Act as a peer reviewer and write a detailed review of this research paper. Be strict and critical: 1. INTRODUCTION
Since the telephone became a ubiquitous medium of com- munication, telephone business talks have constituted a major part of ‘in-house’ and ‘out-of-house’ business interaction. With the advent of the mobile phone, communication via telephone became even more interactive, as the telephone provided users with place-independent reciprocal availability anytime and any- where (Caronia et al., 2009) and allowed interactants to ask questions and provide feedback instantaneously, thus perform- ing multiple tasks much more effectively and, obviously, quicker (Roberts, 1998).
This study aims to describe how politeness manifests itself in opening, messaging, and closing routines of business tele- phone calls and what factors play out in the choice of politeness strategies. To achieve this aim, the study will address the follow- ing research questions.
1. Is there any discernible correlation between the degree of politeness and the social factor of power/social role in problem-solving business telephone interaction?
2. Does the ranking of imposition affect politeness?
3. How does the setting affect politeness?
4. What impact does the business telephone call environ-
ment and its restrictions have on patterns of polite behaviour?
5. Are patterns of politeness different in different problem-
solving call routines?
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
The corpus used for the analysis features samples of au- thentic problem-solving business telephone interactions which include transcripts of task-oriented calls made by customer ser- vice employees and sales managers, professional and lay clients, superiors and their subordinates, and colleagues. The materials
64 © Irina S. Lebedeva, Evgeniya V. Ponomarenko 2023 | Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

 ‘If the vocal cues are distorted in a conversation, the odds of communication failure are enhanced, giving no chance for the interactants to remedy it due to the absence of other channels of communication. This entails another set of distinctive features of telephone interaction: telephone conversations tend to have clearly defined boundaries, are well-structured, succinct, and inherently formulaic; there are rigid turn- taking rules that govern telephone interaction’
have been obtained from the audio sections of Business English textbooks: The Business (Intermediate, Upper-Intermediate, Ad- vanced); Business Result (Upper-Intermediate, Advanced); Busi- ness Benchmark (Upper-Intermediate); Market Leader (Inter- mediate, Upper-Intermediate, Advanced); Oxford English for Careers and others.
The study was conducted within the framework of linguis- tic-pragmatic, sociocultural and conversation analyses. The re- search methods include data collection, observation, quantitative analysis, comparative analysis, and evaluation.
3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
3.1. Features of business telephone interaction
Being interpersonal communication by nature, telephone
interaction can be roughly described as ‘face-to-face’ communica- tion due to its formulaic character and distinctive features: tele- phone interaction is instantaneous, sometimes it is a matter of seconds, which encourages interactants to produce short turns (Hopper, 1992), thus permitting them to get their work done faster; communication via telephone is dyadic (Hopper, 1992), there are only two parties present, which contributes to confi- dentiality; telephone interaction is characterised by the absence of visual cues, which means that it is limited to only one channel of communication – vocal.
If the vocal cues are distorted in a conversation, the odds of communication failure are enhanced, giving no chance for the in- teractants to remedy it due to the absence of other channels of communication. This entails another set of distinctive features of telephone interaction: telephone conversations tend to have clearly defined boundaries, are well-structured, succinct, and in- herently formulaic; there are rigid turn-taking rules that govern telephone interaction.
Turn-taking is central to conversational analysis (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973; Sacks et al., 1974) where interactants are de- scribed as producing utterances – turns, which, for their part, form sequences. A crucial component of turn-taking is repair, which deals not only with turn-taking errors, but also with word recovery problems, editing, corrections, etc. (Levinson, 1983). Repair can be self- or other-initiated and the incorrect utterance – self- or other-repaired. Levinson (1983) suggests another com- ponent of turn-taking – the ‘local management system’ – a mech- anism for the organisation of smooth turn-taking consisting of
Manifestations of politeness and power in problem-solving business telephone calls by Irina S. Lebedeva and Evgeniya V. Ponomarenko
two components: (1) the turn-constructional component, which describes the basic units of talk – turn-constructional units (TCU), the end of which constitutes a point of possible speaker change – transition-relevance place (TRP); and (2) the turn-al- location component (TAC), which describes turn-allocation pro- cedures: (a) if the current speaker selects a new speaker, they must speak; (b) if the current speaker does not select a new speaker, then any party can self-select; (c) if no one self-selects, the current speaker may continue talking.
