evidence from the service sector, primarily in Greece and in England. More specifically, I will consider issues of formality and informalityand terms of address, drawing from naturally occurring data and research findings. Such evidence may offer indications as to the kinds of

others put forward more literal or more creative responses such as Do you really want to know or are you just being

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102changes that increased interconnectedness may produce. Without denying the homogenising power of globalisation, it is argued thatgreater interconnectedness does not necessarily mean cultural homogenisation but rather change arising out of various sources. 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Im-Politeness; Globalisation; Formality/Informality; Service encounters

1. Introduction

The expanding use of certain formulaic expressions, such as Hi, how are you today? and Have a nice day or theuse of customers first names in some service contexts in Britain have been explored in the relevant literature and havefrequently been attributed to the influence of American culture. Such innovations are disliked by many service employeesand customers alike and are even perceived by some as signs of impoliteness (see, e.g., Cameron, 2007:134). Forinstance, Cameron (2007:134) contends that [t]his kind of service-talk is no longer something the British remark on withoutraged astonishment, as they often did when it was new; yet I suspect it still grates on many British ears. We do not carefor false friendliness, and we still find some. . . [such] techniques rude -- intrusive, pushy, over-familiar. Interestingly, forboth the emergence and expansion of such new practices in service contexts and the assumed increase in impoliteness,the blame is laid on globalisation through the simple explanation that traditional British politeness norms are beingdisplaced by essentially American ones. Since U.S. norms are based on showing intimacy rather than respectful distance,they strike many conservative Britons as impolite (Cameron, 2007:135).

This trend has also been noted and evaluated in various blogs. For some bloggers, it is perceived simply as a socialconvention, part of business etiquette, which they either accept as such or dislike because it is perceived as automatic andmostly insincere. Some suggested appropriate responses along the lines of Im fine, thank you, and you?, whereasThe impact of globalisation on politeness and impoliteness

Maria Sifianou *

National and Kapodistrian, University of Athens, School of Philosophy, Faculty of English Studies,Panepistimioupoli Zographou, 157 84 Athens, Greece

Received 22 October 2012; received in revised form 7 May 2013; accepted 31 May 2013

Abstract

Globalisation tends to be perceived as one of the most powerful forces shaping todays world. In its simplest sense, globalisationrefers to the acceleration of processes of interconnectedness in every aspect of social life. It is assumed that this will lead to thehomogenisation of the world under the influence of the omnipresent American culture. However, since globalisation is a process ratherthan an end state, its consequences are contingent on various factors and are, therefore, uncertain and unpredictable.

Discourse practices fall within the heart of this interconnectedness not least because it entails various kinds of interaction. In thispaper, I would like to consider if and to what extent globalisation affects the expression of politeness and impoliteness. I will draw my* Tel.: +30 210 727 7809; fax: +30 210 727 7864.E-mail address: msifian@enl.uoa.gr.

0378-2166/$ -- see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.016

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102 87polite? What transpires from such views is that this kind of innovative verbal conduct is seen as polite but insincere, and aconflict arises because it is viewed as inappropriate in the context of strangers who do not really care about each other.

In this paper, I would like to consider if and to what extent globalisation affects the expression of politeness andimpoliteness in the present-day sociocultural reality of major economic, political, social and cultural change. I will draw myevidence from the service sector, primarily in Greece and in England. More specifically, I will consider issues of formalityand informality and, in particular, terms of address. Such evidence may offer indications as to the kinds of changes thatincreased interconnectedness may produce. It is argued that increased interconnectedness does not necessarily meancultural homogenisation but rather change arising out of the confluence of local and global social forces; thus, local normsand continuity should not be ignored. This paper starts with a brief outline of what globalisation is and how it can have suchdiverse effects.

2. Globalisation, culture and politeness

Globalisation tends to be perceived as one of the most powerful forces shaping todays world. In its simplest form,globalisation is supposed to refer to the acceleration of processes of interconnectedness in every aspect of social life,most evidently in pervasive cultural symbols such as Coca-Cola and Madonna (Held et al., 2003:327; Turner, 2010), andin discursive practices, which are the focus of this paper. In this context, language is viewed as a commodity and, like othercommodities, is seen as falling under the sweeping power of American culture and norms (Meyerhoff and Niedzielski,2003:535; Heller, 2003). In fact, for some, globalisation is a cover term for Americanisation (see, e.g., Turner, 2010:6).Even though there is much theoretical and empirical discussion on globalisation, there is very little agreement as to whatexactly it is. The term seems to be not only fashionable but it is also highly contested and variably used (see, e.g., Heldet al., 2003:1; Bauman, 2000: 1; Block, 2004:14--15; Fairclough, 2006:1--7; Turner, 2010:9--10). For Garrett (2010:417)globalization is often viewed as a catchword . . . whose meaning is vague and elusive, and which is consequently opento variable interpretations. As Strange (1996:xiii, xii) vividly remarks, globalisation is a term that can refer to anythingfrom the Internet to a hamburger. It is one of those vague and woolly words, freely bandied about in the literature, butwhose precise meaning is seldom if ever clearly defined. There is no doubt then that this ambiguity of the term highlightsthe complexity of the phenomenon itself.

Among the various threats attributed to globalisation, two are pertinent here: the homogenisation of the world under theinfluence of the omnipresent American culture, and the insidious spread of English at the expense of lesser-used languages(see, e.g., Trudgill, 2002:147). However, on the positive side there is the increase in intercultural encounters, with theconcomitant assumption of the facilitation of intercultural contacts (see, e.g., Block, 2004). As Turner (2010:6) observes,globalisation studies have been characterised by either extreme pessimism or naive optimism but cautions us against suchsimple dichotomies and further adds that we should not fail to see the complexities of the process and the interaction betweenlocal cultures and global processes, resulting in a new dynamic between the local and the global (see also Blommaert, 2003).

In other words, as Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999:81) contend, globalisation should be seen as a dialectic of theglobal and the local. Androutsopoulos (2010:204) insightfully observes that [g]lobalization is not a unidirectional processby which linguistic or cultural elements are diffused and uncritically adopted. In Couplands (2010:5) words, globalisationis better seen as a complex of processes through which difference as well as uniformity is generated, but in relation toeach other. The last two definitions also raise the issue of globalisation being a process rather than an end state(Meyerhoff and Niedzielski, 2003:537). This complex interrelationship of the global and the local is frequently rendered bythe notion of glocalisation. Glocalization both highlights how local cultures may critically adapt or resist globalphenomena, and reveals the way in which the very creation of localities is a standard component of globalization(Giulianotti and Robertson, 2007:134). In essence, globalisation is a motivating force for profound political, social,economic and cultural change. However, any observed changes within this process should not be associated solely withglobal convergence since globalization represents something other than straightforward Americanization orWesternization (Dewey, 2007:335; see also Turner, 2010:6). Even the use of the English language itself seems tobe becoming less dominant on the internet and practically everywhere else (Snoddy, 2003:25; Block, 2004:23).

Consequently, as has been noted by many researchers (see, e.g., Fairclough, 1996:5), it is a mistake to perceiveglobalisation as the unification of the world because inequalities are widening rather than shrinking. Rather paradoxically,increased concern with globalisation has brought the local to the forefront, as is evidenced, for instance, in the resurgenceof local nationalisms (see, e.g., Meyerhoff and Niedzielski, 2003:537). The collapse of space, time and borders may becreating a global village, but not everyone can be a citizen (United Nations Development Report, quoted in Dunne,1999:22). This is a significant observation because access to globalised products is not available to whole communitiesbut only to certain elite minorities. As Blommaert (2003:609) suggests, a realistic look at globalisation processes indicatesthat not everybody is part of such processes but only particular mediating actors. He (2003:613) further adds thatsociolinguistic globalisation does not occur everywhere, but in particular different yet interconnected places and not in

others, and this is a structural and systemic matter with deep historical roots, not a coincidental one. So one couldconclude that there are profound changes around the world but that change may or may not lead to homogenisation. Itseems that societies have to discover ways to adjust to a far more interrelated but also diversified and uncertain world thanthe previous one was.

