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
178
Embed
Politeness Strategies in Multilinguals Diplomarbeit
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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.
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
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
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).