Understandings of impoliteness in the greek context
Analysis of understanding of impoliteness at the household level. Definition of two binary opposing social identities - polite and impolite citizen. Discourse by impolite people from the point of view of van Dijk's ideological discourse analysis.
| Рубрика | Иностранные языки и языкознание |
| Вид | статья |
| Язык | английский |
| Дата добавления | 11.03.2021 |
| Размер файла | 49,7 K |
Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже
Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
5.3 Claiming membership in the group of 'polite citizens'
Quoting Kristiansen (2003), Georgalou (2017: 12) states that “[i]n using language, we portray ourselves in terms of both linguistic content (what we say/write) and linguistic form (how we say/write it)”. In this section, we discuss the ways in which, reacting to the journalist's two articles, posters claim membership in the group of polite citizens. Aligning with this identity through their comments confirms Barnes' (2018: 30) claim that comments “could be viewed as a performance of self, used as a method of not only self-expression, but also identity construction”.
Recent research claims that “the sections provided for reader response are certainly not intended as spaces for achieving and displaying consensus and peaceful harmony but rather constitute public arenas where debate is not only accepted but even valued” (Eller 2017: 369). Yet the opposite appears to be true in our data, since the comments we examined displayed admirable consensus and were almost all unanimous in their agreement with, and support of, the journalist's views. Specifically, almost all posters fully endorsed the journalist's unflattering views of the citizens she portrays as impolite in her articles (but see Locher and Luginbьhl 2019).
Following the journalist's practice, commenters also used the inclusive `we' (o rpфnoз пои оёцуоьце `the way we drive') with the same “persuasion enhancement” function discussed earlier (section 6.1) and levelled their criticism against the `impolite citizen', thus implicitly aligning with the identity of `polite citizen'. Posters not only agreed with the journalist but some added further examples of presumed impoliteness to the journalist's list, such as providing unsolicited advice as to how to raise your child, and the way cafйs and restaurants occupy pavement space with tables and chairs, thus obstructing the passage of those who are physically challenged. It is notable that these endorsing posts are the ones which received the most likes. This is not surprising because, as Watts (2003: 5) notes, commentators on and participants in interactions tend to agree far more readily about what is perceived as being impolite rather than polite.
The one poster who expressed an overall different view received more dislikes (121) than likes (54), even though the disagreement was prefaced with a disclaimer in the form of an `Apparent Denial' (van Dijk 2006b: 736) (Ae Aйњ фti й/ere a' фAa вфixo, alAв теАжа. jxщlAov Zњ ae вAAq п0Ац, nepi/uйvњ ae вlAeз ovpйз... `I'm not saying that you are wrong in everything, but I must be living in a different city, joining different queues...'). In addition, this was one of the few posts that received a comment directly attacking the poster: MвAAov фsv npoaй/eiз каг поАЬ yvpњ aou. То aiyovpo eivai фti фev й/eiз Zяaei kotй ae еюрюпаЩ ж0Ац. `You probably don't pay much attention around you. It's certain that you've never lived in another European city'. By accusing the other poster of being out of touch with social reality, s/he challenges his/her objectivity and thus the veracity of his/her views. When faced with an opposing view, people frequently revert to personal attacks, which tend to be seen as more impolite than issue-based attacks (Neurauter-Kessels 2011, Stryker et al. 2016, Upadhyay 2010). The other two posters who expressed disagreement were in overall agreement with the journalist and raised only one issue of contention each. The first argued that Greeks do care about the dress code (the 7th instance of impolite behaviour described in the second article), and the second that s/he is indeed superior to most of his/her compatriots (the 10th instance of impolite behaviour in the second article), as s/he does not behave in the impolite ways they do. It thus appears that even though it is true that impoliteness is “conspicuously a subjective and variable notion involving understandings of behaviours in context” (Culpeper 2011: 66), when it comes to metadiscourses at the societal level, unanimity can be found at least in certain contexts.
What is noteworthy is that no poster attempted to chastise either the journalist or any of the commenters for their hyperbole and rather impolite tone (cf. Neurauter- Kessels 2011). One poster provided a list of suggestions as to what could be done to improve the situation and ended their comment by congratulating the author on the article and on bringing the topic to readers' attention. For another commenter, the only way to achieve an improvement is through personal example, and s/he offered a list of his/her own “polite” behaviours which could function as a blueprint for others. This reflects the view that civility promotes the ideal by example (Sellers, 2003), since direct encounters with a social model appear “to reactivate the common behavioral norm of politeness”, a kind of behavioural contagion (Moser and Corroyer 2001: 623, see also Culpeper 2011: 204). However, offering one's polite behaviours as examples also implies a certain degree of social and intellectual inferiority of the Other in that it presupposes their ignorance. Two other posters strongly endorsed this tactic, whereas another disagreed, calling this approach passive behaviour which is not going to help anybody change. This is one of the two contested issues between posters, the other being responding rudely to rude behaviours (see section 6.2).
Another poster attributes ignorance to the Other saying that unfortunately this excellent article which describes Greek reality accurately was read by those who did not really need to read it as they know how to behave, whereas it has almost certainly been ignored by people who should read it. This is the kind of awareness that Kadar and Haugh (2013) call `metapragmatic awareness', that is, lay observers' awareness about the ways in which they interact with others and more specifically `metadiscursive awareness' referring “to reflexive social discourses on politeness that are constituted (and contested) at a societal or cultural level” (Kadar and Haugh 2013: 269). As the authors (Kadar and Haugh 2013: 41) explain, speakers are consciously aware of the lay concept of politeness but may not be necessarily aware all the time of politeness in practice.
Extensive agreement between posters and journalist is coupled with several instances of congratulating (E^aiperiKO o/ofoo Kai apdpo! ZvyxappTppia! `Excellent comment and article! Congratulations!'), praising (AWOrOpost `IMPECCABLE post!') or complimenting the journalist (Av amo to apdpo pxav Xoyog ae opiXia, da XeipoKpoxovoa opdiog! `If this article were a speech, I would clap standing!'). These communicative acts create and reinforce solidarity and contribute to the construction of an in-group (see Tzanne 2019) involving both journalist and posters. Using speech acts such as congratulating, complimenting and praising to presuppose `Our' good things, and interaction strategies such as agreement to imply `Our' good things (van Dijk 2006a: 126), commenters appear to fully endorse the journalist's views concerning impoliteness and to assume, like her, the identity of `polite citizen'.
6. Discussion and concluding remarks
This study explored views of impoliteness as presented in two on-line newspaper articles and the ensuing comments. Such articles are not uncommon and as Mills (2017: 51) maintains “[n]ewspapers regularly comment on politeness norms and a supposed decline in civility”. This supposed decline is neither a new nor a culturally- specific phenomenon. As Smith et al. (2010: 1) vividly elucidate: “Through the ages and across civilizations there has always been talk of poor public behaviour, of increasingly unruly streets and of the decline and fall of good manners”. The authors add further that “[i]t is a current journalistic staple to document troublesome youth, identify emergent forms of disorder from `road rage' to `cell phone rage', and to conduct simple experiments or cheap stunts to demonstrate that common courtesies are no longer to be found in the urban jungle”.
What is relatively new is that the media and the on-line version of newspapers have helped highlight and spread such views by offering individuals the opportunity to express their views and evaluate others' presumed politeness or more frequently impoliteness. Both journalists and posters tend to assume that it is possible to generalise about Greek (or any other for that matter) im/politeness and are mostly in agreement as to what it is and how it should (should not) be practised. This overall agreement is significant in our view because even though there is variability across individuals as to their perceptions of impoliteness (see, e.g., Eelen 2001), there are contexts where concurrence is high. This then affects the way we see the social world around us since such metalinguistic comments, especially when unanimous, influence our understandings, as mentioned earlier. In other words, our evaluations are not based solely on our personal experiences (cf. Eelen 2001: 39).
