Introduction: Politeness in professional contexts

Much like in everyday life, politeness is key to the smooth running of relationships and interactions. Professional contexts, however, tend to be characterised by a plethora of behaviours that may be specific to that context. They include ‘polite’ behaviours, ‘impolite’ behaviours and behaviours that arguably fall somewhere between – or outside – such concepts. The twelve chapters making up this edited collection explore these behaviours in a range of communication contexts representative of business, medical, legal and security settings. Between them, the contributions will help readers to theorize about – and in some cases operationalize (im)politeness and related behaviours for – these real-world settings. The authors take a broad, yet theoretically underpinned, definition of politeness and use it to help explain, analyse and inform professional interactions. They demonstrate the importance of understanding how interactions are negotiated and managed in professional settings. The edited collection has something to offer, therefore, to academics, professionals and practitioners alike.

1 The term, facework, is associated primarily with Goffman, and relates to the actions an interlocutor engages in "to make what [s/]he is doing consistent with face" (Goffman 1967: 5); face being an image that our interlocutor might claim based upon what others seem to be assuming about him or her. The term, relational work, was used by Watts (2003) and associated relational researchers as a means of distinguishing discursive politeness research from Goffmanian-inspired approaches to politeness, such as Brown's and Levinson's (1987), which were considered (by Watts and others) to focus too much upon the mutual maintenance of face needs. Relational work is thus meant to emphasise how an interactional negotiation of face relationships involves not only politeness (or the mutual maintenance of face needs) but also impoliteness (i.e., deliberate face attack) and other forms of inappropriate (versus appropriate) behaviour. 2 With the exception, perhaps, of some of the papers in Jagodziński, Archer and Bousfield 2018).
be achieved through therapy. The chapter does not make specific recommendations for communication skills training but the implications for practice echo those in Emerson et al.
(see Chapter 2). Namely, that health professionals could benefit from a reflexive and critical awareness of their communicative practices since unswerving adherence to a prescribed professional ethos (such as motivation, optimism or rapport) is not always in the best interests of the patient.
Olga Zayts and Fefei Zhou's chapter looks at a somewhat different medical context: interaction involving a health professional giving advice to the general public on-line (see Chapter 5). It is a very valuable area for the application of politeness theory, nonetheless, given the increasing use of mobile health apps as a common form of medical consultation; particularly in China (where the data are taken from). Zayts and Zhou's main analytical framework is that of relational work (Locher and Watts 2005) through which they focus on the practice of advicegiving. The particular app under analysis deals with post-partum recovery for new mothers and looks at how the competing discourses from traditional Chinese practices and modern neoliberal beliefs are negotiated on-line. The main focus is the way humour is used as a relational strategy. The authors argue that there is considerable potential face-threat involved in criticising traditional practices that advice-seekers may mention and so medics posting advice conduct extensive relational work in order to negotiate an appropriate "equilibrium" with their audience. While humour is used for relational purposes, potential risks to professional or expert face are countered by drawing on medical terminology and historical knowledge to present themselves as a credible source. Overall, the analysis of interactional norms on digital platforms is relatively new and thus worthy of examination. Despite this being a non-institutional and digital (not face-to-face) context, the notion of professional face still applies. Such studies also extend our understanding of how politeness works in novel professional settings, of course.

Introduction to Part 2: Politeness in business and organisational contexts (including emails)
The five chapters on politeness in business and organisational contexts explore the relevance of facework to business, institutional, and organisational contexts. There are numerous points of convergence between the chapters in terms of i) their theoretical underpinnings, ii) their epistemological and ontological perspectives, iii) the way the authors conceptualise (im)politeness, facework, and rapport-management, and iv) the way the authors conducted the analysis. Before we move on to the brief summaries of each chapter, it is perhaps useful to emphasise at least some of those commonalities with a view to helping the reader form an overarching view of Section 2 of the present collection. The first two chapters in Section 2 utilise Spencer-Oatey's (2000,2005,2008) rapport management framework to explain and analyse their datasets. Both chapters thus emphasise the dynamic, negotiated, and contextdependent nature of politeness and rapport in institutional context(s). This is especially pronounced in Rachel Mapson's chapter, as she concentrates on the way interpreters of British Sign Language evaluate (im)politeness in situ, in the course of the interaction with their clients (see Chapter 7). The two chapters emphasise, further, that (im)politeness poses a specific interactional challenge in the analysed settings. In Caroline Debray's case, impoliteness impacts the interpersonal dynamic among group members, in this case, the university students working on various projects (see Chapter 6). Similarly, Mapson clearly demonstrates how impoliteness impacts the rapport between the client and the interpreter, as well as the strategies the interpreters adopt when faced with a challenging task of translating impoliteness from one code to another. The strength of both chapters lies not only in the nuanced analysis of unfolding interactions, but also in the way the authors challenge some of the deeply rooted theoretical claims reproduced in extant subject literature. Debray challenges the preconception that troubled working relationships will always be characterised by open conflict. The author's analysis shows that the linguistic performance of group members involved in an ongoing conflict can be marked by the use of strategies aimed at mitigating or avoiding conflict.
