The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Pragmatics

Rachel Mapson

Introduction

This chapter explores a facet of pragmatics that has become an increasing focus of research, im/politeness. The umbrella term im/politeness, or (im)politeness, encompasses all points on a continuum between what might be considered polite or rude (Culpeper et al., 2010), and has been used within academia for over 20 years (Culpeper, 2015). Im/politeness forms an intrinsic element of the way people develop and maintain relationships with each other, but the way this is evaluated differently in every language makes it a particularly important focus for interpreting scholars and practitioners.

The chapter aims to situate the work around interpretation of im/politeness within the wider landscape of im/politeness literature. However, given the extent of relevant literature, it is necessarily selective. The first section concerns research on im/politeness, starting by defining some of the main concepts involved. The second section reviews the literature on im/politeness in cross-cultural and intercultural contexts. Section 3 then introduces the literature on im/politeness in translation and interpreting studies (TIS). The remainder of the chapter then highlights some of the recurring and interrelated themes that emerge from these studies: first, the challenge of interpreting cross-cultural contrasts in in/directness, and second, the relational and rapport management activity that occurs in interpreted interaction. The chapter therefore offers a critical appraisal of key perspectives and common themes, and signposts readers to further literature.

1 Key concepts in im/politeness

This section introduces some of the key theoretical concepts and approaches in im/politeness research, with a particular focus on those that have been incorporated within interpreting studies research on the subject. The section starts by outlining ways in which politeness has been defined, before focusing on the relationship between politeness and face (Goffman, 1967), Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1987), discursive approaches to im/politeness and rapport management theory (Spencer-Oatey, 2008).

1.1 Defining politeness

Research on politeness, as a sub-discipline of pragmatics (Thomas, 1995), has been a key focus for pragmatic research since the 1970s. However, defining linguistic politeness is not as straightforward as one might imagine. For example, Lakoff (1975: 64) suggests that it is language “developed by societies in order to reduce friction in personal interaction”. Others have a similarly broad perspective on politeness. Sato (2008: 1267) relates it to “social protocol” while Ide (1989: 22) describes it as “language to do with smooth communication”. In contrast, Watts (2003: 19) sees politeness as marked or non-conventional language, and describes much of what other authors consider to be polite as “politic” or expected behaviour.

Within pragmatics, a further distinction relevant to im/politeness can be made between pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics (Thomas, 1983; Leech, 1983). Pragmalinguistics relates to the linguistic forms available in a language, whereas sociopragmatics refers to the cultural norms relating to when and where particular forms of language are used. This terminology can be helpful when discussing different facets of im/politeness, although the boundaries between the two concepts are frequently blurred. Many studies of im/politeness frequently have a pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic focus and, as a result, there is relatively little literature around paralinguistic expression of im/politeness. Notable exceptions include work on prosody in im/politeness by Wichmann (2004), Culpeper (2005, 2012) and Félix-Brasdefer (2009). Additionally, until recently there has been strong focus on what might be considered as politeness. However, starting with Culpeper’s impoliteness theory (1996) there is now a developing literature around impoliteness and rudeness (Culpeper et al., 2003; Bousfield, 2008; Bousfield & Locher, 2008; House, 2010; Culpeper, 2011; Christie, 2013).

There are many theoretical approaches within pragmatics and sociolinguistics that supplement those outlined in this chapter, which have relevance for translation and interpreting studies scholars. Lakoff (1975) was one of the earliest researchers to focus on politeness theory, with a particular focus on gender. Leech (1983) based his politeness principles on the earlier cooperative principle of Grice (1975). Fraser and Nolan (1981) approach politeness from the conversational contract perspective; a dynamic construct in which each participant has expectations of the other/s based on their rights and obligations. Arndt and Janney (1985) focus on interpersonal supportiveness, rather than politeness, in their framework for multimodal behaviours in American English, while Arundale (1999, 2010) considers politeness in the form of face constituting theory. Theoretical perspectives developed outside of Western culture include the work of Gu (1990) on the Chinese concept of politeness, who relates it to societal norms around morality. Leech’s politeness principles (1983) form the basis of Ide’s work on the Japanese concept of politeness (1982, 1989). Her theoretical approach incorporates the understanding that politeness is inherent within the use of Japanese, rather than being a strategic device for achieving personal goals. A detailed account, and critique, of several theoretical approaches to politeness is provided by Eelen (2001).

1.2 Politeness and face

Many of the studies on linguistic politeness are grounded in Goffman’s conceptualisation of face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (Goffman, 1967: 5). Goffman’s concept highlights the contextual and interactional characteristics of face, the way these behaviours frequently become habitual, and how people may respond to face, either consciously or sub-consciously. It should be recognised that Goffman’s work was primarily intended to illuminate intra-cultural communication within North America, and was therefore predicated on Western ideas and behaviours, although he refers to influence from Chinese and American Indian cultures (Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003).

However, face is not exclusively a Goffmanian concept (Haugh, 2013), nor is it the only motivator for politeness (Mills, 2003; Spencer-Oatey, 2008; Haugh, 2013). Although face and im/politeness are related, and frequently co-exist, they can also occur independently of one another (Haugh, 2013). This is more apparent in first order, or lay, perceptions and understandings of im/politeness than it is in the literature. Haugh (2013: 20) therefore distinguishes between face, which concerns “relationships in interaction”, and im/politeness, which concerns people’s evaluations that compare what is happening with their expectations.

An alternative perspective on face uses the relational dialectic theory (RDT) framework that was devised for the analysis of interpersonal relations (Montgomery & Baxter, 1998). Arundale (2006, 2010) and Spencer-Oatey (2013) note how face sensitivities relate to the connectedness-separateness dialectic (Montgomery & Baxter, 1998), which involves relational tensions in the physical and emotional distance between people. A dialectic, in contrast with a continuum, involves the constant presence and dynamic interplay between the two opposing elements. For example, the connectedness-separateness dialectic can be particularly problematic when managing rapport in workplace interactions (Spencer-Oatey, 2013). One advantage of the dialectic approach is that it can helpfully account both for cross-cultural contrasts and the heterogeneity of intra-cultural behaviours (Arundale, 2006).

The connection between face and im/politeness is evident within the literature, and it is therefore unsurprising that much im/politeness research stems from Goffman’s work. However, Goffman’s notion of face has sometimes been adapted within im/politeness and intercultural studies, resulting in a dilution, and change of focus, of his original concept.

1.3 Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory

One of the significant adaptions to Goffman’s concept of face occurs in the seminal politeness theory of Brown and Levinson (1978/1987). In their reinterpretation, face concerns public self-image and is framed in relation to the individual, rather than the social construct envisaged by Goffman (Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003; Arundale, 2006).

Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1987) has influenced a wealth of subsequent research on politeness, and work on impoliteness, notably Culpeper’s impoliteness theory (1996), which was developed from the taxonomy of Brown and Levinson’s model. Brown and Levinson’s work has also underpinned many of the interpreting studies on the subject (e.g. Berk-Seligson, 1990; Hatim & Mason, 1997; Hoza, 2001, 2007a; Mason & Stewart, 2001; Savvalidou, 2011). Their model outlines three sociological factors that determine the level of politeness required in social interaction, namely: power, social distance, and imposition. The first of these is social distance, which may incorporate several factors such as duration of knowing one another, frequency of contact and like-mindedness. Brown and Levinson maintain that social distance is always symmetric between both parties, but this underlines the model’s lack of consideration for individual differences in evaluation and perception of relationships. The second factor is power, with the model indicating that this is where asymmetry is created through relative power differential. The final factor is degree of imposition, or the likely burden of expectation on the recipient. The model suggests that greater use of indirectness occurs when the recipient has greater power, is socially more distant, and when the degree of imposition is higher. These three variables have come under scrutiny within the wider literature (for example Mills, 2003; Spencer-Oatey, 2008; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2010) with recognition that cultural factors and others such as a sense of urgency, rights and obligations may all play a part. Mills (2003) also challenges the assumption that individuals’ perception of social distance and imposition are shared, arguing that they are negotiated within each interaction.

Brown and Levinson’s (1987) work nevertheless provides a useful taxonomy and a very detailed classification of politeness strategies through which face can be maintained. These include positive strategies that indicate appreciation or admiration, and negative forms of politeness that recognise the independence of the other person and are designed to minimise imposition. However, a significant criticism of Brown and Levinson’s framework is its lack of suitability for cross-cultural study, and its strong roots within Western culture. Scollon and Scollon (2001) identify highly contrasting styles of cultural politeness systems depending on whether societal cultures prioritise group solidarity or individual independence. The universality of the Brown and Levinson model is therefore strongly contested (for example Ide 1982; Gu, 1990; Mills, 2003; Spencer-Oatey, 2008; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2010). Further concern surrounds the theory’s preoccupation with politeness as something that is produced by the speaker, rather than being rooted within interaction and evaluated by others.

1.4 Discursive approaches

Viewed from a discursive perspective, the term im/politeness does more than signify a linguistic continuum. It also embodies how research has shifted from considering politeness in the particular linguistic forms produced by a speaker, as illustrated in the Brown and Levinson model, to an appreciation that im/politeness lies in the way language is perceived and evaluated (Mills, 2003; Watts, 2003; Locher & Watts, 2005). This discursive approach recognises that particular linguistic constructs are not inherently polite or impolite, as the same utterance may be evaluated differently by different people or in different situations (Kasper, 1990; Haugh, 2013). For example, an apology may not be considered genuine if it is evaluated as lacking sincerity. Im/politeness therefore results from an evaluation of behaviour rather than the behaviour itself. Interpersonal pragmatics advances the discursive approach further, by asserting that im/politeness evaluations influence, and are influenced by, participation in interaction (Haugh et al., 2013).

Discursive approaches facilitate exploration of contextual influences at both micro and macro levels. From a micro perspective, each utterance within an interaction can be analysed to examine dialogue shifts on the basis of participants’ responses. On a macro level, the influence of the environment and the roles of the participants within it are often foregrounded. In some situations, im/politeness follows prescribed expectations and conventions (Kádár & Haugh, 2013), which may become formalised or adopted informally within specific communities of practice (Mills, 2003). These conventions can be observed within studies of workplace environments, where the use of small talk and humour are recognised as strategies for addressing the face needs of colleagues (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003; Mullany, 2004, 2006; House, 2010; Spencer-Oatey, 2013), with other studies acknowledging how rudeness and impoliteness can be used with humorous intent (Culpeper et al., 2003; Bousfield, 2008; Bousfield & Locher, 2008; House, 2010; Culpeper, 2011; Christie, 2013).

1.5 Rapport management

One of the developments within the discursive approach has been that of rapport management theory (Spencer-Oatey, 2008), described by Culpeper et al. (2010) as the most detailed framework for analysing relationship negotiation. Rapport management is defined as “the management or mismanagement of relations between people” (Spencer-Oatey, 2005: 96). The theory includes Goffman’s (1967) notion of face, as one of three inter-relating bases of evaluations made when managing rapport. The second is interactional goals, which can be task and/or relationship oriented (Spencer-Oatey, 2005), with rapport management either a means to an end or the ultimate goal. The third concerns societal rights and obligations, exemplified in expectations around speaking rights and turn-taking, which can be context specific or relate to speaker role.

The focus within rapport management theory is on the dynamics of interaction and the process of relating. Rapport can be achieved through a variety of interrelating elements, including verbal and non-verbal behaviours, stylistics, non/participation, speech acts, and discourse content and structure (Spencer-Oatey, 2005, 2008). Spencer-Oatey (2008) acknowledges the multiple contextual variables that influence interaction, by expanding on the three variables considered by Brown and Levinson (1987). These include the number of participants present, their social interactional roles and the type of activity occurring. Even the straightforward variable of power as conceptualised by Brown and Levinson (1987), becomes a complex concept. Power can be subdivided into the different types that are exercised by people in different roles, and can manifest in an interaction between message content and the rights and obligations relevant to a particular social role. Evaluation of power can be highly culture specific and related to particular relationship pairings, such as service provider/customer. The complexity of social distance is also acknowledged, potentially including frequency of contact and length of acquaintance (Spencer-Oatey, 2008).

Prior knowledge and familiarity between interlocutors can enhance some of the key competencies involved in effective rapport management (Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009). Contextual awareness, interpersonal attentiveness and social information gathering can all take place prior to an interaction. The remaining competencies of social attuning, regulation of emotion and stylistic flexibility are predominantly developed during interaction. This notion of previous experience influencing current interaction is similarly reflected in the latent and emergent networks¹ discussed by Watts (2003).

A further concept that emerges from Spencer-Oatey’s work is that of rapport orientations. These are attitudes towards interactional involvement, which individuals convey through their behaviour and language use. People can exhibit attitudes that seek to enhance, maintain, neglect or challenge rapport (Spencer-Oatey, 2008: 32).

