How (Not) To Be Rude: Facilitating The Acquisition of L2 (Im) Politeness.

Intercultural Pragmatics 2018; 15(5): 651–691
Caroline L. Rieger*
How (not) to be rude: Facilitating
the acquisition of L2 (im)politeness
https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0023
Abstract: This article argues for frequent targeted teaching of relational lan-
guage use or (im)politeness in the L2 classroom. The approach presented here
draws on authentic data in the target language and in the language of instruc-
tion, which are readily available online. It encourages the learner to make use of
their multilingual resources and is exploratory in nature, allowing for a deep
engagement with (im)politeness, viz., an extensive array of semiotic features
invested in the co-construction of social relations in every social interaction.
Working at the interface of (im)politeness studies, intercultural pragmatics,
interlanguage pragmatics, and language pedagogy, and undertaken from the
perspective of interpersonal pragmatics and relational work, the qualitative
analysis focuses on the collaborative work products from participatory learning
activities of intermediate to advanced learners of German at a large North-
American university. Results show the learners’ raised awareness and broa-
dened knowledge. In particular, learners became aware that what is judged as
(im)polite is dependent on the relationship of the interactants, the gender of the
interactants, the sociocultural background, norms, values, and believes of the
interactants, the context of the interaction, the affiliations of the evaluator, the
sociocultural background, norms, values, and believes of the evaluator, etc.
Results also suggest that some of the learners need to develop their pragmalin-
guistic skills further to fully participate in the evaluation of pragmatically rich
target language discourse. Additional studies are needed to explore the impact
on the learners’ interactional competence.
Keywords: L2 politeness teaching, L2 impoliteness teaching, L2 pragmatics,

intercultural interaction, relational work, German
*Corresponding author: Caroline L. Rieger, Department of Central, Eastern and Northern

European Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada,
E-mail: carolin@mail.ubc.ca
Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

Authenticated
Download Date | 10/4/19 5:50 AM
652 C. L. Rieger
1 Introduction
The negotiation and co-construction of (im)politeness1 is an essential part of
interactional competence. Following the discursive turn in (im)politeness studies
(cf. Eelen 2001; Haugh 2007; Kecskes 2015; Locher 2012; Watts 2003) (im)polite-
ness is understood and studied as relational work or rapport management, that
is, as a dynamic, co-negotiated, co-constructed, sociopragmatically and socio-
culturally relative, situation-specific phenomenon that is part of every social
interaction and contributes to the creation of social identities (cf. Agha 2007; van
der Bom and Mills 2015; Culpeper 2011; Eelen 2001; Haugh and Chang 2015;
Kádár and Haugh 2013; Locher 2004, 2006, 2011, 2012; Locher et al. 2015; Locher
and Watts 2005, 2008; Mills 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011; Pizziconi 2015;
Pizziconi and Locher 2015; Rieger 2015, 2017; Spencer-Oatey 2000, 2005; Watts
2003, 2005, 2008). In other words, (im)politeness is not necessarily a property of
linguistic forms, but a property of the sociopragmatic usage of these forms in
conjunction with other communicative and interactional behavior in situ. Any
linguistic term, phrase, or formula that can be used to render an utterance polite
can also be used to offend just like linguistic terms or expressions that are used
to offend can be utilized for different purposes. Take, as a case in point, example
(1) from Kecskes (2015). Kecskes recorded it at Fuzhou Airport between a Chinese
waitress and an Australian customer. Here is part of the exchange:
Chinese: - Can I get you some more coffee, sir?

Australian: - Who is stopping you?
(Kecskes 2015: 44)2
Kecskes stresses that the italicized expression “in this actual situational context
sounded very rude according to the norms of most varieties of the English
language” (44) and adds that the Australian’s mimic did not express teasing. I
assume that neither did his tone of voice. Further, from additional information
provided by Kecskes we can deduce that the waitress and the customer did not
know each other, i.e. they did not have a certain routine or ritual that would
allow for a different, a non-impolite interpretation of the phrase, Who is stopping
1 The terms ‘(im)politeness’ and ‘(im)polite behavior’ refer to behavior that can be perceived as
impolite, non-polite, mock polite, polite, over-polite, or anything in between by interlocutors,
observers, or researchers. Through the bracketed prefix a repeated listing of a number of terms –
used to denote or evaluate the alleged degree of impoliteness or politeness of communicative
behavior – can be avoided. Whenever the lexeme ‘polite’ is used in any of its forms without the
bracketed prefix it does refer to the term used at that point, not to the range of terms.
2 See also Kecskes (2017: 9).

Authenticated
How (not) to be rude 653
you? All these additional explanations, and the list is by no means complete,
point the reader towards my point, namely that the interpretation of Who is
stopping you? depends on many factors and is co-negotiated within an interac-
tional context.
Kecskes (2015, 2017) uses the example as a point of departure to show that
extra factors come into play when users of an additional language (L2)3 are
confronted with the interpretation of linguistic formulae in intercultural encoun-
ters. In addition to the obvious one, familiarity with L2 linguistic formulae,
Kecskes stresses L2 users’ tendency to interpret unknown L2 linguistic formulae
literally, which is what the waitress in the aforementioned example did and it
resulted in confusion. Kecskes (2017: 10) also points out that “[t]he actual
situational context did not help” the waitress “recover the communicative mean-
ing of the utterance”. In addition to context, individual evaluation is important
when it comes to the interpretation of interactional behavior as (im)polite and
both are “crucial in intercultural interactions” (Kecskes 2017: 11).
Kecskes (2017) argues that situational context affects intercultural interac-
tions differently than it does L1 interactions.
When processing politeness or impoliteness functions of utterances, interlocutors in inter-

cultural interactions may rely primarily on (mainly L1-based) prior context in meaning
construction and comprehension rather than on actual situational context. (Kecskes 2017: 23)
For this reason, situational context is not as useful to L2 users when it comes to
the interpretation of utterances as (im)polite. In turn, L2 users tend to focus on
the literal meaning of the utterance and thereby they might misinterpret and/or
disregard the relational aspects of their intercultural interactions. While Kecskes
(2017) reasons that findings like these call for an (im)politeness theory that takes
them into account so it can be applied to intercultural interactions, this study
concentrates on practical implications. It argues that given the added difficulties
and the pervasive nature of (im)politeness, L2 learners, who are frequently also
L2 users, need more opportunities to practice and to learn about (im)politeness
in order to hone their L2 interactional and transcultural skills, their “ability to
operate between languages” (MLA 2007) and “mediate between cultures”
(Liddicoat 2014). Yet, most learners of an additional language (L2) hear about
3 In this article, the focus is on language(s) learned after the primary socialization. For ease of
reading, they are referred to as either additional language(s) or L2(s), and those terms are used
interchangeably and without attaching any ideological value to either. Correspondingly, users
and learners of an additional language are referred to as either L2 users, L2 learners or language
learners, and the latter two terms are used interchangeably to mean anyone who is learning a
language after their primary socialization in a formal or informal instructional context.

Authenticated
654 C. L. Rieger
(im)politeness rather rarely and/or inadequately (cf. Bella et al. 2015; Haugh and
Chang 2013, 2015; House 2015; Pizziconi 2015; Pizziconi and Locher 2015; Rieger
2015, 2017) although most everyone would agree that language in use has more
than the transactional purpose of imparting information. Atkinson (2002), for
instance, states that a “major use of language is to negotiate and maintain
relationships between people” (527). Thereby acknowledging that language use
always has an interpersonal, relational function.
German L2 curricula and textbook series often treat the pervasive relational
aspects of language use as an afterthought. The teaching of (im)politeness is
reduced to the presentation and practice of linguistic forms, formulae and
(stereotyped or idealized) politeness conventions (cf. Rieger 2017; Scialdone
2009). For instance, L2 learners of German with English as a first language
(L1) or language of instruction learn that German speakers use the term
‘danke’ when English speakers use ‘thank you’. Regularly, no attention is
drawn to the fact that certain situations in an Anglo community might require
a thank you, whereas they might not involve ‘danke’ or any expression of
gratitude in a German community and vice versa. In other words, socioprag-
matic usage – both in relation to differences to the learners’ L1 or in relation to
L2 (or L1) internal variation – is often ignored (cf. Rieger 2015).
It is not surprising then that a fourth year North-American university student
in an advanced German language class defines politeness as, “Augenkontakt,
bitte und danke (eye contact, please and thank you), respectful body language”
(see Rieger 2015: 100). Equating politeness with linguistic forms and respectful
non-verbal communication with no mention of intra- and/or inter-community
variation, (social and situational) context, relationship between interlocutors,
intra- and/or intercultural differences in the perception and interpretation of
what constitutes respectful communication or behavior seems too simple for an
advanced learner of an additional language who is also a third or fourth year
university student. It is, however, consistent with a curriculum that still neglects
sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic aspects of language use or that treats them
as rule and norm guided, static features and disregards current research
knowledge.
The present study is part of a larger research project with a pedagogical
focus. In stark contrast to more conventional approaches to (im)politeness
teaching, this approach does not set out to teach certain verbal or non-verbal
behavior or linguistic forms and expressions as (in)appropriate, rather it seeks to
draw attention to the dynamic relationship between form and meaning as well
as the neglected non-linguistic aspects of politeness (cf. Fukushima and Sifianou
2017: 531). Its pedagogical goals are to increase L2 learners’ metapragmatic
knowledge and awareness of (a) their own understanding of (im)polite behavior;

Authenticated
(b) others’ understanding of (im)polite behavior; (c) the facts that (im)politeness
indexes social relations and is co-negotiated between interlocutors; and, finally,
(d) to sensitize the learner to differences in the views, judgments, and negotia-
tions of what constitutes (im)polite behavior across, between and within larger
speech communities or communities of practice (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet
1992, 1998; Lave and Wenger 1991) in order for them to build the necessary skills
to co-negotiate meaning in intercultural encounters.
This project on the teaching and learning of (im)politeness in a German L2
instructional context was undertaken to design and evaluate an additional
approach to existing L2 pragmatic instruction, such as concept-based pragmatic
instruction (van Compernolle 2011, 2014; van Compernolle and Henery 2014,
2015; van Compernolle et al. 2016) or pragmatic instruction using data from
conversation analytic studies (Barraja-Rohan 2011; Betz and Huth 2014; Huth
2006, 2007, 2010; Huth and Taleghani-Nikazm 2006; Taleghani-Nikazm and
Golato 2016). While both these approaches are valid, teaching materials are
scarce (Pizziconi 2015: 127), and, especially with regard to the latter approach,
hard to come by. The approach presented here, developed for a learner who uses
the L2 as the main, however not as the only medium of classroom communica-
tion, draws on authentic data as teaching materials in the target language and in
the institute’s language of instruction, which are readily available online. It
encourages the learner to make use of their multilingual resources and is
exploratory in nature.
The larger research project set out (a) to determine criteria for the selection
of authentic interactional materials to be used in conjunction with participatory
learning activities for the instruction of (im)politeness to intermediate and early
advanced language learners with the aforementioned learning objectives; (b) to
select and analyze such materials from an interpersonal pragmatics (Haugh
et al. 2013; Locher 2015; Locher and Graham 2010) and relational work (Locher
2004, 2006, 2011, 2012; Locher and Watts 2005, 2008; Watts 1989, 2003) per-
spective; (c) to design and examine the necessary participatory learning activ-
ities for use with the selected materials; (d) to analyze the learning outcome
from the perspective of interpersonal pragmatics and relational work to deter-
mine how helpful the chosen approach and materials are with regard to the
described learning objectives – if at all; (e) to report the findings and future
suggestions to experts and practitioners (cf. Rieger 2015, 2017).
This article focuses on the following research question:
How helpful – if at all – are the designed collaborative learning activities in
conjunction with the selected authentic materials and individual learning activ-
ities analyzed elsewhere (Rieger 2015, 2017) to meet the aforementioned learning
objectives, that is, to increase L2 learners’ awareness and understanding of the

