26.2760, Diss: Greek, Modern; Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics: Eleni Karafoti: 'Politeness, Impoliteness and Speaker's Face'

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-26-2760. Thu Jun 04 2015. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 26.2760, Diss: Greek, Modern; Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics: Eleni Karafoti: 'Politeness, Impoliteness and Speaker's Face'

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
              http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Ashley Parker <ashley at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:27:50
From: Eleni Karafoti [ekarafot at lit.auth.gr]
Subject: Politeness, Impoliteness and Speaker's Face

 Institution: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 
Program: Department of Linguistics 
Dissertation Status: Completed 
Degree Date: 2014 

Author: Eleni Karafoti

Dissertation Title: Politeness, impoliteness and speaker's face 

Linguistic Field(s): Discourse Analysis
                     Pragmatics

Subject Language(s): Greek, Modern (ell)

Dissertation Director(s):
Theodossia- Soula Pavlidou
Savas Tsohatzidis
Maria Sifianou

Dissertation Abstract:

The present study examines the social phenomenon of (im)politeness through its linguistic expression. Based on the assumption that participants easily recognize the phenomenon without further instructions, the aim of the research
is twofold: firstly to evaluate the different approaches to (im)politeness and face, and secondly to explore the best way to investigate them in talk-in-interaction.

Taking into account that (im)politeness lacks a clear and commonly accepted description –as the research review has shown- the present study adopts Haugh & Kadar’s (2013) broad delineation of the phenomenon. According to this view, (im)politeness can be considered as a social practice of interpersonal expectations, the latter created by the knowledge of moral order (or of what is expectable). In addition, the present study imputes the problematic nature
of ‘face’ not to its correlation with politeness but to its dissociation from the original framework in which it first appeared, i.e. Goffman’s ‘interaction order’. The latter assumption dictates the return to Goffman’s view of face as
an image of self that others may share, since such a perspective encompasses self and other in the same definition. In this respect, the present research restores Goffman’s emphasis on the individual who each time presents his/her
positive self-image in interaction, i.e. speaker’s face. The more specific aim of the research is determined by both the widely recognized necessity of studying (im)politeness from the participants’ perspective and Goffman’s view of the way social order penetrates interaction order. The emphasis on the participants’ orientation to (im)politeness also
accounts for the selection of Conversation Analysis (CA), which is furthermore compatible with Goffman’s approach. As a consequence, the data consist of naturally occurring talk and, in particular, of conversations among friends/relatives. 

More specifically, the study focuses on the participants’ explicit indications of moral order’s violations. For the identification of these violations Heritage’s distinction between normative and moral accountability is used; thus, normative accountability is applied to the violations that concern the system organisation, while moral accountability to those referring to the social organisation. As the analysis shows, participants do notice the violations of moral order (by using particular words, acts or practices), thus undertaking or ascribing responsibility for them. In particular, they name system/social violations when these have an impact on their relationship, e.g. 'you are constantly interrupting me', 'you are (im)polite' respectively. Furthermore, they use explicit complaints and noticings, when there is a
disruption of social order. In all the above ways, they reveal what constitutes the norm that relates to (im)polite behavior, rendering its examination possible. In that way, the norm emerges from the examination of the sequential organization of talk in interaction, making C.A. a valuable theoretical and methodological tool for a researcher to begin with the investigation of (im)politeness.



----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-26-2760	
----------------------------------------------------------