1887
Volume 15, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Awareness of cultural specificity in current classroom discourse is particularly important in an educational setting that has become largely multicultural due to globalization, migration and academic mobility. Drawing on the intercultural and cross-cultural pragmatics, and cultural studies, this paper explores the speech act of critical remark in Russian and Israeli classroom settings, focusing on students’ view of its degree of conventionality and admissibility. Data were obtained from a student survey questionnaire (undertaken between 2017-2019). Highlighting similarities and differences, we argue that both Russian and Israeli classroom settings exhibit critical remark as not uncommon, though varying in acceptability. Findings show that critical acts need not be limited to the merely conflictual, but may even be perceived positively, and may moreover exert varying levels of illocutionary force and be interpreted differently by different cultural groups.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20064.zbe
2023-07-25
2024-07-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Angelou, Maya, and Paulo Freire
    2007 “Cultural Influences on Context: The Educational Setting”. InCommunication between Cultures, ed. byLarry A. Samovar, Richard E. Porter, and Edwin R. McDaniel, 256–263. Wadsworth: Thomson Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Angouri, Jo, and Miriam A. Locher
    2012 “Theorising disagreement.” Journal of Pragmatics441: 1549–1553. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  3. Archer, Dawn, and Peter Grundy
    2011 “Introduction”. InThe Pragmatics Reader, ed. byDawn Archer, and Peter Grundy, 1–10. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Austin, John
    1962How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, Will
    2015Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca: Rethinking Concepts and Goals in Intercultural Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501502149
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501502149 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bilá, Magdaléna, Alena Kačmárová, and Ingrida Vaňková
    2020 “The encounter of two cultural identities: The case of social deixis.” Russian Journal of Linguistics24 (2): 344–365. 10.22363/2687‑0088‑2020‑24‑2‑344‑365
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-2-344-365 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain
    1984 “Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics51:196–213. 10.1093/applin/5.3.196
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowe, Heather, Martin Kylie, and Howard Manns
    2014Communication Across Cultures. Mutual Understanding in a Global World. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107445680
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107445680 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brunila, Kristina
    2016 “The ambivalences of becoming a professor in neoliberal academia.” Qualitative Inquiry22 (5): 386–394. 10.1177/1077800415620213
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800415620213 [Google Scholar]
  10. Deveci, Tanju, Jessica, Midraj J., and Wael El Sokkary
    . (forthcoming). “The speech act of compliment in teacher-student interaction: A case study of Emirati university students’ attitudes.” Russian Journal of Linguistics27 (1): (forthcoming) 10.22363/2687‑0088‑30051
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30051 [Google Scholar]
  11. Duszak, Anna
    (ed.) 1997Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110821048
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fernández-Amaya, Lucía
    2019 “Disagreement and (im)politeness in a Spanish family members’ WhatsApp group.” Russian Journal of Linguistics23 (4): 1065–1087. 10.22363/2687‑0088‑2019‑23‑4‑1065‑1087
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-1065-1087 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fox, Kate
    2005Watching the English. The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour. London: Hodder.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gladkova, Anna, and Tatiana Larina
    2018 “Anna Wierzbicka, language, culture and communication.” Russian Journal of Linguistics22 (4): 717–748. 10.22363/2312‑9182‑2018‑22‑4‑717‑748
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-4-717-748 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gotti, Maurizio
    (ed.) 2009Commonality and Individuality in Academic Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Grice, Herbert Paul
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In: Syntax and Semantics (3) Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Haugh, Michael, and Wei-Lin Melody Chang
    2019 “Indexical and sequential properties of criticisms in initial interactions: Implications for examining (im)politeness across cultures.” Russian Journal of Linguistics23 (4): 904–929. 10.22363/2687‑0088‑2019‑23‑4‑904‑929
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-904-929 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hofstede, Geert H.
