Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2015
-
(2015): Agency, accountability and evaluations of impoliteness. In: Journal of Politeness Research 11 (2), S. 207-238. DOI: 10.1515/pr-2015-0009
Abstract: It is now well recognized that the recipients' evaluations need to be given serious consideration when theorizing impoliteness. Yet despite the importance placed on evaluations by recipients, the role of the recipient in interaction has been reduced through theorizing within the field to the ascribing of (perceived) intentions or interpreting of (perceived) social norms and expectations. We suggest, in this paper, that this under-theorizes the role of the recipient vis-a-vis evaluations of impoliteness. Building on an account of (im)politeness as social practice (Haugh 2013b, 2015; Kadar and Haugh 2013), we argue that evaluations of impoliteness inevitably involve those recipients construing the speaker's action as a particular kind of social action, and holding them accountable for that particular kind of social action with respect to particular dimension(s) of the moral order (Haugh 2013a, 2015). The accountability of social action is underpinned, in part, by the presumed agency of participants. Agency involves the socially mediated capacity to act that is afforded through 1. knowing one has the ability to act, 2. knowing that these actions may affect others (and self), and 3. knowing that one will thus be held accountable for those actions (Ahearn 2001; Duranti 2004; Mitchell forthcoming). We argue that a focus on agency in theorizing impoliteness allows for the ways in which recipients do not just simply invoke social norms or (in some cases at least) perceived speaker intentions in evaluating talk or conduct as impolite, but may also exercise their own agency in construing the speaker's actions as a particular kind of action, and thus as offensive or not. It is concluded that the agency exercised by recipients with respect to the degree to which they hold speakers accountable for impolite or offensive stances needs to be examined more carefully in theorizing about (im) politeness more generally.
2013
-
(2013): Disentangling face, facework and im/ politeness. In: Sociocultural Pragmatics 1 (1), S. 46-73
Abstract: It is generally assumed in pragmatics that face is essentially a “socially attributed aspect of self”, and that politeness is one kind of facework, alongside other forms of facework such as impoliteness, mock impoliteness, mock politeness, self politeness and so on. In this paper, the assumed necessary link between face and im/politeness is questioned. Drawing from emic studies of face and im/politeness, it is argued that face and im/politeness should be studied, in the first instance, as distinct objects of study in their own right. It is also suggested that drawing from a wider range of emic conceptualisations of face and im/politeness opens up aspects of interpersonal phenomena that have been relatively neglected in pragmatics to date, namely, the importance of relationships as well as the sets of expectancies that underpin evaluations of im/politeness, as distinct areas for theorisation and analysis. It is concluded that while the Goffmanian face(work) paradigm has proven very productive in pragmatics, drawing from various other emic understandings affords further hitherto relatively under-explored analytical opportunities in the study of interpersonal phenomena.
-
(2013): Understanding politeness. 1. publ. Cambridge u.a.: Cambridge University Press
Abstract: Politeness is key to all of our relationships and plays a fundamental part in the way we communicate with each other and the way we define ourselves. It is not limited only to conventional aspects of linguistic etiquette, but encompasses all types of interpersonal behaviour through which we explore and maintain our relationships. This groundbreaking exploration navigates the reader through this fascinating area and introduces them to a variety of new insights. The book is divided into three parts and is based on an innovative framework which relies on the concepts of social practice, time and space. In this multidisciplinary approach, the authors capture a range of user and observer understandings and provide a variety of examples from different languages and cultures. With its reader-friendly style, carefully constructed exercises and useful glossary, Understanding Politeness will be welcomed by both researchers and postgraduate students working on politeness, pragmatics and sociolinguistics more broadly.
Keywords: Disziplin, Dritte Welle, Favoriten, frames, Good manners, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Höflichkeitsforschung der dritten Welle, (Im)Politeness Research, Linguistik, Modelle/Theorien, Observablen/Kriterien für sozial angemessenes Verhalten und dessen Bewertung, Soziale Angemessenheit, Sozialer Raum / Kultureller Kontext, Überblick, Understandings of politeness 2012
-
(2012): Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research. In: Journal of Politeness Research 8 (1), S. 111-134. DOI: 10.1515/pr-2012-0007
2011
-
(2011) : 'First order' and 'second order' politeness: Institutional and interciltural contexts: Discursive approaches to politeness: Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, S. 167-188
-
. Linguistic Politeness Research Group (2011): Discursive approaches to politeness. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
2010
-
(2010): Constituting face in conversation. Face, facework, and interactional achievement. In: Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8), S. 2078-2105. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 Abstract: Face Constituting Theory addresses the question “How do participants achieve face in everyday talk?” explaining face and facework as achieved by participants engaged in face-to-face communication in situated relationships. Outlining the theory involves first sketching the Conjoint Co-constituting Model of Communication as a conceptualization of the achieving of meaning and action in interaction, and second conceptualizing face as a relational phenomenon at both culture-general and culture-specific levels. Using these conceptualizations, Face Constituting Theory explains face as participants’ interpretings of relational connectedness and separateness, conjointly co-constituted in talk/conduct-in-interaction. Face Constituting Theory adds to this explanation a new conceptualization of how of face interpretings are evaluated as threatening to, in stasis, or supportive of relationships, drawing into a single explanation the full range of observations on facework from outright face threat, through face maintenance, to outright face support. Consistent with ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, Face Constituting Theory is framed from the participant's perspective, and applying the theory in examining the achievement of face in an instance of everyday interaction both illustrates the application of the new theory in research, and indicates how it is distinct from the approaches existing theories employ in studying face and facework.
Keywords: Angesicht, Communication, Conversation, Disziplin, Dritte Welle, Face, Face-Constituting View, Facework, Favoriten, Gesichtswahrung, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Höflichkeitsforschung der dritten Welle, (Im)Politeness Research, Interaction, Kultur, Kulturdifferenz, Kulturelle Normen, Kulturspezifizität, Kulturtheorie, Linguistik, Modelle/Theorien, Observablen/Kriterien für sozial angemessenes Verhalten und dessen Bewertung, Relationship, Soziale Angemessenheit, Sprachgebrauch, Status / biologische Marker 2009
-
(2009) : Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: An alternative to Goffman In: Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca; Haugh, Michael (Hg.): Face, communication and social interaction: First published 2009: Sheffield, United Kingdom: Equinox Publishing Ltd, S. 33-54Keywords: Angesicht, Communication, Conversation, Disziplin, Dritte Welle, Face, Face-Constituting View, Facework, Favoriten, Gesichtswahrung, Höflichkeit, Höflichkeitsforschung, Höflichkeitsforschung der dritten Welle, (Im)Politeness Research, Interaction, Kultur, Kulturtheorie, Linguistik, Modelle/Theorien, Observablen/Kriterien für sozial angemessenes Verhalten und dessen Bewertung, Soziale Angemessenheit, Sprachgebrauch, Status / biologische Marker
-
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 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.
- <<
- <
- 1