Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1063--1076

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Politeness and impoliteness in ethnic varieties

of New Zealand English
Janet Holmes *, Meredith Marra, Bernadette Vine
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Received 21 June 2011; received in revised form 23 November 2011; accepted 28 November 2011

Abstract
Many aspects of New Zealand English (NZE) have been well described, especially the distinctive vocabulary, phonology, and some
syntactic differences in relation to other varieties of English. Building on earlier research describing pragmatic features of NZE, and
identifying ways in which politeness is expressed in New Zealand (NZ) workplace talk, this paper extends the socio-pragmatic analysis of
NZE in several ways. Using the theoretical model that we have developed to analyse workplace interaction, we adopt an emic approach,
focussing on intercultural interactions between Māori and Pākehā, and data from both Māori and Pākehā workplaces to throw light on
distinctive features of politeness in NZE workplace discourse. With this goal, we examine the important value of egalitarianism in NZ
society, and explore its pervasive influence on the ways in which politeness is interactionally achieved in different NZ communities of
practice. We then discuss how this relates to the stylistic dimension of formality, exemplifying some distinctively NZ ways in which
formality and informality are indexed in workplace interaction. The analysis illustrates how these influences are manifest in a number of
specific aspects of workplace interaction, including small talk, humour, meeting protocols, and in the extension of the distinctive pragmatic
particle eh to new domains.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Im/politeness; New Zealand English; Community of practice; Egalitarianism; Informality

I don’t wear ties any more. I’m hōhā [ ‘fed up’] with it eh
and so nobody else feels they have to wear them either eh

[Māori CEO of a Māori organisation]

1. Introduction

New Zealand English (NZE) has been the focus of a great deal of research over the last two decades. A number of
linguists have described its phonology in considerable detail (e.g. Bauer, 1986, 1994; Allan and Starks, 2000; Bauer and
Warren, 2004; Gordon and Maclagan, 2004), and distinctive features of its morphology and grammar have also attracted
attention (Hundt, 1998; Quinn, 2000; Hundt et al., 2004). As a relatively ‘‘new’’ variety of English with a colonial heritage, it
has also provided a valuable sociolinguistic laboratory for those concerned to understand the reasons for language
change and an opportunity to document some of the processes of change in progress (Holmes et al., 1991; Holmes, 1995;
Bayard, 1995; Bell and Kuiper, 2000; Schneider, 2003, 2007; Trudgill, 2004; Hay et al., 2008).

* Corresponding author at: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140,
New Zealand. Tel.: +64 4 463 5614/5600; fax: +64 4 463 5604.
E-mail address: Janet.Holmes@vuw.ac.nz (J. Holmes).

0378-2166/$ -- see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.006
1064 J. Holmes et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1063--1076

There has been less research in the area of the distinctive pragmatic features of NZE. Using social dialect data
collected in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Holmes et al., 1991), Meyerhoff (1992, 1994) described the social distribution
of the distinctive pragmatic particle eh, and provided an interesting analysis of its socio-pragmatic meaning as both an
ethnic identity marker and a social solidarity signal. Using the same database, Britain (1992) examined the social
distribution and the potential social meanings of the high rising terminal (HRT). Again ethnicity emerged as a significant
variable, along with the suggestion that the HRT was an ‘‘other-oriented’’ positively polite pragmatic device whose use
was very appropriate among those whose culture emphasised solidarity, a conclusion further supported by Bell and
Johnson (1997). Research comparing Māori and Pākehā conversationalists has also identified differences in the use of
feedback and tolerance of silences (Stubbe, 1998; Stubbe and Holmes, 2000), features which are also discussed in this
paper.
Thus when the Victoria University Language in the Workplace (LWP) team turned its attention to issues of im/
politeness in New Zealand workplace interaction, the influence of ethnicity was an obvious focus for further investigation.1
Previous research had clearly indicated that many of the distinctive pragmatic features of NZE reflect the pervasive
influence of Māori culture on the way English is used in different social contexts. As we will demonstrate in this paper, the
New Zealand workplace provides a rich and rewarding arena for further exploration of this insight. In particular, by
contrasting well-recognised Māori cultural norms with overtly Western norms we contribute to the project of establishing
emic understandings of relevant aspects of politeness (Lett, 1990; Eelen, 2001; Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris, 2006;
Haugh, 2007a; Locher and Langlotz, 2008). Such research also has obvious potential to contribute to the important
Variational Pragmatics project being developed by Schneider and Barron (2008; Barron and Schneider, 2009; Schneider,
2010).

2. Im/politeness and interactional norms2

2.1. Im/politeness

Politeness theory is one of the most rapidly developing areas of pragmatics with constant refinement of theoretical
approaches and re-definition of core concepts. Terkourafi (2005) made a useful distinction between a traditional
approach, represented by the classic work of Lakoff (1973), Leech (1983) and Brown and Levinson (1987), and a post-
modern approach, represented by researchers such as Mills (2003, 2011), Watts (2003), and Haugh (2005, 2007a,b).
These theorists elaborate the importance of maintaining a distinction between etic and emic approached to politeness and
emphasise ‘‘the multivalency of interpretation’’ (Mills, 2011:29). Mills (2003) also makes use of the community of practice
as a means of considering contextual factors, and emphasises the importance of contextual analysis (2011:29), while
Haugh (2005, 2007a) elaborates the value of culture-specific notions of face. Another model is offered by Spencer-
Oatey's (2000, 2008) elaboration of Brown and Levinson's framework in the form of Rapport Management Theory. This
approach replaces Brown and Levinson's focus on the individual's face needs with concern for the interactional aspects of
politeness, and adds a social dimension in the form of the concept of sociality rights which orient to social roles in the
community.
Our own work has adopted a neo-Politeness approach which combines some of the insights and concepts from Brown
and Levinson with insights from social constructionism to provide a more dynamic, context sensitive and discourse-
oriented framework (Holmes, 2005, 2012; see also Mullany, 2006). A neo-Politeness approach recognises the important
contribution of the role of the analyst in discussions of politeness (Holmes, 2012, 2005, 2006; Mullany, 2007). Identifying
the linguistic devices used to express concepts such as politeness is exactly what sociolinguists and discourse analysts
can contribute to understanding how language works (Holmes et al., 2008:195). As neatly summarised by Bargiela-
Chiappini and Harris (2006:12), neo-Politeness theory and post-modern approaches to politeness, regardless of their
considerable differences, both argue that politeness is most productively analysed ‘‘as a social practice which is both
dynamic and interactive, with variability seen as a positive component that builds into human communication a capacity
for social and cultural negotiation and change’’.
Finally in this brief discussion of politeness theory, we draw attention to the relevance of norms, appropriacy, and social
constraints, or ‘‘politic behaviour’’ in Watt's terms (1992:69) (see also Watts, 2003; Locher and Watts, 2005; Locher, 2008;
Locher and Langlotz, 2008). As argued in a recent paper by Terkourafi (2011:3), a theory of im/politeness should
incorporate ‘‘a reference to norms’’. This etic dimension of the neo-Politeness approach is provided in our work by a
theoretical framework which identifies relevant social constraints on interaction or interactional norms, as described in the
next section.

