Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:24:14.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Researching Im/politeness in Face-to-Face Interactions: On Disagreements in Polish Homes

from Part I - Concepts and Cultural Norms Underlying Speech Acts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2019

By
Eva Ogiermann
Edited by
Eva Ogiermann  and
Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
Eva Ogiermann
Affiliation:
King's College London
Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Get access

Summary

Ogiermann’s chapter explores disagreements in naturally occurring conversations taking place between spouses in Polish homes. The disagreements under scrutiny arise while accomplishing everyday tasks and generally aim at achieving the best outcome for all members of the family. Yet the analyses demonstrate that the disagreements are treated as face-threatening. The study is based on video recordings, making it possible to include non-verbal aspects of the interaction in the analysis. Taking these aspects into account sheds new light on the disagreements, showing that they often form a background activity to the tasks being performed, which continue being executed as the disagreements evolve and impact on how they evolve. The analysis of the interactional data is complemented with interviews, which largely confirm the interpretations derived from the recordings, while also providing a broader perspective on how the disagreements and understandings of politeness shape, and are shaped by, the couples’ family lives.

Keywords

Etic
Type
Chapter
Information
From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness
Multilingual and Multicultural Perspectives
 , pp. 146 - 174
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angouri, J. (2012). Managing disagreement in problem solving meeting talk. Journal of Pragmatics 44(12), 1565–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arndt, H. and Janney, R. (1985). Politeness revisited: cross modal supportive strategies. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 23(4), 281–300.Google Scholar
Atkinson, M. J. and Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Bilmes, J. (2014). Preference and the conversation analytic endeavor. Journal of Pragmatics 64, 52–71.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987 [1978]). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. (2016). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., and Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35(10–11), 1545–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doroszewski, W., ed. (2011). Słownik Języka Polskiego. Warsaw: Polskie Wydawnictwo Naukowe, online version.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010). A genre approach to the study of im-politeness. International Review of Pragmatics 2(1), 46–94.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2001). Arguing about the future: on indirect disagreements in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33(12), 1881–900.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32(10), 1489–522.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. (2013). Building Human Action by Transforming Different Kinds of Semiotic Materials. Manuscript read at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association Chicago. Available at www.helsinki.fi/cradle/documents/Goodwin%20&%20Goodwin%20AAA13.pdf.Google Scholar
Greatbatch, D. (1992). On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds, Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 268–301.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggith, M. (1993). Disagreement in creative problem solving. AAAI Technical Report SS-93-01. In Artificial Intelligence and Creativity: Papers from the 1993 AAAI Spring Symposium, March 23–25. Stanford, CA: AAAI. Available at www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/1993/SS-93-01/SS93-01-005.pdf.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness research: an interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research 3(2), 295–317.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2010). When is an email really offensive? Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 6(1), 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, C. and Hindmarsh, J. (2002). Analysing interaction: video, ethnography and situated conduct. In May, T., ed., Qualitative Research in Action. Sage: London, pp. 99–122.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2008). Participants’ orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research 4(2), 221–41.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kakavá, Ch. (1993). Negotiation of Disagreement by Greeks in Conversations and Classroom Discourse. Doctoral thesis, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Kakavá, , (2002). Opposition in Modern Greek discourse: cultural and contextual constraints. Journal of Pragmatics 34(10/11), 1537–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and concession in disputes: on the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society 22(2), 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. In Corum, C., Smith-Stark, T. C., and Weiser, A., eds, Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April 1973. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 292–305.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A. and Locher, M. A. (2012). Ways of communicating emotional stance in online disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics 44(12), 1591–606.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (1996). Finding ‘face’ in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 59(4), 303–21.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics 17, 365–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1), 9–33.Google Scholar
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: topics and disagreement in focus groups. Language in Society, 27(1), 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, S. (2011). Identity in (Inter)action: Introducing Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ogiermann, E. and Suszczyńska, M. (2011). On im/politeness behind the Iron Curtain. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Kádár, D. Z., eds, Politeness across Cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 194–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papp, L. M., Kouros, C. D., and Cummings, E. (2009). Demand‐withdraw patterns in marital conflict in the home. Personal Relationships 16(2), 285–300.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, M. and Heritage, J., eds, Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–103.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (2005). Using participants’ video stimulated comments to complement analyses of interactional practices. In te Molder, H. and Potter, J., eds, Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 93–115.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1987 [1973]). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E., eds, Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 54–69.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society, 13(3), 311–35.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (2012). Disagreements, face and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 44(12), 1554–64.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. and Tzanne, A. (2010). Conceptualizations of politeness and impoliteness in Greek. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(4), 661–87.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 1(2), 237–62.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zinken, J. and Ogiermann, E. (2013). Responsibility and action: invariants and diversity in requests for objects in British English and Polish interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(3), 256–76.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×