Despite the plethora of publications on globalisation in social theory and in cultural studies, linguistics, and more

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--10288specifically sociolinguistics, is lagging behind (but see, e.g., Coupland, 2003, 2010; Cameron, 2000a and elsewhere).Linguistically related work has mostly focused on the spread of English and its power as the dominant language. Eventhough such views have been problematised (see, e.g., Mufwene, 2002) what has attracted less attention is the diffusionof certain discourse norms from the English-speaking world, which may displace established local ways of interactingwithout displacing local languages as such (Cameron, 2003:28, emphasis in the original). The implication of this is thatlocal discourse practices are being increasingly affected by external forces to the extent that commonalities surpassdifferences. In this connection, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999:80) state that generic forms, such as the interview,transcend their locality and become techniques usable in others. However, one can argue here that such genres becomelocalised to satisfy local preferences. The genre may be transferred but its ideology or associated cultural values may beignored or viewed differently in the new context (Garrett, 2010:449). Cameron (2003:33), for instance, notes that aMcDonalds restaurant in Budapest will serve its customers in Hungarian, but the use of Hungarian will follow the norms ofinteraction which prevail in the companys headquarters in Chicago. She further adds that if this style is successful, someof its features may be adopted by local firms and local entrepreneurs may establish themselves as consultants offeringadvice to local businesses. This is one of the ways that certain ideologies and communication practices spread.

And yet there are counter-examples, such as a Swedish McDonalds restaurant where servers address lone customersusing neither the norms of American informality nor the usual Swedish second person singular but rather an impersonalconstruction like will there be fries with that? (Cameron, 2006:134), a re-emerging avoidance strategy which was dominantin Swedish until the mid-seventies when it was replaced by the less formal singular (T) form (Clyne et al., 2009:8, 23). Incontrast, the Swedish firm IKEA requires the use of singular forms to single addressees even in its operations outsideSweden (Cameron, 2006:133; Clyne et al., 2009: 62). If this practice were transferred to Greece and other places, I suppose,it would be met with strange looks and even cutting remarks. As is well known, pronominal distinctions are commonstrategies which may convey politeness and distance or intimacy but they are highly culturally bound and inappropriate usemay cause offence (see, e.g., Clyne et al., 2009; Formentelli, 2009; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2011).

The above examples indicate that the emerging picture is highly complex, so it seems rather simplistic to assume that itis only external forces which influence local norms. Even if a certain degree of influence is attested by the use in certainmultinationals (e.g., McDonalds or Fridays), this does not mean that the whole (local and multinational) service sector willbe similarly affected. If, for instance, informality emerges as a common practice in various communities and in contexts inwhich it was previously perceived as rather inappropriate, this innovation may not be as widespread or may reflect othersources of origin (e.g., re-emerging older local norms or anti-establishment). Such informality may be better seen as acase of variation, but variation does not necessarily lead to change. In the era of globalisation, interlocutors have access toa wider range of resources which they can combine in different, novel and creative ways. They do not inevitably reproduceimported global discourse practices but may change and reconstruct these practices in ways that seem more appropriate.Thus rather than assuming that it is only powerful external forces which influence local discourse norms we should alsoturn our attention to other factors, such as local norms and continuity and the possibility of confluence of local and globalsocial forces. I would like to consider the issue of politeness and impoliteness in this framework. Is the balance betweenthe internal and external forces which shape politeness conventions tipping over into impoliteness? To look at this, I willbriefly consider the use of formality and informality, focusing on the practices of address in a few service contexts. Servicecontexts are of the prime exemplars of the globalised new economies, which are perceived as the driving forces behindthe commodification of language and discourse practices.

3. Formality and politeness

Formality is a multidimensional phenomenon and, thus, hard to define, largely because it subsumes many factorsincluding familiarity, seriousness and politeness (Trudgill, 1983:107; see also Pearce, 2005:69). However, formality andpoliteness have been frequently treated as equivalent.1 In everyday parlance, in English at least, politeness is frequentlyperceived as referring to the use of relatively formal and deferential language, as Spencer-Oatey (2008:2) notes. This

1 For instance, the formal V-form to address single others is commonly referred to as polite or deferential plural (see, e.g., Braun, 1988:46;Sifianou, 1992:60, 80) when in fact it indicates social differences and distance but not necessarily politeness. As Flix-Brasdefer (2008:163,quoted in Mugford, 2013:55) argues, students may use the V-form to address teachers not because they want to display politeness but becausethey assume this form is expected.

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102 89same view is expressed by Blum-Kulka (1992:259), drawing on Garfinkel, 1967), who states that politeness intuitivelytends to be associated with formality; hence politeness is juxtaposed with informality. This well-established associationbetween formality and politeness is found in pre-theoretical social-norm views, where a higher degree of formalityimplies greater politeness (Fraser, 1990:221). It is also found in various theories, such as Brown and Levinsons (1987)face-saving view, where formality is almost equivalent to negative politeness. For Brown and Levinson (1987:70, 130), itis formal, negative politeness that springs to mind when one thinks of politeness in Western cultures. Among the linguisticrealisations of negative politeness, Brown and Levinson include conventional indirectness, hedges on illocutionary forceand linguistic pessimism as to the outcome of a request. Linguistic features of negative politeness are among those whichhave been identified as markers of formality (Wheeler, 1994:159). In contrast, positive politeness operates through theuse of directness and informality, whose linguistic realisations are often associated with presumptuousness, linguisticoptimism and even lack of politeness. Negative politeness is the heart of respect behaviour, just as positive politeness isthe kernel of familiar and joking behaviour (Brown and Levinson, 1987:129). In addition, the output of both positive andnegative politeness strategies is associated with elaborate constructions whose motivations include face-riskminimisation. Such expenditures of effort seem to be intimately linked to polite usages across many cultures (Brownand Levinson, 1987:94). In brief, politeness is assumed to be realised primarily through formal and elaborate style.

From a Critical Discourse Analysis perspective, Fairclough (see, e.g., 1995) argues that informalisation has become apervasive feature of various public discourse genres (e.g., media discourse) in Britain. Informalisation is associated withtwo interrelated tendencies: conversationalisation and personalisation. Conversationalisation refers to the use in publicdiscourse of linguistic features associated with everyday interactions whereas personalisation involves the construction ofa personal relationship between producers and recipients of public discourse. Producers of such discourse aim atsimulating some kind of personal relationship with their audiences creating the impression that they know each otherpersonally. This may be welcomed by some recipients but despised by some others. Research findings indicate thatinformalisation (apparent on all levels of linguistic analysis) constitutes a prevailing trend in mass media discourse (see, e.g., Montgomery, 1999; Steen, 2003; Chovanec, 2009:116) but is affecting many other domains (see, e.g., Lorenzo-Dusand Bou-Franch, 2013). A large-scale merging of private and public practices is indeed a hallmark of contemporary sociallife (Fairclough, 1995:11). This more general trend of informalisation is attributed to broader changes in the media and thepublic sphere more generally (see, e.g., Pearce, 2005:80).

This increase in informality in public contexts both in the U.S. (see, e.g., Lakoff, 2003, 2005) and in the U.K. (see, e.g.,Fairclough, 1995; Cameron, 2003, 2007; Pearce, 2005) has been associated with the general trend towards thecasualization of everyday speech (Biber et al., 1999: 1099) and the increase in egalitarianism in Western cultures butalso with impoliteness to some extent. Lakoff (2003, 2005) links this increase in the use of informality (at the expense ofthe traditional formal distance politeness) in contemporary U.S. with another trend, which she calls the erosion of the linebetween public and private life, a view which echoes Faircloughs claims cited earlier. Lakoff (2005:35) provides theexample of telemarketers who invade the privacy of the home at the sacred dinner hours and who go so far as toaddress the answerer by their first name (see also Cameron, 2007:134). Another of her examples involves addressing U.S. Presidents by first names or even nicknames, as happened, for example with Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Lakoff (2005) ascribes such a shift to informality to various sources, including increasing diversity, the Internet as a newcommunicative channel, media competition for ratings and audience, and the rise of positive politeness. The rise inpositive politeness also underpins Camerons (2007) two proposed sources for the increase in impoliteness in the U.K.:popular psychology and corporate culture. The former recommends the expression rather than the suppression ofpeoples feelings, and the latter advocates the use of direct rather than indirect language by employees. The increase ininformality is also noted and condemned as a sign of impoliteness by popular writers such as Truss (2005). All thesesources of informality are seen, implicitly or explicitly, as a consequence of globalisation and, in particular, ofAmericanisation. The western U.S.A. has for long been considered a positive politeness society (in comparison to Britain)(Brown and Levinson, 1987:245) but it is now becoming an increasingly conventionalized-camaraderie society (Lakoff,2005:34); the U.K. is assumed to have followed this example. For many British and American speakers informality isassumed to ease interaction with strangers so that a quick move towards first name terms of address is frequently used tothis end (Bargiela et al., 2002:1).

