Institutional apologies in UK higher education: Getting back into the black before going into the red

Davies, Bethan L.; Merrison, Andrew John; Goddard, Angela

doi:10.1515/pr.2007.003

Cited by 36 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The special issues encouraged the extension of politeness research to different contexts, such as "Politeness at work" (guest edited by Mills and Beeching 2006), "Politeness in health care settings" (guest edited by Mullany 2009) and "Politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communication (CMC)" (guest edited by Locher 2010). It is also worth mentioning the extensive work that has been published on speech acts (e.g., Kampf and Blum-Kulka 2006;Wouk 2006;Davies et al 2007;Ogiermann 2009), including a special issue on Apologies in 2007 (guest edited by Grainger and Harris). Also in this period, there were important developments and conceptualizations of impoliteness (e.g., Culpeper 2005;Piirainen-Marsh 2005), helped along by the publication of a special issue on Impoliteness in 2008, guest edited by Bousfield and Culpeper.…”

Section: -2010: Conception and Early Yearsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal of Politeness Research: Introduction

Bom

Grainger

2015

Journal of Politeness Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2005-2010: Conception and early yearsIn the early 2000s, research on linguistic and non-linguistic politeness phenomena was already flourishing in a diverse number of disciplines, not in least thanks to the seminal publication of Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson's (1987Levinson's ( [1978) book Politeness: Universals in Language Usage. Despite the surge of research in politeness in the field of pragmatics and a diverse number of other disciplines, including sociolinguistics, social anthropology, cultural studies, sociology, communication studies, computing, psychology, gender studies, and business, there was no unified platform to bring these different publicaIsabelle van der Bom,

show abstract

Section: -2010: Conception and Early Yearsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal of Politeness Research: Introduction

Bom

Grainger

2015

Journal of Politeness Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The vast majority of work on relational aspects of various modes of CMC thus far, including email, however, has focused on politeness (Harrison 2000;Bunz and Campbell 2004;Preece 2004;Davies et al 2007;de Oliveria 2007;Hatipoglu 2007;Vinagre 2008). Impoliteness, on the other hand, has received much less attention (Graham 2007(Graham , 2008Nishimura 2008), with most such research being framed as "flaming" (Avgerinakou 2003), defined as "the antinormative hostile communication of emotions … that includes the use of profanity, insults, and other offensive or hurtful statements" (Johnson et al 2008: 419).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When is an email really offensive?: Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness

Haugh¹

2010

Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The analysis in this paper centres on an email exchange between a lecturer and a student at the University of Auckland which resulted in the dismissal of that lecturer. This dismissal gave rise to significant controversy, both off-and online, as to whether the email itself was simply "intemperate" and "angry", or more seriously "offensive" and "racist" . Through a close analysis of the interpretations of the emails by the lecturer and student, as well as online evaluations made on blogs and discussion boards, it becomes apparent that the inherent discursivity of evaluations of impoliteness arises not only from different perceptions of norms, but also from the ways in which commentators position themselves vis-à-vis these evaluations. It also emerges that the relative level of discursive dispute is mediated by the technological and situational characteristics of the CMC medium in which these evaluations occurred. It is concluded that research into various forums of online interaction provides a unique window into the inherent variability

show abstract

“…Likewise, the focus has concentrated on interactions that take place in the private domain, and linguistic studies which examine apologies made in public contexts are in their infancy by comparison (but see for example, Davies et al, 2007;Gruber, 2011;Harris et al, 2006;Kampf, 2009). Meier's (1998) overview of politeness rightly points to further limitations in existing research, where the methods of data collection may focus more on the perceived use of apologies, rather than analysing naturally occurring examples.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%