Authenticated
656 C. L. Rieger
complexity of (im)politeness and its role in the construction of identities and

management of interpersonal relationships in social interactions and their skills
to use their linguistic resources in an intentionally (im)polite manner in inter-
cultural encounters?
This research question is explored through a qualitative analysis – from an
interpersonal pragmatics perspective – of the work products of those collabora-
tive learning activities produced by fifteen small groups of two to three L2
learners of German.
2 Theoretical framework
2.1 (Im)politeness and L2 sociopragmatic competence
Socialization into a speech community or a community of practice (Eckert and

McConnell-Ginet 1992, 1998; Lave and Wenger 1991) shapes interactants’ percep-
tion and interpretation of behavior, including norms of (im)politeness. Like
other aspects of pragmatics, (im)politeness is socioculturally and sociopragma-
tically relative. Speakers socialized into different communities acquire system-
atically different norms for the perception, interpretation, and usage of
linguistic, paralinguistic, and nonverbal aspects of communication (cf. Tannen
2005: 207).
Pragmatic behavior is usually not explicitly taught to L1 users. On the
other hand, caregivers are known to employ a number of explicit and semi-
explicit strategies to socialize children to (im)polite behavior (Schmidt 1993
cited in Kasper and Rose 2002: 237). In English-speaking communities for
instance, children are taught to say please in certain circumstances and
thank you under other specified conditions; they are taught to greet guests,
not to eavesdrop, not to interrupt when someone else is already or still talking,
not to point at people, etc. This is not to say that all aspects of polite behavior
are explicitly taught. Thornbury and Slade (2006) indicated that “some polite
forms [emphasis added] […] are taught explicitly, […] Others may be inferred
from observations of, and interaction with adults” (203) during the socializa-
tion process. What is part of children’s explicit education, are forms or for-
mulae and some norms of (im)polite behavior in social encounters such as the
ones mentioned above. Therefore, what is explicitly passed on arguably con-
stitutes merely a minute part of (im)politeness and seems to coincide with
those aspects that are taught in a L2 context, namely idealized and stereo-
typified conventions and linguistic forms. This does neither support the

Authenticated
learner’s awareness of the intersubjectivity of the relational aspects of interac-

tions nor their ability to co-negotiate (im)politeness in L2 exchanges. Like
pragmatic behavior in general, (im)politeness in the broader sense is largely
part of our implicit knowledge repertoire of language use in interaction.
Wolfson (1989) and Bardovi-Harlig (2013) have stressed that L1 users tend
to be unaware of their pragmatic performance, including their own (im)polite
behavior. In other words, primary socialization not only shapes how we
behave and how we expect others to behave it also keeps us largely “in the
dark” about the norms and conventions on which we base our communicative
behavior and our expectation for interlocutors’ communicative behavior.
Moreover, as Carbaugh (2005) has pointed out, when we do not share those
norms with our interlocutors (because they were socialized into different com-
munities) we are often unaware of this. We tend to tacitly assume that our
interactions are based on shared norms and conventions. This in turn leads to
misunderstandings and/or interpretations of the interlocutor’s interactional
conduct as inappropriate (Rieger 2015: 82), which may well have negative
consequences for the relationship of the interlocutors in question (Haugh
and Chang 2015: 389). Béal (1994: 54) names resentment and harmful stereo-
typing as such negative consequences.
Yet, in L2 instruction “there is no tradition of explicit pragmatic teaching
the way there is in grammar teaching” (Bardovi-Harlig 2013: 73). For decades
researchers have stressed the importance of L2 pragmatic competence, and
that explicit teaching of pragmatic aspects of language use is crucial for its
development (e.g. Bardovi-Harlig 1999, 2001, 2013, Bardovi-Harlig et al. 1991;
Bardovi-Harlig and Griffin 2005; Béal 1994; Beebe 1995; House 1996; Huth
2006; Huth and Taleghani-Nikazm 2006; Kasper 1992, 1997; Kasper and
Roever 2005; Kasper and Rose 2001, 2002; Kasper and Schmidt 1996;
Kinginger and Belz 2005; Olstain and Cohen 1991; Rieger 2007, 2015, 2017;
Siegal 1996; Taguchi 2008, 2011, 2015; van Compernolle 2011, 2014; van
Compernolle and Henery 2014; van Compernolle et al. 2016). Explicit teaching
is required because of the implicit nature of pragmatic behavior that leads to
transfer from L1 to L2 behavior (cf. Kasper 1992). Huth and Taleghani-Nikazm
(2006: 55–56) focus on pragmatic interference, not transfer, and highlight its
potential for misunderstandings. They stress L2 users’ tendency to apply the
sociocultural rules of their first language instead of those of the L2, “often
regardless of their level of proficiency” (56).
We might be inclined to assume that being unintentionally (im)polite only
happens to L2 users with little intercultural experience. Surprisingly, this is not
the case:

Authenticated
658 C. L. Rieger
Even L2 users with a professional interest in intercultural communication, such as

researchers in intercultural pragmatics, who are especially sensitized to variation in
values, norms and expectations, are at times unintentionally impolite in intercultural
encounters (cf. Clyne 2006). Our own values and norms affect our interactional behavior
in such a way that it is not always possible to disregard what feels appropriate to us in
favor of what feels appropriate to someone else. (Rieger 2017: 352)
In sum, current knowledge on (im)politeness, L2 sociopragmatic competence,

and acquisitional pragmatics suggests that it is imperative to promote L2 lear-
ners’ awareness of the situated, emergent intersubjectivity of (im)politeness, its
ubiquity in social interaction, as well as its relevance to and influence on how
we perceive our interlocutors and how they in turn perceive us in social
interaction.
2.2 Interpersonal pragmatics and relational work
Interpersonal pragmatics, as developed by Watts (1989, 2003, 2005, 2008);

Locher (2004, 2006, 2011, 2012) Locher and Watts (2005, 2008); Locher and
Graham (2010), and others, is a discursive approach to pragmatics. It stresses
the essential role of relational work, and thus (im)politeness, in every social
interaction (e.g. Locher 2012; Locher and Watts 2008; Watts 2003) and analyzes
authentic language in use in its immediately and broadly situated, interactional
context.
Relational work is sometimes referred to as facework. However, it is not
identical to the facework as put forward by Brown and Levinson (1978/1987), a
concept that is invoked in conjunction with face threatening acts (FTA) and that
was inspired by Goffman (1967). Yet, unlike Goffman, who developed the con-
cept as a social phenomenon, Brown and Levinson built their renowned, none-
theless also criticized, politeness theory around face as a psychological concept.
In interpersonal pragmatics, face is a social and a psychological phenomenon.
Facework in the sense of Locher and Watts is an essential part of every social
encounter and denotes the sum of interactants’ efforts in the service of the
continued co-creation and reproduction of their interpersonal relationship
(Locher and Watts 2008: 96). It is influential in the creation of social identities
and the creation of self. The term relational work is preferred to facework as it
prevents a mix-up with Brown and Levinson’s notion of face.
Interpersonal pragmatics is an open theoretical framework permitting the
adoption of pertinent conceptions from other theories and disciplines (cf. Locher
2012) to complement its methodological and theoretical approach to (im)polite-
ness. It makes use of concepts and findings from a number of disciplines, such

Authenticated
as other (im)politeness studies, sociolinguistics, interactional sociolinguistics,

gender studies, and others. In the context of L2 usage and learning, interperso-
nal pragmatics allows for the integration of findings from compatible SLA
theories, such as social identity theory, sociocultural theory, socialization the-
ory, or sociocognitive theory, all of which incorporate social, cognitive, and
emotional aspects in their understanding of language use and learning (see
also The Douglas Fir Group 2016). With regards to language usage and the
acquisition of language in use, these SLA theories are compatible with inter-
personal pragmatics, a framework that also acknowledges and accounts for
social, cognitive, and emotional factors to play a significant role in the co-
negotiation of meaning in interaction (cf. Locher 2015).
3 The study
3.1 Participants
The participants consist of two groups of about twenty learners of German each.
In both groups, the learners officially perform at a B2 level and work on
attaining a C1 level according to the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001). What is true for most if not
every group of learners holds for these two groups as well: some learners
perform at a higher level than others, and the levels can vary for the different
skills. In actuality, the learners’ competence ranges from about a B1.2 to C1.2, i.e.
from an early intermediary to an advanced level.
The majority of these learners are young adults enrolled in their third or
fourth year at a large North-American university where the language of instruc-
tion, at least for a substantial majority of courses, is English. The learners are
diverse with regard to their national and/or ethnic background. They use
English as their L1 or lingua franca and German with occasional code-switches
into English in their German course(s). The learners are also diverse with
regard to their use of German inside and outside of the university context.
About half of the learners participate in only one German course; the other half
takes several additional German courses each term. Some have friends or
family members with whom they interact in German on a regular or semi-
regular basis, others have occasional opportunities to speak German, and
finally some never or very rarely participate in German interactions outside
of the learning context. As a class both groups met twice a week for 80-minute
sessions.

Authenticated
660 C. L. Rieger
3.2 Data
The data consist of the work products of both participant groups from a session
on (im)politeness. A description of the lesson and materials is given in the next
section (see also Rieger 2015, 2017). The learners performed part of the learning
activities under investigation individually; for others they worked in pairs or
small groups of three.4 The analysis of the activities that the learners did
individually has been reported elsewhere (cf. Rieger 2015). This article focuses
on the outcome of two related collaborative activities that consisted of the
reading, examination, discussion, and result reporting of German and English
comments on a controversial incident copied from Internet fora.5
Prior to the collaborative activities, the learners were commenting on the
same controversial incident. They did so twice, once in the target language
German and once in English. The instructions for the collaborative activities
were in German but did not specify the language that the learners should use
when recording their results. A majority reported their findings in German,
whereas a minority did so in English. However some of the German contribu-
tions included code-switches into English – a practice that is common and
accepted in their learning context – and even longer switches or shifts from
German to English.
In the presentation and discussion of the analysis, all German contributions
are followed by the author’s English translation. For ease of reading, for those
contributions that include code-switches into English, the original English is not
excluded from the English translation of the entire contribution unless the
learners shift into English without switching back into German. In the latter
case, only the translation of the German part will appear at the end of the
learner report.
The learner contributions are presented here in the same way as they were
handed in, i.e. with all their quirks and ‘imperfections’.6 However, the English
translations do not include or imitate ‘imperfections’. Obvious lexical errors or
mistakes in the German contributions that are translated into English based on
the deduced intended meaning are marked in the German original by adding the
4 Henceforth: the term ‘small group(s)’ or ‘group(s) of learners’ is used to refer to pairs and
groups of three.
5 Online fora can be seen as communities (Arendholz 2013; Ehrhardt 2009) and like other
communities they negotiate their norms and regulations. Unlike non-virtual communities these
online communities negotiate in writing and leave us with written accounts of their negotiations
(cf. Locher 2010: 3). This in turn allows for a pragmatic analysis from an interpersonal prag-
matics and relational work perspective of the contributions to online fora.
6 Not included are words, phrases, or sentences that the learners crossed out in their report.