1
See http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/lwp for further information about the LWP project.
2
This section draws on material from Holmes et al. (2011).
 J. Holmes et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1063--1076 1065

2.2. Interactional norms: a theoretical framework

In the process of researching workplace discourse, we have developed a model which takes account of the various
broad social constraints within which individuals operate in social interaction (see also Coupland, 2001; Blommaert, 2005;
Reed, 2005; Ehrlich, 2008; Jaffe, 2009). The model is discussed in detail in Holmes et al. (2011). Here we provide a brief
description of the aspects most relevant to the analysis of im/politeness in NZE. See Fig. 1.
The model identifies a number of social constraints on interactional behaviour at different levels of generality, from the
broadest and most encompassing societal or institutional level through the more specific level of the community of
practice (CofP) or workplace team, to the sociolinguistic norms of face-to-face interaction (cf. Vaara, 2003; Hecht et al.,
2005; Wodak, 2008:208). Because they may be used to convey a range of stances which index different social meanings,
pragmatic devices provide one important set of resources for negotiating such norms in dynamic social interaction (Ochs,
1992; Eckert, 2008; Jaffe, 2009).
Within New Zealand society, there are a number of relevant interactional norms at the societal or institutional level
which influence what is perceived as polite and appropriate interactional behaviour, and what is considered impolite or
offensive. There is a general expectation, for example, apparent in everyday common sense discourses, that English,
the language of the majority group, is the normal or usual language of communication in most societal domains.3 Using
a language other than English is marked behaviour, and in some contexts may be regarded as offensive. There are few
exceptions to this but, as we discuss below, they are salient, well-recognised, and influential exceptions: e.g. Māori is
the preferred language on the marae (traditional meeting ground), and very formal New Zealand ceremonies often
include a component in Māori. Consequently, the use of Māori in New Zealand workplaces is marked. Secondly, New
Zealand society subscribes to an egalitarian ideology (Trevor-Roberts et al., 2003; Ashkanasy et al., 2004; Kennedy,
2007; Bönisch-Brednich, 2008). One consequence of this is a general expectation that formality is kept to a minimum.
Hence only very ceremonial events, such as the Opening of Parliament, university graduations, and proceedings or
ceremonies in legal and religious domains are governed by institutionalised formal rules of interaction. Again, these
norms and expectations are very relevant in interpreting discursive behaviour in formal meetings in New Zealand
workplaces.
At the CofP level, the interactional discourse norms of particular workplace teams are relevant. This may be evident in
features such as the amount and kind of small talk which precedes meetings, different degrees of tolerance of variation in
their starting time, the use of terms of address which indicate in-group membership, use of technical jargon specific to the
sector, and particular preferred styles and types of humour (Holmes and Marra, 2002; Schnurr, 2009). Again some of
these features will be illustrated in the analysis of im/politeness in workplace discourse below.
Finally, as indicated in Fig. 1, and crucially for the analyses in this paper, Māori values form a pervasive background to
social interaction in New Zealand society, and, not surprisingly, they are especially salient in intercultural interactions
involving Māori participants.4 Māori values such as the importance of privileging the group over the individual, and the high
value placed on appropriate humility, together with a stylistic preference for indirect implicit discourse (Patterson, 1992;
Metge, 1995, 2001; Metge and Kinloch, 1978) are all relevant in interpreting workplace interaction, especially when
intercultural interaction is involved. Moreover, analysis of discourse norms in Māori workplaces is also useful in
highlighting contrasting norms in Pākehā organisations, thereby sometimes identifying features of NZE which might

[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
Minority group norms

Societal norms (including New Zealand and Westerns norms)

Organisational norms

Community of practice/team norms

Interactional norms

Minority group norms

Fig. 1. A model of social constraints on (intercultural) interaction (Holmes et al., 2011).

[(Fig._2)TD$IG]
1066 J. Holmes et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1063--1076

Indirect Direct
Orientation to other Orientation to self
Implicitness Explicitness
Verbal routines Adhoc formulations

Fig. 2. Towards a model of dimensions of ethnic contrast --- continua for analysis (after House, 2005).

otherwise have been overlooked. In this enterprise, we have found it useful to draw on some of the cultural dimensions
identified in House's (2005:21) model.5
Those dimensions which proved particularly useful are represented in Fig. 2: i.e. degrees of directness, degrees of
explicitness, the degree to which a communication is oriented towards self rather than other-oriented, and the extent to
which the discourse is characterised by verbal routines and formulaic utterances as opposed to ad hoc formulations
constructed on each specific occasion.
Using this model, we discuss some pragmatic features of polite and impolite verbal interaction in New Zealand
workplaces. We define polite verbal behaviour as discursive behaviour perceived as having been used in order to
maintain harmonious relations and avoid conflict with others (cf. Kasper, 1990; Holmes, 1995, 2012; Thomas, 1995;
Watts, 2003; Schnurr et al., 2008). Impolite verbal behaviour is defined, following Culpeper (2011:23), as behaviour
which conflicts with what one expects or what one wants, or how one thinks things ought to be; it infringes the norms of
appropriate behaviour that prevail in particular contexts and among particular interlocutors. In this paper, we focus on
politeness norms.

3. Database and methodology

The data used as the basis of the analyses in this paper has been collected by the LWP team over a period of 15
years. Our database currently comprises over 2000 interactions recorded in more than thirty New Zealand workplaces,
including government departments, factories, small businesses, semi-public or non-government organisations
(NGOs), and private, commercial organisations. The interactions consist of business talk and social talk in a wide
range of workplace contexts, including meetings of many different sizes and kinds, with participants from a wide range
of different levels in the workplace hierarchy. The total corpus includes interactions from some workplaces with a
relatively high proportion of women, some with a relatively high proportion of Māori workers, and a number with an
ethnic balance more closely reflecting the distribution of Māori in the total population (about 14%).6 The corpus also
includes interactions from Māori workplaces which we have described as ‘‘ethnicised’’ CofPs: i.e. workplaces with a
conscious orientation to Māori cultural norms and goals, where Māori ways of doing things prevail and the
communicative behaviours exhibited by participants are typically consistent with Māori cultural values and beliefs
(Schnurr et al., 2007:716). This data has proved particularly valuable for the purposes of analysing im/politeness in
intercultural communication.
The LWP methodology was developed to record naturally occurring workplace interaction, using audio tapes, and
more recently mini-disks and mp3 recorders, supplemented by video-recording whenever possible (Holmes and Stubbe,
2003). The objective of the methodological design has consistently been to record data which is as close to normal
workplace interaction as possible. It involves a participatory approach which gives contributors direct control over the data
collection. Volunteers carry a voice recorder throughout their workday and record samples of their everyday interactions.7
In addition, a rich fund of ethnographic information has been gathered by means of extensive field notes collected during
the research collaborations, as well as one-to-one interviews and follow-up focus groups, all of which has assisted with the
interpretation of the data.

3
The indigenous Māori people are a minority in New Zealand (14.7%: www.stats.govt.nz, 2006).
4
See Holmes et al. (2011) for further discussion of this point.
5
House developed the model for the purposes of contrasting interaction in German and British English. We have found it very useful, and have
extended it for the purposes of analysing Māori and Pākehā interactional discourse.
6
This rich corpus thus includes material from Māori workplaces, from workplaces with a strong sympathy for Māori concerns, as well as from bi-
cultural workplaces.
7
For more Information on the project, and especially details of data collection and methodology, see Holmes and Stubbe (2003) and Marra
(2008).
 J. Holmes et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1063--1076 1067

4. Analysis

Consideration of macro-level, societal and institutional norms suggests a number of features of polite behaviour in NZ
workplace interactions. In this analysis, we focus first on the ways in which an important New Zealand value, namely
egalitarianism, influences the ways in which politeness is interactionally achieved in different New Zealand CofPs. We
then explore how this relates to the stylistic dimension of (in)formality, exemplifying some distinctively New Zealand ways
in which formality and informality are indexed in workplace interaction.

