Accepted author manuscript, 444 KB, PDF document
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness
T2 - a study of impoliteness events reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany and Turkey.
AU - Culpeper, Jonathan
AU - Marti, Leyla
AU - Mei, Meilian
AU - Nevala, Minna
AU - Schauer, Gila
PY - 2010/10
Y1 - 2010/10
N2 - This paper investigates cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness.It is based on 500 impoliteness events reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany, and Turkey. The main analytical framework adopted is Spencer-Oatey’s (e.g. 2000) “rapport management,” covering various types of face as well as sociality rights. We offer some clarifications of this framework, and explain and demonstrate how it can be operationalized forquantitative analysis. In general, it offers a good account of our data, though accommodating ambiguous cases proved to be a major challenge. Our quantitative analysis suggests that three of the five categories of Spencer-Oatey’s framework are key ones, namely, quality face, equity rights, and association rights. Furthermore, differences between our geographically separated datasets emerge. For example, the England-based data has a preponderance of impoliteness events in which quality face is violated, whereas the China-based data has a preponderance where equity rights are violated. We offer some explanations for these differences, relating them where possible to broader cultural issues.
AB - This paper investigates cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness.It is based on 500 impoliteness events reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany, and Turkey. The main analytical framework adopted is Spencer-Oatey’s (e.g. 2000) “rapport management,” covering various types of face as well as sociality rights. We offer some clarifications of this framework, and explain and demonstrate how it can be operationalized forquantitative analysis. In general, it offers a good account of our data, though accommodating ambiguous cases proved to be a major challenge. Our quantitative analysis suggests that three of the five categories of Spencer-Oatey’s framework are key ones, namely, quality face, equity rights, and association rights. Furthermore, differences between our geographically separated datasets emerge. For example, the England-based data has a preponderance of impoliteness events in which quality face is violated, whereas the China-based data has a preponderance where equity rights are violated. We offer some explanations for these differences, relating them where possible to broader cultural issues.
U2 - 10.1515/IPRG.2010.027
DO - 10.1515/IPRG.2010.027
M3 - Journal article
VL - 7
SP - 597
EP - 624
JO - Intercultural Pragmatics
JF - Intercultural Pragmatics
SN - 1613-365X
IS - 4
ER -