English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Brown and Levinson's dichotomous (i.e., negative vs. positive) politeness system may be valid as a linguistic politeness system, but it is inadequate from a social psychological perspective, because it does not reflect sufficiently fundamental human desires. That is, it does not adequately treat the desire for admiration, which many believe to be a major force that has advanced human history. In fact, behaviors to gratify this desire have been endemic and have had the important function of maintaining societies. Brown and Levinson's underrating of this desire may be a reflection of the Western tradition of the pursuit of equality and sincerity. This paper, in an attempt to confer on the desire for admiration its proper place in polite behavior, presents a trichotomous politeness system that consists of autonomy, fellowship, and hierarchy politeness, and visualizes their positions and amounts within the framework of social distance and power. Toward the end of the paper, the implications of this model in collectivistic and individualistic societies are discussed.

Hierarchy politeness: What Brown and Levinson refused to see