|May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)|
|Contents||Bulletin||Scripting in shell and Perl||Network troubleshooting||History||Humor|
|Tactful communication||Recommended Books||Recommended Links||Gabor's Checklist||Diplomatic Communication|
|Six ways to say 'No' and mean it||Rules of Verbal Self Defense||Socratic Questions||Never complain about your boss in office||Minimize office gossip||Five Points Verbal Response Test|
|Dealing With Negative Criticism||Surviving a Bad Performance Review||Corporate bullshit||The Art of Positive Criticism||Psychopaths in Movies||Fighting direct verbal abuse|
|Communication with Corporate Psychopaths||Communication with Micromanagers||Seven Typical Corporate Email Errors||The Eleventh Commandment||Humor||Etc|
Negative politeness can be called "politeness as a strategy for self-protection". There are many advantages of practicing this form of sustained negative politeness – keeping a safe distance from others. Even when being critical. It is related to understanding that sustained courtesy provide an opportunity of keeping as safe distance from others while minimizing negative feeling about such detachment. Cold detached respect for others were once a trait cultivated among aristocratic families. Probably not without reason, as this is a powerful tool for minimizing conflict. The key idea here can be formulated as "familiarity breeds contempt".
Brown and Levinson (1978) define the following two notions, corresponding to two types of politeness:
The terms are quite misleading. A better term for negative face might be "emotional distance and respect of the other rights and privileges". The term positive face does seem appropriate, as a way to delimit those aspects of one’s persona that are desirable to others.
Nonetheless, it is useful to distinguish two types of politeness:
One of the cultural differences between USA and Great Britain is the English preference for "negative politeness" (showing respect). This is opposite to the typical (and often fake) American style "positive politeness" (showing solidarity, claiming common ground, demonstrating "we are in the same team" attitude).
As Kate Fox’s Watching the English noted:
“[Negative politeness] is concerned with other people’s need not to be intruded or imposed upon (as opposed to 'positive politeness’, which is concerned with their need for inclusion and social approval)”
Positive politeness usually begins with a personal question or compliment and assumes that subordinate and boss share common interests, are part of the same team and can operate on familiar terms ("bridging the gap" strategies).
A good description in context of various cultures can be found at Sheffield Hallam Working Papers Linguistic Politeness and Context
Brown and Levinson’s characterisation of politeness strategies as either positive (paying attention to the others’ face needs) or negative (ensuring that the other is not imposed on) has been modified by Scollon and Scollon (1995).
The Scollons assert that it is preferable to refer to such strategies as ‘involvement’ or ‘distancing' strategies as this terminology avoids the implicit evaluation contained in Brown and Levinson’s terms. They also suggest that ‘the concept of face has built into it both aspects: involvement and independence must be projected simultaneously in any communication’, but they go on to argue that ‘the reason involvement and independence are in conflict is that emphasizing one of them risks a threat to the other’ (Scollon and Scollon, 1995: 38).
Indeed, the ‘involvement’ strategies which British and American speakers generally use when they first meet a stranger can create great unease and difficulty on the part of the foreign language speaker. Most British and American people of a particular age range (i.e. under around 40-50 years of age) in initial encounters insist on first names being used as quickly as possible, whether the interaction is between relative equals or those in a hierarchical relation. Reciprocal first name use seems often to be taken by British and Americans to indicate that the encounter with a stranger is proceeding well and that a certain equality and ease of interaction has been established. However, for many foreign speakers of English, this strategy of first name use produces embarrassment caused by seeming over-familiarity.
Involvement strategies and seeming egalitarianism in general are viewed by Americans and British as self-evidently better than the hierarchical and deferent alternatives which are often preferred by certain other language groups in such encounters (which include the use of formal titles, such as Doctor, Professor, Mr. or Mrs.).
Therefore, these involvement strategies are insisted on, so that very often the foreign language user is corrected by the native speaker if she or he uses a more ‘distancing’ [ naming] strategy. This is a misapprehension caused by misunderstanding pragmatic interactional rules employed in countries where ‘participants are considered to be equal but treat each other at a distance’, through using the analogy of the way that formality and distancing generally functions within British or American societies (Scollon and Scollon, 1995:44).
