 26 P1 strategies in
English. This corresponds to the observation that there are generally more politeness strategies
in English, as noted above. In English P2 strategies most commonly used to express that the
speaker is optimistic that the addressee will cooperate as well as to include both participants,
the speaker and the addressee, in the activity. A possible explanation for this is that social
distance is perceived as smaller in English, to be repeatedly mentioned. Thus, it is rather safe
for the speaker to assume that his or her face is not in danger. In German, on the other hand, the
potential threat to the speaker’s face is greater, since the addressee is clearly regarded as
superior and thus as more powerful.
Although negative politeness strategies are the most prominent strategies in both
English and German, the participants used them far more often in English than in German. I
identified a total of 34 negative politeness strategies in the English texts, but only 27 in the
German texts. The most noteworthy difference is that the N1 strategy (be direct) of being
conventionally indirect was used four times more often in English than in German. As
mentioned above, in case of the mock-emails, requests are mostly made baldly on record in
German. In English, the participants prefer to make the request by forming indirect questions,
such as “I would like to ask you whether a second extension of the deadline would be possible”
(appendix: lines 73-74) or “I am writing to ask whether you could possibly grant me a second
extension to the deadline” (appendix: lines 697-698). One participant used the direct question
“Would it be possible to extend the deadline a second time?” (appendix: line 643) to make the
71
request. In English two participants also used the N3 strategy (do not coerce), implying that the
addressee has a higher social status than the speaker. A possible explanation for this is that they
feel the need to emphasise the addressee’s social status and power, since social distance is
generally smaller in English. Since social distance is far greater in German, there is no need to
put the addressee higher up on the hierarchical ladder, as it is not necessary to additionally stress
the addressee’s power. The general tone and register in German already indicate the social
distance between the speaker and the addressee.
6.4.2. Complaint
As part of the second writing, task the participants were asked to write a complaint to a
restaurant about the poor service they had experienced there. They were to imagine that they
had visited a well-known, fancy restaurant with an excellent reputation to celebrate a special
occasion but were thoroughly dissatisfied with the service. The waiter/waitress had been
extremely unfriendly, slow, not attentive, and had not been able to provide any additional
information on the dishes, ingredients or types of wine that were available. They were asked to
imagine that, although the food had been good, the bad service had spoiled the entire evening
so that they eventually decided to write to the manager of the restaurant. The instructions did
not given a contact person. For the analysis of the texts I am drawing on Brown and Levinson’s
(cf. 1987) politeness strategies as well as Culpeper’s (cf. 2011) functions of impoliteness. It
must be noted that participant US refused to complete this task and explained: “I would never
do this because I wouldn’t waste my time on something like this and I wouldn’t want the person
to lose his/her job – maybe they were just having a bad night!” (Appendix: lines 1072-1073)
-
6.4.2.1. Form of Address, Introductory Phrase, Farewell
As in the section above, I analysed the forms of address, farewell and introductory phrases that
the participants used in their complaints. Table 7 in the appendix provides a summary of the
results. In English four of the participants used the neutral form of address Dear Sir/Madam,
and two used To whom it may concern, which is also a neutral form of address when the receiver
is unknown. In German five out of six participants began their email with Sehr geehrte
Restaurantleitung/ Damen und Herren. One participant, who used the address Sehr geehrte/r…,
commented that she would normally google the name of the manager or the contact person.
72
This form of address is very formal and indicates the writer’s respect for the addressee.
However, it still works to establish a personal connection between the writer and the addressee.
Only one participant began their email with the more neutral and impersonal address An die
Restaurantleitung.
All participants began their emails with some sort of introduction in both English and
German. In English, four of the six participants used a short introductory phrase directly
followed by the statement of the complaint, for instance “I visited your restaurant yesterday and
am writing to express my dissatisfaction about the service” (appendix: lines 560-561) and “I
am writing to draw your attention to the poor service I received today at your restaurant”
(appendix: 841-842). Two of the participants used an introductory phrase in combination with
a description of the context: “I am writing with regard to an interpersonal encounter I had at
your restaurant last Friday” (appendix: line 88) and “Unfortunately I am writing you to point
out a certain issue I had, when I was at your restaurant lately” (appendix: lines 253-254). In
German, three out of the six participants also began their email with a short introduction
immediately followed by the statement of the complaint and two gave a description of the
general context as an introduction: “[W]ie oft in der Vergangenheit habe ich auch vergangenen
Freitag Ihr Lokal gewählt, um im Kreise meiner Familie einen besonderen Anlass zu feiern“10
(appendix: lines 101-102) and “Heute wollte ich mit meiner Familie eine Sponsion in Ihrem
Restaurant feiern”11 (appendix: line 849). One participant kept the introduction rather general,
by writing: “Leider muss ich mich wegen einem unangenehmen Problem bei Ihnen melden”12
(appendix: line 261). Although this introduction is rather vague and general, it hints at the
writer’s reason for contacting the addressee. In sum, there is a tendency for lengthier
introductions in German. In German, it took half of the participants longer to actually state the
complaint, while the majority of the participants came to the point quicker in English.
In German, all six participants used formal forms of farewell, while five out of six
participants used them in English. Furthermore, four participants ended their email with the
phrase Yours sincerely and one with Yours faithfully in English. Only one participant chose the
less formal ending Best wishes. In German three participants use the formal phrase Mit
freundlichen Grüßen whereby one participant ended the email with Freundliche Grüße, the
shortened form of this phrase. Two used Hochachtungsvoll as a farewell address, which
10 Like repeatedly in the past, last Friday I chose your restaurant to celebrate a special occasion with my family
(my translation) 11 Today I wanted to celebrate a graduation at your restaurant (my translation) 12 Unfortunately, I have to contact you about an unpleasant issue (my translation)
73
strongly emphasises their respect for the addressee. A possible reason for the strong occurrence
of formal farewell phrases is that the participants may feel the need to end the email in a way
that shows their respect for the addressee, since a complaint is, by its nature, a threat to the
addressee’s face. Using an informal form of farewell is likely to enforce an even stronger threat
to the other’s face and the participants seemingly tried to counteract this.
6.4.2.2. Politeness Strategies
The results of the English and German complaints were quite similar. The summary of the
results can be found in Tables 8 and 9 in the appendix. I was able to identify a total of 42 uses
of politeness strategies in the English texts, whereby I identified a total of 42 uses of politeness
strategies in the German texts. In both English and German, positive and negative politeness
strategies were distributed evenly. This suggests that positive and negative face are of equal
importance when actively making a threat to the addressee’s face in the form of a complaint.
In English, all six participants used a bald on record strategy to make the complaint, one
participant even went bald on record twice. This yields a total of seven uses of bald on record
strategies in English. In German five out of six participants used this strategy to pose their
complaint, three of whom used it twice, which results in a total of eight uses of bald on record
strategies. In both languages the participants went bald on record because they “feel powerful
and [do] not fear retaliation or non-cooperation from H [the addressee]” (Brown and Levinson
1987: 97). In contrast to the previous texts, the speaker holds a more powerful hierarchical
position in this context. Thus, it is easier for him or her to pose a threat to the other’s face.
The participants used positive politeness strategies a total of 18 times in each language.
In both languages, the category used most frequently is P3 (giving gifts to the addressee). All
participants gave the addressee some kind of compliment, for instance by highlighting the
excellent reputation of the restaurant or that they enjoyed the food very much. In German, half
of the participants also applied the P2 strategy that expresses that they are optimistic that the
addressee will cooperate, whereby one participant even used this strategy twice. This suggests
that the participants feel the need to strengthen the addressee’s positive face to compensate for
the imposition and thus weaken the FTA. In English half of the participants use the P1 strategy
of presupposition manipulation, which indicates that they presuppose that the addressee shares
their interests, values or attitude. When AUT 1 says “Since I would definitely like to choose
your restaurant in the future” (appendix: line 96), she makes the assumption that the addressee
74
wants this as well, which would therefore fulfil one of the addressee’s wants. In sum, two
participants used this strategy in German.
In English the participants applied negative politeness strategies 17 times, in German
18 times. The most common negative politeness strategy in English texts is to impersonalise
the target of the complaint. Instead of directing their criticism towards the waiter or waitress as
a person, the participants use the neutral term service or refer to “an unpleasant event”
(appendix: line 723). In German, the participants used this strategy as well, but less often.
However, in German two of the participants applied the N3 strategy of minimising the
imposition, while this strategy was not used in English at all. Overall, they used milder
expressions when they voiced their criticism in German, such as “Zudem ließ ihre
Arbeitseinstellung zu wünschen übrig”13 (appendix: 106-107). In English the participants
generally expressed their criticism more baldly.
In sum, the results show that there are only minor difference between the politeness
strategies used to make a complaint in English and German. The participants’ texts mostly
follow the same pattern in both languages with only minor differences.
6.4.2.3. Functions of Impoliteness
The results of the analysis show that the participants performed acts of impoliteness rather
similarly in both English and German. However, I was able to identify more acts of impoliteness
in the English texts than in the German ones. While the participants used impoliteness 14 times
in German, they used it 20 times in their English texts.
In their texts, the participants made use of affective and coercive impoliteness, but not
of entertaining impoliteness. The general tone of their texts suggests that the participants did
not enjoy making the complaint, which is characteristic of entertaining impoliteness. In fact,
they rather treated the act of making the complaint as a duty. For instance, one participant wrote:
“I felt I had no choice but to write to you and inform you of my experience” (appendix: line
721). This suggests that he feels obligated to inform the manager of the restaurant about the bad
experience in order to give him or her a chance to remedy the situation. Thus, the speaker acts
like he is doing the addressee a favour. This becomes even clearer in the following example: “I
hope that you will take steps to remedy the situation and that we will once again be able to
13 In addition, her work attitude left much to be desired (my translation)
75
enjoy your fine restaurant in the future” (appendix: lines 721-723). By making the complaint,
the speaker gives the addressee the chance to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation.
Taking all this into consideration, it becomes obvious why entertaining impoliteness was not
used in theses texts. The speakers did not issue the complaint for the purpose of entertainment.
Overall, the texts exhibit a tendency towards coercive impoliteness. In the English texts,
the participants used coercive impoliteness 11 times and in German 8 times. In general, their
underlying purpose is to appear superior or exercise power. As mentioned above, this goes hand
in hand with the use of bald on record strategies. The participants felt powerful enough to
conduct acts of impoliteness baldly on record. As defined by Culpeper (2011: 226), “[c]oercive
impoliteness is impoliteness that seeks a realignment of values between the producer and the
target such that the producer benefits or has their current benefits reinforced or protected.”
Regarding the setting the participants were asked to imagine that the speakers had been robbed
of their benefit of being treated properly by the waiter or waitress. By making the complaint,
they strive to regain this benefit in the future or want to be compensated for the bad treatment.
In fact, one participant explicitly demanded compensation: “I would appreciate it very much if
you could see your way to compensating me for this unsatisfactory experience” (appendix: lines
844-845).
Affective impoliteness was used nine times in the English texts and six times in the
German texts. Thus, coercive and affective impoliteness are evenly distributed in the English
and German texts. Culpeper (2011: 223) defines affective impoliteness as “the targeted display
of heightened emotion, typically anger, with the implication that the target is to blame for
producing the negative emotional state.” This is exactly what the participants did in their mock-
emails. They expressed negative emotions, such as annoyance or disappointment regarding the
fictitious event and made the waiter or waitress the target of their criticism. However, as
described earlier, there is also a tendency to impersonalise the target. In German only two
participants and in English only one participant did not impersonalise the target of their
criticism at all. Although the other participants blamed the waiter or waitress for the bad
experience and their negative emotions, they still took steps to phrase their criticism in a neutral
way. It can be observed that all affective impoliteness that occurs in the texts is very targeted
and instrumental. All of the participants pursued a certain goal that goes beyond the mere desire
to relieve anger. By voicing pointed criticism, a pointed complaint or personalised negative
assertions, which are all forms of conventionalised impoliteness (cf. Culpeper 2011: 135), the
76
speakers tried to pass on enough information to the addressee so that the latter can take measures
to ensure a change in the future.
6.4.3. Comparison of the Results of the Requests and Complaints
The results show that there are a number of noteworthy differences between the German and
English requests, but no considerable differences in the complaints. Social distance and
hierarchy appear to be an important criterion in this regard.
As pointed out earlier, social distance is perceived to be greater in German. This
becomes particularly evident when the speaker has a lower social status than the addressee, as
it is the case in the first writing task. In German, the participants tried to appear even more
polite by emphasising their lower hierarchical position and thereby humbling themselves and
raising the addressee. However, this is conveyed through the general tone and highly formal
register. In English it is necessary to use a concrete politeness strategy to convey the same
notion, since it is not innately assumed. In the second writing task, this power relation is
reversed, as the speaker possesses more social power than the addressee. However, although
the participants made use of this power by, for instance by going bald on record more often,
they also attempted to strengthen the addressee’s face and show their respect for the addressee.
Since they possess more power, they can also be more generous with it. Minimising or
compensating for the threat to the addressee’s face is thus a way of appearing more polite and
saving the other’s face to some extent, though it does not weaken the criticism itself.
6.5. Evaluation of Impoliteness: Videos
The third section of the study addressed the participants’ evaluation and perception of
impoliteness. The participants were asked to watch two videos found on www.youtube.com,
one in English and one in German, before completing a questionnaire that focused on their
perception and evaluation of the behaviour of the main speakers in the videos. Both videos were
filmed by male drivers who had gotten pulled over by the police. Neither of the videos provides
information as to why the police had ordered them to pull over.
In the English video, the main speaker is obviously angry about and annoyed by the
police officers’ action, exhibits very emotional behaviour and repeatedly uses swear words. His
reactions suggest that he may be of African-American descent, as he accuses the officers of
77
having acted based on racial prejudice and manipulated evidence to his disadvantage. However,
none of this becomes evident in the video footage. In fact, the police officers remain calm and
professional. The driver exhibits racial prejudice against white people and the police officers
by claiming that white police officers generally shoot black people. One of the police officers
eventually asks the driver to step back in a calm and somewhat polite manner. When the driver
refuses to do so and continues to direct his verbal aggression against the officer, the officer calls
the driver a jackass. While the officer refrains from showing physical aggression, verbal
aggression increases on both sides. However, the officer does not raise his voice, in contrast to
the driver. Soon afterwards, the video ends rather abruptly.
The main speaker in the German video attempts to appear well-informed and
professional, but uses swear words throughout the video. The video starts with the driver
arguing that he is not obligated by law to show his ID to the police and thus refuses to do so.
Next, he asks the officers to show their ID and stresses that he wants to see their official ID
instead of their warrant card, as he would refuse to accept the latter. Furthermore, he threatens
to forward this issue to the Geneva Convention and once again refuses to show his ID. He then
uses a number of very strong swear words towards the officers. Next, he demands to know why
the police pulled him over but refuses to acknowledge the reason given by the officer, claiming
that he is not subject to this law. The officers remain rather calm throughout the video,
repeatedly asking the same questions and try to remain reasonable. The conversation continues
in this manner until the video stops.
The questionnaire focused on the participants’ perception and interpretation of the main
speakers’ behaviour. The same set of questions was asked for both videos, both in English and
in German. The last two questions of the questionnaire asked the participants to compare the
behaviour of both main speakers of the videos. Similar to the interview, the participants were
free to answer every question in the language that felt most natural to them. Thus, some
participants partially responded in German. Tables 4, 5 and 6 provide a summary of the
participants’ answers.
6.5.1. Summary of the Participants Answers to the Video Questionnaires
78
Questions: English
Video
AUT 1 AUT 2 AUT 3 AUT 4 UK S US
1. What is your first
impression of the
speaker’s
behaviour?
Very
aggressive;
upset; feels he
has been
treated unfairly
Angry;
overreacting
Rude! annoyed Very angry; not
polite
Extremely
aggressive
Very
aggressive!
Provocative
Angry; verbal
aggression
2. Please put
yourself in the
addressee’s shoes.
How does this
behaviour make
you feel?
Not offended
(because he
seems stirred
up)
Insecure; sorry
(“for the man
believes I am a
racist
policeman”
(appendix: line
270)
Personally
offended; try to
keep calm
Stressed Unpleasant;
attacked
Attacked Annoyed
(“tired of
having to put
up with people
acting
aggressively
towards me
when I’m just
doing my job”
(appendix:
lines 1075-
1076
3.1.Why do you
think the
speaker reacts
this way?
Racism Racism (he is
suspicious)
Racism: prior
(negative)
experience
with the police
Prior
experiences
Racism Negative
expectations
Angry for an
unknown
reason
3.2.Is his behaviour
justified?
No No, but
understandable
No, but
understandable
No Cannot tell Yes (racism
issues)
Cannot tell
4. On a scale from
one to ten, how
rude do you find
this behaviour?
8 8 7 10 9 10 10
Very rude and
inappropriate
language
Absolutely
rude and
inappropriate;
also
Behaviour is
justified; the
speaker
assumes he was
Absolutely
inappropriate
because of
vocabulary
Rude and
aggressive
(“although if he
were genuinely
Convention/
norm (never
provoke the
79
Table 4: Video Questionnaire English
regardless of
the situation
understandable
in some way
(racism issues)
stopped
because of
racist reasons
being harassed
by the police it
would be
justified”
(appendix:
lines 748-749)
police, self-
protection)
5. What exactly do
you perceive as
rude about his
behaviour?
Vocabulary;
volume; no
attempt at
politeness
Racist
assumptions
towards the
officers
Vocabulary;
questioning the
police
Vocabulary Vocabulary;
volume;
aggressive tone
Vocabulary;
volume;
aggressive
tone;
imperatives;
challenging the
police
Vocabulary;
volume;
disrespectful;
not giving the
officer a
chance to talk
Questions:
German Video
AUT 1 AUT 2 AUT 3 AUT 4 UK S US
1. Was ist Ihr
erster
Eindruck vom
Verhalten des
Sprechers?
Extrem aggressiv;
respektlos; wirkt
teilweise
unzurechnungsfähig;
verdreht Tatsachen14
Inkompetent15(„Ein
Vollidiot mit einem
offensichtlichen
Mangel an
Allgemeinbildung,
der offenbar den
Eingebildet;
aufmüpfig17
Egoistisch;
überheblich18
Relatively
aggressive;
swear
words;
some
reasonable
Threatening;
swearing
Besserwisser19;
no threat; likes
to sport off
14 Extremely aggressive; disrespectful; appears to be partially insane; misrepresents facts (my translation) 15 Incompetent (my translation) 17 Conceited; rebellious (my translation) 18 Selfish; arrogant (my translation) 19 Know-it-all (my translation)
80
Schwachsinn den er
spricht glaubt.“16
(Appendix: lines
280-281)
points
(asking for
ID)
2. Versetzen Sie
sich in die Lage
des
Empfängers.
Wie fühlen Sie
sich in dieser
Situation?
Teils erbost, teils
gelassen, belustigt20
„In meiner Ehe als
Angehöriger der
Spezies Mensch
tief verletzt.
Überfordert, weil
hier noch keine
Gewalt angewendet
werden darf um den
Mann in
Gewahrsam
nehmen zu
dürfen.“21
(appendix: lines
282-283)
„Als wäre mir
mein Status
und meine
Ausbildung
aberkannt
worden.“22
(appendix:
line 443)
„Wie in allen
anderen
Situationen bei
der Arbeit,
möglicherweise
verunsichert.“23
(appendix: line
580)
Threatened;
attacked
Provoked by
„an arrogant
driver with
limited
vocabulary!“
(appendix:
lines 869-870)
Amused;
staying
professional;
not taking him
seriously
3.1. Warum,
glauben Sie,
reagiert der
Sprecher auf
diese Art?
Extrem aggressiv;
lange aufgestaute
Wut; glaubt, im
Recht zu sein24
Ungebildet und
dumm25
Glaubt, dass
er dem Gesetz
nicht
unterliegt26
„[E]rkennt den
Status der
Polizei nicht
an“27
Thinks he is
being
falsely
accused
Besserwisser28;
thinks he is
above the law
Considers
himself
superior (feels
above the law;
does not take
16 A complete moron with an obvious lack of intelligence who seems to seriously believe the rubbish he is saying. (my translation) 20 Partily angry, partily calm, amused (my translation) 21 My pride as a member of the human race is offended. Overwhelmed because I am not yet allowed to use force to take him into custody. (my translation) 22 As if I have been deprived of my status and training. (my translation) 23 Like in any other situation at work, maybe bewildered. (my translation) 24 Extremely aggressive; fury that has built up over a long time; thinks he is right (my translation) 25 Uneducated and stupid (my translation) 26 Thinks that he is not subject to the law (my translation) 27 Does not acknowledge the status of the police (my translation) 28 Know-it-all (my translation)
81
Table 5: Video Questionnaire German
(appendix: line
581)
the police
seriously; not
afraid; feels
stronger)
3.2. Ist sein
Verhalten
gerechtfertigt?
Nein29 Nein30 No No It is okay to
ask for ID.
No Cannot tell
4. Auf einer
Skala von eins
bis zehn, wie
unhöflich
schätzen Sie
das Verhalten
des Sprechers
ein?
10 8 9 10 7 10 10
Nicht emotional
aufgewühlt;
respektlos;
überheblich31
Grob unhöflich
wegen mangelnder
Intelligenz32
„Er könnte
noch ein
bisschen
persönlicher
werden.“33
(appendix:
line 447)
Wortwahl
(beschimpft
Polizisten)34;
„hält sich an
keine Regeln“35
(appendix: line
583)
Vocabulary,
but makes
some
reasonable
points
5. Was genau
empfinden Sie
am Verhalten
des Sprechers
als unhöflich?
Respektlose,
überhebliche Art;
Wortwahl
(Schimpfwörter)36
„Ich halte ihn leider
für so dumm, dass
ich nicht einmal
weiß ob er das
Konzept von
(Un)Höflichkeit
versteht.“37
Wortwahl;
herablassende
Art38
Wortwahl39 Vocabulary;
aggressive
tone
Tone;
vocabulary
Vocabulary;
questionable
use of facts;
disrespectful
29 No (my translation) 30 No (my translation) 31 Not emotionally agitated; disrespectful; arrogant (my translation) 32 Very rude because of a lack of intelligence (my translation) 33 He could get even more personal. (my translation) 34 Vocabulary (insults the police) (my translation) 35 Does not follow the rules (my translation) 36 Disrespectful, arrogant; vocabulary (swearwords) (my translation) 37 Unfortunately, I think he is so stupid that I do not even know whether he understands the concept of (im)politeness. (my translation) 38 Vocabulary; condescending manner (my translation) 39 Vocabulary (my translation)
82
Table 6: Video Questionnaire Both Videos
(appendix: lines
289-290)
Questions: Both Videos AUT 1 AUT 2 AUT 3 AUT 4 UK S US
6. In what way do the
main speakers of the
English and German
video (re)act
differently?