Another principle of turn-taking is the adjacency pair – a sequence consisting of two adjacently positioned utterances pro- duced by different speakers, ordered as the first-pair component and the second-pair component, where the use of the second component, either preferred or misreferred is predetermined by the type of the first component, as in question-answer, greeting- greeting, request-granting/refusal (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973, p. 293-294). Although the adjacency pair is fundamental to con- versation organisation, it sometimes allows for insertion se- quences embedded in between its adjacent components, thus causing them to stand apart (Schegloff, 1968).
A typical telephone call has a rigid structural organisation that consists of routines called core sequences (Schegloff, 1986), which are highly patterned, especially if they are used to open or close a conversation.
Telephone talk routines are as follows: (a) the opening con- sisting of highly explicit core sequences: summons-answer, iden- tification-recognition, greetings, and ways of saying, ‘how-are- you?’. Although these sequences may not all appear in any given call opening, those that do appear, will follow the given order. Saying ‘how-are-you?’ generally presupposes phatic communica- tion and also allows the participants to introduce a topic and ex- press their concerns (Schegloff, 1986). Bercelli & Pallotti (2002) include another core sequence into the opening routine – ‘get- ting down to business’ in which the reason for the call is stated; (b) the closing routine consisting of two core sequences: pre-clos- ing and its acceptance, and an exchange of farewells (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973); (c) the message part (Stenström, 1994, p. 12), the meaningful task-oriented section of telephone talks following the opening and preceding the closing, is highly flexible and largely dependent on the interactants’ aspiration to accomplish particular tasks and pursue specific goals (Hutchby, 1996). Sche- gloff (2004, p. 79) contends that the structure of the message part may depend on whether a given conversation is a ‘designed’ or ‘by-product’ one. Due to the goal-oriented character of tele- phone business conversations which concern business matters at hand, they should be classified as designed interaction, and problem-solving interaction is so to an even greater extent. The structural organisation of telephone conversations is restricted by institutional/‘in-house’ constraints and could also be culture- specific (Amthor Yotsukura, 2002).
Another interesting observation pertains to the degree of urgency of a specific telephone call. This factor plays out if we compare, for example, calls received by an insurance company call-centre (Forey & Lockwood, 2007, p. 317) and emergency
Training, Language and Culture 65

Training, Language and Culture Volume 7 Issue 2, 2023, pp. 64-71
calls (Frankel, 1989; Meehan, 1989; Tracy, 1997; Tracy & Agne, 2002). In the case of an insurance company call-centre (low ur- gency calls), the structure of the message part, the opening and closing routines is much more elaborate and features relative re- dundancy. The message part of low urgency calls apart from obligatory structural elements, such as collecting information, checking whether it is correct, explaining reasons for information gathering, establishing the purpose, clarifying, empathising, apol- ogising, providing clear explanations, giving news, agreeing and disagreeing may contain from one to several optional sequences, such as identification of the purpose of the call, summarising or restating the key points, sales initiation, sales inquiry, etc. (Koester, 2010). The routine structure of an emergency call is simple and ‘unextended’ (Zimmerman, 1992, p. 419) and charac- terised by a high degree of reduction. As a rule, it contains oblig- atory elements, such as asking for help, gathering information and problem-solving. According to Amthor Yotskura (2002), business telephone calls also feature reduction, the degree of which could be linked to contingency. If the contingency is high only mutual identification is mandatory, and greetings are op- tional. In calls that the interactants treat as relatively non-serious, other sequences can be observed, for example, greetings and ‘how are you?’ (Scollon, 2014; Tracy & Agne, 2002).
Some of the above-mentioned features of telephone inter- action facilitate analysis and contribute to the viability of the findings as telephone audio scripts provide the researcher with the same information as was available to the interactants them- selves due to the absence of multi-modal interactional cues. Con- versely, the instantaneous character of telephone calls often in- volves quick turn-taking, complicated shifts, and changes in par- ticipant groupings, and overlap, that is two parties speaking si- multaneously, which might pose difficulties for data collection and transcription. Communication via mobile phone increases the chances of sound distortion as compared to landline connec- tion due to the presence of third parties, outside noises, physical movement of the participants and other adverse factors that might cause disruptions. Although telephone connection has im- proved considerably in the past few decades, the risks of disrup- tion, interruption and, therefore, misinterpretation are still high.
