The Language of Requesting in Israeli Society

Blum‐Kulka, Shoshana; Danet, Brenda; Gherson, Rimona

doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5074-6_7

Cited by 110 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It provides a breadth of insights into human behavior which no other theory has yet offered, and it has served as a touchstone for researchers who have felt the need to go beyond it. Eelen (2001) places it on much the same level as other approaches to politeness that have been suggested by researchers in the field, e. g., Blum-Kulka et al (1985), Blum-Kulka (1987, Janney and Arndt (1992), Ide (1989), Mao (1994), Gu (1990), Kasper (1990), Robin Lakoff (1973), Fraser (1990). But it is clearly in a class of its own in terms of its comprehensiveness, operationalizability, thoroughness and level of argumentation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Politeness Theory and Relational Work

Locher¹,

Watts²

2005

Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture

802

423

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Politeness Theory and Relational Work

Locher¹,

Watts²

2005

Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture

802

423

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…`Friends', for example, are treated as close by Lim & Bowers (1991) and , but as intermediate in terms of distance/closeness by Blum-Kulka et al (1985), Boxer (1993) and Holmes (1990). Similarly, Lim & Bowers (1991) categorize `acquaintances' as a distant relationship, whereas treats them as intermediate in terms of distance/closeness.…”

Section: Distancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of definitions, Blum-Kulka et al (1985) also attempt to explain their understanding of the term power. However, their comments seem more muddling than helpful:…”

Section: Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reconsidering power and distance

Spencer‐Oatey¹

1996

Journal of Pragmatics

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A wide range of studies indicate that power and distance affect the production and interpretation of language. However, this paper argues that greater consideration needs to be given to the conceptual nature of these dimensions, and to terminological usage. In the first half of the paper, the need for this consideration is explained. A number of pragmatic studies are examined, and this reveals that authors often use the same terms with different meanings, or different terms with the same meaning, and that the parameters are rarely explicitly defined. Then the paper reviews recent calls for an extra parameter of interlocutor relations to be added: for affect to be separated from distance. In the second half of the paper, relevant social psychological research is reported, and it is concluded that the number of `horizontal' dimensions of interlocutor relations needs to be reconsidered. Power, on the other hand, emerges as a robust and relatively unitary dimension, yet its label has connotations that may not be cross-culturally valid.

show abstract

“…Following those initial works in the area, attempts to describe speech acts in different languages followed. Although English accounts for the bulk of research in the area, there are quite a few studies in languages like Spanish (Félix-Brasdefer, 2009; García, 1993), Japanese (Fukushima, 1996), Chinese (Hong, 1996), Korean (Byon, 2004;Byon, 2006;Rue, Zhang & Shin, 2007) and Hebrew (Blum-Kulka, Danet & Gherson, 1985). However, research on Turkish requests is very scarce.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%