Deutsch: extrem
überheblich /
Englisch:
verzweifelter40
English:
Partially
justified;
German:
incompetent
and stupid
Englisch: fühlt
sich
angegriffen;
will ebenbürtig
sein
Deutsch: fühlt
sich überlegen;
genießt
Konfrontation41
Speakers act
in different
ways; videos
are very
similar
German:
combines
excessive
swearing with
seemingly
reasonable
requests;
English:
purely
aggressive
and
unreasonable
German:
appears to
know the
law; takes
superior
position
English:
swearing;
seems to
mistrust/ fear
the police
German: not
afraid of the
police but
seems to be
above them;
combines
swearing
with facts
7. Which behaviour of
the main speakers of
the English and
German video do you
perceive as more rude?
Deutsch
(Emotionalität:
höherer
Aggressionsgrad
weil nicht
verzweifelt)42
English
(seems
intelligent
enough to
know better)
German
(attacks
officers
personally)
German
(emotionality:
English
speaker is
angrier)
English
(simply rude;
no attempts to
engage with
police)
German
(English
speaker: just
rude;
German
speaker:
rude and
arrogant)
German
(arrogant,
takes
superior
position;
disrespectful)
40 German: very arrogant; English: more desperate (my translation) 41 English: feels attacked or harassed; tries to be equal to the police; German: considers himself superior; enjoys confrontation (my translation) 42 German (emotionality: higher level of aggression, because he is not desperate) (my translation)
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
83
6.5.2. Comparison and Analysis of the Participants’ Answers to the Video
Questionnaires
Questions 1 and 2 focused on the participants’ interpretation of the main speakers’ behaviour
and their individual reactions in these situations. The participants’ answers to question 1 show
that they collectively perceive the English speaker to be aggressive and angry. In the case of
the German video, the answers are a little more diverse. The German speaker is likewise
characterised as aggressive but is also described as conceited, disrespectful, and arrogant,
among other things. In response to Question 2 with regard to both the English and German
video, all but one participant answered that the speakers’ behaviour makes them feel uneasy or
offended in some way. In the case of the English video, AUT 1 is the only one who excused the
speaker’s behaviour because he appears to be emotionally agitated. Regarding the German
video, US claimed she would not feel uneasy in this situation in any way but simply amused,
whereas AUT 1 would feel both amused and angry. AUT 4 introduced the possibility that he
might feel slightly bewildered while all other participants stated that they would feel offended,
attacked, and provoked in some way.
Questions 3.1. and 3.2. concerned the participants’ evaluation of the speakers’ behaviour
and asked for possible reasons for their behaviour and whether the participants find it justified.
The answers to Question 3.1. are rather consistent for each video though there is a considerable
difference between the two videos. The great majority of the participants thought that the
reasons for the English speaker’s behaviour could be negative past experiences with the police,
Only US’s answer is rather vague. One participant thought that the speaker’s reaction was
justified for the above mentioned reasons, three found his reaction understandable yet not
justified, two refrained from making a judgment because the video does not provide any
information as to why the driver had been pulled over, and only one participant thought the
speaker’s reaction was not justified. In the case of the German video, six out of seven answers
suggest that the main reason for the speaker’s behaviour is that he considers himself above the
law and the police and that he thinks he is right. Although AUT 2 does not explicitly give the
same reasons as the other participants, his answer follows the general notion of the other
responses. In sum, five participants clearly stated that the speaker’s behaviour is not justified,
one gave an inconclusive answer, and one refrained from making a judgement because the video
does not provide enough information in this regard.
Question 4 asked the participants to rank the speakers’ behaviour on a scale from one to
ten, one being not rude at all and ten being absolutely inappropriate, and to explain their choices.
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
84
On average, the participants ranked both speakers’ behaviour 9. Concerning the English video,
most participants perceived the speaker’s behaviour to be inappropriate, but still justified to
some extent. Regarding the German video, the answers were more diverse, whereby two
participants did not explain their ranking at all. Unlike the case of the English speaker, only one
of the participants excused the German speaker’s behaviour in some way.
Question 5 investigated what exactly the participants found rude about the speakers’
behaviour. Most participants state that they perceive the participants’ choice of vocabulary,
raised volume, and aggressive/disrespectful/arrogant tone as particularly rude. Another point
that was repeatedly mentioned was that the speakers do not attempt to engage in a polite
conversation and violate conventional rules of interaction.
Questions 6 and 7 compared both videos, whereby Question 6 focused on differences
between the behaviour of the English and German speakers. Most participants pointed out
differences in hierarchy at this point. The English speaker appears to be afraid of the police,
which is why he strives to compensate for this and gain power through his behaviour. The
German speaker, on the other hand, think that he is superior to the police officers and behaves
accordingly. In addition, the German speaker also tries to strengthen his position by showing
that he knows the law, while the English speaker is quite emotional.
Question 7 was interested in whether the participants perceived the English or the
German speaker to be more impolite. Five out of seven participants found the German speaker
to be more impolite. It can be observed that emotionality appears to be an important criterion
for the participants’ evaluation. Their answers suggest that they perceived the German speaker
to be more impolite, because he is less emotional. Therefore, the German speaker’s behaviour
appears to be more intentional and thus more impolite. As described in chapter 4.6.1.2.,
intentionality is an important factor in the perception of impoliteness. Two participants also
noted that the German speaker was arrogant, which makes him appear more impolite and
disrespectful. Only two participants stated that the English speaker was more impolite. AUT 2
(cf. appendix: XXXIV) argued that the English speaker appears to be intelligent enough to be
aware of how to interact properly. The participant’s answers to previous questions indicate that
he thinks that the German speaker is less intelligent. This suggests that the English speaker’s
violation of communicative rules is more severe, which is why he is more impolite. UK (cf.
appendix: LXIII) pointed out that the English speaker does not attempt to engage with the police
in any way, which is why he perceives the English speaker as more impolite than the German
speaker.
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
85
7. Conclusion
The study has shown that the participants use and perceive (im)politeness rather similarly in
both English and German, although there are some noteworthy differences. These differences
appear to be connected to cultural conventions rather than to the languages themselves. The
most significant differences between English and German that the interviewees pointed out are
(1) that German interaction is more direct than English interaction, (2) that social status and
hierarchy are more important in a German speaking context, which creates a greater social
distance between the interlocutors, and (3) that there is more conventionalised politeness in
English and more genuine politeness in German. Moreover, the analysis of the mock-emails
confirms these observations.
The analysis of the requests and complaints show that the participants use a more direct
approach in German. In the case of the requests they use shorter introductory phrases that are
immediately followed by the statement of the request as well as bald on record strategies in
German, while they use lengthier introductions and prefer conventional indirectness in English.
In the case of the complaints there were no noteworthy differences in this regard. In German
the participants show a heightened awareness of social status and hierarchy in their request.
They are less optimistic that the addressee will be understanding of their concern and cooperate.
Rather they appear to feel more obliged to beg for understanding and express gratitude, which
gives the addressee a more powerful hierarchical position. In the English requests of the
participants, however, it is more common to assume that the addressee will cooperate. A
possible explanation for this is the different perception of social distance in English and
German.
Social distance appears to be greater in the German requests as opposed to the English
requests. In German the general tone and register of the texts is highly formal and indicates that
the addressee has higher social status, as has already bean indicated. Since social distance is
perceived to be smaller in English, some participants deliberately humble themselves and
emphasise the addressee’s higher hierarchical position to appear politer. In German it is not
necessary to deliberately stress this, because the distance between the speaker and the addressee
is already perceived to be greater. In the case of the complaints, the differences are less
significant. In this setting, the participants have a more powerful hierarchical position than the
addressee. However, they make sure to strengthen the addressee’s face in order to compensate
for the face-threatening nature of the complaint in both languages. There is no need for the
participants to particularly stress their superiority, since they are powerful enough that they do
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
86
not need to fear a potential threat to their face from the addressee. Thus, they can be more
generous towards the addressee.
It could be observed that the use of politeness phrases and strategies is more
conventionalised in English than in German, which becomes particularly clear in the requests.
In English, the participants use considerably more politeness strategies than in German.
Although the social distance is perceived to be smaller in English, the participants pay more
attention to appearing to be polite by using politeness strategies more frequently. Although the
majority of participants in the interview claimed that German was more polite than English and
that the social distance was smaller in English, the English language still puts a stronger
emphasis on forms and the appearance of politeness. Concerning the participants’ use of
impoliteness, there were no noteworthy differences in the English and German complaints.
The analysis of the participants’ evaluation of the videos show that the participants’
perception of impoliteness is not influenced by language, but depends on the context. Although
they rank the level of impoliteness of both speakers of the videos nine on a scale from one to
ten, the majority of the participants perceived the German speaker as more impolite. This is
based on the German speaker’s individual behaviour in the context rather than on his use of
language. In general, the participants perceive the same behavioural features as impolite in both
languages. Taking the results from the analysis of the complaints into consideration, the
participants appear to use and perceive impoliteness very similarly in both English and German.
However, regarding politeness, the study reveals that there are certain differences in the way
the participants use and perceive it.
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
87
8. References
Athanasopoulos, Panos (2011). “Cognitive Restructuring in Bilingualism”. In: Aneta Pavlenko,
ed.: Thinking and Speaking in Two Languages. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 70.
Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 29-65.
Beebe, Leslie M. (1995). “Polite Fictions: Instrumental Rudeness as Pragmatic Competence”.
In: James E. Alatis, Carolyn A. Straehle, Brent Gallenberger and Maggie Ronkin eds.
Linguistics and the Education of Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguistics and
Sociolinguistic Aspects. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics.
Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. 154-168.
Bonacchi, Silvia (2013). (Un)Höflichkeit: Eine kulturologische Analyse Deutsch-Italienisch-
Polnisch. Sambor Grucza and Lech Kolago, ed.: Warschauer Studien zur Germanistik und zur
Angewandten Linguistik 13. Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Peter Lang.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson (1987/ 2014). Politeness: Some Universals in
Language Usage. 24th ed. Cambridge: CUP.
Culpeper, Jonathan (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Studies in
Interactional Sociolinguistics 28. Cambridge et al.: CUP.
European Commission (2006). Europeans and Their Languages. Special Eurobarometer 386.
Gasser, C. (2000). “Exploring the Complementary Principle: The Case of First Generation
English-German Bilinguals in the Basle Area”. Master’s Thesis. English Linguistics. University
of Basle, Switzerland.
Grice, H. Paul (1975). “Logic and Conversation”. In: Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, eds.:
Speech Acts. Syntax and Semantics 3. New York: Academic Press. 41-58.
Grosjean, Francoise (2008). Studying Bilinguals. Oxford and New York: OUP.
Grosjean, Francois (2013). “Bilingualism. A Short Introduction”. In: Francois Grosjean and
Ping Li: The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism. Oxford [et al.]: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 5–
25.
Gullberg, Marianne (2011). “Thinking, Speaking and Gesturing about Motion in more than One
Language”. In: Aneta Pavlenko, ed.: Thinking and Speaking in Two Languages. Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 70. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 143-169.
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
88
Harris, Catherine L., Jean Berko Gleason and Ayşe Ayçiçeği (2006). “When is a First Language
More Emotional? Psychophysiological Evidence from Bilingual Speakers”. In: Aneta
Pavlenko, ed.: Bilingual Minds: Emotional Experience, Expression and Representation.
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 56. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters
Ltd. 257-283.
Heinz, Bettina (2001). “Fish in the River: Experiences of Bilingual Bicultural Speakers”.
Multilingua. 20.1: 85-108.
Hemmi, Chantal (2014). “Dual Identities Perceived by Bilinguals”. In: Sarah Mercer and
Marion Williams, ed.: Multiple Perspectives on the Self in SLA. Second Language Acquisition
73. Bristol, Tonawanda and North York: Multilingual Matters. 75-91.
Holquist, Michael (1978). Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World. London: Routledge.
“How Many Countries Are In The World?” [Online]. Worldatlas.com (2016).
http://www.worldatlas.com/nations.htm. [2017, Jan. 3].
Jarvis, Scott and Aneta Pavlenko (2007/2010). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and
Cognition. New York: Routledge.
Kasper, Gabriele (2009). “Politeness”. In: Sigurd D’hondt, Jan-Ola Östman and Jef
Verschueren, eds.: The Pragmatics of Interaction. Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 4.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 157-173.
Leech, Geoffrey (1983/ 1988). Principles of Pragmatics. 5th ed. London and New York:
Longman.
Lenneberg, Erich H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York, London and
Sidney: John Willey & Sons.
Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons and Charles D. Fennig eds. (2016). Ethnologue: Languages of
the World. 19th ed. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. [Online]. http://www.ethnologue.com.
[2017, Jan. 3].
Li, Ping (2013). “Successive Language Acquisition”. In: Francois Grosjean and Ping Li: The
Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism. Oxford [et al.]: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 145-170.
Malt, Barbara C. and Eef Ameel (2011). “The Art of Bilingual Object Naming”. In: Aneta
Pavlenko, ed.: Thinking and Speaking in Two Languages. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
70. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 170-197.
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
89
Man uel. “Lenker beschimpft Polizisten”. [Online video clip]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HltJY1iRFV4 [2016, May 28/2017, Mar. 20].
Opp, Karl-Dieter (1982). “The Evolutionary Emergence of Norms”. British Journal of Social
Psychology 21: 139-149.
Paradis, Johanne (2007). “Early bilingual and multilingual acquisition”. In: Peter Auer and Li
Wei, ed.: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Handbooks of
Applied Linguistics: Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems
Practical Solutions 5. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 15-44.
Pavlenko, Aneta (2006). “Bilingual Selves”. In: Aneta Pavlenko, ed.: Bilingual Minds:
Emotional Experience, Expression and Representation. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
56. Clevedon, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 1-33.
Pavlenko, Aneta (2011). “(Re-)naming the World: Word-to-Referent Mapping in Second
Language Speakers”. In: Aneta Pavlenko, ed.: Thinking and Speaking in Two Languages.
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 70. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
198-236.
Pavlenko, Aneta (2014). The Bilingual Mind: and what it tells us about language and thought.
Cambridge: CUP.
Pienemann, Manfred and Jörg-U. Keßler (2007). “Measuring bilingualism”. In: Peter Auer and
Li Wei, ed.: Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Handbooks of
Applied Linguistics. Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems
Practical Solutions 5. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 247-275.
Russell, James A. (1991). “In Defense of a Prototype Approach to Emotion Concepts”. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 60.1: 37-47.
“Schadenfreude”. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (2010). Ed.
Joanna Turnball et al. 8th ed. Oxford and New York: OUP. 1365.
Schmiedtová, Barbara, Christiane von Stutterheim and Mary Carroll (2011). “Language-
specific Patterns in Event Construal of Advanced Second Language Speakers”. In: Aneta
Pavlenko, ed.: Thinking and Speaking in Two Languages. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
70. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 66-107.
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
90
Shaver, Phillip et al. (1987). “Emotion Knowledge: Further Exploration of a Prototype
Approach”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52.6: 1061-1086.
Shoebottom, Paul (2011). “The Differences between English and German”. A Guide to
Learning English. [Online] http://esl.fis.edu/grammar/langdiff/german.htm [2017, Feb. 24].
Slobin, Dan I. (2001). “Form-function Relations: How do Children Find out What They Are?”.
In: Melissa Bowerman and Stephen C. Levinson, eds.: Language Acquisition and Conceptual
Development. Cambridge: CUP. 406-449.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen (2002). “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents
to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations”. Journal of
Pragmatics 34.5: 529-545.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen (2007). “Theories of Identity and the Analysis of Face”. Journal of
Pragmatics 39.4: 639-656.
Tracy, Karen and Sarah J. Tracy (1998). “Rudeness at 911: Reconceptualizing Face and Face
Attack”. Human Communication Research 25.2: 225-251.
Trilllordandrew. “Guy goes off on police”. [Online video clip]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWna129VBTc [2014, Sep. 29/2017, Mar. 20].
Yip, Virginia (2013). “Simultaneous Language Acquisition”. In: Francois Grosjean and Ping
Li: The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism. Oxford [et al.]: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 119-144.
Watanabe, Manabu (2011). “Nähe – Distanz und Politeness-Strategien”. In: Claus Ehrhardt,
Eva Neuland and Hitoshi Yamashita ed.: Sprachliche Höflichkeit zwischen Etikette und
kommunikativer Kompetenz. Sprache – Kommunikation – Kultur: Soziolinguistische Beitrage
10. Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Peter Lang. 65-76.
Wenger, Etienne (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity.
Cambridge: CUP.
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
I
Appendix
I) Figures
Fig. 1. Circumstances determining choice of strategy (Brown and Levinson 1987: 60)
Give H option
not to do act
Don’t coerce H
(where x involves H
doing A)
clash
Be direct Be direct
Negative politeness
Do FTA x
(c) on record
(d) plus redress to H’s want
to be unimpinged upon
Be conventionally
indirect
Be indirect
Fig. 2. Chart of strategies: Negative politeness (conventional indirectness) (cf. Brown and
Levinson 1987: 131)
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
II
II) Graphs
3
4
male female
42
1
0-30 30-50 50+
Graph 1: Gender of the Participants Graph 2: Age of the Participants
42
1
Matura / School Leaving
Examination
Master's Degree
Ph.D.
Graph 4: Highest Level of Education
4
3
German English
Graph 5: First Language of the
Participants
4
1
1
1
Austria (AUT)
United Kingdom (UK)
Scotland (S)
United States of America (US)
Graph 3: Country of Origin of Participants
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
III
5
1
1
Extended Period of Time
Short Period of Time
No
Graph 6: Stay Abroad
Graph 7: Self-Perception – Multilingual/ Multicultural
- multilingual + multilingual
- multicultural
+ multicultural
AUT 1
AUT 2
UK
S
US
AUT 3
AUT 4
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
IV
Table 1: In how many languages are you proficient enough to lead a conversation?
III) Tables
Legend: proficient enough to lead a conversation; ~ with difficulties; (~) only basic skills
AUT 1 AUT 2 AUT 3 AUT 4 UK S US
German
English
Both equally
L1 with borrowings
from L2
Language AUT 1 AUT 2 AUT 3 UK S US
German L1 L1 L1 L2 L2 L2
English L2 L2 L2 L1 L1 L1
Italian L3
French ~ L4 L3 ~ L3
Spanish (~) L4
Graph 8: Which language community places more
importance on politeness and manners, English or
German?
2
12
2
German English
both equally ambiguous answer
1
3
3
L1 German
L1 English
both (tendency towards L1)
Graph 9: In which language is it
easier for you to be polite/impolite?
Table 2: Language Emotionality
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
V
Table 3: Politeness Strategies (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987)
English Total German Total
Form of address Dear Mr. Lang, 1 Sehr geehrter (Herr/Frau)
Dr. Lang,
7
Dear Dr. Lang, 6
WITH introductory
phrase
Introduction +
description of the paper/
contribution in question
(I am writing with
regard to/ concerning)
3 Ich schreibe in Bezug auf
(+ description oft he
paper/contribution)
1
Short introduction +
immediate request (I am
writing (to you) to ask)
2 Short introduction
(Ich schreibe Ihnen, um;
Ich kontaktiere Sie, da; ich
schreibe Ihnen bezüglich
+ immediate request)
3
Expressing gratitude
(Thank you for granting
me an extension)
1 Expressing gratitude
(Vielen Dank für Ihr
Mail.)
1
Super-strategy Category
Bald on record (bR) Non-minimising the FTA/being direct (bR1)
FTA-oriented/“each participant attempts to foresee what the
other participant is attempting to foresee” (Brown and
Levinson 1987: 99) (bR2)
Positive politeness (P) Claiming common ground (P1)
Conveying that speaker and addressee are cooperators (P2)
Fulfilling some of the addressee’s wants (P3)
Negative politeness (N) Being direct/conventionally indirect (N1)
Not presuming or assuming (N2)
Not coercing the addressee (N3)
Communicating that the speaker does not want to impinge on
the addressee (N4)
Redressing other wants of the addressee (offering partial
compensation for the FTA) (N5)
Off-record (oR) Inviting conversational implicatures (oR1)
Being vague or ambiguous (oR2)
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
VI
Table 4: Forms of address, farewell and introductory phrases; requests
Expressing regret
(es tut mir Leid, Ihnen
mitteilen zu müssen, dass)
1
WITHOUT
introductory phrase
Immediate statement of
problem
1 Immediate statement of
problem
1
Pre-closure Thanking in advance;
expressing optimism for
consent
(Thank you in advance
for your understanding;
I look forward to your
response and thank you
in advance for your
understanding.)
2 asking for understanding;
thanking in advance;
expressing optimism for
consent
(Mit der bitte um Ihr
Verständnis; Ich hoffe,
dass ein […]
zufriedenstellender
Weggefunden werden
kann und verbleibe;
Danke im Voraus/ Ich
danke Ihnen im Voraus für
Ihr Verständnis.)
4
Form of farewell Yours faithfully, 1 Mit freundlichen Grüßen, 6
Yours sincerely, 1 Mit vielen herzlichen
Danke im Voraus,
1
(With) Kind regards, 3
All the best, 2
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
VII
Politeness Strategy Purpose AU
T1
AU
T2
AU
T3
AU
T4
UK S US Tot
al
bR1 Maximum efficiency
Speaker feels powerful
FTA is in the addressee’s interest
P1 (claim common ground) In-group membership markers
Seek agreement/ avoid disagreement
Exaggerate (interest, approval
sympathy etc.)
1 1
Presupposition manipulation
P2 (convey that speaker and
addressee are cooperators)
Conveying the speaker’s knowledge of
and concern for the addressee’s wants
Offer, promises 1 1 2
Be optimistic 1 1 2 1 1 2 8
Include both speaker and addressee 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Give reasons 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
P3 (fulfil the addressee’s want
for something)
Give gifts to the addressee (sympathy,
understanding etc.)