3.2. An overview of politeness
Until the 1970s, the social-norm approach to politeness was prevalent. Politeness was viewed as a set of norms prescribing how to behave and communicate with others. According to Fras- er (1990), each society has a particular set of social norms con- sisting of explicit rules that prescribe a certain pattern of be- haviour or a way of thinking in a context. The implication is that actions conforming to the rules of etiquette are seen as polite, and those violating them – as impolite. Pizziconi (2009) reinforces the culture-bound nature of the rules of polite/impolite be- haviour. The 1970s saw a shift towards the view of politeness as a category of pragmatics (Lakoff, 1973, 1989; Leech, 1983; Brown & Levinson, 1978), which was triggered by the classic pragmatic theories of Austin (1962) and Grice (1975). Lakoff
Professional Communication: Inquiries into Language Across Borders doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2023-7-2-64-71
(1973, 1989) elaborated on Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Princi- ple (CP) and proposed the first two rules of pragmatic compe- tence (be clear, be polite) and the Politeness Principle (PP) fea- turing a number of maxims (don’t impose, give options, make the other person feel good, be friendly). Leech (1983) elabo- rates on the list by adding the maxims of tact, generosity, appro- bation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy, and explains what drives interlocutors to violate Grice’s (1975) maxims. Leech (1983) introduces a social dimension in the speech act imple- mentation which is measured on the cost-benefit, authority, so- cial distance, optionality, and indirectness scales. He contends that politeness is inherently situational, and that the degree of politeness differs from situation to situation.
The present research is predicated upon Brown and Levin- son’s (1978) influential theory of politeness which describes po- liteness as positive and negative ‘face work’. The researchers in- troduce another useful concept into linguistic description – the face-threatening act (FTA) and classify interactional strategies as bald on-record, off-record, positive politeness, and negative po- liteness strategies. Brown and Levinson (1978) observe that the choice of an appropriate politeness strategy depends on three contextually dependent social variables: the relative power of the speaker and hearer (P), the social distance between them (D), and the ranking of imposition (Rx) that every utterance in- trinsically acquires in a cultural or situational context.
In 1981, Fraser and Nolen (1981) introduced the concept of conversational contract (CC), ‘an initial set of rights and obliga- tions’ (Fraser, 1990, p. 232), that determines the participants’ ex- pectations at the initial stages of communication. The conversa- tional contract is context-dependent and can be renegotiated during interaction. According to this view, being polite means ‘operating within the then-current terms and conditions of the CC’ (Fraser, 1990, p. 233).
Later theories of politeness shifted the focus towards inter- personal relations. For example, the theory of rapport manage- ment (Spencer-Oatey, 2008), and the neo-politeness theory (Mullany, 2004; Holmes & Stubbe, 2015) describe politeness in extended social contexts in terms of avoidance/mitigation, in- cluding conflict avoidance. Eelen (2001) and Watts (2003) criti- cised traditional views of politeness and proposed a discursive model, which, however, did not receive any further support.
3.3. Problem-solving business telephone calls
Business telephone interaction is heterogeneous. Several genres or ‘types of text distinguished by their function or their form’ (Matthews, 2007, p. 157) can be identified in this commu- nicative domain: service encounters, problem-solving calls, meet- ing-arranging calls, and information-based calls. They serve dif- ferent goals and have distinct structures of the message part. Problem-solving is inherently unidirectional as one of the inter- actants plays a dominant role in the conversation, they elicit and impart information, instruct, and direct their interlocutors, find out the cause of the problem and negotiate the solution. Message part sequencing follows a strict pattern and, as a rule, includes
 66 Training, Language and Culture

 ‘Problem-solving is inherently unidirectional as one of the interactants plays a dominant role in the conversation, they elicit and impart information, instruct, and direct their interlocutors, find out the cause of the problem and negotiate the solution. Message part sequencing follows a strict pattern and, as a rule, includes identification of the existing problem, negotiating solutions, solution provision, solution assessment and evaluation. If the evaluation is negative, further solutions are proposed. Therefore, problem-solving is often associated with disagreement and conflict’
identification of the existing problem, negotiating solutions, solu- tion provision, solution assessment and evaluation. If the evalua- tion is negative, further solutions are proposed. Therefore, prob- lem-solving is often associated with disagreement and conflict.
4. STUDY RESULTS
The analysis of 50 problem-solving calls allowed the re- searcher to determine their structure. The following routines consisting of sequences were identified: (1) opening, (2) inquiry, (3) claim, (4) claim details discussion, (5) solution-agreement / solution-rejection, (6) solution implementation, (7) closing. Man- ifestations of politeness and power were analysed at each stage separately. The use of politeness strategies was investigated in openings, the message parts, and closings separately.
Example 1. Opening.
Claud – boss, P+; Janet – employee, P-.
Claud: Claud Belnaud.
Janet: Hi Claud, (.) It’s Janet (.h) You: wanted to chat?
Claud: Hi Janet, (.) Great you’ve got my message (.hh)
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly
Janet: You’re welcome (.h) How can I help?
