Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2017
-
(2017): The Brown and Levinson theory revisited. A statistical analysis. In: Language Sciences 62, S. 66-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2017.03.006
Abstract: The Brown and Levinson (1987) theory posits that the combination of social distance, power ratio, and task imposition determine politeness weightiness perception regardless of the culture. In order to test the effects of culture, I conducted statistical analyses using subjects with American, East Asian, and Latin American cultural backgrounds. The results reveal that task imposition does not have a statistically significant impact on the speaker's determination of politeness weightiness in East Asia while it does in the US and Latin America. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2013
-
(2013): Chinese requests. In comparison to American and Japanese requests and with reference to the “East-West divide”. In: Journal of Pragmatics 55, S. 140-161. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.012
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.012 Abstract: This paper reports an empirical investigation of Chinese requests using Hill et al's (1986) methodology. The study has yielded the following findings. (1) Chinese requests seem to be determined by Brown and Levinson's notions of power and distance, as are Japanese and American English requests as reported in Hill et al., (2) Chinese requests may not be as direct as has been argued in the literature. We view these findings as evidence for Brown and Levinson's universal theory of politeness but against the claim that East and West are fundamentally different in their respective politeness systems (cf. Chen, 2010 and Leech, 2007).
Keywords: American English, Anfrage, Anfragenforschung, Bitte, Brown and Levinson's model, Chinese, Disziplin, East-West divide, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, (In)directness, Japanese, Kultur, Kulturdifferenz, Kulturelle Normen, kulturrelativ, kulturspezifisch, Kulturspezifizität, Kulturtheorie, Linguistik, Politeness, Request, Soziale Angemessenheit, Speech Act, Sprachgebrauch, Sprechakt 2011
-
(2011): What Korean apologies require of politeness theory. In: Journal of Pragmatics 43 (5), S. 1303-1317. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.028
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.028 Abstract: This paper examines a corpus of Korean apologies to discover why a person apologizes and why they choose the form of apology that they do. It argues for an abstracted, generalized politeness1 model (Locher and Watts, 2005; Watts, 2003) in which politeness work in Korean is primarily concerned with relationship construction (Arundale, 2006; Haugh, 2007c; Matsumoto, 1988). This will involve both a notion of face, conceived as a psychological, acquired construct, and a set of frames (Terkourafi, 2005) that do not directly reference face. To arrive at this theoretical point, the paper begins by examining the social factors that influence choices in apology forms as predicted by Brown and Levinson (1987). Brown and Levinson’s model accurately predicts the relevance of many factors in form selection in Korean, such as relative power, social distance, and the severity of the act. However, the model itself is not an accurate model for Korean even in high abstraction. Instead of choosing a strategy based upon the weight of a face-threatening act, Koreans actively manage and create expectations for behavior in a relationship. Some expectations will resemble classic positive and negative face issues, while others will more directly reference culture-specific roles or common events.
Keywords: Angesicht, Apologies, Brown and Levinson's model, Distanz, Disziplin, Entschuldigung, Entschuldigungsforschung, Ernsthaftigkeit einer Situation, Erwartungen, Face, frames, Gesichtswahrung, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Interaktionspartner, Korean, Kultur, Kulturelle Normen, Kulturspezifizität, Kulturtheorie, Linguistik, Macht, Politeness, Situationsbedingter Kontext, Sociolinguistics, Soziale Angemessenheit, Soziale Distanz, Soziale Hierarchie, Sozialer Abstand, Sprachgebrauch 2010
-
(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 2007
-
(2007): Disagreeing to agree. Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. In: Journal of Pragmatics 39 (4), S. 742-759. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017 Abstract: Recent research on politeness has attempted to re-examine the seminal work of Brown and Levinson (1987) and refine the framework to be more applicable to a wider variety of circumstances (Watts, 2003; Spencer-Oatey, 2005). Although, as Locher (2004) notes, there have been several empirical studies building on Brown and Levinson's (1987) framework of politeness, there are relatively few studies which explore the dynamics of these newer models in empirical research. This empirical study addresses this gap by exploring how expectations of (im)politeness are negotiated within an e-mail community. Examination of the communicative practices indicate that, in this e-community, the norms for interaction within the community of practice (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 1999; Lavé and Wenger, 1991; Holmes and Meyerhoff, 1999) merge with the norms of (polite) interaction within the computer medium to create a unique set of expectations for what constitutes polite behavior in a computer-mediated setting. Deviation from these norms frequently results in conflict, but the (active) negotiation of norms of politeness in this community of practice, or C of P (through conflict) give group members an opportunity to (re)negotiate the group identity.
