Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton October 20, 2020

How can ethnography contribute to understanding (im)politeness?

Rosina Márquez Reiter


This article presents an invitation to explore the benefits of adopting an ethnographic approach to (im)politeness research rather than an introduction to, or overview of, a well-established method in anthropology. It unfolds in four parts. In the first, I discuss some of the different ways in which (im)politeness scholars have grappled to reconcile lay and analyst understandings of (im)politeness with varying degrees of success. In the second, I offer the background of two examples which were gathered as part of ethnographic fieldwork in a contemporary migratory context. The examples deal with two classic topics in (im)politeness research: greetings and indirectness. The analysis demonstrates how insights from ethnography can enrich (im)politeness analysis by helping us to close the gap between lay and theoretical understandings of the practice. In the final section, I address the importance of delimiting the value of (im)politeness practices in the social reality of the speakers under study and invite colleagues to reflect on the societal impact of the discipline, including the expansion of the discipline beyond its middle-class milieu.


Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618284Search in Google Scholar

Arundale, Rob. 1999. An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics. 9. 119-154.10.1075/prag.9.1.07aruSearch in Google Scholar

Atkinson, Robert. 1998. The life story interview. London: Sage.10.4135/9781412986205Search in Google Scholar

Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Translated by: Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar

Blommaert, Jan. 2007. Sociolinguistic scales. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(1). 1-19.10.1515/IP.2007.001Search in Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper. 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. (Appendix: the CCSARP coding manual.). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1990. You don’t touch lettuce with your fingers: Parental politeness in family discourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 14(2). 259-288.10.1016/0378-2166(90)90083-PSearch in Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar

Butler, Judith. 2012. Precarious life, vulnerability, and the ethics of cohabitation. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy. 26. 134-15110.5325/jspecphil.26.2.0134Search in Google Scholar

Cicourel, Aaron. 1980. Three models of discourse analysis. Discourse Processes 3(2): 101-13110.1080/01638538009544482Search in Google Scholar

Desmond, Matthew. 2014. Relational ethnography. Theory and Society 43(5) 47-579.10.1007/s11186-014-9232-5Search in Google Scholar

Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.10.4324/9781315760179Search in Google Scholar

Englund, Harri. 2002. Ethnography after globalism: Migration, emplacement in Malawi. American Ethnologist. 29. 261-286.Search in Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. 1956. Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology 61(5). 420-424.10.1086/221800Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.10.4324/9780203788387Search in Google Scholar

Goldstein, Tara. 1997. Two languages at work. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110815221Search in Google Scholar

Graham, Sage & Claire Hardaker. 2017. (Im)politeness in digital communication. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Daniel Kádár (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. UK: Palgrave.10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_30Search in Google Scholar

Gumperz, John. 1983. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611834Search in Google Scholar

Hammersley, Martyn & Paul Atkinson. 1995. Ethnography: Principles in practice. London and New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315146027Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2015. Im/politeness implicatures. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110240078Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael & Jonathan Culpeper. 2018. Integrative pragmatics and (im)politeness theory. In Cornelia Ilie & Neil R. Norrick (eds.) Pragmatics and its Interfaces. 213-239 Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/pbns.294.10hauSearch in Google Scholar

Hutchby, Ian & Robin Wooffitt. 1998. Conversation analysis. Principles, practices, and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jansen, Stef & Staffan Löfving. (eds.) 2009. Struggles for home: Violence, hope and the movement of people. New York and Oxford: Berghahn BooksSearch in Google Scholar

Kádár, Daniel & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139382717.006Search in Google Scholar

Le Page, Robert & Andrée Tabouret-Keller. 1985. Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.10.4324/9781315835976Search in Google Scholar

Lipski, John. 1994. Latin American Spanish. New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Malinowski, Bronislaw 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.10.2307/3031829Search in Google Scholar

Márquez Reiter, Rosina. 2002. A contrastive study of conventional indirectness in Spanish: evidence from peninsular and Uruguayan Spanish. Pragmatics. 12. 135-51.10.1075/prag.12.2.02marSearch in Google Scholar

Márquez Reiter, Rosina. 2006. Interactional closeness in service calls to Montevidean carer service company. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 39: 7-39.10.1207/s15327973rlsi3901_2Search in Google Scholar

Márquez Reiter, Rosina. 2009. How to get rid of a telemarketing agent: Face-work strategies in a Spanish intercultural service call. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Michael Haugh (eds.). Face, Communication and Social Interaction. 55-77. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Márquez Reiter, Rosina. 2011. Mediated business interactions: Intercultural communication between speakers Spanish. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.3366/edinburgh/9780748637201.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Márquez Reiter, Rosina. 2018. Interviews as sites of ideological work, Spanish in Context. 15. 54-76.10.1075/sic.00003.marSearch in Google Scholar

Márquez Reiter, Rosina & Michael Haugh. 2019. Denunciation, blame and the moral turn in public life. Discourse, Context & Media. 28. 35-43.Search in Google Scholar

Márquez Reiter, Rosina & Dániel Kádár. In press. Sociality and moral conflicts: migrant stories of relational vulnerability. Pragmatics and Society.Search in Google Scholar

Márquez Reiter, Rosina & Adriana Patiño-Santos. 2017. The discursive construction of moral agents among Spanish-speaking Latin American retailers in Elephant & Castle, Tilburg Papers in Cultural Studies, 194. Tilburg University: Netherlands.Search in Google Scholar

McIlwaine, Cathy & Diego Bunge. 2016. Towards Visibility: the Latin American Community in London. London: Trust for London.Search in Google Scholar

Méndez Vallejo, Catalina. 2014. The M word: Face and politeness in Colombian Spanish. Dialectología. 12. 89-108.Search in Google Scholar

Office for National Statistics. UK Census 2011. Available at:, Accessed on 21/3/208Search in Google Scholar

Patiño-Santos, Adriana & Rosina Márquez Reiter. 2019. Banal interculturalism: Latin Americans in Elephant and Castle, London. Language and Intercultural Communication. 19(3). 227-241.10.1080/14708477.2018.1508292Search in Google Scholar

Placencia, María Elena & Carmen García. 2007. (eds.). Politeness in the Spanish-speaking world. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Pratt, Mary Louise. 1991. Arts of the contact zone. Profession. 33-40.Search in Google Scholar

Rampton, Ben. 2007. Neo-Hymesian linguistic ethnography in the United Kingdom. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 11-5. 584-607.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00341.xSearch in Google Scholar

Sbisà, Marina. 2009. Uptake and conventionality in illocution. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5(1). 33-5210.2478/v10016-009-0003-0Search in Google Scholar

Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173438Search in Google Scholar

Spradley, James. 1980. Participant observation. Wadsworth: Cengage.Search in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 1986. That’s not what I meant!: How conversational style makes or breaks your relations with others. New York: Ballantine.Search in Google Scholar

Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in interaction. London: Longman.10.4324/9781315842011Search in Google Scholar

Vološinov, Valentin. 1929/1973. Marxism and the philosophy of language. Translated by Ladislav Matejka & Irwin R. Titunik, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Watts, Richard. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615184Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-08-27
Accepted: 2020-09-30
Published Online: 2020-10-20
Published in Print: 2021-02-26

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston