Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2011
-
(2011): From Politeness1 to Politeness2. Tracking norms of im/politeness across time and space. In: Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 7 (2). DOI: 10.1515/jplr.2011.009
Abstract: Increasing attention to the distinction between first- and second-order im/politeness has led to considerable soul-searching among theorists regarding which of the two should form the basis of a theory of im/politeness. In this article, I take an alternative path: I build on norms of Politeness1, as attested in influential texts laying out Politeness1 norms in different parts of the world from antiquity to this day, to extract from them the core elements of a theory of Politeness2. By affording us with some glimpses into the diachronic intertwining of Politeness1 and Politeness2, this analysis helps explain why it has been so difficult to keep these two notions apart in previous research. At the same time, it suggests some possible ways forward. Specifically, this survey reveals two overarching themes regarding the role of politeness (and, by implication, impoliteness) in these cultures. The first concerns the social regulatory role of Politeness1 norms, while the second concerns the relationship of Politeness1 norms with an underlying morality. I propose that these two elements should be placed at the heart of an empirically grounded theory of Politeness2.
2008
-
Bousfield, Derek; Locher, Miriam A. (Hg.) (2008): Impoliteness in language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Conference "Politeness: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Language and Culture". Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (Language, power and social process)
Abstract: The volume addresses the enormous imbalance that exists between academic interest in politeness phenomena when compared to impoliteness phenomena. Researchers working with Brown and Levinson's ([1978] 1987) seminal work on politeness rarely focused explicitly on impoliteness. As a result, only one aspect of facework/relational work has been studied in detail. Next to this research desideratum, politeness research is on the move again, with alternative conceptions of politeness to those of Brown and Levinson being further developed. In this volume researchers present, discuss and explore the concept of linguistic impoliteness, the crucial differences and interconnectedness between lay understandings of impoliteness and the academic concept within a theory of facework/relational work, as well as the exercise of power that is involved when impoliteness occurs. The authors offer solid discussions of the theoretical issues involved and draw on data from political interaction, interaction with legally constituted authorities, workplace interaction in the factory and the office, code-switching and Internet practices. The collection offers inspiration for research on impoliteness in many different research fields, such as (critical) discourse analysis, conversation analysis, pragmatics and stylistics, as well as linguistic approaches to studies in conflict and conflict resolution.
Keywords: Aufsatzsammlungen, Brown & Levinson, Disziplin, Good manners, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, (Im)Politeness Research, Impoliteness, Interpersonal Relations, Kongress, Linguistik, Macht, Politeness (Linguistics), Power (Social sciences), Sammelband, Soziale Angemessenheit, Sprachverhalten, Überblick, Unhöflichkeit, Zweite Welle -
(2008) : Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power In: Bousfield, Derek; Locher, Miriam A. (Hg.): Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice: Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (Language, power and social process), S. 17-44
Abstract: Conclusion: This paper had the minimal aim of raising pertinent issues for future research. I shall briefly conclude this chapter with a list of those issues: One's understanding of the role of the speaker and hearer in communication is crucial. I would argue against privileging either of them. Metalinguistic labels such as "over-politeness" need full investigation, deploying, for example, the corpus linguistic techniques that characterise modern lexicography. Intentionality is a site of controversy in (im)politeness studies, as elsewhere in linguistics, though it is often poorly understood. My view is that it is an important part of communication, and a crucial part of impoliteness. An understanding of norms, in all their complexity, is a key to understanding much of (im)politeness. I think the distinction between experiential norms and social norms is particularly useful. Power connects with impoliteness in a number of different ways, including both the performance/perception of impoliteness in language and the broader context within which it is performed/perception. Researching impoliteness constitutes a considerable methodological challenge. This paper gives a glimpse of one corpus-related methodology.