Similarly, Mapson convincingly dispels the myth of the interpreter as conduit. The analysis clearly demonstrates that the interpreter's linguistic choices play an active part in negotiating the interpersonal relationships of the involved parties. Interestingly, this active negotiation of interpersonal relationships is also a feature of both Jagodziński's and Marsden's chapters, where emphasis is placed on the fluid boundaries between the transactional and the relational, and the difficultyor even the superfluityof separating the two categories when analysing service encounters. From a methodological perspective, an interesting feature of Piotr Jagodziński's and Vera Freytag's chapters is the fact that both researchers were themselves members of the examined Communities of Practice (Wenger 1999) (henceforth CofP). This fact clearly contributed to the authors' familiarity with the norms of the examined communities and helped to demonstrate that it is indeed possible to meaningfully separate the researcher's and the participant's identities without jeopardising the quality and the objectivity of the analysis. In Jagodziński's chapter, the fact that he was the member of the examined community of practices served as a springboard for further theorising about the nature of the relationship between lay and professional perceptions of conflict and (im)politeness, leading the author to argue for the academic treatment of "folk" perceptions as something that can usefully inform (im)politeness research. In this way, he has demonstrated that a potential methodological hurdle, may, in fact, be turned into a convincing argument in the process of supporting and developing an inter-professional dialogue between linguistics and professional (call centre) practitioners. This is an overarching theme of the entire volume, addressed to a greater or lesser extent in each chapter. It is ultimately up to the reader to assess how effectively each author in Section 2 approached the task. The brief summaries presented below might provide the reader with further help in deciding on the reading order and evaluating the relevance of the subject matter of each chapter.
The chapter by Caroline Debray focuses on the analysis of a long-term relational conflict among 8 students working on projects at a UK university over a period of 8 months (see Chapter 6). The author has transcribed 25 hours of interactional material, concentrating on how the group interactionally managed the conflict with one problematic member called Allen.
Debray's analysis has revealed a number of interactional strategies that the interactants used to deal with Allen. What makes Debray's study particularly interesting is that her analysis reveals what might be described as an interesting interactional paradox. More specifically, "team members were much more willing to disagree, argue and provide negative feedback to interlocutors with whom they had positive relationships than with those with whom relationships were strained". As pointed out by Debray "[t]his finding raises further questions regarding the conceptualisation of disagreements-as-conflicts". Debray provides a useful list of specific (linguistic) behaviours towards David (a British team leader for an oil and gas company), some of which include "accepting decisions without questioning", "backing down quickly in an argument", and "withholding face-to-face feedback". These strategies might be of particular interest to institutional stakeholders, as Debray emphasises that the interactants' were aiming at "avoiding a negative reaction at all costs, even to the detriment of their performance". This crucial conclusion underlines the critical usefulness of the findings of (im)politeness research for organisational and business contexts, as it clearly demonstrates how individual members' linguistic performance may have an impact on the functioning of the entire institution.