Although it is fairly easy to demarcate the stereotypical linguistic attributes of national groups or cultures, (for example, the Finns are silent, the Dutch are very direct, the British are reserved, Americans are brash, and so on), a reliance on stereotypical features blinds us to the way in which the notion of a homogeneous culture is intensely problematic. As Foley argues: ‘If culture is the domain of cultural practices, those meaning-creating practices by which humans sustain viable trajectories of social structural coupling, it is obvious that culture should not be understood as a unified domain whose contents are shared by all’ (Foley, 1997: 21). One’s national identity is cross-cut by other variables such as class, ethnicity, gender, age, education, income, profession and so on, and these variables determine to a large extent the degree to which you will have access to these stereotypes of national linguistic behavior, or whether you feel affiliated to them - simply put, not everyone feels that they are a stereotypical British person, and therefore they may not feel that they can, or want to, adopt the stereotypical linguistic features of Britishness easily. Thus, a young white working class female shop-assistant may not necessarily feel that she is included in the national characteristics associated with Britishness to the same extent that a white middle class middle-aged businessman might, and therefore their linguistic performance may differ markedly...
... ... ...
If we can provide strategies for intercultural linguistic encounters we can go some way to narrowing down the opportunity for misunderstandings which may lead to utterances being considered to be impolite. At least by considering the various strategies which are available in naming, it forces us to consider the Anglocentric option of first name only use as only one option among many.
Negative politeness is often used to make a request seem less infringing as people assess threatening aspects of communication using three components:
From this point of view it is really important to avoid or minimize "face threatening acts" (FTA) in communication.
This minimization includes two components:
Here are a table that might clarify (or not :-) some concepts involved:
Focus Preserving Threatening
Concentration on self-image preservation, avoiding direct references on disagreements proposing actions Concentration on disagreements and criticism of other actions
Concrete offers, suggestions, etc without delving into generic issues
Attempt to discuss or address generic issues while proposing actions. Criticisms, sarcasm, humor
Compliments, Thanks, Apologetic language
Autonomy, Deference and regard for territory Concentration on distancing (desire for autonomy) and respect for differences Concentration on involvement , teamwork and common ground
Absence of reaction on emotional outbursts and "emotions leakage"
Empathy and/or overreaction on emotional outbursts
Ambiguous, deniable, "off record"
Direct, "in your face", "on record"
The main focus in adopting negative politeness is to assume that you may be imposing some restriction on the other, intruding into their social space. Which implicitly increases the awkwardness in the situation and provokes hostility. The methods that allow the opponent to "save face" and at the same time preserve "emotional distance" aka "personal autonomy" include but are not limited to:
Here are variants of the same simple verbal request, varying from "positive, direct" to "negative, indirect":
Here’s a polite person’s trick, one that has never failed me. I will share it with you because I like and respect you, and it is clear to me that you’ll know how to apply it wisely: When you are at a party and are thrust into conversation with someone, see how long you can hold off before talking about what they do for a living.
...Politeness buys you time. It leaves doors open.
...People silently struggle from all kinds of terrible things. They suffer from depression, ambition, substance abuse, and pretension. They suffer from family tragedy, Ivy-League educations, and self-loathing. They suffer from failing marriages, physical pain, and publishing.
The good thing about politeness is that you can treat these people exactly the same. And then wait to see what happens. You don’t have to have an opinion. You don’t need to make a judgment. I know that doesn’t sound like liberation, because we live and work in an opinion-based economy. But it is.
Not having an opinion means not having an obligation. And not being obligated is one of the sweetest of life’s riches.
Although many of us value directness, indirectness does have its place. At times, conveying information indirectly can be a safe way — sometimes the only safe way — to preserve or restore wellbeing and comity within the organization.
We were always direct in all our communications, the world would be a boring place — when it wasn't busy being dangerous and explosive. Many cultures (including my own) value directness, but indirectness has its uses, and we'd all benefit if everyone understood better when to use it.Uses of indirectness abound. For example, consider the question, "How do you like my new haircut?" Even if we customarily lie, we all recognize the evasive reply, "Interesting..."
Here are just some of the uses of indirectness at work.
- Deference to authority
- Sometimes deference to authority is essential to survival within the organization, especially when conveying criticism. Indirectness can provide a means to surface important information. Yet, in extreme situations, even indirectness can be risky.
