Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Communication
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Communication
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Introducing Intercultural Communication
- Part II Theoretical Approaches
- Part III Methods
- 12 Decolonizing Gender and Intercultural Communication in Transnational Contexts
- 13 Migration in the Digital Social Mediasphere
- 14 Linguistic Politeness
- 15 Contemporary Literature and Intercultural Understanding
- 16 Enhancing Intercultural Skills through Storytelling
- 17 Cinema as Intercultural Communication
- 18 Intercultural Memory and Violence in Jewish Literature
- 19 Intercultural Communication in Social Work Practice
- 20 Intercultural Education in Study Abroad Contexts
- 21 Intercultural Communication in the Courtroom
- Part IV Application
- Part V Assessment
- Index
- References
14 - Linguistic Politeness
from Part III - Methods
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 February 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Communication
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Communication
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Introducing Intercultural Communication
- Part II Theoretical Approaches
- Part III Methods
- 12 Decolonizing Gender and Intercultural Communication in Transnational Contexts
- 13 Migration in the Digital Social Mediasphere
- 14 Linguistic Politeness
- 15 Contemporary Literature and Intercultural Understanding
- 16 Enhancing Intercultural Skills through Storytelling
- 17 Cinema as Intercultural Communication
- 18 Intercultural Memory and Violence in Jewish Literature
- 19 Intercultural Communication in Social Work Practice
- 20 Intercultural Education in Study Abroad Contexts
- 21 Intercultural Communication in the Courtroom
- Part IV Application
- Part V Assessment
- Index
- References
Summary
Claus Ehrhardt proposes an approach that considers politeness as an integrative part to intercultural communication. Intercultural communication and politeness, Erhardt argues, are both theoretical models and social practices, with politeness forming one of the most prominent links between languages, cultures and communication, allowing for deeper understanding of intercultural communication. At the same time, he calls for more extensive empirical work to fully explore the dynamics of social relations in intercultural communication.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Communication , pp. 243 - 260Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Arndt, H. and Janney, R. W. (1985). Politeness revisited: cross-modal supportive strategies. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 23(4), 281–300.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: a communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(2), 193–216.Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness: new (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1), 57–82.Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Kádár, D., eds. (2011). Politeness across Cultures. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G., eds. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bonacchi, S. (2013). (Un)Höflichkeit. Eine kulturologische Analyse Deutsch – Italienisch – Polnisch. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bühler, K. (1999). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache, 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius (UTB).Google Scholar
Bührig, K. and ten Thije, J., eds. (2006). Beyond Misunderstanding: Linguistic Analyses of Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, D. and Möller-Kiero, J. (2016). Rethinking interculturality will require moral confessions: analysing the debate among convivialists, interculturalists, cosmopolitanists and intercultural communication scholars. Interculture Journal, 15(26), 43–57.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. (2012). Speech acts, facework and politeness. In Jackson, J., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. London: Routledge, pp. 148–63.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Politeness and impoliteness. In Aijmer, K. and Andersen, G., eds., Sociopragmatics. Vol. 5 of Handbook of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 391–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–66.Google Scholar
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK: St Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Ehrhardt, C. (2018). ‘Facework’, Höflichkeit und Beziehungskommunikation. In Gärtig, A., Bauer, R. and Heinz, M., eds., Pragmatik, Diskurs, Kommunikation. Festschrift für Gudrun Held zum 65. Geburtstag. Vienna: praesens, pp. 58–72.Google Scholar
Fantini, A. F. (2012). Language: an essential component of intercultural communicative competence. In Jackson, J., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. London: Routledge, pp. 263–78.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (2001). The form and function of politeness in conversation. In Brinker, K., Antos, G. and Heinemann, W., et al., eds., Text- und Gesprächslinguistik / Linguistics of Text and Conversation: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung / An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1406–25.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essay on Face-to-Face Behaviour. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Haferland, H. and Paul, I. (1996). Eine Theorie der Höflichkeit. Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie, 52, 7–60.Google Scholar
Held, G. (1995). Verbale Höflichkeit: Studien zur linguistischen Theoriebildung und empirische Untersuchung zum Sprachverhalten französischer und italienischer Jugendlicher in Bitt- und Danksituationen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hickey, L and Stewart, M., eds. (2005). Politeness in Europe. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, A. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Holliday, A., Hyde, M. and Kullmann, J. (2004). Intercultural Communication: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. (2005). Politeness in Germany: politeness in Germany? In Hickey, L. and Stewart, M., eds, Politeness in Europe. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 13–28.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. A., ed., Style in Language. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press, pp. 350–77.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2012). Interculturality and intercultural pragmatics. In Jackson, J., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. London: Routledge, pp. 67–84.Google Scholar
Keller, R. (2018). Zeichentheorie. Eine pragmatische Theorie semiotischen Wissens, 2nd ed. Tübingen: Francke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or minding your ps and qs: Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam and Watts, R. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 451–86.Google Scholar
Scollon, R., Wong Scollon, S. and Jones, R. H. (2012). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach, 3rd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley & Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H., ed. (2000a). Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, 2nd ed. London: Continuum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H., (2000b). Face, impoliteness and rapport. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, 2nd ed. London: Continuum, pp. 11–47.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Franklin, P., eds. (2009). Intercultural Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitzberg, B. H. and Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In Deardorff, D. K., ed., The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 2-52.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(2), 237–62.Google Scholar
Ten Thije, J. D. (2016). Intercultural communication. In Jäger, L., Holly, W., Krapp, P. and Weber, S., eds., Sprache - Kultur - Kommunikation / Language - Culture - Communication: Ein internationales Handbuch zu Linguistik als Kulturwissenschaft / An International Handbook of Linguistics as a Cultural Discipline. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 587–600.Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Beavin Bavelas, J. and Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. New York: Norton & Norton.Google Scholar
Wenger, Etienne (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by