Similarly to the above, Rachel Mapson's chapter focuses on the interactional management of impoliteness, albeit in a markedly different context of sign interpreting (see Chapter 7). This context is marked by interpreters' unique interactional position. They are both recipients and speakers, but they are not the originators of the message. Utilising Spencer-Oatey's (2002,2005,2008) rapport management framework, Mapson clearly illuminates not only the complex nature of the interaction between the speaker and the interpreter, but also takes into account cross-cultural considerations and context-specific influences. Throughout the chapter, Mapson convincingly argues that (im)politeness poses a real challenge to professional sign language interpreters. Through semi-structured group discussions, Mapson reveals seven main influences on interpreters' interactional decisions related to (im)politeness. They relate to, for example, self-preservation, intention, and un/familiarity. Mapson consistently advocates for the conceptualisation of interpreting as a process rather than a product. This approach, in turn, aligns with her chosen approach to the analysis of rapport management, which focuses on the interactional negotiation of (im)politeness. Mapson concludes her chapter with a strong andgiven her findings -fully justified call for the abandonment of the "historical perception of the interpreter as a conduit". Given Mapson's analysis, the complexity of the interaction between the interpreters and the clients requires a much more nuanced and context-sensitive treatment than the conduit metaphor would allow for.
The central theme of Jagodziński's chapter is that call centre professionals' language practices can be situated at the intersection of lay and scholarly understandings of (im)politeness phenomena, and the nature of linguistic communicative behaviour more broadly (see Chapter 8). He argues that call centre language practices, such as heavy language regulation, language policing, styling, and their underpinning ideologies (Jagodziński and Archer 2018) escape categorisation based on dichotomies such as "lay" versus "theoretical" ( Vera Freytag's chapter analyses the use of directives in emails in a multilingual workplace (see Chapter 9). The author analysed 300 British English and 300 Peninsular Spanish e-mails written by native speakers of the respective languages. The author used a triangulatory approach to data collection and supplemented the analysis of emails with a small-scale perception study, in which she elicited metapragmatic comments regarding the use of directives. This was done through the use of on online questionnaire sent to both the English and Spanish e-mail writers. Freytag's analysis revealed that both Spanish and English email writers "employ a shared set of head act and modification strategies for the realization of directives". What is especially interesting, however, is that Freytag's analysis revealed a high level of directness in both Peninsular Spanish and British English emails. This runs contrary to a finding in the extant politeness literature, which predicts that speakers of British English tend to employ indirectness and clearly orient to negative face. Freytag has also concluded that the choice of a particular strategy depends on contextual and cross-cultural factors and variables such as sex, social distance, or power. Interestingly, Freytag points to the fact that in workplace contexts politeness concerns may be overridden by effectiveness concerns: something that was supported by the evidence elicited in the form of metapragmatic comments.
The last chapter in Section 2, by Liz Marsden, is a study of relational work in a sole trader's intercultural business emails (see Chapter 10). Contrary to Freytag's study, the author was not only a participant observer, but was participating in the email exchanges with her customers, whom she provided with proofreading services. Compared to other chapters in Part 2, this study has a unique, longitudinal character, in that the author has analysed email exchanges taking place over three years (2011-2014). Marsden has revealed how "non-salient politeness practices develop in dyadic interactions and how the historicity of the relationship can be a crucial resource drawn upon to increase closeness between participants" (Kadar and Haugh, 2013:78). To that aim, Marsden has used a corpus of 1072 business-to-consumer emails. The major finding of the chapter is that relational work through emails is not only achieved through self-disclosures, but also through using computer-mediated communication affordances such as cues and media sharing. Moreover, Marsden provides tangible evidence for the fact that building a relationship through email in a business context is clearly a function of time, requiring the exchange of as many as 100 emails. This, Marsden writes, is how much time is needed to allow your interlocutor into "further circles of one's self" (Goffman, 1971:192).

Introduction to Part 3: Politeness in legal and security contexts
The three chapters making up this section on legal and security contexts explore areas that have been understudied -and, in some cases, effectively ignored -by politeness and facework researchers (to date). As Archer (2017)  and small claims hearings heard by a single judge (see also Tracy and Caron 2017). Tracy begins her chapter with a review of (some of the) extant research on facework, politeness and identity (see Chapter 11). She then provides a background for the two court activities, and analyses both their differing (judicial) questioning practices and the facework implications thereof, before concluding that future politeness theorizing needs to better attend to -by further foregroundingcontext (see also Section 5.1, this chapter). One facework-related difference of note, for example, is that the appellate court judges tended to be impolite, rude or verbally aggressive only rarely. Instead, they adopted a stance akin to (what, for Tracy, equates to) "impersonal professionalism" (see Chapter 11). The judges in the small claims hearings tended to engage in verbally aggressive behaviour with some regularity, however. This is in spite of there being no particular mandate to suggest the need for such verbal aggression on the judges' part (cf. a criminal lawyer's need to undermine a witness's testimony during their crossexaminations, sometimes to the point of chastising them: Archer 2011a). Tracy provides the example of a judge who, annoyed by a litigant's lack of preparation prior to the start of the session, responded with "extreme case formulations ("Nobody read…"), reprimands ("You haven't done that?") and complaints ("I don't know why we give people orders if they won't read 'em")", all of which served "to upgrade the seriousness of the failure and threaten the other's positive face in consequence" (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987). Another judge, in the same small claims setting, used a (long) questioning sequence that not only sought to "limit the litigant's freedom to act, and hence the person's negative face" but also effectively suggested "a sceptical stance" on his part, thereby threatening the "litigant's positive face" (see Chapter understanding of small talk, in particular, given that small talk is nearly always distinguished from "transactional", "instrumental", "goal oriented" or "means-end rational" talk within the extant linguistic literature (see, e.g., Maynard and Hudak 2008:662, and also Section 5.2, this chapter). The authors' main motivation, though, is to demonstrate the techniques that AMs and BDOs can use, when initiating their small talk with others, and contrasting these with examples of "chat-downs" (Price and Forrest 2012:248), as a means of highlighting the differences between them. They note, for example, how a chat-down in an aviation setting is akin to a verbal pat-down, and thus tends to be much more overtly transactional discursively speaking. A border control official's questions are focussed on establishing a would-betraveller's (true) identity, nationality, travel history and (imminent to future) travel plans, for example. Although some small talk may be evident in their interaction with these would-betravellers -in the form of, say, a greeting -greetings do not have to be reciprocated; nor does the official (have to) give their name to the would-be-travellers, generally speaking. Small talk used transactionally by AMs and BDOs, in contrast, is designed to give passengers the sense they are chatting with someone who only has "a genuine (albeit passing) interest in" them (even though they do, in fact, have a means-end rationale for engaging with them too). As such, greetings and/or names do tend to be exchanged, along with other types of self-disclosure(s).
Such interactions can also involve the establishment of a shared mutual reality, and/or mutual face enhancing behaviours. "want to have freedom of action", for example, "by repeatedly ordering him to "keep his mouth shut/shut up", to "man up" and "take care of [his] problems" (ibid: 190). This was taken to highlight his worldview that "real" men behave rationally, rather than being like the subject, that is, "unable to cope due to being rejected by a girlfriend" and suffering "with depression" in consequence (ibid:189). Archer's chapter expands onas a means of operationalisingthe reality paradigm concept specifically for police negotiators, such that they can, first, "identify" and, then, "attempt to influence subjects' mental models of their world(s)". By way of illustration, she notes how a subject's "consistent use of 'I can't go back'", in a second barricade incident, "pointed to a 'belief-world' that" the negotiator "had to attend to" if he hoped to end what had quickly become a standoff. He did so by offering his own belief-world, namely, that the subject "was 'gonna be okay'…and that, as" he "did not 'wanna hurt anybody…everyone [else was] gonna be just fine today'" too. The negotiator then set about persuading the subject "he had a future worth living for". He moved him towards this "new outer reality" (ibid:196) linguistically by getting him "to think about" his "experiences in a new kind of way" (Voutilainen 2012:236-7, 242). This included offering him not only "an alternative future" but ways of getting "to that future via both a re-interpretation of his current predicament and…the promise of specific future actions on" the negotiator's "part that, importantly, were", first, "contingent upon" the subject "promising and then performing reciprocal (imminent) future actions" for him. Archer also identifies other mental worlds a negotiator might use (or listen out for), when attempting to influence their subjects, relating to wants intents knowledge, etc. (cf. Werth 1999). These mental worlds have the added benefit of being things negotiators can identify (more easily) at the word or statement level in real time: especially where statements involving "(not) want to/(not) wanna", "(not) going to/(not) gonna", "promise, will", etc., are repeated several times. "Promise" and "will" equate to direct and indirect forms of promising, of course. A second speech act that negotiators are believed to make extensive use of is that of complimenting or face enhancement more generally. As Archer notes, complimenting/face enhancement have been "much discussed by politeness researchers" in particular. A third influencing strategy of notethat of promoting similarityhas received little attention to date, however, in spite of Brown and Levinson's (1987:108) assessment of it as "a way of implying common ground", "such that a relational connection can be created/maintained for the duration of that interaction (Haugh, 2011)". Archer concludes by asserting that these are but a few of the many "concepts already drawn upon by negotiators" that "can be linked to facework" (see also Section 5.3, this chapter).