4.1. Egalitarianism

New Zealanders who raise their heads above the parapet are likely to be subjected to what Austin Mitchell described as
‘‘the great clobbering machine’’ (1972:26), and what has more recently been referred to as ‘‘the tall poppy syndrome’’, a
concept borrowed from Australia. Cross-cultural research on perceptions of leadership involving 62 countries (Chhokar
et al., 2007), for instance, reported that ‘‘New Zealanders tend to have the lowest power distance in the world -- that is, we
do not tend to accept or embrace the fact that power in institutions and organisations should be distributed unequally’’
(Jackson, 2008:13). In other words, societal level pressures come to bear to constrain unmitigated self-promotion.
Jackson and Parry (2001:27) claim that: ‘‘it would be difficult to find a nation that has institutionalized and
ritualized. . .wealth and envy status’’ or ‘‘lack of reverence for big business’’ to the extent that Australasians have.8
Among Pākehā, egalitarianism is oriented particularly to the importance of achievement rather than other sources of
status: it is essentially a belief that social standing should depend on achievement and not on birth, and that achievement
is appropriately assessed by somebody else, not by the individual concerned (Lipson, 1948). Bönisch-Brednich
summarises it in this way: ‘‘everyone should be the same and if they are not they should, at the very least, pretend to be’’
(2008:6). Societal level pressures come to bear to constrain unmitigated self-promotion, and even complacent
acceptance of praise and admiration. Consequently, Pākehā New Zealanders do not comfortably tolerate explicit
demonstrations of power, and people often seek ways of reducing status differences and emphasising equality with their
colleagues.9 This is clearly an area ripe for further exploration and with rich potential for comparative pragmatic analysis.
This fundamental commitment to egalitarianism, a distinctive and widely recognised New Zealand value, is apparent in
a number of aspects of workplace talk. The pervasiveness of the positive politeness strategies small talk and social talk
between employees, regardless of their role and status in the workplace, provides one example of how this value is
evident in interaction; and self-deprecating humour provides another. We illustrate each in turn.

4.1.1. Small talk

Small talk is an equaliser; it provides a common currency between employees and ‘‘humanises’’ the workplace. As we
have described in detail elsewhere (Holmes, 2000; Holmes and Marra, 2004), small talk is obligatory at the beginning and
end of the day in most New Zealand workplaces, as well as at the beginning and ends of meetings. Moreover, social talk
may also mark a change of topic in a meeting in some workplaces. Awareness of this politeness norm is evident in the
following exchange between two professional managers in a white collar organisation.

Example 110
Context: Jaeson, the General Manager, is having a catch-up meeting with another senior manager, Rob. This is the very
start of the interaction.
1. Jaeson: yeah I’m talking to Rob Bellinger
2. Rob: I broke it down [coughs] to
3. what I thought was the most logical
4. Jaeson: what happened to the small talk

8
It should be noted, however, that most New Zealanders would object to this treatment of Australasia as one nation. We are also aware that a
range of conceptions of egalitarianism characterise different western democracies. This is a topic worth considerable further exploration but we do
not have space to pursue it here.
9
It is important to note that while Māori New Zealanders also avoid self-promotion and boasting, the explanation for this behaviour can be found
in a different set of values. Māori culture values highly the concept of whakaiti, humility and modesty. Māori leaders are expected to demonstrate
concern for others and to avoid focussing on their own attributes. While this may look superficially like the tall poppy syndrome, it has very different
cultural roots, illustrating the importance of paying attention to cultural differences. The Māori conception of humility is not based in a philosophy of
egalitarianism but rather in the priority of the group over the individual, and the perception of a leader as a servant of the group. See Holmes et al.
(2011) for further discussion.
10
See Appendix A for transcription conventions.
1068 J. Holmes et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1063--1076

5. Rob: [laughs] I love the col-

6. I love what you’re doing
7. with your hair these days
8. Jaeson: [laughs] oh you’re just
9. so straight into it you know [laughs]
10. Rob: [laughs] um when we talked about
11. [sighs] the style of operation . . .

Jaeson first provides information about who he is talking to, a routine practice in the recording process. Rob then launches
in to the transactional business of their meeting (lines 2--3). Jaeson's humorous comment (line 4) on the absence of the
normally obligatory small talk clearly indicates its status as typical, politic behaviour between colleagues at the start of a
meeting. In terms of House's analytical model, small talk at this juncture is a paradigmatic example of formulaic talk or the
importance of using a familiar verbal routine to establish rapport at this point. With his direct reference to its noticeable
absence, Jaeson makes explicit an important interactional norm. Rob ironically provides a stereotypically feminine topic
for small talk (lines 5--7), and Jaeson responds by making an explicit comment on the inappropriateness of Rob's
behaviour oh you’re just so straight into it you know (lines 8--9).
The distinctiveness of this western socio-pragmatic norm also emerged in discussion with professional migrants in our
Workplace Communication for Skilled Migrants Programme.11 The migrants came from a wide variety of linguistic and
cultural backgrounds, including Hong Kong, China, South East Asia and Eastern Europe. Many of them commented that
they found the occurrence of small talk in New Zealand workplaces very surprising. The following excerpt used in the
course for teaching purposes was transcribed from an interaction in a New Zealand white collar organisation. This time the
small talk occurs at the end of the meeting.

Example 2
Context: Business meeting between a senior manager, Helen and Rebecca, the Communications Liaison Officer. Helen
is delegating jobs to Rebecca. They have worked together for a considerable time.
1. Rebecca: I finally got . . . the the names transferred
2. from the c vs onto the. . .ont - onto the labels
3. to send out the thank you letters yesterday
4. Helen: oh good let's get that one done
5. Rebecca: okay
6. Helen: okay
7. Rebecca: and how's Sam
8. Helen: he's just fine

This is a very typical end-of-meeting exchange from our corpus, Rebecca reports on her progress with a task she is
responsible for (lines 1--3) and Helen confirms that the task should now be completed (line 4). After a ritual end-of-
business sequence (lines 5--6), Rebecca switches to social talk with an enquiry about her manager's son. In House's
terms, Rebecca's question is an ad hoc formulation rather than a verbal routine, designed to be appropriate to the specific
interlocutor, while Helen's response can be identified as a formula which does not invite elaboration. This excerpt
generated a great deal of discussion between the students, with many commenting that such an exchange would be very
marked in their workplaces because the switch from the meeting business to personal or social talk was perceived as very
odd. Small talk, they reported, is simply not regarded as appropriate in many workplace contexts China or Hong Kong as it
is in New Zealand.
Many of the skilled migrants also commented that Rebecca's personal question could be considered inappropriate in
their cultures, identifying another New Zealand norm, namely, the pervasive informality and interpersonal directness
which again relates to the fundamental commitment to egalitarianism. Being polite in many New Zealand workplaces
entails being informal and friendly, and orienting to others by showing explicit interest in the personal life of others, as
Rebecca does in example 2. However, the egalitarian ethic underlying Rebecca's question was almost
incomprehensible to some of the migrant workers whose past experience was based in much more hierarchical
societies.

