Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2007
-
(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 1980
-
(1980): Polite responses to polite requests. In: Cognition 8 (2), S. 111-143. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(80)90009-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(80)90009-8 Abstract: Indirect requests vary in politeness; for example, Can you tell me where Jordan Hall is? is more polite than Shouldn’t you tell me where Jordan Hall is? By one theory, the more the literal meaning of a request implies personal benefits for the listener, within reason, the more polite is the request. This prediction was confirmed in Experiment 1. Responses to indirect requests also vary in politeness. For Can you tell me where Jordan Hall is?, the response Yes, I can - it’s up the street is more polite than It’s up the street. By an extension of that theory, the more attentive the responder is to all of the requester’s meaning, the more polite is the response. This prediction was confirmed in Experiments 2, 3 and 4. From this evidence, we argued that people ordinarily compute both the literal and the indirect meanings of indirect requests. They must if they are to recognize when the speaker is and isn ‘t being polite, and if they are to respond politely, impolitely, or even neutrally.
- <<
- <
- 1