Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 2. Языкознание1998-99112409-197910.15688/jvolsu2.2025.4.4OtherПРАГМАТИКА КОНВЕНЦИОНАЛИЗАЦИИ: ЛЕКСИЧЕСКИЕ СВЯЗКИ КАК ИНСТРУМЕНТ АНАЛИЗА (НЕ)ВЕЖЛИВОСТИBEYOND CONVENTIONALIZED FORMULAE: A LEXICAL BUNDLE APPROACH TO ANALYZING (IM)POLITENESSГриценкоЕлена СергеевнаGritsenkoElenaelena.s.gritsenko@gmail.com0000-0001-8669-360XКамуОливьеKamouOlivierkamouolivier@gmail.com0000-0001-5291-3037МGIMO University (Moscow, Russian Federation)Московский государственный институт международных отношений (университет) МИД России (Москва, Российская Федерация)HSE University (Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation)Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики» (Нижний Новгород, Российская Федерация)2711202524441522203202505062025https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/CC BY 4.0https://l.jvolsu.com/index.php/ru/archive-ru/976-science-journal-of-volsu-linguistics-2025-vol-24-no-4/glavnaya-tema-nomera/2969-gritsenko-e-s-kamu-o-m-t-pragmatika-konventsionalizatsii-leksicheskie-svyazki-kak-instrument-analiza-ne-vezhlivosti-na-angl-yaz

В статье представлен новый подход к изучению (не)вежливости, направленный на преодоление ограничений традиционно используемых в корпусной прагматике подходов, которые исходят из фиксированных, заранее приписанных языковым формам значений. Несмотря на то что в современной лингвистике вежливость признается динамичным явлением, зависящим от контекста, исследования вежливости в корпусной прагматике часто упускают эту особенность, фокусируя внимание на традиционных маркерах вежливости, таких как please, thank you, sorry и подобных. Предлагаемый в работе подход опирается на понятие конвенционализации, отражающее процесс, в ходе которого языковые выражения приобретают значения, связанные с вежливостью, благодаря повторяющемуся употреблению в определенных коммуникативных ситуациях. Данный подход основан на выделении из текстов рекуррентных последовательностей слов (лексических связок), способных индексировать (не)вежливость в дискурсивном контексте. Эффективность предлагаемого подхода демонстрируется на примере коммуникации редакторов Википедии, где вежливость стратегически конструируется в рамках дискурса, ориентированного на сотрудничество и консенсус. Выделенные из данного дискурса лексические связки, разделены на две группы: конвенционализованные формулы, стабильно выражающие вежливость (what do you think, is it possible to), и многофункциональные связки (why don’t you, am I missing something), вежливость (или невежливость) которых задается контекстом. Новый подход позволяет связать фреймовую теорию вежливости М. Теркурафи с эмпирическим анализом, расширяя возможности для изучения (не)вежливости как феномена, конструируемого коммуникантами в процессе социального взаимодействия.

The paper introduces a frequency-driven lexical bundle approach to enhance politeness research by addressing the limitations of traditional corpus pragmatics approaches, which assume pre-defined (im)politeness values for linguistic forms. While politeness is widely recognized as a dynamic context-dependent phenomenon, corpus pragmatics research risks overlooking its variability by focusing on pre-selected politeness formulae, such as thank you, please, sorry, etc. The lexical bundle approach builds on the concept of conventionalization, defined as the process by which linguistic expressions acquire politeness-related meaning through repeated use in a specific context. The proposed approach focuses on the identification of recurring multi-word sequences (lexical bundles), capturing how they index (im)politeness in discourse. We demonstrate the utility of this approach through a case-study of Wikipedia editors’ communication, where politeness is strategically negotiated in collaborative, consensus-driven dialogue. By analyzing discussions from Wikipedia talk pages, we categorize the extracted bundles into two groups: conventionalized politeness formulae, which consistently index collaborative politeness across Wikipedia’s editorial discourse (e.g., what do you think, is it possible to) and multifunctional expressions, that manifest variable politeness-related meanings (e.g., why don’t you, am I missing something). This distinction reveals how politeness emerges through both stable norms and context-sensitive strategies. Our findings also highlight the capacity of the new approach to bridge Terkourafi’s frame-based theory with empirical analysis, offering a replicable framework for studying (im)politeness as a co-constructed interactional practice. 