Rapport management theory was designed to account for cultural variation (Spencer-Oatey, 2008: 13), making it a useful framework for both cross-cultural and intercultural studies. Although initial uptake of this approach has been slow within the im/politeness literature (Culpeper et al., 2010), the framework has since been applied to studies on various languages in relation to written communication (Ho, 2010) and face-to-face conversation (Garcia, 2010). Culpeper and colleagues (2010) adopted it in their comparison of cross-cultural variation in impoliteness, and it has also been applied to analysis of intercultural interaction (Spencer-Oatey, 2002; Spencer-Oatey & Xing, 2003). Its suitability for intercultural research is further evidenced within recent interpreting studies that have adopted a rapport management perspective (e.g. Major, 2013; Schofield & Mapson, 2014; Mapson 2015b, forthcoming; Radanovic Felberg, 2016).

2 Cross-cultural and intercultural im/politeness

Im/politeness research has frequently focused on particular languages, with some studies taking a cross-cultural, comparative, approach and others examining the im/politeness that occurs in intercultural interaction. The section begins with a brief overview of the literature on im/politeness in signed languages before highlighting issues within cross-cultural and intercultural studies that have particular resonance for interpreters and interpreting.

2.1 Politeness in signed language

Although the im/politeness literature has traditionally focussed on spoken languages, research has also addressed signed language. This includes work on several unrelated signed languages, with studies indicating a degree of commonality in the non-manual expression of im/politeness between Brazilian Sign Language (Ferreira Brito, 1995), American Sign Language (Hoza, 2001, 2007b; Roush, 2007), Japanese Sign Language (George, 2011), and British Sign Language (Mapson, 2013, 2014a). Non-manual markers for im/politeness involve facial expression and movements of the head and upper body, which can convey both positive and negative politeness strategies (Hoza, 2007b, 2008). Further description of the paralinguistic expression of politeness indicates that smaller and slower signing is deemed more polite (George, 2001; Ferreira Brito, 1995), with faster signing and greater space used when expressing impoliteness (Ferreira Brito, 1995; Mirus et al., 2012).

2.2 Cross-cultural contrasts

Im/politeness research has frequently been conducted from a cross-cultural perspective that examines the contrast in im/politeness between two or more languages or cultures. Following the work of Brown and Levinson (1987) the motivation to understand more about the potential universality of im/politeness led to the development of a theoretical and methodological framework from the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realisation Patterns (CCSARP) research of Blum-Kulka and colleagues (1989). This work involved comparison of requests and apologies across eight languages, or language varieties, using a taxonomy comprised of the categorisation of internal and external linguistic modifications. Internal modification relates to the main body of the speech act, while external modifications either precede or follow it. This framework has been adopted in many subsequent cross-cultural studies, and is a potentially valuable resource for TIS scholars (see also Bruti, this volume). However, one of the limitations with the methodology is the reliance on written discourse completion tests (DCT), as the analysis of written responses to written prompts may differ from the use of spoken language. Furthermore, the categorisations developed in the CCSARP are also open to question, with Mapson (2014a) identifying problems in relation to their suitability for capturing the im/politeness function of non-manual features in signed language.

One form of internal modification is the use of politeness markers such as please and thank you. Cross-cultural research evidences how these pragmalinguistic constructs do not necessarily have equivalencies in other languages and, even when they do, their pragmatic force and positioning in sentence structure may differ. These differences are nicely illustrated in relation to the use of please across British English, German, Polish and Russian (Ogiermann, 2009), in telephone service encounters by English and Greek speakers (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2005) and between American and New Zealand varieties of English (Sato, 2008).

Studies reveal that formulaic, or routine, expressions for im/politeness are more common in some languages than others, with English being a language rich in these conventionalised phrases (House, 1986). Kasper (1990) notes that these routine expressions are language specific; cross-linguistic equivalencies, in form or function, may not exist. For example, Pablos-Ortega (2010) suggests that formulaic politeness markers are expected in expressions of gratitude in British English, but not by Spanish speakers for whom omission of thanks is the norm in some contexts. In some languages these conventionalised forms can often be observed in the use of small talk. In English, small talk is employed as a positive politeness strategy (Brown & Levinson, 1987) that helps oil the wheels of interaction, particularly in workplaces (Coupland, 2003; Holmes & Stubbe, 2003; Mullany 2004, 2006; House, 2010). This politeness strategy is not shared by all languages; in German it is used so infrequently that there is no equivalent term (House, 2010).

In British English, routine phrases are used in conventionalised expressions of indirectness (Thomas, 1983; Blum-Kulka, 1987; Ogiermann, 2009). House (1986, 2005), when comparing British English and German, comments that routine phrases for im/politeness often reflect the level of indirectness in English. Indirectness is another frequent focus in cross-cultural research, because it may be used for different purposes (Ruetenik, 2013) and be evaluated in contrasting ways (Kasper, 1990; Thomas, 1995). These evaluations are the focus of a study by Culpeper et al. (2010), who adopt a rapport management approach to explore the students’ perceptions of impoliteness in England, China, Finland, Germany and Turkey.

Sociopragmatic contrast can be observed in studies that evidence how face is evaluated very differently in collectively-oriented cultures in which group face is valued more than individual need (Vilkki, 2006). Research on non-Western cultures identifies a prioritisation over belonging, reciprocity and collective identity (for example, Ide, 1989; Hill et al., 1986; Matsumoto, 1989; Gu, 1990; Nwoye, 1992). These solidarity politeness systems are also more prevalent within signed language communities (Mindess, 2006; Hoza, 2007b). These contrasts are evidenced in studies of apologies, which illustrate how pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic norms combine to dictate when and how to apologise (Scollon & Scollon, 2001). For example, in American English it is usual to offer an explanation with an apology, whereas Japanese speakers do not (Tanaka et al., 2008).

Cultural contrast can be also observed in what Kasper (1990) describes as politeness used in social indexing, for example in expectations of address based on characteristics such as age, gender and status. The degree to which this exists varies considerably between languages, with Japanese exemplifying a highly-marked language (Matsumoto, 1989), although this is not solely motivated by deference (Pizziconi, 2011).