The views expressed in the two articles are very similar with the interesting difference that the first concentrates mostly on verbal / linguistic impoliteness whereas the second concerns itself mostly with non-verbal behavioural aspects of impoliteness. This is noteworthy in our view because it demonstrates that lay understandings of impoliteness are not confined to language which has been the playground of most politeness research but includes a wide array of non-verbal behaviours (Culpeper 2011, Fukushima and Sifianou 2017, Locher and Luginbuhl 2019, Sifianou and Tzanne 2010). Moreover, these metapragmatic comments attest a difference between non-academic and academic views on what impoliteness is and how it is realised.
Some of the issues raised and the examples provided could be accounted for by the impoliteness strategies and their outputs proposed by Culpeper (1996), later modified and expanded (for an overview see Culpeper 2011), especially those relating to verbal behaviour. However, issues such as littering or mistreating animals, and the general disregard and intolerance described by the journalist and the posters do not seem to fit comfortably within existing impoliteness categorisations, unless one sees them as falling under a broad understanding of ignoring or snubbing the other, a strategy which can be highly impolite or uncivil (Mutz 2015: 7). As Lorenzo-Dus et al. (2011) show, lay assessments of impoliteness often relate to norms associated with civility. The relationship between im/politeness and in/civility is an issue that, with the exception of Sifianou (2019) has been mostly neglected in im/politeness research and deserves consideration. These metapragmatic comments attest a further difference between non-academic and current academic views on politeness and impoliteness. Current politeness research (see, e.g., Kienpointner 1997, Mills 2003) rightly argues that politeness and impoliteness cannot be seen as binary opposites. Interestingly, the lay understandings of im/politeness analysed here show that, to the mind of the journalist and posters, politeness and impoliteness do emerge as binary opposites. In this respect, our findings lend support to, and provide evidence for, Eelen's (2001) theoretical claim that popular views on im/politeness stand in binary opposition. From our data, a simple, albeit clear, opposition between politeness and impoliteness seems to emerge which facilitates and leads to the construction of two social group identities, those of impolite and polite citizens.
The analysis of our data shows that evaluations/complaints about impoliteness are intimately related to issues of identity construction. In particular, from the discourse of the articles and the ensuing comments, two social group identities emerge in a relation of polarity and opposition between in-group/Us and out-group/Them, involving polite and impolite citizens, respectively. In the data, the identity of the impolite citizen is painted in unmistakably bleak colours, which implicitly creates the exact opposite identity for the polite citizen. Criticising and disapproving of the impolite behaviours they discuss, automatically enables journalist and posters to align with the exact opposite polite behaviours, and, therefore, to ensure their membership in the group of polite citizens.
The two groups appear to be differentiated on the basis of the following features which are indications of the values the groups hold:
a) power: polite citizens often report feeling weak in their social encounters with impolite citizens, thus showing the latter to have control over their course of action; however, the weakness they report emerges as a subjective feeling and not as factual evidence; moreover, by characterising impolite citizens as really/truly weak, they present their own group as powerful by implication;
b) knowledge: impolite citizens are presented as know-alls, while the group of polite citizens presents themselves as being truly knowledgeable;
c) education: impolite people are characterised as uneducated who need tutoring, whereas, by implication, polite people are the exact opposite who can undertake the role of instructor;
d) civilisation: impolite citizens are characterised as uncivilised, while, by implication, polite citizens are civilised;
e) intelligence: polarising groups on the basis of (lack of) intelligence is a common practice in discourses expressing ideologies (van Dijk 1998). In our case, the group of impolite citizens seems to fallaciously believe that they are intelligent and consider polite citizens to be stupid; however, the journalist and commenters characterise impolite citizens as `smart alecks' and `true idiots', while polite citizens such as themselves are presented as the genuinely clever ones.