However, this trend is not entirely new. Traces of it can be found in Brown and Gilmans (1960) classic study of thepronouns of power and solidarity, which over forty years ago noted a trend towards the solidarity semantic. Over twenty-five years later, Wardhaugh (1986:256) also noted a recent dramatic shift to solidarity but added that we can expectdifferent societies to handle the T/V distinction differently, and about ten years later Wheeler (1994) attributed the spreadof casual variants to adolescent peer group networks. More recently, Bargiela et al. (2002) note this current increase ininformality and the use of first names by English native speakers in intercultural business contacts. The authors attributethis to Americanisation of British culture. They do caution us, though, that not all British people feel comfortable with suchpractices which may also create unease on the part of foreign language users. The authors also note that reciprocal firstname use is common between staff and students in British universities (see also Bousfield, 2008:94). In contrast, more

recently, Formentelli (2009) has noted an emerging use of formality, especially by young students, when addressinglecturers in the University of Reading, despite their being encouraged by most lecturers to use first name address, and hesuggests further research on the issue.2

In Greek, a tendency for informality in certain media genres has been observed (see, e.g., Tzanne, 2001). Tsakona(2012 and elsewhere) argues that Greek politicians often switch towards a less formal and more personalised style bydrawing on discourse resources that are perceived as incompatible with the specifics of the genre. Their assumed aim isto construct an illusion of involvement and to distract the attention of the audience from the political issues discussed.Nevertheless, formality still has a stronghold, and there are many situations where institutional formality is expected. Aclear example of this is the university context. Unlike in Britain or the U.S., it is almost unthinkable for Greek students touse informal language and in particular first-name terms of address with faculty (see, e.g., Koutsantoni, 2005:104). Recentresearch (Bella and Sifianou, 2012) exploring e-mail requests sent to faculty members by Greek students finds that thesingle constant feature in these e-mails is the use of formality.3 A similar overall preference for formality was found byEconomidou-Kogetsidis (2011:2305) in her investigation of e-mails sent to lecturers by Cypriot-Greek students. However,this is not the only context where formality seems to dominate. Research on Greek and British weather forecasts ontelevision (Sifianou and Tzanne, 1996) shows that the two national media differ in that Greek weather forecasts are more

under

Thbe tru

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--10290Metro, the linguistic code should be equally impressive.6What is interesting, from our point of view, is that both the Englishand the Greek announcements heard at the Athens Metro stations reveal an interesting interplay between global and locallinguo-cultural influences. The way English is used in this context diverges from native English-speaker norms, and bothpositive and negative politeness devices are combined to produce elaborate Greek and English announcements.

I think that the above examples and a number of others one could cite demonstrate clearly the prominent position offormal discourse in Greek society. This preponderance of formality may sound at variance with the positive politenessorientation that has so frequently been attributed to Greek society (see, e.g., Sifianou, 1992; Pavlidou, 1994; Makri-Tsilipakou, 2001; Tzanne, 2001; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2003). However, it is clear that there is no such contradiction,

2 Clyne et al. (2009:9) also note the controversial re-emergence of the V-form (ni) in Swedish service encounters which were abandoned in themid-seventies.3 In our e-mail data, formality is realised in three ways: through their epistolary format (opening, main body, closing), through the use of

elaborate constructions and through the use of specific High variety lexical items and collocations, along with the formal second person plural (V-form) (Bella and Sifianou, 2012:93).4 Greek was one of the classic diglossic examples discussed by Ferguson (1959), with o (Demotic, the peoples language) being the

Low variety and Koy (Katharevousa, the purified language) as the High variety. This diglossic situation was officially terminated in 1976,after the downfall of the junta, when the Low variety was established as the official Greek language. However, Katharevousa suffixes, lexical itemsand collocations are still found, especially in formal styles.5 As one reviewer rightly pointed out there is a whole subculture of gap minding based on jokes on and appropriation of this phrase, as any

Google search can easily reveal.6 The Athens Metro constitutes an impressive project, planned and executed in view of the then forthcoming (2004) Olympic Games, with astute

awareness of the fact that the eyes of the world would be turned on Greece. The Metro authorities tried to project traditional but also moderncultural products, including museum-like showcases with exhibits found during the excavations at some central stations and works of art byprominent contemporary sculptors at many others (Sifianou, 2010). mention the well-known Mind the gap).is elaborate style is probably assumed to contribute to the construction of a serious institution, which can, therefore,sted by passengers. The underlying assumption seems to be that in impressive surroundings, such as the AthensPlease stand behind the yellow line.

(not to 5 than something brief and comparatively less formal like the equivalent announcement one hears in the Londonground:formal when compared to the more informal British ones. For instance, in English, colloquial expressions like itssomewhat of a mixed bag weatherwise proliferate, whereas in Greek, lexical items are chosen from a rather limited,domain-specific set, with some words ( cloudiness) or phrases ( yy o o from west toeast), reflecting the once High variety of Greek.4

Further interesting evidence for the place of formality in Greek society is offered, I think, by the announcements heardin the Athens Metro stations (Sifianou, 2010). Both the Greek and the English announcements are formal and verbose, theunderlying assumption probably being that verbosity expresses the degree of politeness required in the specific context.For instance, in Athens, we hear the elaborate:

May I have your attention, please? For your own safety, you are kindly requested to keep clear of the red line at theplatforms edge. Thank you.

rather

because this orientation does not mean that Greek society as a whole, or any society for that matter, can be clearlycategorised as either positively or negatively polite. As has been well-documented (see, e.g., Sifianou, 1992:39; Hirschon,2001; Mills, 2009:1054), societies exhibit both positive and negative politeness orientations that interact in intricate ways,which have not yet been fully explored. In relation to Greek, the positive politeness orientation relates primarily to in-grouprelationships.

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102 91However, what I would like to argue at this point is that formality may indicate politeness, respect and distance, butthese are not its only functions. Formality may also be a sign of refinement, good education and cultivation. Formallanguage may echo authority, expert scientific knowledge, objectivity and seriousness. So in a sense, users of formality tryto satisfy their own agenda, reflecting in a way some kind of egocentric behaviour (see, e.g., Watts, 1992:51; Locher,2004:73; Koutsantoni, 2005; Kecsks, 2010; Mills, 2011:37). This is, I think, what a closer inspection of the aboveexamples reveals. For instance, British weather presenters use a highly conversational style, seeking to establishfamiliarity and in-groupness with their audience. In contrast, Greek weather forecasts maintain distance between theaudience and the inaccessible source of knowledge and stress expert power by being presented in formal language whichechoes authority (Sifianou and Tzanne, 1996).7

The university context provides an interesting site, where socio-cultural trends blend with the academic culture andinform the way language is used. Basic characteristics of the Greek university are the very large number of studentsregistered for any given course and the fact that attendance is not obligatory. These factors have significant repercussionsboth for the teacher/student relationship and for overall interactional dynamics. In other words, students normally knowtheir teachers, but not the other way round, so social distance is rather high. In addition, the relationship is construed ashighly power-asymmetrical, with teachers having power as faculty members in a society and an educational system whichcultivate power differences in such contexts (see, e.g., Hirschon, 2001; Koutsantoni, 2005; Bella and Sifianou, 2012).

So the impact of the extant vertical and horizontal social distance can explain students use of formality. However this isonly one of the sources of formality because, as Hirschon (2001:36) contends, in Greek educated circles and academiclife, the skilful use of language is highly valued, a matter of pride in itself . Being concise is not a prevailing value, whilethe ability to talk at length is. Hirschon (2001:36) further argues that the tradition of rhetoric, a classical Greek pursuit, hasan unacknowledged currency throughout contemporary Greece, in rural and urban groups, both in everyday and in moreformalised elitist contexts. So students must also be responsive to this value. Note that although it is generally assumedthat formality and negative politeness serve to protect the addressees negative aspect of face, it can be argued that suchdevices are multidirectional. More specifically, the students use formality, on the one hand, to show the required respect totheir teachers, and, on the other, to present themselves as educated adults who can use elaborate forms of expression. Inother words, the extensive use of formality is not directed only at protecting the addressees negative aspect of face butalso at protecting or even enhancing, the speakers/writers own positive face (Bella and Sifianou, 2012). Thus self-presentational concerns appear significant here, as they are in compliment responses as discussed by Ruhi (2006).

It seems to me that the assumed strong relationship between formality and politeness and consequently, betweeninformality and impoliteness is highly problematic. Neither politeness and impoliteness nor formality and informality aredirect opposites but rather are the ends of two continua. Why, then, is informality seen as an indication of impoliteness? Asimple answer to this could be that informality is impolite when used in the wrong context, and wrong context hereessentially means that there is a mismatch of pragmatic expectations in relation to politeness between producers andrecipients. And this is what most authors condemn: the use of informality in public contexts where formality used to be thenorm, a trend attributed to globalisation. In other words, this new style of public discourse in Britain and the U.S. simulatesfriendship and even intimacy by adopting the discursive practices of everyday interaction between unrelated interlocutorsin public contexts. But is this impolite? Is globalisation to be blamed? I will now consider these questions in various servicecontexts, because it seems to me that this trend is mostly evident in English business and commerce situations, and it hasbeen extensively discussed in these contexts.