11
This programme has been offered for the last five years to migrants with professional qualifications and an IELTS score of at least 6.5 who
have been unable to find appropriate work for at least two years after arriving in New Zealand. The course uses materials collected and analysed
by the Language in the Workplace Project team.
 J. Holmes et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1063--1076 1069

4.1.2. Self-deprecating humour

Further evidence of the deep-rooted value of egalitarianism in New Zealand culture is provided by the use of self-
deprecating humour in response to praise or a compliment in the workplace interactions we recorded. Accepting praise
entails acknowledging that one has exceeded expectations, and this is problematic in a culture where egalitarianism is a
paramount concept. One socially acceptable way of managing this problematic issue is to deflect the praise with humour.

Example 3
Context: Business meeting between Jaeson, the General Manager, and two members of his staff to organise the
components of a party for some business clients. The participants have worked together for some time and get on well.
1. Jaeson: //[sings a tune] [laughs]\
2. Anna: /well maybe we could use you as back-up you know
3. [laughs]\\ and a special guest appearance
4. Jaeson: I could be the wind section

In example 3, Jaeson and his staff are talking about what kind of music they should provide for the party, and Jaeson
makes a suggestion by singing a tune. In response, Anna suggests they use him as back-up, and that he could even make
a special guest appearance. She is teasing him, but Jaeson deflects even this joking praise by commenting I could be the
wind section (line 4), a humorous reference to his reputation for always having something to contribute to any discussion.
There is a superficially similar value in Māori culture, namely whakaiti, ‘being humble, modest’. This positive valuation
of modesty and humility means that Māori people are not expected to sing their own praises but rather to wait for others to
speak on their behalf. As Metge (1995) points out, self-deprecation is the preferred Māori norm; self-deprecation is ‘‘the
way Māori respond when praise is directed at themselves’’ (1995:160). However, as noted in footnote 8, the roots of the
Māori concept of whakaiti, are different from the source of the Pākehā preference for egalitarianism. While the ‘‘tall poppy’’
syndrome has its roots in envy and intolerance of others putting their heads up above the parapet, the Māori concept
reflects the expectation that the individual should subjugate their needs to those of the group. Nevertheless, both concepts
require individuals to behave in similar ways, namely to avoid explicit self-praise and to reject fulsome praise from others.
Example 4 illustrates how this value plays out in workplace interaction in one of the Māori organisations where we
recorded. The company leader, Yvonne, is reporting at a staff meeting on her role of representing the company in the
wider business community.

Example 412
Context: Yvonne, Managing Director of Māori organisation, giving her report in a regular staff meeting
1 Yvonne: yesterday I talked I had to give a presentation
2. I was invited by [name of prestigious person] . . .
3. I felt the presentation wasn’t that good
4. because my briefing was about a two second phone [laughs] call
5. [general laughter]
6. and so I had no idea who was going to be at the conference
7. and () what's it about
8. I had no programme beforehand
9. so I was a bit unprepared
8. Sheree: is this the one you had yesterday
9. Yvonne: yeah
10. Sheree: I loved it
11. Yvonne: //oh did you\
12. All: /[general laughter]\\
13. Sheree: I actually came home raving
14. Yvonne: oh that's only because I had a photo of you
15. All: [loud burst of laughter]
16. Yvonne: so mm but it's just . . . anyway so that's me +++ next

Yvonne here describes how she responded positively to an opportunity to promote the company's interests, but she
presents her performance with a considerable amount of self-deprecation, reporting that she felt she had not done as well
as she would have wished: I felt the presentation wasn’t that good (line 3), I was a bit unprepared (line 9). Significantly in

12
This example has been discussed from different perspectives in a number of our publications.
1070 J. Holmes et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1063--1076

relation to the discussion here, when Sheree contests her account, Yvonne skilfully and humorously deflects her
compliment by suggesting the inclusion of Sheree's photos is the source of her approval (line 14). So while indicating that
she accepted an invitation which could be of benefit to her company, Yvonne also manages to conform to the socio-
cultural requirement that Māori adopt a modest and humble stance in public arenas. Using House's dimensions again, all
this is achieved indirectly and implicitly by means of a humorous and self-deprecating narrative.
Once again, egalitarian values are evident in a preference for informal rather than formal ways of interacting, a stylistic
dimension with obvious relevance to politeness norms. Perhaps, this is most apparent at the level of the CofP as
illustrated in the next section.

4.2. Formality and informality

The inclusion of both Māori and Pākehā workplaces in our database provided a range of valuable opportunities to
identify distinctively New Zealand interactional norms.

4.2.1. Meeting openings

We have described in some detail the ways in which the openings of formal meetings in ‘‘ethnicised’’ Māori CofPs
involve a level of formality and ritual which is quite unfamiliar to non-New Zealanders (Holmes and Marra, 2011). Large
meetings, in particular, typically begin with some formal element, often involving an explicit greeting and welcome, and
frequently a karakia in the form of a ‘prayer’ or traditional chant. The length, the precise structure, and the content of the
opening are usually shaped by, and adapted to, the precise participants in the specific context in which it occurs, i.e. while
there is a framework for the opening, there are obvious opportunities for flexibility and spontaneity. House's distinction
between ad hoc and formulaic verbal routines is again relevant here. The Māori meeting openings in our data generally
combine traditional formulaic phrases with innovative expressions, ‘created anew for the occasion’ (House, 2005:21).
Moreover, they refer directly to matters of relevance to the particular participants in the specific CofP, and are thus clearly
oriented to addressees. So, for example, within the broad constraints of appropriate components, reference was made to
the concerns of just those participants who were present, e.g. any illness or death in their families.
These norms for appropriate and other-oriented verbal behaviour in the Māori CofP that we analysed contrasted
sharply with the ways in which Pākehā meetings opened. The general rule was to keep openings short and informal: okay
let's start; alright let's go; time to get underway; shall we start then?; or simply okay. However, we also found that different
CofPs had often developed preferred phrases for this purpose: in one CofP for example, a gun metaphor was consistently
used in various forms: e.g. okay shoot Rog; alright, let's fire into it. Thus our analysis of the Māori norms for meeting
openings here assisted in identifying a taken-for-granted feature of Pākehā NZ English, namely the marked preference for
minimal formality in opening a meeting. There is no reference to the participants nor to the purpose of the meeting. These
are treated as self-evident and the normal practice is simply to launch into the agenda without preamble (see Holmes
et al., 2011).

4.2.2. Audible feedback and silence

Analysis of the ways in which the listeners responded to contributions at meetings in different CofPs also proved
valuable in identifying contrasting Māori and Pākehā socio-pragmatic norms. Again, the lesson we learned concerned the
extent to which Pākehā norms appeared ‘‘natural’’ until we perceived alternatives.
New Zealand Pākehā norms for polite behaviour in workplace meetings typically involve silent attention while someone
else is contributing to the floor. By contrast, meetings in the Māori workplaces that we studied typically involved
background murmuring and comment while someone was delivering a report or describing a proposal. As Metge and
Kinloch (1978:20--21) note, providing frequent affirmatory feedback (e.g. ae, kia ora) while someone is speaking is
generally considered positive and appropriate behaviour in Māori contexts. We have illustrated the prevalence of this
pattern in Māori workplaces in previous analyses (Kell et al., 2007).
Clearly this is a potential area of misunderstanding since Pākehā and Māori politeness norms are so different. Example 5
provides a particularly illuminating illustration of the fact that Māori norms dominated in the Māori workplace that we
pseudonymed Kiwi Consultations.

