1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 21, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 21, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

This paper looks into whether there are any differences in demonstration of attentiveness between different generations and different cultures. By attentiveness I mean a demonstrator’s preemptive response to a beneficiary’s verbal/non-verbal cues or situations surrounding a beneficiary and a demonstrator, which takes the form of offering. When and how often one would demonstrate attentiveness may vary according to such factors as generation and culture. Three groups of people from different generations and different cultural backgrounds (Japanese and Americans) served as the participants (280 people for the questionnaire data and 18 people for the interview data). It was investigated whether there were any differences among the participants in demonstration of attentiveness, in the reasons for demonstration of attentiveness, and in rating degree of imposition to demonstrate attentiveness. It was also examined whether there was any relationship between degree of imposition to demonstrate attentiveness and demonstration of attentiveness; and in which relationship (the relationship between a demonstrator and a beneficiary of attentiveness varied from very familiar to not very familiar at all) attentiveness was demonstrated. The data were collected using a questionnaire with six situations, based on field notes; and the interviews were conducted using the same six situations. The results show that in most situations there were no major differences among the participants in the choice of demonstration of attentiveness and the reasons for it. The participants chose to demonstrate attentiveness in four situations in the questionnaire, because they wanted to be of help to the other party. There was a relationship between degree of imposition to demonstrate attentiveness and demonstration of attentiveness in four situations. Overall, the interview data confirmed the questionnaire data.

© 2011 International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21.4.03fuk
2011-01-01
2024-10-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.21.4.03fuk
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana , and Elite Olshtain
    (1984) Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics5.3: 196-213. doi: 10.1093/applin/5.3.196
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196 [Google Scholar]
  2. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana , Juliane House , and Gabriele Kasper
    (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen C. Levinson
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Fukushima, Saeko
    (2000) Requests and culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. (2004) Evaluation of politeness: The case of attentiveness. Multilingua23: 364-387. doi: 10.1515/mult.2004.23.4.365
     https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2004.23.4.365 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2009) Evaluation of politeness: Do the Japanese evaluate attentiveness more positively than the British?Pragmatics19: 501-518.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Grice, H. Paul
    (1967) Logic and conversation. Unpublished Ms. from the Williams James Lectures 1967.
  8. (1989) Logic and conversation. In P. Grice , Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 22-40.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Hatch, Evelyn , and Anne Lazaraton
    (1991) The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Haugh, Michael
    (2003) Anticipated versus inferred politeness. Multilingua22: 397-413. doi: 10.1515/mult.2003.020
     https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2003.020 [Google Scholar]
  11. Kasper, Gabriele
    (2000) Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 316-341.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Kallia, Alexandra
    (2004) Linguistic politeness: The implicature approach. Multilingua23: 145-169. doi: 10.1515/mult.2004.003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2004.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Lebra, Takie Sugiyama
    (1976) Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Leech, Geoffrey
    (1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (2011) Pragmalinguistic vs. sociopragmatic politeness: A wrong turning in (im)politeness theory?A paper presented atthe 12th International Pragmatics Conferenceat theUniversity of Manchesteron the7th July, 2011.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Locher, Miriam A
    (2004) Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110926552
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110926552 [Google Scholar]
  17. Marui, Ichiro , Yoshinori Nishijima , Kayoko Noro , Rudolph Reinelt , and Hitoshi Yamashita
    (1996) Concepts of communicative virtues (CCV) in Japanese and German. In M. Hellinger & U. Ammon (eds.), Contrastive sociolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 385-409.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Ohashi, Jun
    (2008) Linguistic rituals for thanking in Japanese: Balancing obligations. Journal of Pragmatics40: 2150-2174. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Riley, Philip
    (2007) Language, culture and identity. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    (2000) Introduction: Language, culture and rapport management. In H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: management rapport through talk across cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 1-8.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Suzuki, Toshihiko
    (2007) A pragmatic approach to the generation and gender gap in Japanese politeness strategies. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Verschueren, Jef
    (1999) Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Watts, Richard J
    (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21.4.03fuk
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Americans; Attentiveness; Generation; Japanese; Politeness

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error