4. Service contexts

In the era of globalisation, service industries dominate economies, and service to a great extent is accomplishedthrough interacting with people (Cameron, 2000a:16). In the past, we would say that the way language was used inservice contexts depended on various contextual factors, such as the degree of familiarity between interlocutors, the

7 As one of the anonymous reviewers rightly pointed out the way language is used by weather presenters who are not meteorologists may beless formal than that used by meteorologists. However, subsequent research on Greek weather forecasts (Sifianou and Tzanne, 1999, 2001) notonly did not evidence any such difference but in fact revealed that in some instances the non-meteorologists preferred more formal scientificdiction. Despite signs of shift towards a more everyday style, the formal, scientific discourse was still dominant. It is of note in this connection, thatweather forecasts are frequently announced on television as weather bulletins rather than weather news.

specifics of the genre and culture-bound preferences. Nowadays, it is claimed that the sweeping power of globalisationdoes not allow for such considerations. Powerful international companies set the norms which spread, given theintensification of competition, so that some talk of the McDonaldization of society.8 The new philosophy is known ascustomer care (Cameron, 2000a:338, 2007:133), and Boots (a health, beauty and pharmacy retail shop), for instance,tells us on their web site that we, as their customers, are at the heart of their business, and they are committed to providing

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--10292us with exceptional customer and patient care. In fact, we will be cared for by expert, friendly people rather than mereprofessional assistants. Two elements are prominent here: care and friendliness. Both characterise interactions betweenpeople who are close, but they have been extended to interactions between unacquainted people, such as those inservice contexts.

Customer care and satisfaction are assumed to be closely intertwined with the way language is used. Nowadays,language in service encounters is supposed to be friendly and thus informal, even employing first names if these areknown. In many cases, employees undergo communication training to be able to cope with this new trend. Someemployers try to regulate even trivial details of employees talk (Cameron, 2000a:324; but see, Kuiper and Flindall, 2000;Koskina and Keithley, 2010), so interactions are scripted and highly routinised. When companies move to new locationsabroad, they carry their linguistic norms along with them, which is one of the ways that these norms spread. The scriptedsalutations, the simulated friendliness and the relentless positive politeness coming from the English-speaking worldmay eventually displace established local norms in service contexts, as Cameron (2003:27) observes. But is this a realthreat?

It is my contention that foreign practices are frequently adapted to suit culture-bound practices and values rather thanjust being adopted or ignored wholesale. Sweden provides a well-documented example. In the 1960s and 1970s, therewas a public campaign urging Swedes to use the singular (informal) du pronoun to single others in an attempt to promotesocial egalitarianism (Cameron, 2006:133; Clyne et al., 2009:7). Now, if employees of IKEA in Sweden are instructed toaddress their customers with the solidary du, it would be interesting to explore whether or not their employees follow thispractice outside Sweden and, if so, how successful this is. Clyne et al. (2009:125) state that the transfer of Swedishaddress rules into German-speaking countries by multinationals has led to difficulties in industrial relations and serviceencounters. Similarly, in Greece such a practice would be unthinkable and it is indeed the case that IKEA employees inGreece do not use the familiar address form, except for some very young employees, and then only to customers of theirown age. This practice is also evident in other settings, such as the university context, where the singular address formamong students is the norm, irrespective of degree of familiarity. Moreover, even if IKEA employees do use such familiarforms successfully, does it mean that they are following English-speaking or Swedish-speaking norms? And irrespectiveof whose norms they are, is this seen as polite or impolite? It is obviously polite in a Swedish context, where suchinformality is conventional but impolite in others where it is not. There is nothing inherently polite or impolite about suchdevices.

Most importantly, perhaps, the practices of large multinational companies, where employees may use a script, do notencompass the whole spectrum of service contexts and it is rather unjustifiable to generalise from what occurs there. Indiscussing the positive side of emotion management in the Greek telecommunications sector, Koskina and Keithley(2010:211) note that most accounts have emerged from the study of large Anglo-Saxon organisations, arguablyinfluenced by American practices, and ignore features which may be prominent in small firms. So it seems instructive tolook at what happens in local businesses rather than generalise from what happens in some McDonald-type companies inspecific localities. I will now mention three pieces of research that do just that.

Economidou-Kogetsidis (2005) finds that the opening requests produced by Greek callers ringing an airlines callcentre are formal but significantly more direct than those produced by British English callers. This higher degree ofdirectness does not indicate impoliteness but rather a polite concern for non-imposition by not wasting the addresseestime. In fact, the author contends that directness is motivated by a concern for clarity and non-imposition (see also Mills,2003:144). Even Brown and Levinson (1987:130) themselves, when discussing directness, admit that there is anelement in formal politeness that sometimes directs one to minimise the imposition by coming rapidly to the point, avoidingthe further imposition of prolixity and obscurity.

Looking at service encounters in a small Greek newsagents, Antonopoulou (2001) does not note any globalisingtrends. She argues that the interaction of various factors, such as the gender of interlocutors, the degree of familiaritybetween them and the fact that requests in such contexts are not perceived as face-threatening acts determine to a largeextent what is considered appropriate, polite behaviour. So conventional indirectness and other mitigating devices are not

8 The McDonaldization of society is a metaphor coined by Ritzer (1983) to describe what he saw as a pervasive trend in many sectors ofAmerican society based on the success of fast food chains. His conviction is that this omnipresent trend will eventually lead to the homogenisationof the world under the influence of the McDonalds style of operation. For Ritzer (1996:1), McDonaldization refers to the process by which theprinciples of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as of the rest of the world.

encountered in this specific context. Even when the interlocutors are barely acquainted, no features of formal discourseare present in these encounters with the exception of some V-forms. Both genders seem to be preoccupied withexpressing friendliness and concern by employing positive politeness devices. Interestingly, the situation is very similar tothat presented by Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2006) for small shops in the town of Lyons.

Similarly, Bayyurt and Bayraktaroglu (2001) examine service encounters in Turkey and how men and women use thepronominal system and terms of address. They find that female customers favour using the V pronoun even in familiarcontexts, while males prefer making direct contact with sellers, utilising the T pronoun even in first-time encounters.Interestingly, the authors observe that customers, regardless of their gender, become more formal and indirect in affluent

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102 93environments. The authors underline the importance of reliance on the family and familiarity; customers use kinship terms(e.g., amka paternal uncle or abla big sister) with unrelated others in circumstances where they feel at home, andbecome voluble in shops they visit frequently.

The above examples do not show any evidence of globalising trends but rather reflect local preferences. However, todelve a bit more into the matter, I collected 320 instances from various face-to-face and telephone service contexts, suchas local shops, chain supermarkets, multinational companies and telecommunication companies in Athens. Sixtystudents, who agreed to participate in this project, were instructed to audio record five to six brief service encounters inwhich they participated using their mobile phones. They were also provided with an observation sheet they had to fill in foreach encounter, including pertinent information, such as name of shop, location and social characteristics of interlocutors(e.g., age, gender, degree of familiarity).9

The data set is still being expanded as it awaits a detailed analysis, thus I would not wish to make any strong claimsderiving from it. However, an initial cursory glance has reinforced my intuitive hypothesis (which may or may not beverified) that in local shops, interactions are informal but unacquainted interlocutors mostly use the formal plural, as in thepast. In fact, Terkourafi (2010: 281) notes an increase in the use of V forms in Greek. Singular (familiar) forms are usedbetween acquainted interlocutors, which becomes evident from additional personal enquiries, and by some youngemployees addressing customers of their own age. Interestingly, there was no observed difference between Greek-owned and multinational chain supermarkets or other multinational companies, such as Starbucks and Benetton.10

However, a change in usage was detected in telephone interactions with telecommunication companies but only as far asthe use of a script is concerned and not the use of informality. More specifically, these interactions are highly scripted,employing High variety lexical items (see notes 4 and 12) and the V-form for addressing the caller; if names are used,these are always last names, issues which are dealt with later.