Resulting from all the above, polite citizens consider themselves to be in a position superior to that occupied by the impolite ones; after all, when they report to be `weak' in the presence of impolite citizens, they talk about an impression they have, and not about reality / factuality. Relatedly, they present themselves as intelligent, knowledgeable and educated people who can contribute to the public debate on the significant social issue of im/politeness.
Concerning anonymity and relationships among participants in this on-line context, we should at this point note that the posters who responded to the two articles on im/politeness are most probably not familiar with one another, nor do they aim at establishing or maintaining a personal relationship. Being on-line and anonymous, they appear keener on co-constructing a favourable in-group identity and secondarily a personal one as a member of a refined and educated group who has in addition a gate-keeping role to play. In this sense, it could be argued that the group of polite citizens here represented mostly by the journalist and commenters have undertaken the task to educate the `uncivilised' Other, that is, the impolite citizen. They assume they can do this through their words or preferably through their deeds, as one poster says but also through imposing sanctions. By imposing sanctions and treating rudely those they perceive as rude they claim power and affirm their own worth (cf. Smith et al. 2010: 73).
In conclusion, despite the fact that on-line newspaper articles and ensuing comments reflect stereotypical thinking, they also depict pervasive views and are worth exploring because they concern the underexplored societal rather than the individual level of im/politeness. With our paper, we hope to have contributed to a better understanding of these views and of the social identities they help construct vis-а-vis im/politeness.
References
1. Alexander, Jeffrey C. (2006). The civil sphere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Archakis, Argiris & Villy Tsakona (2012). The narrative construction of identities in critical education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
3. Archakis, Argiris & Angeliki Tzanne (2009). Constructing in-group identity through story-telling: evidence from conversational narratives of young people in Greece. In Georgakopoulou, A. & V. Lytra (eds.) Language, Discourse and Identities: Snapshots from Greek Contexts. Pragmatics Special Issue, 19 (3), 343--362.
4. Barnes, Renee (2018). Uncovering online commenting culture: Trolls, fanboys and lurkers. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Benwell, Bethan & Elizabeth Stokoe (2006) Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
6. Berg, Janne (2016). The impact of anonymity and issue controversiality on the quality of online discussion. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13 (1), 37--51.
7. Bolander, Brook & Miriam A. Locher (2015). “Peter is a dumb nut”: Status updates and reactions to them as `acts of positioning' in Facebook. Pragmatics, 25 (1), 99--122.
8. Bou-Franch, Patricia & Pilar Garcйs-Conejos Blitvich (2014). Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 19--36.
9. Boyd, Richard (2006). The value of civility? Urban Studies, 43 (5/6), 863--878.
10. Brown, Penelope (2015). Politeness and language. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.), 18, 326--330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086- 8.53072-4.
11. Bucholtz, Mary & Kira Hall (2003). Language and identity. In Duranti, A. (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell, 368--94.
12. Bucholtz, Mary & Kira Hall (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7, 584--614.
13. Canakis, Costas (2007). Eioaymytf oirjv пpaygaтoAoy^a: yvmonKsз Kai koivowiksз ф^siз Ttfз yArnaaiK^з Xptfoyз [Introduction to pragmatics: Cognitive and social aspects of language use]. Athens: Ekdoseis tou Eikostou Protou.
14. Culpeper, Jonathan (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349--367. Culpeper, Jonathan (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Davies, Bethan L., Andrew J. Merrison & Michael Haugh (2013). Epilogue. In Davies, B.L., M. Haugh, & A.J. Merrison (eds.) Situated Politeness. London: Continuum, 270--277.
16. De Fina, Anna, Deborah Schiffrin & Michael Bamberg (eds.) (2006). Discourse and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Dynel, Marta (2015). The landscape of impoliteness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 11 (2), 329--354.
18. Eelen, Gino (2001). A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
19. Eller, Monika (2017). Reader response in the digital age: Letters to the editor vs. below-the-line comments: A synchronic comparison. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ruprecht-Karls- Universitat Heidelberg. https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/23 857/.
