Act as a peer reviewer and write a detailed review of this research paper. Be strict and critical. : 1. INTRODUCTION
Organisation of human communication and its manage- ment are complex phenomena, under-researched from the lin- guistic perspective. Communication is a structured process, shaped by socially accepted rules, norms, and conventions rather than occurring spontaneously. At its core, monitoring in- volves modelling the communication process and overseeing hu- man interactions. When there is a deviation from these estab- lished norms, individuals, either instinctively or deliberately, ad- just the communication process to bring it back in line, which is the essence of monitoring (Nikitina, 2015).
The primary purpose of this study is to explore the correla- tion between communication monitoring and (im)polite verbal and nonverbal behaviour. Real human interaction is far from be- ing idyllic – not as it is represented in positive communication
__TRAINING, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE
manuals where everybody is impeccably polite, well-mannered, mindful and always knows the right thing to say. It is complic- ated and involves misunderstandings, emotions, conflicts, with people exhibiting a wide range of speech behaviours, from ex- tremely polite to rude, demonstrating varying degrees of self- control and feeling the need to regulate other people’s beha- viour.
It is widely recognised that communication is not chaotic but is governed by socially negotiated norms and rules. These include universal norms accepted by most societies; culturally specific norms tied to particular regions with their own sets of permissions and prohibitions; and rules unique to specific com- munities, such as subcultures. These rules can be written, e.g. es- tablished in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or un- written but tacitly accepted by the community (Nikitina, 2015).
© Olga A. Leontovich, Anna V. Nikitina 2024 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

 ‘Real human interaction is far from being idyllic – not as it is represented in positive communication manuals where everybody is impeccably polite, well-mannered, mindful and always knows the right thing to say. It is complicated and involves misunderstandings, emotions, conflicts, with people exhibiting a wide range of speech behaviours, from extremely polite to rude, demonstrating varying degrees of self-control and feeling the need to regulate other people’s behaviour’
The problem with rules is that in most cases they are factually and linguistically vague, vulnerable to value pluralism and con- text-bound, which can lead to ethical issues. Monitoring is one of the negotiation instruments – behaviour ‘directed explicitly at the negotiation process’, which becomes more simplified and ef- ficient throughout interaction, as Thomas and Soldow (1985) put it. According to Toulmin (1974), those rules are viewed as ‘statements of regularity’ which are: (i) ‘followable’, (ii) pre- scriptive, and (iii)contextual. Followability implies that the rules may or may not be followed; prescriptiveness means that social behaviour can be evaluated relative to rules; contextuality indicates that, ‘while communication rules tend to apply in similar situations, they do not necessarily apply across all contexts’ (Thomas & Soldow, 1985). One of the taxonomies of communicative behaviour in connection with the rules de- scribed in Thomas and Soldow (1985) includes the following categories: (i) rule-absent behaviour that is not subjected to any rules (such as blinking an eye); (ii)rule-ignorant behaviour when a person has no knowledge of the existing rule; (iii) rule- conforming or rule-error behaviour when an individual has tacit knowledge of the rule but either follows it or breaks it uninten- tionally; (iv) rule-following or rule violation behaviour, in which a person consciously follows or breaks the rule; and (v) rule-re- flexive behaviour that ‘follows (or does not follow) a rule as a res- ult of a conscious evaluation of the rule’s merit’ (Thomas & Sol- dow, 1985, p. 484).
Politeness is a form of behaviour based on rules vs. their vi- olation. Politeness is not used for the sake of politeness only, and it is ‘not what is actually happening in psychological or social terms’ (Leech & Larina, 2014, p. 13) – it is a goal-oriented beha- viour keeping the interaction within acceptable limits, while maintaining good communicative relations with people. Impol- iteness, on the other hand, ‘is a non-observance or violation of the constraints of politeness’ (Leech & Larina, 2014, p. 19).
In recent years, the boundaries of politeness research have significantly expanded. Researchers are focusing on such issues as the equation of politeness and impoliteness, their ambivalence and dynamics; the distinction between conduct and etiquette po- liteness, strategic and non-strategic politeness (O’Driscoll & Haugh, 2023; Terkourafi, 2024); the dependence of politeness on human values, identities and ideologies (Eslami et al., 2023; Su & Lee, 2022; Xie, 2021); manifestation of politeness in inter- cultural (Spencer-Oatey & Kádár, 2021), professional (Archer
Communication monitoring as a politeness mechanism by Olga A. Leontovich and Anna V. Nikitina
et al., 2020; Lebedeva & Ponomarenko, 2023; Malyuga, 2019; Malyuga & McCarthy, 2021) and other settings (Mullany, 2024; Tivyaeva & Abdulmianova, 2023; Malyuga, 2023), etc. The study of politeness from different perspectives and in different contexts indicates that, by applying polite or impolite commu- nicative strategies, the speaker in a way steers the interaction in a particular direction, i.e. monitors the tone and atmosphere of the conversation, whereas the addressee either follows suit or disobeys and corrects the partner’s communicative behaviour. Proceeding from this inherent connection between monitoring and politeness, this paper seeks to reveal the relationship between the two notions and propose a model of its systematic analysis.
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
The data for this research were collected by means of ran- dom sampling from everyday speech, Internet forums, linguistic corpora (National Corpus of the Russian Language; Corpus of Contemporary American English – COCA), fiction, films and YouTube videos. The total amount of data (over 1500 commu- nicative situations in English and Russian) was determined on the basis of the saturation principle. The basic unit of analysis was a communicative exchange with an obligatory presence of a communicator regulating, directing or modifying the communic- ation process. We also took into account a broader social context justifying the use of verbal means and communication strategies.
The study employs a complex of qualitative methods which incorporates: (i) observation; (ii) definition analysis; (iii) discourse analysis seen as an umbrella methodology includ- ing conversation analysis, context analysis, critical discourse ana- lysis and positive discourse analysis (Leontovich, 2015, 2020; Ponton, 2023); and (iv) introspection.