Impressionistically speaking, in relation to various service encounters there seems to be an increase in the use of theso-called conventional marker of politeness thank you, in some such encounters in Greece.11 These are examples ofwhat Terkourafi (2011:223, drawing on Aijmer, 1996) refers to as simple thanks in English, cases which used to passunacknowledged in Greek. For instance, neither shop assistants nor their clients would normally exchange thank yous inthe past. These typically involve instances in which the actions performed are considered to be part of ones obligationsand the exchange of thank yous signals the closing of an encounter rather than the expression of genuine gratitude(Hymes, 1971:69; Sifianou, 1992:42; Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 2006:97; Terkourafi, 2011:223). If there is such an increase andif devices originally addressing positive face concerns have been acquiring negative politeness functions (Terkourafi,2010:281), such developments do not necessarily indicate that people in Greece have started following English norms ofpoliteness, where convention and politic behaviour (Watts, 2003) necessitate such devices. A related example of this isoffered by Ogiermann and Suszczynska (2011) who explore the different conceptualisations of politeness and theirdifferent developments in Poland and Hungary after the fall of the Iron Curtain. In both contexts, the authors note anincrease in the use of polite formulas in various service encounters, an increase which they attribute to the change of thepolitical and economic systems in these countries. It is my contention that in a rapidly changing world, different localitiesare trying to find their own pace, not only by imitating but also by creating their own new norms on the basis of local socio-political and economic changes and of assumptions of what is appropriate, polite behaviour which have implications onpatterns of language use.

If we turn now to the context of providing directory assistance to telephone subscribers, interesting differences betweenGreece and the U.S. emerge. Change with respect to earlier interactional styles is immediately noticeable in the Greek

9 The students were all undergraduates in the Faculty of English Studies (University of Athens) attending my Discourse Analysis course. Theservice providers were not informed about the recording because these were mostly brief interactions in a public place and anybody in the vicinitycould hear the exchange. Requesting informed consent either before or after the recording could have created significant annoyance to theemployees and to the waiting customers. However, their anonymity was ensured.10 An exception to this is evident at Fridays, where once the customers are escorted and seated, waitresses offer the menus, introducingthemselves by first name, and at Plaisio, a Greek-owned electronics and office supply chain, where employees evidently follow a script.11 This practice is evident even in open air markets and taxis, a fact that impressed me long before I started considering the issue of globalisationand politeness in service encounters.

context but not in the direction of American English-speaking norms. In the past, such encounters were direct and to thepoint (Sifianou, 1989). Nowadays, the caller is typically greeted with something like Good morning, this is X (last name)or Good morning, XXXXX (the 5-digit number the caller has dialled), Position XX (the assistants number) plus the

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--10294polite routine opening How can I help you?12 Such interactions end with the equally polite closing routine Thankyou for calling us and the brand new utterance Well be glad to be of service to you again. All this is a rather recentinnovation, which is sometimes produced in a forced and unnatural manner and sounds rather strange to theunaccustomed ear. Such innovations do not always meet with approval, as postings on the AntiCallCenter blog clearlydemonstrate. Such practices are in sharp contrast to what Lakoff (2005:32--33) reports for America, where the telephonecompany Pacific Bell instructed operators, who already introduced themselves by their first name, to drop their pleasesfor reasons of economy and efficiency. On the other hand, the practices in Greece may reflect interactional patternsattested in the U.K. telephone service sector, where employees are trained through specific scripts and styling practices toperform in specific ways (see, e.g., Cameron, 2000b). However, it is noteworthy that in Greek during certain festiveperiods, ritualistic seasonal greetings, like Merry Christmas, are also exchanged, although well-wishing utterances arenot restricted to these periods but are also frequent for example on the first day of the week or of the month, when wishes,such as (Have a) nice week/month may be exchanged. Although I cannot tell whether such expressions result from theprescriptive intervention of the institution or from employees free decisions as to what is appropriate linguistic behaviour,my contention remains the same. In either case, such well-wishing utterances should not be unquestionably seen as anappropriation of the American Have a nice day since their function is different: the American routine is a leave-takingutterance while the Greek one accompanies greetings (e.g., Good morning, good week). In Greek, they most probablyreflect the culturally entrenched use of various more or less obligatory situational formulas (Tannen and ztek, 1981).Such use may indicate local resistance to wholly imported practices, or the way in which the local and the global are in adialectic relationship and enrich a certain pattern.

There are two noteworthy issues here. First, this kind of innovation is towards the formal end of the spectrum. However,it is worth noting that this kind of formality expresses distance (through V forms) but it also expresses care for the customerand an offer of assistance for the current and future encounters. More talk and volubility may be used as involvementstrategies (Scollon and Scollon, 1995:39). Secondly, Greek informants asked about this overall innovation recognised itsformality yet rarely classified it as an instance of politeness (Sifianou and Tzanne, 2010; see also Ogiermann andSuszczynska, 2011 for related assessments by Polish and Hungarian speakers). This means that despite the assumedclose association between formality and politeness, for these informants, at least, the two are viewed as different devicesserving different functions.

5. Discussion

There are undoubtedly overgeneralisations, gaps and many loose ends regarding the issues raised here, since this is afirst attempt to explore a highly complex issue -- that of the interplay between globalisation and im-politeness. My empiricaldata is admittedly limited, but additional evidence from prior research allows me to suggest three things.

First, instead of seeing globalisation as a homogenising force we should see it as a force underpinning possible changewhich adds to the local available resources. As Blommaert (2005:139) observes, globalisation generates a reorganisationof norms in which transferred codes become local resources, embedded in local patterns of value-attributions.

Secondly, instead of trying to explain every apparent change in terms of globalisation, we should also consider internalsocio-historical developments and the multiplicity of factors that can affect variation and change.

Third, instead of considering the practices of only big multinational companies, we should also consider localbusinesses when exploring these issues, because, as mentioned earlier, globalised products and discourse practices arenot available to whole communities.

These observations lead me to another, arguably significant, issue. Even though we customarily talk about change dueto globalisation, it may be more appropriate to talk about variation or perhaps change in progress, especially insociolinguistically informed research, since, as mentioned earlier, globalisation is a process and what we are currentlyexperiencing is variation rather than change. For instance, the Hi, how are you? greeting is evidenced only in someservice encounters in some communities and informalisation of public discourse is described as a trend evident in someareas rather than an overarching phenomenon. This suggestion is in accord with Meyerhoff and Niedzielskis (2003:534)argument that recent innovations in some New Zealand variants, which have been attributed to globalisation, might bebetter seen as reflecting a broadening of the vernacular base.

12 In this context, it is of note that the literal translation of this utterance into English is How can I be of service to you/plur.?, that is, the Highvariety yy be of service is used rather than the vernacular bbo help.

Sociolinguists have been primarily concerned with sound variation and change (but see, e.g., Cheshire, 2003 onsyntactic variation). There are several different approaches to variation but I think that some of its basic principles mayassist in understanding that language change is a complex issue and cannot have just one source, globalisation. For

condialso oattachcours

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102 95currently is connected with uneducated language users or slovenly speech, it was the top social classes in England whofollowed this practice well into this century.13 It is noteworthy that initial [h] has recently re-emerged in the speech of youngLondoners who belong to ethnic minority groups (Holmes, 2008:143--144). A similar case is that of the [in] pronunciation ofthe present tense participle (e.g., hunting), which is currently stigmatised but which throughout the nineteenth centurydenoted the linguistic habits of the extreme upper levels of society (Mugglestone, 2003:131) and constitutes an exampleof stable variation without change (Mesthrie et al., 2009:111).

Like language change, a change in norms may involve simplification, creativity, imitation or adaptation of others normsand values. So, change should not be seen as the straightforward imitation or the imposition of others norms since it is anatural and inevitable process for languages and societies (Trudgill, 2002, 2010; Mills, 2009), which globalisation mayaccelerate. When languages come into contact, simplification -- a process involving the loss of redundancy and increasein transparency (Trudgill, 2002:66) -- often occurs. Indirectness and formality include features of redundancy and opacity.Variation in the degree of directness or the level of formality and politeness deemed appropriate by different groups inspecific instances may be an obstacle to effective communication (cf. Bargiela et al., 2002). Thus, a solution toovercoming such difficulties may be simplification rather than homogenisation or Americanisation.

Thus, without ignoring globalising forces, it stands to reason that patterns of politeness change in a way not verydifferent from other kinds of sociolinguistic processes. What is considered polite at a certain period of time by a specificgroup may receive a different value at a different point in time (Watts, 2003; Mugglestone, 2003; Kdr and Culpeper,2010). In fact, as far back as 1979, Lakoff (1979: 74) observed that just as the rules of grammar change over time, so thereis some evidence that our present-day rules of rapport have shifted from focussing on camaraderie in the Middle Ages todistance in the Renaissance, and back to camaraderie again. More specifically, she says that

during the thirteenth century various stylistic modalities were in flux in Europe. People were beginning to develop anotion of privacy: they began building houses with separate rooms, wearing more constraining and concealingclothing. About this time too, I believe, last names were being devised and used . . . So we can infer from this sort ofevidence that European society during this era was shifting from a target of Camaraderie to one of Distance.

So it may be the case that what we are currently experiencing in the U.S. and Britain in particular is a shift back tocamaraderie.