Authenticated
assumed intended meaning in double square brackets. A case in point is taken

from example (1) and (6), namely ‘Aussicht [[Ansicht]] – opinion’ where the
learners confused the prefix ‘aus’ for the prefix ‘an.’ This changes the intended
meaning of ‘opinion’ to ‘view’ as in “a room with a view.” In this context, it is
noteworthy that unlike the English term ‘view’ the German ‘Aussicht’ has a
narrower semantic range and cannot be used to express point of view, opinion,
or perspective. Similarly, when the learners left out a lexeme or unbound
morpheme, such as a separated verb prefix, which altered the meaning of the
proposition, it was added to the original in single square brackets. For instance
in example (10) the separated prefix ‘überein’ was missing from the verb ‘stim-
men’ and was therefore added in single square brackets [überein] in the appro-
priate position.
3.3 Teaching materials and learning goals

True to the theoretical approach taken, it was imperative that authentic, complex
materials be at the heart of the lesson, i.e. materials that exceed an account of
polite formulae, reflect current theoretical, research-based insight, and go beyond
Brown and Levinson’s (1978) concept of politeness (see also Haugh and Chang
2015; Rieger 2017). Additional criteria were feasibility and variety with regard to
norms, ideals, stance, relations, and functions in the sense of van Dijk (1977: 221)
on which they are based. This way the materials chosen could be used to challenge
stereotypes instead of strengthening them. A video-recorded incident that was
posted on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com) was analyzed and considered to
meet the criteria in combination with selected, related comments (cf. Rieger 2017).
The incident, an impulsive, four-second shoulder massage of German
Chancellor Angela Merkel by George W. Bush, took place at the 2006 G8 Summit
in St Petersburg when Bush was still President of the United States and Merkel was
new to her position as head of state (see Bush creeps out German chancellor,
controversial footage (2006)). The event was reported on extensively and led to
countless comments in a number of online fora by Internet users from around the
globe, especially by Americans and Germans. Some of these comments were
selected and analyzed for their suitability to teach (im)politeness to intermediate
or advanced learners of German or English as an L2 (cf. Rieger 2017). Ten English
and nine German comments were chosen (see Appendix).7
7 Please note that the appendix is almost identical to the appendix in Rieger (2015) (see pp.
104–107). It includes English translations of the German commons. These translations were not
provided to the learners.

Authenticated
662 C. L. Rieger
For the incident and the comments used participatory learning activities
were designed based on the following learning goals as described by Rieger
(2017: 349–350):
1. to sensitize the learner to variation in the perception, interpretation, evalua-
tions and negotiations of what constitutes over-polite, polite, under-polite,
impolite, mock-polite etc. behavior across as well as within larger speech
communities;
2. to enhance the learner’s awareness of the complexity of (im)politeness in
social encounters, especially in intercultural interactions, including its ever
present and emergent nature;
3. to promote the learner’s understanding that it is not the behavior that is
(im)polite, instead the use of the behavior in a particular sociocultural
context is interpreted as (im)polite;
4. to provide opportunities to the learners to practice their L2 pragmatic
competence.
To the learner, the desired learning outcome was communicated differently, in a

much shorter and simpler manner, and in German. In English it can be rendered as
follows: “At the end of this lesson you will be able to discuss and write in German
about polite and impolite behavior in different situations.” This goal was intended
to focus their attention on the topic of (im)politeness and its linguistic implications.
3.4 Lesson and expectations
The session for the teaching of (im)politeness to German language learners

started with brief reflections before the learners defined both terms. A general
discussion served as an informal pre-assessment as well as an introduction to
the topic. Two collaborative activities are the focus of attention here. The
learners performed these after having watched and commented on the short
video clip of the incident (cf. Rieger 2015). In small groups, the learners were
reading, comparing and discussing the selected English and German comments
by Internet posters (see Appendix) before recording the findings of their discus-
sion. These recordings were handed in anonymously and they, together with the
notes from a second, similar activity that asked the learners to reread the
comments and consider their extent of (im)politeness, form the basis of the
analysis presented in the next section. A summary of the learners’ findings
from all activities served as post-assessment and concluded the lesson.8
8 A detailed description of the lesson and all activities is provided in Rieger (2015: 86–88).

Authenticated
For the first collaborative assignment, a list of authentic English and German
comments copied from different online fora was distributed (see appendix). The
small groups were asked to read the comments together, to compare and discuss
them, and to record their findings in writing (cf. Rieger 2015: 88). The second
collaborative assignment encouraged the learners to focus on the (im)politeness
of the comments themselves. Together these group assignments were designed for
the learners to collaboratively make sense of these comments, help each other
with the understanding and interpretation of the comments thereby providing
opportunities for intercultural mediation (cf. Liddicoat 2014) and a deep engage-
ment with the materials offered. The learners would undertake a layperson’s
analysis to become aware of similarities and differences in content and form of
the comments, of the range of interpretations for and reactions to a very short
excerpt of an interpersonal intercultural encounter and of differences and simila-
rities between those interpretations and reactions and their own. It was expected
that the learners would report findings such as these:
– Of the ten English comments, five judge Bush’s behavior, whereas three
comments judge Bush as a person, and two judge both.
– Of the nine German comments, five judge Bush’s behavior, three judge Bush,
and one judges both.
– Of the ten English comments, two judge Bush’s behavior as appropriate and
eight judge Bush’s behavior as inappropriate.
– Of the nine German comments, two judge Bush’s behavior as appropriate
and seven judge Bush’s behavior as inappropriate. Of those seven, number
16 and number 18 evaluate Bush’s behavior indirectly as inappropriate using
sarcasm and/or humor.
– Of the ten English comments, none mentions Merkel’s reaction to Bush’s
quick massage.
– Of the nine German comments, one judges Merkel’s reaction as inappropri-
ate, one as appropriate, one as out of character, and six do not mention
Merkel’s reaction.9
It was further projected that these findings and other observations about the
comments would lead the learners to deduce and probably report that:
– there are similarities and differences in the English and German comments –
with regard to content and form;
– what is considered (in)appropriate is not absolute but is co-negotiated and
depends on various factors, such as the gender of the interactants, their
9 Merkel is mentioned in two of the English comments, however, these comments do not refer
to her reaction to Bush’s “shoulder rub”.

Authenticated
664 C. L. Rieger
relationship, the gender of the evaluators, their ideologies and political

affiliations, the situatedness and social context of the encounter, and more;
– the comment posters did not all focus on the same aspect(s) of the incident.
With regard to (im)politeness of the comments themselves, it was expected that

the learners would notice and report that:
– about half or five out of ten English comments could be evaluated as
inappropriate and five can be seen as more or less appropriate;
– three out of nine German comments can be seen as inappropriate and six out
of nine can be seen as more or less appropriate;
– two out of ten English comments use humor to convey their message;
– an equal number of German comments make use of humor.
It was further expected that through this activity the learners would notice and
report that:
– the comment posters in judging Bush or Merkel’s behavior as (in)appropriate
would themselves engage in communicative behavior that can be judged as
(im)polite;
– said communicative behavior varies considerably with regard to its
(im)politeness;
– those variations were apparent within and between the German and the
English groups.
The sum of the learners’ findings would contribute to a raised awareness of their
sociocultural values and beliefs, of the emergent nature of the rules and norms
that guide the perception, interpretation, and negotiation of actions as (im)polite
as well as the construction of social relations and identities in social encounters.
In addition, it would sensitize the learners to expect differences and similarities
when co-negotiating relations and social identities in interactions with interlo-
cutors from diverse communities.
4 Findings and analysis
4.1 First collaborative learning activity
The groups’ first reports revealed that more learners focused on the differences
between the German and the English comments and either did not notice
similarities or did not report on them. Numerous examples illustrate this, such

Authenticated
as examples (1) to (9). Most of these examples indicate that the learners in
question did not recognize that almost as many German comments as English
ones were critical of Bush’s conduct.
The learners who provided the first report discussed and recorded various
aspects of the comments. The learners do not only focus on Bush’s conduct.
Instead they also point out that German comment posters speculate about Bush
and Merkel’s relationship without highlighting that the English language com-
ments focus on Bush exclusively. Some of the observations in (1) are not clear.
For instance, there is no indication that any of the comments used were posted
by a Canadian. The mentioning of Canadians could be a slip. The learners
writing this report might have meant Americans or Anglophones. More unusual
is their remark that Americans expect their president to know what he can do
and what he cannot do. In general, we expect adults – and that includes Bush –
to know what they can and cannot do. I consider it unusual to mention this
specifically and therefore I assume that the learners meant to either refer to
knowing what to do in intercultural situations in general or to knowing what to
do in this particular intercultural situation, i.e. that the learners meant to
communicate that the comment posters expect Bush to know how to behave
when meeting with people from different cultural backgrounds.
(1) – die deutschen Leute und kanadischen Leute haben unterschiedlichen

Aussicht [[Ansicht]].
– die amerikanischen Leute: – sie fördern nicht ihre Präsident
– viele deutschen Leute verteidigen Bush where as the americans are just
attacking Bush
– it seems that the Americans expect Bush to understand what & what not
he can do
– the Germans think that maybe the two of them know each other well,
but by her reaction, I think it is safe to say the she was taken back &
maybe they don’t have that close of a relationship
– the German people and the Canadian people have different opinions.
– the American people: – they do not support their president.
– many Germans defend Bush whereas …
It is noteworthy that about half of the learners, do not exclusively focus on the
content of the posts, but also on its form. Examples (2) and (3), very short reports,
evaluate some of the English comments as inappropriate, however, they ignore that
some German comments also use inappropriate language. It should be stressed that
the terms ‘polite(ness),’ ‘impolite(ness)’ or similar lexemes were not used in the

Authenticated
666 C. L. Rieger
instructions of this activity. This was a deliberate decision to find out if, unprompted,
the learners would remark on or evaluate the comment posters’ (im)politeness.
(2) Mit der englische Kommentare, Menschen kritisiert Bush für seinen
ungeeignet benehmen. Einige sich entschuldigen für Bush, andere
Kommentare sind Rohöl. Mit der deutsch Kommentare, Menschen sind
mehr versöhnlich.
In the English comments, people criticize Bush for his inappropriate
behavior. Some apologize for Bush, other comments are inflammatory. In
the German comments, people are more conciliatory.)
(3) Generally the comments in German seem to be less critical of George Bush
than the English comments. Overall the German comments expressed their
ideas in more appropriate language.
In contrast to most reports, example (4) views all German comments as critical of
Bush while recognizing mixed evaluations from the English language comment
posters.
(4) – Alle deutsche Kommentare sind negativ, dagegen es gibt beide negative
und positive Kommentare von Americaneren. […]
– All the German comments are negative. In comparison there are both
negative and positive comments by Americans. […]
Reports (5) and (6) also exemplify a tendency to disregard likeness as well as a
focus on form and content. (5) fails to mention that some of the English com-
ments approve of Bush’s behavior and that not all German comments commu-
nicate approval. It is worth mentioning that these learners refer to Bush’s
behavior as misbehavior when most reports use neutral terms to refer to the
incident – in contrast to their own evaluations of the incident as inappropriate
(see Rieger 2015). The same learners notice and mention that some German
comment posters focus their criticism on Merkel’s orientation to Bush’s action.
(5) The English commentary was generally against Bush’s action, and the tone
was disappointed, angry, and critical. In contrast, the German commentary
was more understanding of the President’s misbehavior, saying it was a
cultural difference. The German comments were backed up well with
arguments, and even criticized the Chancellor for her reaction. In some
of the English comments, people mentioned that Bush’s behavior can be
considered as sexual harassment.