Claud: (.h) Well it’s about your preliminary report (.h)
<There are> a couple of things I think we need to discuss.
Janet: Yes sure, (.h) no problem (.h) I: have it in front of me. Claud: Hang on, (.) <I’ll just,> find my notes. (2.8) [1] E:r
okay, (.hh) The first point is <on page> eleven, (0.2) third para- graph. (0.2) [2] What do you mean exactly?
Janet: [3] <O:kay, (.) let’s have a look> (.hh) [4] E:::rm (.) Oh (.) yes, (.h) capitalisation of costs in your factories. (.h) [5] We think that these costs should be expenses in the P and L.=
Claud: =[6] But, (hh) no, sorry, I’m afraid I disagree. (.hh) [7] They were necessary for the upgrade of our plants. (h) [8] Surely you agree that we have keep up with our competition?
Janet: [9] Yes of course, (.h) but lots of the items we tested are clearly <normal repair and maintenance expenses.> (.h) [10] One can’t really justify including such costs under machine upgrades.
Claud: Mmm, I see it differently. (.h) Our machines have been developed to produce a wider variety of products (.) to improve the running efficiency of the <equipment>, (.) to keep us in business.
Manifestations of politeness and power in problem-solving business telephone calls by Irina S. Lebedeva and Evgeniya V. Ponomarenko
(.hh) This was a sizeable investment on our part. (.h) The figure we’re talking about shows the commitment we’ve made to the fu- ture. (.h) >I mean, we’re going to be getting benefits from these up- grades for years! (.) Our balance sheet should show this.
Janet: I’m sorry, (.) these figures are too material for us to ig- nore, (.h) there are some expenses whi[ch]
Claud: [Co]mpanies do this all the time an’ I might add their auditors accept it. (.) I suggest you consider this again. (.h) I’m sure you’ll find it reasonable when you think about how important these investments were for this company.
Janet: (.hh) Alright, (.) we’ll look at these costs again. (.h) Let’s move on to the next point.
In [1], Claud draws Janet’s attention to the issue he wants to discuss. He goes on-record as the threat to the interlocutor’s face is relatively low because the speech act is performed in the interlocutor’s best interests, the ranking of imposition is minimal. The conversation evolves in a cooperative way. In the next move, Claud asks an on-record question although he realises that asking a question is an intrinsically face-threatening act, it ‘im- pinges on the hearer’s desire for autonomy and free will’ (Brown & Levinson, 1978), which is due to Claud’s superior role in the conversation. Janet demonstrates her cooperative disposition in [3] by using let’s as a marker of the positive politeness strategy (include both speaker and interlocutor in the activity) and in [4] by using an elliptical sentence as a marker of the positive polite- ness strategy (use in-group identity markers). She says what she thinks about the issue under consideration in [5] and, assuming that her viewpoint might not be approved of, mitigates the state- ment by using we as a marker of the negative politeness strategy (impersonalise speaker and hearer) indicating that she is talking on behalf of her company. She also addresses Claud’s positive face showing that they belong to the same expert group by us- ing P&L as a marker of the positive politeness strategy (use in- group identity markers). In [6] Claud expresses disagreement, mitigating it by using sorry (apologise) and I’m afraid (hedge) as a marker of the negative politeness strategy. Then he expresses his view of why the company’s costs cannot be referred to as ex- penses in [7]. Here he uses the positive politeness strategy, giv- ing reasons to indicate that he is open to cooperation. Being aware of Janet’s disposition to cooperate, Claud addresses her positive face wants using the positive politeness strategy (be op- timistic) in [8]. Janet wants to be perceived as highly coopera- tive, so to show this she uses yes, of course, but as a marker of the positive politeness strategy (avoid disagreement). In [10] Janet makes another attempt to convey the idea that her views on the issue are different from Claud’s. The ranking of imposition of this move is high, it needs extensive redress and face work. Janet re- alises that it can be perceived as face-threatening by the inter- locutor and to attenuate the possible impact of the move she mit- igates it by using really as a marker of the negative politeness strategy (hedge). She simultaneously demonstrates her solidari- ty and cooperative disposition by using the pronoun one instead of you as a marker of the positive politeness strategy (imperson- alise speaker and hearer).
Training, Language and Culture 67

Training, Language and Culture Volume 7 Issue 2, 2023, pp. 64-71
Example 2. The message part.
Clerk – receptionist, P-; Mr. Steel – professional client, P+. Client: Good da:y! Am I speaking to the right person if I want
to book a conference?