An area closely related to politeness which supports this cyclical movement of practices is the use of T/V systems. Onthe basis of research findings, Clyne et al. (2009:5, 9, 16) argue that there is evidence of cyclical developments in French,German and Swedish address patterns, where Swedish is quoted as an example of a system that has changed from beingcharacterised by a high degree of formality to extreme informality. In France, the student and workers uprising in the late1960s brought a sense of egalitarianism, which was reflected in the younger generations greater use of informal tu. This,however, turned out to be a temporary phenomenon, and vous re-emerged because of social hierarchies reassertingthemselves. Nowadays, as social relationships have become more informal, the use of tu has again become morewidespread especially among the younger generation.

13 For a detailed overview of the complexities of the development and the patterns of use of and attitudes towards this sound, see Mugglestone(2003).th linguistic forms and the traditions that enjoy prestige change over time, with changing social and politicaltions in history (Canagarajah, 2012 111). Sociolinguists offer a variety of examples not only of language change butf the arbitrariness of forms which are considered prestigious. For instance, there is no inherent linguistic valueed to post-vocalic [r] which renders it prestigious in New York but not so in many parts of the U.K. There are, ofe, socio-historical reasons for this variation, as Trudgill (2010) illustrates. Similarly, while [h]-dropping in Englishinstance, a useful distinction is that between changes from above and changes from below, which explains theintroduction of prestige variants in contrast to the introduction of less prestigious vernacular variants. This kind ofdistinction generally refers to single stratified communities; that is, it is internal to language and is contrasted with changethat is external in nature, a result of borrowing from other languages. However, borrowings may but may not replace localcounterparts but function along with them (see, e.g., Terkourafi, 2011) with contingent degrees of prestige. It is an agreedprinciple in sociolinguistics that language change has its origins in social and regional variation. In other words, the basisfor change over time is current variation which does not mean that all variation will lead to change. Mills (2009:1056)suggests that this same principle applies to changing social norms. Rather than assuming that cultures and languagegroups are homogeneous in their usage, we need to be aware of the heterogeneity within cultural groups and it is from thisvariation that language change in relation to impoliteness norms occurs.

Bo

Cameron (2007:135) offers an interesting observation when arguing that the similarity in orientation in Britain and theU.S. is not so much a matter of American cultural influence but rather a result of the spread of the same social conditionswhich enabled such practices to thrive in the U.S. In relation to grammatical change, Trudgill (2002:148) refers to the well-

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--10296known historical and anthropological problem of diffusion versus independent development. The notion of independentdevelopment sounds, to a certain extent at least, reasonable here (cf. Meyerhoff and Niedzielski, 2003), especially giventhe scepticism of some English people towards American practices. It is of note that even though Americanisms havebeen irksome to some British ears for quite some time, recently complaints about the use of Britishisms in AmericanEnglish have emerged (see, e.g., http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686). However, if the picture is not thatclear in relation to American influence on British language and culture, then evidently it is much more obscure in relation toother cultures which do not share the same language.

To my mind, Camerons observation has wider implications. It suggests that rather than looking at American influenceon British or any other culture, we should also look at the socio-historical development of the cultures themselves. As Mills(2009:1056) contends, there is a range of different politeness norms in play across a society and language group. So it isnot unreasonable to suggest that some such forms have come to the surface. It looks as if the familiar stereotype of theBritish upper- or middle-class person as being reserved and undemonstrative has been overtaken in favour of moreworking-class, solidary behaviour (cf. Cameron, 2007:131). A comprehensive and theoretically-grounded analysis of thistopic is provided by Wheeler (1994). He combines Brown and Levinsons (1987) politeness theory with tenets of change invariationist sociolinguistics to affirm that changes in the prestige norms diachronically originate in casual style varieties(which are only contingently associated with low-status social groups), features of which he associates with positivepoliteness devices. Following Brown and Levinson (1987:18), he advocates that this is possible because positivepoliteness is inherently unstable, being associated with the natural escalation of intimacy and casualness in interaction,thus involving renewal. In contrast, negative politeness is more stable because it lacks this escalating feedback loop.Negative politeness includes more conventionalized, formal forms and archaisms, and renewal is fed by formerly casualvariants. Moreover, negative politeness is associated with distance and hierarchy whereas positive politeness isassociated with an egalitarian, solidary ethos. Clyne et al. (2009) have noted a number of sociopolitical events anddevelopments in Europe (e.g., the student movements in France and Germany, the end of the Cold War and the strongsocial democrat movement in Sweden and Finland) which have had a significant impact on language use (particularlyamong the younger generation and members of the bourgeoisie who were sympathetic to these developments). Thus, theexpansion in the use of positive politeness devices, which are based on solidarity, also resonates with the development ofegalitarian ideals.

When such changes are in progress, they strike everybody with their newness. Some accept them for what they arewhereas others condemn them as wrong, inappropriate and impolite, in some cases at least, and in others such initiativesare dropped. An extreme example of this is the greeter that was introduced in a Scottish supermarket, who welcomedcustomers and handed them a basket saying Enjoy your shopping experience. This practice, which to me is reminiscentof hypercorrection, was soon dropped because many perceived it as ludicrous (Cameron, 2007:134). What I am trying toargue here is that globalisation enriches the cultural resources available (Mills, 2009; Mills and Kdr, 2011), but if the newmodel is constructed or entirely alien it may be rejected. In other words, there must be a substratum inviting any changeirrespective of its source. In relation to cultural products, Held et al. (2003:374) conclude that [n]o cultural message, noaesthetic artefact, no symbol passes through time and space into a cultural vacuum. The cultural context of productionand transmission must always in the end encounter an already existing frame of reference in the eyes of the consumer orreceiver. Moreover, strong local practices may resist change. Weak local practices may be easier to change or may worktogether with the global practice that enters their linguo-cultural system.

I believe that in relation to Greek, formality is one such strong local practice. It may draw on classical rhetoric, asHirschon (2001:36) suggests, or it may be related to the long history of Greek diglossia or perhaps both. Irrespective of itssource, it seems that formality is still dominant in certain contexts. This does not mean that informality has no place inGreek. On the contrary, the high value placed on orality and its relationship to diglossia has been well documented (see, e.g., Tannen, 1980; Georgakopoulou, 1994; Tziovas, 2001). In Greek culture, both orality and literacy are bearers of equallystrong traditions and exhibit a notable symbiosis diachronically, with far-reaching implications for various culturalphenomena and intellectual practices (Tannen, 1980; Georgakopoulou, 1994:28; Tziovas, 2001:119).14 Tannen(1980:326) associates the use of language which emphasizes the relationship between communicator and audiencewith the so-called oral tradition and that which downplays communicator/audience interaction with the literate one.Interestingly, she notes a link between orality and literacy and camaraderie and distance communicative styles,respectively, which in more recent terms could be rendered as positive and negative politeness strategies. Tsakona

14 For instance, Tziovas (2001:120) notes the slow development of the novel in contrast to the bloom of poetry with Nobel-prize poets (G. Seferisand O. Elytis).

(2009, 2012 and elsewhere) describes various informal conversational resources that Greek politicians use strategicallyto achieve a range of aims, including the illusion of involvement with their audience. She argues that such practices mayreflect the recent trend of conversationalisation propounded by Fairclough but may also be accounted for in terms of the

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102 97orality evident in Greek culture, and further suggests that diachronic studies on Greek political discourse would beilluminating in this respect. Despite what the terms orality and literacy may denote, the strategies associated with theone or the other tradition are used in both modes of communication and in various settings and should be seen as acontinuum rather than as a binary opposition.

In brief, I contend that traces of language change in Greece (or any community for that matter) should not be seen asreflecting merely globalising practices, but should be interpreted within their socio-historical context. Greeks frequentlyexpress ambivalence about their cultural affiliations, both including and excluding themselves from Europe (Herzfeld,1987). For the average Greek, European norms and values represent, on the one hand, progress and a source of pridegiven the contribution of Greek in shaping western civilisation and, on the other, the threat of corruption and a danger toethnic identity. Conversely, indigenous norms and values have been associated not only with authenticity but also withbackwardness. Greeces integration into the then European Economic Community (current European Union) in 1981,which has been noted by many (see, e.g., Frangoudaki, 1992; Hirschon, 2001:26; Terkourafi, 2010:281) as one source ofprofound sociopolitical and linguistic changes, has helped intensify such contrasting ideologies. This ambivalence bothencourages and deters the imitation of foreign practices since the external reference group is seen as superior butsimultaneously as inferior.15 Such a situation can easily lead to a constructed ideal of what constitutes politeness whichdraws from various sources. This includes islands of formality and informality which may interact, such as formal scriptsseasoned with well-wishing utterances and the use of conventional markers of politeness in some service encounters,practices which were not common in the past.