2 2
N1 (be direct) Conventional indirectness 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 8
N2 (do not presume or assume) Questions and hedges 1 1 2 2 6
N3 (do not coerce) Be pessimistic 1 1 2
Minimise the imposition 1 1
Give deference (implying that the
addressee is of higher social status than
the speaker)
1 1 2
N4 (the speaker does not want to
impinge on the addressee)
Apologising 1 1 1 1 1 5
Admit the impingement 1 2 3
Give overwhelming reason 1 1 1 3
Beg forgiveness
Reluctance
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
VIII
Table 5: Politeness Strategies Request, English
Impersonalise speaker and addressee
Nominalisations
N5 (offering partial
compensation)
Acknowledge debt 1 2 3 6
Form of Impoliteness
AI Expressing negative emotions
CI Get power, appear superior
Obtain justice
Conventionalised Pointed criticism
threat
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
IX
Politeness Strategy Purpose AU
T1
AU
T2
AU
T3
AU
T4
UK S US Tot
al
bR1 Maximum efficiency/ urgency 1 1 2 2 1 7
Speaker feels powerful
FTA is in the addressee’s interest
P1 (claim common ground) In-group membership markers
Seek agreement/ avoid disagreement
Exaggerate (interest, approval
sympathy etc.)
1 1
Presupposition manipulation
P2 (convey that speaker and
addressee are cooperators)
Conveying the speaker’s knowledge of
and concern for the addressee’s wants
Offer, promises 1 1 1 3
Be optimistic 1 1 1 1 4
Include both speaker and addressee 1 1 1 3
Give reasons 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 8
P3 (fulfil the addressee’s want
for something)
Give gifts to the addressee (sympathy,
understanding etc.)
2 2
N1 (be direct) Conventional indirectness 1 1 2
N2 (do not presume or assume) Questions and hedges 2 1 2 1 1 7
N3 (do not coerce) Be pessimistic 1 1 2
Minimise the imposition 1 1
Give deference (implying that the
addressee is of higher social status than
the speaker)
N4 (the speaker does not want to
impinge on the addressee)
Apologising 1 1 1 1 1 5
Admit the impingement
Give overwhelming reason 1 1 1 3
Beg forgiveness
Reluctance 1 1 2
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
X
Table 6: Politeness Strategies Request, German
Impersonalise speaker and addressee
Nominalisations 1 1
N5 (offering partial
compensation)
Acknowledge debt 2 2 4
Form of Impoliteness
AI Expressing negative emotions
CI Get power, appear superior
Obtain justice
Conventionalised Pointed criticism
threat
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XI
Table 7: Forms of address, farewell and introductory phrases; complaint
English Total German Total
Form of address Dear Sir/Madam, 4 An die Restaurantführung, 1
To whom it may
concern,
2 Sehr geehrte
Restaurantleitung/Damen
und Herren
5
WITH introductory
phrase
Introduction +
description of context (I
am writing with regard
to/ concerning)
2 General introduction 1
Short introduction
+immediate complaint
(I am writing (to you)
to)
4 Description of context 2
Short introduction
+immediate complaint
3
WITHOUT
introductory phrase
Pre-closure
Form of farewell Yours faithfully, 1 Mit freundlichen Grüßen, 3
Yours sincerely, 4 Freundliche Grüße, 1
Best wishes, 1 Hochachtungsvoll, 2
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XII
Politeness Strategy Purpose AU
T1
AU
T2
AU
T3
AU
T4
UK S US Tot
al
bR1 Maximum efficiency
Speaker feels powerful 1 1 1 2 1 1 7
FTA is in the addressee’s interest
P1 (claim common ground) In-group membership markers
Seek agreement/ avoid disagreement
Exaggerate (interest, approval
sympathy etc.)
Presupposition manipulation 1 1 1 3
P2 (convey that speaker and
addressee are cooperators)
Conveying the speaker’s knowledge of
and concern for the addressee’s wants
Offer, promises
Be optimistic 1 1 2
Include both speaker and addressee
Give reasons 1 1 2
P3 (fulfil the addressee’s want
for something)
Give gifts to the addressee (sympathy,
understanding etc.)
2 2 1 2 3 1 11
N1 (be direct) Conventional indirectness 1 1 2
N2 (do not presume or assume) Questions and hedges 1 2 2 5
N3 (do not coerce) Be pessimistic
Minimise the imposition
Give deference (implying that the
addressee is of higher social status than
the speaker)
N4 (the speaker does not want to
impinge on the addressee)
Apologising
Admit the impingement 1 1
Give overwhelming reason
Beg forgiveness
Reluctance 1 1 2
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XIII
Table 8: Politeness Strategies Complaint, English
Impersonalise speaker and addressee 1 1 2 3 2 9
Nominalisations
N5 (offering partial
compensation)
Acknowledge debt
Form of Impoliteness
AI Expressing negative emotions 2 1 2 1 2 1 9
CI Get power, appear superior 3 1 1 2 2 2 11
Conventionalised Pointed criticism 2 2 2 4 2 12
threat 2 2
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XIV
Politeness Strategy Purpose AU
T1
AU
T2
AU
T3
AU
T4
UK S US Tot
al
bR1 Maximum efficiency
Speaker feels powerful 1 1 2 2 2 8
FTA is in the addressee’s interest
P1 (claim common ground) In-group membership markers
Seek agreement/ avoid disagreement
Exaggerate (interest, approval
sympathy etc.)
Presupposition manipulation 1 1 2
P2 (convey that speaker and
addressee are cooperators)
Conveying the speaker’s knowledge of
and concern for the addressee’s wants
1 1
Offer, promises
Be optimistic 1 1 2 4
Include both speaker and addressee
Give reasons 1 1
Presuppose common ground 1 1
P3 (fulfil the addressee’s want
for something)
Give gifts to the addressee (sympathy,
understanding etc.)
1 2 1 1 3 1 9
N1 (be direct) Conventional indirectness 1 1
N2 (do not presume or assume) Questions and hedges 1 1 2
N3 (do not coerce) Be pessimistic
Minimise the imposition 2 2 4
Give deference (implying that the
addressee is of higher social status than
the speaker)
N4 (the speaker does not want to
impinge on the addressee)
Apologising
Admit the impingement 1 1
Give overwhelming reason
Beg forgiveness
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XV
Table 9: Politeness Strategies Complaint, German
Reluctance 2 1 1 4
Impersonalise speaker and addressee 2 1 2 5
Nominalisations 1 1
N5 (offering partial
compensation)
Acknowledge debt
Form of Impoliteness
AI Expressing negative emotions 2 1 1 2 6
CI Get power, appear superior 2 1 1 1 2 1 8
Obtain justice
Conventionalised Pointed criticism 3 1 1 1 4 1 11
threat 1 1
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XVI
IV) Transcripts of the Survey of the Participants
a.) AUT 1
Part I: Interview
Feel free to answer every question in the language that feels most natural to you. / Bitte
beantworten Sie jede Frage in der Sprache, die Ihnen am natürlichsten erscheint.
Part I.I: General Information
1. What is your gender? / Sind Sie ein Mann oder ein Frau?
I’m female. 1
2. How old are you? / Wie alt sind Sie?
Twenty-four years old. 2
3. What is your country of origin? / Aus welchem Land stammen Sie?
Austria. 3
4. What is your current country of residence? / In welchem Land leben Sie derzeit?
Austria . 4
5. What is the highest level of education you have completed? / Was ist die höchste
Ausbildung, die Sie abgeschlossen haben?
Matura, AHS with Matura. 5
Part I.II: Linguistic Background
6. What is your native language? / Was ist Ihre Erstsprache?
It’s German. 6
7. In how many languages are you proficient enough to lead a conversation? / In wie vielen
Sprachen sind Sie kompetent genug, um eine Unterhaltung zu führen?
Well, I’d say at least three. 7
7.1. Which are they and when did you acquire/ learn them? / Welche Sprachen sind dies
wann haben Sie sie erlernt/ erworben?
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XVII
It’s German, English, Italian and French is still in progress, but I could lead a 8
conversation in French, too, but it would include some difficulties. 9
English, German, Italian at school, it was eight years English, six years Italian and 10
French at university, four courses at university. 11
8. Have you ever lived abroad for an extended period of time? / Haben Sie jemals für
längere Zeit im Ausland gelebt?
I spent a semester in Denmark. From August to December 2015. 12
If yes / Wenn ja:
8.1. What was the reason for your stay abroad? / Was war der Grund für Ihren
Auslandsaufenthalt?
It was an Erasmsus Plus. 13
8.2. How long have you lived abroad? / Wie lange haben Sie im Ausland gelebt/ leben Sie
im Ausland?
Fünf Monate, zirka. 14
8.3. Where exactly have you lived during this time? / Wo genau haben Sie während dieser
Zeit gelebt?
In Odense, in Süddänemark. 15
8.4. How does this foreign culture differ from your native culture? / Inwiefern unterscheidet
sich die Kultur des Gastlandes von der Kultur ihres Heimatlandes?
Ich würde sagen in den Grundzügen nicht wesentlich, aber doch insofern, dass die 16
Skandinavier prinzipiell offener, freundlicher, ruhiger, gelassener agieren. Zumindest 17
insofern ich das beobachten konnte. 18
8.5. Do or did you feel immersed in the foreign culture? Please explain your answer. /
Fühlen / Haben Sie sich in diese Kultur integriert gefühlt? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre
Antwort.
Ja, vom ersten Tag an. Ich wurde sehr gut aufgenommen, sowohl von Seiten der Uni als auch 19
von Seiten der Bevölkerung, Studenten, Sprachlehrern. 20
Hast du viel Kontakt mit Einheimischen, also dänischen Studenten gehabt?
Ja, aber nicht so viel wie mit Erasmus-Studenten. 21
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XVIII
9. Do you perceive yourself as multilingual? Please explain your answer. / Sehen Sie sich
selbst als mehrsprachig? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Nein. Also mehrsprachig bedeutet für mich, mindestens zwei Sprachen als Muttersprache zu 22
sprechen, beziehungsweise Muttersprache oder fließend im Sinne von wirklich mehrere Jahre 23
in einem Land gewohnt zu haben und dementsprechend die Sprache wirklich fließend zu 24
können. Und Englisch – ich meine fließend ist es, aber nicht auf dem Level wie es wäre, wenn 25
ich wirklich zehn Jahre in England verbracht hätte oder Amerika oder wo auch immer. 26
10. Do you perceive yourself as multicultural? Please explain your answer. / Sehen Sie sich
selbst als multikulturell? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Ich sehe mich als Europäerin, also ja, schon. Allein schon familiär. Mein Opa stammt eigentlich 27
aus Italien, also er ist mittlerweile gestorben, aber allein dadurch schon waren die Wurzeln zu 28
Italien immer sehr stark da, auch Verwandte im Ausland, meine Tante hat eine Familie in 29
England. Also irgendwie fühle ich mich weniger als Österreicherin, als als Europäerin und 30
dementsprechend schon multikulturell. 31
Part I.III: Politeness Strategies
11. What differences have you noticed in the way native speakers of English and German
interact with each other, with regard to politeness/impoliteness? / Welche Unterschiede in der
Interaktion haben Sie zwischen Leuten mit Erstsprache Englisch vs. Erstsprache Deutsch
festgestellt, mit Bezug auf Höflichkeit und Unhöflichkeit?
Ja, das ist eh interessant. Weil familiär, also meine Tante ist mit einem Engländer verheiratet 32
und sie ist deutsch muttersprachlich, er eben englisch. Und generell, mir kommt vor, was 33
Höflichkeit betrifft sind Engländer prinzipiell… oder auch etwas schneller unhöflich als 34
Österreicher, oder generell als ‚rude‘ bezeichnet als im Deutschen. Und generell ist die Distanz 35
unter Briten größer, ob man das jetzt als Höflichkeit bezeichnet, das bleibt dahingestellt, aber 36
mir kommt schon vor, dass Engländer etwas schneller mal als unfreundlich oder unhöflich 37
bezeichnen würden. Also da geht es jetzt nicht nur um Engländer, aber da kann ich es halt am 38
ehesten sagen. 39
Also meinst du einfach, dass die persönliche Distanz im Englischen größer ist als im
Deutschen?
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XIX
Mhm, ja. Und dementsprechend gewisse Verhaltensweisen vielleicht häufiger einmal als 40
unhöflich empfunden werden, die aber so in unseren Kreisen aber so nicht verstanden werden. 41
Zum Beispiel, im Urlaub wäre es meinem Onkel extrem peinlich irgendwo im Hotel laut zu 42
singen oder zu tanzen. Er ist da sehr reserviert und das ist mir generell bei Engländern 43
aufgefallen, dass sie eher reserviert sind und weniger aus sich herauskommen und das eher als 44
unangenehm empfinden wenn zum Beispiel laut gelacht, laut gesungen wird. Meine Tante hat 45
da weniger Scheu. 46
12. According to your opinion, which language community places more importance on
politeness and manners, English or German? Please explain your answer. / Welche
Sprachgemeinschaft legt Ihrer Meinung nach mehr Wert auf Höflichkeit und Manieren,
Deutsch oder Englisch? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
English. 47
Ich glaube, dass es im Englischen eher mehr unausgesprochene Normen gibt, in die wir auch 48
oft hineintappen oder wo wir uns auch oft selber Fallen legen. 49
Vielleicht gibt es das im Deutschen auch, ich merke es nur einfach nicht, weil es einfach normal 50
für mich ist, das kann natürlich auch sein. Aber ich glaube, bei einer Fremdsprache achtet man 51
mehr darauf und darum würde ich vielleicht sagen, okay, der englischsprachige Raum hat mehr 52
Höflichkeitsnormen, aber das ist vielleicht eben nur, weil man als externer Beobachter 53
betrachtet. 54
13. Which language do you usually choose to express anger or frustration? Please explain
your answer. / Welche Sprache wählen Sie normalerweise, um Ärger und Frustration
auszudrücken? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Naja, in Österreich natürlich Deutsch, aber gerade wenn es um Schimpfwörter geht Englisch, 55
viel. Vielleicht kommt es weniger schlimm rüber, englische Schimpfwörter zu verwenden. So 56
‚Fuck‘ ist gleich einmal gesagt, ohne dass man viel darüber nachdenkt, vielleicht eben weil es 57
nicht die Muttersprache ist. Könnte sein, dass das vielleicht eher toleriert wird. 58
Macht es für dich einen Unterschied wo du dich befindest?
Ich würde in England weniger leicht ‘Fuck’ sagen als in Österreich. 59
Schimpfwörter verwende ich eher mal auf Englisch, sofern ich mich nicht in England aufhalte. 60
Und wenn du jemandem deinen Ärger mitteilen möchtest….
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XX
In einer normalen Konversation natürlich auf Deutsch, im Normalfall. Wenn man mit 61
deutschsprachigen Menschen interagiert wird man nicht auf Englisch wechseln. Höchstens 62
zwischendurch halt Wörter die halt so rausplatzen, die dann vielleicht auf Englisch vorkommen. 63
14. In which language is it easier for you to be polite/ impolite? Please explain your answer.
/ In welcher Sprache fällt es Ihnen leichter, höflich/ unhöflich zu sein? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre
Antwort.
Naja, schon Deutsch, weil das einfach meine Muttersprache ist, die sprachliche Bandbreite 64
natürlich noch um einiges größer ist als im Englischen und dementsprechend glaube ich schon, 65
dass ich mich auf Deutsch schon noch gewählter ausdrücken kann, wenn ich es möchte oder 66
eben auch nicht. Einfach weil da das Repertoire noch viel größer ist klarerweise, in der 67
Muttersprache, als in einer zweiten Sprache. 68
Part II: Performing (Im)Politeness
Part II.I: Writing Tasks
Please write short e-mails in both English and German.
1. You have been asked to write a paper/ contribution to a book about your area of
expertise. You already had to ask for an extension on the deadline and now need a second
extension, because an unexpected family issue needs your immediate attention. Write an e-mail
to your professor/editor Dr. Lang about your concern.
Dear Mr. Lang, 69
I am writing with regard to the paper (“…”) I was supposed to hand in by April 15. I am sorry 70
(N4) to tell you that due to an unexpected bereavement (P2) I will not be able to find the time 71
and nerves needed (N4) to finish my contribution in time. Since I am very committed to the 72
case and would really like to finish it with sincerity (P1), I would like to ask (N2) you whether 73
a second extension on the deadline would be possible (N1). I hope (P2) that we can find a 74
solution that works out for everyone (P2). 75
Yours faithfully, 76
****** 77
Sie sind darum gebeten worden, einen Artikel/ einen Beitrag zu einem Sachbuch aus Ihrem
Fachgebiet zu verfassen. Sie haben schon einmal um eine Fristverlängerung für die Abgabe
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXI
angesucht. Nun brauchen Sie eine zweite Fristverlängerung, da ein unerwarteter familiärer
Zwischenfall ihre unmittelbare Aufmerksamkeit erfordert. Schreiben Sie an Ihren/Ihre
ProfessorIn/ HerausgeberIn Dr. Lang.
Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Lang, 78
es tut mir Leid (N4) Ihnen mitteilen zu müssen, dass ich mich aufgrund eines unerwarteten 79
Todesfalls in der Familie nicht in der Verfassung fühle (P2), meinen Beitrag zu „…“ 80
fristgerecht fertigzustellen. Da ich mich der Sache sehr verpflichtet fühle und den Beitrag 81
unbedingt mit der notwendigen Ernsthaftigkeit verfassen würde (P1), wollte ich Sie fragen 82
(N2), ob eine nochmalige Verlängerung (N4) der Einreichfrist für Sie eine Option darstellt (N1, 83
N2). Ich hoffe (P2), dass ein für alle Beteiligten (P2) zufriedenstellender Weg gefunden werden 84
kann (P2) und verbleibe mit freundlichen Grüßen, 85
****** 86
2. Today you went to a well-known, fancy restaurant of excellent reputation to celebrate a
special occasion but were highly dissatisfied with the service. The waiter/the waitress was
highly unfriendly, slow and not attentive at all. When asked, he/she could not give any
additional information on the dishes, ingredients or types of wine available. The food was good,
but the bad service spoiled the evening for you in a way that you decided to write to the head
of the restaurant.
To whom it may concern, 87
I am writing with regard to an interpersonal encounter I had at your restaurant last Friday. 88
Having known your restaurant for a long time & always having appreciated your high standard, 89
it was my first choice also that day (P3). However, the way me & my family were treated by 90
your new waitress (Miss …) made me think about whether I will ever recommend your place 91
to anyone again (bR1) (AI). Not only did Miss… prove unable to give additional information 92
on the dishes & wines you offer (CI), she also treated us in a very rude and ignorant manner. 93
(AI) Furthermore, we had to wait 30 minutes until she finally came over to welcome us (CI). 94
Even though we really enjoyed the food (as we’ve always done) (P3) I will not keep that dinner 95
in good memory (AI). Since I would definitely like to choose your restaurant in future (P1), I 96
would highly recommend talking to Mrs. about her behaviour and attitude (N1). 97
Best wishes, 98
****** 99
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXII
Heute wollten Sie in einem bekannten, eleganten Restaurant mit ausgezeichnetem Ruf einen
besonderen Anlass feiern, waren mit der Bedienung jedoch höchst unzufrieden. Der Kellner/
die Kellnerin war sehr unfreundlich, langsam und unaufmerksam. Er/sie konnte auf Anfrage
hin auch keine Informationen zu den Gerichten, verwendeten Zutaten oder Weinen geben. Das
Essen war gut, wegen der schlechten Bedienung war der Abend für Sie dennoch eine große
Enttäuschung, sodass Sie nun an den Chef/die Chefin des Restaurants schreiben.
An die Restaurantführung, 100
wie oft in der Vergangenheit habe ich auch vergangenen Freitag Ihr Lokal gewählt, um im 101
Kreise meiner Familie einen besonderen Anlass zu feiern. Die Art & Weise, wie wir jedoch 102
von Ihrer neuen Servicekraft Frau … behandelt wurden, lässt mich ernsthaft daran zweifeln, ob 103
ich Ihr Lokal in Zukunft weiterempfehlen bzw. selbst wieder aufsuchen werde (CI). Frau … 104
erwies sich nicht nur als unfähig, uns über die Speiße- und Weinkarte zu informieren (CI), sie 105
behandelte uns auch über die Maßen unfreundlich (bR1) (AI). Zudem ließ ihre 106
Arbeitseinstellung zu wünschen übrig (N3) (cAI, cCI), so mussten wir 30 Minuten warten, um 107
endlich von ihr begrüßt zu werden (cCI). Da ich Ihr Lokal sehr schätze (P3), würde ich Ihnen 108
ein Gespräch mit Frau … nahelegen (N1), da ich mir vorstellen könnte (N3), dass sich auch 109
andere Gäste durch ihr Verhalten irritiert zeigen (2xP2) (CI). 110
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, 111
***** 112
Part II.II: Evaluation of Impoliteness
Please listen to two audio/video files, one in English one in German.
English:
1. What is your first impression of the speaker’s behaviour?
He seems to be very aggressive and upset for some reason. He obviously feels as if the police 113
has treated him unfair. 114
2. Please put yourself in the shoes of the addressees. How does this situation make you
feel?
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXIII
Even though the man uses lots of bad language, I do not really feel offended, given that he 115
seems to be stirred up. However, he definitely crosses a line by shouting at and offending the 116
police officers. 117
3. Why do you think the speaker reacts this way? Is his/her reaction justified?
He addresses some relevant points (the way black people are treated by the police), thus he has 118
a reason to be upset. However, his behaviour will not make things better. Even though he has 119
good reason, his reaction is not appropriate. 120
4. On a scale from one to ten, how rude do you find this behaviour, one being not rude at
all and ten absolutely inappropriate? Please explain your answer.