- Mitigating the risk of offense
- Conveying information to someone directly can risk offense, especially in the absence of a request for it. We can mitigate this risk by asking permission to make the offer, as in, "I have something on that, would you like to hear it?" Even then, some risk does remain. An indirect approach can be a less risky way to offer it. For instance, "If you want some background on that, let me know." We'd all benefit if
everyone understood better
when to use indirectness
- Deferring to those in pain
- When emotions are raw, and people are hurting, direct approaches are often rejected — if they don't make things even worse. Sometimes it's best to wait for healing, but indirectness can provide a channel for urgent communications.
- Maintaining deniability
- Sometimes it's necessary to convey information covertly, especially when you work in a politically unsafe environment. Hinting, suggesting, and speaking to be overheard are sometimes used this way. Of course, the lack of safety is fundamental, and it must be addressed, but short-term needs sometimes intervene before you find the long-term solution. Using indirectness for this purpose can be a signal that it's time to either resolve the safety issue or move on.
- Preserving or transferring of ownership
- When the message recipient must take ownership of the information, delivering the message directly can be problematic. Directness can result in a loss of ownership, or it can interfere with transfer of ownership. Using an indirect approach, such as hinting or speaking to be overheard, leaves the way clear for the recipient to assume ownership.
- Leaving space for creativity
- Conveying a direct message to problem solvers can bias their process. It can limit their creativity and it can cause them not to examine possibilities that they otherwise would. Indirect suggestions can give them necessary guidance with significantly less risk of biasing or limiting their creative process.
To whatever degree your own culture values indirectness, be assured that in this age of global teams you'll someday encounter someone who considers you overly direct. Prepare for these situations, if you want to be considered polite.
Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset.
There are two contrasting aspects to politeness. On the one hand we want to gain the respect of others, and on the other hand, we want the ability to do whatever we want without other people impeding us. So politeness involves both awarding esteem (positive politeness) and not getting in anyone’s way (negative politeness)
AmE employs more positive politeness. Being considerate and courteous involves including people and showing approval with warmth and friendliness. The stereotype of the garrulous American who gives you a run-down of their entire life history within five minutes of meeting them is rooted in this. It’s just not polite to hold back. You’ve got to show solidarity, share and be open.
Meanwhile BrE employs more negative politeness. Being considerate and courteous involves not imposing or intruding on people. The stereotype of the aloof, standoffish and reserved Brit is rooted in this. It’s polite to leave people alone so they can go about their business without your getting in their way.
I’m using the terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ here in a technical sense. It’s not that American politeness is good and British politeness is bad. They’re just different, like electric currents can be termed positive or negative without being better or worse than one another. Both aspects of politeness are important in both cultures (and indeed all cultures). But we’re looking at a difference in weighting here.
I maintain that this difference is core to understanding how the UK and US came to be separated by a common language.
In everyday conversation, there are ways to go about getting the things we want. When we are with a group of friends, we can say to them, "Go get me that plate!", or "Shut-up!" However, when we are surrounded by a group of adults at a formal function, in which our parents are attending, we must say, "Could you please pass me that plate, if you don't mind?" and "I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but I am not able to hear the speaker in the front of the room." I different social situations, we are obligated to adjust our use of words to fit the occasion. It would seem socially unacceptable if the phrases above were reversed.
According to Brown and Levinson, politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearers' "face." Face refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that "self-esteem" in public or in private situations. Usually you try to avoid embarrassing the other person, or making them feel uncomfortable. Face Threatening Acts (FTA's) are acts that infringe on the hearers' need to maintain his/her self esteem, and be respected. Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with these FTA's. What would you do if you saw a cup of pens on your teacher's desk, and you wanted to use one, would you
- say, "Ooh, I want to use one of those!"
- say, "So, is it O.K. if I use one of those pens?"
- say, "I'm sorry to bother you but, I just wanted to ask you if I could use one of those pens?"
- Indirectly say, "Hmm, I sure could use a blue pen right now."
There are four types of politeness strategies, described by Brown and Levinson, that sum up human "politeness" behavior: Bald On Record, Negative Politeness, Positive Politeness, and Off-Record-indirect strategy.
- If you answered A, you used what is called the Bald On-Record strategy which provides no effort to minimize threats to your teachers' "face."
- If you answered B, you used the Positive Politeness strategy. In this situation you recognize that your teacher has a desire to be respected. It also confirms that the relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity.