At the primary stage of the research, we employed natural- istic, unstructured, non-participant observation in real-life to col- lect communicative situations of monitoring, explain and verify the data obtained. At the intermediate and final stages, we used both non-participant and participant observation, sometimes in- tentionally violating the established norms of polite behaviour to monitor the outcomes of the intervention. The observation was covert, which allowed us to obtain more reliable informa- tion. Definition analysis was carried out on the basis of lexico- graphic sources to formulate the key notions of the research, in particular to reveal the etymology of the term ‘monitoring’ and formulate its definition, as well as to identify the place of monit- oring among related concepts. Discourse analysis was conducted to examine the monitoring of communication in a social context, discern communication variables, monitoring strategies and tac- tics. It was carried out according to the following parameters: participants, pragmatic context, form of communication, socio-in- teractive and emotive constituents (Leontovich, 2011). Conver- sation analysis was aimed at revealing the functions of monitor- ing, distribution and change of communicative roles, means of initiating and concluding the conversation, maintaining and de- veloping the conversation topic, making transitions from one
TRAINING, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE__
 _63

 64_
Training, Language and Culture
Volume 8 Issue 3, 2024, pp. 62-72
‘Communication monitoring is an integral part of every communication exchange serving as an instrument for constructing the speaker’s image, exercising self- control, and delineating the acceptability of other people’s actions. Depending on the type of discourse, situational variables and personal characteristics of the interlocutors, monitoring can be hard (with a high degree of regulation and control) and soft (unobtrusive and courteous)’
topic to another, sequencing of communicative actions, etc. (Le- ontovich, 2011). By means of introspection we strived to estab- lish the cause-and-effect relationship of verbal and nonverbal behaviour based on our own communicative experience. While we are aware that introspection may involve bias, it opens up access to information which is otherwise inaccessible. The limit- ations of this method are overcome by means of triangulation with the help of the methods described above.
3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The term monitoring originates from sciences, such as bio- logy, environmental science, healthcare, etc. where it refers to the continuous observation and analysis of an object based on specific parameters, followed by data processing, evaluation, and prediction of the object’s condition. Over time, this term was borrowed by disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, psycho- logy, rhetoric, and others. In linguistics and communication stud- ies, it has come to represent the regulation of interpersonal and social relationships, as well as the oversight of norms and com- munication styles (Canary & Cody, 1994; Makarov, 2003; Stubbs, 1983; Watzlawick et al., 1967; Wood, 2004). For a de- tailed analysis, see Nikitina (2012) and Nikitina (2015).
A number of scholars view monitoring as self-control in discourse. According to Stubbs (1983, p. 50-53), it includes at- tracting or showing attention, controlling the amount of speech, checking or confirming understanding, summarising, defining, editing, correcting, and specifying the topic. Wood (2004) de- scribes monitoring as the ability to observe and adjust one’s own communication, which enables individuals to identify and cor- rect mistakes that may lead to communication failures. Canary and Cody (1994) view monitoring as a process linked to image construction, closely tied to a person’s self-perception. Makarov (2003) posits that monitoring extends to managing interperson- al and social relationships, maintaining norms, regulating speech style, and controlling turn-taking in conversations. It is also seen as an instrument of non-discriminatory discourse (Mustafa & Japkowicz, 2024).
In our study, we define communication monitoring as a so- cial negotiation instrument aimed at the speaker’s self-control and the regulation of other people’s verbal and nonverbal beha- viour. Our further analysis is based on the classification sugges- ted by Nikitina (2012) and Nikitina (2015) in the study of In- ternet forums, modified for the purposes of this research.
rudn.tlcjournal.org
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-3-62-72
The term monitoring in the meaning accepted here is cor- related with the notion of metacommunication introduced by Watzlawick et al. (1967) and defined as communication about communication, or the relational aspect of interaction. This no- tion is crucial for our research as it is aimed at the structuring, regulation and interpretation of human interactions. Other terms associated with monitoring are control, regulation, manage- ment, moderation and mediation.
Communication monitoring is an integral part of every communication exchange serving as an instrument for con- structing the speaker’s image, exercising self-control, and delin- eating the acceptability of other people’s actions. Depending on the type of discourse, situational variables and personal charac- teristics of the interlocutors, monitoring can be hard (with a high degree of regulation and control) and soft (unobtrusive and courteous). This brings us to the problem of communication strategies and politeness. Speakers select the degree of polite- ness they deem appropriate for the situation and most effective for regulating their interlocutor's actions. When they believe their interlocutors overstep the boundaries of polite behaviour, they use monitoring to repair the communication process.
Though the term communication monitoring is mentioned in a number of works, it has not been sufficiently researched on its own and specifically as a politeness mechanism. The aim of the paper is to address this knowledge gap by mapping out the characteristics of communication monitoring per se and describ- ing its relationship with politeness.
The research questions addressed in the study are as fol- lows.
1. How are polite or impolite communications strategies and language means used to perform different monitoring func- tions and achieve communication goals?
2. Does the role of being the subject or object of monitoring impose any obligations on communicators regarding the use of politeness?
3. What are the factors which influence the use of polite- ness in different types of monitoring?
4. STUDY RESULTS
4.1. Functions of monitoring
The analysis of data led us to conclude that communication
monitoring serves multiple functions realised at different stages of the interaction and depending on the communicative situation. We distinguish the prognostic, diagnostic, regulative, corrective and reflexive functions, as well as the function of con- flict resolution.
