Europe

Study

Pragmatic Target

Region

Method of Data Collection

Main Results

Hernández-Flores (1999)

Advice

Salamanca

Spontaneous conversations

The politeness strategies observed in this study distinguish themselves from Brown & Levinson’s (1987) theory of politeness, which focuses on the individuality of people through negative and positive face (i.e., the freedom from imposition and the desire to be accepted by others, respectively) instead of a community-based approach. While advice may be a face-threatening act under this ideology, advice is common in Spanish colloquial interactions. Hernández-Flores (1999) observed patterns of self-affirmation and confianza, which enhance the relationship between interactants. In other words, self-affirmation is the wish to be seen as self-aware of their positive qualities whereas confianza is the degree to which interactants feel they can speak openly.

Lorenzo Dus (2001)

Compliments and responses

Valencia

Discourse Completion Task

This is a contrastive study that examines Peninsular Spanish and British English. Spanish males upgraded their compliments ironically (e.g., Es que conmigo se rompió el molde) and frequently took compliments as flirtatious advances (e.g., Sólo cuando te miran). In contrast, British males avoided responses that were self-congratulatory, which could cause pragmatic failure in cross-cultural communication.

Maíz Arévalo (2012)

Compliments and responses

Madrid

Natural discourse

This study analyzed the motivations of using an implicit compliment instead of an explicit one. Participants preferred implicit compliments where the relationship between interlocutors was distant and the risk of face threat was heightened when complimenting another’s personal qualities, achievements or appearance. Overall, the Spanish speakers explicitly and implicitly complimented appearance more often than abilities in comparison with English speakers in previous studies.

Hernández Flores (2004)

(Im)politeness

Salamanca

Theoretical

In Peninsular Spanish there are three politeness functions: mitigation, reparation, and enhancement. Interlocutors use mitigation where face risk is anticipated whereas enhancement amplifies positive politeness strategies where there is no risk to face. Lastly, reparation is a resources for recovering from a face offense that has already been committed. With these additions to politeness theory, she hypothesizes that face negotiation is the act of balancing both the speaker’s and the hearer’s face.

Briz Gómez (2004)

(Im)politeness

Varieties of Spain

Theoretical

This study differentiates between coded politeness and interpreted politeness in order to operationalize how a speech event that is typically extremely impolite can be perceived in certain contexts. Coded politeness refers to the linguistic form of conventional politeness whereas interpreted politeness is the politeness judgement made in light of the speech event’s context. In this sense, cross-cultural differences such as confianza and solidarity-building are explicated by the speech act’s cultural context.

Lorenzo-Dus (2007)

(Im)politeness

Valencian Spanish on Carta Blanca

Institutional discourse

This study studies impoliteness in the context of televised debates conducted in Valencia and Peninsular Spanish on Carta Blanca. Though debates are inherently face-threatening through their functions as a platform for disagreement, many speakers did not perform inherently face-threatening acts frequently. Indeed, the acts that were perceived as impolite were acts that threatened their private face instead of their position in the debate (e.g., pue sí pero cuando te oyes un señor como ése que no te deja hablar y ya te pones de mala).

Haverkate (2004)

(Im)politeness

Varieties of Spain

Theoretical

Peninsular Spanish is a variety that is more oriented to positive politeness in comparison with British English and Dutch. In essence, Spaniards value solidarity in assertive, directive, and expressive speech acts. This is evidenced by the use of irony, repetition of an interlocutor’s words, and non-mitigated imperatives. These practices assume a lack of imposition in the realization of face-threatening acts and they confirm mutual understanding during and interaction.