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
- 2 Sociopragmatics
- 3 Inference and Implicature
- 4 Speaker Meaning, Commitment and Accountability
- 5 Social Actions
- 6 Stance and Evaluation
- 7 Reflexivity and Meta-awareness
- 8 Participation and Footing
- 9 Conventionalization and Conventions
- 10 Synchronic and Diachronic Pragmatic Variability
- 11 Activity Types and Genres
- 12 Social Groups and Relational Networks
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- Index
- References
9 - Conventionalization and Conventions
from Part I - Fundamentals of 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
- 2 Sociopragmatics
- 3 Inference and Implicature
- 4 Speaker Meaning, Commitment and Accountability
- 5 Social Actions
- 6 Stance and Evaluation
- 7 Reflexivity and Meta-awareness
- 8 Participation and Footing
- 9 Conventionalization and Conventions
- 10 Synchronic and Diachronic Pragmatic Variability
- 11 Activity Types and Genres
- 12 Social Groups and Relational Networks
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- Index
- References
Summary
In this chapter we explore the interrelated phenomena of conventionalization and conventions. We argue that the essence of convention is to facilitate meaning making in interaction, while conventionalization refers to the process through which conventions come into existence. We investigate the pragmatic complexity surrounding convention and conventionalization by arguing that (1) conventionalization is a matter of degree; (2) conventions and conventionalization are particularly prominent in intercultural interactions; and (3) language and socialisation are highly relevant to conventionalization. We also investigate facets of language use with complex implications for convention and practice, and we provide various interactional examples to illustrate these facets.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 162 - 181Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Ackerman, B. P. (1978). Children’s understanding of speech acts in unconventional directive frames. Child Development, 49(2), 311–18.Google Scholar
Ardington, A. (2011). Tourist advertising of Australia: Impolite or situation-appropriate? Or a uniquely Aussie invite lost in translation. In Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J., eds., Situated Politeness. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 253–9.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harling, K. and Vellenga, H. E. (2012). The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40, 77–89.Google Scholar
Bax, M. (2010). Rituals. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics, Vol. 8: Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 483–519.Google Scholar
Bell, C. (1997). Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2011). On the descriptive ineffability of expressive meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3537–50.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burling, R. (2000). Comprehension, production and conventionalisation in the origins of language. In Knight, C., Studdert-Kennedy, M. and Hurford, J., eds., The Evolutionary Emergence of Language: Social Function and the Origin of Linguistic Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–39.Google Scholar
Cooren, F. (2000). Toward another ideal speech situation: A critique of Habermas’ reinterpretation of speech act theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 86, 295–317.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3232–45.Google Scholar
Donald, M. (2011). Art and cognitive evolution. In Turner, M., ed., The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2017). “Is there a tumour in your humour?” On misunderstanding and miscommunication in conversational humour. In Gioria, R. and Haugh, M., eds., Doing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 55–78.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. and House, J. (1981). Let’s Talk and Talk about It: A Pedagogic Interactional Grammar of English. Munich: Urban and Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
Erickson, F. and Shultz, J. (1982). The Counsellor as Gatekeeper: Social Interaction in Interviews. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Escandel-Vidall, V. (1984). Norms and principles: Putting social and cognitive pragmatics together. In Márquez-Reiter, R. and Placencia, M. E., eds., Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 347–72.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1994). Dialect, register, and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization. In Bieber, D. and Finegan, E., eds., Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvey, K. (1977). Play with language and speech. In Ervin-Tripp, S. and Kernan, C. M., eds., Child Discourse. New York: Academic Press, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1983). Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(3), 524–33.Google Scholar
Hancher, M. (1980). How to play games with words: Speech-act jokes. Journal of Literary Semantics. 9(1), 20–29.Google Scholar
House, J. (1989). Politeness in English and German: The functions of please and bitte. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 96–119.Google Scholar
House, J. (2003a). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556–78.Google Scholar
House, J. (2003b). Misunderstanding in intercultural university encounters. In House, J., Kasper, G. and Ross, S., eds., Misunderstanding in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk. London: Longman, pp. 22–56.Google Scholar
House, J. (2009). Introduction: The pragmatics of English as a Lingua Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 141–5.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. (2017). Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. (2020). Capturing injunctive norm in pragmatics: Meta-reflective evaluations and the moral order. Lingua. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102814.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and House, J. (2019). Revisiting speech acts from the perspective of ritual: A discussion note. Multilingua, 38(6), 687–92.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and House, J. (2020). Linguistic forms, standards situations and ritual frames: A contrastive pragmatic framework. Pragmatics, 30(1), 142–68.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81–104.Google Scholar
Khubchandani, L. M. (1997). Revisualizing Boundaries: A Plurilingual Rthos. New Delhi, India: Sage.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). ‘Rules for Ritual Insults’. In Sudnow, D., ed., Studies in Social Interaction. Oxford: Blackwell/The Free Press. Reprinted in Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania University Press/Basil Blackwell, pp. 297–353.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1979). Pragmatics and social deixis: Reclaiming the notion of conventional implicature. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley University Press, pp. 206–23.Google Scholar
Mills, S. and Kádár, D. Z. (2011). Politeness and culture. In Kádár, D. Z. and Mills, S., eds., Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–44.Google Scholar
Montagu, A. (1967). The Anatomy of Swearing. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L. (1977). Technical Report 52: Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts. Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Pizziconi, B. and Christie, C. (2017). Indexicality and (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 143–70.Google Scholar
Planken, B. (2005). Managing rapport in lingua franca sales negotiations: A comparison of professional and aspiring negotiators. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 381–400.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, B. and Ochs, E. (eds.). (1986). Language Socialisation across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1964). Intention and convention in speech acts. The Philosophical Review, 73(4), 439–60.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513–33.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience on pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61(3), 904–39.Google Scholar
Tan, A. (1999). The language of discretion. In Ricks, C. and Michaels, L., eds., The State of Language. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 25–32.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984). The pragmatics of cross-cultural communication. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 189–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2001). Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A frame-based approach. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2013). Re-assessing the speech-act schema: Twenty-first century reflections. International Review of Pragmatics, 5(2), 197–216.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. and Kádár, D. Z. (2017). Convention and ritual (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 171–95.Google Scholar
Thelwall, M. (2008). Fk yea I swear: Cursing and gender in MySpace. Corpora, 3(1), 83–107.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, B. (2010). Social and linguistic perspectives on variability in world Englishes. World Englishes, 29(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
Weisser, M. (2014). Speech act annotation. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–114.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by