Russian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of Linguistics2687-00882686-8024Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)9381ArticlesСтатьиArticlesResearch ArticleThe Background of Politeness UniversalsПроисхождение универсалий вежливостиAssimakopoulosStavrosАссимакопулосСтавросstavros.assimakopoulos@um.edu.mtInstitute of Linguistics, University of MaltaИнститут Лингвистики Университета Мальты150420144NO4 (2014)№4 (2014)354309092016Copyright ©; 2014, Assimakopoulos S.Copyright ©; 2014, Ассимакопулос С.Copyright ©; 2014, Assimakopoulos S.2014Assimakopoulos S.Ассимакопулос С.Assimakopoulos S.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/9381Early accounts of politeness have been widely criticised for adopting a universalist stance while attempting to account for a phenomenon that is clearly culture-dependent. In reaction to this criticism, Leech (2007/2014) has argued for the necessity of politeness universals, on condition that they allow for the investigation of the relevant cultural variation. This paper sets out to provide additional support for Leech’s claim, by pursuing the argument that even though different societies have in principle different politeness values, all members of the same cultural and/or linguistic group typically accept very similar sets of such values. This argument is theoretically supported by resort to Searle’s notion of the Background, as a body of preintentional mental capacities that safeguards the alignment of our intentional states with that of our peers. Given then the systematicity with which we develop a culturally uniform understanding of politeness, the postulation of politeness universals, in Leech’s sense, cannot but be a useful analytical tool when theorising about politeness.intentionalityintention attributiontheory of mindpolitenessuniversalismSearle1.Arundale, R. (1999) ‘An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory’, in Pragmatics 9: 119-154.2.Arundale, R. (2005) ‘Pragmatics, conversational implicature, and conversation’, in K. Fitch & R. Sanders (eds.) Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 41-63.3.Assimakopoulos, S. (2008) Logical Structure and Relevance. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh.4.Baron-Cohen, S. (1995) Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.5.Brown, P. (1995) Politeness strategies and the attribution of intentions: The case of Tzeltal irony’, in E. Goody (ed.) Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 153-174.6.Brown, P. & S.C. Levinson (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.7.Bruner, J. (1995) ‘From joint attention to the meeting of minds: An introduction’, in C. Moore & P.H. Dunham (eds.) Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in Development. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1-14.8.Byrne, R. & A. Whiten (eds.) (1988) Machiavellian intelligence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.9.Culpeper, J. (1996) ‘Towards an anatomy of impoliteness’, in Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349-367.10.Escandell-Vidal, V. (1998) Politeness: A relevant issue for relevance theory’, in Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 45-57.11.Fodor, J.A. (1992) ‘A theory of the child's theory of mind’, in Cognition 44: 283-296.12.Fodor, J.A. & E. Lepore (1992) Holism: A Shopper’s Guide. Oxford: Blackwell.13.Fodor, J.A. & E. Lepore (1999) ‘All at sea in semantic space: Churchland on meaning similarity’, in Journal of Philosophy 96: 381-403.14.Fraser, B. (2005) ‘Whither politeness’, in R. Lakoff & S. Ide (eds.) Broadening the Horizons of Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 65-83.15.Gibbs, R. (1999) Intentions in the Experience of Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.16.Gu, Y. (1990) ‘Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese’, Journal of Pragmatics 14: 237-257.17.Haugh, M. (2003) ‘Anticipated versus inferred politeness’, in Multilingua 22: 397-413.18.Haugh, M. (2007a) ‘The discursive challenge to politeness theory: An interactional alternative’, in Journal of Politeness Research 3: 295-317.19.Haugh, M. (2007b) ‘The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation’, in Journal of Pragmatics 39: 84-110.20.Haugh, M. (2009) ‘Intention(ality) and the conceptualisation of communication in pragmatics’, in Australian Journal of Linguistics 29: 91-113.21.Haugh, M. (2012) ‘On understandings of intention: A response to Wedgwood’, in Intercultural Pragmatics 9: 161-194.22.Haugh, M. (2014) (Im)politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.23.Holland, N.J. (1986) ‘Review of Searle’s Intentionality’, in Noûs 20: 103-108.24.Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.25.Jary, M. (1998) ‘Relevance theory and the communication of politeness’, in Journal of Pragmatics 30: 1-19.26.Kecskes, I. (2013) Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.27.Lakoff, R. (1973) ‘The logic of politeness; or minding your p’s and q’s’, in Chicago Linguistics Society 9: 292-305.28.Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.29.Leech, G. (2007) ‘Politeness: Is there an East-West divide?’, in Journal of Politeness Research 3: 167-206. (revised version published in Leech 2014).30.Leech, G. (2014) The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.31.Leslie A.M. (1987) ‘Pretense and representation: the origins of a ‘theory of mind’’, in Psychological Review 94: 412-426.32.Locher, M. & R. Watts (2005) Politeness theory and relational work, in Journal of Politeness Research 1: 9-34.33.Searle, J.R. (1983) Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.34.Sperber, D. (1994a) ‘The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations’, in L. Hischfeld & S. Gelman (eds.), Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47-57.35.Sperber, D. (2000) ‘Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective’, in D. Sperber (ed.) Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 117-137.36.Terkourafi, M. (2003) ‘Generalised and particularised implicatures of linguistic politeness’, in P. Kuhnlein, H. Rieser & H. Zeevat (eds.) Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 149-164.37.Wedgwood, D. (2011) ‘The individual in interaction: Why cognitive and discourse-level pragmatics need not conflict’, in Intercultural Pragmatics 8: 517-542.38.Whiten, A. & R. Byrne (1997) Machiavellian Intelligence II: Extensions and Evaluations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.