Notions of politeness, facework and relational work adopted in this edited collection
Linguistic politeness as an area of academic study has developed considerably over the last three decades or so and there continues to be much debate as to how politeness can, or should, be defined. This debate springs, at least in part, from the ambiguity of the word "polite", which has an everyday lay meaning as well as being used in a technical sense. The "first wave" of  7). Inasmuch as the idea of "face" provides the unifying theoretical underpinning for many of these chapters, what the above mentioned chapters also have in common is the emphasis on the difficulty involved in drawing a meaningful distinction between the transactional and the relational, as well as between lay (folk) and professional (scholarly) understandings of (im)politeness and rapport management. Jagodziński, in particular, advocates for the importance of taking into account professional practitioners' understandings of (im)politeness as a valuable means of promoting dialogue with and between professional practitioners. He argues for the treatment of call centre professionals as interactional stakeholders capable of articulating their own justified and nuanced conceptualisations of language and communication, which may both inform and be informed by academic theorising. Given our mention of the blurring of the transactional and the relational, above, we should perhaps mentiononce againthe work by Archer et al.
(Chapter 12), which has sought to show that small talk can be both transactional and relational simultaneously, especially when used as a covert means of gleaning information from strangers (see also Section 4, this chapter). The notion of facework as a strategy has been heavily criticised by researchers in the recent past: even though, as this volume reveals, facework in institutional settings does tend to have a strategic bent. Whether this means politeness and facework researchers should look again at the issue of intentionality is for future work to decide.

Context, politeness theorizing and professional practice/training
When taken collectively, the twelve chapters making up this edited collection allude to three matters that are worthy of brief attention prior to moving on to the contributions themselves.
Namely, how best to deal with context when it comes to our understanding(s) of politeness and facework more generally, the future of politeness theorizing, and the consequences (of the authors' work, as well as related work) for professional practice/training. We will deal with each, in turn, beginning with context.

Context
Tracy (Chapter 11) calls attention to an insight that is not only true of -but has been a motivator for -this particular edited collection, in addition to the special issue co-edited by Jagodziński, Archer and Bousfield (2018). Namely, the need to pay as much attention to how "people seek[ing] services" or "work[ing] as professionals" engage in facework, as we have to "informal exchanges between friends and acquaintances" (in previous research). For Tracy, this means paying more attention, in particular, to how institutional contexts will differ based on activity so that we have a better understanding of them practically, and can use our more nuanced understandings, in turn, to more effectively refine extant theories relating to (im)politeness and facework. Tracy has found that oral argument, for example, has "little in common with ordinary conversation or even other institutional activities where argument and disagreement are common, as for instance occurs in academic discussion (Tracy, 1997)".
Archer makes a similar point, when it comes to a better appreciation of professional practice (see Chapter 13). Indeed, one stated motivation for her project with police negotiators is to make their training "particularly sensitive to changing contexts" by explicitly considering how, for example, a barricade incident differs, linguistically (and especially relationally) speaking, from a suicide bid. When taken collectively, Archer and Tracy's work suggests that it may even be insufficient to refine our current politeness concepts, theories and models so that they become activity-type specific, if we are to fully appreciate the effect(s) of context on participants' facework (choices). We say this as, in both of the barricade incidents Archer has studied for example, the negotiators sought to get their subjects to relinquish a firearm and exit a house (in one case) and a car (in the other). One succeeded, the other did not. In the former case, there was much more evidence of face enhancement. In the latter, much more evidence of face aggravation. There were places, however, where the successful negotiator used tactics that were face threatening to the point of being potentially patronising. When the subject stated he had made mistakes, for example, the negotiator "mirrored his description back to him", using the same language, "before stating that, at only 'twenty two years old' he was 'still a kid'". As Archer notes, the "likely strategy, here, was to signal…he was young enough to change his future (and hence do something about the man he had become in order 'to survive day to day' in prison)". The subject disagreed, by stating "his belief that he had 'fucked [his] life forever'". This prompted a reciprocal (more emphatic) disagreement from the negotiator, albeit quickly followed by a self-disclosure "that he had 'a son that's twenty two' who was (also) 'still a kid' (as a means of justifying his youthful assessment of [him])". The negotiator then went on to broach another, potentially face-threatening topic: the subject's "addiction problem", likening it to his "biggest obstacle". By exploring different examples of the same activity type, Archer is hoping to determine what makes one negotiation more successful than another, even when both display evidence of face-threatening behaviour and disagreement(s).
