Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2016
-
(2016): Being Politically Impolite. Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse. In: Discourse & Society 12 (4), S. 451-472. DOI: 10.1177/0957926501012004003
Abstract: This article attempts to extend politeness theory beyond informal situations to adversarial political discourse, using Prime Minister's Question Time in the British Parliament as data. Viewing the House of Commons as a 'community of practice' (Lave and Wenger, 1991) provides a way of exploring concepts of politeness and impoliteness against a set of member expectations. The article argues three main propositions: (1) that much of the discourse of Prime Minister's Question Time is composed of intentional and explicitly face-threatening (or face-enhancing) acts and that these can be analysed in terms of both propositional and interactional levels: (2) that negative politeness features co-exist with the performance of intentional threats to the hearer's positive face and that these can only be understood and interpreted in relationship to Parliament as an Institution and the wider political context; and (3) that systematic impoliteness is not only sanctioned but rewarded in accordance with the expectations of Members of the House by an adversarial and confrontational political process.
2015
-
Locher, Miriam A.; Bolander, Brook; Höhn, Nicole (Hg.) (2015): Relational work in Facebook and discussion boards/fora. International Pragmatics Association
Abstract: This paper functions as the introduction to the special issue on ‘relational work in Facebook and discussion boards’. We position our research endeavors within interpersonal pragmatics (see Locher and Graham 2010), by reviewing literature on politeness, impoliteness and relational work in the context of computer-mediated communication. Foregrounding the relational aspect of language, we are particularly interested in establishing the connections between politeness, face and linguistic identity construction. We then position the four papers that form this special issue within this field of research. Two papers contribute to the study of relational work on discussion boards (Kleinke and Boes; Haugh, Chang and Kádár) and two deal with practices on Facebook (Theodoropoulou; Bolander and Locher).
2010
-
(2010): “Just tell us what to do”. Southern African face and its relevance to intercultural communication. In: Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8), S. 2158-2171. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.017 Abstract: This paper contributes to the debate on the precise nature of face as a universal phenomenon, and the cultural variability within it. Specifically, we bring the 'Southern' perspective to the debate by discussing the previously neglected African dimension. Recent scholarship suggests that the concept of face and the notion of self in traditional African culture may have more in common with Eastern collectivist cultures than with Anglo-American culture. We examine the interactional management of an encounter between a Zimbabwean English speaker and British English speakers in a community singing group. We argue that, while face needs may be universally relevant in such a situation, the way in which they are oriented to in interaction depends on cultural understandings of which aspects of face are paramount in particular circumstances. Since these assumptions are deep-seated and invisible they are not easily open to explicit negotiation and hence can lead to misinterpretation. By conducting an ethnographic study of the communicative event and combining it with a detailed examination of the co-construction of meaning in this interaction, we show how the participants' contributions can be related to differing - and potentially conflicting - interpretation frameworks. These frameworks are informed by culture-specific notions of appropriate self-presentation.
-
(2010): Face in interaction. In: Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8), S. 2073-2077. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.013
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.013 Abstract: Face has become firmly established as a key concept not only in pragmatics but also in anthropology, sociolinguistics, communication studies, sociology, psychology, and other related fields. Yet while it was Goffman (1955) who first introduced the notion, it has been Brown and Levinson’s (1987) application of face in the context of politeness theory that has dominated much of the debate thus far. Such discussions have often centred on the validity of Brown and Levinson’s notion of face for explicating politeness across various cultural contexts (Gu, 1990; Ide, 1989; Matsumoto, 1988; Nwoye, 1992; Pizziconi, 2003). The continuing controversy as to whether or not honorifics in Modern Standard Japanese are indeed examples of a failure of Brown and Levinson’s theory is a case in point. On the one hand, there is the often cited argument by Matsumoto (1988) that ‘‘what is of paramount importance to a Japanese is not his/her territory [negative face], but the position in relation to others in the group and his/her acceptance by others’’ (p. 405). On the other hand, other scholars have argued that Brown and Levinson’s notion of face can in fact be applied to the study of honorifics, and thus politeness, in Modern Standard Japanese (Fukada and Asato, 2004; Fukushima, 2000; Ishiyama, 2009; Usami, 2002). In these latter approaches, however, Brown and Levinson’s notions of positive and negative face are reduced to an undifferentiated notion that can be ‘‘lost’’ or ‘‘saved’’ (Haugh, 2005:44). It appears that what may actually be fuelling such (endless) controversies is the continued conflation of politeness with face. In this special issue, then, while acknowledging the important role face plays in politeness and impoliteness research, it is suggested that the time has come for face to be theorized on its own terms. In this way, echoing Bargiela-Chiappini’s (2003) re-opening of discussion about face, (new) insights may be gained into these (old) debates.