- If you answered C, you used the Negative Politeness strategy which similar to Positive Politeness in that you recognize that they want to be respected however, you also assume that you are in some way imposing on them. Some other examples would be to say, "I don't want to bother you but..." or "I was wondering if ..."
- If you answered D, you used Off-Record indirect strategies. The main purpose is to take some of the pressure off of you. You are trying not to directly impose by asking for a pen. Instead you would rather it be offered to you once the teacher realizes you need one, and you are looking to find one. A great example of this strategy is somethin g that almost everyone has done or will do when you have, on purpose, decided not to return someone's phone call, therefore you say, " I tried to call a hundred times, but there was never any answer."
Negative politeness is often used to make a request seem less infringing, says David A. Morand, Ph.D., a Pennsylvania State University associate management professor. It can include apologetic language ("Sorry to bother you, but..."), verbal hedges ("I wonder if you could...") and honorific terms like "Dr.". Morand's research, published recently in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, shows that negative politeness is often preferable to positive politeness, which usually begins with a personal question or compliment and assumes that subordinate and boss share common interests, are part of the same team and can operate on familiar terms.
This approach can appear pushy or presumptuous, and "in the workplace, it's important to show deference and regard for territory," Morand says.
While any type of excessive politeness can imply subservience and cause ambiguity, Morand warns, in general, negative politeness verbally disarms a superior. "The communicator isn't just being obsequious," he explains. "It shows that he knows their time is important."
Conversational Interaction: Politeness and Face Management
Conversational implicature: Speakers convey, and hearers interpret, nonliteral meanings. Raises two issues:
- Why do people convey nonliteral meanings?
- How do hearers determine which specific indirect meaning is intended?
One answer = politeness
Politeness and Language Production
Politeness = theoretical construct to explain link between language use and social context (not lay conception of politeness);
- - how remarks are formulated as a result of the speaker's cognitive assessment of the social context
- - politeness exists at interface of linguistic, social, cognitive processes
Most popular approach developed by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (1978; 1987); links the major dimensions of social interaction with the ways in which people talk with one other.
Goffman, Face, and Face-work
Goffman (1967), face = "the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact"; not a specific identity but successful presentation of any identity.
Have face, save face, lost face, etc.
Face is on display (when with others) and must be maintained via Face-work: communications designed to create, support, challenge a line.
- avoidance rituals - (Durkheim's negative rites); autonomy;
- presentation rituals (Durkheim's positive rites) connection
Face and face-work provides mechanism for emergence of interaction order out of self-serving individuals. Face-work is cooperative; face can only be given by others, it's in everyone's best interest to maintain face (insults?)
Brown and Levinson's Politeness Theory
Extends Goffman: more precise specification of face and face-work. Face comprised of two universal wants:
Negative face: autonomy; freedom from imposition
Positive face: connection with others
Matches up with Goffman, Durkheim, Bakan, McAdams. Positive and negative face continually threatened (for S and H). Certain acts inherently threatening (cultural variability)
Type of Face-Threat
Negative Face Positive Face
Hearer Requests Disagreements
Speaker Promises Apologies
Acceptance of offer Emotional leakage
Thanks Compliment acceptance
Multiple threats possible:
- Compliment (support H's positive face; threatens H's negative face)
- Request (threaten H's negative face; threaten (potentially) H's positive face; why haven't you done this)
Fundamental conflict: interactants motivated to cooperatively manage each others' positive and negative face
interactants want/need to perform social acts inherently threatening to positive and negative face
Fundamental conflict motivates politeness (face-work).
Politeness = deviation from maximally efficient communication (Gricean maxim violations)
To perform an act other than in the most clear and efficient manner is to implicate some degree of politeness on part of speaker
Politeness typology (continuum; extent to which face concerns are encoded)
Bald on record Shut the door
No politeness (maximally
On-record: Positive politeness How about shutting the door
Address positive face wants
On-record: Negative politeness Could you be so kind to shut the door?