The prognostic function is employed to foresee the potential course of communication, identify possible pitfalls and break- downs, and prevent conflicts. People plan their actions several steps in advance, especially in challenging situations. Depending on their disposition and objectives, they may choose to use po- lite or impolite, impudent tactics, like in the following conversa- tions where a man is planning to tell his girlfriend he wants to leave her:
 __TRAINING, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

 ‘We distinguish the prognostic, diagnostic, regulative, corrective and reflexive functions, as well as the function of conflict resolution. The prognostic function is employed to foresee the potential course of communication, identify possible pitfalls and breakdowns, and prevent conflicts. People plan their actions several steps in advance, especially in challenging situations’
(1) I’ll tell her: ‘I value our relationship and the time we’ve spent together, but I’ve realised that I’m not in love with you any- more. I'm sorry if this hurts you, and I want to make sure that we can both move forward in a healthy way’.
(2) I’ll tell her: ‘I’m tired of being in a relationship with you. You’re too needy, and I don't have time for your drama. I was just using you for sex. Let's call it quits’.
The diagnostic function defines potential barriers and obstacles hindering normal communication, like the inter- locutor’s personal characteristics or communication style, mak- ing it possible to choose adequate communication strategies and plan how to steer the conversation in the desired direction or avoid it altogether:
(3) Every time I talk to her, she’s so negative and complaining. It’s hard to be around her.
A biased or incorrect assessment of a person or situation can result in avoidance or the selection of an inappropriate strategy and language.
The regulatory function involves efforts – whether success- ful or not – to facilitate constructive and effective communica- tion. It aims to establish the order of communication, turn-taking, acceptable topics, language use, strategies, etc. This function is particularly evident in institutional discourse, as demonstrated by the role of a chairman in a meeting (4) or an online group moderator (5):
(4) Thank you for that presentation, Mr. B. Now we'll open the floor for questions. Please raise your hand if you have a ques- tion and wait to be recognised before speaking.
(5) This group’s aim is to provide help & support to each oth- er. So please follow these guidelines: No swearing, no bullying. No Spamming! NO selling of 2nd hand items, property or rentals. For SALES and ADVERTISING only on the FIRST MONDAY of every month. ADVERTISEMENTS posted on any other day will be deleted.
The regulatory function is not necessarily realised in its po- lite form – we can imagine a frustrated schoolteacher trying to discipline a class:
(6) You’re not making any sense, just stop!
(7) Stop talking, I can't take it anymore!
(8) Shut up already!
(9) Прекратите этот базар! (‘Cut out this nonsense!’). Regulation is conventionally used in interpersonal dis-
course as a metapragmatic commentary enacting politeness talk (Brown et al., 2023):
Communication monitoring as a politeness mechanism by Olga A. Leontovich and Anna V. Nikitina
(10) Мама звонила, жаловалась на твоё хамство. Насть, ну она всё-таки моя мать, будь с ней повежливее (‘Mom called, complaining about your rudeness. Nastya, well, she’s my mother after all, be a little more polite with her’).
(11) И смотри мне! Будь с ней повежливее, она девочка воспитанная, скромная. Не как эти твои... вертихвостки городские (‘And you watch yourself! Be more polite with her, she’s a well-mannered, modest girl. Not like those... city flirts of yours’).
The motivational function serves to make a person speak up and can be expressed with different degrees of politeness:
(12) I appreciate the input. Please don’t hesitate to speak up!
(13) Your silence is annoying. Can you please contribute to the conversation?
(14) What, are you afraid to speak up? Grow a spine and say something!
(15) You’re being a total buzzkill. Lighten up and join the conversation!
(16) You’re not adding anything to this discussion. Speak up or leave!
On the one hand, it is difficult for a teacher or moderator to deal with unwilling students or an irresponsive audience; on the other hand, the form of the appeal to participate can be either encouraging and inspirational or presumptuous and intimidating, which influences the quality of communication.
The corrective function ensures communication repair both in the content of discourse and in the speech design: pronunci- ation, spelling, construction of utterances, and choice of lexicon. Typical examples are teachers correcting their students’ errors; proofreaders identifying and correcting grammar, spelling, punc- tuation, and syntax mistakes; or bosses pointing out mistakes to their subordinates (Nikitina, 2015):
(17) I noticed that there are some typos in the email you sent to the client. Can you please proofread it and resend it?
(18) The numbers in the spreadsheet you submitted don’t add up. Can you please double-check your calculations and correct any mistakes?
(19) You’re a liability. You’re always making mistakes and causing problems.
The question arises: how many corrections and reprimands are too many and can be deemed a sign of impoliteness? The an- swer largely depends on the communication variables, such as participants and context. Overcorrecting somebody’s speech ‘goes against the purpose of linguistic interactions <...> to be under- stood by fellow conversation participants’, in which case phonet- ics and syntax do not matter much (Davis, 2021). However, parents, schoolteachers and university professors have an oblig- ation to teach their children or students the correct language use, as much as bosses have to supervise effective work perform- ance. In these cases, the degree of politeness is defined by the form of expression.
The conflict resolution function is designed to prevent or re- solve communicative situations where participants have con- flicting goals. Disputes and conflicts frequently arise in everyday conversations, workplace interactions, and political discourse,
TRAINING, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE__
 _65

 66_
Training, Language and Culture
Volume 8 Issue 3, 2024, pp. 62-72
such as during political TV talk shows where verbal confronta- tions between opponents are common. In these scenarios, the host is expected to take control, halt the argument, shift the topic, and guide the discussion toward a more constructive path (Nikitina, 2015). However, nowadays we often observe an op- posite situation when hosts fuel a dispute to make the situation scandalous and attract more spectators.
The interference of a mediator, even well-intentioned and polite, does not always help, like in the excerpt below:
(20) Spouse A: I can’t believe you forgot our anniversary again. You never remember anything important to me.
Spouse B: I’m sorry, I’ve just been really stressed with work lately. It’s not like you’ve been perfect either.
Spouse A: What are you talking about? I always remember your birthday and our special occasions.
Spouse B: Well, you never make an effort to understand my job or support me when I’m going through a tough time.
Psychologist (interfering): Excuse me, can I interrupt for a moment? It seems like there are some deeper issues here that need to be addressed. Let’s take a step back and try to understand each other’s perspectives.
Spouse A: I don’t need a therapist to tell me what’s wrong with my marriage. This is between me and my spouse.
Spouse B: I agree. We can handle this ourselves.
A person trying to help with conflict management is sup- posed to respect the boundaries and autonomy of the conflict parties and to take into account their (un)willingness to be aided.
The reflexive function is carried out through the speaker's self-control from the standpoint of the quantity, quality of com- municated information and manner of behaviour (in Grice’s terms) and can be positive or negative:
(21) ‘Выходит, я был прав’, — подумал он, повесив трубку (‘Turns out I was right,’ he thought, hanging up the phone).
(22) Я вел себя, как придурок! Двух слов не мог связать! (‘I was acting like an idiot! I couldn’t string two words together!’).
4.2. Subject and object of monitoring
The subject of monitoring is the person who regulates the course of communication and is able to steer other participants towards achieving a specific goal. In some types of discourse, this person is referred to as ‘moderator,’ e. g. in political debates, fo- cus group interviews, internet forums, etc. In institutional dis- course, the functions of the moderator can be performed by a meeting chairman, film or theatre director, host of a talk show, university or schoolteacher, etc. The moderator holds a status position that comes with certain privileges over other parti- cipants. The moderator’s responsibilities include: (i) initiating and concluding the communicative event; (ii) encouraging parti- cipants to contribute or, conversely, requesting them to hold back; (iii) managing the turn-taking process; (iv) ensuring no one participant dominates the conversation; (v) overseeing both the quantity and quality of the discourse; (vi) maintaining or
rudn.tlcjournal.org
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-3-62-72
shifting the topic as needed; and (vii) enforcing adherence to the established rules and norms (Nikitina, 2015). In certain situ- ations, the possession of communicative power can be marked by artefacts as symbols of command and authority, e.g. the judge’s robe, wig and gavel. The example below illustrates the management of communication by a judge in a court procedure:
(23) Prosecutor: Your Honour, we present evidence that the defendant, Mr. Smith, committed armed robbery at the conveni- ence store on Main Street on the night of January 15th.
Defence Attorney: Objection, Your Honour. My client main- tains his innocence and has an alibi for the time of the crime.
Judge: Overruled. The prosecution may proceed.
Prosecutor: Thank you, Your Honour. We have security camera footage that clearly shows Mr. Smith entering the store with a gun and demanding money from the cashier.
Defence Attorney: Your Honour, my client was coerced into confessing to this crime by the police. He was subjected to physical and psychological abuse during interrogation.
Judge: Objection sustained. The prosecution must provide evidence that the confession was obtained legally and voluntarily.
The objects of monitoring are participants whose beha- viour is being regulated. The subject uses adaptation techniques effective in influencing the objects and leading them in the ne- cessary direction. Let us consider the communicative situation where a doctor is the subject of monitoring, and a four-year old patient is the object. The doctor uses the tactic of persuasion ad- apting her language, tone of voice, and behaviour to the child:
(24) Hi there, I know you’re a big, strong kid, and I need your help with something. I have a little medicine that will make you feel so much better, but I need to give it to you with a teeny, tiny pinch. Would you like to hold a toy or watch a video while I do it?
Though adaptation is effective in most types of discourse and is one of the politeness instruments, there always exists a danger of over-adapting, which may be seen as excessive and therefore impolite or even offensive, for example when a doctor uses similar techniques while speaking to an older person (the reaction may be: I am old but not stupid). The same is true of ex- cessive flattery, self-deprecation and manipulation.
4.3. Types of monitoring
Drawing upon the data of our research, we have identified different types of monitoring determined by the existence of multiple communication variables.
Horizontal vs vertical monitoring. Horizontal monitoring takes place between conversation participants of equal status (friends, colleagues, spouses, etc.) and can be carried out both consciously and unconsciously. The equal status of the parti- cipants gives them the right to insist on their point of view and steer the interlocutor in the direction answering their aims. An example illustrating such a situation could be a discussion of a verdict by jurors in the deliberation room. Before rendering a verdict, the jurors must express their point of view on the guilt/ innocence of the accused and try to convince the other members of the jury, providing arguments in defence of their version.
 __TRAINING, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

 ‘The subject of monitoring is the person who regulates the course of communication and is able to steer other participants towards achieving a specific goal. In some types of discourse, this person is referred to as ‘moderator,’ e. g. in political debates, focus group interviews, internet forums, etc. In institutional discourse, the functions of the moderator can be performed by a meeting chairman, film or theatre director, host of a talk show, university or schoolteacher, etc.’
Vertical monitoring occurs when one of the participants has the communicative power to control the interaction process. The possession of power is determined by social, psychological and cognitive factors which can be represented by class, materi- al possessions, occupation, psychological maturity, fame, know- ledge or skills that can allow a person to become a leader in a given situation. In the excerpt below, the chief accountant who is holding a daily morning briefing restrains an arrogant employ- ee:
(25) It seems you are forgetting yourself. Observe subordina- tion. Don ́t overstep the boundaries.
Vertical monitoring demonstrates the ability of a super- visor to take the initiative, show respect for the subordinates but at the same time hold them responsible for their actions. It can be an effective guidance instrument. However, the emphas- is on status differences can be annoying and offensive, especially when expressed in a rude manner:
(26) Chief: Hey, you! What the hell are you doing? Subordinate: I’m sorry, I was just trying to...
Chief: Shut up! I don’t want to hear your excuses. You’re
worthless and I regret the day I hired you.
Vertical monitoring is also typical between parents and children. From the perspective of politeness, it can be exercised in different forms, in many ways defined by the relationship in a family and cultural norms, including vertical distance. Leech and Larina (2014) point out that Russian parents tend to use imper- atives (Go wash your hands. Don’t interrupt your elders), while the preferred form in the UK is indirect advice (Why don’t you..., How do you feel about..., I think you should...).
