Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- 27 Interpersonal Pragmatics
- 28 Sociocognitive Pragmatics
- 29 Conversation Analysis and Sociopragmatics
- 30 Corpus Pragmatics
- 31 Variational Pragmatics
- 32 Historical Sociopragmatics
- 33 Emancipatory Pragmatics
- 34 Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Pragmatics
- 35 Second Language Pragmatics
- Index
- References
27 - Interpersonal Pragmatics
from Part III - Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- 27 Interpersonal Pragmatics
- 28 Sociocognitive Pragmatics
- 29 Conversation Analysis and Sociopragmatics
- 30 Corpus Pragmatics
- 31 Variational Pragmatics
- 32 Historical Sociopragmatics
- 33 Emancipatory Pragmatics
- 34 Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Pragmatics
- 35 Second Language Pragmatics
- Index
- References
Summary
Since the 2010s, a number of scholars have explicitly worked with the term ‘interpersonal pragmatics’ in order to zoom in on the relational and interpersonal side of communication. The purpose of the chapter is to demonstrate how the research interest on the interpersonal and relational is inspired by (im)politeness, identity construction and communication studies in order to tackle questions about pragmatic variation and interpersonal effects. Interpersonal pragmatics does not propagate a particular methodology nor only one theory but is conceptualized as a perspective on the interpersonal side of language and communication. The chapter draws on and points to a number of earlier chapters dealing with key concepts for this field, such as (im)politeness, relational work, face, identity construction, roles and the social and historical embeddedness of communication. Key themes within interpersonal pragmatics are, among others, negotiations of agreement and disagreement, negotiations of (clashes of) norms and understandings of self and other in particular social contexts.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 569 - 591Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Bateman, J., Wildfeuer, J. and Hiippala, T. (2017). Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis – A Problem-Oriented Introduction. New York: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, M. and Bloor, T. (2014). Critical discourse analysis. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 189–213.Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A. (eds.). (2008). Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N., ed., Questions and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–289.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.Google Scholar
Cap, P. (2018). Critical discourse analysis. In Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K. P. and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 425–52.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. (eds.). (2010). Historical (Im)politeness. Vol. 65. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, B. and Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. and M. Birch, , eds., Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley, CA: Women and Language Group, pp. 89–99.Google Scholar
Edelsky, C. (1981). Who’s got the floor? Language and Society, 10(3), 383–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S. (2010). Changes in the meanings of politeness in eighteenth-century England: Discourse analysis and historical evidence. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D., eds., Historical (Im)politeness. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, pp. 87–115.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2013). Introduction: Face, identity and im/politeness. Looking backward, moving forward: From Goffman to practice theory. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, C. (2011). Gumperz and interactional sociolinguistics. In Wodak, R., Johnstone, B. and Kerswill, P., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, pp. 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, S. L. (2007). Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 742–59.Google Scholar
Graham, S. L. (2008). A manual for impoliteness? The impact of the FAQ in an electronic community of practice. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 281–304.Google Scholar
Graham, S. L. (2009). Hospitalk: Politeness and hierarchical structures in interdisciplinary discharge rounds. Journal of Politeness Research, 5(1), 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Hall, K. and Bucholtz, M. (2013). Epilogue: Facing identity. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 123–132.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., Kádár, D. and Mills, S. (2013). Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jewitt, C. (ed.). (2009). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jones, R. (2013). Multimodal discourse analysis. In Chapelle, C. E., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 3992–6.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistics Society, 9, 292–305.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A. and Locher, M. A. (2013). The role of emotions in relational work. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 87–107.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A. and Locher, M. A. (2017). (Im)politeness and emotion. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave, pp. 287–322.Google Scholar
Larson, E., Hamilton, H. E. and Eisenberg, J. (1998). Hospitalk: An exploratory study to assess what is said and what is heard between physicians and nurses. Clinical Performance and Quality Health Care, 6(4), 183–9.Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2008). Relational work, politeness and identity construction. In Antos, G., Ventola, E. and Weber, T., eds., Handbooks of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 2, Interpersonal Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 509–40.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2011). Situated impoliteness: The interface between relational work and identity construction. In Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J., eds., Situated Politeness. New York: Continuum International, pp. 187–208.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2013). Politeness. In Chapelle, C. E., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 4457–63.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2014). The relational aspect of language: Avenues of research. In Mergenthal, S. and Nischik, R. M., eds., Anglistentag 2013 Konstanz: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 309–22.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2015). Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 5–10.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2017). Reflective Writing in Medical Practice: A Linguistic Perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L. (2010a). Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics. In Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L., eds., Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L. (eds.). (2010b). Interpersonal Pragmatics. Vol. 6. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Schnurr, S. (2017). (Im)politeness in health settings. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D., eds., Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave, pp. 689–711.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Thurnherr, F. (2017). Typing yourself healthy: Introduction to the special issue on language and health online. Linguistics Online, 87(8/17), 3–24.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–99.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2013). The role of language in interpersonal pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 170–81.Google Scholar
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 95–119.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. and Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In Tannen, D., ed., Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–76.Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H. and Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar