Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arndt, H. and R.W. Janney
    (1985) Politeness revisited: Cross-modal supportive strategies. IRALXXIII-4: 281-300.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, P. and S. Levinson
    (1987) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Caplow, T
    (1968) Two against one: Coalitions in triads. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.): Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Clark, H.H
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, H.H. and T.B. Carlson
    (1982) Hearers and speech acts. Language58(2): 332-373. doi: 10.1353/lan.1982.0042
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1982.0042 [Google Scholar]
  6. Coulmas, F
    (1981) ‘Poison to your soul’: Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational routine. La Haye: Mouton, pp.69-91.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Craig, R.T. , K. Tracy and F. Spisak
    (1986) The discourse of requests: Assessment of a politeness approach. Human Communication Research12(4): 437-468. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.1986.tb00087.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00087.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Diamond, J
    (1996) Status and power in verbal interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.40
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.40 [Google Scholar]
  9. de Fornel, M
    (1986) Catégorisation, identification et référence en analyse de conversation. Lexique5: 161-195.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (1989) Actes de langage et théorie du prototype: L’exemple du compliment. Cahiers de Praxématique2: 37-49.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (1990) Sémantique du prototype et analyse de conversation. Cahiers de Linguistique Française11: 159-178.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fraser, B. and W. Nolen
    (1981) The association of deference with linguistic forms. International Journal of the Sociology of Language27: 93-109.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Glover, K.D
    (1995) A prototype view of context and linguistic behavior: Context prototypes and talk. Journal of Pragmatics23(2): 137-156. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)E0104‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)E0104-8 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goffman, E
    (1974) Frame analysis. New York: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Golopentia, S
    (1988) Interaction et histoire conversationnelle. In J. Cosnier et al. (eds.), Echanges sur la conversation. Paris: CNRS, pp.69-81.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goodwin, C
    (1981) Conversational organisation: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Held, G
    (1989) On the role of maximization in verbal politeness. Multilingua8(2/3): 167-206. doi: 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2‑3.167
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.167 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jeanneret, Th
    (1991) Fabrication du texte conversationnel et conversation pluri-locuteurs. Cahiers de Linguistique Française12: 83-102.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1996) Relatives co-énoncées: Conversation et syntaxe. Scolia5: 343-360.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C
    (1990, 1992, 1994) Les interactions verbales, vol. I-II-III. Paris: A. Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. and C. Plantin
    (eds.) (1995) Le trilogue. Lyon: PUL.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Labov, W. and D. Fanshel
    (1977) Therapeutic discourse. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lakoff, R
    (1973) The logic of politeness. Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society183-228.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Leech, G
    (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lerner, G.H
    (1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society20(3): 441-458. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500016572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  27. Mao, Lu Ming, R
    (1994) Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics21(5): 451-486. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90025‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6 [Google Scholar]
  28. Marcoccia, M
    (1995) Les interviews du couple: Réflexions sur le rôle de porte-parole. In C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni and C. Plantin (eds.), 1995: Le trilogue,80-107.
  29. Matsumoto, Y
    (1988) Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics12(4): 403-426. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90003‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3 [Google Scholar]
  30. Meier, A.J
    (1995) Passages of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics24(3): 381-392. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00053‑H
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00053-H [Google Scholar]
  31. Penman, R
    (1990) Facework & politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology9(1/2): 15-38. doi: 10.1177/0261927X9091002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X9091002 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pike, K.L
    (1975) On kinesic triadic relations in turn-taking. Semiotica13(4): 389-394. doi: 10.1515/semi.1975.13.4.389
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1975.13.4.389 [Google Scholar]
  33. Pike, K.L. and I. Lowe
    (1969) Pronominal reference in English conversation and discourse – A group theoretical treatment. Folia Linguistica3: 68-106. doi: 10.1515/flin.1969.3.1‑2.68
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1969.3.1-2.68 [Google Scholar]
  34. Preisler, B. and H. Haberland
    (1994) Review of M.Sifianou, Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective . Journal of Pragmatics22(2): 227-232. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90073‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90073-6 [Google Scholar]
  35. Roulet, E
    (1995) L’analyse du dialogue dans une apprache modulaire des structures du discours: l’exemple du dialogue romanesque. In F. Hundsnurscher & E. Weigand (eds.), Future perspectives of dialogue analysis. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, pp.1-34.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. . et al (1985) L’articulation du discours en français contemporain. Berne/Francfort-sur-Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sacks, H
    (1984) On doing ‘being ordinary’. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structure of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, pp.412-429.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (1992) Lectures on conversation, vol. I-II. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sacks, H. , E. Schegloff and G. Jefferson
    (1978) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organization on conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp.7-55. [earlier version 1974, Language 50: 696-735] . doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50008‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2 [Google Scholar]
  40. Schegloff, E
    (1968) Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist70(4): 1075-1095. doi: 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  41. (1995) Parties and talking together: Two ways in which numbers are significant for talk-in-interaction. In P.T. Haves & G. Psathas (eds.), Situated order. Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America, pp.31-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Sinclair, A. and R.M. Coulthard
    (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse. The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Speier, M
    (1972) Some conversational problems for interactional analysis. In D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: The Free Press, pp.397-427.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Traverso, V
    (1995) Gestion des échanges dans la conversation à trois participants. In C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni & C. Plantin (eds.)1995: Le trilogue,29-53.
  45. Vincent, D
    (1995) Du dialogue au soliloque: Des interactions plus ou moins conversationnelles. Cahiers de Linguistique Française16: 53-68.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Zamouri, S
    (1995) La formation de coalitions dans les conversations triadiques. In C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni & C. Plantin (eds.)1995: Le trilogue,54-79.
  • Article Type: Research Article
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