8
121
1.not rude 5.neutral
8 – Using this kind of language against another person (no matter whether police officer or not) 122
is very rude and inappropriate. 123
5. What exactly do you perceive as rude about his/her behaviour?
The bad language, the fact that he shouts and does not try to explain himself in a respectful way 124
Deutsch:
1. Was ist Ihr erster Eindruck vom Verhalten des Sprechers/der Sprecherin?
Der Sprecher ist extrem aggressiv, respektlos und wirkt in seinen Äußerungen teilweise 125
unzurechnungsfähig, weil er auch Tatsachen verdreht. 126
2. Versetzen Sie sich in die Lage des Empfängers. Wie fühlen Sie sich in dieser Situation?
10.absolutely
inappropriate
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXIV
Zum Teil erbost über die Sprache und das Verhalten, teils (belustigt) gelassen, weil ich davon 127
überzeugt bin, im Recht zu sein. 128
3. Warum, glauben Sie, reagiert der Sprecher/ die Sprecherin auf diese Art? Ist sein/ihr
Verhalten gerechtfertigt?
Das Verhalten ist keineswegs gerechtfertigt, der Sprecher reagiert extrem aggressiv & offenbart 129
Wut, die sich scheinbar schon lange aufgestaut hat; er glaubt, im Recht zu sein und dadurch 130
entsprechend agieren zu können. 131
4. Auf einer Skala von eins bis zehn, wie unhöflich schätzen Sie das Verhalten des
Sprechers/ der Sprecherin ein? Eins meint hierbei ‚nicht unhöflich‘ und zehn ‚komplett
inakzeptabel‘. Bitte begründen Sie ihre Antwort.
10
132
1.nicht unhöflich 5. neutral
10 – anders als der Sprecher in Video 1 wirkt dieser Mann nicht emotional aufgewühlt, sondern 133
lediglich respektlos und überheblich. 134
5. Was genau empfinden Sie am Verhalten des Sprechers/ der Sprecherin als unhöflich?
Seine respektlose, überhebliche Art und argen Schimpfwörter 135
6. In what way do the main speakers of the English and German video (re)act differently?
/ Inwiefern verhalten sich die Sprecher unterschiedlich?
Der Sprecher im deutschsprachigen Video wirkt im Gegensatz zum Sprecher im 136
englischsprachigen extrem überheblich; 137
der englischsprachige Mann wirkt verzweifelter, was seine Äußerungen ein wenig mehr 138
rechtfertigt. 139
10. komplett
inakzeptabel
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXV
7. Which behaviour of the main speakers of the English and German video do you perceive
as more rude? Please explain your answer. / Empfinden Sie das Verhalten des Hauptsprechers
aus dem englischen oder deutschen Video als unhöflicher? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Ich empfinde das Verhalten des Hauptsprechers aus dem deutschen Video als unhöflicher. 140
Obwohl der englischsprachige Mann lauter reagiert, erachte ich den Aggressionsgrad des 141
deutschsprachigen Mannes als höher, da in seinen Äußerungen keine Verzweiflung 142
mitschwingt. 143
b.) AUT 2
Part I: Interview
Feel free to answer every question in the language that feels most natural to you. / Bitte
beantworten Sie jede Frage in der Sprache, die Ihnen am natürlichsten erscheint.
Part I.I: General Information
15. What is your gender? / Sind Sie ein Mann oder ein Frau?
I’m a man. I consider myself a man. 144
16. How old are you? / Wie alt sind Sie?
Twenty-six. 145
17. What is your country of origin? / Aus welchem Land stammen Sie?
Austria. 146
18. What is your current country of residence? / In welchem Land leben Sie derzeit?
Austria. 147
19. What is the highest level of education you have completed? / Was ist die höchste
Ausbildung, die Sie abgeschlossen haben?
Bis jetzt die Matura. 148
Part I.II: Linguistic Background
20. What is your native language? / Was ist Ihre Erstsprache?
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXVI
German. 149
21. In how many languages are you proficient enough to lead a conversation? / In wie vielen
Sprachen sind Sie kompetent genug, um eine Unterhaltung zu führen?
Three. 150
21.1. Which are they? / Welche Sprachen sind dies?
Deutsch, Englisch und Französisch. 151
21.2. When did you acquire/ learn them?/ Wann haben Sie sie erlernt/ erworben?
De facto in der Schule. Beziehungsweise, ja, mit Deutsch bin ich aufgewachsen. Also ich hatte 152
insgesamt sechs Jahre Französisch, zwei davon in der Unterstufe, vier davon in der Oberstufe 153
und Englisch die Standardschulbildung, beziehungsweise danach die Uni. 154
22. Have you ever lived abroad for an extended period of time? / Haben Sie jemals für
längere Zeit im Ausland gelebt?
Unfortunately, not. 155
23. Do you perceive yourself as multilingual? Please explain your answer. / Sehen Sie sich
selbst als mehrsprachig? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Ja. Ich bin fähig, mehrere Sprachen so weit zu sprechen, dass ich zumindest durchkomme. Also 156
ich kann ich sechs verschiedenen Sprachen ein Bier bestellen; und kann auch in vier 157
verschiedenen Sprachen handeln, auch von Berufswegen her ist das notwendig; und beherrsche 158
zumindest eine weitere Sprache auf einem Niveau, das annähernd meiner Muttersprache 159
gleichkommt. Das ist so meine Begründung dafür. 160
Und ich kann zwischen den Sprachen auch einfach fließend wechseln. 161
Darf ich fragen welche Sprachen das sind?
Deutsch, Englisch, Französisch, Italienisch, rudimentäres Norwegisch. Zählt Latein? Eher 162
nicht, ist nicht gesprochen, oder? Es ist keine lebende Sprache, also nein. 163
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXVII
Also wirklich fähig, mich sinnvoll zu unterhalten bin ich sicher in Deutsch, Englisch, 164
Französisch. 165
24. Do you perceive yourself as multicultural? Please explain your answer. / Sehen Sie sich
selbst als multikulturell? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Ja, zwangsläufig. Weil ich aus einer Gegend komme, die einfach schon von Geschichtswegen 166
her Einflüsse mehrerer Nationen hat und sich wahrscheinlich auch lange behalten wird, weil sie 167
derartig abgelegen ist, dass es schwer ist für eine Kultur, sich durchzusetzen. Es wäre quasi die 168
österreichische Kultur, de facto. Es wäre auf jeden Fall die ungarische Kultur, was man 169
besonders stark im Essen merkt in der Gegend. Das Kroatische, wobei ich da selbst über die 170
typisch kroatische Kultur weniger Bescheid weiß, aber die muss de facto vorhanden sein, weil 171
die Dichte an Kroaten bei uns in der Gegend einfach exorbitant hoch ist. 172
Und fühlst du dich jetzt dadurch auch mehreren Kulturen zugehörig?
Uhm… ne, na. Also, ich fühle mich der österreichischen Kultur zugehörig und da kommt eben 173
das Geschichtswissen durch, dass ich einfach weiß, dass es die österreichische Kultur quasi de 174
facto nicht gibt. Die österreichische Kultur ist de facto eine unglaublich vielschichtige, von 175
mehreren Volksschichten durchzogene Kultur, was ich eigentlich besonders schön finde. Es ist 176
für mich trotzdem quasi eine Kultur, die diese ganzen Einflüsse zusammenfasst. 177
Part I.III: Politeness Strategies
25. What differences have you noticed in the way native speakers of English and German
interact with each other, with regard to politeness/impoliteness? / Welche Unterschiede in der
Interaktion haben Sie zwischen Leuten mit Erstsprache Englisch vs. Erstsprache Deutsch
festgestellt, mit Bezug auf Höflichkeit und Unhöflichkeit?
Der Sprachgebrauch zeigt schon den Unterschied, dass dieses ‚You‘ im Englischen ja an sich 178
immer ein ‚Sie‘ ist, was viele Leute im deutschsprachigen Raum nicht kapieren, aber es ist ein 179
‚Sie‘. Insofern ist es jetzt rein von unserem Sprachverständnis her, das wir ja im Deutschen 180
hätten durch das Sie, von sich aus schon höflicher. Es gibt das ‚Du‘, nur das ‚Du‘ wird eben 181
nicht verwendet. Also niemand sagt ‚Thou‘. Ich weiß nicht, ob es eine Strategie ist, es ist 182
wahrscheinlich auch schlicht Sprachgewohnheit, weil die Sprache so gewachsen ist. 183
Bei uns im Deutschen – okay, wir haben den Unterschied zwischen ‚Du‘ und ‚Sie‘, wobei das 184
‚Du‘ durchaus höflich sein kann und ist, wenn ich eben mit Personen zu tun hab, mit denen ich 185
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXVIII
jetzt nicht in irgendeinem hierarchischen System verbunden bin, oder die mir das ‚Du‘ auch 186
angeboten haben. Also es ist auf keinen Falle per se ein Zeichen von Respektlosigkeit oder 187
Unhöflichkeit. Also das wäre auf jeden Fall der größte Unterschied der auffällt. 188
Politeness Strategies…. Dazu weiß ich wahrscheinlich zu wenig über die Materie Bescheid. 189
Ja, das wäre so der grobe Unterschied, der mir auffällt, sag ich mal. Allein der Sprachgebrauch, 190
also wie die Sprache an sich, für sich arbeitet. 191
26. According to your opinion, which language community places more importance on
politeness and manners, English or German? Please explain your answer. / Welche
Sprachgemeinschaft legt Ihrer Meinung nach mehr Wert auf Höflichkeit und Manieren,
Deutsch oder Englisch? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Das ist schwer. … Das ist schwieirg. … Das ist wahrscheinlich kontextabhängig. Wenn ich 192
standardmäßig davon ausgehe, dass ich ohnehin jeden mit ‘Sie’ anspreche, weil es meine 193
Gewohnheit ist, dann verliert es wahrscheinlich auch den Gedanken daran, dass ich jetzt 194
besonders höflich sein muss, weil es ja ohnehin höflich ist, aus dem Sprachgebrauch. Wenn ich 195
jetzt aber im Deutschen quasi zwangsweise das ‚Sie‘ benutzen muss, um als höflich zu gelten, 196
dann schwingt natürlich der Gedanke der Höflichkeit und der Manieren mit. Insofern würde ich 197
in der Hinsicht fast glauben, dass Deutsch eher Wert darauf legt, weil der sprachliche 198
Unterschied einfach gegeben ist. Weil es einfach wesentlich besser bemerkbar ist, ob ich jetzt 199
gerade unhöflich sein will, oder ob ich unhöflich bin – auch unbewusst – als jetzt im Englischen. 200
27. Which language do you usually choose to express anger or frustration? Please explain
your answer. / Welche Sprache wählen Sie normalerweise, um Ärger und Frustration
auszudrücken? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
That depends on the situation. … Ja… Ich benutze die gleichen Begriffe, in beiden Sprachen. 201
Also, was dann rauskommt passiert einfach, also, ob das jetzt ‚verdammt‘ oder ‚damn‘ ist, ist 202
eigentlich ziemlich egal, aber es ist eines dieser Worte, meistens. Also, von dem her, ja, es 203
kommt darauf an, was gerade herauskommt. Aber ich verwende eigentlich ziemlich genau die 204
gleichen Worte, egal ob Deutsch oder Englisch. Also es ist entweder ein ‚Damn‘ oder ein 205
‚Verdammt‘. 206
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXIX
28. In which language is it easier for you to be polite/ impolite? Please explain your answer.
/ In welcher Sprache fällt es Ihnen leichter, höflich/ unhöflich zu sein? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre
Antwort.
I would say it’s easier to be impolite in German, because I’m way more proficient with the 207
language, but it is – how can I say that? I enjoy it more to be impolite in English, because the 208
possibilities are far greater and are far more enjoyable. It’s more like… it’s really an art. I 209
consider it an art. If you manage a language in a way that you can artistically express yourself 210
as being angry or curse in a very, very profound way, then you know how a language works. 211
And that’s why I like it more. I can enjoy it more to be, like, enjoy as far as I can enjoy being 212
impolite, but I can enjoy it more in English than in German. Because in German it’s rough, it’s 213
just, like, you just throw a word in there and that’s it. Wow. Cool. Okay. You’ve expressed 214
everything with one word. 215
So you mean in German there is just one word for everything and it’s just easier?
There are less words, the thing is, the more you combine them, the more ridiculous they get. 216
Like the all-time favourite: Viennese, from Vienna. Okay, so the, like, typical Viennese 217
expression would be like “Heast, du Saubeitl, geh in Oasch”. My all-time favourite. And, okay, 218
it’s nice, but I mean this is as artistic as it gets. And in English I think you can do far more with 219
language to insult somebody or to be impolite. 220
Okay, if you are really serious about it then … What would it be? … I mean, are you serious in 221
German when you say “Heast, du Saubeitl, geh in Oasch”? I love it. I mean, it sounds great. I 222
mean, I don’t know, can I think of anything in English? How would I insult somebody? I don’t 223
know, you could use something like “You stupid motherfucking piece of shit”, something like 224
this. Okay, maybe they are both like – maybe if you are proficient enough in a language maybe 225
they are both like artistically nice. 226
But you think your repertoire in English is just as suitable to insult someone?
I guess so. I mean, I put a focus on it actually, for some time, to find out: How can I really insult 227
somebody? Just to, you know, I think it is a part of language. And coursing, swearing, insulting 228
someone is a part of language and it is an important part of language, because you have to 229
express your feelings. Maybe not always in a crude way. 230
Sorry, what was the question again? 231
[repetition of question]
I would say none. For English and German, no, it doesn’t matter. I would certainly not be as 232
good in being impolite in French or Italian, for example. Because I don’t use it as often and I’m 233
just not as proficient in it. But German and English is more or less equal. 234
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXX
And what about being polite?
When I try to be polite, and as far as I had to do with native speakers in English, they reacted 235
quite positive, so I guess I’ve been polite all the time. 236
I think it’s on the same level as being impolite, because – as I said – I’m proficient in both 237
languages and, ya, I don’t think there is any difference. Maybe there is, but at least nobody told 238
me. 239
Part II: Performing (Im)Politeness
Part II.I: Writing Tasks
Please write short e-mails in both English and German.
3. You have been asked to write a paper/ contribution to a book about your area of
expertise. You already had to ask for an extension on the deadline and now need a second
extension, because an unexpected family issue needs your immediate attention. Write an e-mail
to your professor/editor Dr. Lang about your concern.
Dear Dr. Lang, 240
Unfortunately (N2) an unexpected family issue occurred (P2) and I can’t stick to the deadline. 241
It is by all means simply impossible (N4) and I am very sorry for the inconvenience (N4). 242
Would it be possible to extend the deadline a second time? (N1) 243
All the best, 244
**** 245
Sie sind darum gebeten worden, einen Artikel/ einen Beitrag zu einem Sachbuch aus Ihrem
Fachgebiet zu verfassen. Sie haben schon einmal um eine Fristverlängerung für die Abgabe
angesucht. Nun brauchen Sie eine zweite Fristverlängerung, da ein unerwarteter familiärer
Zwischenfall ihre unmittelbare Aufmerksamkeit erfordert. Schreiben Sie an Ihren/Ihre
ProfessorIn/ HerausgeberIn Dr. Lang.
Sehr geehrter Dr. Lang, 246
Aufgrund eines unerwarteten familiären Zwischenfalls (P2) ist es mir leider (N2) absolut nicht 247
möglich (N4) die Frist für meine Abgabe einzuhalten. Ich entschuldige mich für die 248
Umstände(N4) und muss Sie nochmals um eine Fristverlängerung bitten (bR1). 249
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXXI
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, 250
**** 251
4. Today you went to a well-known, fancy restaurant of excellent reputation to celebrate a
special occasion but were highly dissatisfied with the service. The waiter/the waitress was
highly unfriendly, slow and not attentive at all. When asked, he/she could not give any
additional information on the dishes, ingredients or types of wine available. The food was good,
but the bad service spoiled the evening for you in a way that you decided to write to the head
of the restaurant.
To whom it may concern, 252
Unfortunately (N4) I am writing you to point out a certain issue I had, when I was at your 253
restaurant lately (bR1). The food was delicious (P3) but your waiter was both impolite and 254
ridiculously unable to do his job as expected (CI, AI) (bR1). I assume (P1) given the great 255
reputation of your restaurant (P2, P3) my honest critique will lead to improvements in this 256
matter (cCI) (N4) (N1). 257
Yours sincerely, 258
***** 259
Heute wollten Sie in einem bekannten, eleganten Restaurant mit ausgezeichnetem Ruf einen
besonderen Anlass feiern, waren mit der Bedienung jedoch höchst unzufrieden. Der Kellner/
die Kellnerin war sehr unfreundlich, langsam und unaufmerksam. Er/sie konnte auf Anfrage
hin auch keine Informationen zu den Gerichten, verwendeten Zutaten oder Weinen geben. Das
Essen war gut, wegen der schlechten Bedienung war der Abend für Sie dennoch eine große
Enttäuschung, sodass Sie nun an den Chef/die Chefin des Restaurants schreiben.
Sehr geehrte Restaurantleitung, 260
Leider muss ich mich wegen einem unangenehmen Problem bei Ihnen melden (N4). Ich war 261
vor Kurzem in ihrem Restaurant von dem ich nur gutes gehört habe und das Essen war auch 262
wirklich fabelhaft (2xP3), doch leider muss (N4) ich Sie darauf hinweisen (bR1), dass Ihr 263
Kellner nicht nur unfähig sondern auch über die Maßen unhöflich ist (CI, AI). Ich hoffe (P2) 264
meine ehrliche Kritik führt zu einer Verbesserung (N1). 265
Hochachtungsvoll, 266
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXXII
***** 267
Part II.II: Evaluation of Impoliteness
Please listen to two audio/video files, one in English one in German.
English:
6. What is your first impression of the speaker’s behaviour?
He was angry, whether for a real reason or not was not noticeable, yet he seemed to be 268
overreacting because of stereotypes concerning racism issues he obviously heard about. 269
7. Please put yourself in the shoes of the addressees. How does this situation make you
feel?
I would feel insecure and sorry, for man believes I am a racist policeman just because I am 270
white and there have some issues with people like me and the black population. 271
8. Why do you think the speaker reacts this way? Is his/her reaction justified?
It is understandable that he is suspicious, yet I consider him to be overacting in an unnecessary 272
way. 273
9. On a scale from one to ten, how rude do you find this behaviour, one being not rude at
all and ten absolutely inappropriate? Please explain your answer.
8
274
1.not rude 5.neutral
10.absolutely
inappropriate
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXXIII
8 – It is absolutely rude and inappropriate but also understandable in some way given the 275
political situation and reoccurring racism issues. 276
10. What exactly do you perceive as rude about his/her behaviour?
He exactly does what he wouldn’t like he is stereotyping the white policemen as being racist 277
in the same way as some white racists would consider him a criminal just because he is black. 278
It is wrong either way. 279
Deutsch:
8. Was ist Ihr erster Eindruck vom Verhalten des Sprechers/der Sprecherin?
Er ist ein Vollidiot mit einem offensichtlichen Mangel an Allgemeinbildung, der offenbar den 280
Schwachsinn den er spricht glaubt. 281
9. Versetzen Sie sich in die Lage des Empfängers. Wie fühlen Sie sich in dieser Situation?
In meiner Ehe als Angehöriger der Spezies Mensch tief verletzt. Überfordert, weil hier noch 282
keine Gewalt angewendet werden darf um den Mann in Gewahrsam nehmen zu dürfen. 283
10. Warum, glauben Sie, reagiert der Sprecher/ die Sprecherin auf diese Art? Ist sein/ihr
Verhalten gerechtfertigt?
Ich glaube es handelt sich um einen objektiv ungebildeten und dummen Menschen. Sein 284
Verhalten ist weder gerechtfertigt noch in irgendeiner Weise verständlich. 285
11. Auf einer Skala von eins bis zehn, wie unhöflich schätzen Sie das Verhalten des
Sprechers/ der Sprecherin ein? Eins meint hierbei ‚nicht unhöflich‘ und zehn ‚komplett
inakzeptabel‘. Bitte begründen Sie ihre Antwort.
8
286
1.nicht unhöflich 5. neutral 10. komplett
inakzeptabel
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXXIV
Er ist grob unhöflich was aufgrund seines offensichtlichen Mangels an Intelligenz nicht 287
verwunderlich ist. 288
12. Was genau empfinden Sie am Verhalten des Sprechers/ der Sprecherin als unhöflich?
Ich halte ihn leider für so dumm, dass ich nicht einmal weiß ob er das Konzept von 289
(Un)Höflichkeit versteht. 290
13. In what way do the main speakers of the English and German video (re)act differently?
/ Inwiefern verhalten sich die Sprecher unterschiedlich?
The English one overreacts out of real issues that at least legitimise his actions in some way, 291
while the German speaker simply combines random words to express utter nonsense. 292
14. Which behaviour of the main speakers of the English and German video do you perceive
as more rude? Please explain your answer. / Empfinden Sie das Verhalten des Hauptsprechers
aus dem englischen oder deutschen Video als unhöflicher? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
In my opinion the English speaker is more impolite, since he seems to have the intelligence to 293
be able to actually react more appropriately. 294
c.) AUT 3
Part I: Interview
Feel free to answer every question in the language that feels most natural to you. / Bitte
beantworten Sie jede Frage in der Sprache, die Ihnen am natürlichsten erscheint.
Part I.I: General Information
29. What is your gender? / Sind Sie ein Mann oder ein Frau?
I’m a girl. 295
30. How old are you? / Wie alt sind Sie?
I’m twenty-two. 296
31. What is your country of origin? / Aus welchem Land stammen Sie?
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXXV
Austria. 297
32. What is your current country of residence? / In welchem Land leben Sie derzeit?
Austria. 298
33. What is the highest level of education you have completed? / Was ist die höchste
Ausbildung, die Sie abgeschlossen haben?
Well, technically the first Diplomprüfung from Lehramtstudium, which isn’t a degree. So 299
Matura. Well, ya, technically we’d have a Bachelor’s, but it doesn’t count. 300
Part I.II: Linguistic Background
34. What is your native language? / Was ist Ihre Erstsprache?
German. 301
35. In how many languages are you proficient enough to lead a conversation? / In wie vielen
Sprachen sind Sie kompetent genug, um eine Unterhaltung zu führen?