Authenticated
(6) – Die deutschen Bemerkungen sind höflicher als die Englischen.

– Die Aussichte [[Ansicht]] der Europäischen scheinen ziemlich liberaler zu
sein.
– Die Amerikaner kommentieren über die Person, während die Deutschen
öfter über die Geste kommentieren.
– Die englische Sprache ist weniger Ausgebildet als die Deutsche.
– The German remarks are more polite than the English ones are.
– The opinions of the Europeans seem to be rather liberal.
– The Americans comment on the person, while the Germans comment
more on the gesture.
– The English language [used] is less refined/educated than the German
one.
In example (6) the learners point out a tendency for American comment posters
to focus more generally on Bush while Germans evaluate the impromptu mas-
sage, disregarding that the same is true for some of the German comments. We
find the same in example (7). Another commonality between these two contribu-
tions is their negative evaluation of the form of the English comments contrasted
with a positive evaluation of the form of the German comments.
(7) Manche Amerikaner/Englischer kritisieren Bush als eine Person statt die
Geste. Manche Deutschen finden die Geste freundschaftlich aber auch unan-
gemessen. Es gibt Ärger hinter manchen englischen Kommentaren.
Im Gegenstand [[Gegenteil/Vergleich]] scheint die deutsche Kommentare
lockerer.
Some Americans/English criticize Bush instead of the gesture. Some
Germans think the gesture is friendly but also inappropriate. There is
anger behind some of the English comment. In contrast, the German
comments seem more easygoing.
In contrast to the final part of (7), the excerpt of example (8) indicates that one
small group of learners characterizes the English comments as laid-back while
also evaluating the German (comment posters) as more polite in comparison to
the American posters.
(8) The tone of the English comments are more relaxed. The level of of
language is less formal compared to the Germans. […]
Die deutsche Leute sind höflicher als die Amerikaner.
The Germans are more polite than the Americans.

Authenticated
668 C. L. Rieger
The learners who handed in report (9) highlight that it is ironic to judge some-
one’s behavior as impolite when done in a way that is itself inappropriate. This
idea is conveyed by a second group of learners (see example (21)). I would also
like to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that these learners express their
opinion in both languages. Their German contribution is less detailed and less
precise, otherwise identical to the English one. This indicates that the learners in
question are aware of their pragmalinguistic shortcomings in the German lan-
guage (see Discussion and Conclusion; see also Rieger 2015: 93–94). The excerpt
from report (9) shows as well that some learners noticed the humor in English
posts but not the one in the German posts. This is also the case for the learners
who submitted report (11). Although the excerpt chosen from report (11) does not
include that particular part.
(9) – auf Deutsch, haben wir Kommentare; auf Englisch, haben wir Witze oder
assault
– valid political/social comments from German speakers, more joking
comments from Americans
– 9 → ein bisschen ironisch, weil er/sie sagt, dass was Bush gemacht hat,
nicht richtig ist, aber wie sagt sie das? Her comment is about Bush being
inappropriate, + is totally inappropriate itself […]
– in German we have comments; in English we have jokes or assault
– valid …
– 9 → a bit ironic because s/he says, what Bush did isn’t right, but how
does she say that? Her … […]
Four of the fifteen small groups report on similarities. Of those one group
concentrates exclusively on similarities and three mention differences and one
commonality. Example (10) mentions a number of similarities between the
English and the German posts, for instance that in both groups a majority
found the incident impolite, especially because it happened in public or that
Bush would not have given this “mini massage” to a male head of state. These
learners also point out that there were both German and English posters who did
not evaluate Bush’s behavior as unusual and that those posters oriented towards
Merkel’s reaction as exaggerated.
(10) Es gibt viele Ähnlichkeiten zwischen den englischen und deutschen

Kommentaren. Meisten meinen, dass es unhöflich war, weil der G8 televisiert
ist. Im einem anderen, privaten Kontext würde das nicht so schlecht sein.
Auch würde er dass nie zu einem Mann tun! Beide Gruppen stimmen an
diese Punkte [überein]. Manche von beide Gruppen finden dass sein

Authenticated
Benehmen gewöhnlich war, und das Merkel zu streng reagiert hat.

There are many similarities between the English and the German com-
ments. Most think that it was impolite because the G8 is televised. In a
different, private context it wouldn’t be so bad. Also, he would never do
this to a man! Both groups agree on this. Some, in both groups, think that
his behavior was ordinary, and that Merkel reacted too strongly.
Other similarities that were reported include the following: both sides were in
agreement that Bush was foolish (example (11)); both groups posted dismissive
comments (example (12)); and through the statement that more of the German
comments consider Bush’s conduct to be a friendly gesture, the learners respon-
sible for report (13) indirectly communicate that some English comment posters
also consider Bush’s conduct to be friendly.
(11) […]
– Alle sind einig dass Bush dumm ist.
[…]
– Everyone agrees that Bush is stupid.
It is also noteworthy that the learners who wrote (12) claim that the German
comments contain more stereotyping about Americans – a finding that my
analysis did not confirm (cf. Rieger 2017). Like other misconceptions or mis-
interpretations, this could be linked to the language proficiency of the learners
in question (see Discussion and Conclusion).
(12) – Mit die deutsche Kommentare gibt es mehr amerikanische Stereotypen,

zum Beispiel George Bush als ein Bier-Trinker Amerikaner.
[…]
– Mit beider der amerikanischen und deutschen Kommentare gibt es
Kommentare, die wegwerfend [[geringschätzig]] sind.
– The German comments use more American stereotypes, for example
George Bush as a beer drinking American.
[…]
– There are both American and German comments that are dismissive.
Contribution (13) is reproduced in its entirety because it shares observations that

none of the other learners have communicated. These learners notice that the
posters of the English comments do not look for Merkel’s orientation towards the
mini massage as (in)appropriate. They also notice that the German comment
posters are more invested in Merkel’s conduct while the Americans are more

Authenticated
670 C. L. Rieger
invested in Bush’s conduct. In other words, they stress that the expectations are
higher for one’s own head of state. Additionally, they mention that the German
comments were more creative and took more background information into
account when they judged the incident. Whether or not the last mentioned
observation is factual, the entire contribution is a testament to the learners’
deep engagement with the posts under scrutiny.
(13) Die Amerikaner haben nie gefragt wie die Merkel es erfunden [[empfunden]]
hat. Mehr von den deutschen Kommentare dachten dass es eine freundliche
Geste war. Die Deutschen haben über die Hintergrunden mehr extrapoliert.
Sie waren auch kreativer mit den Kommentaren. Die Amerikaner haben mehr
von Bush erwartet, wobei die Deutschen mehr von Merkel erwartet haben.
The Americans never asked how Merkel felt about it. More of the German
comments thought that it was a friendly gesture. The Germans extrapo-
lated more from background information. They also were more creative
with their comments. The Americans expected more from Bush whereas
the Germans expected more from Merkel.
We turn our attention now to the findings and analysis of the second set of
group reports.
4.2 Second collaborative learning activity

The instructions for the first collaborative activity were directing the learners
towards a general comparison between the comments posted in English and
those given in German. In order to ensure that they would also specifically focus
on how (im)politely Internet users evaluated the incident, the second activity
demanded that they concentrate on that aspect. The analysis of the first colla-
borative activity revealed that about half of the learners had already mentioned
(im)politeness. Notwithstanding that their second reports are more detailed with
regard to an evaluation of the comments as (im)polite and revealing of a more
systematic engagement with (im)politeness, the overall findings are quite simi-
lar. This is one of the reasons – the other being space constraints – why fewer
examples are presented in this section.
A vast majority of the learners view the German comments as more polite
than the English comments (see examples (14), (15), (16) (17), (18), (19), (20), and
(21)), which is in line with our expectations (see Lesson and expectations). A
preponderance of learners noticed that there are both polite and impolite com-
ments made in both languages. The second activity thus allows more learners to

Authenticated
notice similarities in addition to differences. Some learners differentiate the

degree of (im)politeness, for instance in (14) the term ‘politely’ is graduated
through the modifier ‘fairly’ and inappropriate is expressed using the terms
‘impolite’ and ‘even rude’. The modifier ‘even’ leaves no doubt that the learners
perceive some comments as more inappropriate than others.
(14) The German comments, we found, were expressed more politely than the
English comments.
We found comments #’s 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 + 18 were written
fairly politely. Whereas #’s 3, 5, 9, 16, + 19 are quite impolite + even rude
(# 3, 9)
The learners give reasons for their evaluations. Taboo language and certain
word choices are the most common reasons mentioned for perceiving a com-
ment as impolite. We see this in reports (15), (16), (17), (18), and (20). An
aggressive tone is another reason given repeatedly, for example in (15) and (16).
(15) Die Kommentare ohne Fluckwörter sind höflicher als die Kommentare mit
ihnen. Unserer Meinung nach klingen die Amerikaner allgemein aggressiver
als die Deutschen, die die Geste vergeben können.
Those comments that don’t use swear words are more polite than the ones
that do use them. In our opinion, the Americans generally sound more
aggressive than the Germans who are willing to forgive Bush’s behavior
(literally: the gesture).
(16) Meisten die englische Kommentare sind nicht höflich. Kommentare 9 benutzt
fluchwort und die anderes sind aggressiv. Allgemein die englische
Kommentare sind sehr kritisch. Aber die deutsche Kommentare sind mehr
höflich.
Most of the English comments are not polite. Comment 9 uses swear words
and the others are aggressive. In general, the English comments are very
judgmental. But the German comments are more polite.
It seems that making fun of the incident, Bush, or Merkel can also contribute to
the perception of a comment as being impolite. This is illustrated in reports (17)
and (18).
(17) Im Allgemeinen finden wir die deutschen Kommentare höflicher als die
englischen. Besonders höflich sind Nummer 12, 13 und 17. Viele von den
englischen Kommentare schwören [[fluchen]] oder beleidigen. Sie machen

Authenticated
672 C. L. Rieger
Spaß über das Thema, während die deutschen Kommentare berücksichtigen

die Ursachen fürs Verhalten.
In general, we think that the German comments are more polite than the
English ones. Numbers 12, 13 and 17 are especially polite. Many of the
English comments swear or insult. They make fun of the topic while the
German comments take causes of the behavior into account.
(18) – Einige Kommentare sind unhöflich. Wörter wie „asshole“, „bully“,