However, cross-cultural studies and categorisation can potentially reinforce cultural stereotypes. Such stereotypes are often inaccurate (Tanaka et al., 2008), and risk overlooking the subtle differences that may exist between cultures broadly considered to be similar. For example, Aoki (2010) identifies distinct differences between rapport management in Thailand and Japan, although both cultures have been identified as collective (Hofstede, 1986). Similarly, Hernandez-Flores (1999) highlights intra-lingual heterogeneity by exploring intra-cultural differences. Eelen (1999) challenges the notion of cultural groups more fundamentally, suggesting that a shared language is not an indicator of shared minds or ideas. He suggests that similarities may be very superficial. Tendencies to stereotype are also evident when discussing the language use of Deaf² signed language users. For example, the lack of indirectness associated with Deaf culture in the USA (Mindess, 2006) is challenged by research that evidence how Deaf people use both directness and indirectness (Roush, 2007; Hoza, 2007b, 2008; Mapson, 2014a). Roush (2007) and Mapson (2014a) indicate that the stereotype of Deaf people as being direct may partly derive from the multiple articulators used simultaneously in signed language, which enable indirectness to be produced more succinctly than in spoken language.

2.3 Intercultural communication

While cross-cultural research involves comparative studies, intercultural research explores what happens when people from different linguistic backgrounds interact with each other. Many of the contrasts highlighted in cross-cultural research can become problematic in intercultural communication.

The norms associated with eye contact and tactile communication by Deaf signed language users (Smith & Sutton-Spence, 2005) may contrast sharply with the im/politeness evaluations of non-Deaf interlocutors. This can create problems in intercultural interaction (Grosjean, 2014). Studies indicate that im/politeness in signed language may be altered by language contact with spoken language. This can result in lexical signs replacing or displacing non-manual politeness markers, and a change to a more spoken-language influenced syntax (Mapson, 2013). Accommodating to perceived expectations of another culture can be problematic. In Venezuela, Deaf people were observed to borrow gestures used by the non-Deaf population in a desire to promote rapport with their non-Deaf interlocutors. However, the gestures were used in contexts deemed inappropriate by the non-Deaf people and the rapport-enhancing intent was subverted (Pietrosemoli, 2001). Studies involving Deaf and non-Deaf interactions are not the only ones to explore indigenous intercultural interaction. Other examples include the work of Holmes and colleagues (2012) and their exploration of intercultural workplace interactions involving Pakeha and Maori cultures in New Zealand.

Being polite in any second (L2) or additional language can be influenced by the process of pragmatic transfer. This can occur at either the pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic levels (Kasper, 1992; Béal, 1994), although these two levels may be indistinct (Žegarac & Pennington, 2008). Negative pragmatic transfer occurs when people assume their L1 sociopragmatic norms are universal (Thomas, 1983; Kasper, 1992), thus creating problems when their use of language fails to meet the expectations of their interlocutors.

Pragmatic transfer occurs more frequently in unfamiliar situations (Takahashi, 2000), because bilinguals’ competence may be context specific (Grosjean, 2014). So politeness as smooth communication (Ide, 1989: 22) can therefore be problematic in intercultural interaction. This is particularly the case when rapport is managed very differently in L1 and L2, for example taking into account the contrasting norms associated with small talk (House, 2010), or the considerable adjustments needed in use of indirectness for effective rapport management (Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009). The problems created by these differences can be increased when speakers adopt a tacit resistance to the sociopragmatic norms of their L2 (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Taguchi, 2011) or are unaware of pragmatic issues (Blum-Kulka, 1997). Roush (2007) and Mapson (2014a) note particular challenges for L2 users of signed language who are likely to lack a detailed understanding of the way those languages convey indirectness.

In addition to the linguistic forms used, the gaps between utterances can also be culturally specific and relevant to im/politeness. A study of the silences in intercultural communication between Australian English and Japanese students in university seminars (Nakane, 2006) indicates how Japanese students’ use of silence as a face-saving strategy contrasted with the verbal strategies employed by Australian students, and was perceived negatively by lecturers. Nakane represents a small group of authors whose work spans both the generic im/politeness literature and translation and interpreting studies, which are the focus of the following section.

The proliferation of im/politeness research since the 1970s has shifted from the predominantly face-oriented approach of Brown and Levinson (1987) to a range of perspectives adopting a more nuanced appreciation of contextual influences. The literature illustrates significant cross-cultural variation in the way im/politeness is expressed and perceived, and the potential difficulties this can generate within intercultural interaction. Although these issues are highly pertinent to interpreters and translators working at the interface between languages, relatively few studies within TIS have been underpinned by the developments within the theoretical frameworks and perspectives of im/politeness.

3 Interpreting im/politeness: an overview

The translation and interpreting studies literature has frequently touched on issues of im/politeness, with some studies adopting this as their primary focus. This section introduces this literature, the methodologies used and the focus of those studies before subsequent sections consider the interconnecting themes arising from this research.

3.1 Areas of research

Research on interpreting in the legal domain has dominated (Berk-Seligson, 1990; Hale, 2004, Mason & Stewart, 2001; Angermeyer, 2005; Nakane, 2008), with less attention given to interpreting in political contexts (Savvalidou, 2011; Mankauskienė, 2015; Magnifico & Defrancq, 2016), workplaces and employment related scenarios (Hoza, 2001; Spencer-Oatey & Xing, 2003; Banna, 2007; Bristoll, 2009; Dickinson, 2014) and healthcare contexts (Major, 2013; Schofield & Mapson, 2014; Albl-Mikasa et al., 2015). Other studies have explored interpreters’ personal use and understanding of im/politeness (Hoza, 1999, 2007a; Hlavac et al., 2015; Mapson, 2015a, 2015b).

Within these contexts, the studies have examined various im/politeness topics in both signed and spoken language interpreting, illustrating the power and influence interpreters may exert in interpreted interaction (Berk-Seligson, 1990; Hale, 1999; Mason & Stewart, 2001; Angermeyer, 2005), the affordance of familiarity with the primary participants (Major, 2013; Schofield & Mapson, 2014), the interpretation of rudeness (Murphy, 2012; Gallez, 2015; Manauskiene, 2015, Magnifico & Defrancq, 2016; Radanovic Felberg, 2016), and the value of explicit knowledge about im/politeness to assist conscious consideration of these issues (Hoza, 2001; Roush, 2007; Nakane, 2008; Mapson, 2015a, 2015b; Hlavac et al., 2015).

