Publication: Politeness Strategies in Criticisms and Responses in TESOL Quarterly Forum
Submitted Date
Received Date
Accepted Date
Issued Date
2014
Copyright Date
Announcement No.
Application No.
Patent No.
Valid Date
Resource Type
Edition
Resource Version
Language
en
File Type
No. of Pages/File Size
ISBN
ISSN
1513-5934 (Print), 2651-1479 (Online)
eISSN
DOI
Scopus ID
WOS ID
Pubmed ID
arXiv ID
item.page.harrt.identifier.callno
Other identifier(s)
Journal Title
rEFLections Journal
Volume
18
Issue
Edition
Start Page
46
End Page
63
Access Rights
Access Status
Rights
Rights Holder(s)
Physical Location
Bibliographic Citation
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Title
Politeness Strategies in Criticisms and Responses in TESOL Quarterly Forum
Alternative Title(s)
Author(s)
Author’s Affiliation
Author's E-mail
Editor(s)
Editor’s Affiliation
Corresponding person(s)
Creator(s)
Compiler
Advisor(s)
Illustrator(s)
Applicant(s)
Inventor(s)
Issuer
Assignee
Other Contributor(s)
Series
Has Part
Abstract
Politeness is pervasive in human interaction and crucial for social cooperation so as to avoid offenses and communication breakdown. Indeed a number of studies have investigated politeness strategies in academic discourse, shedding light on how interaction in academic discourse involves extensive use of politeness strategies. This paper aims to extend this body of knowledge, looking into a genre that has rarely been studied. This paper investigates politeness strategies in “A Reader Responds” and “Authors Reply” in the Forum section of TESOL Quarterly journals which were published from 2005 to 2009, using Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory and Hyland’s (2000) mitigation strategies as analytical frameworks. Moreover, this paper proposes two new strategies: backgrounding FTA and attributing faults to the speaker. Data analysis indicates that the politeness strategies employed by both “A Reader Responds” and “Authors Reply” that were identified included: hedges, praisecriticism pairs, impersonalization, tense shift, assert a common ground, nominalize, rhetorical question, and backgrounding FTA. The strategies only found in “A Reader Responds” are overgeneralizing hearers and attributing faults to the speaker. In conclusion, this study finds that these academic genres are highly interactive and thus require many politeness strategies to deal with the issues of face which is at stake due to the nature of these genres.