Book contents
- From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness
- From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Im/politeness between the Analyst and Participant Perspectives: An Overview of the Field
- Part I Concepts and Cultural Norms Underlying Speech Acts
- Part II Concepts and Cultural Norms Underlying Politeness
- 7 Notions of Politeness in Britain and North America
- 8 The Metapragmatics of Consideration in (Australian and New Zealand) English
- 9 A Metapragmatic Aspect of Politeness: With a Special Emphasis on Attentiveness in Japanese
- 10 Discussions on Swiss and German Politeness in Online Sources
- 11 Globalisation and Politeness: A Chinese Perspective
- 12 Emic Conceptualizations of Face (Imagen) in Peninsular Spanish
- Epilogue: Personal Encounters with Politeness Research
- Index
- References
10 - Discussions on Swiss and German Politeness in Online Sources
from Part II - Concepts and Cultural Norms Underlying Politeness
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 June 2019
Book contents
- From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness
- From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Im/politeness between the Analyst and Participant Perspectives: An Overview of the Field
- Part I Concepts and Cultural Norms Underlying Speech Acts
- Part II Concepts and Cultural Norms Underlying Politeness
- 7 Notions of Politeness in Britain and North America
- 8 The Metapragmatics of Consideration in (Australian and New Zealand) English
- 9 A Metapragmatic Aspect of Politeness: With a Special Emphasis on Attentiveness in Japanese
- 10 Discussions on Swiss and German Politeness in Online Sources
- 11 Globalisation and Politeness: A Chinese Perspective
- 12 Emic Conceptualizations of Face (Imagen) in Peninsular Spanish
- Epilogue: Personal Encounters with Politeness Research
- Index
- References
Summary
Locher and Luginbühl’s chapter takes a discursive approach to politeness, analyzing how im/polite behavior of Germans and Swiss is discussed in recent online commentaries on national differences. The study draws on newspaper coverage claiming that most Swiss people do not like German immigrants because of, among other reasons, what they consider their impolite behavior. The data (written in standard German) focus on a discussion of what the German-speaking population considers as politeness in a Swiss context and how this differs from politeness norms in Germany. A content analysis of the comments is followed by a linguistic analysis of selected codes. The results show a number of interesting clashes of language ideologies as societal/cultural politeness ideologies interlace with general language ideologies; language and culture were often equated. This entails that Swiss German dialects and German standard German are constructed as being two separate languages.Furthermore, not only is ‘Swiss German’ depicted as a homogeneous entity and as a different language than German; the behavior that comes with it, a Swiss politeness, is also construed as a unified construct.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of PolitenessMultilingual and Multicultural Perspectives, pp. 250 - 275Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Ammon, U. (2003). Dialektschwund, Dialekt-Standard-Kontinuum, Diglossie: Drei Typen des Verhältnisses Dialekt – Standardvarietät im deutschen Sprachgebiet. In Androutsopoulos, J. K. and Ziegler, E., eds, Standardfragen. Soziolinguistische Perspektiven auf Sprachgeschichte, Sprachkontakt und Sprachvariation. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, pp. 163–71.Google Scholar
Berthele, R. (2010). Investigations into the folk’s mental models of linguistic varieties. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., and Peirsman, Y., eds, Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 265–90.Google Scholar
Berthele, R. (2014). Zum selektiven Zelebrieren sprachlicher Diversität in der Schweiz. Deutschblätter 66, 75–83.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N., ed., Questions and Politeness. Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–289.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987[1978]). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7(4–5), 585–614.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relation work and power. 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. 17–44.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, B. and Harré, R. (1990.) Positioning: the social construction of self. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 20(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ess, C. and AoIR Ethics Working Committee (2002). Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. Retrieved from https://aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf.Google Scholar
Gärtig, A.-K., Plewnia, A., and Rothe, A. (2010). Wie Menschen in Deutschland über Sprache denken. Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Repräsentativerhebung zu aktuellen Spracheinstellungen. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar
Grundler, E. (2011). Kompetent argumentieren. Ein gesprächsanalytisch fundiertes Modell. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Hausendorf, H. (2000). Zugehörigkeit durch Sprache. Eine linguistische Studie am Beispiel der deutschen Wiedervereinigung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Helbling, M. (2011). Why Swiss-Germans dislike Germans: opposition to culturally similar and highly skilled immigrants. European Societies 13(1), 5–27.Google Scholar
Herbermann, J. (2007). Deutsche raus? Der Tagesspiegel. www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/schweiz-deutsche-raus/819474.html.Google Scholar
Hove, I. (2008). Zur Unterscheidung des Schweizerdeutschen und der (schweizerischen) Standardsprache. In Christen, H. and Ziegler, E., eds, Sprechen, Schreiben, Hören. Zur Produktion und Perzeption von Dialekt und Standardsprache zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts. Wien: Edition Praesens, pp. 63–82.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koller, W. (1992). Deutsche in der Deutschschweiz. Eine sprachsoziologische Untersuchung. Aarau: Sauerländer.Google Scholar
Kreutz, H. J. (2002). Sprachliche Wiedervereinigung Ost-West: eine pragmalinguistische Untersuchung zu Erscheinungen kommunikativer Unsicherheit bei jungen Ostbürgern (Vol. 1). Mannheim: Institut für deutsche Sprache.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