Address negative face wants
Off-record politeness It's warm in here
Ambiguous (multiple interp-
retations possible; that's not
what I meant)
Don't perform act
Some important distinctions:
Off-record (speaker meaning ambiguous, deniable)
vs. On-record (speaker's intended meaning relatively clear; but not maximally efficient)
Positive politeness (presumptuousness) is less polite than negative politeness (derived from Goffman/Durkhiem ordering of negative rites as more deferential and hence polite than positive rites)
More detail on strategies:
Off-record Politeness. Based on violating Grice's maxims:
- quality maxim (say what is true) - sarcastic irony (e.g., "That's brilliant", when it is not), metaphor (e.g., "My job is a jail"), rhetorical questions (e.g., "Did someone leave the light on?"),
- manner maxim (be clear) result in the use of euphanisms and vagueness regarding the face-threatening act (e.g., "I wonder who forgot to do the dishes?").
- quantity maxim (be as informative as required) can result in understatement (e.g., "It's OK" as a less than positive response to another's new haircut) and overstatement ("The line in the grocery store was a mile long" as an excuse). Also, denying believed propositions (e.g., Ronald Reagan is not an alcoholic) increases belief in proposition.
- relation maxim (be relevant) raising an issue can trigger a directive interpretation (e.g., "I'm thirsty" as a request for something to drink). Responses to face-threatening questions (see below)
Problem: inferential processing required?
Negative Politeness. No inference required; oriented to the recipient's negative face (desire for autonomy). Address negative face in some way, primarily by lessening the imposition and/or providing options.
- Conventional indirect forms (most common) question or assert felicity conditions underlying the act "Will you shut the door?", "Can you shut the door?", "Are you able to shut the door?", "Did you shut the door?", "I want you to shut the door", and so on. It appears that all languages allow for the performance of conventional indirect requests..
- Avoid presumptions - use hedges; e.g., "if" clauses suspending the relevant felicity conditions -> "Close the window, if you can", and "Turn up the heat, if you want". Hedge Grice's maxims; e.g., quality maxim (and hence the sincerity felicity condition) yield assertions such as "I think abortion is wrong" (vs. the direct "Abortion is wrong")
- minimize the imposition (e.g., "I just stopped by to get that manuscript"; i.e., my imposition is limited to just this one act, and "Could I borrow a cigarette?" vs. "Could I have a cigarette?")
- communicate explicitly that one does not want to impinge on the other(e.g., "I don't want to bother you, but could you give me a hand?"), admitting the impingement ("I know you're busy but could you take a look at this?"),
Positive Politeness. No inference required. Approach-based. Stake of a claim for some degree of familiarity with one's interlocutor. Language of intimacy (exaggerated serves to mark the positive politeness that is being conveyed) Positive politeness is also free-ranging and need not (necessarily) address the threat associated with the specific act being performed; it can be used with acts threatening either positive or negative face.
claim common ground
- - ingroup markers such as familiar address terms (honey, luv, mate, pal, bud, etc.) and/or slang ("Lend me a couple of bucks, OK?"),
- -similarity of interests by commenting on the other's appearance, belongings and so on ("Oh, I see you got a new haircut").
- -emphasis on approach rather than avoidance (e.g., don't ignore anothers runny nose (a negative politeness strategy), attend to it (e.g., by presenting the runny nose with a tissue).
- -find agreement with one another at some level: noncontroversial topics (e.g., the weather, sports, etc.), small talk and gossip, token agreement (e.g., "Yes, but....."), hedging their opinions (e.g., "I kinda think that abortion is wrong" vs. "Abortion is wrong") .
- -indicate awareness and concern for the hearer's positive face wants (e.g., "I hope you don't think me rude, but your tie is hideous") and/or convey a promise that addresses the hearer's positive face ("I'll stop by next week").
- - optimism (vs. Negatively polite pessimism) ("I'm sure you won't if I help myself to a beer").
- -use inclusive terms (e.g., "Let's have a beer"; vs. "Give me a beer")
- fulfil the other person's wants (directly and substantially, rather then symbolically (as is accomplished with the above strategies)) : Gift- giving.
Some support for ordering of superstrategies (in terms of perceived politeness) and for ordering of negative politeness strategies (e.g., Would you x? less polite than Could you x?; former presumes ability). Some cross-cultural evidence
Major exception: Off-record not most polite
Issues: politeness = indirectness?
Positive politeness less polite than negative politeness? (Specificity principle)
Interpersonal Determinants of Politeness
Which politeness strategy will an interactant choose?