20. Fukushima, Saeko & Maria Sifianou (2017) Conceptualizing politeness in Japanese and Greek. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14 (4), 525--555. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0024.
21. Fyfe, Nicholas, Jon Bannister & Ade Kearns (2006). (In)civility and the city. Urban Studies, 43 (5/6), 853--861.
22. Garces-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar (2013). Introduction: Face, identity and im/politeness: Looking backward, moving forward: From Goffman to Practice Theory. Journal of Politeness Research, 9 (1), 1--33.
23. Garces-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar & Maria Sifianou (2017). Im/politeness and identity. In Culpeper, J., M. Haugh & D. Kadar (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 227--256.
24. Georgalou, Mariza (2017). Discourse and identity on Facebook. London: Bloomsbury.
25. Grainger, Karen & Sara Mills (2016). Directness and indirectness across cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
26. Hall, Stuart & Paul Du Gay (eds.) (1996). Questions of cultural identity. London: Sage.
27. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) An introduction to Functional Grammar (1st ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
28. Hardaker, Claire (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 215--242. doi: 10.1515/JPLR.2010.011.
29. Hardaker, Claire & Mark McGlashan (2016). “Real men don't hate women”: Twitter rape threats and group identity. Journal of Pragmatics, 91, 80--93.
30. Haugh, Michael (2007). Emic conceptualisations of (im)politeness and face in Japanese: Implications for the discursive negotiation of second language learner identities. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 657--680.
31. Haugh, Michael (2010). When is an email really offensive? Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 6 (1), 7--31.
32. Haugh, Michael (2012). Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 8 (1), 111--134.
33. Haugh, Michael & Jonathan Culpeper (2018). Integrative pragmatics and (im)politeness theory. In Ilie, C. & N. Norrick (eds.) Pragmatics and its Interfaces. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 213--239.
34. Howard, Judith A. (2000). Social psychology of identities. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 26, 367--393.
35. Jaworski, Adam, Nikolas Coupland & Dariusz Galasinski (2004) Metalanguage: Why now? In Jaworski, A., N. Coupland & D. Galasinski (eds.) Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 3--8.
36. Johnstone, Barbara (2008). Discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
37. Joseph, John E. (2004) Language and identity: National, ethnic, religious. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
38. Kadar, Daniel Z. & Michael Haugh (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. Kienpointner, Manfred (1997). Varieties of rudeness: Types and functions of impolite utterances. Functions of Language, 4 (2), 251--87.
40. Kienpointner, Manfred (2018). Impoliteness online: Hate speech in online interactions. Internet Pragmatics, 1 (2), 329--351.
41. Kristiansen, Tore (2003). The youth and the gatekeepers. Reproduction and change in language norm and variation. In Androutsopoulos, J. & A. Georgakopoulou (eds) The Discursive Construction of Youth Identities. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 279--302.
42. Lakoff, Robin (2005). Civility and its discontents: Or getting in your face. In Lakoff, R.T. & S. Ide (eds.) Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 43.
43. Locher, Miriam A. (2008). Relational work, politeness and identity construction. In Antos, G., E. Ven- tola & T. Weber (eds.) Handbooks of Applied Linguistics. Volume 2: Interpersonal Communication. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 509--540. doi: 10.1515/9783110211399.4.509. Locher, Miriam A. (2013) Situated impoliteness: The interface between relational work and identity construction. In Haugh, M., B.L. Davies & A.J. Merrison (eds.) Situated Politeness. London: Bloomsbury, 187--208.
44. Locher, Miriam A. & Brook Bolander, (2017). Facework and identity. In Hoffmann, C.R. & W. Bublitz (eds.) Pragmatics of Social Media. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 407--434. doi: 10.1515/9783110431070-015.
45. Locher, Miriam A. & Brook Bolander. (2019). Ethics in pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 83--90.
46. Locher, Miriam A. & Martin Luginbuhl (2019). Meta-discussions on Swiss and German politeness in online sources. In Ogiermann, E. & P. Garces-Conejos Blitvich (eds.) From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness: Multilingual and Multicultural Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 250--279.
47. Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1 (1), 9--33.
48. Lodewijkx, Hein F.M. (2008). Reciprocity, norm of. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (2nd ed.), 107--109.
49. Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Pilar Garces-Conejos Blitvich & Patricia Bou-Franch (2011). On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (10), 2578--2593.
50. Luzon, Maria-Jose (2018). Constructing academic identities online: Identity performance in research group blogs written by multilingual scholars. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 39.
51. Marwick, Alice (2013). Online identity. In Hartley, J., J. Burgess & A. Bruns (eds.) Companion to New Media Dynamics. Malden MA: Blackwell, 355--364.
52. Mills, Sara (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53. Mills, Sara (2009). Impoliteness in a cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1047--1060. Mills, Sara (2017). English politeness and class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. Mills, Sara & Daniel Z. Kadar (2011). Culture and politeness. In Kadar, D.Z. and S. Mills (eds.) Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21--44.
55. Moser, Gabriel & Denis Corroyer (2001). Politeness in the urban environment: Is city life still synonymous with civility? Environment and Behavior, 33 (5), 611--625.
56. Mouffe, Chantal (2005). For an agonistic public sphere. In Tender, L. & L. Thomassen (eds.) Radical Democracy: Politics between Abundance and Lack. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 123--132.
57. Mutz, Diana C. (2015). In-your-face politics: The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
58. Mutz, Diana C. & Byron Reeves (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99 (1), 1--15.
59. Neurauter-Kessels, Manuela (2011). Im/polite reader responses on British online news sites. Journal of Politeness Research, 7, 187--214.
60. Niedzielski, Nancy A. & Dennis R. Preston (2003). Folk linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
61. O'Driscoll, Jim (2013). Situational transformations: The offensive-izing of an email message and the public-ization of offensiveness. Pragmatics and Society, 4 (3), 369--387.
62. Ogiermann, Eva & Vasiliki Saloustrou (2019). Conceptualising im/politeness in Greece and Great Britain. Paper presented at the 12th international conference on (im)politeness. Cambridge, 17--19 July 2019.
63. Ohashi, Jun & Chang, Wei-Lin, Melody (2017). (Im)politeness and relationality. In Culpeper, J., M. Haugh & D. Kadar (eds.) Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. Basingstoke. Palgrave MacMillan, 257--281.
64. Oz, Mustafa, Pei Zheng & Gina Masullo Chen (2017). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society, 20 (9), 3400--3419.
65. Papacharissi, Zizi (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6 (2), 259--283. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1461444804041444.
66. Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula (2014). Constructing collectivity with `we': An introduction. In Pav- lidou, Th.-S. (ed.) Constructing Collectivity: `We' across Languages and Contexts. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1--19.
67. Perugini, Marco & Marcello Gallucci (2001). Individual differences and social norms: The distinction between reciprocators and prosocials. European Journal of Personality, 15, 19--35.
68. Pinto, Derrin (2011). Are Americans insincere? Interactional style and politeness in everyday America. Journal of Politeness Research, 7 (2), 215--238.
69. Preston, Dennis (2005). What is folk linguistics? Why should you care? Lingua Posnaniensis, 47, 143--162.
70. Reader, Bill (2012). Free press vs. free speech? The rhetoric of “civility” in regard to anonymous online comments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89 (3), 495--513.
71. Rowe, Ian (2015) Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18 (2), 121--138. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365.
72. Santana, Arthur D. (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8 (1), 18--33. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/17512786.2013.813194.
73. Scott, Craig R. (2004). Benefits and drawbacks of anonymous online communication: Legal challenges and communicative recommendations. Free Speech Yearbook, 41 (1), 127--141. doi: 10.1080/08997225.2004.10556309.
74. Sellers, Mortimer (2003). Ideals of public discourse. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id= 1144719. (Last accessed, 16 September 2018).