Self-monitoring and monitoring of others. Monitoring is im- plemented in two forms: self-monitoring, implying the regula- tion of one’s own behaviour by means of self-control operations preceding or accompanying a statement or gesture; and the con- trol of the interlocutor’s communicative behaviour in the form of guiding it in a particular direction or correcting it.
The basic parameters of self-monitoring include: (i) bound- aries of self-disclosure; (ii) norms of communicative behaviour; (iii) expression of emotions, especially in a conflict situation. The degree of self-disclosure depends on the level of trust in the in- terlocutor, which is influenced by such factors as age, gender, kinship, social status, religious views, etc. It can be assumed that the level of a child’s self-disclosure is higher than that of an adult
Communication monitoring as a politeness mechanism by Olga A. Leontovich and Anna V. Nikitina
as children are more willing to share their personal information and are not so bound by social constraints. Though openness in discourse is usually evaluated positively, overburdening the in- terlocutor with personal information may be embarrassing, therefore adults limit the degree of their sincerity. Self-monitor- ing also defines the verbal and non-verbal means used in partic- ular situations, as well as the limits of expressing emotions de- pending on the context, as in the example below:
(27) I’m happy with the way I controlled myself during our chat, as at other times it could have been something that ended with injuries to both sides.
The monitoring of other people’s behaviour presupposes the control of the amount and quality of information provided by the interlocutor, for example:
(28) Don’t talk too much, you’d better keep your mouth shut.
It also involves the acceptability of certain forms of verbal and non-verbal behaviour, as well as the expression of emotions. The following excerpt exemplifies both kinds of mon- itoring when a woman is overcome with strong emotional ex- citement and her husband has to interfere in order to stop her:
(29) Девушка не удержалась и толкнула Викторию в грудь с такой силой, что та отшатнулась и припечата- лась спиной к стене. <...> Игорь Петрович, схватил девушку за локоть и дернул на себя. ‒ Тань, ты в своем уме? Ты соображаешь, что творишь? (The woman couldn’t restrain her- self and pushed Victoria in the chest with such force that she stumbled backward and pressed herself against the wall. <...> Igor Petrovich grabbed his wife by the elbow and pulled her towards him. ‘Tanya, are you in your right mind? Do you realise what you’re doing?’) (Life Stories, 2023c).
Verbal and non-verbal monitoring. As has already been mentioned, communication follows conversational rules deeply ingrained in people’s verbal behaviour – both explicit or implicit, manifested at the level of phonetics, lexicon, grammar and discourse structure.
Any conversation is governed by verbal and nonverbal se- quencing (Thomas & Soldow, 1985). The metacommunicative verbal cues regulate the beginning, continuation and end of con- versation:
(30) Let me start by telling you a joke...
(31) Shall we move on?
(32) I’m afraid I have to leave now, but thanks for the con-
versation.
Metacommunication can also regulate the choice of accept- able or unacceptable language and behaviour:
(33) Could you please refrain from using that kind of lan- guage?
(34) Can we avoid using profanity?
(35) I’d really appreciate it if you wouldn’t yell at me.
The flow of interaction can be also regulated by different
paralinguistic cues such as raising or dropping the voice, pausing, or looking at the interlocutor to signal that you have finished speaking and are waiting for a response (Thomas & Soldow, 1985).
TRAINING, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE__
 _67

 68_
Training, Language and Culture
Volume 8 Issue 3, 2024, pp. 62-72
Leech and Larina (2014) have noticed that sometimes of- fers, invitations and promises can be direct and even rude from the absolute politeness point of view: You must come and stay with us next time. I won’t take ‘no’ for an answer! No, you don’t! I’ll pay for this. I insist (Leech & Larina, 2014, p. 14).
If a conversation is hindered by such factors as noise, poor audibility, etc., one of the interlocutors may ask the other to ad- just the communication to overcome them:
(36) Please speak louder – we can’t hear you!
(37) Завтра! – Напомнила мама, крича в трубку так, что Дмитрию пришлось отвести телефон от уха <...>. – Мам, сбавь немного громкость. Иначе я оглохну <...>. (‘To- morrow!’ Mom reminded him, shouting into the receiver so loudly that Dmitry had to pull the phone away from his ear <...> ‘Mom, turn it down a bit. Otherwise, I’ll go deaf <...>’) (Life Stories, 2023a).
Impoliteness, as well as politeness, is implemented on all levels and is manifested in the choice of words, intonation, syn- tax, etc., as in the example below where the speaker employs the strategy of threats reinforced by metacommunication (Ясно?). The seemingly polite formula ‘будь добра’ is used to distance himself from the interlocutor:
(38) Если еще раз зайдешь в мою спальню, окажешься на улице. Ясно? Я привык жить один. Так что будь добра не суй свой нос куда не просят! (If you come into my bedroom again, you'll find yourself out on the street. Got it? I'm used to liv- ing alone. So, please, don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong!) (Life Stories, 2023b).
Nonverbal monitoring can complement verbal monitoring to reinforce communication or serve as an alternative when verbal monitoring is not possible. For example, a traffic police officer directs the flow of vehicles using a baton as a regulating tool and a whistle to attract drivers’ attention.
Traditionally in a conversation, the listener is looking at the speaker; fixating the look on the interlocutor indicates that the speaker is waiting for a reply. The opposite behaviour (fixating the look on the listener and not looking at the speaker) can be used as an instrument of power, for example, in a conversation of a boss with a subordinate. Examples of impolite nonverbal monitoring include attracting people’s attention by beckoning them with a finger; pointing a finger at somebody stimulating them to speak up; aggressive gestures like wagging a finger at a person; eye aversion or deliberate avoidance of eye contact, turning one’s back on somebody during an interaction; refusing to shake hands, etc.
