A critique of politeness theories

By Gino Eelen. 2001

435 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Gender and impoliteness (2005, background): “It is not so much quantitative, but rather a qualitative problem (Eelen 2001: 104).”
Phonetics and politeness: Perceiving Korean honorific and non-honorific speech through phonetic cues (2014, background): “…fundamental distinction and the one which Korean speakers are the most sensitive to (Lee and Ramsey, 2000:260).3 Politeness is of course a complex phenomenon that has been defined in different ways (see Eelen, 2001:1--29) and that 71 has different cross-linguistic and cross-cultural realizations.”
Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research (2012, background): “The rise of the first-second order distinction in politeness research, and its subsequent extension to face, is briefly outlined next with special attention being paid to the various ways in which it has been conceptualized relative to the emic-etic distinction following Eelen (2001).”
The bases of (im)politeness evaluations : culture, the moral order and the East–West debate (2015, background): “(For further discussion, see Eelen, 2001; Haugh, 2012; Kádár and Haugh, 2013.)”