Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
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 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.
1992
-
(1992): Sprache und Geschlecht: Ist Kommunikation zwischen Frauen und Männern interkulturelle Kommunikation?. In: Linguistische Berichte, S. 123-143
Abstract: Ausgehend von der Diskussion über die "interkulturelle Kommunikation zwischen Männern und Frauen" wird ein Überblick über den linguistischen Erkenntnisstand zum Zusammenhang von Sprache und Geschlecht gegeben. Dabei wird auf der Grundlage vorliegender Studien gezeigt, dass in der Gesellschaft keine separaten "Sprachen", die jeweils kontextübergreifend einem Geschlecht zuzuordnen sind, existieren. Kommunikationsstrategien, die in gewissen Kontexten vor allem von Frauen angewendet werden, tragen jedoch in bestimmten Kontexten zur Konstruktion von Status oder Informalität bei. Ferner lassen sich Kontextualisierungskonventionen nicht pauschal einem Geschlecht zuordnen. Die Analyse von Sprache und Geschlecht wird als Teil einer größeren Fragestellung betrachtet, nämlich der nach dem Zusammenhang von Sprache und sozialer Bedeutung. Es wird die Ansicht vertreten, dass in Interaktionen komplexe soziale Beziehungen hergestellt werden, wobei das Geschlecht eine dieser Bedeutungen ist, jedoch nicht immer die relevanteste. zitiert von 71
- <<
- <
- 1