3.2 Research methodologies

These studies on im/politeness have drawn on a number of different methodological approaches incorporating both quantitative and qualitative techniques. The most common is observation and analysis of transcripts or recordings of interpreted interaction. These have focussed on interpreting between spoken languages (Berk-Seligson, 1990; Hale, 2001; Mason & Stewart, 2001; Angermeyer, 2005; Nakane, 2008; Albl-Mikasa et al., 2015; Gallez, 2015), between spoken and signed languages (Banna, 2007; Savvalidou, 2011) and translation in sub-titling (Hatim & Mason, 1997; Yuan, 2012). Although studies focus on specific interactions, more recent research has used corpus data (Magnifico & Defrancq, 2016; Mankauskienė, 2016). Other methodologies adopted include theoretical discussion based on real-life scenarios (Hoza, 1999), ethnographic study (Berk-Seligson, 1990; Dickinson, 2014) and qualitative interviews (Bristoll, 2009; Schofield & Mapson, 2014; Mapson, 2015a, 2015b, forthcoming).

Other studies have also incorporated multiple methods to investigate interpretation of im/politeness. Schofield and Mapson (2014) used questionnaires as a precursor to qualitative interviews. Banna (2007) used questionnaires as part of a case study approach that included video recording of an interpreted meeting, with analysis that incorporated elements of grounded theory. Hoza (2001, 2007a) combined analysis of interpreted interaction with interviews and discourse completion tests (DCT), creating a video format of the method used widely following the CCSARP work of Blum-Kulka et al. (1989). Major’s study of healthcare interpreting (2013) used questionnaires, interviews and role-play in addition to recording naturally-occurring GP-patient interactions. In Mapson’s study (2015, forthcoming) interviews were conducted with eight experienced interpreters divided into two groups: one whose first language was English and the other whose first language was BSL. Their discussion around the interpretation of im/politeness was stimulated by viewing some short videos of Deaf people making requests and apologies in BSL to ascertain how these utterances might be interpreted. This methodology generated data relating to the full breadth of contexts in which signed language interpreters typically work. These studies show how adopting multiple ways of interrogating the interpretation of im/politeness within a single study facilitates greater revelation of the interpretation process and the relational work undertaken by interpreters, and the capture of the multiple perspectives involved.

3.3 Theoretical foundations

Some of these studies are rooted firmly in the im/politeness literature. Earlier studies (Berk-Seligson, 1990; Hatim & Mason, 1997; Hoza, 2001, 2007a; Mason & Stewart, 2001; Savvalidou, 2011) were influenced by the work of Brown and Levinson (1987). However, reliance on this theoretical framework could be considered problematic, as the Brown and Levinson model has been heavily criticised for its lack of universality (Ide, 1989; Gu, 1990; Nwoye, 1992) and its Anglo-centric perspective (Mills, 2012). More recent research has been framed by the discursive and rapport management approaches to im/politeness (Spencer-Oatey & Xing, 2003; Major, 2013; Schofield & Mapson, 2014; Mapson, 2015b, forthcoming; Radanovic Felberg, 2016) and the literature on impoliteness and rudeness (Gallez, 2015; Mankauskienė, 2015; Magnifico & Defrancq, 2016; Radanovic Felberg, 2016). Studies on gender issues (Banna, 2007; Mason, 2008; Magnifico & Defrancq, 2016) make reference to the work of Holmes (1990, 1995) and Mills (2003), and studies on workplace interpreting (Banna, 2007; Dickinson, 2014) have strong connections with the literature around small talk (Mullany, 2004, 2006). The particular issues of honorifics and im/politeness in Japanese (Ide, 1982, 1990; Okamoto, 2004) are the basis of Nakane’s work (2008). However, many other studies are rooted predominantly within the TIS literature, making little reference to the general field of im/politeness, resulting in research that is either under-theorised, or lacking any theoretical perspective on the subject.

4 Interpretation of im/politeness

Interpreters encounter cross-cultural challenges with im/politeness due to potentially contrasting cultural norms (Hale, 2007). These contrasts can exist at the fundamental level of cultural identity and the extent to which a culture is predominantly individualistic or collective (Scollon & Scollon, 2001). One of the manifestations of these cultural contrasts is the use of in/directness.

Several studies within TIS concern the interpretation of in/directness. The in/directness contrasts between English and German are outlined by House (1998), who emphasises the need for translation of im/politeness to have both cultural and functional equivalence. House’s work derives from her involvement in the CCSARP project (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) and she asserts the need for understanding of cultural differences in politeness at the level of specific language pairs. Roush (2007) and Hoza (2007a) discuss similar issues in relation to interpreting between US English and American Sign Language (ASL), and Mapson (2015b) illustrates how interpreters can be challenged by the way indirectness is expressed succinctly through facial expression in British Sign Language, but needs to be reflected in a lengthier lexical form in British English. Various manifestations of in/directness have been explored within TIS, with an emphasis on dialogue interpreting in formal contexts. The remainder of this section describes some of the themes picked up within these studies, including interpreters’ use of hedges, interpretation of phatic tokens, prosody, the interpretation of face-threatening acts (FTAs) and the use of third person. The final topics within this section explore the influence of interpreter identity on the way im/politeness is interpreted, and the interconnected issue of terms of address.

4.1 Hedges

Hedging, an indirectness strategy described as a negative politeness device for minimising imposition on others (Brown & Levinson, 1987), is the focus of Mason & Stewart’s (2001) analysis of court and immigration interviews. They note how hedges may need to be modified to convey politeness appropriately into the target language, as failure to do so can markedly impact on the force of an utterance.

The impact of the addition or omission of hedging was one pragmalinguistic focus of Hale’s (2004) research on court proceedings, whose work underpins Albl-Mikasa and colleagues’ (2015) study of hedges and phatic tokens in interpreted healthcare interactions. Findings from the latter study illustrate how expressions used deliberately by German-speaking clinicians to develop trust and rapport with patients were omitted in the interpretations of Albanian and Turkish interpreters. The communicative strategies the clinicians were employing to reduce power asymmetry, were therefore being thwarted by the interpreters. This may be because interpreters’ home cultures value, or use, these expressions differently. The study highlights how cultural differences can exist between populations that share the same language (Scollon & Scollon, 2001), and the potential tensions that may arise when interpreters do not share the same cultural background as either client. Both Hale (2004) and Albl-Mikasa et al. (2015) identify the need for interpreters to understand the communicative intent behind use of hedges and phatic tokens within the different contexts in which they work, so that these can be reflected appropriately in interpretation.