6. Concluding remarks

The dominant position of America in terms of economic, political and media culture is undeniable. The Englishlanguage is exceptional in its present international role, maybe to an extent without a historic precedent (see, e.g., Trudgill,2002:150; Dewey, 2007:333). The borrowing of English vocabulary into other languages is frequently discussed as anexample of English, and more specifically of American, influence. But, I believe, we should not overgeneralise from whathappens on the lexical level, just because there is alleged evidence in some of our daily interactions. Despite popularbeliefs that Greek is threatened from English loans, Anastasiadi-Symeonidi (1996) suggests that these are not justifiedbecause such loans have low statistical frequency and do not affect the structure of the language. On the basis of a corpusof conversational data, Terkourafi (2011) shows that borrowings like thank you, sorry and please into Cypriot Greek do notreplace their Greek counterparts but are simply used for different functions. All this is not an attempt to deny thathegemony may still be an issue or to trivialise the politics of ongoing exploitation and oppression (Meyerhoff andNiedzielski, 2003:549). What I have tried to argue is that instead of priviledging the dominance of English norms, weshould also look at the cultures themselves when discussing language change. The literature tends to overemphasisehow local communities are changing because of globalisation. This obscures the importance of continuity in suchprocesses, which is as important as change, as Blommaert (2010:101) observes. Pan and Kdr (2011) clearlydemonstrate for Chinese that despite large-scale socio-political changes and apparent changes in politeness norms, inessence there is considerable continuity between the earlier and modern language use. In the case of Greece, two equallystrong, century-long traditions (orality/literacy and relatedly high/low variety in a diglossia situation) seem to have hadequally strong impacts on current language use. There is abundant social and stylistic variation which may be one sourceof apparent current changes.

Consequently, the situation regarding the homogenising force of globalisation may not be as threatening as somepresent it. To my mind, globalisation does not represent straightforward Americanisation, and neither the West nor the U.S.A. is in control of global economies, as the recent financial state of affairs clearly demonstrates (cf. Dewey, 2007:333).The expansion in the use of English is not only seen as threatening other languages but also as threatening the quality ofthe English language itself (see Trudgill, 2002:151), which means that English influences but it is also influenced by otherlanguages. What applies to language may well apply to its norms of behaviour. When cultural patterns and norms come incontact, the influence is, I believe, reciprocal (see, e.g., Canagarajah, 2012). But contact which will aid the diffusion oflinguistic innovations requires quality face-to-face interaction; simple exposure to electronic media is not as crucial forlanguage change as it has been assumed (see, e.g., Trudgill, 2002:149; Meyerhoff and Niedzielski, 2003:537; Holmes,2008:224).

15 In a recent TV panel discussion, a well known young novelist (Soti Triantafyllou) described this ambivalence very vividly as our super-iorinferiority complex. This, to my mind, is related to what Meyerhoff and Niedzielski (2003) call cultural cringe.

Recent discursive or postmodern approaches to im-politeness, even though not a unified category (see, e.g., Haugh,2007; Mills, 2011), are all discourse-based and share the conviction that politeness is situated, an evaluation rather than a

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--10298stable given. An increasingly common assumption among politeness researchers is that politeness and impolitenessthemselves are situated evaluations arising in and through interaction (Haugh et al., 2013:8--9, emphasis in the original)in complex ways. If this is the case, then what is im-polite cannot be determined or predicted globally, even within the samecommunity or genre (e.g., service encounters) but must be considered at the specific local level bearing in mind thepossibility of differing assumptions even by the interlocutors themselves. For instance, as Coupland et al. (1992:228) note,the How are you enquiry is required as a first turn by the assistant on the west coast of the U.S. whereas in Britain,service encounters do not open in this way. Similarly, it is a common part in openings in New Zealand supermarketcheckouts (Kuiper and Flindall, 2000), whereas in Britain the recent increasing tendency in its use is perceived by some asstrange, even as impolite (see, e.g., Cameron, 2007:134). However, attributing impoliteness to such formulas is a perfectexample of evaluation based on intuition because they are not normally followed by metalinguistic comments, follow upbehaviour or challenges which would indicate that they have been indeed perceived as impolite. If there is a return turn, itwould probably indicate that they are perceived as normal, appropriate behaviour. Explanations attributing inquisitivenessor undue friendliness to such well-being enquiries again reflect personal, subjective evaluations, as these may beperceived as formulaic and may receive no response (Kuiper and Flindall, 2000:191). As has been frequently argued,utterances are multifunctional and structures, whether direct or indirect, formal or informal, are not inherently polite orimpolite; they are attributed such evaluations on the basis of assumed speakers intentions and addressees expectationsand various other contextual factors (see, e.g., Sifianou, 1992:113; Cameron, 2007:130).

Thus informality does not necessarily imply impoliteness any more than formality implies politeness. Why is it, then,that people resent informality and first-name use in certain service contexts? Some say that it is fake friendliness and thusinappropriate or even unacceptable. But this is not really the problem because neither a greeting nor a compliment isalways genuine and all our courtesies are not always sincere. As Xie (2007:257, drawing on Gu, 1990), argues, sinceritycan never be one of the cardinal principles of politeness; there is no necessary correspondence between politeness andsincerity simply because one can be polite either sincerely or insincerely. Essentially, as Pinto (2011:218, 219) argues,(in)sincerity cannot be measured or (dis)confirmed because the addressee can only make an evaluation, and evenspeakers themselves may have difficulty in accessing their own true feelings. If anything, it is negative politeness that hasbeen deemed insincere whereas positive politeness has been associated with truthfulness. As observed by Garcs-Conejos Blitvich (2009:278), politeness in Brown and Levinsons (1987) theory is strategic and does not arise from trueemotions. She also makes the interesting remark that it is impoliteness but not necessarily politeness that is associatedwith true emotions. Pinker (2007:440) goes a step further and talks about fictitious benevolence and fictitioussolidarity: the former referring to the practice of habitually asking people how they are doing and the latter to the practiceof routinely using bogus terms of endearment (e.g., mate or buddy) (see also Pinto, 2011: 223). However, to my mind,such views ignore the fact that utterances are multifunctional and the innocuous How are you? as it occurs in someservice encounters may have lost much of its relational overture and may be a mere signal of acknowledgement of thecustomer (Coupland et al., 1992:217; Pinto, 2011) or may simply function as a kind of greeting.16 As Ferguson (1981:31)reminds us, our familiar Hi is a weakened form of How are you? even though for most speakers the two are not related anymore. So what seems to be happening here is an elaboration of the opening phase of service encounters in England. I,therefore, would like to suggest that it is not the assumed insincerity which causes resentment but the lack ofconventionalisation of a pattern in a specific context. ODriscoll (2007:477) discusses the impact of the unexpected on theface of the addressee which gives rise to FTAs in service contexts.

Those English people, who resent the How are you? in service encounters, seem to be confronted with the kind ofsituation that non-native speakers of English are faced with, that is, discrepancies between literal meaning andfunction, such as Can you/Would you interrogative requests (Coulmas, 1981; Kecsks, 2000; Christie, 2007).Routines that are appropriate in specific contexts are conventionalised (Terkourafi, 2001; Culpeper, 2011). Thisconventionalisation facilitates interaction, since it is a resort to a successful solution of a recurrent problem(Coulmas, 1981:8). When new norms appear which are not conventionalised, they pose difficulty, especially in fleetingencounters. This is, I believe, one of the problems with How are you? in some British service encounters. It has beenconventionally used between acquainted interlocutors and its extension of use to unrelated others strikes many asinappropriate. But as Lakoff (1979:73) suggests, the new intimacies are really no more intimate than the olduninvolvements were truly uninvolved. In other words, it seems to be an example of variation and like many suchexamples, it is contested by some.

The extension in using this utterance to unrelated others may bear some semblance to the use of kinship terminologyto address unrelated others, which provided the basis for the development of polite address terms. The tricky nature of

16 In fact, Sacks (1975:68, 69) calls it a greeting substitute, which can replace or follow greetings.

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102 99encounters with strangers can be minimised by accepting them temporarily into the group by means of such addressterms (Ehlich, 1992:85). In service encounters, relationships are fleeting and informality may serve similar ends.