Keywords: Angesicht, Brown, Brown and Levinson's model, Face, Face (general), Gesichtswahrung, Goffman, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Honorifics, (Im)Politeness Research, Levinson, Linguistik, Politeness, Politeness Theory, Soziale Angemessenheit, Sprachgebrauch, Überblick, Übersicht zu Politeness Theory -
(2010): Face as an indexical category in interaction. In: Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8), S. 2131-2146. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.020 Abstract: Informed by the understanding of indexicality and membership categorization in ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967; Sacks, 1986, 1989), the paper proposes that face is a Janus-like indexical concept which categorizes the self-in-interaction, as it indexes and is indexed by (linguistic) acts, and features of underlying conceptualizations of social practices relevant to the interaction. According to this understanding of face, affective responses, such as pride, liking, solidarity, dissociation, embarrassment or resentment, and other orientations to face derive from (perceived) categorizations emerging in the unfolding interaction. To examine the indexicality of face, membership categorization analysis (Sacks, 1986) is adopted as an analytic tool, and applied to a sequence of interactions in a ceremonial event. The paper further demonstrates that face may be made accountable by employing ‘parallel documents’ in research, defined in the study as data that stand in indexical relations to the situated interaction.
Keywords: Affective responses, Angesicht, Ausdruck von Affekten, Ethnologie, Ethnomethodology, Face, Face (general), Gesichtswahrung, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Indexicality, Indexikalität, Linguistik, Membership categorization analysis, Parallel documents, Soziale Angemessenheit, Sprachgebrauch, Sprachverhalten / sprachliches, zu Emotionen korreliertes Feedback, Übermitteln von Gefühlen/Emotionen 2009
-
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca; Haugh, Michael (Hg.) (2009): Face, communication and social interaction. First published 2009. Sheffield, United Kingdom: Equinox Publishing Ltd
Abstract: It is an enduring theme of humanity that people are concerned about what others think of them. The notion of face has thus become firmly established as a means of explaining various social phenomena in a range of fields within the social sciences, including anthropology, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and psychology. Yet face has also become increasingly entrenched in the literature as a kind of pre-existing sociocultural construct. This book offers an alternative in focusing on the ways in which face is both constituted in and constitutive of social interaction, and its relationship to self, identity and broader sociocultural expectations. There are three main themes explored in this volume. Part I, ‘Face in interaction’, encompasses contributions that deal with face as it emerges in interaction in various institutional and non-institutional settings. In Part II, the relationship between self, identity and face is investigated in the context of interpersonal communication. The final part considers various approaches to establishing links between individual interactions (the so-called micro) and broader sociocultural expectations or ‘norms’ that interactants bring into interactions (the so-called macro).