Monitoring also involves adherence to or deviation from rituals with symbolic meaning, as illustrated by a recent political event. On May 20, 2024, the head of the UN Security Council invited its members to observe a minute of silence in memory of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and his colleagues, who died in a helicopter crash. All members stood, except for Israel’s envoy, who refused on political grounds, calling it a disgrace. US repres- entatives stood after a brief hesitation, signalling their disap- proval of Iranian policy. The British envoy was later criticised
rudn.tlcjournal.org
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-3-62-72
by UK journalists for participating. This example highlights the tension between following protocols of politeness and taking a political stance, as communicators must often choose between upholding universal ethical principles and aligning with their country’s policies.
Oral and written monitoring. Oral monitoring can be carried out in the form of a monologue (e.g. instructions at a workplace or a sermon in a church), a dialogue (interrogation of a suspect, conversation between a teacher and a student, a doctor's con- versation with a patient) or a polylogue (in a meeting or a court trial). The moderators’ ability to perform the leadership role largely depends on their individual characteristics, such as the voice quality, appearance and charisma, as well as the mastery of language and the use of communicative strategies. In the fol- lowing excerpt from Makanin’s (2008) novel Asan, a soldier de- scribes the voice of his commander:
(39) Его утробный бас, я знаю по себе, еще долго звучит в ушах. Василёк специально басил по телефону. Это впечатляло. Видеть его чеченцы не видели, а голос знали. Да и большинство наших, кто водили колонны и подстраховы- вались с неба, знали только его бас. Василёк играл голосом... Природа ему благоволила (His deep, guttural bass voice, I know from experience, resonates in your ears for a long time. Vasilyok would deliberately use his bass voice over the phone. It was im- pressive. The Chechens hadn’t seen him, but they knew his voice. Even most of our guys, who led the convoys and provided air cover, knew only his bass voice. Vasilyok played with his voice... Nature favoured him) (Makanin, 2008).
Written monitoring is exercised in written orders, direct- ives, instructions, comments and allows for more thoughtful and deliberate expression by the subject as well as its more attentive perception by the addressee. Additional graphic means that can increase the effectiveness of monitoring include italics, capital letters, font colour, underlining, iconic signs, etc. For example, an academic advisor correcting a doctoral student’s dissertation may leave comments in the text, emphasising their impact with the help of highlighting.
Explicit and implicit monitoring. Explicit utterances presup- pose the expression of the intended meaning in clear verbal form devoid of vagueness and ambiguity:
(40) John, please complete the quarterly sales report by the end of the day tomorrow. Ensure all data is up-to-date and accur- ate, including sales figures, client feedback, and market analysis. Once finished, email the report to me and to the finance depart- ment. If you encounter any issues or need clarification, contact me immediately.
Implicit monitoring, on the other hand, can be both inten- tional or accidental (Terkourafi, 2019) and is carried out through indirect communicative strategies, such as hints, allu- sions, euphemisms, tone of voice or body language. The subject of monitoring, by choosing the implicit form, assumes that the interlocutors will understand the true meaning of what is said, based on the situation of communication and their own life ex- perience. The phrase It’s hot in here may be a request to open a
 __TRAINING, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

 window rather than just a statement indicating that the temper- ature in the room is too high. The question Are you mute or something? is an encouragement to speak rather than an attempt to find out if the person is really mute. Implicit monitoring can be used to soften an order and to show respect or, on the con- trary, to increase the strength of a directive, to attract attention or to manipulate the communication partner.
Pre-monitoring, concurrent monitoring and post-monitoring. Pre-monitoring is preliminary, preparatory or preventive monit- oring providing instructions to other participants on how to properly perform future communicative actions:
(41) Before we begin, let’s go over some ground rules. Please introduce yourself before speaking and try to keep your comments concise to allow time for everyone to contribute.
(42) Please hold your questions until the end of the presenta- tion.
It can also address aspects of the interaction that, in the moderator's opinion, may hinder the effective flow of commu- nication and/or lead to the emergence of conflict, such as warn- ings against impoliteness, verbal aggression, politically incorrect or obscene language, inappropriate images, giving false informa- tion, etc.
Concurrent monitoring takes place during the interaction. Here are some examples of what a football coach might shout to players during training:
(43) Keep moving! Don’t stand still!
(44) Stay in position! Hold your line!
(45) Finish strong! We’re almost there!
It can also represent an act of self-reflection, like in the fol-
lowing example:
(46) As I sit here at my desk, I'm noticing how often I get dis-
tracted by my phone. Every few minutes, I feel the urge to check so- cial media or respond to messages. I realise that I'm using my phone as a way to escape when a task feels too challenging or boring. In- stead of pushing through the difficulty, I opt for the instant gratific- ation of checking notifications. This pattern is becoming more ap- parent to me now.
Post-monitoring can be represented by a commentary on what happened before, a correction of a text as a finished product, or an analysis of a past situation:
(47) Nat: I’ve been thinking about what happened at Sarah's party last month. I feel like things got pretty awkward between me and Mike.
Chris: Yeah, I noticed that too. What do you think caused it?
Nat: Well, I think it started when I brought up that argument we had a few months ago. I thought we had moved past it, but clearly, Mike hasn’t.
Chris: Maybe bringing it up in a public setting wasn't the best idea. He seemed really uncomfortable.
Nat: I agree. I should have talked to him privately if I felt the need to bring it up at all. I guess I just didn’t think it through.
Direct and mediated monitoring. Direct monitoring refers to the monitoring of communication that is carried out ‘face-to- face,’ either in real life or online, like in most of the examples
Communication monitoring as a politeness mechanism by Olga A. Leontovich and Anna V. Nikitina
given above. Mediated monitoring is done through an interme- diary. It can be used for the sake of avoiding or managing con- flict or directed towards effectiveness (vertical monitoring in an organisation); like in the situation from the film The Devil Wears Prada, where Miranda Priestly, a powerful editor-in-chief of a fashion magazine, uses her ‘right-hand woman’ to relay messages to other people, as well as ask and answer questions on her be- half:
(48) Call Natalie at Glorious Foods and tell her ‘no’ for the fortieth time <...> Then call my ex-husband and remind him the parent-teacher conference is at Dalton tonight. And then call my husband, ask him to please meet me for dinner at that place I went to with Massimo.