„AngieBabes“ sind unhöflich. Die Leute, wer die Kommentare geschrieben
haben, nehmen Merkel und Bush nicht ernst.
– Deutsche Kommentare sind höflicher als englische Kommentare. Deutscher
nehmen die Gelegenheit [[Angelegenheit]] ernster als Americaner.
[…]
– Several comments are impolite. Words like “asshole”, “bully“,
“AngieBabes“ are impolite. The people who wrote them don’t take
Merkel and Bush seriously.
– The German comments are more polite than the English comments.
The Germans take this matter more seriously than the Americans.
[…]
The learners who turned in report (19) imply that a direct language use is
grounds to categorize the contribution as inappropriate. In politeness studies
many researchers equate indirectness with politeness and this view is especially
pervasive in Anglophone or Anglo-centered research (e.g. Brown and Levinson
1978/1987; Jucker 2012; Leech 1983; O’Keeffe, Clancy, and Adolphs 2011; see also
Locher 2013). It has been contested by a number of researchers (e.g. Blum-Kulka
1987; Mills 2003; Yu 2011) that indirectness is seen as polite across cultures,
languages, or communities.
(19) ① Die Amerikaner scheinen sich zu schämen und ihre Sprache ist viel
direkter.
② Die englischen Kommentare sind allgemein unhöfflicher und die
deutschen Kommentare sind eher ironisch.
① The Americans seem to be ashamed, and their language use is much
more direct.
② The English comments are generally more impolite and the German
comments tend to be more ironic.
Report (20) identifies yet another rationale for evaluating a contribution as

impolite, namely inaccurate grammar and/or usage of a non-standard language

Authenticated
variety. The last post, i.e. number 19, does indeed make use of three regional-
isms, such as “net” instead of “nicht” (not). However, its grammar is impeccable,
possibly unbeknownst to the learners in question who seem to struggle a bit
with the German grammar in their report. Their second argument has also been
mentioned by other learners (see examples (6) and (7)). I am referring to the
posters not limiting their criticism to Bush’s behavior in this particular incident,
but instead additionally insulting him as a person.
(20) Die Englische Kommentare die unhöfflich waren sind numer 3 und 9. Die sind
unhöfflich wegen ihrer Wortwahl. Die höffliche Kommentare benutzen rich-
tige grammatik und sätze und belästigen [[beleidigen]] die Chanslerin oder
der President nicht zu viel. Unter die Deutschen Kommentare die meisten
sind höfflich geschrieben. Numer 19 war eins der unhöfflichsten weil sie kein
richtiges deutsch geschrieben haben. Außerdem haben sie seine
persönlichkeit belästigt [[beleidigt]], und nicht nur sein benehmen.
The most impolite English comments were number 3 and 9. Those are
impolite because of their word choices. Polite comments employ accurate
grammar and sentences and don’t offend the chancellor and the president
too much. Most German comments are written politely. Number 19 was one
of the most impolite ones because it wasn’t written in correct German. In
addition, they insulted him as a person, not only his behavior.
The learners who wrote report (21) start out by stating that it is difficult for them
to judge the (im)politeness of the German comments due to limited sociocultural
knowledge. The learners end their report with the assumption that the German
comments are more polite without explicitly explaining why they think that or
why they changed their mind. This conclusion could be based on the fact that
they do not regard the English comments as polite or that they do not recognize
any evidence, beyond what they found in comment number 16, that suggests to
them that the German comments are inappropriate.
(21) – schwer zu sagen, wie höflich die deutsche Kommentare sind, weil wir
nicht so viel über Kontext und „cultural nuances” wissen.
– 16 scheint nicht so höflich – seems a bit more of an attack
– englische Kommentare sind nicht höflich, aber nicht ungeheuer rau
(außer # 9); die klingen mehr „casual“
– solche englische Kommentare sind well thought-out, und haben etwas
Wichtiges zu sagen, z.B. # 7, # 4, # 2
– it’s an easy assumption to make, that the German comments are more
polite

Authenticated
674 C. L. Rieger
– difficult to say, how polite the German comments are because we do

not know that much about context and cultural nuances.
– 16 doesn’t seem that polite – seems a bit more of an attack
– the English comments are not polite but not terribly rough (except for #
9); they sound more casual
– the English comments that are well thought-out and have an important
message are, e.g., #7, #4, #2
– it’s an easy assumption to make, that the German comments are more
polite
Like example (9), which was written by different learners than example (22), the
latter highlights the irony of evaluating in an impolite manner someone else’s
behavior as inappropriate. The learners who created it add that there is a crucial
difference, namely the institutional context where the interactions take place.
Their expectations are different for social conduct at an international political
event compared to an online forum.
(22) Die meistens Kommentare sind nicht höflich! Nummer 1 und 7 sind
respektvoll.
Nummer 11, 12, 13, 17 sind auch höflich.
Es gibt viele unhöfliche Kommentare, das ist ein bisschen ironisch aber
diese Kommentare sind am Youtube und nicht an G-8 Summit
Most comments are not polite. Number 1 and 7 are respectful.
Number 11, 12, 13, 17 are polite as well.
There are many impolite comments. That is a bit ironic, but these
comments are on Youtube not (made) at a G8 Summit.
The learners who created report (23) express a similar, yet more radical opinion.
They evaluate every single comment as appropriate given that those comments
were made online. Their statement suggests that anything goes online. This is,
however, not the case. Most online fora are monitored and a certain conduct is
expected from, and by their users (Arendholz 2013; Ehrhardt 2009). The set of
rules and regulations for what is deemed “polite, respectful and sociable beha-
vior online” (Arendholz 2013: 47) is frequently referred to as netiquette.
Arendholz stresses that these rules represent “direct reflections of a pre-existing
social and cultural consensus among social actors” (47). On most sites, rude or
inflammatory behavior is sanctioned. User comments are deleted, and users can
be suspended or banned from the site in question (46–49). This is not to say that
a site’s official code of conduct reflects the values of all its users or that all its
users continually abide by the rules as identified in that code.

Authenticated
(23) – Viele Amerikaner articuliere ihre Kommentare als ein Witz. Was unterhalt-
sam ist.
– Die deutsche Kommentare erhalten [[enthalten]] wenniger witze und haben
durchdachte Kritiken.
– Wir finden, dass alle Kommentare höflich im Rahmen des Internets sind.
– Jeder soll seine ehrliche Meinung dazu sagen können.
– Many Americans articulate their comments in the form of a joke, which is
entertaining.
– The German comments contain less jokes and have thought-out criticism.
– We think that all the comments are polite in the context of the internet.
– Everyone should be able to articulate their honest opinion on this matter.
The originators of report (23) emphasize that all comment posters have the right
to express their honest opinion. This is generally referred to as the right to free
speech. However, this right does not prevent, and is not violated by other social
actors evaluating the expression of opinion as (im)polite.
The final section of this article discusses the findings of the analysis in the
context of sociopragmatic language use and acquisition with regard to the
research question presented earlier.
5 Discussion and conclusion
5.1 Discussion of the findings

A comparison of the expectations for the learners’ findings and their actual
findings indicates that the learners’ assessment of the posts was less systematic
than expected – or at least the recordings of their findings do suggest this. For
instance, the learners did not record that they counted how many (English and/
or German) comments focused on Bush, instead of on his behavior during the
incident, nor did they record counting how many (English and/or German)
comments evaluated Bush’s behavior as appropriate and how many as inap-
propriate or how many comments paid only attention to Bush or his behavior
and how many included thoughts on Merkel or on her reaction. On the other
hand, the reports show that the learners are capable of using the multilingual
resources at their disposition to undertake a layperson’s analysis of English and
German evaluative comments on a particular intercultural incident. This is
testimony to their metapragmatic knowledge and awareness.

Authenticated
676 C. L. Rieger
In particular, the analysis suggests that the learners noticed, i.e. became
aware that what is judged as (im)polite is dependent on the relationship of the
interactants, the gender of the interactants, the sociocultural background,
norms, values, and believes of the interactants, the context of the interaction,
the affiliations of the evaluator, the sociocultural background, norms, values,
and believes of the evaluator, etc. This is the case for the sum of the learners;
individual performances vary.
With regard to the role of the situational context for the evaluation of verbal
behavior as (im)polite, one group of learners in particular made a striking
comment, namely that all the comments studied were polite because they
were made online where everyone should be able to express their opinion freely,
an approach that the instructor could challenge. Expressing your honest opinion
and the manner of expressing your honest opinion is, however, not the same.
Reflections on this could have led the learners to also contemplate the meta-
message that posters intent to convey through their (marked) language use, its
effect on identity formation and co-construction. Comments on identity (con-
struction) are absent from all the small groups’ reports despite the learners
mentioning factors impacting social identity and the perception of social
relations.
It was observed that about half of the learners noticed and commented on
the form of the posts as (im)polite before their focus was directed to that
particular aspect in the second exercise. This could be linked to the commu-
nicated learning objectives; it could also point to a more general awareness of
relational language use. Commenting on the (im)politeness aspect of the posted
examples when the instructions did not explicitly demand that the learners do
so, indicates that the study participants pay attention to sociopragmatic and
relational features of the L2. I interpret this as a sign of their readiness to learn
more about L2 (im)politeness. On the other hand, only the second collaborative
activity led the learners to pay more attention to similarities between the German
and English comments, instead of exclusively focusing on differences, the way a
majority did while participating in the first collaborative task. Intra-community
variance is overlooked, which could lead to stereotyping (see also Limitations of
the study).
The mixed evaluations of all the German comments as being negative or
being more polite than the English comments, as well as the shifting – not the
switching – from German into English show that some of the learners need to
develop their pragmalinguistic skills further to fully participate in the evaluation
of such pragmatically rich German comments. This corroborates the findings by
Rieger (2015) but does not suggest that the learning activities investigated or the
materials used are ineffective. Rather it confirms that the learners are at different

Authenticated
stages in the L2 acquisition process and that the task was more challenging for
some than for others. I would argue that these learners still profit from the
lesson, especially, since they felt comfortable using their multilingual resources.
I take this as confirmation that the L1 (or other shared languages) need not be
banished from the L2 classroom when challenging concepts requiring the dis-
cussion of metapragmatic (and/or metalinguistic) aspects are taught.
Not every group of learners focused on, or noticed every aspect of the posted
comments that they studied. It follows from this finding and from the mixed
language proficiency that the sharing of the small groups’ findings with the entire
group of learners is necessary and beneficial to the learning process. During this
phase the instructor can ask questions that invite the learner to reflect and
interpret further and to look at the situation from different sides: in addition to
their own side the different comment posters’ sides, Bush’s side and Merkel’s side
in an effort to decenter and hone their intercultural mediation skills.
Overall, the learners’ reports bear witness to their raised awareness and
broadened knowledge of the concept of (im)politeness compared to their
simpler views communicated during the pre-assessment phase (Rieger 2015:
100–101). A post-test performed four weeks later that asked learners to write
about (im)politeness in an email to a friend confirmed these findings. The
following excerpts taken from four learners’ delayed post-tests show that the
learners’ argumentations are richer and more nuanced than they were before
the guided activities presented, analyzed and discussed in this study.10
(24) […] Ich hatte immer gedacht, dass es [Höflichkeit] überall das gleiche sein
sollte. Dann haben wir das Thema in meinem Kurs besprochen. […] Dadurch
ist mir klar geworden, dass man sich anders höflich verhaltet, je nach
Situation etc. […]
[…] I used to think that [politeness] would be the same everywhere. Then
we discussed the topic in my course. […] That is how it became clear to me
that politeness is dependent on context etc. […]
(25) […] Ich habe gelernt, dass die Höflichkeit keine universelle Bedeutung für alle
Menschen hat, dass sie ändert, dass sie ein wichtiger Teil von die soziale
Welt ist. […]
[…] I learned that politeness does not have a universal meaning for all the
people, that it changes, that it is an important part of the social world. […]
10 For more excerpts and a more detailed discussion of the post-test please see Rieger (2015:
101–102).