Clerk: Yes, Sir. (.h) How many people will be attending the
conference?
Client: Approximately sixty people. (.) We’d like to hold a
conference for all our sales reps.
Clerk: Fi:ne. (.h) Couldju give me your name, (.h) and the
name of the company, please?
Client: Sure! (.h) I’m <Peter Steel>, sales manager for
<Ibcon> Software Solutions in London.
Clerk: Thank you, Mr Steel. (.hh) [1] Now then, what were
the dates you were thinking of?
Client: [2] The weekend of the third and fourth of July would
be great!
Clerk: Right. (.h) [3] Ju::st let me check. [4] Yes, we would
have enough available rooms for that weekend. [5] I assume, you and your colleagues will be staying overnight, Friday an’ Saturday? Client: [6] We planned to arrive Friday lunchtime, and le:ave
after the award ceremony, at about three pm Sunday. [7] However, (.h) three of the managing directors will be attending too. [8] Yo::u do have suites, donchu?
Clerk: [9] <Of course, Mr Steel>! (.h) [10] We have spacious deluxe suites ranging from a hundred an’ twenty (.h) to six hun- dred an’ fifty square meters. [11] All our rooms have twenty-four- hour room service, (.h) and Internet access. (.) Our convention cen- tre holds up to two hundred people.
Client: [12] <It sounds fantastic>! (.) [13] How far are you from the airport?
Clerk: [14] About thirty miles. (.) If you like, (.h) we could arrange two coaches to collect you from Munich airport, (.h) and take you back on Sunday.
Client: <One last question,> (.) couldju make up an offer, and post it to me along with some brochures?
Clerk: <Of course>, Mr Steel! (.h) I’ll post the offer to you t’morrow, at the latest.
In [1], the receptionist asks the client for further informa- tion in a tentative way using the time shift as a marker of the negative politeness strategy (be conventionally indirect). Mr. Steel reacts in the same way, using would as a marker of conven- tional indirectness [2]. To give a response, the receptionist needs to check on the database, and in [3] tells Mr. Steel to understand that he will have to wait. Requests are intrinsically face-threat- ening, especially a request to wait, which increases the ranking of imposition. Moreover, in view of the receptionist’s subordi- nate status, which plays out in this situation, more facework is required. To minimise the imposition, the clerk uses let me (be conventionally indirect) and the adverb just (hedging). In [4] the ranking of imposition is relatively low, there are rooms avail- able, however the clerk sustains negative facework using the in- direct would (be conventionally indirect). In [5] the receptionist shows that he is aware of the hearer’s wants through positive politeness (assert the speaker’s concern for the client’s wants),
Professional Communication: Inquiries into Language Across Borders doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2023-7-2-64-71
however, in order not to sound too imposing he hedges the utter- ance with I assume as a marker of negative politeness. Mr. Steel expresses agreement in [6], the ranking of imposition is low, however, he uses planned as a marker of negative politeness (be conventionally indirect) to sound delicate. In [7] he goes on- record and in [8] he expresses strong hope and certainty using the tag, don’t you? The receptionist expresses confirmation by [9] using the honorific Mr. as a marker of negative politeness (show deference). In [10-11] the clerk goes on-record to give the details of the rooms available. Mr. Steel attends to the recep- tionist’s positive response and shows his interest by using It sounds fantastic! as a marker of the positive politeness strategy (exaggerate interest) in [12]. In the adjacency pair [13-14], both parties go on-record because the question-answer sequence is in- herently informative by nature. The ranking of imposition in this scenario is minimal.
Example 3. Closing.
George – sales manager, P-; Silke – professional client, P+. George: George Shaw, Sales Department, speaking.
Silke: Good morning! (.h) It’s (Silke Kauss) from Compunet
in Germany. (.) We spoke last month.
George: <Give me a moment,> (0.8) A::::H now I remember!
(.) You were interested in our microchips, weren’t you.
Silke: Yes, that’s right. (.) In fact, that’s the reason I’m calling. (.) Is the price that you quoted for the >MC seven eight seven mi-
crochips< still current?
George: Ye:s, (.h) I quoted eighteen US dollars per chip, if you
agreed to take a thousand pieces.
Silke: Yes! (.hh) Looking at my notes from our call, that’s the
price I have. (.) We actually need two thousand five hundred pieces. (.h) >How about making us an additional concession for such a large order<?
George: Okay Silke. E:::r may I call you (.) Silke?
Silke: Of course.
George: Call me George. (0.4) Now, (.h) as this is the first or-
der that you’ve placed with us, (.h) I could knock fifty cents off the price if you agreed to pay by a bank draft.