That’s only German and English. In French if I work on it a bit. Spanish, eh, no. 302
But you do have basic skills in Spanish? 303
Yes. I’ve studied French for six years and Spanish for three. 304
35.1. Which are they? / Welche Sprachen sind dies?
See above
35.2. When did you acquire/ learn them? / Wann haben Sie sie erlernt/ erworben?
I started learning English in primary school, actually. I went to a bilingual primary school. 305
French in third grade, Spanish in sixth grade, Latin in fifth grade. 306
36. Have you ever lived abroad for an extended period of time? / Haben Sie jemals für
längere Zeit im Ausland gelebt?
Yes, I’ve lived in Aberdeen, in Scotland, for four months. 307
If yes / Wenn ja:
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXXVI
36.1. What was the reason for your stay abroad? / Was war der Grund für Ihren
Auslandsaufenthalt?
Erasmus exchange. To develop better language skills, because I study English. 308
36.2. How long have you lived abroad? / Wie lange haben Sie im Ausland gelebt/ leben
Sie im Ausland?
Four months. 309
36.3. Where exactly have you lived during this time? / Wo genau haben Sie während
dieser Zeit gelebt?
Aberdeen, Scotland. 310
36.4. How does this foreign culture differ from your native culture? / Inwiefern
unterscheidet sich die Kultur des Gastlandes von der Kultur ihres Heimatlandes?
Apart from the things you just learn in school, how they should differ, is really the queueing, 311
was upsetting. They almost missed their bus, because they would queue so politely. That was 312
the main thing I realized. Oh, and constantly asking how you are doing and not caring about 313
your answer. This polite ‘How are you?’, which is annoying, because they don’t care and I 314
always answered back to annoy them. That is what I can think of right now. 315
36.5. Do or did you feel immersed in the foreign culture? Please explain your answer.
/ Fühlen / Haben Sie sich in diese Kultur integriert gefühlt? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre
Antwort.
Yes, because I don’t think that it’s that different from Austria. But I did live in a very 316
international student village, so there wasn’t really the British culture. So, you know, we had 317
all these international students, there wasn’t really the British culture to immerse in. Ya, it was 318
very international. 319
Did you have contact to British or Scottish students?
I did, but not that many. And we had the handymen coming to our dorm, who spoke beautifully 320
Scottish and we barely understood them. When they said something we were just figuring what 321
they might have said and then repeated it in our beautiful English and then they just said yes or 322
no which we could understand. So I had a few people in my classes, but the majority was 323
international. 324
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXXVII
37. Do you perceive yourself as multilingual? Please explain your answer. / Sehen Sie sich
selbst als mehrsprachig? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Actually yes. Not in the sense that I feel bilingual, in how you’d use it. But I feel proficient 325
enough in English to feel like it’s a language I … ya … I know. 326
38. Do you perceive yourself as multicultural? Please explain your answer. / Sehen Sie sich
selbst als multikulturell? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
No. Because I think, I don’t think that language and culture is that connected. I think we can 327
study English, we can have all this international stuff here and, you know, we have American 328
teachers, we have British teachers, we have German, Austrian teachers who are married to Irish 329
people, we have everything here, but I still don’t feel like they are so different from us that … 330
I don’t know, I have a weird perception of culture, I think. But, I don’t know, I think we just 331
learn the language. I had native speakers at my school and I still felt like they told us about their 332
home countries and we learn about it, but … Maybe because I don’t identify with the Austrian 333
culture that much, you know, the cliché of Austrian culture isn’t a thing I do. Like I don’t even 334
poses a Dirndl. I’ve never tried Schuplatteln or any of this that is typically Austrian. So I feel 335
like I’ve studied my own cultures well so I don’t feel connected. 336
Do you know what I mean? I mean, I don’t feel like I grew up with the Austrian culture and 337
have such a big understanding of what the culture is. I feel like studying a culture is really, like, 338
studying the stereotypes. 339
What cultural identity would you give yourself?
Austria. Just because I grew up here. Austria is home. 340
Part I.III: Politeness Strategies
39. What differences have you noticed in the way native speakers of English and German
interact with each other, with regard to politeness/impoliteness? / Welche Unterschiede in der
Interaktion haben Sie zwischen Leuten mit Erstsprache Englisch vs. Erstsprache Deutsch
festgestellt, mit Bezug auf Höflichkeit und Unhöflichkeit?
Well, actually the two things I’ve already mentioned. Queueing and asking how you are. I feel 341
like when Austrian people ask me how I’m doing I feel like they want an answer and they really 342
care. English people might perceive it as being so polite, but for me it felt so impolite to pose 343
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXXVIII
that question and just turn around and leave and don’t even wait for anything. That’s what I 344
noticed about politeness. 345
Any suggestions what I might have noticed? 346
Maybe: How did you interact with your teachers at university?
Oh, ya! We called them by first name. Which is also, like here – that’s a funny thing that I 347
noticed here as well – Who are the teachers who ask us to call them by their first name? It’s 348
Professor [last name 1] is [first name 1], Professor [last name 2], is [first name 2]. So it’s all the 349
teachers who are not Austrian who do this. And also my teacher there, we called her [first name 350
3]. I mean, I didn’t because I think it’s weird, I always said Professor [last name 1] to her, she 351
hated it. I don’t know, this might be politeness as well, but you know. Austria is said to be so 352
focused on their titles, so maybe that’s what plays into that. We feel polite when we use all the 353
titles and all the, you know. When I write someone here it’s “Sehr geehrte bla bla bla” and when 354
I do it there it’s always “Dear” and first name. So this is that we perceive it here to be polite to 355
show that we know everything they did in the academic world and they just don’t care. 356
40. According to your opinion, which language community places more importance on
politeness and manners, English or German? Please explain your answer. / Welche
Sprachgemeinschaft legt Ihrer Meinung nach mehr Wert auf Höflichkeit und Manieren,
Deutsch oder Englisch? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Well, stereotypically it’s British. They are said to be more polite. But the way I see it, being 357
reserved isn’t necessarily polite. British people are supposed to be reserved, that’s a 358
stereotypical idea and maybe they feel like this is polite, but in my opinion it’s not so polite to 359
just keep yourself to yourself and to push people away. So I don’t know whether this is their 360
idea of politeness, but not necessarily mine. 361
The queueing, being like, you were first so obviously you go first … it’s just, they stick to their 362
ideas of what is polite. 363
But I actually don’t feel like Austria is so impolite. Didn’t we have a discussion, you were one 364
of the people leading the discussion, saying that Canadians are so adorably nice and I was like, 365
I never thought that Austrians were so not nice. 366
Just to repeat that. Is it more about social distance for you?
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XXXIX
I think it’s about different ideas of what is polite, maybe. You know, reservedness and queueing 367
and asking people how they are is their idea of politeness, but I thought their asking how I’m 368
doing, this was the most impolite thing ever, to ask me how I’m doing and not care about my 369
answer. So it’s just different ideas of what is polite. I mean, obviously, there are some 370
international truths of politeness, but those details are maybe different and they feel like they 371
are super polite but we don’t necessarily feel the same way. 372
Maybe English people are also overdoing it. Like, when we bump into someone, 373
unintentionally, British people be like “Oh my gosh, oh my God It’s fine, don’t worry, 374
everything is perfect!” Austrians are just like “No problem”. To not say anything, that’d be 375
impolite, but why overdo it? Why pretend like you just survived being hit by a car? 376
41. Which language do you usually choose to express anger or frustration? Please explain
your answer. / Welche Sprache wählen Sie normalerweise, um Ärger und Frustration
auszudrücken? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Actually, because that friend who lives in Aberdeen, I’ve known her for years and we always 377
speak English and she is my best friend so she is my go-to person if I’m angry or mad, so I’m 378
very used to expressing my anger and frustration in English. And sometimes it does feel more 379
natural, because I’ve just said it in English. I feel comfortable in both languages actually, 380
expressing it and sometimes, if you experience something in German, it’s easier to think about 381
it in English, to discuss it in English with her. I don’t know, it just makes sense, because if you 382
want to translate something that happened, you have to think more about it if you are translating, 383
so if I’m mad about something and tell her in English, but it happened to me in German, it’s a 384
nice way of reflecting on it and to relieve my anger and frustration. 385
42. In which language is it easier for you to be polite/ impolite? Please explain your answer.
/ In welcher Sprache fällt es Ihnen leichter, höflich/ unhöflich zu sein? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre
Antwort.
Written in German. Because this “Sehr geehrte … ich möchte Sie“. You know, I haven’t 386
communicated that much with strangers where this politeness is important, but I realised that, 387
if I, for example, approached someone who I wanted to do me a favour some time ago, and I 388
was sitting there writing in German and I just knew which structures were polite, and “Würde 389
es Ihnen/ Wäre es Ihnen möglich bla bla bla”, I just know better how to phrase it in German, to 390
sound insanely polite an insanely needy. Whereas in English, when I text my teachers to ask 391
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XL
for something, I struggle more with finding this politeness or the words to phrase my politeness. 392
It’s easier for me in German. 393
But if I can use my language and my intonation, I think it’s equally easy. Intonation, you can 394
put a lot of this politeness in the intonation and pronunciation, so it just helps. In written you 395
only have the words and not the intonation. 396
So in spoken language it’s equally easy, but in written it’s German. 397
Part II: Performing (Im)Politeness
Part II.I: Writing Tasks
Please write short e-mails in both English and German.
5. You have been asked to write a paper/ contribution to a book about your area of
expertise. You already had to ask for an extension on the deadline and now need a second
extension, because an unexpected family issue needs your immediate attention. Write an e-mail
to your professor/editor Dr. Lang about your concern.
Dear Dr. Lang, 398
I am writing to you to ask whether it is possible to grant (N3) me another extension (N1). Due 399
to unfortunate and unexpected family issues (P2), I cannot meet our (P2) deadline. 400
I am very sorry to bother you with this (N4). I hope it is possible to further extend the 401
deadline.(P2) 402
Yours sincerely, 403
**** 404
Sie sind darum gebeten worden, einen Artikel/ einen Beitrag zu einem Sachbuch aus Ihrem
Fachgebiet zu verfassen. Sie haben schon einmal um eine Fristverlängerung für die Abgabe
angesucht. Nun brauchen Sie eine zweite Fristverlängerung, da ein unerwarteter familiärer
Zwischenfall ihre unmittelbare Aufmerksamkeit erfordert. Schreiben Sie an Ihren/Ihre
ProfessorIn/ HerausgeberIn Dr. Lang.
Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Lang, 405
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XLI
Ich kontaktiere Sie, da ich Sie leider (N2, N4) um eine weitere Verlängerung der Abgabefrist 406
bitten muss (bR1). Aufgrund von unerwarteten, familiären Vorkommnissen (P2) ist es mir 407
leider (N4) nicht möglich den Artikel zum vereinbarten Termin abzugeben. 408
Ich hoffe, ich mache Ihnen dadurch nicht zu große Umstände (N3). Ich werde mich bemühen, 409
Ihnen den Artikel sobald wie möglich zukommen zu lassen. (P2) 410
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, 411
***** 412
6. Today you went to a well-known, fancy restaurant of excellent reputation to celebrate a
special occasion but were highly dissatisfied with the service. The waiter/the waitress was
highly unfriendly, slow and not attentive at all. When asked, he/she could not give any
additional information on the dishes, ingredients or types of wine available. The food was good,
but the bad service spoiled the evening for you in a way that you decided to write to the head
of the restaurant.
Dear Sir/ Madam, 413
I am writing to you to inform you that, unfortunately (N2), I was not pleased with the service 414
(N4) at your restaurant (bR1) (AI) when I had a celebration there today. The waiter attending 415
to us was unfriendly and inattentive (CI). I had had higher hopes (AI) due to (P2) your excellent 416
reputation (P3). I hope (P2) that this was simply an exception and that your staff is usually more 417
proficient (P1). 418
Yours sincerely, 419
**** 420
Heute wollten Sie in einem bekannten, eleganten Restaurant mit ausgezeichnetem Ruf einen
besonderen Anlass feiern, waren mit der Bedienung jedoch höchst unzufrieden. Der Kellner/
die Kellnerin war sehr unfreundlich, langsam und unaufmerksam. Er/sie konnte auf Anfrage
hin auch keine Informationen zu den Gerichten, verwendeten Zutaten oder Weinen geben. Das
Essen war gut, wegen der schlechten Bedienung war der Abend für Sie dennoch eine große
Enttäuschung, sodass Sie nun an den Chef/die Chefin des Restaurants schreiben.
Sehr geehrte/r (comment: I’d google the name), 421
Ich kontaktiere Sie, da ich mit den geleisteten Dienstleistungen (N4) in Ihrem Restaurant nicht 422
vollkommen zufrieden (N3) war. Die Bedienung (N4) ließ bezüglich Freundlichkeit und 423
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XLII
Effizienz (N4) zu wünschen übrig (N3) (AI, CI). Dies überschattete ein sonst vorzügliches 424
Essen (P3). 425
Ich hoffe (P2), dass dies nur ein Einzelfall war und Ihre Bedienung sonst zufriedenstellender 426
ist (P1). 427
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, 428
***** 429
Note: I feel like I use fancier, more sophisticated words in German which somehow feels polite. 430
Part II.II: Evaluation of Impoliteness
Please listen to two audio/video files, one in English one in German.
English:
11. What is your first impression of the speaker’s behaviour?
Rude! annoyed 431
12. Please put yourself in the shoes of the addressees. How does this situation make you
feel?
I would not feel personally offended as the speaker is full of prejudice and hatred. I’d just try 432
to keep him calm and get done with it. 433
13. Why do you think the speaker reacts this way? Is his/her reaction justified?
He and the people (black people) he knows obviously have had bad experiences with the white 434
police and he, therefore, has – emotionally but not rationally – justified prejudices 435
14. On a scale from one to ten, how rude do you find this behaviour, one being not rude at
all and ten absolutely inappropriate? Please explain your answer.
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XLIII
7
436
1.not rude 5.neutral
7 – It is not 100% rude because in his mind it is justified. It’d be super rude if he attacked any 437
person with that kind of language even if they – or what they represent – did not do anything – 438
the police did stop him and he probably thinks they only did that because he’s black 439
15. What exactly do you perceive as rude about his/her behaviour?
The “fucks” 440
Questioning what they are doing 441
Deutsch:
15. Was ist Ihr erster Eindruck vom Verhalten des Sprechers/der Sprecherin?
Eingebildet und aufmüpfig 442
16. Versetzen Sie sich in die Lage des Empfängers. Wie fühlen Sie sich in dieser Situation?
Als wäre mir mein Status und meine Ausbildung aberkannt worden. 443
17. Warum, glauben Sie, reagiert der Sprecher/ die Sprecherin auf diese Art? Ist sein/ihr
Verhalten gerechtfertigt?
Nein, denn laut dem Gesetz hat er all das zu tun, was die Polizisten von ihm verlangen. Er 444
glaubt allerdings, dass er dem nicht unterliegt. 445
18. Auf einer Skala von eins bis zehn, wie unhöflich schätzen Sie das Verhalten des
Sprechers/ der Sprecherin ein? Eins meint hierbei ‚nicht unhöflich‘ und zehn ‚komplett
inakzeptabel‘. Bitte begründen Sie ihre Antwort.
10.absolutely
inappropriate
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XLIV
9
446
1.nicht unhöflich 5. neutral
9 – er könnte noch ein bisschen persönlicher werden. 447
19. Was genau empfinden Sie am Verhalten des Sprechers/ der Sprecherin als unhöflich?
Die Wortwahl, vor allem die persönlichen Beschimpfungen als Schwanzlutscher und 448
Hurensohn 449
Die herablassende Art 450
20. In what way do the main speakers of the English and German video (re)act differently?
/ Inwiefern verhalten sich die Sprecher unterschiedlich?
Ein Unterschied zwischen den Videos ist, dass der englische Sprecher sich angegriffen fühlt, 451
weil er glaubt “weniger wert” zu sein, als die Polizisten und daher versucht “gleich” zu sein. 452
Der deutsche Sprecher hingegen denkt, er wäre besser als die Polizisten und ihnen überlegen. 453
Der deutschsprachige genießt es und will es hinauszögern und schlimmer machen. Der 454
englischsprachige würde am liebsten gehen. 455
21. Which behaviour of the main speakers of the English and German video do you perceive
as more rude? Please explain your answer. / Empfinden Sie das Verhalten des Hauptsprechers
aus dem englischen oder deutschen Video als unhöflicher? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
German speaker because he attacks the police men personally. 456
d.) AUT 4
Part I: Interview
10. komplett
inakzeptabel
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XLV
Feel free to answer every question in the language that feels most natural to you. / Bitte
beantworten Sie jede Frage in der Sprache, die Ihnen am natürlichsten erscheint.
Part I.I: General Information
43. What is your gender? / Sind Sie ein Mann oder ein Frau?
Ich bin ein Mann. 457
44. How old are you? / Wie alt sind Sie?
Bin fünfundzwanzig. 458
45. What is your country of origin? / Aus welchem Land stammen Sie?
Ich bin aus Österreich. 459
46. What is your current country of residence? / In welchem Land leben Sie derzeit?
Auch in Österreich. 460
47. What is the highest level of education you have completed? / Was ist die höchste
Ausbildung, die Sie abgeschlossen haben?
Die Matura. 461
Part I.II: Linguistic Background
48. What is your native language? / Was ist Ihre Erstsprache?
Deutsch, beziehungsweise österreichisches Deutsch. 462
49. In how many languages are you proficient enough to lead a conversation? / In wie vielen
Sprachen sind Sie kompetent genug, um eine Unterhaltung zu führen?
Drei. 463
49.1. Which are they? / Welche Sprachen sind dies?
Die erste ist Deutsch, gleichzeitig meine Muttersprache. Die zweite ist Englisch, meine L1. 464
Und die dritte ist Italienisch, wobei auf einem sehr niedrigen Level. 465
49.2. When did you acquire/ learn them? / Wann haben Sie sie erlernt/ erworben?
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XLVI
Englisch mit der vierten Klasse Volksschule. Italienisch habe ich erlernt beginnend mit der 466
fünften Klasse Gymnasium, neunte Schulstufe. 467
50. Have you ever lived abroad for an extended period of time? / Haben Sie jemals für
längere Zeit im Ausland gelebt?
Das Längste waren vier Wochen durchgehend, also ohne Besuche in Österreich. 468
If yes / Wenn ja:
50.1. What was the reason for your stay abroad? / Was war der Grund für Ihren
Auslandsaufenthalt?
Arbeit. 469
50.2. How long have you lived abroad? / Wie lange haben Sie im Ausland gelebt/ leben
Sie im Ausland?
Vier Wochen. 470
50.3. Where exactly have you lived during this time? / Wo genau haben Sie während
dieser Zeit gelebt?
In Grottamare. 471
50.4. How does this foreign culture differ from your native culture? / Inwiefern
unterscheidet sich die Kultur des Gastlandes von der Kultur ihres Heimatlandes?
In vielen Hinsichten. Zunächst einmal, die Offenheit ist in Italien in jedem Bereich deutlich 472
spürbarer, wenn auch eher im Süden. Die Zeit, die man mit andren verbringt schätzen zu 473
lernen, das geht in Österreich meiner Meinung nach oft verloren, in Italien ist das so ein 474
kulturelles Phänomen. Man isst gemeinsam zu Abend, egal was man zu tun hat, egal was 475
sonst noch ansteht, es gibt ein gemeinsames Abendessen, was in Österreich oft umgangen 476
wird. Und gleichermaßen nimmt man Freunde anders war in Italien. Also, wenn jemand 477
Zeit braucht, dann ist man da. Nicht, dass das in Österreich nicht der Fall ist, aber in Italien 478
ist das ganze irgendwie offensichtlicher. Dieser ganze ‚Spirit‘. Dieses ganze 479
Zusammenleben funktioniert dort meiner Meinung nach besser. Vor allem weil in Italien 480
mehr auf Traditionen wertgelegt wird als in Österreich. Also, nicht nur so Traditionen wie 481
Ferien, sondern Traditionen, Kultur, Elemente wie eben das gemeinsame Essen, am 482
Sonntag geht’s in die Kirche usw. Was in Österreich immer ein bisschen verkommt. 483
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XLVII
50.5. Do or did you feel immersed into the foreign culture? Please explain your
answer. / Fühlen / Haben Sie sich in diese Kultur integriert gefühlt? Bitte begründen
Sie Ihre Antwort.
Ja, schon. Auch, weil ich als Kind immer viel in Italien war, also über mehrere Wochen, nicht 484
als Urlaub, sondern aus privaten Gründen und mir diese Mentalität sehr gefällt. Und ich hab da 485
nie Probleme gehabt mich zu integrieren und es ist mir deshalb auch so vorgekommen, als wäre 486
ich Teil davon und hab da nie Probleme gehabt. 487
51. Do you perceive yourself as multilingual? Please explain your answer. / Sehen Sie sich
selbst als mehrsprachig? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Ja. Schon. Vor allem mit diesem Vergleich Englisch Deutsch. Weil einsprachig in unserer Zeit 488
nicht funktionieren würde. Oder bzw. die Bereiche, für die ich mich interessiere, hauptsächlich 489
Musik usw., die gibt’s nicht nur auf Deutsch. Oder da gibt’s gar keinen Grund, Sachen auf 490
Deutsch zu machen, auch Begrifflichkeiten, auch Fachtermini usw. in der Musikwelt, die gibt’s 491
nur auf Englisch teilweise, vor allem aus dem Jazz-Bereich. Daher kann man nur mehrsprachig 492
leben, einsprachig hätte man da keine Berechtigung da zu sein. Also, man muss mehrere 493
Sprachen sprechen, ich sehe das nicht mehr als eine Option, sondern als einen Standard. Den 494
muss jeder haben, um sich in der heutigen Kultur zurechtfinden zu können. Auch im Alltag. 495
52. Do you perceive yourself as multicultural? Please explain your answer. / Sehen Sie sich
selbst als multikulturell? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Das eher weniger, oder in nicht so starkem Ausmaß wie mit der ‚multilingual‘-Seite. Einfach 496
deswegen, weil wir nach Österreich – jetzt mit Italien verglichen – gewisse Elemente nicht 497
importieren können wie wir es mit Gewalt möchten. Oder anderes Beispiel, wir gehen zwar auf 498
einen Burger, aber das Schnitzel bleibt uns trotzdem erhalten und ich glaube, das vergisst man 499
nicht. Also, ich schätze andere Kulturen, ich probiere sie gerne aus und ich bin gerne in anderen 500
Kulturen, aber dass ich jetzt multikulturell bin, das glaub ich wiederum nicht. 501
Also fühlst du dich Nicht zwei Kulturen zugehörig?