75. Sifianou, Maria (2019). Im/politeness and in/civility: A neglected relationship? Journal of Pragmatics, 147, 49--64.
76. Sifianou, Maria & Angeliki Tzanne (2010). Conceptualizations of politeness and impoliteness in Greek. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7 (4), 661--687.
77. Smith, Philip, Timothy L. Phillips & Ryan D. King (2010) Incivility: The rude stranger in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
78. Spencer-Oatey, Helen (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (5), 529--45.
79. Stryker, Robin, Bethany Anne Conway & Taylor J. Danielson (2016). What is political incivility? Communication Monographs, 83 (40), 535--556. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2016.1201207.
80. Temmerman, Martina (2014). “Nail polish -- We've chosen the nicest shades for you!”: Editorial voice and `we' in a Flemish women's magazine. In Pavlidou, Th.-S. (ed.) Constructing Collectivity. `We' across Languages and Contexts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 247--263.
81. Terkourafi, Marina (2011). From politeness1 to politeness2: Tracking norms of im/politeness across time and space. Journal of Politeness Research, 7 (2), 159--185.
82. Terkourafi, Marina, Lydia Catedral, Iftikhar Haider, Farzad Karimzad, Jeriel Melgares, Cristina Mostacero-Pinilla, Julie Nelson & Benjamin Weissman (2018). Uncivil Twitter: A sociopragmatic analysis. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 6 (1), 26--57.
83. Thurlow, Crispin, Lara Lengel & Alice Tomic (2004). Computer-mediated communication: Social interaction and the Internet. London: Sage.
84. Tzanne, Angeliki (2019). Politeness, praising, and identity construction in a Greek food blog. Ogiermann, E. & P. Garces-Conejos Blitvich (eds.) From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness: Multilingual and Multicultural Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 48--67.
85. Upadhyay, Shiv R. (2010). Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses. Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 105--127.
86. van Dijk, Teun A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
87. van Dijk, Teun A. (2006a). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11 (2), 115--140.
88. van Dijk, Teun A. (2006b). Politics, ideology and discourse. In Wodak, R. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Volume on Politics and Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 728--740.
89. Verschueren, Jef (2012). Ideology in language use: Pragmatic guidelines for empirical research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
90. Watson, Tony J. (2008). Managing identity: Identity work, personal predicaments and structural circumstances. Organization, 15 (1), 121--143.
91. Watts, Richard J. (1989). Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behaviour. Multilingua, 8, 131--166.
92. Watts, Richard J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
93. Watts, Richard J., Sachiko Ide & Konrad Ehlich (1992). Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory, and practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
94. Wieland, Stacey M.B. (2010). Ideal selves as resources for the situated practice of identity management. Communication Quarterly, 24 (4), 503--528.
95. Zappavigna, Michele (2012). Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. London: Continuum International.
Размещено на Allbest.ru
...Подобные документы
Theories of discourse as theories of gender: discourse analysis in language and gender studies. Belles-letters style as one of the functional styles of literary standard of the English language. Gender discourse in the tales of the three languages.
дипломная работа [3,6 M], добавлен 05.12.2013The study of political discourse. Political discourse: representation and transformation. Syntax, translation, and truth. Modern rhetorical studies. Aspects of a communication science, historical building, the social theory and political science.
лекция [35,9 K], добавлен 18.05.2011The ways of expressing evaluation by means of language in English modern press and the role of repetitions in the texts of modern newspaper discourse. Characteristics of the newspaper discourse as the expressive means of influence to mass reader.
курсовая работа [31,5 K], добавлен 17.01.2014The process of scientific investigation. Contrastive Analysis. Statistical Methods of Analysis. Immediate Constituents Analysis. Distributional Analysis and Co-occurrence. Transformational Analysis. Method of Semantic Differential. Contextual Analysis.