To what extent such nuances can then be represented in (by being factored into) a facework theory or model is a matter for future research to determine. All three contributions serve to highlight the fact that computer mediated communication is in every walk of life and has, or is developing, its own norms and characteristics.
Finally, the national cultural context of interaction is something that has long interested politeness scholars, and it continues to be of great relevance to professional communication.
The cross-cultural aspects of (im)politeness are taken up by Freytag, in particular, as part of her analysis of a large corpus of workplace emails written by native speakers of English and Peninsular Spanish. Freytag's findings point to the fact that, in institutional contexts, communicative effectiveness may take precedence over politeness. It is also worth reiterating, once more, that the deeply held belief of English politeness as being primarily oriented towards negative face (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987) is not reflected in her analysed data.

Politeness theorizing
Given our mention of the possible need to rework existing theory, this is an opportune moment to highlight that several of the chapters touch on (albeit different) issues relating to politeness theorizing. Tracy, for example, concurs with Culpeper and Terkourafi's (2017) argument that future politeness theorizing should be detached fromso that it is not unduly influenced bythe notion of a speech act as a single unit (see Chapter 11, and also Section 4, this chapter). As Culpeper and Terkourafi (2017: 16) note, the "basic building block of" possibly the most influential politeness modelthat of the Brown and Levinson (1987) -"is the Face Threatening Act (FTA), and that notion is clearly aligned with speech act theory" (henceforth SAT). Yet, it has long been accepted that, as speech acts are shaped by numerous factors in their context-ofuse -not least the speaker, hearer and "the broader activity or event in which they occur"traditional SAT cannot fully capture their "complexities" (Culpeper and Terkourafi 2017:17-8). Even when speech acts (co-)occur in conventionalised ways in certain activity types, moreover, it does not follow that their face-threatening potential remains stable across those activity types or even within the same activity type (as noted in Sections 4 and 5.1). It remains the case, nonetheless, that professionals share Austin's (1962/1975) notion that speakers "do" things with their words, be it complimenting, promising, insulting, etc., and that these moves can be face enhancing or face threatening in some contexts. As such, Archer continues to draw upon the notion of speech act (following Archer et al. 2018), albeit seeing them as "reasonably accurate approximations of the prototypical instances of verbal behaviour describable by means of" in her case "the English verbs used as labels" (Verschueren 1999: 132).
As noted in Section 4 (of this chapter), Archer's own contribution to politeness theorising is shaped by her desire to operationalise the concept of "reality paradigm", for police negotiators specifically, such that they are able to identifyas a means of influencing -"subjects' mental models of the world". Archer believes this to be particularly important, for police negotiation, as "mental models" to do with belief, obligation, (not) knowing, tentativeness, etc., "have the capacity to" not only "shape how a subject understands his/her world", but "how s/he makes inferences from/predictions based on what others have said or done (and decisions about how to act in consequence)". For example, the negotiator "needed to convince" the subject "to surrender a firearm, and end" the "barricade incident", which "meant convincing him he had a future". His tactic was to tell the subject he "was 'gonna be okay'", etc., that is, project "an immediate future reality for" him "that was different to" the subject's "prediction he would be killed by police snipers".
Archer et al.'s work offers an amendment to our politeness and facework theorizing, too (see Chapter 12). In this case, we must adjust our (linguistic) understanding of small talk so that we allow for times when it can be used transactionally, albeit under a phatic veil. This also applies to other contexts, such as medical interactions, as the chapter by Emerson et al. discusses (see Chapter 2). Whether this means arguing that small talk is simultaneously relational and transactional, or on relational-transactional continuum, is debatable, however, as it is more likely that small talk works transactionally only when speakers hide their means-end rationale under a phatic veil. To know this for sure would require further research, of course.