Landert, D. and Jucker, A. H. (2011). Private and public in mass media communication: from letters to the editor to online commentaries. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 1422–34.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. (2007). Politeness: is there an East–West divide? Journal of Politeness Research 3(2), 167–206.Google Scholar
Linder, W. (2009). Das politische System der Schweiz. In Ismayr, W., ed., Die politischen Systeme Westeuropas. 4th ed. Frankfurt am Main: Springer, pp. 567–606.Google Scholar
Linguistic Politeness Research Group, eds (2011). Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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. (2013). Relational work and interpersonal pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 58, 145–49. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.014.Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2015). Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics 86, 5–10. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1), 9–33.CrossRefGoogle 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
Luginbühl, M. (2012). ‘Ich wünsche Ihnen einen schönen Abend, uf Widerluege’. Dialekt und Standard in Schweizer Medien. In Jańczak, B., Jungbluth, K., and Weydt, H., eds, Mehrsprachigkeit aus deutscher Perspektive. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 195–211.Google Scholar
MacQueen, K. M., McLellan-Lemal, E., Bartholow, K., and Milstein, B. (2008). Team-based codebook development: structure, process, and agreement. In Guest, G. and MacQueen, K. M., eds, Handbook for Team-Based Qualitative Research. Lanham, MD: ALTAMIRA, pp. 119–36.Google Scholar
Manno, G. (2005). Politeness in Switzerland: between respect and acceptance. In Hickey, L. and Stewart, M., eds, Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 100–15.Google Scholar
Markham, A. and Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research. Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Retrieved from www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf.Google Scholar
Milani, T. M. (2012). Language ideology and public discourse. In Chappelle, C. A., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neurauter-Kessels, M. (2011). Im/polite reader responses on British online news sites. Journal of Politeness Research 7, 187–214.Google Scholar
Neurauter-Kessels, M. (2013). Impoliteness in Cyberspace: Personally Abusive Reader Responses in Online News Media. PhD thesis, University of Zurich. Retrieved from http://opac.nebis.ch/ediss/20131752.pdf.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A., eds, Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–58.Google Scholar
Ogiermann, E. (2009). On Apologising in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Okamoto, S. (2010). Politeness in East Asia. In Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L., eds, Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 71–100.Google Scholar
Petkova, M. (2012). Die Deutschschweizer Diglossie: eine Kategorie mit fuzzy boundaries. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 168, 126–54.Google Scholar
Pizziconi, B. and Locher, M. A., eds (2015). Teaching and Learning (Im)politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plate, C. (2013). Weshalb Deutsche gehen. Nichts wie weg! ‘Why Germans leave. Let’s go!’ Neue Zürcher Zeitung am Sonntag, 6 October 2013. Retrieved from www.nzz.ch/nzzas/nzz-am-sonntag/nichts-wie-weg-1.18162730Google Scholar
Rash, F. (2002). Die deutsche Sprache in der Schweiz – Mehrsprachigkeit, Diglossie und Veränderung. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Scharloth, J. (2006). Schweizer Hochdeutsch – schlechtes Hochdeutsch? In Dürscheid, C. and Businger, M., eds, Schweizer Standarddeutsch. Beiträge zur Varietätenlinguistik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 81–96.Google Scholar
Schmidlin, R. (2011). Die Vielfalt des Deutschen: Standard und Variation: Gebrauch, Einschätzung und Kodifizierung einer plurizentrischen Sprache. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schümann, M. (2011). Hochdütsch isch en seich. Geschriebenes Schweizerdeutsch bei Twitter. Germanistische Linguistik 216, 239–56.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach, 2nd Edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Siebenhaar, B. (2006). Code choice and code-switching in Swiss-German internet relay chat rooms. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(4), 481–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siebenhaar, B. and Wyler, A. (1997). Dialekt und Hochsprache in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz, 5th Edn. Zurich: Edition Pro Helvetia.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (2010). Linguistic politeness: laying the foundations. In Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L., eds, Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–41.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Spiekermann, H. (2005). Regionale Standardisierung, nationale Destandardisierung. In Eichinger, L. M. and Kallmeyer, W., eds, Standardvariation. Wie viel Variation verträgt die deutsche Sprache? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 100–25.Google Scholar
Toepfl, F. and Piwoni, E. (2015). Public spheres in interaction: comment sections of news websites as counterpublic spaces. Journal of Communication 65(3), 465–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulbrich, C. (2005). Phonetische Untersuchungen zur Prosodie der Standardvarietäten des Deutschen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in der Schweiz und in Österreich. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang.Google Scholar
Upadhyay, S. R. (2010). Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses. Journal of Politeness Research 6(1), 105–27.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2010). Linguistic politeness theory and its aftermath: recent research trails. In Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L., eds, Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 43–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werlen, I., Rosenberger, L., and Baumgartner, J. (2011). Sprachkompetenzen der erwachsenen Bevölkerung in der Schweiz. Zurich: Seismo.Google Scholar
Widmer, P. (2007). Die Schweiz als Sonderfall. Grundlagen, Geschichte, Gestaltung. Zurich: NZZ.Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by