Silke: That sounds great, Mr Sha- (hh) sorry, (hh) George. (.) A bank draft is perfectly acceptable. (.) If you fax me the invoice t’day I’ll transfer the amount immediately! (0.4) So how soon can we expect delivery?
George: >I seem to remember informing you< that delivery usually takes six to eight weeks.
Silke: That’s right. (.) It’s here in my notes. (.) The problem is, we heed the chips rather urgently. (.h) Is there any way that you could speed up delivery?
George: Just let me check if we have any in stock, (0.6) Ah! (.) Well, Silke, ((LS)) we have fifteen hundred in stock, (.h) which we could send by air freight. (.) You should then have them within a few days. (.) We could send the remainder (.h) by the end of next week.
Silke: Okay, George. (.h) [1] I mush dash! (.h) [2] I’ve got a meeting in a few minutes. (.) [3] Bye!
George: [4] Bye!
 68 Training, Language and Culture

 In [1] Silke initiates an on-record pre-closing due to the ur- gency she experiences in the situation. In [2] she attends to the hearer’s positive face (give reasons) by justifying her early de- parture. In [3] she gives the formulaic farewell (bye) without waiting for the interlocutor’s response. George answers by using positive politeness (assert common ground) in [4].
5. DISCUSSION
In problem-solving calls opening routines positive politeness (42%) and on-record strategies (38%) were equally common, which, on the one hand, points to the fact that openings are high- ly formulaic positive politeness activities, aimed at creating an at- mosphere of cooperation, support and comfort. On the other hand, the frequency of on-record moves indicates that the inter- actants are experiencing a certain degree of pressure linked to urgency and need for efficiency and clarity rather than face work. The volume of negative politeness was unexpectedly high (20%), it was prevalent in the reason-for-call sequence. Off- record strategies were relatively rare (1%). Assertion of com- mon ground (positive politeness) was by far the most common in openings, the second most common positive politeness strate- gy was to offer or to promise, though the number of cases was relatively small, if compared with common ground assertion. Making an offer or a promise was used by less powerful interac- tants (the party receiving the call) and marked a pre-emptive move giving the caller a chance to announce the reason for call- ing. Positive politeness was more common in subordinates, whereas negative politeness was typical of superiors, usually the caller, in the reason-for-call move, which is intrinsically face- threatening requiring extensive face work. On-record politeness did not show dependence on power, it was rather related to the degree of urgency the interactants experienced during the call.
In the inquiry on-record strategies prevailed (61%) due to the task-oriented character of this routine, while negative polite- ness was only half as common (31%) as its use was restricted to questions asked by the calling party. Positive politeness (7%) was found in thanks and acknowledgements. The number of off- record moves was negligible (1%). In the inquiry routine, the distribution of politeness strategies displayed a strong correlation with power. On-record strategies prevailed in the speech of su- periors, predominantly clients, who were goal-oriented. Nega- tive politeness was prevalent in the speech of less powerful in- teractants, usually managers. It manifested itself in the use of negative politeness strategies such as, ‘be conventionally indirect’ and ‘question, hedge’. This reinforces Brown and Levin- son’s (1978) assumption about questions. If asked by subordi- nates, these speech acts become inherently face-threatening with a high degree of imposition. For this reason, subordinates either opt for avoidance strategies (avoid performing the act) or resort to a high degree of negative politeness. Positive politeness characterises the speech of less powerful participants.
In the claim section, on-record strategies (44%) were prevalent due to their task/goal-oriented disposition and the presence of a high degree of contingency. Negative politeness
Manifestations of politeness and power in problem-solving business telephone calls by Irina S. Lebedeva and Evgeniya V. Ponomarenko
(33%) ranked second, with positive politeness accounting for 19%. Off-record strategies were relatively uncommon (4%). On- record strategies were predominantly used by superiors, where- as negative – by subordinates.
In the claim details discussion, on-record strategies prevailed (59%). This stage of the call is more efficiency-oriented than ‘face’ oriented. Negative politeness was less than half as common (26%), and positive politeness (12%) was even less frequent. The least frequent was the off-record strategy (3%). No depen- dence on power was observed.
The solution-acceptance routine is positive-face oriented. The number of positive politeness strategies (49%) was relative- ly high, they prevailed in offering a solution, solution-acceptance, and thanks sequences. Positive politeness prevailed in the speech of powerful interactants. Negative politeness (29%) was used by subordinate speakers in solution-suggestions to min- imise the imposition and potential threat of the non-acceptance of the solution. On-record politeness accounted for 21%. Positive politeness was used by both superiors, the party who accepted the solution (give gifts, attend to hearer) and subordinate speak- ers (offer, promise). Negative politeness (24%) was more com- mon in the case of subordinates, usually company representa- tives who offered help.