A request or order given through a mediator can be a nor- mal practice in vertical interactions. However, in personal rela- tions it can be interpreted as unwillingness to get in touch dir- ectly and therefore seen as offensive or embarrassing, as it de- prives the addressee of the opportunity to give direct feedback.
Overt and covert monitoring. In overt monitoring, the sub- ject is a direct participant of communication known to the other participants. In covert monitoring, the subject is unknown or in- visible or both. The term communication monitoring is some- times used to indicate electronic forms of workplace surveillance, i.e. legal control of employee’s emails and internet use in a workplace, as well as processing of their personal data to prevent performance issues, damage to the employer’s reputa- tion, and legal liabilities, such as harassment and discrimination, defamation, transmission of confidential information and trade secrets (Sakrouge et al., 2011). In this case, the employees know that they are being watched, but the surveillance itself is not ob- vious. Covert monitoring also takes place when a website mod- erator deletes messages that do not meet the standards of de- cency and politeness. A common modern practice of covert monitoring is the surveillance in public places, such as streets, squares, airports, railway stations and in institutions where a sign is supposed to indicate the presence of videocams (for a de- tailed analysis, see Leontovich, 2018). Nowadays, however, there are numerous cases of secret surveillance employed for monitoring purposes, which is seen as ethically questionable (a one-way observation without the object’s informed consent viewed as a sign of inequality, violation of personal life, etc.).
5. DISCUSSION
The results presented above constitute a first of its kind communication model demonstrating the correlation between monitoring and politeness and outlining the algorithm of its pos- sible application. The model rests on the foundations of dis- course analysis and pragmatics and is substantiated by an in- ventory of communicative situations illustrating polite and im- polite verbal and non-verbal behaviour in different types of monitoring. The speech acts theory (Austin, 1962; Searle & Vanderveken, 1985) asserts that people participate in commu- nication not for the sake of pronouncing words for their own sake, but for performing actions which lead to particular results.
TRAINING, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE__
 _69

 70_
Training, Language and Culture
Volume 8 Issue 3, 2024, pp. 62-72
We consciously or unconsciously manage our own and our in- terlocutors’ behaviour by means of making statements, asking questions, providing new information, etc. and thus inducing them to perform particular actions. Speech acts are generally characterised as a choice of an alternative depending on a con- text, communication norms and individual preferences. Accord- ing to our data, monitoring employs the following speech acts, which can be grouped according to four criteria: (i) stages of monitoring: establishing contact; maintaining contact; summar- ising; completion of contact; (ii) participation: attracting or demonstrating attention; joining the discussion; filling in pauses; interrupting the interlocutor; turn-taking; ending the interaction; (iii) topic monitoring: introducing a topic; clarifying and maintain- ing the topic; protecting the topic; change of topic; completion of the topic; (iv) monitoring communication quality: adjustment; checking understanding; editing; regulation of social roles; con- trol of communication rules; relevance control (Nikitina, 2015).
Different degrees of politeness are displayed in all types of speech acts and are a matter of choice, as well as a projection of the speaker’s image. Given the complexity of human communic- ation and people’s conscious approach to it, monitoring can be seen as an integral part of almost any communication exchange (except, probably, a situation when a person is gravely ill or un- der the influence of alcohol or drugs). The degree of monitoring will vary depending on the situational context: it will be higher during a life-changing event, e.g. presidential debates, and lower in a relaxed home atmosphere. Both self-monitoring and monit- oring of others can be interpreted as a mode of existence, a way of building one’s self-image (amiable and tactful or blunt and outspoken), prescribing what a person can or cannot afford to say and accept from others, and delineating the boundaries.
The exploration of the first research question formulated in this paper – regarding the use of polite or impolite communica- tion strategies and linguistic tools to perform various monitoring functions and achieve communicative objectives – has led us to several conclusions. We identify the following monitoring func- tions: prognostic, diagnostic, regulative, corrective, reflexive and conflict resolution. These functions are context-dependent and enable the selection of appropriate politeness strategies to facilit- ate constructive and effective interactions. The prognostic func- tion involves predicting the interlocutor’s behaviour and anticip- ating potential pitfalls and communication breakdowns. The reg- ulatory function establishes the order of communication, turn- taking, acceptable topics, language, communication strategies, and more. The motivational function encourages interlocutors to speak up or perform other communicative actions. The correct- ive function addresses communication repairs, both in the dis- course content and speech design, including pronunciation, spelling, sentence construction, and word choice. The conflict resolution function seeks to prevent and resolve communicative situations where participants have conflicting goals.
The second research question we addressed in the study concerned whether the role of the subject or object of monitor- ing imposes any obligations on communicators regarding the use
rudn.tlcjournal.org
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-3-62-72
of politeness. Our analysis led us to conclude that the subject holds a status position associated with additional rights in regu- lating the course of interaction. This power status grants the subject the authority to establish the tone and atmosphere of the interaction and the obligation to employ adaptation techniques with varying degrees of politeness to effectively influence the objects and guide them in the desired direction. The objects of monitoring are participants whose behaviour is being regulated. They either adhere to the subject’s communication rules or viol- ate them, necessitating the subject’s intervention to regulate their behaviour.
The third research question dealt with the factors which influence the use of politeness in different types of monitoring. The study identified the following types of monitoring.
Horizontal vs. vertical monitoring. Horizontal monitoring takes place among participants of equal status. Vertical monitor- ing occurs when one of the participants has the communicative power to control the interaction through the choice of verbal and non-verbal repertoire of different degrees of politeness.
Self-monitoring vs. monitoring of others. Self-monitoring im- plies the regulation of the speaker’s own behaviour by means of self-control operations preceding or accompanying a statement or action. The monitoring of others is the regulation of the inter- locutors’ speech and non-verbal behaviour. Both self-monitoring and monitoring of others can be interpreted as a way of building one’s self-image and delineating the boundaries of what can be accepted in the interaction with other people.