Keywords: Disziplin, Dritte Welle, Emergence of face in interaction, Face (general), Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, (Im)Politeness Research, Interkationale Ansätze, Linguistik, Mikro- (individuelle) vs. Makro- (normative) Ebene von Interaktion, Politeness, postmodern, Soziale Angemessenheit, Theories of identity 2008
-
(2008): Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam u.a.: Benjamins
Abstract: This study concerns the nature of impoliteness in face-to-face spoken interaction. For more than three decades many pragmatic and sociolinguistic studies of interaction have considered politeness to be one central explanatory concept governing and underpinning face-to-face interaction. Politeness' "evil twin" impoliteness has been largely neglected until only very recently. This book, the first of its kind on the subject, considers the role that impoliteness has to play by drawing extracts from a range of discourse types (car parking disputes, army and police training, police-public interactions and kitchen discourse). The study considers the triggering of impoliteness; explores the dynamic progression of impolite exchanges, and examines the way in which such exchanges come to some form of resolution. 'Face' and the linguistic sophistication and manipulation of discoursally expected norms to cause, or deflect impoliteness is also explored, as is the dynamic and sometimes hotly contested nature of an individual's socio-discoursal role.
-
(2008): Impoliteness in Interaction
Abstract: This study concerns the nature of impoliteness in face-to-face spoken interaction. For more than three decades many pragmatic and sociolinguistic studies of interaction have considered politeness to be one central explanatory concept governing and underpinning face-to-face interaction. Politeness' "evil twin" impoliteness has been largely neglected until only very recently. This book, the first of its kind on the subject, considers the role that impoliteness has to play by drawing extracts from a range of discourse types (car parking disputes, army and police training, police-public interactions and kitchen discourse). The study considers the triggering of impoliteness; explores the dynamic progression of impolite exchanges, and examines the way in which such exchanges come to some form of resolution. 'Face' and the linguistic sophistication and manipulation of discoursally expected norms to cause, or deflect impoliteness is also explored, as is the dynamic and sometimes hotly contested nature of an individual's socio-discoursal role.
-
(2008): Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Abstract: This study concerns the nature of impoliteness in face-to-face spoken interaction. For more than three decades many pragmatic and sociolinguistic studies of interaction have considered politeness to be one central explanatory concept governing and underpinning face-to-face interaction. Politeness' "evil twin" impoliteness has been largely neglected until only very recently. This book, the first of its kind on the subject, considers the role that impoliteness has to play by drawing extracts from a range of discourse types (car parking disputes, army and police training, police-public interactions and kitchen discourse). The study considers the triggering of impoliteness; explores the dynamic progression of impolite exchanges, and examines the way in which such exchanges come to some form of resolution. 'Face' and the linguistic sophistication and manipulation of discoursally expected norms to cause, or deflect impoliteness is also explored, as is the dynamic and sometimes hotly contested nature of an individual's socio-discoursal role.
2007
-
(2007): The discursive challenge to politeness research. An interactional alternative. In: Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 3 (2). DOI: 10.1515/PR.2007.013
Abstract: The discursive approach to politeness represents one of the most coherent challenges to the dominance of Brown and Levinson's politeness theory to date, and indeed to the continuing viability of the field of politeness research itself. However, while the discursive approach advocates the displacement of politeness as the focus of research, upon closer examination of the epistemological and ontological assumptions underlying this approach, a number of inconsistencies arise. In particular, the issue of how researchers can identify instances of (im)politeness without imposing the analysts' understandings comes to the fore. In this paper it is suggested that a theory of (im)politeness needs to examine more carefully how (im-) politeness is interactionally achieved through the evaluations of self and other (or their respective groups) that emerge in the sequential unfolding of interaction. This entails the analyst looking for evidence in the interaction that such (im)politeness evaluations have been made by the participants, either through explicit comments made by participants in the course of the interaction (less commonly), or through the reciprocation of concern evident in the adjacent placement of expressions of concern relevant to the norms invoked in that particular interaction (more commonly). In this way, the development of a theory of (im)politeness, within a broader theory of facework or interpersonal communication can remain a focal point for the field of politeness research.