лексическая связка(не)вежливостькорпусная прагматикаконвенционализацияиндексальностьlexical bundles(im)politenesscorpus pragmaticsconventionalizationindexicalityBaider F.H., Cislaru G., Claudel C., 2020. Researching Politeness: From the ‘Classical’ Approach to Discourse Analysis... and Back. Corpus Pragmatics, vol. 4, pp. 259-272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-020-00088-8Biber D., 2006. University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. 261 p.Biber D., 2009. A Corpus-Driven Approach to Formulaic Language in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, vol. 14, iss. 3, pp. 275-311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.3.08bibBiber D., Johansson S., Leech G., Conrad S., Finegan E., 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London, Longman. 1204 p.Brown P., 2017. Politeness and Impoliteness. Yan Huang, ed. Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 383-399. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Brown P., Levinson S.C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 358 p.Conrad S. M., Biber D., 2005. The Frequency and Use of Lexical Bundles in Conversation and Academic Prose. Lexicographica, vol. 20, pp. 56-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783484604674.56Cortes V., 2004. Lexical Bundles in Published and Student Disciplinary Writing: Examples from History and Biology. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 23, iss. 4, pp. 397-423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001Culpeper J., 2011. Politeness and Impoliteness. Aijmer K., Andersen G., eds. Pragmatics of Society. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 393-438.Culpeper J., Gillings M., 2018. Politeness Variation in England: A North-South Divide. Brezina V., Love R., Aijmer K., eds. Corpus Approaches to Contemporary British Speech: Sociolinguistic Studies of the Spoken BNC2014. S.l., Routledge, pp. 33-59. DOI: https://10.4324/9781315268323-5Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil C., Sudhof M., Jurafsky D., Leskovec J., Potts C., 2013. A Computational Approach to Politeness with Application to Social Factors. Proceedings of ACL. URL: https://nlp.stanford.edu/pubs/politeness.pdfEelen G., 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, St Jerome. 280 p.Flinn A., 2023. How Often Do Pauses Occur in Lexical Bundles in Spoken Native English Speech? Corpus Pragmatics, vol. 7, iss. 4, pp. 303-322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-023-00146-xGoffman E., 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-To-Face Behavior. Garden City, New York, Doubleday. 270 p.Grainger K., 2011. “First Order” and “Second Order” Politeness: Institutional and Intercultural Contexts. Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 167-188.Gritsenko E.S., Kamou O.M.T., 2024. Academic English Melting Pot: Reconsidering the Use of Lexical Bundles in Academic Writing. Russian Journal of Linguistics, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 615-632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-39663Haugh M., 2007. The Discursive Challenge to Politeness Theory: An Interactional Alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, vol. 3, pp. 295-317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.013House J., Kбdбr D.Z., Leontyev V.V., 2021. Ritual Frame Indicating Expressions (An Academic Conversation). Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie [Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics], vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 42-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2021.2.4Hyland K., 2008a. As Can Be Seen: Lexical Bundles and Disciplinary Variation. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 27, iss. 1, pp. 4-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001Hyland K., 2008b. Academic Clusters: Text Patterning in Published and Postgraduate Writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 41-62. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00178.xJucker A.H., Staley L., 2017. (Im)politeness and Developments in Methodology. Culpeper J., Haugh M., Kбdбr D.Z., eds. The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 403-429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_16Jucker A.H., 2018a. Data in Pragmatic Research. Jucker A.H., Schneider K.P., Bublitz W., eds. Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin, De Gruyter, pp. 3-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-001Jucker A.H., 2018b. Introduction to Part 5: Corpus Pragmatics. Jucker A.H., Schneider K.P., Bublitz W., eds. Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin, De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 455-466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-018Kбdбr D., 2017. Politeness, Impoliteness, and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 427 p.Kбdбr D.Z., Haugh M., 2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 295 p.Leontovich O.A., Nikitina A.V., 2024. Communication Monitoring as a Politeness Mechanism. Training, Language and Culture, vol. 8, iss. 3, pp. 62-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-3-62-72Locher M., 2004. Power and Politeness in Action. Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. xvi, 365 p.Locher M., 2006. Polite Behaviour Within Relational Work: The Discursive Approach to Politeness. Multilingua, vol. 25, iss. 3, pp. 249-267.Locher M.A., Larina T.V., 2019. Introduction to Politeness and Impoliteness Research in Global Contexts. Russian Journal of Linguistics, vol. 23, iss. 4, pp. 873-903. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-873-903Mills S., 2011. Discursive Approaches to Politeness and Impoliteness. Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin, De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 19-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238679.19Reagle J.M., 2010. Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia. Cambridge, The MIT Press. 261 p.Spencer-Oatey H., 2005. (Im)Politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging Their Bases and Interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 95-119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95Terkourafi M., 2001. Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A Frame-Based Approach. PhD Thesis. Cambridge, University of Cambridge. 272 p.Terkourafi M., 2005. Beyond the Micro-Level in Politeness Research. Journal of Politeness Research: Language Behaviour Culture, vol. 1, iss. 2, pp. 237-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237Terkourafi M., 2011. From Politeness1 to Politeness2: Tracking Norms of Im/Politeness Across Time and Space. Journal of Politeness Research, vol. 7, iss. 2, pp. 159-185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2011.009Terkourafi M., 2015. Conventionalization: A New Agenda for Im/Politeness Research. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 86, pp. 11-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.004Terkourafi M., Kбdбr D.Z., 2017. Convention and Ritual (Im)Politeness. Haugh C.M., Kбdбr D.Z., eds. The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic Politeness. London, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 171-195.Van Dorst I., Gillings M., Culpeper J., 2024. Sociopragmatic Variation in Britain: A Corpus-Based Study of Politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 227, pp. 37-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.04.009Van Olmen D., Andersson M., Culpeper J., 2023. Inherent Linguistic Impoliteness: The Case of Insultive YOU+NP in Dutch, English, and Polish. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 215, pp. 22-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.06.013Watts R., 2003. Politeness. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 328 p.Watts R., 2005. Linguistic Politeness Research: Quo vadis? Watts R.J., Ide S., Ehlich K., eds. Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 11-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199819.XIXia D., Ai H., Pae H.K., 2022. “Please Let Me Know” Lexical Bundles in Business Emails by Business English Learners and Working Professionals. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.20019Xie F., 2024. Politeness Variation: Politeness in Britain, Australia, and Hong Kong. Corpus Pragmatics, vol. 8, pp. 313-333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-024-00174-1Zlov V., Zlatev J., 2024. A Cognitive-Semiotic Approach to Impoliteness: Effects of Conventionality and Semiotic System on Judgments of Impoliteness by Russian and Swedish Speakers. Journal of Politeness Research, vol. 20, iss. 2, pp. 249-296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2022-0017