1887
image of Constructing self–other distinction in dialogic contexts
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates the construction of self–other distinction in dialogic contexts and illustrates how speakers and writers may employ such a distinction to strengthen their claims and maximize acceptance. A text-based analysis reveals that self–other distinction may be established via three discursive practices — full dissimilation, partial dissimilation, and third-party association. In each practice, speakers may engage in either redressive acts or face aggravating strategies dependent on contextual features relating to the discursive environment, the type of differentiated “others”, and their social distance from the speaker. The analysis further shows that speakers in dialogic contexts may construct self–other distinction relating to favorable argumentative values or attributes to create discursive frameshifts. This, in turn, frames the speakers’ selves in a positive light, legitimating their claims and establishing credibility through positive self-presentation, a reference to authorization and rationalization, or an appeal to conformity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23048.kuz
2025-05-19
2025-06-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adler, Meni
    2007 “Hebrew Morphological Disambiguation: An Unsupervised Stochastic Word-Based Approach.” PhD dissertation. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
  2. Alharbi, Ahlam, and Mary Rucker
    2023 “Discursive Practices of the Performative Theory of Solidarity Discourse.” Language Sciences: . 10.1016/j.langsci.2022.101515
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2022.101515 [Google Scholar]
  3. Andreouli, Eleni
    2010 “Identity, Positioning, and Self-Other Relations.” Papers on Social Representations: –.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ariel, Mira
    2020 “Exceptives and the Prominence Competition.” Paper presented atthe Workshop on Prominent Inferences. University of Cologne.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bamberg, Michael
    2014 “Who Am I? Narration and Its Contribution to Self and Identity.” Theory & Psychology: –.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Besnard, Philippe, Alejandro Javier Garcia, Anthony Hunter, Sanjay Modgil, Henry Prakken, Guillermo Simari, and Francesca Toni
    2014 “Introduction to Structured Argumentation.” Argument & Computation:–. 10.1080/19462166.2013.869764
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2013.869764 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  8. Camp, Elisabeth
    2012 “Sarcasm, Pretense, and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction.” Noûs: –. 10.1111/j.1468‑0068.2010.00822.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00822.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2016 “Impoliteness Strategies.” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. byAlessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, –. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_16 [Google Scholar]
  10. Davies, Bronwyn, and Rom Harré
    1990 “Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior: –. 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.1990.tb00174.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Dori-Hacohen, Gonen
    2014 “Establishing Social Groups in Hebrew: ‘We’ in Political Radio Phone-in Programs.” InConstructing Collectivity: ‘We’ across Languages and Contexts, ed. byTheodossia-Soula Pavlidou, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.239.13dor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.239.13dor [Google Scholar]
  12. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 “The Stance Triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. byRobert Englebretson, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  13. Du Bois, John W., and Elise Kärkkäinen
    2012 “Taking a Stance on Emotion: Affect, Sequence, and Intersubjectivity in Dialogic Interaction.” Text & Talk: –. 10.1515/text‑2012‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0021 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goffman, Erving
    1974Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gordon, Cynthia
    2015 “Framing and Positioning.” InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd edition, ed. byDeborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin, –. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118584194.ch15
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch15 [Google Scholar]
  16. Graumann, Carl F., and Werner Kallmeyer
    2002 “Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse: An Introduction.” InPerspective and Perspectivation in Discourse, ed. byCarl F. Graumann, and Werner Kallmeyer, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.9.01gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.9.01gra [Google Scholar]
  17. Haspelmath, Martin
    1997Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Heritage, John, and David Greatbatch
    1991 “On the Institutional Character of Institutional Talk: The Case of News Interviews.” InTalk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, ed. byDeirdre Boden, and Don H. Zimmerman, –. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Holdsworth, Clare, and David Morgan
    2007 “Revisiting the Generalized Other: An Exploration.” Sociology: –. 10.1177/0038038507076614
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038507076614 [Google Scholar]
