Alle Publikationen

  • Erweiterte Suche öffnen

Treffer: 2
  • <<
  • 1

  • 2015

  • Straeubig, Michael (2015): On the distinction between distinction and division. In: Technoetic Arts 13 (3), S. 245-251. DOI: 10.1386/tear.13.3.245_1

    Abstract: In this article I discuss the use of distinctions as a method for reasoning. First I trace the role of distinctions in three different theories: the formal calculus of George Spencer Brown, the constructivist biology of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, and Niklas Luhmann's theory of social systems. In the second part, play is used as an example to illustrate the concept. In particular, I contrast walking through a series of distinctions with traditional ways of argumentation based on definitions. Finally, I hint at the role of distinctions in a metaphysical sense.

    Keywords: Brown, Definitionen, distinctions, Disziplin, epistemology, game studies, Luhmann, Maturana, Philosophie, play, radical constructivism, social systems, Soziologie, systems theory, Unterscheiden, Unterscheidungstheorie, Varela

  • 2010

  • Haugh, Michael; Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca (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
  • <<
  • 1