-
(2007): Theories of identity and the analysis of face. In: Journal of Pragmatics 39 (4), S. 639-656. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004 Abstract: This paper explores the insights that theories of identity can offer for the conceptualisation and analysis of face. It argues that linguists will benefit from taking a multidisciplinary approach, and that by drawing on theory and research in other disciplines, especially in social psychology, they will gain a clearer and deeper understanding of face. The paper starts by examining selected theories of identity, focusing in particular on Simon's (2004) self-respect model of identity and Brewer and Gardner's (1996) theory of levels of identity. Key features from these theories are then applied to the conceptualisation and analysis of face. With the help of authentic examples, the paper demonstrates how inclusion of these multiple perspectives can offer a richer and more comprehensive understanding of face and the frameworks needed for analysing it.
-
(2007): Identity, face and (im)politeness. In: Journal of Pragmatics 39 (4), S. 635-638. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.003
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.003 Abstract: Face and (im)politeness are widely discussed and debated in the pragmatics literature. This special issue, which has developed out of a symposium presented at the 7th International Pragmatics Conference at Riva del Garda, Italy in 2005, aims to enrich our understanding of these concepts by examining them from the perspective of identity. The first three papers consider the conceptual insights that different (sub-)disciplines can offer for our understanding of face, (im)politeness and the management of rapport. They draw on work in social psychology on identity, and take a cognitive pragmatic perspective to deconstruct relevant emic concepts/lexemes. The next four papers present discourse-based research on the topic. They examine different types of identities, including role identities (e.g. leaders and mentors), national identities (e.g. Turkish and British), ethnic identities (e.g. Pakeha and Maori), community identities (e.g. Cyber-parish member), as well as individual identities, and analyse how these identities impact upon the (mis)management of face and rapport.
1994
-
(1994): Beyond politeness theory. ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. In: Journal of Pragmatics 21 (5), S. 451-486. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6
Abstract: After reviewing Brown and Levinson's face-saving model of politeness in light of Goffman's original discussion of face, and tracing the origin of this concept back to Chinese, the essay analyzes in detail the Chinese concept of face (that is, mianzi and lian), pointing out its interactional differences from Brown and Levinson's negative and positive face. The essay further examines an intrinsic link between face and politeness (limao) in Chinese, and draws upon studies of Japanese interaction and its underlying concept of face. The essay argues that Brown and Levinson's claim to provide a universally valid model of face is empirically inadequate; the dynamics of Chinese face call for an alternative, and more flexible framework. It is therefore suggested that a relative face orientation construct be posited to address cultural variations in notions of face and to identify two competing forces shaping our interactional behaviors: the ideal social identity and the ideal individual autonomy.. The essay finally analyzes two Chinese discourse activities-a pre-dinner invitation and a post-dinner offer-focusing on the complexity of Chinese face, and discussing its persistent, mutually shared, orientation toward an ideal social identity.
1987
-
(1987): The dark side of politeness: a pragmatic analysis of non-cooperative communication. Canterbury: Canterbury UP
Abstract: I examine the Brown and Levinson (1978) model of politeness. On the assumption that a model of face attention must involve impolite as well as polite interactive behaviour, I construct an analogous model to deal with what I term Face Attack Acts. I show that an extension of a politeness model in this way reveals serious flaws in some hypotheses central to Brown and Levinson's work. I apply the principles of Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson 1986) to the extended model, and show how the theory can offer an explanatory account of face attention, on a continuum from polite to impolite. Relevance Theory makes predictions about the interpretation of utterances in context, which explain how the face-oriented aspect of interaction is recovered by hearers. I show that Relevance Theory provides a motivated way of linking utterances with facts about power asymmetries and group-membership which are seen to be recoverable by the interpretive process. I apply the resulting face-attention model of utterance interpretation to examples of the use of language to encode power and communicate assumptions about social behaviour and status. In terms of previous accounts of utterance interpretation, particularly Grice's Cooperative Principle and maxims, the account of face attention which incorporates Relevance Theory has greater explanatory power. In practical terms, this application of Relevance Theory is shown to be illuminating in raising the assumptions underlying non-cooperative communication to a conscious level, at which their validity can be sustained.
- <<
- <
- 1