Authenticated
678 C. L. Rieger
(26) […] Über Höflichkeit habe ich gelernt, dass diese soziale Regeln sich ändern
je nach Situation, Zeit und Beziehung. Zum Beispiel finden ältere Menschen
unhöflich, wenn wir auf unser Handy schauen und junge Menschen finden
nicht unhöflich oder meisten nicht so unhöflich. […] Höflichkeit ist eigentlich
was Kulturelles, […]
[…] What I’ve learned about politeness is that these social rules change
according to the situation, time and relationship. For example older people
think it’s impolite when we look at our cell phone, and young people don’t
find it impolite or most of the time they don’t. […] Politeness is really
something cultural […].
(27) […] Sofort war klar, dass meine Verstehung nicht komplett war. Höflichkeit
ist nicht nur was man sagt, sondern auch wie und zu wem u.s.w. […]
[…] Immediately, it was clear that my understanding [of (im)politeness]
was incomplete. Politeness isn’t only what one says, but also how one says
it and to whom etc. […]
The excerpts from these simulated emails about (im)politeness themselves

mention learning, changes in the learners’ views or expansions of their notion
of (im)politeness. For instance, excerpt (24) reveals that before the lesson in
question this learner did not know that (im)politeness is socioculturally rela-
tive while example (25) points out that previously this learner was unaware
that what is seen as (im)polite is not universally seen as such or that it
changes over time. They also mention that they learned about its significance
for social relations. Similarly, excerpt (26) refers to different aspects of the
sociocultural relativity of (im)politeness, namely situation, time, relationship
and differences between the generations. Finally excerpt (27) talks about how
the learning experience of listening to his peers and to a multitude of com-
ments on the event at the G8 Summit made it clear to them that their under-
standing of (im)politeness was lacking. The learner continues by pointing out
that (im)politeness is not only about the linguistic forms used, but addition-
ally about how they are used. In other words, this learner refers to the
significance of paralinguistic and non-linguistic contextual aspects of utter-
ances for their interpretation as (im)polite.
Most learners included comparable statements in their post-tests, in addi-
tion to narrating parts of the guided activities that lead them to expand their
awareness and/or knowledge. The learners’ emails differed mainly in the num-
ber of contextual aspects that they mentioned and the level of precision in their
usage of the German language to do so.

Authenticated
A few learners had missed class on the day the cohort had partaken in the
aforementioned lesson. Their emails on (im)politeness were noticeably different.
For example in excerpt (28), one learner declares that it is better to be more
polite than not polite and then moves on to write about table manners. The latter
were not part of the instruction under discussion whose intent it was to move
away from prescriptivism in favor of metapragmatic reflection and enhanced
awareness of pragmatic aspects of language in use. In addition, the learner is
misinformed. There are communities where noisy eating or using one’s hands
instead of tools like cutlery or chopsticks are preferred or acceptable table
manners.
(28) […] Es ist besser mehr höflich zu sein als nicht höflich. So ist es überall
unhöflich beim Essen zu schmatzen, mit den Fingern zu essen oder […]
[…] It is better to be more polite than not polite. Accordingly, everywhere it
is impolite to make smacking noises while eating, to eat with one’s hands
or […].
Another learner, the one responsible for excerpt (29) equates politeness with
respect and friendliness without recognizing that what might be seen as respect-
ful by one person or by one community might not be seen as such by another.
This learner is also unaware that not every community looks at friendliness as
politeness. In Anglo-centered communities this is indeed the case (cf. Lakoff
1973, 1990), however, other communities look at these as distinct concepts.
Prominent examples are Japanese and Korean speech communities (cf. Ide
et al. 1992; Yu 2002).
(29) […] Wenn man immer respektiv und freundlich ist, ist man nie falsch. Respekt
sprecht jede Sprache. […]
[…] When you are always respectful and friendly you’re never wrong.
Respect speaks every language. […]
In sum, the delayed post-test “confirmed that the majority of the learners had
achieved a more diverse and detailed view on (im)politeness” (Rieger 2015: 102).
In conjunction with the individual learning activities, the examined colla-
borative tasks can be considered successful for a majority of the study partici-
pants: they increased their understanding of the complexity of (im)politeness
and its role in social interactions. Certainly, more lessons on relational aspects
of language use are needed to strengthen and further increase this knowledge
and awareness and to build and hone the skills to apply it in social interactions.

Authenticated
680 C. L. Rieger
5.2 Limitations of the studies
The analysis of the written reports also suggests that, with regard to the first
collaborative participatory learning activity, a large majority of learners reported
mainly on differences while ignoring the similarities and commonalities in the
posts by Germans and Americans. The data cannot provide answers regarding
the origin of the learners’ focus on similarities. Did the learners’ own expecta-
tions of finding mainly differences shape their perception and their focus or did
their expectations of the instructor’s expectations accomplish this? Or did the
instructions to the activity influence the learners’ focus of attention, or the set-
up of that particular lesson, or even the whole setting of L2 instruction? Any of
these or any combination of these might potentially lead to a narrowing of the
focus of perception on differences when L1 and L2 data, language use, social
situations, norms, etc. are to be compared. L2 proficiency could also play a role
here. It is certainly of interest to find out if other learners would perform
similarly under the same conditions and whether the same and other learners
would perform differently if one or several of the variables changed. If the
instructions explicitly stated to look for similarities and differences in these
comments, as opposed to asking the learners to compare the comments,
would that yield different findings? Would the similarities be more salient to
the learners than they were here? Or would the learners still mainly notice
differences? The latter would indicate that they expect to see differences or
that they believe they are expected to see them. It is not unconceivable that,
similarly to interactants in intercultural encounters who tend to tacitly assume
that their interlocutors share the same values, social norms, and interactional
rules, L2 learners in instructional settings would assume the opposite, given that
the contrasting of L1 and L2 linguistic, cultural, or sociocultural features is
undertaken regularly in L2 instruction. Certainly, if we were to find that L2
learners have been conditioned to focus on differences between L1 and L2
speech communities that should have an impact on how we teach. Future
studies will have to shed light on this.
A major shortcoming of this study is its single focus on the learners’ work
product. The long and lively discussions suggest that the learners orally men-
tioned and debated observations that were probably ignored in their written
reports. Additional data collection, for instance the videotaping of the learners’
reading, comparing, and discussing of the posted comments, would allow for an
analysis of the work process. The analysis of the recording could concentrate on
the task at hand. It could also examine the learners’ interactional behavior and
relational work while discussing the posts and making use of their multilingual
resources. This would have the potential to provide additional valuable insights.

Authenticated
5.3 Conclusion
The approach described and evaluated in this article shows learners engaged
with language in use with their focus of attention being neither grammatical nor
lexical, but interactional in nature. It makes use of authentic data, readily
available online, in the target language and in the language of instruction. It
encourages the learners to employ their multilingual resources and is explora-
tory in nature, allowing for a deep engagement with (im)politeness, understood
as “a broad range of semiotic phenomena which index and regulate social
relations” (Pizziconi 2015: 115) in every social interaction and which contribute
to the negotiation of social identities.
Through the comparison, reflection, and discussion of evaluative online
postings made in two languages – German and English – by language users
from different real world and virtual communities, the learners experience the
emerging character of relational work in interaction while engaging in cross-
linguistic activities. These activities allow the learners to investigate what factors
the comment posters take into account when evaluating interactional behavior
by other social actors as (im)polite.
Initiated by the instructions to both collaborative activities, the exchanges
with their peers on the German and English comments about the incident at the
2006 G8 Summit are themselves authentic interactions, co-constructed negotia-
tions of social relations and identities. As such they offer opportunities to
practice the mediation between languages and cultures and co-negotiation of
(im)politeness in a safe, multilingual environment while also reflecting on co-
negotiation of (im)politeness.
In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm that the targeted teaching of rela-
tional language use should no longer be the exception. Instead it needs to
become a regular and frequent part of L2 teaching11 for every learner who
intends to use the L2 in social interactions.
References
Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arendholz, Jenny. 2013. (In)appropriate online behavior: A pragmatic analysis of message
board relations (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 229). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
11 It should therefore also be part of L2 teacher education.

Authenticated
682 C. L. Rieger
Atkinson, Dwight. 2002. Towards a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition.

The Modern Language Journal 86(4). 525−545.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2013. Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning 63(Supplement 1). 68−86.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A
research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning 49(4). 677−713.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instructions in
pragmatics? In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teach-
ing, 13−32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Robert Griffin. 2005. L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL
classroom. System 33(3). 401–415.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, B. A. S. Hartford, R. Mahan-Taylor, M. J. Morgan & D. W. Reynolds.
1991. Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal 45(1). 4−15.
Barraja-Rohan, Anne-Marie. 2011. Using conversation analysis in the second language class-
room to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research 15(4). 479–507.
Béal, Christine. 1994. Keeping the peace: A cross-cultural comparison of questions and
requests in Australian English and French. Multilingua 13(1−2). 35−58.
Beebe, Leslie M. 1995. Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In
James E. Alatis, Carolyn A. Straehle, Brent Gallenberger & Maggie Ronkin (eds.),
Linguistics and the education of language teachers: Ethnolinguistic, psycholinguistic and
sociolinguistic aspects (Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and Linguistics
1995), 154−168. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Bella, Spyridoula, Maria Sifianou & Angeliki Tzanne. 2015. Teaching politeness?. In Barbara
Pizziconi & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Teaching and learning (im)politeness (Trends in
Applied Linguistics 22), 23−51. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Betz, Emma M. & Thorsten Huth. 2014. Beyond grammar: Teaching interaction in the German
language classroom. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 47(2). 140−163.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?.
Journal of Pragmatics 11(2). 131−146.
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness
phenomena. In Esther Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social inter-
action (Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology 8), 56−289. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some universals in language usage
(Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bush creeps out German chancellor, controversial footage. YouTube. 19 July 2006.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTQY1Aw9zcs (accessed 15 July 2016).
Carbaugh, Donal A. 2005. Cultures in conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clyne, Michael. 2006. Some thoughts on pragmatics, sociolinguistic variation, and intercultural
communication. Intercultural Pragmatics 3(1). 95–105.
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dijk, Teun A. van. 1977. Context and cognition: Knowledge frames and speech act compre-
hension. Journal of Pragmatics 1(3). 211−232.
Eckert, Penelope & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language
and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21. 461−490.