реферат [26,5 K], добавлен 31.07.2008Theoretical aspects of gratitude act and dialogic discourse. Modern English speech features. Practical aspects of gratitude expressions use. Analysis of thank you expression and responses to it in the sentences, selected from the fiction literature.
дипломная работа [59,7 K], добавлен 06.12.2015English songs discourse in the general context of culture, the song as a phenomenon of musical culture. Linguistic features of English song’s texts, implementation of the category of intertextuality in texts of English songs and practical part.
курсовая работа [26,0 K], добавлен 27.06.2011Example of "simple linear progression". Additive. adversative. temporal textual connector. Anaphoric relations and their use in fairy tales. Major types of deictic markers: person deixis, place deixis, time deixis, textual deixis, social deixis.
творческая работа [300,8 K], добавлен 05.07.2011Act of gratitude and its peculiarities. Specific features of dialogic discourse. The concept and features of dialogic speech, its rationale and linguistic meaning. The specifics and the role of the study and reflection of gratitude in dialogue speech.
дипломная работа [66,6 K], добавлен 06.12.2015The subjective aspects of social life. Social process – those activities, actions, operations that involve the interaction between people. Societal interaction – indirect interaction bearing on the level of community and society. Modern conflict theory.
реферат [18,5 K], добавлен 18.01.2009Use of jargons to make more specific expression of thoughts. Theoretical information on emergence and development of a slang. Jargon in Finance. Some examples of use of a financial jargons which were found in scientific articles. Discourse analysis.
реферат [20,1 K], добавлен 06.01.2015Systematic framework for external analysis. Audience, medium and place of communication. The relevance of the dimension of time and text function. General considerations on the concept of style. Intratextual factors in translation text analysis.
курс лекций [71,2 K], добавлен 23.07.2009Some important theories of globalization, when and as this process has begun, also its influence on our society. The research is built around Urlich Beck's book there "Was ist Globalisierung". The container theory of a society. Transnational social space.
курсовая работа [24,5 K], добавлен 28.12.2011Phrases as the basic element of syntax, verbs within syntax and morphology. The Structure of verb phrases, their grammatical categories, composition and functions. Discourse analysis of the verb phrases in the novel "Forsyte Saga" by John Galsworthy.
курсовая работа [55,2 K], добавлен 14.05.2009Defining cognitive linguistics. The main descriptive devices of frame analysis are the notions of frame and perspective. Frame is an assemblage of the knowledge we have about a certain situation, e.g., buying and selling. Application of frame analysis.
реферат [324,4 K], добавлен 07.04.2012Classification of allusion according its position in the text, main stylistic functions. Allusion as a category of vertical context its varieties in the eccentric tale "Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland". Stylistic functions in the eccentric tale.
курсовая работа [33,2 K], добавлен 12.07.2012Political power as one of the most important of its kind. The main types of political power. The functional analysis in the context of the theory of social action community. Means of political activity related to the significant material cost-us.
реферат [11,8 K], добавлен 10.05.2011General View of Romanticism. Life, works and Heritage of the Romantic Poets. Stylistic analysis of Lord Byron’s works "Destruction of Sennacherib", "Prometheus", "Darkness", of Shelly’s works "Adonais", of Wordsworth’s work "A Fact and Imagination".
курсовая работа [56,5 K], добавлен 30.10.2014Interjections in language and in speech. The functioning of interjections in Spanish and English spoken discourse. Possible reasons for the choice of different ways of rendering an interjection. Strategies of the interpretation of interjections.
дипломная работа [519,2 K], добавлен 28.09.2014The place and role of contrastive analysis in linguistics. Analysis and lexicology, translation studies. Word formation, compounding in Ukrainian and English language. Noun plus adjective, adjective plus adjective, preposition and past participle.
курсовая работа [34,5 K], добавлен 13.05.2013The corporate development history and current situation strategy of the Computacenter. Opportunities and threats for Computacenter on the analysis of IT-industry and macro-environmental analysis. The recommendations for the future strategic direction.
контрольная работа [27,5 K], добавлен 17.02.2011
