Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The first-second order distinction has dominated theoretical discussions about (im)politeness for the past two decades. However, while there has been a lot of emphasis placed on different perspectives on (im)politeness in the field, what constitutes our object of understanding(s) arguably remains somewhat more elusive. In this paper, I suggest that one of the reasons for this is that we have inadvertently conflated (im)politeness-as-perspective (an epistemological issue) with (im)politeness-as-object (an ontological issue), and have largely ignored the latter in ongoing debates about the first-second order distinction. Building on observations about mundane interactions between co-participants who behave in ways we might not typically associate with politeness, I first propose that (im)politeness-as-object encompasses a complex, multi-layered set of first, second and third order evaluations that are reflexively interrelated but nevertheless ontologically distinct. I then suggest that the inherent complexity of (im)politeness-as-object calls for a more nuanced account of (im)politeness-as-perspective in which researchers necessarily draw on different first-order (commonsense, emic, user, folk theoretic) and second-order (academic, etic, observer, scientific theoretic) understandings to varying degrees. I conclude that the multidimensional, prismatic model of (im)politeness that emerges reflects the complex and multifaceted nature of (im)politeness itself.

Abstract
Incidents of online public shaming commonly start when a record of conduct that is perceived as transgressive by
either one of the parties to that interaction or a third party observer is posted, in the form of a narrative description,
photograph, audio/video-recording, screenshot, and so on to an online platform, followed by viral amplification of that online
public denunciation post through sharing by others within and across platforms. Building on an analysis of 26 incidents of online
public denunciations of public incivilities it is argued, in this paper, that public denunciations essentially involve inviting
networked audiences to denounce entextualized moments of conduct, which are recontextualized as not only morally transgressive,
but as also warranting public condemnation. It is proposed that the procedure by which online public denunciations are
accomplished is thus recursive, as it not only involves the ascription of action to prior conduct of the target in question that
construes that prior conduct as transgressive, but the embedding of the ascription of that complainable action within a public
denunciation that invites condemnation of that ascribed action. However, since social media platforms allow for the
re-entextualization and subsequent recontextualization of prior posts through which public condemnation has been invited, online
public denunciations are themselves inevitably open to recursive recontextualization. It is concluded that online public
denunciation is thus an inherently recursive form of social practice.

Abstract
The shift to a middle ground between classic and discursive approaches to politeness has opened
up space for the proliferation of various different theoretical accounts of (im)politeness. While this diversity
can lead to different insights into the same dataset, as we have seen in this special issue, it does beg the
question of whether the field of (im)politeness research remains a coherent enterprise. After pointing
out that different theories of (im)politeness inevitably not only afford but also constrain what we observe
and the explanations that can be developed to account for those observations, I suggest that in light of
the increasing proliferation of theoretical approaches in the field, a greater focus on metatheorization is
in order. After briefly discussing some of the key questions such a metatheoretical discussion should
address, I conclude that metatheorizing enables us to systematically examine what different theories
of (im)politeness bring to the field, thereby also drawing attention to what areas appear to be in particular
need of further theoretical development and empirical study.

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.

"Obana and Haugh question the extent to which commonly accepted theories in pragmatics can readily explain sociopragmatic phenomena in Japanese. Studies of Japanese in pragmatics have often challenged the cross-linguistic relevance of dominant theories. However, they have also inadvertently perpetuated stereotypes about the Japanese. It is often been assumed, for instance, that Japanese people are less strategic, more polite and more reliant on tacit forms of communication than speakers of other languages. But the Japanese are not as polite as you think. The aim of this book is thus to question those folk assumptions around politeness, impoliteness, irony and inference while at the same time emphasizing that close examination of sociopragmatic phenomena in Japanese yields important empirical insights that combat common theoretical assumptions in pragmatics. The content is structured in three parts, in which the authors highlight a key building block of a theory of sociopragmatics. Part I focuses on positioning through the lens of chapters on honorifics, routine formula and politeness strategies. Part II focuses on evaluating through the lens of chapters on malefactives and irony. Finally, Part III focuses on relating through the lens of chapters on joint utterances, participation and (dis)affiliation. Throughout the chapters the authors draw attention to ways in which these three dimensions are invariably intertwined in various ways. This book is not simply a collection of studies that promotes our understanding of the sociopragmatics of a particular language, but goes deeper and challenges what many have taken for granted in pragmatics. It proposes a framework for exploring sociopragmatic phenomena, building on the key sociopragmatic axes of positioning, evaluating and relating, and offers fresh new perspectives on time-honoured phenomena in pragmatics. It will interest scholars and postgraduate students in pragmatics, particularly those specializing in: politeness, impoliteness and conversation analysis. The book explains what Japanese terms mean, and all the Japanese examples are morphologically-glossed. Therefore, teachers (and advanced learners) of Japanese at all levels will benefit from the book as it will enrich their knowledge of the Japanese language"--

Intercultural Pragmatics is a large and diverse field encompassing a wide range of approaches, methods, and theories. This volume draws scholars together from a broad range of cognitive, philosophical, and sociopragmatic perspectives on language use in order to lay the path for a mutually informing and enriching dialogue across subfields and perceived barriers to doing pragmatics interculturally.

Intro -- Contents -- List of Tables -- List of Figures -- Series Editors' Preface -- Acknowledgements -- Transcription Conventions -- 1 Introduction -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 Meanings in context -- 1.2.1 Beyond the linguistic code -- The assignment of sense -- The assignment of structural meaning -- The assignment of reference -- The assignment of utterance meaning -- 1.2.2 The scope of pragmatics -- The narrow view: syntax, semantics and pragmatics -- The broad view: pragmatic functions -- 1.3 The pragmatics of English -- 1.4 This book -- 2 Referential Pragmatics -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Definite expressions -- 2.3 Deixis -- 2.4 Anaphora -- 2.5 Using and understanding referring expressions in interaction -- 2.5.1 Referring expressions and context -- 2.5.2 Referring expressions and accessibility -- 2.5.3 Referring expressions and common ground -- 2.5.4 Referring expressions in interaction -- 2.6 Conclusion -- 3 Informational Pragmatics -- 3.1 Informational pragmatics -- 3.2 Informational ground: background and foreground -- 3.3 Informational background -- 3.3.1 Background assumptions -- 3.3.2 Presuppositions -- 3.4 Informational foreground -- 3.4.1 Foregrounding -- 3.4.2 Focus -- Focus and prosodic prominence -- Focus and syntactic structures -- Focus as contrastive or additive -- Focus formulae -- 3.5 Informational pragmatics: an interactional perspective -- 3.5.1 Presuppositions and backgrounding -- 3.5.2 Common grounding -- 3.6 Conclusion -- 4 Pragmatic Meaning I -- 4.1 Meaning beyond what is said -- 4.2 What is said versus what is implicated -- 4.2.1 Grice on speaker meaning -- 4.2.2 Implicated meaning -- Conventional implicatures -- Conversational implicatures -- Generalised versus particularised conversational implicatures -- Conversational implicatures as meant or communicated? -- 4.3 Between what is said and what is implicated.

AbstractIt 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-à-vis evaluations of impoliteness. Building on an account of (im)politeness as social practice (Haugh 2013b, 2015; Kádár 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

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 inand 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).