In a study less explicitly related to im/politeness, Banna (2007) adopts a mixed-methods approach to examine interpreters’ use of hedging in a meeting involving a mixture of Deaf and hearing participants. Her discussion exemplifies the discursive approach to im/politeness (Locher & Watts, 2003) by highlighting the potential discrepancy between interpreters’ motivations for using hedges and the perceptions of the primary participants. She questions whether interpreters’ hedges are motivated by cultural appropriateness, or their own uncertainty about the accuracy of their interpretation. The study illustrates the connection between hedges and prosody; interpreters’ use of prosody may contrast with the prosody used by primary participants, resulting in different communicative intent being perceived.

4.2 Prosody

One means of expressing hedges is through prosody, typically with the use of final rising intonation (Brown & Levinson, 1987). However, studies reveal that interpreters may not always recognise the significance of paralinguistic features of discourse. Hale (2004) discusses tone and prosody in relation to court questioning. She notes how interpreters may concentrate predominantly on maintaining propositional content, and overlook or omit other pragmatically significant discourse markers as a result. Her work highlights the discrepancy between interpreters’ evaluation of the significance of these paralinguistic features and the impact on witnesses of their communicative style and register becoming invisible through interpretation.

Mapson (2015a, 2015b) suggests that signed language interpreters’ recognition of the politeness function of non-manual politeness markers, some of which may be equated with prosodic expression, can be problematic if they have not been explicitly taught to recognise their importance. This study reveals that interpreters’ tacit knowledge may result in them thinking they are strategically adding or softening the source message when these softeners are already present within the source message. Some of these difficulties may stem from the contrasting ways in which prosody is realised in signed and spoken languages (Nicodemus, 2009; Roush, 2007), but may additionally arise from the way interpreters acquire or learn their working languages (Mapson, 2015a). Similarly to Hale (2004), these studies reinforce the need for further training and awareness of these issues amongst interpreters.

4.3 Face threatening acts (FTAs) and rudeness

Several studies pick up on the use of in/directness in court interpreting, an environment where particular forms of language and questioning style occur, and where issues of interpreter power become evident (Berk-Seligson, 1990; Hale, 1999, 2001, 2004; Mason & Stewart, 2001; Angermeyer, 2005).

The work of Mason and Stewart (2001) compares Spanish/English interpreting at the OJ Simpson trial in the USA with English/Polish immigration interviews, and analyses how FTAs were altered in interpretation. In a study of Spanish/English interpreting in Australia, Hale (2001, 2004) notes that the pragmatic force of questions in the source message is weakened, even when the propositional content is transferred. She identifies interpreters’ omission of tag questions and discourse markers such as “well” that are used strategically in this context. Her supposition is that these omissions are caused by the difficulty in finding pragmatic equivalence or because interpreters fail to realise the significance of these discourse features. A shift in pragmatic force and interactional dynamics is also noted in Mason’s (2008) analysis of the addition and omission of politeness markers.

The complex dynamics of court interpreting in Denmark is explored by Jacobsen (2008). This complexity is a common theme in several studies, with authors highlighting how interpreters sometimes act to save their own face and the face of their clients (Monacelli, 2009; Mapson, 2015b, forthcoming). Power differentials can add to the complex dynamics, which may result in a directionality influence on the toning down of FTAs. For example, Gallez (2015) observes how responses from a defendant were down-toned, in contrast to the reflected FTAs of the judiciary.

A similar tendency to down-tone the pragmatic force of FTAs is observed in political contexts. These include the interpretation of televised political speeches from Greek into Greek Sign Language (Savvalidou, 2011), and the mitigation of FTAs in a corpus of French to English/Dutch interpreted speeches at the European Parliament (Magnifico & Defrancq, 2016). Mankauskienė (2015) also analyses a corpus of EU parliamentary speeches, with a focus on the interpretation of Nigel Farage’s speeches into Lithuanian. The study draws directly on the im/politeness literature, providing clear evidence of interpreters down-toning FTAs.

A few studies have looked at the interpretation of impoliteness or rudeness more generally. These include a study of the strategies used to convey profanity in ASL/English interpreting (Murphy, 2012), and a study encompassing the breadth of public sector interpreting in Norway (Radanovic Felberg, 2016). The latter illustrates the context dependency of interpretation of im/politeness. Radanovic Felberg describes managing impoliteness as vital for quality interpreting because of the impact interpreters’ strategy choices have on the interaction. The identified strategies for interpreting impoliteness, which include reflection, omission and switching to third person or summary interpretations, resonate with similar findings by Murphy (2012) and Mapson (2015b).

4.4 Third person

Use of third person when interpreting FTAs and impoliteness has been a focus in several studies. BSL/English interpreters working across a range of public and private sector settings describe how using third person enables them to distance themselves from the FTA, and consider it a strategy unlikely to be adopted when clients are perceived as polite (Mapson, 2015b, forthcoming).

Cheung’s (2012) study of court interpreting in Hong Kong reveals an interesting directionality influence on use of third person, with interpreters using it only when reflecting the English used by the judiciary into Cantonese, rather than vice versa. Interpreters considered that this use gave more pragmatic force to the questions and made witnesses pay more attention. However, a study on asylum-seeking interviews reveals that a tendency for interpreters to switch to reported speech when interpreting FTAs is associated with their alignment with the asylum seeker (Pöllabauer, 2004). Pöllabauer observes that this strategy helps ensure that the interpreter’s personal rapport with the recipient remains undamaged by the interpreted comment, a disposition reported in other studies (Moody, 2007; Nakane, 2008; Cheung, 2012; Van de Mieroop, 2012; Mapson, 2015b, forthcoming). Van de Mieroop (2012) notes interpreters’ use of third person to distance themselves from potentially face-threatening language in clinician/patient interactions during Dutch/Russian hospital consultations. However, although interpreters’ use of third person may be influenced by the desire for self-preservation (Mapson, 2015b, forthcoming) another motivation emerges within some studies. Interpreters’ use of third person ensures that clients are clear about from whom the remark originates (Angermeyer, 2009; Murphy, 2012; Mapson, 2015b, forthcoming). Mapson indicates that interpreters sometimes use third person deliberately for this purpose, and that the clarity this generates for the clients may help to maintain rapport between them, and with the interpreter (Mapson, 2015b, forthcoming).

4.5 The influence of interpreter identity

Within TIS it has been noted how the identity of an interpreter can impact on interactional dynamics (e.g. Alexieva, 1997; Hoza, 2001; Mason & Stewart, 2001; Janzen & Shaffer, 2008), especially when there is greater status differential or educational achievement between the interpreter and their clients (Alexieva, 1997). The influence of interpreter identity is evidenced in several studies, with differences observed in the interpretation of in/directness.