In the case of solution-rejection, interactants performed a considerable amount of face work due to the intrinsically face- threatening nature of rejection. Negative politeness (44%) was equally used by subordinate and superior speakers. On-record strategies (35%) and positive politeness (19%) (offer, promise) were used by those who offered help/a solution. The strategy of giving reasons was used by those who rejected help. Off-record strategies were infrequent (2%). Powerful interactants, usually clients, went on-record more often. Positive politeness (offer, promise) was more typical of subordinate speakers, usually those who provided help.
At the solution implementation stage of the problem-solving business call, interactants were largely on-record (58%) due to their task and efficiency-oriented disposition. The risk of the negative imposition at this stage was relatively low, as most is- sues had already been either resolved or at least clarified. Nega- tive politeness (23%) was used to lower the potential risk in di- rections and positive politeness (19%) – in positive evaluations and appraisals. Superiors went on-record in directions when they provided information, whereas subordinate speakers used negative politeness strategies when they performed the same speech act. Positive politeness was typical of the speech of sub- ordinates, usually those who provided services.
The closing routine of problem-solving business telephone calls is inherently formulaic (farewells, thanks, offers of help, of- fers of further collaboration), leading to the prevalence of posi- tive politeness (80%). The most common positive politeness strategies observed in this routine were asserting common ground, giving gifts to the client, and making offers and promises. Negative politeness (12%) and on-record (8%) strategies were relatively infrequent. No correlation with the social variable of
Training, Language and Culture 69

Training, Language and Culture Volume 7 Issue 2, 2023, pp. 64-71
power was observed. The frequency of the strategies in the speech of subordinate and superior speakers was relatively equal, as observed in the study.
6. CONCLUSION
The study reinforces assumptions about the heterogeneity of business telephone interaction. Manifestations of politeness show a lot of variability and dependence on a vast range of vari- ables, including social (power/acquired social role, distance be- tween the interactants and gender). The present research has at- tempted to deal with at least some of them.
1. The analysis was restricted to problem-solving business telephone calls. In view of the existence of other genres of tele- phone interaction, for example, service encounters, problem- solving calls, meeting-arranging calls and information-based calls with their distinct structures, especially those of the message part, and the variability of genre-dependent goals that interac- tants pursued at each stage, the author projected that any at- tempt to encompass multiple factors would blur the details, al- though a comparative analysis across genres would certainly be of scientific interest.
2. To obtain information about the use of politeness in dif- ferent routines and sequences statistics were collected for each adjacency pair in the routine.
3. During the analysis of politeness strategies used by sub- ordinate and superior speakers the research examined the pow- er/acquired social role variable.
The analysis showed that the opening routine was inherent- ly formulaic, in the summons-answer and identification-recogni- tion sequences both subordinate and superior speakers went on- record. In greetings and ‘how-are-you?’ exchanges, positive po- liteness prevailed, no correlation with power was found. In the reason-for-call sequence superiors either went on-record or re- sorted to negative politeness – indirectness and hedging, where- as subordinates tended to use the positive politeness strategy of offer, promise. This result seems rather inconclusive in view of the different tasks performed by the participants in the call.
References
Amthor Yotsukura, L. (2002). Reporting problems and offering as- sistance in Japanese business telephone conversations. In K. Luke & T.-S. Pavlidou (Eds.), Telephone calls: Unity and di- versity in conversational structure across languages and cul- tures (pp. 135-170). John Benjamins.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon Press. Bercelli, F., & Pallotti, G. (2002). Conversazioni telefoniche. In C. Baz- zanella (Ed.), Sul dialogo: Contesti e forme di interazione ver-
bale (pp. 177-192). Guerini.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Polite-
ness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness:
Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). CUP.
Caronia, L., Fussell, S., Zhang, Q., & Setlock, L. (2009). Growing up wireless: Being a parent and being a child in the age of mo- bile communication. In P. Zaphiris & C. Siang Ang (Eds.),
Professional Communication: Inquiries into Language Across Borders doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2023-7-2-64-71
The closing routine is also formulaic and shows the interac- tants’ adherence to positive politeness in both closing sequences – pre-closing and farewells. The most common politeness strate- gies observed are giving gifts to hearer and asserting common ground.
