Interdisciplinary perspectives on im/politeness
edited by Marina Terkourafi ; editorial assistance, Staci Defibaugh.
Bok Engelsk 2015 · Electronic books.
| Medvirkende | |
|---|---|
| Omfang | 1 online resource (291 p.)
|
| Opplysninger | Description based upon print version of record.. - Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Im/politeness; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Introduction. Bridging theory and practice in im/politenessresearch; Part I. Self-reporting Studies; Introduction to Part I; References; Social deixis in motion; 1. Address terms: Social and pragmatic aspects of use; 2. Evolving address paradigms; 2.1 Russian; 2.2 Mandarin Chinese; 2.3 The failure of COMRADE as a social deictic; 2.4 Interim summary; 3. An empirical study of current means of formal address in Mandarin Chinese and Russian. - 2.2 Types of implicature involved in banter3. The study: Metalinguistic judgments about re malaka; 3.1 Participants; 3.2 Materials and procedure; 3.3 Results; 3.3.1 Insulting vs. solidary senses; 3.3.2 Types of addressees; 3.3.3 Self-reported usage; 4. Discussion; References; Appendix; "There's not a lot of negotiation"; 1. Introduction; 2. Research questions; 3. Methods of data collection; 4. Results; 4.1 Classroom observations; 4.2 Focus group interviews; 4.2.1 Faculty focus groups participants' responses: Female faculty; 4.2.2 The second focus group: Male faculty. - 3.1 Elicited production task (Russian, Mandarin Chinese)3.2 Results; 3.2.1 Russian; 3.2.2 Mandarin Chinese; 3.3 Interim discussion; 3.4 Lexical and deictic functions of the token comrade: An acceptability judgment task and a follow-up questionnaire; 3.5 Acceptability judgment task (Russian): Results; 3.6 Follow up questionnaire (Mandarin Chinese): Results; 4. Discussion; 5. Conclusion; Etymological dictionaries of Russian:; Appendix 1; Appendix 2; The M-word; 1. Introduction; 2. Theoretical background; 2.1 The Banter principle and proposed extensions. - 3.5 Threat-like syntax treated as a goadable. - 4.2.3 Undergraduate focus groups4.2.4 Graduate student responses; 5. Implications-applications; 6. Conclusion; References; Part II. Observational Studies; Introduction to Part II; References; Korean honorifics beyond politeness markers; 1. Introduction; 2. Korean honorifics; 3. Politeness and honorifics; 3.1 Honorifics as a negative politeness strategy; 3.2 Honorifics and speech style shifting; 3.3 Frame, footing, and honorifics; 4. Data; 5. Changing footing through speech style shift; 5.1 From public to private stance; 5.2 From onstage to offstage stance; 5.3 From serious to joking stance. - 5.4 From conversational to soliloquizing stance5.5 From main storyteller to commentator stance; 6. Conclusion; Abbreviations; References; Goading as a social action; 1. Introduction; 1.1 Impoliteness; 1.2 On using CA as an informing tool; 2. Email data collection; 2.1 The participants; 2.2 Short message email data; 2.3 Follow-up interviews; 2.4 Problems with quantifying response speed in email data; 2.5 Adjustment of data; 3. Goading; 3.1 Goadables; 3.2 Claim of being teased as a sanctionable; 3.3 Goading as solidarity work; 3.4 Goading displaying preference for alignment. - Being polite is an effective way to facilitate interpersonal communication. One of the key issues is how the human cognitive system perceives verbal politeness and deals with the cases in which politeness principles are violated. By using event-related potentials (ERPs), we aim to address the nature of real time processing of disrespectful reference in Mandarin utterance interpretation. The consistency between the social status of the communicating partners and the use of second-person pronoun was manipulated as a testing case. Participants read utterances in which the social status of the com
|
| Emner | |
| Sjanger | |
| Dewey |