Participants in Mapson’s (2015b) study of im/politeness and signed language interpreting, discussed how their personal identity might impact on their interpretation of im/politeness. Class, sexual identity and accent were all noted as potential factors, with differences in the way men and women convey im/politeness emerging as an influence both on what interpreters do, and the way clients perceive their actions, particularly when client and interpreter genders differ. Although gender is just one of a constellation of intersecting identity characteristics (Mills, 2003, 2012) it is particularly pertinent to the interpreting profession which is predominantly female (Pöchhacker, 2016; Mapson, 2014b).

Some studies of gender in interpreting concern factors other than in/directness, including Nakane’s study of the interpretation of Japanese honorifics in Japanese/English police interviews. However, other studies have related gendered influences to in/directness, and the use of hedges and mitigation of FTAs in particular. Banna (2007) observed that interpretation of female Deaf clients introduced a degree of uncertainty that was not reflective of the source message. This contrasted with interpretation of male clients, where interpreters’ hedges coincided with strategies to promote agreement.

Other gender contrasts have been observed in courtroom interpreting (Mason, 2008), where male interpreters were found to omit more politeness markers when their cognitive capacity was challenged, or when interpreting for male witnesses. Mason surmises that politeness may be a more conscious consideration when male interpreters are interpreting for female witnesses, although her sample size precludes generalisation.

Magnifico and Defrancq’s (2016) analysis of corpus data from the European Parliament identified some surprising differences in the mitigation of FTAs by male and female simultaneous interpreters. In line with other studies, all interpreters mitigated FTAs more than the source speaker, but their results showed that where the source speaker produced an unmitigated FTA, male interpreters were more likely to mitigate this in their interpretations than female interpreters. They suggest that the social norms associated with gendered influence on im/politeness may be altered because interpreting is a professional activity and expectations around this may differ.

4.6 Terms of address

One way of meeting clients’ expectations is through use of appropriate terms of address. These pragmalinguistic features typically occur in opening and closing comments. House (1986) examines the contrasts that occur within the German/English language pair, and Nakane (2008) examines im/politeness around the terms of address used in Japanese/English interpreted police interviews in Australia. Nakane’s work highlights the importance of honorifics within Japanese, a pragmalinguistic feature that does not occur in Australian English. She found that interpretation of these features was influenced by the gender of the interpreter, rather than the gender of the speaker, as would be expected. Her study suggests that this may relate to the under-developed professional identity of the female interpreters involved. These studies reinforce the importance of tailoring im/politeness interpreting strategies for specific language pairs, and House (1986) embeds discussion about politeness and translation within her very comprehensive review of the literature of the time.

Berk-Seligson’s (1990) influential study on Spanish/English courtroom interpretation takes an experimental approach, informed by genuine court transcripts. Although discussed broadly as politeness, her work has a rather narrow focus on the use of specific terms of address, exploring potential discrepancies in the way interpreters reflect the deference associated with the term ‘sir’. The non/rendition of these ‘polite’ forms of address had a significant impact on juries’ evaluations of witness testimony, with inclusion of polite forms leading to more positive evaluations of the witness in terms of their competency and trustworthiness. Berk-Seligson’s detailed study has been a major influence on later interpreting research in this field. A subsequent study to focus on terms of address in courtroom discourse is Angermeyer’s (2005) examination of the use of second person pronouns in Polish. His work is rooted in Goffman’s participation framework (1967) and notes that interpreters use tu/vu as a device to clarify ambiguity about who is addressing whom, but that sometimes the informal term is used unconsciously.

Although the familiar/formal second person pronoun does not exist in signed languages, there is an interesting parallel with the use of person referents and the use of naming strategies. For example, in signed language it is common to point to an individual rather than refer to them by name, which may contrast with a spoken language norm of using the person’s name or an alternative form of identification such as ‘the witness’ in court. Another example is the interpretation of an ASL sign commonly used to attract the attention of an interlocutor (Hoza, 2011). Hoza equates this to the use of the naming strategy in American English, which may therefore require appropriate adjustments in interpretation.

5 Interpreting and rapport

The concept of rapport management (Spencer-Oatey, 2005, 2008) and the relational approaches to im/politeness (Locher & Watts, 2005) have been both explicitly and implicitly incorporated within TIS. Where made explicit, these theoretical foundations allow for a more holistic perspective of interpreting and im/politeness. This enables exploration of the rationale behind interpreters’ decision-making and enhances understanding of how interpreters’ subjective evaluations of the context manifest in their linguistic choices. The work of Mapson (2015, forthcoming) asserts that liaison interpreting is the epitome of rapport management, and that this is a key remit of interpreters’ work. This section begins with a focus on interpreters’ impact on the rapport of their clients, and their work to promote relational activity and small talk, before highlighting the value of familiarity in promoting rapport.

5.1 Interpreters’ impact on rapport

Some studies focus on problematic issues of rapport in interpreted interaction, and highlight the negative impact that interpreters can have on relational dynamics and rapport. Monacelli (2009) describes interpreting as inherently face-threatening, and others discuss how interpreters’ physical presence and the process of interpreting impact on interactional dynamics (Hoza, 2001; Spencer-Oatey & Xing, 2003; Mason & Ren, 2012). These changes in dynamics have been specifically related to issues of im/politeness and rapport (Hoza, 2001; Spencer-Oatey & Xing, 2003; Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009; Schofield & Mapson, 2014). One manifestation of this impact can occur in the more controlled turn-taking likely in interpreted interaction, which may result in a more negative dynamic than would otherwise be the case (Hoza, 2001). Controlled turn-taking can occur either when instigated by the interpreter as they coordinate the exchange of information (Hoza, 2001), or by a chair of a meeting or another primary participant who takes on the responsibility of ensuring only one person speaks at a time (van Herreweghe, 2002). The semi-structured interview approach used by Schofield and Mapson (2014), although untypical of studies in rapport management, facilitated the capture of clinicians’ perceptions of working with both signed and spoken language interpreters. Their data reveal how the impact of the interpreter can be even more fundamental, potentially altering the behaviours of the other interlocutors. Clinicians described how their self-consciousness, particularly when working with an unfamiliar interpreter, might impact on their own professional practice and language use.