Keywords: Disziplin, Favoriten, Frame, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Höflichkeitsforschung der zweiten Welle, (Im)Politeness Research, Intentionalität, Linguistik, Macht, Modelle/Theorien, Politeness Theory and Relational Work, Rolle von Sprecher und Hörer, Soziale Angemessenheit, Soziale Normen, Sprachgebrauch, Zweite Welle -
(2008): Rudeness, conceptual blending theory and relational work. In: Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 4 (2), S. 289-317. DOI: 10.1515/JPLR.2008.014
Abstract: The present article takes a discursive approach to the topic of impoliteness, in which conceptualizations of impoliteness are construed in the process of real-time interaction. The term “discursive” refers neither to a conversational analytic approach to interaction nor to one which is derived from principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. It rests rather on lay members' ongoing interpretations of what constitutes inappropriate forms of behaviour rather than on a theoretical concept that we choose to label “impoliteness”. The article makes a case for rejecting the term “impoliteness” itself on two grounds: (a) that this term would only make it the mirror opposite of whatever is taken to be “politeness”, and (b) that lay members, if they comment on inappropriate behaviour at all, are more likely to use terms such as rude, offensive, or aggressive than impolite. If we wish to tease out evidence of such imputations in the absence of lexical items indexing behaviour from instantiations of oral interaction, we need to apply the insights of cognitive blending theory and to adapt that theory in such a way that it can account for differential conceptualizations of behaviour as inappropriate or not. In this sense, the article is intended as a contribution towards the wider theory of relational work which has emerged recently from politeness research
2005
-
(2005): Politeness Theory and Relational Work. In: Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 1 (1), S. 9-33. DOI: 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
Abstract: In this paper we briefly revisit politeness research influenced by Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory. We argue that this research tradition does not deal with politeness but with the mitigation of face-threatening acts (FTAs) in general. In our understanding, politeness cannot just be equated with FTA-mitigation because politeness is a discursive concept. This means that what is polite (or impolite) should not be predicted by analysts. Instead, researchers should focus on the discursive struggle in which interactants engage. This reduces politeness to a much smaller part of facework than was assumed until the present, and it allows for interpretations that consider behavior to be merely appropriate and neither polite nor impolite. We propose that relational work, the “work” individuals invest in negotiating relationships with others, which includes impolite as well as polite or merely appropriate behavior, is a useful concept to help investigate the discursive struggle over politeness. We demonstrate this in close readings of five examples from naturally occurring interactions.
Keywords: Brown & Levinson, Disziplin, Erwartungen, Favoriten, frames, FTA Face Threatening Acts, Good manners, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Höflichkeitsforschung der zweiten Welle, (Im)Politeness Research, Lebensstil, Linguistik, Modelle/Theorien, Observablen/Kriterien für sozial angemessenes Verhalten und dessen Bewertung, Politeness Theory and Relational Work, Soziale Angemessenheit, Sprachgebrauch, Status / biologische Marker, Zweite Welle -
(2005) : Linguistic politeness research. Quo vadis? In: Watts, Richard J.; Sachiko, Ide; Ehlich, Konrad (Hg.): 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, S. xi-xlvii
2003
-
(2003): Politeness. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press (Key topics in sociolinguistics). Online verfügbar unter http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184
Abstract: Using a wide range of data from real-life speech situations, this new introduction to politeness breaks away from the limitations of current models and argues that the proper object of study in politeness theory must be commonsense notions of what politeness and impoliteness are
Keywords: Disziplin, Etiquette, Favoriten, Forms of address, frames, FTA Face Threatening Acts, Good manners, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Höflichkeitsforschung der zweiten Welle, (Im)Politeness Research, Klassiker, Lebensstil, Linguistik, Modelle/Theorien, Politeness Theory and Relational Work, Sociolinguistics, Soziale Angemessenheit, Soziolinguistik, Sprache, Sprachgebrauch, Status / biologische Marker, Zweite Welle 2001
-
(2001): A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publ
Abstract: As a sociolinguistic phenomenon that connects language and its users to the social world that surrounds them, politeness can provide insights into the very structure of social reality and the process by which it is established and maintained. And through its focus on ethical aspects of social interaction, it can expose the fundamental nature and the inner workings of morality in our everyday lives. Although a highly specific subject matter, politeness therefore touches on issues far beyond its immediate borders. In a critical state-of-the-art review of the field, this book examines the extent to which the potential impact of politeness has been explored so far. Through a metatheoretical analysis of epistemological, methodological, social and psychological ideologies prevalent in mainstream politeness theory, it offers an overview of sociolinguistic thinking about language and social reality during the past quarter of a century. Eelen's analysis of the literature reveals a coherent and consistent ideology underlying the entire field, but also shows how this ideology has caused scientific theory to miss out on many important aspects of the reality of everyday life. His examination of the relationship between science and commonsense thinking, between scientific and everyday notions of politeness, draws attention to issues which remain untouched by current theoretical models and opens up avenues of research hitherto left unexplored.
- <<
- <
- 1