Example 5
Context: Regular staff meeting of 16 participants in Kiwi Consultations. All but three participants are Māori
1. Steve: we have capability development um
2. the g m oversight here
3. [overlapped by a quiet conversation involving Frank and Daniel]:
4. is from Frank with Caleb
 J. Holmes et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1063--1076 1071

5. the manager in charge budget of a hundred and eighty seven k

6. + obviously key area we want to ensure that um
7. one of the important things in communication is
8. not to talk when others are talking:
9. [loud laughter]
10. Steve: I hope that the cameras picked up (that)
11. [loud laughter]
12. Frank: Steve this indicates a need for you to be out in hui (‘meetings’)
13. [laughter]
14. Frank: one of the things that you learn very quickly
15. is that a sign of respect is that other people are talking about
16. what//you’re saying while you’re saying it\
17. /[laughter]\\ [laughter]
18. Steve: I see I see

During Steve's extended contribution to the meeting, many participants make quiet remarks to each other, but when Frank
makes a comment to Daniel, Steve reacts by humorously reprimanding them: one of the important things in communi-
cation is not to talk when others are talking (lines 7--8). Here Steve is inappropriately asserting the Pākehā communicative
norm in a workplace where Māori ways of speaking prevail, as is evident from the fact that others have been talking quietly
during Steve's contribution.
Frank, another Pākehā, responds (line 12) by challenging Steve's rebuke as inappropriate, implying that Steve is not
yet familiar enough with Māori interactional norms: Steve this indicates a need for you to be out in hui (i.e. to attend more
Māori meetings). Frank then spells out the Māori norm a sign of respect is that other people are talking about what you’re
saying while you’re saying it (lines 15--16). Since our recorders picked up Frank and Daniel's conversation, we know that
Frank's comment was in fact ‘on-topic’. Ironically, as a result of drawing attention to the quiet side conversation, Steve
causes an even bigger interruption to his presentation and attracts (good-humoured) critical attention to his own cultural
ignorance and insensitivity.
Clearly what is regarded as appropriate and appreciative behaviour, as opposed to impolite behaviour, differs in Māori
and Pākehā contexts. The Pākehā implicit and indirect norm of ‘silence means consent’ is by no means universal. Indeed,
Metge and Kinloch indicate the complexity of accurately interpreting the social meaning of silence in Māori formal
meetings: ‘the message may be one of two extremes, dissent, opposition and mistrust causing people to listen carefully, or
the highest approbation and enjoyment (Metge and Kinloch, 1978:21). So silence from the audience while someone
speaks is normal and expected by Pākehā in a formal meeting (cf Jaworski, 1993; Spencer-Oatey, 2000), but silence is
more ambiguous in Māori contexts.13 This is a well-recognised area of culturally contrasting discourse norms which has
been clearly identified as a potential source of inter-cultural misunderstanding.
A recent analysis comparing the social significance of silence in Japanese and New Zealand formal and informal
meetings (Murata, 2009) provides further evidence of culturally different patterns: Japanese participants demonstrated
what seemed to New Zealanders an astonishing degree of tolerance of long periods of silence while waiting for a meeting
to start. As mentioned above, small talk typically fills in the time before a meeting in most New Zealand workplaces, with
the preferred topic differing according to the CofP. Silence, by contrast, is regarded as uncomfortable. The Japanese
businessmen in this study, like the Hong Kong professional migrants referred to above, considered small talk
unnecessary in this workplace context.

4.2.3. Eh
Our final example illustrating the New Zealand preference for informal rather than formal ways of interacting involves
the extensive use of a specific pragmatic particle in a particular CofP. Daniel, the recently appointed Māori CEO of Kiwi
Consultations, had indicated in interview that he was committed to reducing the formality of the organisation. Among the
various means he used to achieve this goal were frequent use of the final tag eh (mentioned above as a distinctive
pragmatic feature of NZE), as well as frequent use of swear words in formal meetings, features which were rare to non-
existent in formal meetings in other organisations we studied.
Example 6 illustrates both Daniel's attitude to formality and his use of eh in a relatively informal one-to-one meeting with
one of his senior staff.

13
Silence has a different significance again in one-to-one informal interactions where absence of audible feedback often functions as a negative
politeness device. Silence in this context avoids imposing on others, and indicates a willingness to keep listening until the speaker has said all
they wish to say (Stubbe and Holmes, 2000).
1072 J. Holmes et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1063--1076

Example 6
Context: Daniel, the CEO of Kiwi Consultations, is talking to his Human Resources Manager, Caleb, in a regular weekly
meeting. Both participants are Māori
1. Daniel: but it also an indication
2. that you don’t have to wear ties here anymore eh
3. you don’t have to but don’t wear rags [laughs]
4. [laughs] you know
5. here are what you can wear eh . . ..
6. I don’t wear ties any more
7. I’m hōhā [‘fed up’] with it eh um
8. and so nobody else feels they have to wear them either eh

In this excerpt, Daniel explicitly expresses his preference for a more casual style of dress, and emphasises this attitude by
his frequent use of the casual tag eh (lines 2, 5, 7, 8) as well as the informal Māori word hōhā. The pragmatic particle, eh,
indexes an informal, friendly stance, and it is common in casual interaction in NZE (Stubbe and Holmes, 2000; Meyerhoff,
1994). In Daniel's CofP, however, there is evidence of eh-usage even in formal meetings of his senior management team.

Example 7
Context: The senior management team is discussing financial issues. Daniel, the CEO, is advocating more professional
development in this area for members of the senior management team.
1. Daniel: yeah well it's gonna cost more and for one thing eh
2. but like you’re gonna find out how we can do that
3. er allowance stuff eh you know
4. how does [organisation] do it + . . .
5. we’ve- we’ve been talking about this
6. but I was sort of a bit brassed off
7. that I was getting bossed around
8. by um junior accountants
9. when it comes down to this thing eh

Daniel is here arguing the case for members of his senior management team to be better informed about financial
practices (lines 2--4). In support of his argument, he gives the example of how his own former ignorance made him a prey
to being bossed around by junior accountants (lines 7--8). This brief excerpt provides ample illustration of the informal style
which Daniel adopts including the use of eh (lines 1, 3, 9), the use of the informal pragmatic particles like (line 2), you know
(line 3), and sort of (line 6), as well as the colloquial phrase brassed off (line 6).
So while his respect for Māori values and protocols is evident in the way he opens meetings of his senior management
team, within those meetings Daniel's interactional style indicates his preference for informality. His informal style has the
effect of de-emphasising status differences, an approach which is consistent with the wider New Zealand ethos which
regards formality and status-enhancement with suspicion.
The examples in this section have illustrated the ways in which macro-level New Zealand societal norms, such as a
strong belief in egalitarianism, influence what is considered polite behaviour in workplace interaction in different CofPs. In
the next section we consider how these norms contribute to the distinctiveness of NZE.