In conclusion, globalisation involves complex sets of current variation, resulting in a vast literature, which makes theexploration of related issues not only difficult but also confusing (Fairclough, 2006:3, 5). With this as a backdrop, I tried toinvestigate attested changes in discourse practices, more specifically in politeness devices used in service encounters.Without denying the powerful homogenising force of globalisation, I have tried to show that any observed changes shouldnot be attributed solely to globalisation without considering processes of variation and change internal to the specificlanguage and strong local practices. Positive and negative politeness strategies are found in all societies and their choiceby interactants may indicate various sources, such as subversion and protest, egalitarian and anti-deference movesagainst dominant practices. Such devices are invested with different values at different periods of time and appear tofollow a cyclical movement. Consequently, ignoring their synchronic and diachronic contingent nature and ascribinginherent politeness or impoliteness to either of them is unjustified. In addition, strong extant local practices may resistchange or may contribute to new practices combining features from both global and local resources. What might appear atfirst sight to reflect the influence of a global practice may at closer inspection reflect some local tradition, as in the case ofthe trend of informalisation in Greek politicians discourse. Thus since globalisation is a set of processes, theirdevelopmental trajectory is not only contingent on various factors but also uncertain and unpredictable.

Acknowledgements

This is a revised and expanded version of the paper that was presented at the 6th International Symposium onPoliteness, Middle East Technical University, Ankara (Turkey) July 2011. I would like to express my gratitude to S kriyeRuhi and the members of the organising committee for their kind invitation. I should also record my special thanks to EleniAntonopoulou, Jean Hannah, Irene Philippaki-Warburton and Peter Trudgill not only for their constructive comments onan earlier version but also for their being a constant source of support and encouragement. I should also extend my thanksto Jim ODriscoll for valuable comments on an earlier version of the presentation and to Robert F. Halls for his suggestionsfor stylistic improvement. My sincere thanks are also due to Michael Haugh for his encouragement to proceed with thepublication of the presentation and to Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini for generously providing me with her expertassistance whenever I requested it. Finally, my sincere thanks go to the anonymous reviewers for their constructivecriticism and insightful comments. Needless to say that the usual disclaimers hold.

References

Aijmer, Karin, 1996. Conversational Routines in English. Addison Wesley Longman, New York.Anastasiadi-Symeonidi, Anna, 1996. To ogo o o yvi#o gvo oyo The vocabulary of Modern

Greek and the European linguistic pluralism. http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/modern_greek/studies/europe/B7/index.html(accessed 10.10.12).

Androutsopoulos, Jannis, 2010. Localizing the global on the participatory web. In: Coupland, N. (Ed.), The Handbook of Language andGlobalization. Wiley, Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 203--231.

Antonopoulou, Eleni, 2001. Brief service encounters: gender and politeness. In: Bayraktaroglu, A., Sifianou, M. (Eds.), Linguistic Politenessacross Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 241--269.

Bargiela, Francesca, Boz, Corinne, Gokzadze, Lily, Hamza, Abdurrahman, Mills, Sara, Rukhadze, Nino, 2002. Ethnocentrism, politeness andnaming strategies. Working Papers on the Web 3. , http://extra.shu.ac.uk/wpw/politeness/bargiela.htm (accessed 16.2.08).

Bauman, Zygmunt, 2000. Globalization: The Human Consequences. Polity Press, Oxford.Bayyurt, Yasemin, Bayraktaroglu, Arn, 2001. The use of pronouns and terms of address in Turkish service encounters. In: Bayraktaroglu, A.,

Sifianou, M. (Eds.), Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 209--240.Bella, Spyridoula, Sifianou, Maria, 2012. Greek student e-mail requests to faculty members. In: Ruiz de Zarobe, L., Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.),

Speech Acts and Politeness across Languages and Cultures. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, pp. 89--113.Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, Finegan, Edward, 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English.

Longman, London.Block, David, 2004. Globalization, transnational communication and the Internet. International Journal on Multicultural Societies 6, 13--28.Blommaert, Jan, 2003. Commentary: a sociolinguistics of globalization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 607--623.Blommaert, Jan, 2005. In and out of class, codes and control: globalisation discourse and mobility. In: Baynham, M., De Fina, A. (Eds.),

Dislocations/Relocations: Narratives of Displacement. St Jerome, Manchester, pp. 127--142.Blommaert, Jan, 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, 1992. The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli Society. In: Watts, R.J., Ide, S., Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness in

Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 255--280.Bousfield, Derek, 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Braun, Friederike, 1988. Terms of Address. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Brown, Roger, Gilman, Albert, 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Sebeok, T.A. (Ed.), Style in Language. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge,

MA, pp. 253--276.

M. Sifianou / Journal of Pragmatics 55 (2013) 86--102100Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,Originally published as Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In: Goody, E. (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies inSocial Interaction. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1978, pp. 56--289.

Cameron, Deborah, 2000a. Good to Talk? Living and Working in a Communication Culture. Sage, London.Cameron, Deborah, 2000b. Styling the worker: gender and the commodification of language in the globalized service economy. Journal of

Sociolinguistics 4, 323--347.Cameron, Deborah, 2003. Globalizing communication. In: Aitchison, J., Lewis, D.M. (Eds.), New Media Language. Routledge, London, pp. 27--

35.Cameron, Deborah, 2006. Language: European you-nity. Critical Quarterly 48, 132--135.Cameron, Deborah, 2007. Redefining rudeness. In: Gorji, M. (Ed.), Rude Britannia. Routledge, London, pp. 127--138.Canagarajah, Suresh, 2012. Postmodernism and intercultural discourse: world Englishes. In: Bratt Paulston, Ch., Kissling, S.F., Rangel, E.S.

(Eds.), The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication. Wiley/Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 110--132.Cheshire, Jenny, 2003. Social dimensions of syntactic variation: the case of when clauses. In: Britain, D., Cheshire, J. (Eds.), Social Dialectology:

In Honour of Peter Trudgill. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 245--261.Chouliaraki, Lilie, Fairclough, Norman, 1999. Discourse in Late Modernity. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Chovanec, Jan, 2009. Simulation of spoken interaction in written online media texts. Brno Studies in English 35, 109--128.Christie, Christine, 2007. Relevance theory and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 3, 269--294.Clyne, Michael, Norrby, Catrin, Warren, Jane, 2009. Language and Human Relations: Styles of Address in Contemporary Language. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.Coulmas, Florian, 1981. Introduction: conversational routine. In: Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational Routine. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 1--17.Coupland, Nikolas, 2003. Introduction: sociolinguistics and globalization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 465--472.Coupland, Nikolas, 2010. Introduction: sociolinguistics in the global era. In: Coupland, N. (Ed.), The Handbook of Language and Globalization.

Wiley/Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 1--27.Coupland, Justine, Coupland, Nikolas, Robinson, Jeffrey D., 1992. How are you? Negotiating phatic communion. Language in Society 21, 207--

230.Culpeper, Jonathan, 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Dewey, Martin, 2007. English as a lingua franca and globalization: an interconnected perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17,

332--354.Dunne, Tim, 1999. The spectre of globalization. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 17, 17--33.Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria, 2003. Requesting strategies and cross-cultural pragmatics: Greek and English. University of Nottingham,

Nottingham, UK, (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis).Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria, 2005. Yes, tell me please, what time is the midday flight from Athens arriving? Telephone service encounters and

politeness. Intercultural Pragmatics 2, 253--273.Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria, 2011. Please answer me as soon as possible: pragmatic failure in non-native speakers e-mail requests to

faculty. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 3193--3215.Ehlich, Konrad, 1992. On the historicity of politeness. In: Watts, R., Ide, S., Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory

and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 71--107.Fairclough, Norman, 1995. Media Discourse. Edward Arnold, London.Fairclough, Norman, 1996. Border crossings: discourse and social change in contemporary societies. In: Coleman, H., Cameron, L. (Eds.),

Change and Language. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 3--17.Fairclough, Norman, 2006. Language and Globalization. Routledge, London.Flix-Brasdefer, Csar J., 2008. Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A Contrastive Study of the Realization and Perception of Refusals.

John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Ferguson, Charles A., 1959. Diglossia. In: Giglioli, P.P. (Ed.), Language and Social Context. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, pp. 232--251.Ferguson, Charles A., 1981. The structure and use of politeness formulas. In: Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational Routine. Mouton, The Hague, pp.

21--35.Formentelli, Maicol, 2009. Address strategies in a British academic setting. Pragmatics 19, 179--196.Frangoudaki, Anna, 1992. Diglossia and the present language situation in Greece: a sociolinguistic approach to the interpretation of diglossia and

some hypotheses on todays linguistic reality. Language in Society 21, 365--381.Fraser, Bruce F., 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 219--236.Garcs-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, 2009. Impoliteness and identity in the American news media: the Culture Wars. Journal of Politeness Research

5, 273--303.Garfinkel, Harold, 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Garrett, Peter, 2010. Meanings of globalization: East and West. In: Coupland, N. (Ed.), The Handbook of Language and Globalization. Wiley/

Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 447--474.Georgakopoulou, Alexandra, 1994. Modern Greek oral narratives in context: cultural constraints and evaluative ways of telling. Text 14, 371--399.Giulianotti, Richard, Robertson, Roland, 2007. Forms of glocalization: globalization and the migration strategie