Choice depends on weighting of motivation to communicate efficiently (e.g., emergency situations) and motivation to manage face
Greater perceived face-threat (act weightiness) -> greater likelihood for use of more polite strategy
Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx
D = distance
P = power
Rx = imposition
Variables defined in terms of speaker's perceptions (individual and cultural variability possible)
Power and distance match up well with other views of basic interactional dimensions.
general strategy manipulate one or more of these variables and examine their impact on politeness (ask Ss what they would say or examine what they actually say)
- consistent effects for power variable; increasing levels of politeness associated with increasing levels of hearer power (many speech acts and methods) (e.g., Goguen & Linde)
-fairly consistent support for imposition variable; greater politeness occurring for acts representing a greater imposition (for many speech acts)
-inconsistent findings for relationship; positive, negative, and null relationships reported. Logic is that in unfamiliar relationships (high distance) the potential for aggression is unknown and so interactants must use politeness to signal the lack of an aggressive intent. So, familiarity or liking?
-effects of three variables not additive; as estimates of any one of the three variables become quite large, the effects of the other two variables on politeness become much smaller.
-effects of politeness variability on person perception. Direct perceived more powerful, etc. (Occurs in Korea and U.S.; subtle wording effects)
Status of the Face Concept
Aggressive face-work ; different from lack of politeness (bald on record). How to explain (include aggressive face-work category?)
Overemphasis on hearer's face (at expense of speaker's face); but by supporting the other's face, one is supporting one's own face.
However, sometimes a tradeoff between self-other face (e.g., apologies)
Face as a cultural universal
Politeness continuum not valid cross-culturally (Katriel; Sabra prefer direct)
Relevance of negative politeness only in cultures emphasizing individual autonomy (Western); Rosaldo (1982) Llongot, directives not threatening because they reference group membership and responsibility not individual responsibility
But, cultural variability assumed; politeness theory can be used as framework for examining cultural differences
E.g., cultural differences in weighting interpersonal variables can predict politeness variability; differences in assumptions (e.g., distance) can predict differential levels of politeness.
Emphasizes (along with speech act theory) single turn or utterance as primary unit of meaning and face-work.
But much face-work and meaning is negotiated and coordinated over a series of moves. Face-work/meaning can be missed if focus on single turn.
Conversation Analysis - (Schegloff, Sacks, Jefferson). Rigorous, atheoretical, inductive, empirical examination of conversational structure.
Some results demonstrate sequential patterning of face-work (authors would disagree with face management interpretation)
For example, pre-sequences (specifically, pre-requests)
(1) A: Doing anything?
(2) B: Nah,
(3) A: Want to look at my computer now?
(4) B: Sure
Analysis (following Levinson): (1) check on potential obstacles; will request succeed? Can avoid making request if likely to not succeed. B can offer following (1), request is avoided altogether
Many other examples: moves to avoid/lessen disagreement; self-disclosure, etc.
Politeness and Language Comprehension
Little research; but if politeness plays a role in production it should also play a role in comprehension
The problem: Given the occurrence of a maxim violation, how do hearers decide the intended, indirect meaning? An infinite number of implicatures are possible.
Interpersonal underpinnings of comprehension:
- - hearers attempt to explain why maxim violation occurred (Hastie, Graesser); attempt to explain unexpected.
- -if face management (politeness) motivates indirectness, hearers should consider face management as a reason for the violation;
assume speaker is engaging in face management and interpret remark as conveying face threatening information.
Andy: What did you think of my presentation?
Bob: It's hard to give a good presentation.
Some supportive evidence:
Ss interpret replies as conveying face-threatening information
Difficult to comprehend when situation is altered so that not face- threatening
Note: Positive evidence can be threatening in some situations.
- High level, comprehensive account of interpersonal implications of language; possible cross-cultural framework
- Emphasis on single utterance/turn as unit
Softpanorama hot topic of the month
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit exclusivly for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
ABUSE: IPs or network segments from which we detect a stream of probes might be blocked for no less then 90 days. Multiple types of probes increase this period.
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least
Copyright © 1996-2016 by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. www.softpanorama.org was created as a service to the UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) in the author free time. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License.
Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|You can use PayPal to make a contribution, supporting development of this site and speed up access. In case softpanorama.org is down you can use the at softpanorama.info|
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.
Last modified: December, 25, 2016