Nein. 502
Part I.III: Politeness Strategies
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XLVIII
53. What differences have you noticed in the way native speakers of English and German
interact with each other, with regard to politeness/impoliteness? / Welche Unterschiede in der
Interaktion haben Sie zwischen Leuten mit Erstsprache Englisch vs. Erstsprache Deutsch
festgestellt, mit Bezug auf Höflichkeit und Unhöflichkeit?
Dadurch, dass ich hier [Institut für Anglistik] arbeite und viele kennengelernt habe, die einfach 503
Erstsprache Englisch haben, ist mir stark aufgefallen, dass gewisse Floskeln, wie wir sie 504
nennen, gewisse Satzelemente, Satzbausteine, einfach wegfallen. Diese langen deutschen 505
Phrasen, die wir oft verwenden: ‚Störe ich dich gerade?‘, ‚Könntest du mir vielleicht‘ werden 506
auf Englisch stark verkürzt auf „Would you mind“, bum. Also, man merkt eine starke 507
Verkürzung von Phrasen, vor allem in der Höflichkeit. Ich empfinde das aber überhaupt nicht 508
als unhöflich, weil man die Personen kennt und das ergibt sich aus längeren Gesprächen und 509
man weiß auch, wie andere Leute in Gesprächen sind. Daher erwarte ich mir von einer Person 510
mit Erstsprache Englisch keine hocheloquenten, langgezogenen Antworten oder Fragen in 511
Bezug auf Höflichkeit. Also es wirkt für mich nie unhöflich. 512
Aber auf Deutsch würdest du es als unhöflich empfinden wenn jemand so verkürzt ist?
Wenn jemand das auf Deutsch macht, vor allem im schriftlichen Bereich, dann ja. Im 513
Englischen würde es mich aber im Schriftlichen auch nicht stören. 514
54. According to your opinion, which language community places more importance on
politeness and manners, English or German? Please explain your answer. / Welche
Sprachgemeinschaft legt Ihrer Meinung nach mehr Wert auf Höflichkeit und Manieren,
Deutsch oder Englisch? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Ich glaube das ist auch die deutsche Sprachgemeinschaft. Gewisse Phrasen kennen wir zwar 515
aus dem Englischen, so „I’m writing concerning“ usw. die man immer wieder liest, die jeder 516
selbst verwendet, aber wie dann restliche Texte formuliert sind oder wie man mit jemandem 517
am Telefon spricht, kommt mir immer auf einem höheren Level vor, von der Höflichkeit her 518
gesehen, als es im Englischen wäre. Also, wenn ich jetzt zum Beispiel vergleiche, wie ich 519
normal Englisch spreche mit Freunden, und wie ich Englisch spreche mit Personen wo 520
Höflichkeit mir gegenüber erwartet wird, ist es ein kleinerer Schritt als im Deutschen, wo ich 521
mit Freunden spreche zu Personen wo ich höflich klingen soll, wo ich mich gewählt ausdrücken 522
möchte. Da wirkt im Deutschen dieser Schritt höher. Und daher glaube ich, dass es hier eben 523
das Deutsche ist wo mehr Wert auf Manieren, auf Ausdruck usw. gelegt wird. 524
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
XLIX
Vielleicht lässt sich’s zurückführen auf diese historische Sprachentwicklung, wüsste ich jetzt 525
so nicht. Ich glaube, das liegt vielleicht doch stark an der Kultur, wie man miteinander umgeht. 526
Vielleicht ist generell im Deutschen dieses ‚Du‘ und ‚Sie‘, dieser Unterschied, der im 527
Englischen weggefallen ist, ein Grund, der so eine Art Schranke zwischen ‚wer ist mein 528
Freund‘, zu wem sage ich ‚Du‘ und zu wem sage ich Sie‘, was wiederum ganz andere 529
Höflichkeitsterme und anderes Höflichkeitsvokabular erfordert, das dadurch deutlich größer ist 530
im Gegensatz zum Englischen, wo ich diesen Unterschied nicht so deutlich gegeben habe, mit 531
‚Du‘ und ‚Sie‘. Das fällt ja in Texten oder im Sprechen komplett weg. Und daher wird auch 532
vielleicht dieses Vokabular, das man braucht, wenn man sich verständigt, nicht so 533
unterschiedlich ausfallen. 534
55. Which language do you usually choose to express anger or frustration? Please explain
your answer. / Welche Sprache wählen Sie normalerweise, um Ärger und Frustration
auszudrücken? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Das ist Deutsch mit steirischem Anklang. Ich glaube, das liegt daran, weil man das von 535
Freunden, in der Kindheit, beim Aufwachsen, von den Eltern usw. so mitbekommen hat. D.h. 536
wenn ich grantig, frustriert bin, wüsste ich gar keine Möglichkeit, mich auf Hochdeutsch 537
auszudrücken. Und gleichermaßen habe ich das nie als Kind auf Englisch lernen können, weil 538
eben meine Erstsprache Deutsch ist, d.h. ich wüsste nicht, wie ich mich so ausdrücken könnte, 539
auf ähnliche Weise, wie ich es auf Steirisch mache. 540
56. In which language is it easier for you to be polite/ impolite? Please explain your answer.
/ In welcher Sprache fällt es Ihnen leichter, höflich/ unhöflich zu sein? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre
Antwort.
Es fällt mir zirka gleich leicht. Unhöflich logischerweise auf Deutsch, weil eben dieses 541
bekannte Vokabular, das lernt man doch schneller umgangssprachlich in der Erstsprache als 542
jetzt in der Zweitsprache Englisch. Und ich glaube, generell auf Deutsch auch höflicher zu sein, 543
mit minimalem Unterschied, weil ich vielleicht über einen noch größeren Wortschatz verfüge, 544
um mich in gewissen Situationen besser ausdrücken zu können. 545
Part II: Performing (Im)Politeness
Part II.I: Writing Tasks
Please write short e-mails in both English and German.
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
L
7. You have been asked to write a paper/ contribution to a book about your area of
expertise. You already had to ask for an extension on the deadline and now need a second
extension, because an unexpected family issue needs your immediate attention. Write an e-mail
to your professor/editor Dr. Lang about your concern.
Dear Dr. Lang, 546
I am writing concerning a problem with my paper on narrative technique in detective fiction. I 547
would kindly ask you for some more time (N1, N3) because of an unexpected issue that came 548
up in my family (P2). I hope that an extension of the deadline is possible (P2) and look forward 549
to (P2) our (P2) book. 550
All the best, 551
***** 552
Sie sind darum gebeten worden, einen Artikel/ einen Beitrag zu einem Sachbuch aus Ihrem
Fachgebiet zu verfassen. Sie haben schon einmal um eine Fristverlängerung für die Abgabe
angesucht. Nun brauchen Sie eine zweite Fristverlängerung, da ein unerwarteter familiärer
Zwischenfall ihre unmittelbare Aufmerksamkeit erfordert. Schreiben Sie an Ihren/Ihre
ProfessorIn/ HerausgeberIn Dr. Lang.
Sehr geehrter Hr. Dr. Lang, 553
ich schreibe Ihnen bezüglich einer Fristverlängerung für meinen Beitrag (bR1). Aufgrund eines 554
unerwarteten familiären Zwischenfalls (P2) werde ich meinen Beitrag nicht pünktlich 555
fertigstellen können. 556
Mit der Bitte um Ihr Verständnis (bR1) und freundlichen Grüßen, 557
**** 558
8. Today you went to a well-known, fancy restaurant of excellent reputation to celebrate a
special occasion but were highly dissatisfied with the service. The waiter/the waitress was
highly unfriendly, slow and not attentive at all. When asked, he/she could not give any
additional information on the dishes, ingredients or types of wine available. The food was good,
but the bad service spoiled the evening for you in a way that you decided to write to the head
of the restaurant.
Dear Sir or Madam, 559
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LI
I visited your restaurant yesterday and am writing to express my dissatisfaction (bR1) about the 560
service (N4) (AI). The waiter was unable to provide us with additional information on the dishes 561
or the types of wine available (CI). Although the food was good (P3), the service (N4) did not 562
meet my expectations (cCI) (bR1). 563
Yours sincerely, 564
**** 565
Heute wollten Sie in einem bekannten, eleganten Restaurant mit ausgezeichnetem Ruf einen
besonderen Anlass feiern, waren mit der Bedienung jedoch höchst unzufrieden. Der Kellner/
die Kellnerin war sehr unfreundlich, langsam und unaufmerksam. Er/sie konnte auf Anfrage
hin auch keine Informationen zu den Gerichten, verwendeten Zutaten oder Weinen geben. Das
Essen war gut, wegen der schlechten Bedienung war der Abend für Sie dennoch eine große
Enttäuschung, sodass Sie nun an den Chef/die Chefin des Restaurants schreiben.
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, 566
nach meinem gestrigen Besuch in Ihrem Restaurant muss (N4) ich Ihnen mitteilen, dass ich 567
vom Service (N4) enttäuscht bin (bR1). Der Kellner konnte mir keine Informationen über das 568
Essen oder die verschiedenen Weine geben (CI). Obwohl das Essen ausgezeichnet war (P3), 569
entspricht der Service nicht meinen Ansprüchen (bR1) (CI). 570
Freundliche Grüße, 571
***** 572
Part II.II: Evaluation of Impoliteness
Please listen to two audio/video files, one in English one in German.
English:
16. What is your first impression of the speaker’s behaviour?
Very angry, not polite. 573
17. Please put yourself in the shoes of the addressees. How does this situation make you
feel?
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LII
The situation would make me a bit stressed. 574
18. Why do you think the speaker reacts this way? Is his/her reaction justified?
Because of his experience with the police. The reaction is not justified. 575
19. On a scale from one to ten, how rude do you find this behaviour, one being not rude at
all and ten absolutely inappropriate? Please explain your answer.
10
576
1.not rude 5.neutral
It is absolutely inappropriate because of the use of vocabulary 577
20. What exactly do you perceive as rude about his/her behaviour?
The choice of vocabulary/How he talks to the police. 578
Deutsch:
22. Was ist Ihr erster Eindruck vom Verhalten des Sprechers/der Sprecherin?
Egoistisch, überheblich 579
23. Versetzen Sie sich in die Lage des Empfängers. Wie fühlen Sie sich in dieser Situation?
Wie in allen anderen Situationen bei der Arbeit, möglichweise verunsichert. 580
24. Warum, glauben Sie, reagiert der Sprecher/ die Sprecherin auf diese Art? Ist sein/ihr
Verhalten gerechtfertigt?
Er erkennt den Status der Polizei nicht an. Das Verhalten ist nicht gerechtfertigt. 581
25. Auf einer Skala von eins bis zehn, wie unhöflich schätzen Sie das Verhalten des
Sprechers/ der Sprecherin ein? Eins meint hierbei ‚nicht unhöflich‘ und zehn ‚komplett
inakzeptabel‘. Bitte begründen Sie ihre Antwort.
10.absolutely
inappropriate
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LIII
10
582
1.nicht unhöflich 5. neutral
10 – Er beschimpft Polizisten und hält sich an keine Regeln. 583
26. Was genau empfinden Sie am Verhalten des Sprechers/ der Sprecherin als unhöflich?
Die Wortwahl 584
27. In what way do the main speakers of the English and German video (re)act differently?
/ Inwiefern verhalten sich die Sprecher unterschiedlich?
I would not say that they act in different ways. Both videos are very similar. 585
28. Which behaviour of the main speakers of the English and German video do you perceive
as more rude? Please explain your answer. / Empfinden Sie das Verhalten des Hauptsprechers
aus dem englischen oder deutschen Video als unhöflicher? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
The behavior of the speaker from the German video is more impolite. The speaker in the English 586
video is more angry. 587
e.) UK
Part I: Interview
Feel free to answer every question in the language that feels most natural to you. / Bitte
beantworten Sie jede Frage in der Sprache, die Ihnen am natürlichsten erscheint.
Part I.I: General Information
57. What is your gender? / Sind Sie ein Mann oder ein Frau?
I’m male. 588
58. How old are you? / Wie alt sind Sie?
Thirty-one. 589
10. komplett
inakzeptabel
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LIV
59. What is your country of origin? / Aus welchem Land stammen Sie?
From the UK, originally. 590
60. What is your current country of residence? / In welchem Land leben Sie derzeit?
I live here in Austria. 591
61. What is the highest level of education you have completed? / Was ist die höchste
Ausbildung, die Sie abgeschlossen haben?
I’ve got a Master’s degree in English literature. 592
Part I.II: Linguistic Background
62. What is your native language? / Was ist Ihre Erstsprache?
English. 593
63. In how many languages are you proficient enough to lead a conversation? / In wie vielen
Sprachen sind Sie kompetent genug, um eine Unterhaltung zu führen?
If you count English as well, then two. 594
63.1. Which are they? / Welche Sprachen sind dies?
English and German. 595
63.2. When did you acquire/ learn them? / Wann haben Sie sie erlernt/ erworben?
English is my native langauge. German, I started learning at school when I was eleven. I had 596
German lessons throughout school and then studied German for my Bachelor’s degree. And I 597
guess living here in Austria now helps as well. 598
64. Have you ever lived abroad for an extended period of time? / Haben Sie jemals für
längere Zeit im Ausland gelebt?
Yes, unsurprisingly. I have been living here in Graz for nearly nine years now. I also spent a 599
year in Vienna during my studies, a year abroad in Vienna. It’s about a decade I’ve been here 600
in Austria, which is kind of scary. 601
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LV
If yes / Wenn ja:
64.1. What was the reason for your stay abroad? / Was war der Grund für Ihren
Auslandsaufenthalt?
The first time I was abroad in Vienna that was a year abroad. Basically, when you study a 602
language in the UK a year abroad is compulsory as part of that. So I spent a year in Vienna, I 603
was working as a language assistant at the PH [German pronunciation] there and also just trying 604
to improve my German as much as possible while I was there. 605
Then I went back to the UK and finished my studies there, so I did my Bachelor’s degree there 606
and then came back and started working here, so I guess, the reason why I came here was work. 607
Why I came to Graz. 608
64.2. How long have you lived abroad? / Wie lange haben Sie im Ausland gelebt/ leben
Sie im Ausland?
Nine years or a decade. 609
64.3. Where exactly have you lived during this time? / Wo genau haben Sie während
dieser Zeit gelebt?
Vienna and Graz. 610
64.4. How does this foreign culture differ from your native culture? / Inwiefern
unterscheidet sich die Kultur des Gastlandes von der Kultur ihres Heimatlandes?
I would say in a broad kind of sense, in most fundamental ways, Austria and Britain are 611
quite similar, the big kind of things, the way of life. But then, in little kind of aspects there 612
are often differences, so in everyday situations or these kind of things. For example, in 613
Britain we are obsessed with queueing and here you guys have no idea about queueing. 614
People just badge in and do all kinds of stuff all the time. So it’s these little kind of everyday 615
things where I notice the differences, but in a broader kind of sense the cultures are quite 616
similar and I haven’t felt like a massive culture shock or something like that. 617
64.5. Do or did you feel immersed in the foreign culture? Please explain your answer.
/ Fühlen / Haben Sie sich in diese Kultur integriert gefühlt? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre
Antwort.
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LVI
To some extent, yeah. I mean, I have quite a few Austrian friends, I am taking part in various 618
things with them, but I also have English speaking friends or international friends as well. So I 619
have different sort of friendship groups. And when I’m with international friends we may do 620
something very, well, not typically Austrian. I take part in an English speaking pub quiz with 621
some friends or there is a Stammtisch at the Anglo-Austrian circle, a Stammtisch where we 622
meet and hang out and stuff. So I’d say I’m kind of integrated in the sense that I have friends 623
from here and can do everything in my everyday life. I don’t have any problems because I feel 624
like an outsider or anything like that. But I also have a very international group of friends I 625
spend quite a bit of time with, so in that sense, maybe, I’m not always mixing with Austrians 626
all the time. 627
65. Do you perceive yourself as multilingual? Please explain your answer. / Sehen Sie sich
selbst als mehrsprachig? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Yeah good question. I mean, these terms are always difficult to decide what you mean by them. 628
I’m definitely not bilingual, I didn’t grow up speaking German or anything like that, but I guess 629
you could say multilingual. I mean, my level in German is still reasonable. I can do pretty much 630
everything I need to do in German or want to do. So it’s not something that holds me back, so 631
I guess, ya, I guess you could say so. 632
66. Do you perceive yourself as multicultural? Please explain your answer. / Sehen Sie sich
selbst als multikulturell? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
An interesting question as well. Uhm, ya, I think so. I mean, I do still very much have a sort of 633
British identity, I do still see myself as British rather than Austrian, for example. But on the 634
other hand, since living here, I got to see a new culture, a new group of people and stuff. I do 635
think there is … You know, I notice certain things when I get back home to Britain and certain 636
things that I think now: “Oh wow, why do people actually do things like that, that’s actually 637
kind of stupid.” I mean, Britain’s drinking behaviour, for example, causing all kinds of fights 638
and stupid incidences. And then people here drink a lot as well, but then they just stumble off 639
home. I do think I’m multicultural in that kind of sense that I’ve taken bits from the different 640
cultures I’ve been exposed to and knows have formed my values and things like that. Now I 641
sometimes see things in Britain which I don’t agree with anymore or sometimes I see things in 642
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LVII
Austria, still, which I think I prefer the British way of doing this. I’m still sort of in between 643
cultures, I think. 644
Part I.III: Politeness Strategies
67. What differences have you noticed in the way native speakers of English and German
interact with each other, with regard to politeness/impoliteness? / Welche Unterschiede in der
Interaktion haben Sie zwischen Leuten mit Erstsprache Englisch vs. Erstsprache Deutsch
festgestellt, mit Bezug auf Höflichkeit und Unhöflichkeit?
I think there definitely are differences. I don’t know whether it has to do with the language or 645
the country of your origin. I mean, there are also big differences between the US and the UK, 646
for example, even though they are all English speakers. But what I have sort of noticed, 647
comparing my own background to what people here do, I think in Britain, there is definitely 648
more or a sort of attempt to politeness. The forms of politeness are more important in certain 649
situations. For example, if I’m in a shop, I’ll probably say thank you about a million times and 650
even in some situations where there is no need, for example, when you get off a bus in Britain 651
it is very, very common to say thank you to the bus driver. And in a way it’s a bit illogical, I 652
mean, you paid this person for a service, they’ve delivered the service, there is no special thanks 653
you need to render them, but still it’s the common thing to do. It’s just what we do, everyone 654
walks past the bus driver, in a village at least there is only one exit to the bus at the front and 655
everyone walks past the driver and says thanks to the driver as they get off the bus. So there are 656
a lot more politeness strategies used in English, I think. Maybe it’s specific to Britain, I don’t 657
know if it’s the same in the US. I think we are especially extreme in Britain, maybe, compared 658
to other English speaking countries, but there are a lot more politeness strategies used. The 659
question I would ask is to whether we are really politer. I mean, in some way, this is less honest. 660
People in Britain, I think, often pretend to be nice to someone or polite to someone when really, 661
actually, they don’t mean it that way. I’ve had friends from Austria, for example, commenting 662
when they were in the UK, or this applies to the US as well. And they met someone and they 663
were having a good time and this person was like: “Oh ya, you must come around for dinner 664
sometime” or one of these kind of random invitations. And the British person didn’t mean that 665
at all. They were just being sort of friendly in that situation. And the Austrian would take that 666
literally and “Oh, when should we have that dinner?” Actually, I think in Britain we use a lot 667
of these forms of politeness without really meaning it. It’s not an honest intention. It’s more 668
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LVIII
conventionalised in Britain. Same with the bus driver, for example, you’re saying thanks to the 669
bus driver because it’s a convention, not because you are so overwhelmingly grateful that this 670
person has done their job and driven you from this place to this place, which you’ve paid for 671
the privilege of having. Yeah, it’s definitely a convention, a whole kind of system which uses 672
a lot of politeness strategies and stuff. But that’s exactly what it is. It’s a surface level thing, 673
rather than people genuinely being more thankful or polite or something like that. 674
In Austria, I think, people are more honest when they use these kind of things. If they say thank 675
you or please or whatever, then they do that because they really mean it, rather than saying it 676
ten times in any interaction. I mean, it’s more direct, which can seem quite strange when you 677
come from Britain at first and then everything is very abrupt and direct, but it’s also more 678
honest, which I appreciate a lot now. 679
68. According to your opinion, which language community places more importance on
politeness and manners, English or German? Please explain your answer. / Welche
Sprachgemeinschaft legt Ihrer Meinung nach mehr Wert auf Höflichkeit und Manieren,
Deutsch oder Englisch? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Well, I guess some of that is what I just said. I think the English speaking community places 680
more importance on the appearance of politeness, on these forms and strategies and this kind 681
of stuff. But the German speaking community is maybe more honest about it. They use one of 682
these forms and you can know it’s genuine rather than just being something for the sake of 683
appearance and just what you say or do in that situation. 684
69. Which language do you usually choose to express anger or frustration? Please explain
your answer. / Welche Sprache wählen Sie normalerweise, um Ärger und Frustration
auszudrücken? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
English. English is still very much the language of my emotions. It is still very much my 685
dominant language and if there is something that is very strongly felt, like anger or frustration, 686
or something like that, then I would automatically switch to English. 687
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LIX
70. In which language is it easier for you to be polite/ impolite? Please explain your answer.
/ In welcher Sprache fällt es Ihnen leichter, höflich/ unhöflich zu sein? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre
Antwort.
In English it is automatic, so I think English would be my answer. In German, funny enough, I 688
sometimes feel like I’m too polite. I often use the same expressions where I’d put them in in 689
English and throw in ten ‘Dankes’ every time I’m asking for something or whatever. And it’s 690
a bit strange, I think, sometimes. I notice, because I’m trying to improve my German and trying 691
to sound as native-like as possible and I notice the way Austrians do this and then there is me. 692
Oh, I use ‘Danke’ ten times and they just said “Have some money”. In a way I want to work on 693
these, in a way I want to reduce these markers when I speak German, because it’s more natural, 694
more the way people here do things. 695
Part II: Performing (Im)Politeness
Part II.I: Writing Tasks
Please write short e-mails in both English and German.