5. Discussion

The analysis in the previous section provides discursive evidence of the ways in which the negotiations between
Pākehā and Māori over the centuries in New Zealand have influenced the development of shared New Zealand socio-
cultural norms. Egalitarianism is clearly one such shared value, which leads to suspicion among New Zealanders of overt
demonstrations of power and status. This is evident in the often overt social censure of boastful behaviour, and a general
preference for an informal style of interaction in many contexts, including workplace interaction. As mentioned earlier,
Pākehā egalitarianism tends to derive from envy, and intolerance of self-promotion, as well as a rejection by the early
settlers of the class-based status system that they had left behind in Britain. The Māori concept on the other hand reflects
subjugation of the individual to the group. Despite different roots, however, the result is a high valuation by all New
Zealanders of solidarity and collegiality, with the additional component for Māori of (tribally based) kinship. A number of
socio-pragmatic features of NZE instantiate such values and beliefs.
 J. Holmes et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1063--1076 1073

The efforts of early Europeans to enable the indigenous Māori to retain their Māori identity while participating in New
Zealand society is another important factor in accounting for the patterns evident in the analysis above. The 1840 Treaty of
Waitangi recorded an agreement between the European colonisers and the Māori people concerning power sharing and
governance (Trevor-Roberts et al., 2003; Ashkanasy et al., 2004; Bönisch-Brednich, 2008). While the role of the Treaty
remains contentious (King, 1991, 1999; Snedden, 2005, 2010), its influence is apparent in the high value New Zealanders
place on respect for others and a fundamental belief in the right to maintain one's cultural identity. As indicated in the
analysis above, a number of socio-pragmatic features of NZE instantiate such values and beliefs, including evidence that
linguistic markers of Māori identity are gradually extending into new domains, spreading from informal contexts involving
mainly Māori people to use in the formal processes of public life, and into organisational contexts.
The examples analysed indicate that different CofPs may respond to these values and the associated socio-pragmatic
norms in somewhat different ways. Different examples have illustrated the utility of the dimensions identified in Fig. 2,
explicitness vs implicitness, indirectness and directness, orientation to others vs self, and the use of verbal routines vs
innovative formulations, in highlighting the ways in which New Zealander vs non-New Zealanders, as well as Pākehā vs
Māori enact polite or ‘‘politic’’ and appropriate behaviour in different contexts. Hence enacting respect for others in Māori
culture entails explicitly acknowledging the participants in a speech event and recognising their relationship to others
present, while these relationships are implicit and taken-for-granted in most Pākehā business contexts. The openings of
meetings in Māori CofPs are thus often more formal than in Pākehā organisations where the Pākehā preference for
informality prevails. Māori openings typically involve a skilful integration of formulaic components and ad hoc formulations
composed for the particular occasion, whereas the Pākehā meeting openings are brief and ritualistic, as noted above.
For Māori participants the karakia and associated ritualised formal acknowledgements are important ways of
establishing connection and rapport, while small talk often performs this function for Pākehā, as illustrated in examples 1
and 2. In fact, our analyses indicate that explicit expressions of other-oriented, positive politeness, such as small talk and
social talk, can be considered obligatory at the start of meetings in most of the CofPs in our database, even in the context
of formal business meetings. And while this norm is almost certainly not distinctive to NZE, discussion with professional
migrant workers suggests that it is not an established politeness norm in Hong Kong or mainland China.
Commitment to an egalitarian ethos also leads to condemnation of self-aggrandisement. Again, while this is a shared
New Zealand norm, it tends to take different forms in different socio-cultural contexts and different CofPs. As illustrated in
example 3, self-deprecating humour is one widely practiced, indirect strategy for deflecting praise from oneself, identified
in many of the workplaces in our data, both Māori and Pākehā. By contrast, explicit expressions of modesty in public
contexts, especially from the most senior members of the organisation, as illustrated in example 4, were very rare in
Pākehā organisations. In Māori CofPs, self-promotion is frowned upon; it is the role of others to explicitly sing the chief's
praises.
Contrasting ways of indicating attention to a public speaker constitute another area where Māori norms differ from
Pākehā, thus highlighting the distinctiveness of otherwise taken-for-granted Pākehā-dominated NZ norms. Audible
feedback while a designated speaker holds the floor is regarded as impolite, interrupting behaviour in most Pākehā CofPs,
while such responses are considered appropriate indications of attention in Māori contexts, as example 5 illustrates.
Hence other-oriented, responsive behaviour in Māori meetings involves explicit indications of approval or agreement,
while in parallel Pākehā contexts, silence is considered polite behaviour, indicating attention and respectful other-oriented
behaviour. Here it is the Pākehā norm of ‘silence means consent’ which is implicit and indirect.
Our analysis also provides evidence of the influence of Māori ways of doing things on Pākehā consciousness.
Example 5, for instance, indicates Frank's awareness that it is important for Pākehā to become familiar with Māori norms if
they work in a Māori CofP. But the influence of Māori norms is also increasingly apparent in Pākehā contexts including
both the most formal institutional level as well as in specific CofPs; Pākehā formal meetings, such as University graduation
ceremonies and Parliamentary meetings, for example, often begin with a formal Māori component. At a different level of
analysis, examples 6 and 7 illustrate how the pragmatic particle eh, previously strongly associated with colloquial varieties
of Māori English, is infiltrating more formal contexts. Its appearance in formal meetings in our workplace data suggests
that eh is perhaps in the process of becoming established as a pragmatic feature of standard NZE (see Vine and Marsden,
forthcoming). On the other hand, Daniel's commitment to deformalising the workplace interactions in his Māori CofP
indicates responsiveness to the high value that New Zealand Pākehā place on informality and ‘‘mateship’’ (Phillips, 1987).

6. Conclusion

Adopting a bottom-up approach, we have analysed face-to-face interactions over more than a decade in a range of
New Zealand workplaces as a means of inferring higher level norms and shared socio-pragmatic practices. More recently,
our analyses have adopted an emic approach using data from intercultural interactions to throw light on potentially
distinctive features of im/politeness in NZE workplace discourse. By examining similarities and differences in the
1074 J. Holmes et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1063--1076

socio-pragmatic norms of different cultural groups, we can begin to identify potentially distinctive features of particular
varieties of English around the world. This preliminary analysis has suggested that in order to identify distinctive features
of NZE, it will be important to take account of the pervasive influence of Māori socio-cultural values and norms in New
Zealand society. Attention to Māori norms can not only assist in identifying what is distinctive about usually taken-for-
granted Pākehā/European ways of doing things, but also indicate how Māori ways of doing things are subtly influencing
Pākehā norms, and thus contributing to the development of a distinctive New Zealand set of values and socio-pragmatic
norms. As the quotation from Daniel's discourse at the beginning of this paper suggests, the analysis of pragmatic features
of NZE is likely to reveal a unique blend of Māori and Pākehā interactional norms.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to all those who have worked with us as workplace collaborators and who have
allowed us to record their interactions. We also thank other members of the Language in the Workplace team (especially
Nicky Riddiford) and the research assistants who provided valuable help with data collection and transcription; we are
particularly grateful for advice regarding recent research on NZE supplied by Sharon Marsden. The research reported
here was funded by a Marsden grant from the Royal Society of New Zealand, and from internal research funding from
Victoria University of Wellington.

Appendix A

Transcription conventions
[laughs]:: Paralinguistic features and other information in square brackets, colons indicate start/finish
+ Untimed pause of up to 1 s
. . .//. . .. . .\ . . . Simultaneous speech
. . ./. . .. . ..\\ . . .
(hello) Transcriber's best guess at an unclear utterance
- Incomplete or cut-off utterance
... Section of transcript omitted
All names are pseudonyms.