The message part of problem-solving calls showed a greater diversity due to the structural complexity of this section. In the inquiry sequence, superior speakers go on-record, whereas sub- ordinates use negative politeness strategies (be conventionally indirect, question, hedge) and positive politeness strategies (use in-group identity markers, give gifts to your interlocutor, seek agreement). In the claim, superiors either go on-record or turn to hedging or apology. Subordinates use both positive (assert com- mon ground) and negative (hedging, apology) politeness. In the claim details discussion, superiors go on-record, choose hedging and indirectness to protect their ‘negative face’, or attend to the interlocutor by asserting common ground (positive politeness). Subordinates act in a similar way, this stage doesn’t give any cor- relation with power. In the case of solution-acceptance, superiors go on-record and use positive politeness strategies (give gifts to hearer or notice, attend to hearer). Conversely, subordinates continue to protect their negative face by hedging and being in- direct even in the case of solution acceptance. Solution rejection is a face-threatening act with a high ranking of imposition. Superi- ors either go on-record or use negative politeness strategies (question, hedge, be conventionally indirect, apologise). Subordi- nates offer, promise (positive politeness) and use strategies of negative politeness (question, hedge and be conventionally indi- rect). The ranking of imposition of the solution implementation move is low, this affects the strategies used by interactants. Su- periors go on-record, whereas subordinates use strategies of neg- ative politeness (question, hedge and be conventionally indirect) and positive politeness (seek agreement).
The present research reinforces the necessity for greater at- tention to social variables in telephone interaction research and the ranking of imposition, the pragmatic factor, which might prove key to the use of politeness.
Human computer interaction: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 2655-2674). Information Science Ref- erence. https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-088- 2.ch026
Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. St. Jerome.
Forey, G., & Lockwood, J. (2007). I’d love to put someone in jail for this: An initial investigation of English in the business processing outsourcing (BPO) industry. English for Specific Purposes,
26(3), 308-326.
Frankel, R. (1989). ‘I wz wondering – uhm could raid uhm effect the
brain permanently d’y know?’ Some observations on the in- tersection of speaking and writing in calls to a Poison Con- trol Centre. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53(2), 195-226. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/105703189093 74300
 70 Training, Language and Culture

 Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219-236. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90) 90081-N
Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with lin- guistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Lan- guage, 27, 93-109. https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1981.27.93
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41-58). Academic Press.
Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2015). Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315750231
Hopper, R. (1992). Telephone conversation. Indiana University Press. Hutchby, I. (1996). Confrontation talk: arguments, asymmetries and
power on talk radio. Erlbaum.
Koester, A. (2010). Workplace discourse. Continuum.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p’s and q’s.
Chicago Linguistic Society, 8, 292-305.
Lakoff, R. (1989). The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom
discourse. Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Inter- language Communication, 8(2-3), 101-130. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.101
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. Matthews, P. H. (2007). The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. Ox-
ford University Press.
Meehan, A. (1989). Assessing the ‘policeworthiness’ of citizen com-
plaints to the police. In D. Helm, W. Anderson, A. Meehan, & A. Rawls (Eds.), The interactional order: New directions in the study of social order (pp. 16-20). Irvington.
Mullany, L. (2004). Gender, politeness and institutional power roles: Humour as a tactic to gain compliance in workplace business meetings. Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Inter- language Communication, 23(1-2), 13-37. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1515/mult.2004.002
Pizziconi, B. (2009). Politeness. In J. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp. 706-710). Elsevier.
Manifestations of politeness and power in problem-solving business telephone calls by Irina S. Lebedeva and Evgeniya V. Ponomarenko
Roberts, J. (1998). Telephoning: Your questions and answers. Trotman. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking in conversation. Language,
50(4), 696-735. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289-327. https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.
289
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. Ameri- can Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075-1095. https://dx.doi.org/10. 1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9(2-3), 111-151. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00148124
Schegloff, E. A. (2004). Answering the phone. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Con- versation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 63-108). John Benjamins. https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns. 125.07sch
Scollon, R. (2014). Mediated discourse as social interaction: A study of news discourse. Routledge. https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/97813 15840031
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communi- cation and politeness theory (pp. 11-47). Continuum.
Stenström, A. B. (1994). An introduction to spoken interaction. Longman.
Tracy, K. (1997). Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames. Research on Language and Social Inter- action, 30(4), 315-343.
Tracy, K., & Agne, R. (2002). I just need to ask somebody some ques- tions: Sensitivities in domestic dispute calls. In J. Coterill (Ed.), Language in the legal process (pp. 75-89). Palgrave Macmillan.
Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, D. (1992). The interactional organization of calls for emer- gency assistance. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 359-469). Cam-
bridge University Press.