9. You have been asked to write a paper/ contribution to a book about your area of
expertise. You already had to ask for an extension on the deadline and now need a second
extension, because an unexpected family issue needs your immediate attention. Write an e-mail
to your professor/editor Dr. Lang about your concern.
Dear Dr. Lang, 696
I am writing to ask whether you could possibly (N2) grant me (N3) a second extension to the 697
deadline for my contribution to your (P2) upcoming volume. (N1) I know it is a lot to ask (N4), 698
but unfortunately (N2) an unexpected family issue has arisen (P2) and I have no choice but to 699
deal with this now (N4). As a result, I would be extremely grateful (N5) if you could (N3) 700
extend the deadline once again until 24th April (N1). I hope you understand my situation (P2) 701
and I am very sorry if I have caused you any inconvenience (N4). 702
With kind regards, 703
***** 704
Sie sind darum gebeten worden, einen Artikel/ einen Beitrag zu einem Sachbuch aus Ihrem
Fachgebiet zu verfassen. Sie haben schon einmal um eine Fristverlängerung für die Abgabe
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LX
angesucht. Nun brauchen Sie eine zweite Fristverlängerung, da ein unerwarteter familiärer
Zwischenfall ihre unmittelbare Aufmerksamkeit erfordert. Schreiben Sie an Ihren/Ihre
ProfessorIn/ HerausgeberIn Dr. Lang.
Sehr geehrte Frau Dr. Lang, 705
ich schreibe Ihnen, um eine zweite Fristverlängerung für meinen Beitrag zu Ihrem (P2) 706
Sachbuch anzusuchen (bR1). Leider (N2) hat es in meiner Familie einen unerwarteten 707
Zwischenfall gegeben (P2), der meine unmittelbare Aufmerksamkeit erfordert (N4). Ich bitte 708
Sie deswegen um eine Verlängerung bis 24. April (N1) und entschuldige mich für irgendwelche 709
Unannehmlichkeiten(N4), die durch meine Situation entstanden sind. 710
Mit vielen herzlichen Danke im Voraus (P2), 711
**** 712
10. Today you went to a well-known, fancy restaurant of excellent reputation to celebrate a
special occasion but were highly dissatisfied with the service. The waiter/the waitress was
highly unfriendly, slow and not attentive at all. When asked, he/she could not give any
additional information on the dishes, ingredients or types of wine available. The food was good,
but the bad service spoiled the evening for you in a way that you decided to write to the head
of the restaurant.
Dear Sir or Madam, 713
I am writing to complain about (bR1) the appalling service (N4) I received at your restaurant 714
(AI) on the evening of 9th April. I was very much looking forward to my visit to your 715
establishment as it enjoys an excellent reputation (P3), but unfortunately (N2) the waiter who 716
served us was extremely unfriendly, slow and inattentive. (AI) When we required other 717
additional information, she was completely unable to provide any details about the dishes, 718
ingredients or types of wine available (CI). When we did eventually receive our food the quality 719
was excellent (P3), but regrettably (N2) the quality of the service we received (N4) was so poor 720
(CI) that I felt I had no choice but to write to you and inform you of my experience (2xN4). I 721
hope that you will take steps to remedy the situation and that we will once again be able to 722
enjoy your fine restaurant in the future without the reoccurrence of such an unpleasant event 723
(P2, N4). 724
Yours faithfully, 725
**** 726
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXI
Heute wollten Sie in einem bekannten, eleganten Restaurant mit ausgezeichnetem Ruf einen
besonderen Anlass feiern, waren mit der Bedienung jedoch höchst unzufrieden. Der Kellner/
die Kellnerin war sehr unfreundlich, langsam und unaufmerksam. Er/sie konnte auf Anfrage
hin auch keine Informationen zu den Gerichten, verwendeten Zutaten oder Weinen geben. Das
Essen war gut, wegen der schlechten Bedienung war der Abend für Sie dennoch eine große
Enttäuschung, sodass Sie nun an den Chef/die Chefin des Restaurants schreiben.
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! 727
Ich schreibe Ihnen, um meine große Enttäuschung an der schlechten Bedienung (N4), dich ich 728
letztens in Ihrem Restaurant erlebt habe, auszudrücken (bR1) (AI). Ich habe mich auf den 729
Besuch Ihres Restaurants sehr gefreut, da wir einen besonderen Anlass gefeiert haben (P3), aber 730
der Kellner, der uns bedient hat, war leider (N2) sehr unfreundlich, langsam und 731
unaufmerksam. (bR1) (CI) Als wir ihn gefragt haben, war er nicht einmal in der Lage, uns 732
irgendwelche Informationen zu den Gerichten, verwendeten Zutaten oder Weinen zu geben 733
(CI). Das Essen war gut wie immer (P3), aber die Bedienung (N4) war an dem Abend so 734
schlecht (AI), dass ich mich dazu gezwungen gefühlt habe, mich bei Ihnen zu beschweren 735
(2xN4). Ich hoffe, (P2) sie werden jetzt Maßnahmen nehmen um sicherzustellen, dass so eine 736
Situation nie wieder vorkommt (N1) und wir Ihr höchst angesehenes Restaurant (P3) nach wie 737
vor genießen können (P1, P2). 738
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, 739
**** 740
Part II.II: Evaluation of Impoliteness
Please listen to two audio/video files, one in English one in German.
English:
21. What is your first impression of the speaker’s behaviour?
The speaker behaves extremely aggressively, in contrast to the police officers, who remain calm 741
and polite throughout. 742
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXII
22. Please put yourself in the shoes of the addressees. How does this situation make you
feel?
Unpleasant, as if I am being attacked 743
23. Why do you think the speaker reacts this way? Is his/her reaction justified?
He believes he has been falsely accused because of his skin colour, it is impossible to know 744
whether this reaction is justified without knowing more about the situation, but based solely on 745
the relative politeness of the individuals involved I would hazard a ?????? 746
24. On a scale from one to ten, how rude do you find this behaviour, one being not rude at
all and ten absolutely inappropriate? Please explain your answer.
9
747
1.not rude 5.neutral
9 – the speaker is very rude and aggressive (although if he were genuinely being harassed by 748
the police then it would be justified) 749
25. What exactly do you perceive as rude about his/her behaviour?
Frequent swearing at others, loud and aggressive tone 750
Deutsch:
29. Was ist Ihr erster Eindruck vom Verhalten des Sprechers?
The speaker is relatively aggressive towards the police, using several swear words, but he also 751
makes some reasonable points such as asking to see their ID. 752
30. Versetzen Sie sich in die Lage des Empfängers. Wie fühlen Sie sich in dieser Situation?
Probably similar to the previous video – threatened, as if I am under attack. 753
10.absolutely
inappropriate
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXIII
31. Warum, glauben Sie, reagiert der Sprecher/ die Sprecherin auf diese Art? Ist sein/ihr
Verhalten gerechtfertigt?
He believes he has been falsely accused. The swearing at the polie is unhelpful and I don’t agree 754
with it, but as stated above I think he is okay to ask for proof of ID. 755
32. Auf einer Skala von eins bis zehn, wie unhöflich schätzen Sie das Verhalten des
Sprechers/ der Sprecherin ein? Eins meint hierbei ‚nicht unhöflich‘ und zehn ‚komplett
inakzeptabel‘. Bitte begründen Sie ihre Antwort.
7
756
1.nicht unhöflich 5. neutral
7 – the excessive swearing is impolite, but the speaker also asks some reasonable questions 757
33. Was genau empfinden Sie am Verhalten des Sprechers als unhöflich?
The swearing – calling police ‚arseholes‘, etc. His tone is also quite aggressive. 758
34. In what way do the main speakers of the English and German video (re)act differently?
/ Inwiefern verhalten sich die Sprecher unterschiedlich?
The German speaker combines excessive swearing with some seemingly reasonable requests; 759
the English speaker is purely aggressive and unreasonable. 760
35. Which behaviour of the main speakers of the English and German video do you perceive
as more rude? Please explain your answer. / Empfinden Sie das Verhalten des Hauptsprechers
aus dem englischen oder deutschen Video als unhöflicher? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
English – the speaker is simply rude without attempting to engage with the police or make any 761
reasonable requests 762
10. komplett
inakzeptabel
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXIV
f.) S
Part I: Interview
Feel free to answer every question in the language that feels most natural to you. / Bitte
beantworten Sie jede Frage in der Sprache, die Ihnen am natürlichsten erscheint.
Part I.I: General Information
71. What is your gender? / Sind Sie ein Mann oder ein Frau?
Female. 763
72. How old are you? / Wie alt sind Sie?
You don’t ask British people about their age, but you can put me in the older category, yes. 50, 764
55 upwards. As I said, religion, how much you earn, political party support and age. These are 765
things we tend to consider to be rather impolite to be asked about these things. 766
73. What is your country of origin? / Aus welchem Land stammen Sie?
Scotland. 767
74. What is your current country of residence? / In welchem Land leben Sie derzeit?
Austria. 768
75. What is the highest level of education you have completed? / Was ist die höchste
Ausbildung, die Sie abgeschlossen haben?
PhD. in linguistics. 769
Part I.II: Linguistic Background
76. What is your native language? / Was ist Ihre Erstsprache?
English. 770
77. In how many languages are you proficient enough to lead a conversation? / In wie vielen
Sprachen sind Sie kompetent genug, um eine Unterhaltung zu führen?
Two. 771
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXV
77.1. Which are they? / Welche Sprachen sind dies?
English and German. 772
77.2. When did you acquire/ learn them? / Wann haben Sie sie erlernt/ erworben?
German is the one which I learned when I was in my twenties, apart from learning a little bit at 773
school. So I learned it when I came to Austria. 774
78. Have you ever lived abroad for an extended period of time? / Haben Sie jemals für
längere Zeit im Ausland gelebt?
Yes. 775
If yes / Wenn ja:
78.1. What was the reason for your stay abroad? / Was war der Grund für Ihren
Auslandsaufenthalt?
Work. 776
78.2. How long have you lived abroad? / Wie lange haben Sie im Ausland gelebt/ leben
Sie im Ausland?
Thirtynine years. 777
78.3. Where exactly have you lived during this time? / Wo genau haben Sie während
dieser Zeit gelebt?
I spent three months in France as an Au pair when I was a student and one month studying 778
in France. 779
In Austria I’ve started in Klagenfurt, then I was in Mistelbach in Niederösterreich, then 780
Vienna, then Graz. 781
78.4. How does this foreign culture differ from your native culture? / Inwiefern
unterscheidet sich die Kultur des Gastlandes von der Kultur ihres Heimatlandes?
I think hierarchy is much more important in Austria, about how people interact with each 782
other. People tend to be very aware of where they stand socially. And it’s not just the using 783
titles, but there is much more difference towards people who might be considered higher up 784
in the social stratum. 785
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXVI
And Scottish people tend to banter. If you try to do this kind of stuff and set yourself up 786
above people, in the area where I come from, from the Glasgow area, the chances of you 787
having the feet taken from under you are very high. We talk about ‘I ken your father’, which 788
means ‘I knew your father, so just don’t start any of that with me’. So the kind of behaviour, 789
hierarchical behaviour and arrogance which you get here. You wouldn’t survive in Glasgow 790
with that. That would be sorted out very, very fast. They don’t accept it, but they just think 791
you’re stupid and ridiculous and the chances of you getting a very bad time and being made 792
fun of are fairly high. 793
Sometimes Austrian people are astonished. I remember when, one time, at a seminar, where 794
I was teaching at a seminar with an English colleague, and the two of us were just being 795
awful to one another, we were just making fun of one another all the time. And one of the 796
Austrian participants said “Why are you so horrible to one another?” I said “We talk to one 797
another like this because we like one another”. So this is very much this bantering that goes 798
on. And some of the Austrians interpreted it as being aggressive. And it’s not aggressive at 799
all. You only do this with people that you really feel very comfortable with. So bantering is 800
really important for us. 801
78.5. Do or did you feel immersed in the foreign culture? Please explain your answer.
/ Fühlen / Haben Sie sich in diese Kultur integriert gefühlt? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre
Antwort.
Well, at the beginning it wasn’t so easy, because I was working in English, and I was working 802
at an English department, so the people around me were convergent with my culture, to some 803
extent. And they were English speakers, so it was difficult. But things really got better when I 804
started sharing my home with Austrians and things got better then. People in Klagenfurt are 805
very hospitable and that did help me a lot. But the fact that I didn’t know the language was a 806
huge barrier at the beginning. And that’s something I really worked hard to try and do 807
something about that. 808
79. Do you perceive yourself as multilingual? Please explain your answer. / Sehen Sie sich
selbst als mehrsprachig? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Yes, because I use both languages in my daily life. 809
80. Do you perceive yourself as multicultural? Please explain your answer. / Sehen Sie sich
selbst als multikulturell? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXVII
Yes. Not just between English and German, but also the fact that my friends come from different 810
countries and we just live these cultures with one another. 811
Part I.III: Politeness Strategies
81. What differences have you noticed in the way native speakers of English and German
interact with each other, with regard to politeness/impoliteness? / Welche Unterschiede in der
Interaktion haben Sie zwischen Leuten mit Erstsprache Englisch vs. Erstsprache Deutsch
festgestellt, mit Bezug auf Höflichkeit und Unhöflichkeit?
That is this thing I said about this bantering. I think in Austria people are much more aware of 812
their social standing. Whereas where I come from, it’s almost something that you hide, actually, 813
your social standing. And it’s something you have to be really careful about, because the 814
chances of you being considered to be arrogant and a bit absurd are fairly high. And people in 815
Glasgow will deal with you fairly quickly if you start any of that nonsense. 816
82. According to your opinion, which language community places more importance on
politeness and manners, English or German? Please explain your answer. / Welche
Sprachgemeinschaft legt Ihrer Meinung nach mehr Wert auf Höflichkeit und Manieren,
Deutsch oder Englisch? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
I think both. But just differently. But I don’t think one language is more polite than the other. 817
83. Which language do you usually choose to express anger or frustration? Please explain
your answer. / Welche Sprache wählen Sie normalerweise, um Ärger und Frustration
auszudrücken? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Depends who I’m speaking to. I can use both. 818
And you feel equally comfortable in both languages?
It depends on the context. I’d feel equally comfortable or equally uncomfortable, depending on 819
the context. 820
84. In which language is it easier for you to be polite/ impolite? Please explain your answer.
/ In welcher Sprache fällt es Ihnen leichter, höflich/ unhöflich zu sein? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre
Antwort.
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXVIII
Again, it depends on the context. I’ve got a greater repertoire in English. I think I can be more 821
vicious in English if I want to be, because I’ve got more of a feel. Even after all these years. 822
Part II: Performing (Im)Politeness
Part II.I: Writing Tasks
Please write short e-mails in both English and German.
11. You have been asked to write a paper/ contribution to a book about your area of
expertise. You already had to ask for an extension on the deadline and now need a second
extension, because an unexpected family issue needs your immediate attention. Write an e-mail
to your professor/editor Dr. Lang about your concern.
Dear Dr. Lang, 823
Thank you for granting me an extension (N5) concerning the submission of my contribution to 824
your (P2) forthcoming publication. Unfortunately (N2), I will now be unable to meet this 825
deadline because my father has taken ill (P2). I would like to ask you if you would still accept 826
my paper if (N2) I submitted it one week later (P2). (N1) 827
Thank you (N5) in advance for your understanding (P2). 828
Kind regards, 829
***** 830
Sie sind darum gebeten worden, einen Artikel/ einen Beitrag zu einem Sachbuch aus Ihrem
Fachgebiet zu verfassen. Sie haben schon einmal um eine Fristverlängerung für die Abgabe
angesucht. Nun brauchen Sie eine zweite Fristverlängerung, da ein unerwarteter familiärer
Zwischenfall ihre unmittelbare Aufmerksamkeit erfordert. Schreiben Sie an Ihren/Ihre
ProfessorIn/ HerausgeberIn Dr. Lang.
Sehr geehrter Dr. Lang, 831
vielen Dank (N5) für Ihr Mail. Leider (N2) werde ich den Einreichtermin vom 4. April nicht 832
einhalten können, weil mein Vater plötzlich erkrankt ist (P2). Würden Sie meinen Beitrag eine 833
Woche später, am 11. April, (P2) noch akzeptieren? (N1) Ich entschuldige mich vielmals für 834
die verursachten Unannehmlichkeiten. (N4) 835
Danke (N5) im Voraus (P2). 836
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXIX
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, 837
***** 838
12. Today you went to a well-known, fancy restaurant of excellent reputation to celebrate a
special occasion but were highly dissatisfied with the service. The waiter/the waitress was
highly unfriendly, slow and not attentive at all. When asked, he/she could not give any
additional information on the dishes, ingredients or types of wine available. The food was good,
but the bad service spoiled the evening for you in a way that you decided to write to the head
of the restaurant.
Dear Madam or Sir, 839
I am writing to draw your attention to the poor service (N4, CI) I received today at your 840
restaurant (bR1). Instead of the high quality service I would expect at a restaurant which enjoys 841
such a high reputation (P3), my family was subjected to slow service from a rather abrupt 842
waiter, who seemed poorly informed about the items on the menu. His behaviour spoiled what 843
should have been a happy family occasion (AI). I would appreciate it very much if you could 844
see your way to compensating me for this unsatisfactory experience (N1,N4) (cCI). 845
Yours sincerely, 846
**** 847
Heute wollten Sie in einem bekannten, eleganten Restaurant mit ausgezeichnetem Ruf einen
besonderen Anlass feiern, waren mit der Bedienung jedoch höchst unzufrieden. Der Kellner/
die Kellnerin war sehr unfreundlich, langsam und unaufmerksam. Er/sie konnte auf Anfrage
hin auch keine Informationen zu den Gerichten, verwendeten Zutaten oder Weinen geben. Das
Essen war gut, wegen der schlechten Bedienung war der Abend für Sie dennoch eine große
Enttäuschung, sodass Sie nun an den Chef/die Chefin des Restaurants schreiben.
Sehr geehrte/r Herr/ Frau Schmidt, 848
Heute wollte ich mit meiner Familie eine Sponsion in Ihrem Restaurant feiern. Ich habe gerade 849
dieses Restaurant aufgrund des ausgezeichneten Rufs ausgesucht (P3). Leider (N2) wurden 850
meine hohen Erwartungen nicht erfüllt (bR1): der Kellner war unhöflich und über das Angebot 851
der Speisekarte sehr schlecht informiert (CI). Ich erwarte eine angemessene Kompensation 852
(bR1), vielleicht in Form eines Essens für mich und meine Familie. 853
Hochachtungsvoll, 854
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXX
***** 855
Part II.II: Evaluation of Impoliteness
Please listen to two audio/video files, one in English one in German.
English:
26. What is your first impression of the speaker’s behaviour?
Very aggressive! 856
Provocative 857
27. Please put yourself in the shoes of the addressees. How does this situation make you
feel?
Attacked – The addressee has to exercise restraint here. 858
28. Why do you think the speaker reacts this way? Is his/her reaction justified?
a) Has certain negative expectations of the police 859
b) Yes – there have been too many causes of police brutality, especially towards black 860
people. But he is really 861
29. On a scale from one to ten, how rude do you find this behaviour, one being not rude at
all and ten absolutely inappropriate? Please explain your answer.
10
862
1.not rude 5.neutral
10 – never provoke the police – they are armed + not scared to use their weapons 863
30. What exactly do you perceive as rude about his/her behaviour?
Constant use of f-word 864
Volume! Aggressive tone 865
Challenging police – using imperatives! 866
10.absolutely
inappropriate
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXXI
Deutsch:
36. Was ist Ihr erster Eindruck vom Verhalten des Sprechers/der Sprecherin?
Threatening behaviour – swearing! 867
Police acting correctly – They have the right to ask for identity! 868
37. Versetzen Sie sich in die Lage des Empfängers. Wie fühlen Sie sich in dieser Situation?
Provoked! I am just carrying out my duties and have to put up with obstruction from an arrogant 869
driver with limited vocabulary! 870
38. Warum, glauben Sie, reagiert der Sprecher/ die Sprecherin auf diese Art? Ist sein/ihr
Verhalten gerechtfertigt?
Er ist ein „Besserwisser“! Thinks he is above the law. 871
Nein. 872
39. Auf einer Skala von eins bis zehn, wie unhöflich schätzen Sie das Verhalten des
Sprechers/ der Sprecherin ein? Eins meint hierbei ‚nicht unhöflich‘ und zehn ‚komplett
inakzeptabel‘. Bitte begründen Sie ihre Antwort.
10
873
1.nicht unhöflich 5. neutral
40. Was genau empfinden Sie am Verhalten des Sprechers/ der Sprecherin als unhöflich?
Tone 874
Swearing 875
Failure to recognize that the police are just doing their job. 876
41. In what way do the main speakers of the English and German video (re)act differently?
/ Inwiefern verhalten sich die Sprecher unterschiedlich?
10. komplett
inakzeptabel
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXXII
German speaker appears to know the law. He takes a superior position. 877
42. Which behaviour of the main speakers of the English and German video do you perceive
as more rude? Please explain your answer. / Empfinden Sie das Verhalten des Hauptsprechers
aus dem englischen oder deutschen Video als unhöflicher? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
The English speaker is just rude. 878
The German speaker is rude and arrogant. 879
g.) US
Part I: Interview
Feel free to answer every question in the language that feels most natural to you. / Bitte
beantworten Sie jede Frage in der Sprache, die Ihnen am natürlichsten erscheint.
Part I.I: General Information
85. What is your gender? / Sind Sie ein Mann oder ein Frau?
I’m female. 880
86. How old are you? / Wie alt sind Sie?
It’s extremely impolite, but that’s okay, I don’t care. I’m forty-nine. 881
87. What is your country of origin? / Aus welchem Land stammen Sie?
From the US. From the state Ohio. 882
88. What is your current country of residence? / In welchem Land leben Sie derzeit?
In Austria. 883
89. What is the highest level of education you have completed? / Was ist die höchste
Ausbildung, die Sie abgeschlossen haben?
Magister. I have a German master’s from the States and I have a German and English master’s 884
in teaching in Austria. 885
Part I.II: Linguistic Background
90. What is your native language? / Was ist Ihre Erstsprache?
English. 886
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXXIII
91. In how many languages are you proficient enough to lead a conversation? / In wie vielen
Sprachen sind Sie kompetent genug, um eine Unterhaltung zu führen?