Keywords: Art des Kommunikationsmediums, Brown and Levinson's model, e-Konversationsnormen, Gruppenidentität, Gruppenverhalten, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Identität, Identitätsstiftung, Im/politeness, Impoliteness, Konflikt, Konfrontation, Linguistik, Politeness, Situationsbedingter Kontext, Soziale Angemessenheit -
(2007): (Im)politeness, national and professional identities and context. Some evidence from e-mailed ‘Call for Papers’. In: Journal of Pragmatics 39 (4), S. 760-773. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.014
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.014 Abstract: This study aims to uncover whether or not factors such as national and professional identities and the medium of interaction (i.e., e-mails), affect the way Turkish and British conference organisers begin their Call for Papers for international conferences (CFPIC), and when and how they use inclusive ‘we’ pronouns in messages written in English. The survey also examines if there is a relationship between these three factors and the interpretation of (im)politeness by comparing whether or not writers with different cultural backgrounds, while trying to reach their aim (i.e., collect conference papers), (dis)obey some of the politeness rules proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). The corpus for this study consisted of e-mailed CFPIC collected between January 2002 and February 2006. CFPIC were related to areas such as linguistics, foreign/second language education and literature. The findings of the research suggest intricate and dynamic relations between a number of the micro- and macro-contextual factors, and some features of e-mails in English written by members of Turkish and British cultures. It is hoped that the results of this study will contribute to enhancing knowledge in the field of politeness and electronic communication, raising awareness of the relationship between cultural and professional identities and the interpretation of (im)politeness, thus providing valuable insights into intercultural communication conventions.
Keywords: Art des Kommunikationsmediums, Brown and Levinson's model, CFP, Disziplin, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Identität, Identitätsstiftung, Im/politeness, Kategorien für höfliche Sprache, Kultur, Kulturdifferenz, Kulturelle Normen, Kulturspezifizität, Kulturtheorie, Linguistik, Rolle (Beruf), Situationsbedingter Kontext, Soziale Angemessenheit, Überblick 2005
-
Watts, Richard J.; Sachiko, Ide; Ehlich, Konrad (Hg.) (2005): Politeness in language. Studies in its history, theory and practice. 2. rev. and expanded ed. / with a new introd. by Richard J. Watts. Berlin u.a.: Mouton de Gruyter
Abstract: This collection of 13 original papers focuses on the phenomemon of politeness in language. It presents the most important problems in developing a theory of linguistic politeness, which must deal with the crucial differences between lay notions of politeness in different cultures and the term "politeness" as a concept within a theory of lingustic politeness. The universal validity of the term itself is called into question, as are models by Brown and Levison, Lakoff and Leech. New approaches are suggested. In addition to this theoretical discussion, an empirical section presents a number of case studies and research projects in linguistic politeness. These show what has been achieved within current models and what still remains to be done, in particular with reference with cross-cultural studies in politeness and differences between a Western and a non-Western approach to the subject.
Keywords: Aufsatzsammlung, Aufsatzsammlungen, Brown and Levinson's model, Disziplin, Favoriten, Good manners, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, (Im)Politeness Research, Klassiker, Kommunikation, Linguistik, Sammelband, Soziale Angemessenheit, Sprache, Theory of Linguistic Politeness vs. lay notions of politeness, Überblick 2001
-
(2001): Self-politeness. A proposal. In: Journal of Pragmatics 33 (1), S. 87-106. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00124-1
Abstract: Research in linguistic politeness in the past two decades has been fruitful but incomplete: it has focused exclusively on other-oriented politeness while no attention has been paid to the fact that speakers' need to save their own face also has a bearing on their linguistic behavior. In this paper, I build a model of self-politeness within the framework of Brown and Levinson's (1987) theory. This model includes a set of superstrategies, each of which has its output strategies. I will also discuss factors that influence speakers' choices of strategies and illustrate these strategies with examples. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
1989
-
(1989): Politeness and conversational universals – observations from Japanese. In: Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 8 (2-3), S. 207-222. DOI: 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.207
Abstract: Principles of conversation as postulated by Grice (1975), and the politeness theory proposed by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) are both presented as universal. Observations of politeness phenomena in Japanese, especially in the use of honorifics, cast such doubt on the explanatory power of these two theories for non- Western languages that it is not clear how, short of major revision, they can be considered as giving an adequate account of conversation and linguistic politeness. In Japanese, for example, social context plays a much larger role than is assumed in their theories. The discrepancy between the theories and practice in Japanese seems to be rooted in the variability across cultures in the expectation of the quantity and type of Information that should be conveyed in linguistic communication and in the variability of the motivations underlying the manifestation of politeness.
1978
-
Goody, Esther N. (1978): Questions and politeness. Strategies in social interaction. 1. Aufl.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Abstract: These essays, by anthropologists and anthropological linguists, draw on material from speech communities in three continents to raise fundamental questions about the ways in which interrogative and politeness forms are used in day-to-day social interaction. The authors suggest that interrogative and politeness forms have universal features which make them efficient for certain strategies of interaction. Why should these strategies constantly recur? Here the focus shifts to the consideration of status and power, social roles and social distance. Esther Goody looks at the way in whichy the institutionalization of questioning allows only for speech acts consistent with status differences. Brown and Levinson claim that speech acts are potentially threatening to those being addressed, and that politeness forms have evolved as a mechanism for reducing such threats. They analyse the conditions under which politeness forms will be used and show that their findings are consistent with data drawn from India, Mexico and the US.
- <<
- <
- 1