Ideologies of politeness
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aijmer, K.
    (1996) Conversational routines in English. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Babiniotis, G.
    (1969) 0 dia syntheseos ypokorismos is tin Ellinikin (Derivational diminution via compounding in Greek). Athens: Sofia N. Saripolos Library.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bach, K. & Harnish, R.M.
    (1980) Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C.
    (1987) Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, H.H.
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  6. Daltas, P.
    (1985) Some patterns of variability in the use of diminutive and augmentative suffixes in spoken Modern Greek Koine (MGK). Glossologia4: 63–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dressier, W.U. & Merlini Barbaresi, L.
    (1994) Morphopragmatics: diminutives and intensifies in Italian, German and other languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110877052
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877052 [Google Scholar]
  8. Durkheim, E.
    (1976) The elementary forms of the religious life. London: George Allen & Unwin. [First edition: 1915]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Escandell-Vidal, V.
    (1996) Towards a cognitive approach to politeness. In: Jaszczolt, K. & Turner, K. (eds.)Contrastive semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 629–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fillmore, C.J.
    (1977) Scenes-and-frames semantics. In: Zampolli, A. (ed.)Linguistic structures processing. Amsterdam: North Holland, 55–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. George, S.
    (1990) Getting things done in Naples: action, language and context in discourse description. Bologna: Bologna Editrice.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Glick, D.J.
    (1996) A reappraisal of Brown and Levinson’s Politeness: some universals in language use eighteen years later . Semiotica109: 141–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goffman, E.
    (1967) Interaction ritual: essays in face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1971) Relations in public: microstudies in the public order. London: Penguin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1976) Replies and responses. Language in society5: 257–313. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500007156
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500007156 [Google Scholar]
  16. Joseph, B. & Philippaki-Warburton, I.
    (1987) Modern Greek. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Jurafsky, D.
    (1996) Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language72: 533–78. doi: 10.2307/416278
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416278 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Mackridge, P.
    (1985) The Modern Greek language: A descriptive analysis of Standard Modern Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Mao, L.M.
    (1994) Beyond politeness theory: ‘face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics21: 451–486. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90025‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6 [Google Scholar]
  22. Mey, J.
    (1993) Pragmatics: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Minsky, M.
    (1975) A framework for representing knowledge. In: Winston, P. (ed.)The psychology of computer vision. New York: MacGraw-Hill, 211–277.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Philippaki-Warburton, I.
    (1992) Eisagogi sti theoritiki glossologia (An introduction to theoretical linguistics). Athens: Nefeli.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Schank, R.C. & Abelson, R.P.
    (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W.
    (1995) Inter cultural communication: a discourse approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Sifianou, M.
    (1992) The use of diminutives in expressing politeness: Modern Greek versus English. Journal of Pragmatics17: 155–73. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90038‑D
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90038-D [Google Scholar]
  28. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.
    (1995) Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Tannen, D.
    (ed.) (1993) Framing in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (1994) Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Triantafyllides, M.
    (1963) I geniki ton ypokoristikon se -aki kai to Neoelliniko klitiko systima (The genitive of diminutives in -aki and the Modern Greek system of inflections). In: Apanta Manoli Triantafyllidi (The complete works ofManolis Triantafyllides). Vol. II. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modem Greek Studies, 141–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Turner, K.
    (1996) The principal principles of pragmatic inference: politeness. Language teaching29: 1–13. doi: 10.1017/S0261444800008211
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800008211 [Google Scholar]
  33. Werkhofer, K.T.
    (1992) Traditional and modern views: the social constitution and the power of politeness. In: Watts, R.J. , Ide, S. & Ehlich, K. (eds.)Politeness in language: studies in its history, theory and practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 155–199.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error