5.2 Relational dialogue and small talk

Studies have highlighted the value of relational dialogue and rapport development for interpreted interactions in healthcare (Rudvin & Tomassini, 2011; Major, 2013), with the need for interpreters to appreciate the value clinicians ascribe to this aspect of the interaction (Schofield & Mapson, 2014). There are additional challenges of interpreting in these settings for patients who are unaware of sociopragmatic conventions, and these are discussed in relation to immigrants (Cambridge, 1999) and signed language users (Mapson, 2015b, forthcoming). Waddell’s forthcoming study of nurses working with interpreters in mental health contexts extends the theoretical foundations further by examining rapport through the lens of the relational dialectic framework (personal communication).

Discursive approaches to im/politeness concern themselves with perceptions of the way language is being used, issues that can be related to studies of audience perceptions in TIS. For example, the importance of relational dialogue is exemplified in two studies of film subtitling. Yuan (2012) observes how the omission of relational dialogue, which may involve indirectness, affects viewers’ impressions of film characters. Similarly, using Brown and Levinson’s taxonomy for politeness, Hatim and Mason (1997) suggest that although these omissions may be necessitated by temporal constraints, they nevertheless impact on audience perceptions. A similar focus on audience perceptions is found in studies of film dubbing (Bucaria & Chiaro, 2007), signed language interpretation of televised political speeches (Savvalidou, 2011), and face sensitivities in professional football press conferences (Sandrelli, 2015).

Several studies concern difficulties encountered with navigating sociopragmatic contrast when interpreting small talk. Spencer-Oatey and Xing (2003) explore rapport in interpreted interactions between British and Chinese business delegates, while studies of signed language interpreting in the workplace discuss the power that interpreters exercise when small talk and other relational language is not interpreted (Bristoll, 2009; Dickinson, 2014).

Small talk can be especially problematic for interpreters who lack familiarity with the clients and context (Bristoll, 2009; Dickinson, 2014; Mapson, 2015b), and is an element of discourse interpreters sometimes overlook when prioritising informational content (Dickinson, 2014). Similarly, Hoza (2001) indicates a tendency for interpreters to focus predominantly on message content and overlook the affective use of language that plays a crucial role in the dynamics of workplace interactions. His study analyses interpreted requests and rejections in the transcripts of video recorded workplace meetings. He notes how interpretation of non-manual politeness markers in ASL may be omitted, or unrecognised, by interpreters. One reason for this may be the temporal pressure on interpreters, particularly when working simultaneously, leading to a tendency for interpreters to focus on information exchange (Hatim & Mason, 1997; Angermeyer, 2005; Hale, 2007; Dickinson, 2014; Albl-Mikasa et al., 2015). However, Mapson (2015b) suggests that greater level of discomfort experienced by interpreters in some working environments may also reduce awareness and focus on affect. Environments such as prison, with which interpreters are usually less familiar, were given as locations where this discomfort was felt.

5.3 Familiarity

Research highlights the influence of familiarity, with both place and people, on the development of rapport in interpreted interaction, and the way im/polite language is interpreted. The positive influence of familiarity between interpreter and clients in medical settings is explored in depth by Major (2013) and Schofield and Mapson (2014). These studies illustrate the benefits of continuity of interpreter provision on the rapport and relationship clinicians can develop with their Deaf patients. A common theme within these studies is that the time over which relationships between all parties are developed is intrinsic to the relationships between those individuals. Clinicians perceive this familiarity as adding value to the interaction, reducing tension and anxiety, and facilitating patient compliance with treatment regimens (Schofield & Mapson, 2014). Where interpreters work with Deaf clients in their workplaces, familiarity becomes a resource for facilitating the small talk and humour that forms a crucial element of generating and maintaining rapport between staff (Bristoll, 2009; Dickinson, 2014). Mapson (2015b) suggests that familiarity, with the environment and the clients, is the underpinning influence on the way im/politeness is interpreted in all contexts, as it provides interpreters with information about the environment, clients’ communicative styles and aims, which help create an interpretation that will blend with participants’ expectations. This affordance of familiarity resonates with the effective interpretation that can be produced when an interpreter shares contextualisation (Janzen & Schaffer, 2008) with their clients.

Concluding remarks

Several recurring themes emerge from the research on interpreting and im/politeness. First, the observation that interpreters frequently tone-down FTAs, with some studies perceiving this more negatively than others. Second, that unfamiliarity and temporal constraints can negatively impact interpreters’ capacity to focus on rapport. Third, that enhanced awareness and understanding of im/politeness can benefit the way interpreters reflect this integral element of human communication.

Many of the studies reviewed within this chapter indicate interpreters’ need for enhanced awareness and training around im/politeness. These recommendations start with Berk-Seligson’s (1990) comments about the importance of court interpreters recognising the power that they can exert when changing register in the target message, and the need for greater understanding of pragmatics to fully appreciate how their linguistic choices impact interaction. Other authors reinforce the importance of including intercultural competence within interpreter training (Hoza, 2001; Roush, 2007; Nakane, 2008; Hlavac et al., 2015; Mapson, 2015a, 2015b), with a focus on promoting the development of rapport between clients (Major, 2013; Mapson, 2015b, forthcoming), and reducing the potential impact of the reduced repertoire of im/politeness noted for L2 speakers (Hoza, 2007a; Mapson, 2015b).

One limitation of many TIS studies on im/politeness is their inward focus on the TIS literature, a tendency noted more generally by Angelelli and Baer (2016). Many make little, or no, reference to the extensive field of linguistic im/politeness, and until recently most studies have limited themselves to Brown and Levinson’s rather restrictive theoretical framework with a focus on the pragmalinguistic form of utterances, rather than keeping pace with the development of the discursive approaches. This might be a product of a focus on translation issues, rather than a more holistic consideration of interpreted interaction, potentially further influenced by the predominant focus on courtroom discourse. The lack of connection between the TIS literature and the field of im/politeness could be considered mutually detrimental, as both fields have much to benefit from each other. Discursive perspectives on im/politeness have much to offer TIS, as more recent studies illustrate. Not only can this extensive knowledge base be usefully applied to illuminate the dynamics of interpreted interaction, but there is great potential for interpreting studies to contribute to the wider im/politeness field. Interpreted interaction can provide excellent examples of the discursive qualities of im/politeness in action, and the subjectivity that influences individuals’ perceptions and evaluations within interaction.

Notes

1 Latent networks are relationships created through previous interactions, while emergent networks represent the ongoing development of relationships within a current interaction.

2 The term Deaf is used in this chapter to refer to deaf people who communicate through signed language.