https://books.google.it/books?id=VMnbDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+palgrave+handbook+of+impoliteness&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNvISeoZXUAhXFUlAKHbz3AggQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=the%20palgrave%20handbook%20of%20impoliteness&f=false

Research on politeness has flourished since Brown and Levinson's (hereafter B&L) classical (1978, 1987) definition of politeness theory, and has extended to current research on impoliteness. However, there is a knowledge gap in the area of Teaching and Learning Politeness (hereafter TLP) in second language acquisition.This paper aims to identify this gap, by tracing the roots of research on TLP since 1975, to explore how past research has impacted current trends, and then focuses on the position and relevance of TLP in the local Australian curriculum, in the area of intercultural competency, benchmarked in reference to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The synthesis of the literature in this paper will elicit the challenges in TLP and potentially result in a clearer direction in the area of second-language research on politeness.

English is a foreign language that must be taught at school, particularly in secondary school. Based on a preliminary observation of several secondary schools in Banjarmasin, it appears that the English taught focuses most on concepts or language formulas. Most of the students who interact in English during the learning process do not use expressions that contain linguistic politeness, as is required. The learning of linguistic politeness is not emphasized, while it is an effort to develop students' intelligent characters. This study primarily focuses on the investigation of teachers' linguistic politeness while interacting with the students, students' linguistic politeness, while interacting with the teachers, the students' linguistic politeness while interacting with their peers during the learning process in the classroom, how the teacher forms the students' linguistic politeness in the classroom, and how the linguistic politeness can develop students' intelligent characters. This study is one of classroom action research. Two cycles, in which each cycle consists of two meetings, are employed. After linguistic politeness is taught in four meetings through students' wheel and role play, it can be stated that during the English learning process in the classroom, the students have the opportunity to speak and practice linguistic politeness in English while interacting with their teachers and or other students. The forming of linguistic politeness in English can develop the students' intelligent characters from the beginning to the end of the learning activities. The students also become accustomed to employing polite vocabulary or expression in English that can improve their spiritual and emotional development, the aim of which is to lead to intelligence, primarily emotional intelligence.

In this paper we examine a key relational practice found in interactions in online discussion boards in Mainland China and Taiwan: 'doing deference'. In drawing attention to a relational practice that has received attention in quite different research traditions, namely, linguistic pragmatics and conversation analysis (CA), we mean to highlight the possible advantages of an approach to analysis that draws from both in analysing relational work in CMC. We claim in the course of our analysis that the participants are orienting not only to relationships but also to identities through these practices. In this way, we suggest that online discussion boards afford both meaningful interaction and relational work. We further claim that this analysis provides support for the theoretical position that while relational practices may intersect with the emergence of identities, they remain distinct analytical concerns.

According to Steven Pinker and his associates the cooperative model of human communication fails, because evolutionary biology teaches us that most social relationships, including talk-exchange, involve combinations of cooperation and conflict. In particular, the phenomenon of the strategic speaker who uses indirect speech in order to be able to deny what he meant by a speech act (deniability of conversational implicatures) challenges the model. In reply I point out that interlocutors can aim at understanding each other (cooperation), while being in conflict. Furthermore, Pinker’s strategic speaker relies on the Cooperative Principle when conveying a conversational implicature, and so non-cooperative behaviour (denial) only emerges as a response to a negative reaction from the audience. It is also doubtful in the cases Pinker presents whether a denial will successfully cancel the conversational implicature –change the audience’s interpretation of speaker’s meaning. I also argue that a strategic speaker might choose indirect speech due to the ignorability of conversational implicatures, in which case the strategic speaker can be highly cooperative. Keywords: Conversational implicature, Steven Pinker, Strategic speaker, Conflict, Paul Grice, Deniability of conversational implicature, Ignorability of conversational implicatures