The chapters by Emerson et al. and by Grainger (see Chapters 2 and 4) both make use of the distinction between personal face and professional face. As they both acknowledge, while this is not a new development, their work does underscore the fact that "face" is applicable to more than just the individual social actor; when people occupy professional roles their face needs become institutionally relevant and influenced. This is something that is often overlooked in non-institutional studies. Similarly the extension of politeness studies into the digital sphere can lead to new conceptions of what counts as (im)polite.

Professional practice/training
Archer (Chapter 13) and Archer et al. (Chapter 12) are particularly emphatic about their aim of improving practitioners' understanding of politeness and facework. Indeed, both identify training opportunities that they have previously engaged with or are currently engaged in.
Whilst their approaches to training differ (in the sense that the latter keep linguistic terminology to a minimum and focus, instead, on small talk as an elicitation technique for intelligence gathering), neither train participants in the same way they might learn about politeness and facework concepts (theoretically) in a Higher Education setting. Although not directly stipulated in their chapters, both do use video and/or audio recording when training police negotiators, airport personnel and other professionals, however (Archer, p.c.). Their training practices thus fall in line with Emerson et al.'s and Chalupnik's suggestion(s) that data videos can be used as discussion points designed to raise metalinguistic awareness in professionals (see Chapters 2 and 3). Arguably, this kind of metalinguistic awareness-raising has the potential to hone professionals' skills in critical reflection without putting them in a communication straight-jacket (cf. Chapter 8, and also below). There would arguably be a need to explicitly grow awareness of the cultural differences between an individual's own taken-for-granted practices and those of the less familiar cultures they are interacting with, however (so they do not assume, falsely, that there is only one way of doing faceworktheir way).
It is worth noting, in closing, that some (im)politeness researchers and theorists remain deeply sceptical about the effectiveness of explicit 'politeness training' (O'Driscoll p.c.). There are both theoretical and practical reasons for this scepticism. An overarching theoretical reason might have to do with the fact that there is no one unified, coherent, and fully predictive theory of (im)politeness. As a consequence, by adopting their chosen approaches and methodologies, researchers subscribe to the ontological and epistemological assumptions behind them. In so doing, they contribute to what Haugh (2018) refers to as "sterile eclecticism" in impoliteness research. Explicit teaching of (im)politeness in any professional setting would necessarily mean either overt or covert imposition of the tenets of the chosen paradigm, such as pragmatic (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987) or discursive (Watts 2003). Practically speaking, translating the various theoretical approaches with their distinctive terminologies (cf. the debate surrounding the notion of what constitutes rudeness vs impoliteness in Bousfield and Locher 2008) into institutionally deliverable and teachable units to uninitiated audiences seems a daunting, if not an impossible, task. It is not a surprise, then, that the aforementioned scepticism is also noticeable in the present volume, with a number of authors refraining from advocating for explicit training in politeness or facework. 3 Indeed, the chapters by Chalupnik and Emerson et al. or Jagodziński (both of whom use training materials as data) suggest that, in fact, practitioners' may be hampered by being told explicitly how to "create rapport" or "do leadership£ (see Chapters 2, 3 and 8). Jagodziński, further, points to the dangers of succumbing to an illusion that academic (im)politeness researchers will be able to provide the professional practitioner with the unequivocal answer to the pertinent question, "So what is it that I need to say to the customer?" A potential way out is to recognise that professional practitioners utilise their own Stocks of Interactional Knowledge (henceforth SIKs) (Peräkylä and Vehvilƒinen 2003), that is, their own strategies, (quasi)-theories, and interactional heuristicssome of which may usefully enter into a dialogue with impoliteness theorising and, as a consequence, inform or be informed by (im)politeness research. This is in line with Haugh's (2018) call for theorisation of impoliteness being advanced "through approaching the study of (im)politeness in different languages and cultures on their own terms." As demonstrated in the current volume, recognising those terms involves acknowledging that professionals coming from different CofPsbe they medical, legal, security, business or educationalhave the capacity to reflect upon their own communicative practice, and, in consequence, will not always remain passive in the face of the dominant (communication training) ideologies (cf. Woydack 2019).