Authenticated
Eckert, Penelope & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1998. Communities of practice: Where language,
gender and power all live. In Jennifer Coates (ed.), Language and gender: A reader,
484−494. Oxford: Blackwell.
Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
Ehrhardt, Claus. 2009. Netiquette zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit Höflichkeit in deutschen
und italienischen Internetforen [Netiquette between demands and reality: Politeness in
German and Italian Internet fora]. In Claus Ehrhardt & Eva Neuland (eds.), Sprachliche
Höflichkeit in interkultureller Kommunikation und im DaF-Unterricht [Linguistic politeness
in intercultural communication and in German-as-a-foreign-language instruction]
(Sprache – Kommunikation – Kultur 7), 171−189. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Fukushima, Saeko & Maria Sifianou. 2017. Conceptualizing politeness in Japanese and Greek.
Intercultural Pragmatics 14(4). 525−555.
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interactional rituals: Essays on face–To–Face behavior. New York:
Doubleday.
Haugh, Michael. 2007. The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alter-
native. Journal of Politeness Research 3(2). 295−317.
Haugh, Michael & Wei-Lin Melody Chang. 2013. Collaborative creation of spoken language
corpora. In Tim Greer, Yuriko Kite & Donna Tatsuki (eds.), Pragmatics and language
learning. Volume 13, 133–159. Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Centre,
University of Hawai’i.
Haugh, Michael & Wei-Lin Melody Chang. 2015. Understanding im/politeness across cultures:
An interactional approach to raising sociopragmatic awareness. International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 53(4). 389−414.
Haugh, Michael, Dániel Z. Kádár & Sara Mills. 2013. Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and
debates. Journal of Pragmatics 58(1). 1−11.
House, Juliane. 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines
and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2). 225−252.
House, Juliane. 2015. Epilogue: Impoliteness in learning and teaching. In Barbara Pizziconi &
Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Teaching and learning (im)politeness (Trends in Applied
Linguistics 22), 247−254. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Huth, Thorsten. 2006. Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners’ realization of L2 compli-
ment-response sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 38(12). 2025–2050.
Huth, Thorsten. 2007. Pragmatics revisited: Teaching with natural language data. Die
Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 40(1). 21−33.
Huth, Thorsten. 2010. Intercultural competence in conversation: Teaching German requests. Die
Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 43(2). 154−164.
Huth, Thorsten & Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm. 2006. How can insights from conversation analysis
be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics?. Language Teaching Research 10(1). 53–79.
Ide, Sachiko, Beverly Hill, Yukiko M. Carnes, Tsunao Ogino & Akiko Kawasaki. 1992. The
concept of politeness: An empirical study of American English and Japanese. In Richard J.
Watts, Sachiko Ide & Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history,
theory and practice, 281−298. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jucker, Andreas H. 2012. Changes in politeness cultures. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs
Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0036.
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Authenticated
684 C. L. Rieger
Kasper, Gabriele. 1992. Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research 8(3). 203−231.
Kasper, Gabriele. 1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught? NetWork #6 [HTML document].
Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/ (accessed 15 July 2016).).
Kasper, Gabriele & Carsten Roever. 2005. Pragmatics in second language learning. In Eli Hinkel
(ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 317−334. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kasper, Gabriele & Kenneth R. Rose. 2001. Introduction. In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper
(eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, 1−9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, Gabriele & Kenneth R. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic development in a second language.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Kasper, Gabriele & Richard Schmidt. 1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2). 149−169.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2015. Intercultural impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 86(1). 43−47.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2017. Context-sensitivity in intercultural impoliteness. Journal of Politeness
Research 13(1). 7−33.
Kinginger, Celeste & Julie A. Belz. 2005. Socio-cultural perspectives on pragmatic development
in foreign language learning: Microgenetic case studies from telecollaboration and resi-
dence abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics 2(4). 369−421.
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. The logic of politeness; or minding your p’s and q’s. In T. Claudia Corum,
Cedric Smith-Stark & Ann Weiser (eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the
Chicago Linguistics Society, 292−305. Chicago: Department of Linguistics, University of
Chicago.
Lakoff, Robin. 1990. Talking power: The politics of language in our lives. New York: Basic
Books.
Lave, Jean & Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Liddicoat, Anthony J. 2014. Pragmatics and intercultural mediation in intercultural language
learning. Intercultural Pragmatics 11(2). 259−277.
Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication.
Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Locher, Miriam A. 2006. Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to
politeness. Multilingua 25(3). 249−267.
Locher, Miriam A. 2010. Introduction: Politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated com-
munication. Journal of Politeness Research 6(1). 1−5.
Locher, Miriam A. 2011. Situated impoliteness: The interface between relational work and
identity construction. In Bethan L. Davies, Michael Haugh & Andrew John Merrison (eds.),
Situated politeness, 187−208. London: Continuum.
Locher, Miriam A. 2012. Politeness research from past to future, with a special focus on the
discursive approach. In Lucía Fernández-Amaya, Maria de la O Hernández López, Reyes
Gómez Morón, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Manuel Mejias Borrero & Mariana Relinque Barranca
(eds.), New perspectives on (im)politeness and interpersonal communication, 36−60.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
Locher, Miriam A. 2013. Politeness. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied
linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0916.

Authenticated
Locher, Miriam A. 2015. “After all, the last thing I wanted to be is rude”: Raising of pragmatic
awareness through reflective writing. In Barbara Pizziconi & Miriam A. Locher (eds.),
Teaching and learning (im)politeness (Trends in Applied Linguistics 22), 185−209. Berlin &
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Locher, Miriam A., Brook Bolander & Nicole Höhn. 2015. Introducing relational work in Facebook
and discussion boards. Pragmatics 25(1). 1−21.
Locher, Miriam A. & Sage L. Graham. 2010. Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics. In Miriam
A. Locher & Sage L. Graham (eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 6),
1−13. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of
Politeness Research 1(1). 9−33.
Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2008. Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating
norms of linguistic behavior. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in
language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Language, Power and
Social Process 21), 77−99. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and politeness (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 17).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mills, Sara. 2005. Gender and impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 1(2). 263−280.
Mills, Sara. 2009. Impoliteness in a cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5). 1047−1060.
Mills, Sara. 2010. Impoliteness. In Patrick Griffiths, Andrew John Merrison & Aileen Bloomer
(eds.), Language in use: A reader, 59−68. London: Routledge.
Mills, Sara. 2011. Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In Linguistic
Politeness Research Group (ed.), Discursive approaches to politeness, 19−56. Berlin &
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. 2007. Foreign languages and higher education:
New structures for a changing world. https://www.mla.org/Resources/Research/Surveys-
Reports-and-Other-Documents/Teaching-Enrollments-and-Programs/Foreign-Languages-
and-Higher-Education-New-Structures-for-a-Changed-World (accessed 15 July 2016).
O’Keeffe, Anne, Brian Clancy & Svenja Adolphs. 2011. Introducing pragmatics in use. London:
Routledge.
Olstain, Elite & Andrew D. Cohen. 1991. Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative speakers. In
Marianne Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 154−165.
Boston, MA: Newbury House.
Pizziconi, Barbara. 2015. Teaching and learning (im)politeness: A look at the CEFR and peda-
gogical research. In Barbara Pizziconi & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Teaching and learning
(im)politeness (Trends in Applied Linguistics 22), 113−151. Berlin & New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Pizziconi, Barbara & Miriam A. Locher. 2015. Introducing the ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ of
(im)politeness. In Barbara Pizziconi & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Teaching and learning
(im)politeness (Trends in Applied Linguistics 22), 1−19. Berlin & New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Rieger, Caroline L. 2007. Artificial versus authentic textbook dialogues: Reviewing conversation in
the intercultural foreign language classroom. In Christoph Lorey, John L. Plews &
Caroline L. Rieger (eds.), Intercultural Literacies and German in the Classroom. Festschrift für
Manfred Prokop (Giessener Beiträge zur Fremdsprachendidaktik), 249−278. Tübingen: Narr.
Rieger, Caroline L. 2015. (Im)politeness and L2 socialization: Using reactions from online fora to
a world leader’s ‘impolite’ behavior. In Barbara Pizziconi & Miriam A. Locher (eds.),

Authenticated
686 C. L. Rieger
Teaching and learning (im)politeness (Trends in Applied Linguistics 22), 79−111. Berlin &
NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rieger, Caroline L. 2017. Analyzing online postings as social behavior for L2 instruction of
(im)politeness: Sensitizing advanced learners of German or English. Journal of Politeness
Research 13(2). 345−377.
Schmidt, Richard. 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In Gabriele
Kasper & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics, 21–42. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Scialdone, Maria Paola. 2009. Sprachliche Höflichkeit in interkulturellen DaF-Lehrwerken
deutsch-italienisch: Ein kritischer Überblick. [Linguistic politeness in intercultural German-
as-a-foreign-language German-Italien textbooks: A critical overview.]. In Claus Ehrhardt &
Eva Neuland (eds.), Sprachliche Höflichkeit in interkultureller Kommunikation und im DaF-
Unterricht [Linguistic politeness in intercultural communication and in German-as-a-for-
eign-language instruction] (Sprache – Kommunikation – Kultur. Soziolinguistische
Beiträge 7), 283−299. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Siegal, Meryl. 1996. The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic compe-
tency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics 17(3). 356−382.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Helen Spencer-
Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures, 11−46.
London: Continuum.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2005. (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their
bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 95−119.
Taguchi, Naoko. 2008. Cognition, language contact and the development of pragmatic com-
prehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning 58(1). 33−71.
Taguchi, Naoko. 2011. Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 31. 289−310.
Taguchi, Naoko. 2015. Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are,
and should be going in interlanguage pragmatics. Language Teaching 48(1). 1−5.
Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen & Andrea Golato. 2016. Jaja in spoken German: Managing knowl-
edge expectations. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 49(1). 80−96.
Tannen, Deborah. 2005. Interactional sociolinguistics as a resource for intercultural prag-
matics. Intercultural Pragmatics 2(2). 205−208.
The Douglas Fir Group. 2016. A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The
Modern Language Journal 100(1). 19−47.
Thornbury, Scott & Diana Slade. 2006. Conversation: From description to pedagogy. Cambridge
and New York: Cambridge University Press.
van Compernolle, Rémi A. 2011. Developing second language sociopragmatic knowledge
through concept-based instruction: A microgenetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics
43(13). 3267−3283.
van Compernolle, Rémi A. 2014. Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
van Compernolle, Rémi A. & Ashlie Henery. 2014. Instructed concept appropriation and L2
pragmatic development in the classroom. Language Learning 64(3). 549−578.
van Compernolle, Rémi A. & Ashlie Henery. 2015. Learning to do concept-based pragmatics
instruction: Teacher development and L2 pedagogical content knowledge. Language
Teaching Research 19(3). 351–372.

Authenticated
van Compernolle, Rémi A., Ashley Weber & Maria Pia Gomez-Laich. 2016. Teaching L2 Spanish
sociopragmatics through concepts: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language
Journal 100(1). 341−361.
van der Bom, Isabelle & Sara Mills. 2015. A discursive approach to the analysis of politeness
data. Journal of Politeness Research 11(2). 179−206.
Watts, Richard J. 1989. Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior.
Multilingua 8(2−3). 131−166.
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watts, Richard J. 2005. Linguistic politeness research. Quo vadis?. In Richard J. Watts, Sachiko
Ide & Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and
practice, 2nd edn., xi–xlvii Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Watts, Richard J. 2008. Rudeness, conceptual blending theory and relational work. Journal of
Politeness Research 4(2). 289−317.
Wolfson, Nessa. 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury House.
Yu, Kyong-Ae. 2002. Culture-specific concepts of politeness: The Korean concept of gong-
shonhada is different from the American English concept of polite and from the Japanese
concept of teineina. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 18(2). 41−60.
Yu, Kyong-Ae. 2011. Culture-specific concepts of politeness: Indirectness and politeness in
English, Hebrew and Korean requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(3). 385−409.
Bionote
Caroline L. Rieger
Caroline L. Rieger is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of British

Columbia, in Vancouver, Canada. She has published on self-repair of bilinguals, self-repair of
language learners, the teaching of conversational features, (im)politeness, laughter in
interaction, and intercultural competence. More recently she has ventured into translation
studies and communication in health care. She continues to work on interlanguage pragmatics
and on (im)politeness.
Appendix
List of English and German comments used
Kommentare Anderer vom Internet (Comments by Third Parties from the

Internet)
Von YouTube und anderen Webseiten (From YouTube and Other Websites)
1. To any Germans reading this.
I am so sorry.
signed America.