  20. Holtgraves, Thomas M.
    2002Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Holtgraves, Thomas, and Joong-Nam Yang
    1992 “Interpersonal Underpinnings of Request Strategies: General Principles and Differences Due to Culture and Gender.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: –. 10.1037/0022‑3514.62.2.246
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.246 [Google Scholar]
  22. Katzir, Nicole
    2019 “Non-Optimal Argumentation: The Case of ‘at Most’ Constructions.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuzai, Einat
    2022 “Negation as Involvement: Building Intersubjectivity via the Hebrew lo tagid Construction.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.12.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.12.017 [Google Scholar]
  24. Leal, Fernando, and Hubert Marraud
    2022How Philosophers Argue. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑85368‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85368-6 [Google Scholar]
  25. Levant, Efrat, and Agnès Celle
    2023 “Are You Being Rude, Sarcastic, or Both? Sarcastic Questions as a Tool for Conveying Impoliteness.” Paper presented at the18th International Pragmatics Conference. Université Libre de Bruxelles.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lindström, Jan, Sofie Henricson, and Martina Huhtamäki
    2022 “Pseudo-Cleft Constructions in Swedish Talk-in-Interaction: Turn Projection and Discourse Organization.” Lingua: . 10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103167
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103167 [Google Scholar]
  27. Linell, Per
    2009Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte: Information Age.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Locher, Miriam A.
    2013 “Relational Work and Interpersonal Pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.014 [Google Scholar]
  29. Marková, Ivana
    2007 “Social Identities and Social Representations: How Are They Related?” InSocial Representations and Identity: Content, Process and Power, ed. byGail Moloney, and Iain Walker, –. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230609181_12
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230609181_12 [Google Scholar]
  30. Nuyts, Jan
    2006 “Modality: Overview and Linguistic Issues.” InThe Expression of Modality, ed. byWilliam Frawley, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197570.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197570.1 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula
    2014 “Constructing Collectivity with ‘We’: An Introduction.” InConstructing Collectivity: ‘We’ across Languages and Contexts, ed. byTheodossia-Soula Pavlidou, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.239.03pav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.239.03pav [Google Scholar]
  32. Schlenker, Barry R.
    2012 “Self-Presentation.” InHandbook of Self and Identity, 2nd edition, ed. byMark R. Leary, and June P. Tangney, –. New York: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Shor, Leon
    2019 “Third Person Human Reference in Israeli Hebrew Conversation.” PhD dissertation. Tel Aviv University.
  34. Speer, Susan A.
    2012 “The Interactional Organization of Self-Praise: Epistemics, Preference Organization, and Implications for Identity Research.” Social Psychology Quarterly: –. 10.1177/0190272511432939
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272511432939 [Google Scholar]
  35. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00039‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00039-X [Google Scholar]
  36. Steinbeis, Nikolaus
    2016 “The Role of Self-Other Distinction in Understanding Others’ Mental and Emotional States: Neurocognitive Mechanisms in Children and Adults.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences: 20150074.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Stephan, Elena, Nira Liberman, and Yaacov Trope
    2010 “Politeness and Psychological Distance: A Construal Level Perspective.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: –. 10.1037/a0016960
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016960 [Google Scholar]
  38. Stirling, Lesley, and Lenore Manderson
    2011 “About You: Empathy, Objectivity and Authority.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  39. Suler, John
    2004 “The Online Disinhibition Effect.” Cyberpsychology & Behavior: –. 10.1089/1094931041291295
    https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295 [Google Scholar]
  40. Thompson, Gregory A., and Gonen Dori-Hacohen
    2012 “Framing Selves in Interactional Practice.” Electronic Journal of Communication ().
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Thompson, Sandra A., and Paul J. Hopper
    2001 “Transitivity, Clause Structure and Argument Structure: Evidence from Conversation.” InFrequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, ed. byJoan Bybee, and Paul J. Hopper, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.03tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.03tho [Google Scholar]
  42. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    2008 “‘All That He Endeavoured to Prove Was…’: On the Emergence of Grammatical Constructions in Dialogual and Dialogic Contexts.” InLanguage in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution, ed. byRobin Cooper, and Ruth Kempson, –. London: King’s College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1993 “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse & Society: –. 10.1177/0957926593004002006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006 [Google Scholar]
  44. van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    2002Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781410602442
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602442 [Google Scholar]
  45. van Leeuwen, Theo
    2007 “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication: –. 10.1177/1750481307071986
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986 [Google Scholar]
  46. Yates, Scott, and David Hiles
    2010 “‘You Can’t’ but ‘I Do’: Rules, Ethics and the Significance of Shifts in Pronominal Forms for Self-Positioning in Talk.” Discourse Studies: –. 10.1177/1461445610370128
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370128 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23048.kuz
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: dialogicity ; self–other distinction ; facework ; pronouns ; framework ; image
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