References

Allan, W. Scott, Starks, Donna, 2000. ‘No-one sounds like us?’ A comparison of New Zealand and other southern hemisphere Englishes. In: Bell,
A., Kuiper, K. (Eds.), New Zealand English. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 53--83.
Ashkanasy, Neal M., Trevor-Roberts, Edwin, Kennedy, Jeffrey C., 2004. The egalitarian leader: leadership in Australia and New Zealand. In:
Tjosvold, D., Leung, K. (Eds.), Leading in High Growth Asia. World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 231--252.
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, Harris, Sandra, 2006. Politeness at work: issues and challenges. Journal of Politeness Research 2, 7--33.
Barron, Anne, Schneider, Klaus P., 2009. Variational pragmatics: studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. In: Barron,
Anne, Schneider, Klaus P. (Eds.), Intercultural Pragmatics Special Issue, vol. 6. pp. 425--442.
Bauer, Laurie, 1986. Notes on New Zealand English phonetics and phonology. English World-Wide 7, 225--258.
Bauer, Laurie, 1994. English in New Zealand. In: Burchfield, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. V. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 382--429.
Bauer, Laurie, Warren, Paul, 2004. New Zealand English: phonology. In: Schneider, E.W., Burridge, K., Kortmann, B., Mesthrie, R., Upton, C.
(Eds.), A Handbook of Varieties of English. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 580--602.
Bayard, Donn, 1995. Kiwitalk: Sociolinguistics and New Zealand Society. Dunmore Press, Palmerston North.
Bell, Allan, Johnson, Gary, 1997. Towards a sociolinguistics of style. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 1--21.
Bell, Allan, Kuiper, Koenraad (Eds.), 2000. New Zealand English. Victoria University Press, Wellington.
Blommaert, Jan, 2005. Discourse. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bönisch-Brednich, Brigitte, 2008. Watching the Kiwis: New Zealander's rules of social interaction -- an introduction. Journal of New Zealand
Studies 3--15 (Special Issue: Watching the Kiwis).
Britain, David, 1992. Linguistic change in intonation: the use of high rising terminals in New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 4,
77--104.
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
(Orig. pub. 1978).
Chhokar, Jagdeep S., Brodbek, Felix C., House, Robert J. (Eds.), 2007. Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-depth
Studies of 25 Societies. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Coupland, Nikolas, 2001. Introduction: sociolinguistic theory and social theory. In: Coupland, N., Sarangi, S., Candlin, C.N. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics
and Social Theory. Longman, London, pp. 1--26.
 J. Holmes et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1063--1076 1075

Culpeper, Jonathan, 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Eckert, Penelope, 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12, 453--476.
Eelen, Gino, 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. St Jerome, Manchester.
Ehrlich, Susan, 2008. Sexual assault trials, discursive identities and institutional change. In: Dolón, R., Todoli, J. (Eds.), Analysing Identities in
Discourse. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 159--177.
Gordon, Elizabeth, Maclagan, Margaret A., 2004. Regional and social differences in New Zealand: phonology. In: Schneider, E.W., Burridge, K.,
Kortmann, B., Mesthrie, R., Upton, C. (Eds.), A Handbook of Varieties of English. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 603--613.
Haugh, Michael, 2005. The importance of ‘‘place’’ in Japanese politeness: implications for cross-cultural and intercultural analyses. Intercultural
Pragmatics 2 (1), 41--68.
Haugh, Michael, 2007a. Emic conceptualisations of (im)politeness and face in Japanese: implications for the discursive negotiation of second
language learner identities. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 657--680.
Haugh, Michael, 2007b. The discursive challenge to politeness research: an interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research 3 (2), 295--
317.
Hay, Jennifer, Maclagan, Margaret, Gordon, Elizabeth, 2008. New Zealand English. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Hecht, Michael L., Warren, Jennifer R., Jung, Eura, Krieger, Janice L., 2005. A communication theory of identity: development, theoretical
perspective, and future directions. In: Gudykunst, W.B. (Ed.), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 257--
278.
Holmes, Janet, 1995. Three chairs for New Zealand English: the EAR/AIR merger. English Today 11, 14--18.
Holmes, Janet, 2000. Doing collegiality and keeping control at work: small talk in government departments. In: Coupland, J. (Ed.), Small Talk.
Longman, London, pp. 32--61.
Holmes, Janet, 2005. Politeness and postmodernism---an appropriate approach to the analysis of language and gender? Journal of Sociolinguistics
9 (1), 108--117.
Holmes, Janet, 2006. Gendered Talk at Work: Constructing Gender Identity through Workplace Discourse. Blackwell, New York, Oxford.
Holmes, Janet, 2012. Politeness in intercultural discourse and communication. In: Bratt Paulston, C., Kiesling, S.F., Rangel, E.S. (Eds.),
Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication.. Blackwell, Oxford.
Holmes, Janet, Marra, Meredith, 2002. Having a laugh at work: how humour contributes to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1683--
1710.
Holmes, Janet, Marra, Meredith, 2004. Relational practice in the workplace: women's talk or gendered discourse? Language in Society 33, 377--
398.
Holmes, Janet, Marra, Meredith, 2011. Relativity rules: politic talk in ethnicised workplaces. In: Davies, Bethan L., Haugh, Michael, Merrison,
Andrew John (Eds.), Situated Politeness. Continuum, London, pp. 27--52.
Holmes, Janet, Stubbe, Maria, 2003. Power and Politeness in the Workplace. Pearson, London.
Holmes, Janet, Bell, Allan, Boyce, Mary, 1991. Variation and Change in New Zealand English: a Social Dialect Investigation. Project Report to the
Social Sciences Committee of the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. Victoria University, Wellington.
Holmes, Janet, Marra, Meredith, Schnurr, Stephanie, 2008. Impoliteness and ethnicity: Māori and Pākehā discourse in New Zealand workplaces.
Journal of Politeness Research 4 (2), 193--219.
Holmes, Janet, Marra, Meredith, Vine, Bernadette, 2011. Leadership, Ethnicity and Discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
House, Juliane, 2005. Politeness in Germany: politeness in Germany? In: Hickey, L., Stewart, M. (Eds.), Politeness in Europe. Multilingual
Matters, Clevedon, pp. 13--28.
Hundt, Marianne, 1998. New Zealand English Grammar: Fact or Fiction? John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Hundt, Marianne, Hay, Jennifer, Gordon, Elizabeth, 2004. New Zealand English: morphosyntax. In: Schneider, E.W., Burridge, K., Kortmann, B.,
Mesthrie, R., Upton, C. (Eds.), A Handbook of Varieties of English. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 560--592.
Jackson, Brad, 2008. Portraying leadership in New Zealand: From modest recognition to contemplative action. In: Griffey, E. (Ed.), The Power of
Portraiture: Portraying Leadership in New Zealand from 1840 to the Present. David Ling, Auckland, pp. 10--17.
Jackson, Brad, Parry, Ken, 2001. The Hero Manager: Learning from New Zealand's Top Chief Executives. Penguin, Auckland, NZ.
Jaffe, Alexandra, 2009. Introduction: the sociolinguistics of stance. In: Jaffe, A. (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp. 1--28.
Jaworski, Adam, 1993. The Power of Silence: Social and Pragmatic Perspective. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Kasper, Gabriele, 1990. Linguistic politeness: current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 193--218.
Kell, Susan, Marra, Meredith, Holmes, Janet, Vine, Bernadette, 2007. Ethnic differences in the dynamics of women's work meetings. Multilingua
26, 309--331.
Kennedy, Jeffrey C., 2007. Leadership and culture in New Zealand. In: Chhokar, J.S., Brodbeck, F.C., House, R.J. (Eds.), Culture and Leadership
Across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of Societies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 397--432.
King, Michael, 1991. Pākehā: The Quest for Identity in New Zealand. Penguin, Auckland.
King, Michael, 1999. Being Pākehā Now: Reflections and Recollections of a White Native. Penguin, Auckland.
Lakoff, Robin, 1973. The logic of politeness: minding you p's and q's. In: Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society,
Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 292--305.
Leech, Geoffrey, 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London.
Lett, James, 1990. Emics and etics: notes on the epistemology of anthropology. In: Headland, T., Pike, K., Harris, M. (Eds.), Emics and Etics. The
Insider/Outsider Debate. Sage, Newbury Park, pp. 127--142.
Lipson, Leslie, 1948. The Politics of Equality: New Zealand's Adventures in Democracy. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Locher, Miriam A. (Ed.), 2008. Standards and Norms in the English Language. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Locher, Miriam A., Langlotz, Andreas, 2008. Relational work: at the intersection of cognition, interaction and emotion. Bulletin Suisse de
Linguistique Appliquée 88, 165--191.
Locher, Miriam A., Watts, Richard J., 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1), 9--33.
1076 J. Holmes et al. / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1063--1076