Verbal vs. nonverbal monitoring. Verbal monitoring of po- liteness is manifested at the level of phonetics, lexicon, grammar and discourse structure. Nonverbal monitoring can be used either in addition to verbal monitoring to reinforce it, or in cases where verbal monitoring is not possible.
Oral vs. written monitoring. Oral monitoring can be carried out in the form of a monologue, a dialogue or a polylogue. Writ- ten monitoring is exercised in written orders, directives, instruc- tions, comments and allows for the use of additional graphic means that can increase the level of (im)politeness.
Explicit vs. implicit monitoring. Explicit utterances presup- pose the expression of the intended meaning in clear verbal form devoid of vagueness and ambiguity. Implicit monitoring, on the other hand, is carried out through indirect communicative strategies, such as hints, allusions, euphemisms, tone of voice or body language. Implicit monitoring can be employed to soften an order and show respect or, on the contrary, to increase the strength of a directive, to attract attention or to manipulate the communication partner.
Pre-monitoring vs. concurrent monitoring vs. post- monitoring. Pre-monitoring is preliminary, preparatory or pre- ventive; it can instruct other participants on how to perform fu- ture communicative actions or warn them against impoliteness, verbal aggression, politically incorrect or obscene language, etc. Concurrent monitoring takes place during the interaction, whereas post-monitoring can be represented by a commentary or correction referring to past communication.
 __TRAINING, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

 Direct vs. mediated monitoring. Direct monitoring is carried out ‘face-to-face,’ either in real life or online. Mediated monitor- ing is done through an intermediary. A request or order given through a mediator can be a normal practice in vertical interac- tions. However, in interpersonal relations it can be interpreted as unwillingness to communicate directly and therefore seen as offensive or embarrassing.
Overt vs. covert monitoring. In overt monitoring, the subject is a direct participant of communication known to the other par- ticipants. Covert monitoring, in which the subject is unknown or invisible or both, is often exercised in the form of surveillance in public places, such as streets, squares, airports, railway stations and institutions and is sometimes seen as ethically questionable.
The repertoire of verbal and non-verbal means used in dif- ferent types of monitoring largely depends on the communicat- ors’ disposition and aims; different aspects of their identity, such as age, gender, education, cultural background, social standing, religious views, values, etc.; personal characteristics and indi- vidual communication style. The behaviour is defined by an in- clination to follow or challenge the established norms. Whereas polite behaviour signifies an effort to choose adequate commu- nication strategies and plan how to steer the conversation to- wards an agreement or compromise, impolite communication style can function as a sign of disagreement, non-conforming be- haviour or reflection of the speaker’s attitude towards the inter- locutor. In addition to the use of aggressive, rude and sometimes obscene language, impoliteness can be manifested in the viola- tion of conversational rules, e.g. an unwillingness to establish or maintain contact, unpreferred answers, non-observance of turn- taking, interrupting, not paying attention, changing the subject against the will of the communication partners, violating the ‘rhythm’ of conversation (balance of speaking and listening), monopolising the conversation, not filling in pauses (long si- lences), breaching the social boundaries and privacy, manipulat- ing the interlocutors by giving them false information, not sig- nalling the completion of contact (for example, leaving without saying good-bye), etc.
Overall, the study has demonstrated that communication monitoring is employed to enhance communication in numerous contexts, such as business, education, moderation of online sites,
References
Archer, D., Grainger K., & Jagodziński, P. (2020). Politeness in profes- sional contexts. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. OUP.
Bragina, N. G., & Sharonov, I. A. (2019). ‘Pedagogical’ aggression in Russian everyday communication. Russian Journal of Lin- guistics, 23(4), 975-993. https://dx.doi.org/10.22363/2687-
0088-2019-23-4-975-993
Brown, L., Kim, S., & Kim H. (2023). The embodied enactment of po- liteness metapragmatics. Journal of Politeness Research, 19(1), 149-183. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2021-0033
Canary, D. J., & Cody, M. J. (1994). Interpersonal communication. St. Martin’s Press.
Communication monitoring as a politeness mechanism by Olga A. Leontovich and Anna V. Nikitina
interpersonal life, etc. However, too many corrections, a desire to subjugate the interlocutors, limit their freedom of actions and expression, overbearing or obtrusive behaviour can be deemed as impoliteness (for example, see the study of ‘pedagogical ag- gression’ by Bragina & Sharonov, 2019).
It is also worth pointing out that in this paper, we discuss monitoring as a general notion, without analysing its culturally specific features, which we view as a prospect for our future re- search.
Overall, the results of the study confirm that politeness and monitoring go hand in hand with each other, which justifies the approach suggested in this paper.
6. CONCLUSION
The study of monitoring defined as a social negotiation in- strument aimed at the speaker’s self-control and regulation of other people’s verbal and nonverbal behaviour shows that it can be viewed as a politeness mechanism. The connection between monitoring and politeness is determined by the existence of so- cial constraints and the necessity to observe established rules and norms – both explicit and implicit. On the basis of the collec- ted data, the paper shows that the study of politeness shaped and guided by the parameters of the proposed communication monitoring model suggests a new aspect of looking at politeness mechanisms. Hopefully, these findings can lead to their practical application and help to enhance the effectiveness and quality of human interaction.
The obtained results can be utilised both in theoretical pro- grams for teaching professional and interpersonal communica- tion, and in practical professional settings. For instance, in an educational environment, these results can guide and regulate the communication process between teachers and students. Ad- ditionally, they can be employed to improve the effectiveness of political, legal, health, and other discourses where vertical and horizontal interactions occur, by facilitating the selection of ap- propriate polite communicative strategies. This approach also paves the way for further detailed studies on the correlation between monitoring and politeness, particularly in relation to participants’ social, psychological, and cultural identities, commu- nication contexts, and the dynamics of social rules.