Non-acceptances in context

Research output: Working paperWorking papers

Standard

Non-acceptances in context. / Fetzer, Anita.
Essen: Universität Duisburg-Essen, 2006. (Linguistic LAUD Agency - Series A: General & Theoretical Papers; No. 653).

Research output: Working paperWorking papers

Harvard

Fetzer, A 2006 'Non-acceptances in context' Linguistic LAUD Agency - Series A: General & Theoretical Papers, no. 653, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen. <http://www.linse.uni-due.de/laud-1329/non-acceptances-in-context.html>

APA

Fetzer, A. (2006). Non-acceptances in context. (Linguistic LAUD Agency - Series A: General & Theoretical Papers; No. 653). Universität Duisburg-Essen. http://www.linse.uni-due.de/laud-1329/non-acceptances-in-context.html

Vancouver

Fetzer A. Non-acceptances in context. Essen: Universität Duisburg-Essen. 2006. (Linguistic LAUD Agency - Series A: General & Theoretical Papers; 653).

Bibtex

@techreport{78a711d8af1041bfbfb4ca62d1873291,
title = "Non-acceptances in context",
abstract = "The communicative act of non-acceptance expresses the speaker's intention to deny, reject or disagree with a communicative act. Regarding its sequential status, a non-acceptance is a responsive act par excellence, and from an interpersonal perspective it can be assigned the status of a face-threatening act. While its responsive format does not seem to cause any severe communicative problems in intercultural communication, its face-threatening potential makes it a prime candidate for intercultural miscommunication. The goal of this paper is to systematize the contextual constraints and requirements of a non-acceptance in a dialogue frame of reference based on the dialogue act of a plus/minus-validity claim (Fetzer 2002, 2004), which is anchored to the Gricean cooperative principle (Grice 1975), Habermas' theory of communicative action (Habermas 1987), and Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness (Brown & Levinson 1987). The pragmatic premises of intentionality, rationality, and cooperation are supplemented by the interactional-sociolinguistic universal of contextualization (Gumperz 1996). The dialogue framework allows for a comprehensive examination of culture-preferential modes for the realization and contextualization of nonacceptances and possible perlocutionary effects, illustrated by excerpts from German, British and intercultural German-British political discourse. ",
keywords = "English",
author = "Anita Fetzer",
year = "2006",
language = "English",
series = "Linguistic LAUD Agency - Series A: General &amp; Theoretical Papers",
publisher = "Universit{\"a}t Duisburg-Essen",
number = "653",
address = "Germany",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "Universit{\"a}t Duisburg-Essen",

}

RIS

TY - UNPB

T1 - Non-acceptances in context

AU - Fetzer, Anita

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - The communicative act of non-acceptance expresses the speaker's intention to deny, reject or disagree with a communicative act. Regarding its sequential status, a non-acceptance is a responsive act par excellence, and from an interpersonal perspective it can be assigned the status of a face-threatening act. While its responsive format does not seem to cause any severe communicative problems in intercultural communication, its face-threatening potential makes it a prime candidate for intercultural miscommunication. The goal of this paper is to systematize the contextual constraints and requirements of a non-acceptance in a dialogue frame of reference based on the dialogue act of a plus/minus-validity claim (Fetzer 2002, 2004), which is anchored to the Gricean cooperative principle (Grice 1975), Habermas' theory of communicative action (Habermas 1987), and Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness (Brown & Levinson 1987). The pragmatic premises of intentionality, rationality, and cooperation are supplemented by the interactional-sociolinguistic universal of contextualization (Gumperz 1996). The dialogue framework allows for a comprehensive examination of culture-preferential modes for the realization and contextualization of nonacceptances and possible perlocutionary effects, illustrated by excerpts from German, British and intercultural German-British political discourse.

AB - The communicative act of non-acceptance expresses the speaker's intention to deny, reject or disagree with a communicative act. Regarding its sequential status, a non-acceptance is a responsive act par excellence, and from an interpersonal perspective it can be assigned the status of a face-threatening act. While its responsive format does not seem to cause any severe communicative problems in intercultural communication, its face-threatening potential makes it a prime candidate for intercultural miscommunication. The goal of this paper is to systematize the contextual constraints and requirements of a non-acceptance in a dialogue frame of reference based on the dialogue act of a plus/minus-validity claim (Fetzer 2002, 2004), which is anchored to the Gricean cooperative principle (Grice 1975), Habermas' theory of communicative action (Habermas 1987), and Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness (Brown & Levinson 1987). The pragmatic premises of intentionality, rationality, and cooperation are supplemented by the interactional-sociolinguistic universal of contextualization (Gumperz 1996). The dialogue framework allows for a comprehensive examination of culture-preferential modes for the realization and contextualization of nonacceptances and possible perlocutionary effects, illustrated by excerpts from German, British and intercultural German-British political discourse.

KW - English

M3 - Working papers

T3 - Linguistic LAUD Agency - Series A: General &amp; Theoretical Papers

BT - Non-acceptances in context

PB - Universität Duisburg-Essen

CY - Essen

ER -

Recently viewed

Activities

  1. Digitox seminar January 2021: How to study disconnection and detox? A panel on challenges and opportunities of larger projects
  2. Association for Information Systems (AIS) (Externe Organisation)
  3. I’m going DeepL underground
  4. MULTISCALE APPROACH TO LASER SHOCK PEENING INCLUDING PLASMA SHOCK WAVE SIMULATION
  5. #Instacops - Image, Aesthetics and (Self)Representation of Policing in the Digital Space: The Case of the Lower Saxony State Police on Instagram
  6. Sherman Alexie’s Flight: Fighting the Frontier in the 21st Century
  7. Optical Calculus
  8. AHV Writing Workshop - 2013
  9. Heidegger und Husserl
  10. Multitrophic Interactions Workshop
  11. ERA-Net CRUE Kick-off Meeting - 2009
  12. Floating Utopias
  13. Applied Psychology (Fachzeitschrift)
  14. 5. Forschungsseminar „Innovation and Value Creation“ 2010
  15. A Body is an Archive
  16. Into the weeds: the indirect effects of introduced plants
  17. Impulsvortrag „Was benötigen Universitäten, um erfolgreich zu sein?“
  18. Affective polarization and the support for different forms of government. Evidence from Germany
  19. 6. Forschungsseminar „Innovation and Value Creation“ 2011
  20. Conference Future of Transatlantic Relations - FOTAR 2020
  21. Conference of the Center for Advanced Studiesin Management - CASiM 2013
  22. Leuphana Universität Lüneburg (Organisation)
  23. International Journal of Business Environment (Zeitschrift)
  24. Water Resources Management (Zeitschrift)
  25. Spillover effects and importance of urban gardens for trap-nesting bees and wasps
  26. Johannes Kepler Universität Linz
  27. CITIES CAN FLY