Two. 887
91.1. Which are they? / Welche Sprachen sind dies?
English and German. 888
91.2. When did you acquire/ learn them? / Wann haben Sie sie erlernt/ erworben?
English, I guess, when I was born. And German I started when I was, I think, fourteen. In 889
freshmen high school. 890
92. Have you ever lived abroad for an extended period of time? / Haben Sie jemals für
längere Zeit im Ausland gelebt?
Yes. 891
If yes / Wenn ja:
92.1. What was the reason for your stay abroad? / Was war der Grund für Ihren
Auslandsaufenthalt?
The first time I went abroad was my junior year abroad and I was in Freiburg in Germany for a 892
year. And then, the second time I went abroad I came over as a Fulbright teaching assistant and 893
taught in English in two Gymnasien in Graz. And then I got a scholarship to study in Salzburg 894
for a year. And then I went back to the States to finish my degree. And then I came back to 895
Austria. And I’ve been here, I guess, since then. 896
92.2. How long have you lived abroad? / Wie lange haben Sie im Ausland gelebt/ leben
Sie im Ausland?
In total in Austria twenty-five and then I was in Freiburg for a year, so twenty-six years. 897
92.3. Where exactly have you lived during this time? / Wo genau haben Sie während
dieser Zeit gelebt?
See above
92.4. How does this foreign culture differ from your native culture? / Inwiefern
unterscheidet sich die Kultur des Gastlandes von der Kultur ihres Heimatlandes?
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXXIV
If you had asked me a question like this when I first arrived in Austria I’d have been able 898
to answer it. 899
So, if I’m talking about individuals, I wouldn’t really see any difference because people are 900
people everywhere and it really just depends on if you decide to take on certain cultural 901
norms or not. As far as cultures are concerned, probably, if I just gonna deal with stereotype, 902
because I really don’t know what else to say, because, again, at the end of the day it depends 903
on who you are interacting with. Nationally speaking, if I’m talking about Austrian culture, 904
I’d say maybe Austrians tend to still be a little bit more traditional, perhaps. But it’s a 905
stereotype, because it depends on where you are and it’s certainly not the case, but the 906
advertising industry likes to think that they are all traditional. That doesn’t mean that people 907
in the States aren’t traditional, but maybe because of the fact that, due to its makeup, it’s 908
more multicultural. We tend to take on more traditions. But you can also see that this is 909
happening now in Austria. So a lot of things we have in the States are also happening here. 910
I’d have also said in the past, Austrians paid more attention to tradition when it comes to 911
certain behaviours like drinking coffee out of a porcelain cup and now we see everybody 912
walking around with paper cups. So that has changed a lot, too. So I think it very much has 913
changed since I’ve been here, definitely. 914
It’s a really hard question to answer. I really don’t know, that’s about all I can really say. 915
I’ve been here way too long. And otherwise I feel like I’m just saying stereotypes and I 916
don’t really know if that’s the case. 917
92.5. Do or did you feel immersed in the foreign culture? Please explain your answer.
/ Fühlen / Haben Sie sich in diese Kultur integriert gefühlt? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre
Antwort.
Well, I was probably in a fortunate situation compared to some people who come over in that, 918
first of all, I spoke the language and I had a degree in German, I had lived abroad already. So 919
when I came here to Austria I didn’t really have difficulties in any way, it’s just like coming 920
back. I also grew up in a family that has German roots and that has also kept up the German 921
traditions, so foods and even Nikolo, things like that weren’t really foreign to me in any way. 922
And I’m catholic so living in a catholic country, none of the traditions here were anything new 923
to me either. From the very beginning I had contact with Austrians and I still do. If I’m 924
immersed in the culture, that’s a good question. I don’t know. 925
Do you feel like part of the Austrian culture?
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXXV
Part of the Austrian culture? That’s a good question, because, the thing is, I’d probably answer 926
yes, because I’ve been here so long and I’ve got lots of friends, but when my nephew got 927
married a few years ago, we were all given name tags and I was given the name tag ‘the aunt 928
from the United States’. And I thought this was the most bizarre thing in the world, because 929
I’ve lived here longer than he has, actually, I’m older than him. And I found it very bizarre that 930
I was given that title, although he has known me since he was born, he must still see me as 931
foreign. I think that’s more than me seeing myself as foreign is that you are seen by others as 932
foreign. So when you’re introduced, you’re always introduced as the American, even though 933
I’ve lived here longer than in the United States. 934
But you don’t see yourself as foreign?
When I talk to everyone in the area where I live here and I know all, like the flower lady and 935
the lady that works at the bakery and whatever, I don’t feel that way at all. But I’m always made 936
aware of it when I’m introduced to people, but I’m obviously still seen as an outsider, or that’s 937
how they define me or that’s how they see me and then I have to go through “How long have 938
you been here? How do you like living in Austria?” and all these questions. And you’ve been 939
here for so long that you think to yourself “Why are we going through all this?” 940
Do you think this would be different in the states?
Probably not. It would depend probably on your background. I have a good friend who is 941
Chinese-American, was born and raised in the United States, but lives in California and she 942
says, even to this day, people ask her when she came to the United States. Whereas I would’ve 943
never thought about her that way, because I could live in Ohio and for me, if I see a Chinese 944
person in Ohio I would just assume they live there, but because there are so many people of 945
Asian descent in California I guess that’s a question that’s often asked. 946
In the States it probably wouldn’t be one of the first questions that I ask. Here it’s usually one 947
of the first questions I’m asked. If I hear somebody speaking with an accent in the States it 948
doesn’t really flag up, here, if they hear me speaking German with an accent, it’s automatically 949
flagged up. But I think it’s, again, of this immigrant background we have in the States. So 950
Americans are just more used to it. And I think it’s changing here in Austria. Until recently I’d 951
say, when I came in 89 I’d say Austria was an incredibly homogeneous society. It’s nothing 952
wrong with it and I remember my father coming over and just being freaked out because there 953
were only white people here. He couldn’t believe this was a country where you’d only see white 954
people. It was just so weird for him and he kept saying this is really, really strange. And my 955
father and mother hadn’t been here for a while and they came back a year ago and they couldn’t 956
believe how much it had changed in that time they’d been away. Maybe seven years they hadn’t 957
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXXVI
been to Austria. And they came back and they thought they were in a different country, just the 958
makeup has changed so much just in that short period of time. So we are talking 2016, 2009, 959
something like that. And I came here in 89. So I think things are certainly changing in that 960
direction. 961
Whereby, we were in Vienna a week ago Friday and walking down one of the side streets to go 962
back to our car and I was talking English to my son and a Viennese woman walked past us and 963
said “Wiener leben auch hier” She said it in German and we were talking in English. And she, 964
of course, thought that I didn’t understand. And I just couldn’t even believe that she would say 965
that. I turned around and said “Well, we are from Austria, we are from Graz. Don’t you think 966
that some Austrians also speak English?” And she just walked past me and walked into her 967
apartment. And I was really shocked, we were dressed normally, we were carrying shopping 968
bags, my husband was talking German to my daughter behind us, I was just talking English to 969
my son. Ya, that kind of made me think. I don’t know, maybe people feel a little overrun by the 970
tourists. And here we were speaking English and I thought it was hilarious that she said it in 971
German and assumed that we just didn’t speak German. That she even felt the need to even say 972
that, but then, why did she say it in German, why didn’t she say it in English? Thought that I 973
really didn’t understand. It was hilarious. 974
So, ya, but I think it’s changing, so … Whether people want it or not, it’s changing. 975
93. Do you perceive yourself as multilingual? Please explain your answer. / Sehen Sie sich
selbst als mehrsprachig? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
Yes, I would say yes. Because I can speak in both languages. 976
94. Do you perceive yourself as multicultural? Please explain your answer. / Sehen Sie sich
selbst als multikulturell? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
How do you define multicultural? I don’t even think I’d see myself as multicultural. I don’t 977
really like this terminology, because it probably means there is a hyphen in between and I don’t 978
really like seeing myself as Austrian-American or American-Austrian or something like that. I 979
would kind of say that I see myself as international. So I don’t really prescribe to either of the 980
stuff in the States or the stuff here. Something that works for me, I take a little bit from there 981
and a little bit of here. 982
So you wouldn’t say that you are American or Austrian?
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXXVII
I don’t really think so anymore. I have an American passport, but I think after living abroad for 983
so long… I definitely don’t see myself as Austrian, but I definitely don’t think I see myself as 984
completely American. I always say I probably would fit in somewhere in the middle of the 985
Atlantic. Everything kind of blends together after a while. 986
Part I.III: Politeness Strategies
95. What differences have you noticed in the way native speakers of English and German
interact with each other, with regard to politeness/impoliteness? / Welche Unterschiede in der
Interaktion haben Sie zwischen Leuten mit Erstsprache Englisch vs. Erstsprache Deutsch
festgestellt, mit Bezug auf Höflichkeit und Unhöflichkeit?
I guess with English speakers – I mean, again it’s all going to be generalisation, I mean, it really 987
depends, because if I’m talking about Ohioans, for example, we are definitely much more 988
careful not to hurt anybody’s feelings, so face plays a huge role. Our face, their face, but 989
especially the person we are interacting with, so their face, probably. I mean, I noticed in 990
Germany that people that I know tended to have a bit more of a direct approach to things, but 991
again, that’s what all literature tells us, too. I don’t know if it has to do with the language, or if 992
it’s just the way that they interact, but I mean, sometimes people said things quite brutally to 993
another person’s face that I was a bit shocked by, which I would never have done. But the 994
person that was hearing it didn’t seem bothered at all, so it shows that there are just different 995
ways of seeing things and expressing things. 996
We English speakers do use more softeners, or use a lot of softeners, but then, I’ve been told 997
that Austrians do that a lot, too. A lot of ‘würdest’ and ‘könntest’ and ‘wäre’. 998
If you had asked me these questions when I first came to Austria I would be able to answer 999
them a lot easier. I’ve just been here too long, you don’t see things so black and white anymore. 1000
It’s all mixed. 1001
Then people here, depending on which of my colleagues I’m talking to, the way they interact 1002
might be different because of who they are. It’s an individual thing at the end of the day. It’s 1003
the situation because we know the context is what actually decides a situation. 1004
96. According to your opinion, which language community places more importance on
politeness and manners, English or German? Please explain your answer. / Welche
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXXVIII
Sprachgemeinschaft legt Ihrer Meinung nach mehr Wert auf Höflichkeit und Manieren,
Deutsch oder Englisch? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
I’d say both. I wouldn’t even make a difference. 1005
97. Which language do you usually choose to express anger or frustration? Please explain
your answer. / Welche Sprache wählen Sie normalerweise, um Ärger und Frustration
auszudrücken? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
I have a few words, there is one lovely word in German that I love to use. The word ‘scheiße’ 1006
and it’s so much better than the English word ‘shit’. It just is so much better. Other than that, I 1007
would probably say English. That’s probably the only German word that I would use, ‘scheiße’. 1008
To be honest with you, at first, when I was angry or frustrated with my kids I would speak to 1009
them in German – it just came out, it was my first response -, then I realized it’s probably not a 1010
good thing to do because then they might associate German with something negative. I didn’t 1011
at first say so much in English, I don’t know why. I often spoke to them in English, because 1012
that’s the language we communicate in, but sometimes I said things in German, I don’t know 1013
why. And then I realised that’s not very good, so I started doing it in English. 1014
It’s probably a more spontaneous thing that comes out of my mouth. But I don’t use swear 1015
words and stuff, I don’t do that, I just – if I get angry than it’s more like saying something like 1016
“What are you doing?!” or something like that. Maybe it’s just more natural that comes out, 1017
more spontaneous. 1018
98. In which language is it easier for you to be polite/ impolite? Please explain your answer.
/ In welcher Sprache fällt es Ihnen leichter, höflich/ unhöflich zu sein? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre
Antwort.
Oh that’s easy. English. 1019
Because you just have more of a feeling of what you know is okay and not. And I think 1020
especially with politeness, in informal situations I wouldn’t have a problem with doing it in 1021
German. But in formal situations, to know that I’ve done it the way it’s expected, because there 1022
are certain expectations, especially in writing. I always make sure that somebody who speaks 1023
German looks at it to make sure that I have all my ‘würde’ and ‘könnte’ and ‘wäre’ and 1024
everything right. And if I’m writing an email that I used to write introduction and conclusion 1025
and that I begin in a polite way and stuff. Especially when it comes to writing. But I think it’s 1026
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXXIX
more of a formality thing. Informal I don’t really worry but it’s more a formality thing, because, 1027
you know, you could upset somebody without really meaning to do it. 1028
Maybe because I’ve been here so long. Maybe it’s that and maybe also because I work with 1029
English a lot and I work with students a lot and I’m aware of where they have difficulties when 1030
it comes to formality in English and what kind of an effect it has on me or my colleagues 1031
sometimes. Just recently, in my sociocultural competence class, a student wrote her forum entry 1032
where she talked about when a professor sent back an email saying “Contact me when you 1033
know how to get the politeness right”. And she had written in English. She had written the email 1034
in English and the professor wrote back to her and she uploaded the email – she didn’t write 1035
who the professor was, thankfully – but she uploaded the email on the forum and wanted to 1036
know if we thought it was so impolite. So we had a discussion in class about it. And I think I’m 1037
just much more aware of these things than perhaps if I was just living here, maybe, and not 1038
having this constant contact. But you know, she thought she had expressed it in a polite enough 1039
way, I as a teacher would have thought “Okay, she maybe didn’t get everything right, but she 1040
at least was trying”. And it’s not her first language. So I wouldn’t have responded in that way 1041
at all. But I think, I mean, this is what they say and perhaps this goes into this whole entire thing 1042
that I’ve been here for so long, when people think you have a pretty good control of the language 1043
they will excuse the grammar mistake here and there, but they won’t excuse the politeness stuff. 1044
And that’s the stuff when they think you’re getting it wrong, they think you did it on purpose 1045
or that you are just ignorant. And it could just be a language thing, I think a lot of the times it 1046
comes down to a language thing. 1047
I know that you expect a lot more of people who really seem to have their English completely 1048
under control and then you think that they are going to have all the politeness stuff under 1049
control, too. And you forget that they might be putting on their L1 to maybe make some transfer 1050
there, or they just don’t know, because how are they supposed to know? They just don’t know 1051
everything. I think I’m just acutely aware of that, much more than maybe if I were living here 1052
and didn’t have that, but I’m just very much aware of that. 1053
Part II: Performing (Im)Politeness
Part II.I: Writing Tasks
Please write short e-mails in both English and German.
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXXX
13. You have been asked to write a paper/ contribution to a book about your area of
expertise. You already had to ask for an extension on the deadline and now need a second
extension, because an unexpected family issue needs your immediate attention. Write an e-mail
to your professor/editor Dr. Lang about your concern.
Dear Dr. Lang, 1054
I’m writing with regard to my contribution to your (P2) book. I was very grateful for the 1055
extension that you gave me (N5) and realize (N4) that this may put you behind schedule (P3). 1056
However, I’m very sorry (N4) that I have to ask for a second extension (N1) due to an 1057
unexpected family issue (P2). If, at this point, you would prefer that I withdrew my contribution 1058
(P2, N5), I completely understand (P3) as this would mean a further inconvenience for you 1059
(N4). I look forward to your response (P2) and thank you (N5) in advance for your 1060
understanding. (P2) 1061
Kind regards, 1062
***** 1063
Sie sind darum gebeten worden, einen Artikel/ einen Beitrag zu einem Sachbuch aus Ihrem
Fachgebiet zu verfassen. Sie haben schon einmal um eine Fristverlängerung für die Abgabe
angesucht. Nun brauchen Sie eine zweite Fristverlängerung, da ein unerwarteter familiärer
Zwischenfall ihre unmittelbare Aufmerksamkeit erfordert. Schreiben Sie an Ihren/Ihre
ProfessorIn/ HerausgeberIn Dr. Lang.
Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Lang! 1064
Ich schreibe in Bezug auf meinen Beitrag zu Ihrem (P2) Buch. Obwohl Sie mir schon eine 1065
Fristverlängerung genehmigt haben (N5), muss ich leider (N4) um eine weitere Verlängerung 1066
wegen einem familiären Zwischenfall (P2) bitten (bR1). Ich würde es verstehen (P2, P3), wenn 1067
Sie mein Ansuchen nicht genehmigen können (N3), da Sie Ihre Frist halten müssen (P3). Ich 1068
danke Ihnen (N5) im Voraus für Ihr Verständnis (P2). 1069
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, 1070
**** 1071
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXXXI
14. Today you went to a well-known, fancy restaurant of excellent reputation to celebrate a
special occasion but were highly dissatisfied with the service. The waiter/the waitress was
highly unfriendly, slow and not attentive at all. When asked, he/she could not give any
additional information on the dishes, ingredients or types of wine available. The food was good,
but the bad service spoiled the evening for you in a way that you decided to write to the head
of the restaurant.
Heute wollten Sie in einem bekannten, eleganten Restaurant mit ausgezeichnetem Ruf einen
besonderen Anlass feiern, waren mit der Bedienung jedoch höchst unzufrieden. Der Kellner/
die Kellnerin war sehr unfreundlich, langsam und unaufmerksam. Er/sie konnte auf Anfrage
hin auch keine Informationen zu den Gerichten, verwendeten Zutaten oder Weinen geben. Das
Essen war gut, wegen der schlechten Bedienung war der Abend für Sie dennoch eine große
Enttäuschung, sodass Sie nun an den Chef/die Chefin des Restaurants schreiben.
Comment: I would never do this because I wouldn’t waste my time on something like this and 1072
I wouldn’t want the person to lose his/her job – maybe they were just having a bad night! 1073
Part II.II: Evaluation of Impoliteness
Please listen to two audio/video files, one in English one in German.
English:
31. What is your first impression of the speaker’s behaviour?
He is angry and expressing his aggression verbally. 1074
32. Please put yourself in the shoes of the addressees. How does this situation make you
feel?
I’m tired of having to put up with people acting aggressively towards me when I’m just doing 1075
my job – I have to be careful not to do anything that might exacerbate the situation. 1076
33. Why do you think the speaker reacts this way? Is his/her reaction justified?
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXXXII
Because he is angry for whatever reason: unjust punishment; racial issues; has to get to work 1077
and would be late … 1078
I don’t know – it isn’t clear from the video why he was pulled over. 1079
34. On a scale from one to ten, how rude do you find this behaviour, one being not rude at
all and ten absolutely inappropriate? Please explain your answer.
10
1080
1.not rude 5.neutral
35. What exactly do you perceive as rude about his/her behaviour?
Choice of vocabulary 1081
Yelling and not giving the officer a chance to talk with him 1082
Not treating the officer with respect – BUT we don’t know why he was pulled over – perhaps 1083
his reaction is justified. 1084
Deutsch:
43. Was ist Ihr erster Eindruck vom Verhalten des Sprechers/der Sprecherin?
Er ist ein Besserwisser – but I dont see him as a threat – more like someone who just likes to 1085
sport off 1086
44. Versetzen Sie sich in die Lage des Empfängers. Wie fühlen Sie sich in dieser Situation?
I would just be laughing on the inside, but doing my job on the outside. I wouldn’t be able to 1087
take him seriously. 1088
45. Warum, glauben Sie, reagiert der Sprecher/ die Sprecherin auf diese Art? Ist sein/ihr
Verhalten gerechtfertigt?
10.absolutely
inappropriate
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXXXIII
Because he feels like he is above the law – he doesn’t take the police seriously – he is not afraid 1089
oft hem and feels stronger than tem. 1090
I don’t know. I don’t know the situation. 1091
46. Auf einer Skala von eins bis zehn, wie unhöflich schätzen Sie das Verhalten des
Sprechers/ der Sprecherin ein? Eins meint hierbei ‚nicht unhöflich‘ und zehn ‚komplett
inakzeptabel‘. Bitte begründen Sie ihre Antwort.
10
1092
1.nicht unhöflich 5. neutral
47. Was genau empfinden Sie am Verhalten des Sprechers/ der Sprecherin als unhöflich?
Word choice – Beamten+swear words 1093
Quoting laws/ years to make his moot point 1094
Not showing respect to the officers – BUT again we don’t know why? Maybe he was provoked? 1095
48. In what way do the main speakers of the English and German video (re)act differently?
/ Inwiefern verhalten sich die Sprecher unterschiedlich?
English – lots of swear words, out of car and moving around – seems to mistrust/ fear the police 1096
– due to social stratum in the USA?? 1097
German – not afraid of police at all and seems to be above them – also swears a lot BUT tries 1098
to show off with knowledge 1099
49. Which behaviour of the main speakers of the English and German video do you perceive
as more rude? Please explain your answer. / Empfinden Sie das Verhalten des Hauptsprechers
aus dem englischen oder deutschen Video als unhöflicher? Bitte begründen Sie Ihre Antwort.
The German speaker – because he talks above the officers and tries to show off as being better 1100
than them – Doesn’t show any respect for their job. 1101
10. komplett
inakzeptabel
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals
LXXXIV
V) Legend: Text Analysis
I chose to use colour coding for the analysis of the mock-emails. Red was used to mark bald on
record strategies, pink for positive politeness strategies, blue for negative politeness strategies
and green for off-record strategies. In addition to this, I used yellow to mark forms of address,
indicated introductory phrases by underlying them in red, farewells by underlining them in
yellow and titles by underlining them in purple:
Bald on record Positive politeness Negative politeness off-record
Form of address introductory phrase farewell title
Additionally, I included the abbreviations given in Table 3 to specify the category of strategies
used in the respective section.
Concerning forms of impoliteness, I marked acts of affective impoliteness by using red
letters and acts of coercive impoliteness by using light green letters. Additionally, I included
the abbreviations AI for affective impoliteness and CI for coercive impoliteness at the end o the
respective section. When an act of affective impoliteness and bald on record coincide, I used
red to indicate the bald on record strategy and white letters to marke affective impoliteness.
When a section can be characterised as both affective and coercive impoliteness, I used red and
light green letters alternately:
Affective impoliteness Coercive impoliteness
Affective impoliteness and bald on record Affective and coercive impoliteness