Marra, Meredith, 2008. Recording and analyzing talk across cultures. In: Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.), Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through
Talk Across Cultures. 2nd ed. Continuum, London, pp. 304--321.
Metge, Joan, 1995. New Growth from Old: The Whanau in the Modern World. Victoria University Press, Wellington.
Metge, Joan, 2001. Korero tahi: Talking Together. Auckland University Press, Auckland.
Metge, Joan, Kinloch, Patricia, 1978. Talking Past Each Other: Problems of Cross-cultural Communication. Victoria University Press, Wellington.
Meyerhoff, Miriam, 1992. ‘‘We’ve all got to go one day, eh’’: powerlessness and solidarity in the functions of a New Zealand tag. In: Hall, K.,
Bucholtz, M., Moonwomon, B. (Eds.), Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, Berkeley
Women and Language Group, Berkeley, CA, pp. 409--419.
Meyerhoff, Miriam, 1994. ‘‘Sounds pretty ethnic, eh?’’: a pragmatic particle in New Zealand English. Language in Society 23, 367--388.
Mills, Sara, 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mills, Sara, 2011. Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In: Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Eds.), Discursive Approaches
to Politeness. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 19--56.
Mitchell, Austin, 1972. The Half-Gallon Quarter-Acre Pavlova Paradise. Whitcombe and Tombs, Wellington.
Mullany, Louise, 2006. Girls on tour: politeness, small talk, and gender in managerial business meetings. Journal of Politeness Research 2, 55--
77.
Mullany, Louise, 2007. Gendered Discourse in the Professional Workplace. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire.
Murata, Kazuyo, 2009. Politeness from the hearer's perspective: how do Japanese business people evaluate relational talk in New Zealand
business meetings? Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan, Ryukoku University, Kyoto,
December 2009.
Ochs, Elinor, 1992. Indexing gender. In: Duranti, A., Goodwin, C. (Eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 335--358.
Patterson, John, 1992. Exploring Maori Values. The Dunmore Press, Palmerston North.
Phillips, Jock, 1987. A Man's Country? Penguin, Auckland.
Quinn, Heidi, 2000. Variation in New Zealand English syntax and morphology. In: Bell, A., Kuiper, K. (Eds.), New Zealand English. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 173--197.
Reed, Michael, 2005. Reflections on the ‘realist turn’ in organisation and management studies. Journal of Management Studies 42, 1621--1644.
Schneider, Edgar W., 2003. The dynamics of New Englishes: from identity construction to dialect birth. Language 79, 233--281.
Schneider, Edgar W., 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Schneider, Klaus P., 2010. Variational pragmatics. In: Östman, J.-O., Verschueren, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Benjamins, Amsterdam,
Philadelphia, pp. 1--34.
Schneider, Klaus P., Barron, Anne, 2008. Where pragmatics and dialectology meet: introducing variational pragmatics. In: Schneider, Klaus, Barron,
Anne (Eds.), Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 1--32.
Schnurr, Stephanie, 2009. Leadership Discourse at Work. Interactions of Humour, Gender and Workplace Culture. Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
Schnurr, Stephanie, Marra, Meredith, Holmes, Janet, 2007. Being (im)polite in New Zealand workplaces: Māori and Pākehā leaders. Journal of
Pragmatics 39, 712--729.
Schnurr, Stephanie, Marra, Meredith, Holmes, Janet, 2008. Impoliteness as a means of contesting power relations in the workplace. In: Bousfield,
D., Locher, M. (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Walter de Guyter, Berlin, pp. 211--
230.
Snedden, Pat, 2005. Pākehā and the Treaty: Why it's our Treaty too. Random House, Auckland.
Snedden, Pat, 2010. Treaty and the workplace. Presentation in Victoria University of Wellington's Leading People Programme. 4 November 2010.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 2000. Rapport management: a framework for analysis. In: Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.), Culturally Speaking: Managing
Rapport through Talk Across Cultures. Continuum, London, pp. 11--46.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 2008. Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In: Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.), Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk
across Cultures. 2nd ed. Continuum, London, pp. 11--47.
Stubbe, Maria, 1998. Are you listening? Cultural influences on the use of supportive verbal feedback in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 29,
257--289.
Stubbe, Maria, Holmes, Janet, 2000. Talking Māori or Pākehā in English: signalling identity in discourse. In: Bell, A., Kuiper, K. (Eds.), New
Zealand English. Victoria University Press, Wellington, pp. 249--278.
Terkourafi, Marina, 2005. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (2), 237--262.
Terkourafi, Marina, 2011. From Politeness1 to Politeness2: Tracking norms of im/politeness across time and space. Journal of Politeness
Research 7 (2).
Thomas, Jenny, 1995. Meaning in Interaction. Longman, London.
Trevor-Roberts, Edwin, Ashkanasy, Neal M., Kennedy, Jeffrey C., 2003. The egalitarian leader: a comparison of leadership in Australia and New
Zealand. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 20, 517--540.
Trudgill, Peter, 2004. New-Dialect Formation: The Inevitability of Colonial Englishes. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Vaara, Eero, 2003. Post-acquisition integration as sensemaking: glimpses of ambiguity, confusion, hypocrisy, and politicization. Journal of
Management Studies 40, 859--894.
Vine, Bernadette, Marsden, Sharon, forthcoming. Eh at work in New Zealand English.
Watts, Richard J., 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic behaviour: reconsidering claims for universality. In: Watts, Richard J., Ide, Sachiko,
Ehlich, Konrad (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 43--69.
Watts, Richard J., 2003. Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wodak, Ruth, 2008. Controversial issues in feminist critical discourse analysis. In: Harrington, K., Litosseliti, L., Sauntson, H., Sunderland, J.
(Eds.), Gender and Language Research Methodologies. Palgrave, London, pp. 193--210.