Authenticated
688 C. L. Rieger
2. (A president ought to know enough not use an expletive in a fairly open

meeting)12 and almost any male alive today knows that you don’t offer
uninvited massages to any female, much less the chancellor of Germany.
3. He’s such an asshole and a bully. It’s just insane that so much of the
country would rather have a (mostly fake) “regular guy” as president,
rather than someone who knows enough not to make the country a laugh-
ingstock on a regular basis.
4. Bush is a Texan. Texans hug one another, kiss one another, place their
hands on other’s shoulders, and give hand squeezes all the time. You libs
are always talking about understanding the culture of others and it’s time
for you to start understanding Texas culture. We’re not cold and frigid like
you Yankees are.
5. This isn’t a Sigma Chi kegger, it’s the G8 Summit, for hell’s sakes, and
these are two heads of state having a meeting, interrupted by the Frat Boy
in Chief acting like a juvenile goober.
6. I just can’t find the words to describe what Bush did with that neck
massage. An idiot by true definition of the word.
7. Speaking as a female, I have to say that I hate being in the position at a
party or at a business gathering and there is an obnoxious male who
doesn’t know the appropriate boundaries toward other humans. They say
inappropriate things or touch inappropriately.
8. Another thought re the Merkel grope: she was way too fawningly chummy
with him in Germany and failed to establish boundaries (doubtless not fully
realizing the extent of his true psychopathy). I am sure she now realizes the
need for such with this drugged-up psycho and won’t get fooled again (as they
say).
NOT blaming the victim – just sayin.
9. last night, a commenter had in English what AngieBabes shoulda said to
the Preznit — in German it can be loosely rendered as Erhalten Sie Ihren
schmutzigen Tatzen das Bumsen weg von mir bevor I cockpunch Sie in
folgende Woche und schieben Sie diese Wasserflasche herauf Ihren Esel,
Sie betrunken wenig Stichel!13
12 These parentheses were added to indicate to the learner that this part refers to another
incident.
13 The German in this comment must have been machine translated because it completely
disregards German syntax as well as the context and therefore no one can make sense of it
unless he or she has access to the English original as well. Here is how that comment was given
to the learner: “what AngieBabes shoulda said to the Preznit: ‘get your filthy paws the fuck off
of me before I cockpunch you into next week and shove this water bottle up your ass, you
drunken little prick.’”

Authenticated
PS — this the English original: “get your filthy paws the fuck off of me
before I cockpunch you into next week and shove this water bottle up your
ass, you drunken little prick.”
10. OMG it was nothing, it’s so sad that being human is becoming “inappropri-
ate”. (I VOTED AGAINST BUSH IN BOTH ELECTIONS TOO!)
11. Hallo,
ich finde, daß George W. Bush einfach nicht weiß, wie man sich benimmt. So
etwas Bescheuertes kann auch nur er tun!Aber sexuelle Belästigung ist das
noch lange nicht, eher unpassende aber “gut” gemeinte Freundlichkeit zur
falschen Zeit am falschen Ort. Ist doch aber ganz gut, daß die Amerikaner
immer wieder präsentiert bekommen, wen sie da verdammtnochmal leider
gewählt haben!
Gruß, [Name]
(Hello,
I think George W. Bush just doesn’t know how to behave properly. Only he
can do something so stupid! But it is not sexual harassment, not by a long
shot, rather inappropriate, but “well” intended friendliness at the wrong
place at the wrong time. It is however a very good thing that the Americans
get to see on a regular basis whom the hell they have voted for
unfortunately!
Greetings, [name])
12. Weder das eine, noch das andere. Aber man sollte vielleicht Angela Merkel
fragen, wie sie es empfunden hat. Für mich war es eine Geste unter Freunden.
(Neither one nor the other [as a response to the question of whether Bush’s
behavior can be seen as an error of judgment or as sexual harassment].
Maybe Angela Merkel should be asked how she felt about it. For me, it was
a friendly gesture [literally: a gesture among friends].)
13. Stimme dem zu. Ich sehe das auch als freundschaftliche Geste. Frau Merkel
hätte da nicht so geschockt reagieren brauchen.
(Agreed. To me it is also a friendly gesture. Ms Merkel didn’t need to react
so shocked though.)
14. …aber eine recht plumpe “Geste” wie ich finde. Frau Merkel sah im übrigen
nicht so glücklich aus, wie man beobachten konnte. Schade das sie Bush
nicht gleich eine gescheuert hat
(…but a very insensitive “gesture” I think. By the way, Ms Merkel did not
look so happy, as one could observe. Too bad she did not slap Bush at that
point)
15. auf den Gedanken das dass eine Frau sein könnte was uns da regiert bin ich
in der Tat noch nicht gekommen.
Alles eine Geschmacksfrage.

Authenticated
690 C. L. Rieger
Auf jedenfall zeigt das Verhalten Bushs das er die Merkel nicht ernst nimmt,
geschweige denn Respektiert.
Beim Schrödi hätte er das nicht gewagt, genau wie er es bei Blair nicht wagen
wird
(so far the thought has indeed not yet crossed my mind that which [de-
personalized relative pronoun] is governing us is a woman.
All a question of taste.
In any case, Bush’s behavior shows that he does not take Merkel [literally
the Merkel, emphasizing the missing title, Chancellor, or address, Frau/
Ms.] seriously let alone respect her.
He would not have dared to do this to Schrödi [nickname for former
Chancellor Schröder] just like he won’t dare to do this to Blair.)
16. ein sexueller übergriff auf frau merkel? soll das ein witz sein? welcher mensch
würde vesuchen sich sexuell an frau merkel zu vergreifen? ein gestörter? der
amerikanische präsident – ein gestörter? na wenn das so ist…
(sexual harassment of ms merkel? is that supposed to be a joke? which
human would try to sexually harass ms merkel? an insane one? the amer-
ican president is insane? oh, I see…)
17. Die Geste war unangemessen, jedenfalls in dem Rahmen in dem sie stattge-
funden hat. Wie gut das persönliche Verhältnis zwischen Merkel und Bush ist
weiss ich nicht, aber es kann durchaus ein freundschaftliche Geste gewesen
sein.
(The gesture was inappropriate, at least in that context it was. I do not
know how good the personal relationship between Merkel and Bush is, but
it is quite possible that it was a friendly gesture.)
18. In kulturspezifischen Verhaltensfragen ist GWB recht unsicher. Um bei Merkel
zu punkten, hat er sich gründlich mit den deutschen Ritualen des Frohsinns
beschäftigt.
Dabei konnte ihm das deutsche Standard-Werk der ausgelassenen Heiterkeit,
die "Polonäse Blankenese" nicht verschlossen bleiben.
“Wir ziehen los mit ganz großen Schritten,
und Erwin fasst die Heidi von hinten an die Ä… Schulter,
das hebt die Stimmung,
ja da kommt Freude auf”.
Leider hat er die Passage mit der Schulter nicht ganz richtig verstanden.
Eigentlich schade, sonst hätten wir jetzt bestimmt genügend Stoff, um damit
die nächsten 10 Sommerlöcher abzudecken.
(GWB is quite insecure when it comes to issues of culturally appropriate
behavior. To score with Merkel he studied German rituals of cheerfulness

Authenticated
quite extensively. In doing so he must have come across the mother of all
jolly songs: “Polonäse Blankenese”
“We set off with very large steps,
and Erwin is touching Heidi’s … uh shoulder from behind,
that lightens the mood
yes, it’s a joy to see.”
Unfortunately he didn’t quite get the part about the shoulder. Which is
actually too bad, or else we would surely have enough material to fill 10
silly seasons.)
19. Jede Wette, der Kerl hat wieder ordentlich gesoffen. Da er sich dann verbal eh
net mehr ordentlich ausdrücken konnte, hat er sich halt gedacht “So jetzt
drück ich dich mal so richtig du duftes Mäddel du” … ich versteh nur net,
warum Angie da so schüchtern reagiert – während der WM hat sie schließlich
noch jeden abgeknutscht, der ihr vor die Schnüss kam 8)
(I’ll bet you anything that guy was on the booze again. Then he can’t
properly communicate anymore and so he just thought to himself “Well I
will just hug you tight you smashing gal you” … I just don’t understand
why Angie is so shy about it – after all during the World Cup she was
canoodling with anyone who came close to her 8)

Authenticated

How (Not) To Be Rude: Facilitating The Acquisition of L2 (Im) Politeness.

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

How (Not) To Be Rude: Facilitating The Acquisition of L2 (Im) Politeness.

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Intercultural Pragmatics 2018; 15(5): 651–691

Keywords: L2 politeness teaching, L2 impoliteness teaching, L2 pragmatics,

*Corresponding author: Caroline L. Rieger, Department of Central, Eastern and Northern

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

Chinese: - Can I get you some more coffee, sir?

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

When processing politeness or impoliteness functions of utterances, interlocutors in inter-

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

complexity of (im)politeness and its role in the construction of identities and

2.1 (Im)politeness and L2 sociopragmatic competence

Socialization into a speech community or a community of practice (Eckert and

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

learner’s awareness of the intersubjectivity of the relational aspects of interac-

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

Even L2 users with a professional interest in intercultural communication, such as

In sum, current knowledge on (im)politeness, L2 sociopragmatic competence,

2.2 Interpersonal pragmatics and relational work

Interpersonal pragmatics, as developed by Watts (1989, 2003, 2005, 2008);

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

as other (im)politeness studies, sociolinguistics, interactional sociolinguistics,

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

assumed intended meaning in double square brackets. A case in point is taken

3.3 Teaching materials and learning goals

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

To the learner, the desired learning outcome was communicated differently, in a

3.4 Lesson and expectations

The session for the teaching of (im)politeness to German language learners

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

relationship, the gender of the evaluators, their ideologies and political

With regard to (im)politeness of the comments themselves, it was expected that

4 Findings and analysis

4.1 First collaborative learning activity

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

(1) – die deutschen Leute und kanadischen Leute haben unterschiedlichen

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

(6) – Die deutschen Bemerkungen sind höflicher als die Englischen.

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

(10) Es gibt viele Ähnlichkeiten zwischen den englischen und deutschen

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

Benehmen gewöhnlich war, und das Merkel zu streng reagiert hat.

(12) – Mit die deutsche Kommentare gibt es mehr amerikanische Stereotypen,

Contribution (13) is reproduced in its entirety because it shares observations that

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

4.2 Second collaborative learning activity

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

notice similarities in addition to differences. Some learners differentiate the

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

Spaß über das Thema, während die deutschen Kommentare berücksichtigen

(18) – Einige Kommentare sind unhöflich. Wörter wie „asshole“, „bully“,

Report (20) identifies yet another rationale for evaluating a contribution as

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

– difficult to say, how polite the German comments are because we do

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

5 Discussion and conclusion

5.1 Discussion of the findings

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma

Brought to you by | Universidad Nacional Autonoma