    2001Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. 2d ed.Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hofstede, Geert H., Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov
    2010Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Revised and expanded 3d ed-n. New York: McGraw Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. House, Juliane
    2006 “Communicative styles in English and German.” European Journal of English Studies10 (3): 249–267. 10.1080/13825570600967721
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570600967721 [Google Scholar]
  21. Illouz, Eva
    2017Emotions as Commodities: Capitalism, Consumption and Authenticity. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315210742
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315210742 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kádár, Daniel, and Michael Haugh
    2013Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kecskes, Istvan
    2014Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2019English as a Lingua Franca: The Pragmatic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Larina, Tatiana
    2009Katergoriya vezhlivosti y stil’ kommunikaciyi: sopostavleniye angliyskih y russkih lingvokul’turnih tradiciy [Politeness and communicative styles: Contrastive analysis of English and Russian lingua-cultural traditions] (in Russian). Moscow: Jazyki slavianskih kul’tur Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2015 “Culture-specific communicative styles as a framework for interpreting linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies.” International Review of Pragmatics. Special Issue: Communicative Styles and Genres7(5): 195–215. 10.1163/18773109‑00702003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00702003 [Google Scholar]
  27. Larina, Tatiana, Arto Mustajoki, and Ekaterina Protassova
    2017 “Dimensions of Russian culture and mind.” InPhilosophical and cultural interpretations of Russian modernisation. Series: Studies in Contemporary Russia, ed. byKatja Lehtisaari and Arto Mustajoki, 7–19. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Larina, Tatiana V., Vladimir I. Ozyumenko, and Svetlana Kurteš
    2017 “I-identity vs we-identity in language and discourse: Anglo-Slavonic perspectives”. Lódz Papers in Pragmatics13 (1): 109–128. 10.1515/lpp‑2017‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2017-0006 [Google Scholar]
  29. Larina, Tatiana, and Douglas Mark Ponton
    2020 “Tact or frankness in English and Russian blind peer reviews.” Intercultural Pragmatics17 (4): 471–496. 10.1515/ip‑2020‑4004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-4004 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2022 “I wanted to honour your journal, and you spat in my face: Emotive (im)politeness and face in the English and Russian blind peer review”. Journal of Politeness Research18 (1):201–226. 10.1515/pr‑2019‑0035
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2019-0035 [Google Scholar]
  31. Larina, Tatiana, and Neelakshi Suryanarayan
    . (forthcoming). “Address forms in academic discourse in Indian English”. InNicole Baumgarten and Roel Vismans eds. Forms of Address in Contrastive Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Leech, Geoffrey
    2014The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lerner, Julia, Claudia Zbenovich, and Tamar Kaneh-Shalit
    2021 “Changing meanings of university teaching: Emotionalization of academic culture in USA, Israel and Russia.” Emotions and Society3 (1): 73–93. 10.1332/263169021X16123454415815
    https://doi.org/10.1332/263169021X16123454415815 [Google Scholar]
  34. Locher, Miriam A., and Tatiana V. Larina
    2019 “Introduction to politeness and impoliteness research in global contexts.” Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23 (4): 873–903. 10.22363/2687‑0088‑2019‑23‑4‑873‑903
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-873-903 [Google Scholar]
  35. Maíz-Arévalo, Carmen
    2014 “Expressing disagreement in English as a lingua franca: Whose pragmatic rules?” Intercultural Pragmatics11 (2): 199–224. 10.1515/ip‑2014‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0009 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mamontov, Vladimir D., Tatiana M. Kozhevnikova, and Yana Y. Radyukova
    2014 “Collectivism and individualism in modern Russia.” Asian Social Science10 (23): 199 – 207. 10.5539/ass.v10n23p199
    https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n23p199 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mey, Jacob L.
    2001Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd edition. Oxford and Boston: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2007 “Developing pragmatics interculturally.” InExplorations in Pragmatics, ed. byIstvan Kecskes, and Laurence R. Horn, 165–190, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198843.3.165
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198843.3.165 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mugford, Gerrard
    2020 “Mexican politeness: An empirical study on the reasons underlying/motivating practices to construct local interpersonal relationships.” Russian Journal of Linguistics24 (1): 31–55. 10.22363/2687‑0088‑2020‑24‑1‑31‑55
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-1-31-55 [Google Scholar]
  40. Naumov, Alexander, and Sheila Puffer
    2000 “Measuring Russian culture using Hofstede’s dimensions”. Applied psychology49(4): 709–718. 10.1111/1464‑0597.00041
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00041 [Google Scholar]
  41. Proshina, Zoya G., and Cecil L. Nelson
    2020 “Varieties of English and Kachru’s expanding circle.” Russian Journal of Linguistics24 (3): 523–550. 10.22363/2687‑0088‑2020‑24‑3‑523‑550
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-3-523-550 [Google Scholar]
  42. Rathmayr, Renate
    2003Pragmatika izvineniya. Sravnitel’noye issledovaniye na materiale russkogo yazyka i russkoy kul’tury. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur [original: Renate Rathmayr 1996 Pragmatik der Entschuldigungen. Vergleichende Untersuchung am Beispiel der russischen Sprache und Kultur. Köln: Böhlau]
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Searle, John. R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  44. Senft, Gunter
    2014Understanding Pragmatics. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203776476
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203776476 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2020 “…to grasp the native’s point of view…” – A plea for a holistic documentation of the Trobriand islanders’ language, culture and cognition.” Russian Journal of Linguistics24 (1): 7–30. 10.22363/2687‑0088‑2020‑24‑1‑7‑30
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-1-7-30 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sifianou, Maria
    2012 “Disagreements, face and politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics441: 1554–1564. (Special issue on Theorising disagreement) 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2019 “Conflict, disagreement and (im)politeness.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, ed. byMatthew Evans, Lesley Jeffries and Jim O’Driscoll, 176–195. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429058011‑11
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058011-11 [Google Scholar]
  48. Thomas, Jenny
    1983 “Cross-cultural pragmatic failure”. Applied Linguistics41: 91–112. 10.1093/applin/4.2.91
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91 [Google Scholar]
  49. 1995Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Triandis, Harry
    1994Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. (McGraw-Hill Series in Social Psychology).
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 1995Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, Col.: Westview.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Urciuoli, Bonny
    (ed.) 2018The Experience of Neoliberal Education (Vol.41): New York: Berghahn Books. 10.2307/j.ctvw04hcw
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvw04hcw [Google Scholar]
  53. Velichkovsky, Boris B., Valery D. Solovyev, Vladimir V. Bochkarev, and Farida F. Ishkineeva
    2019 “Transition to market economy promotes individualistic values: Analysing changes in frequencies of Russian words from 1980 to 2008”. International Journal of Psychology54 (1): 23–32. 10.1002/ijop.12411
    https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12411 [Google Scholar]
  54. Visson, Lynn
    2013Where Russians Go Wrong in Spoken English. Words and Phrases in the Context of Two Cultures. Moscow: R. Valent.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1991/2003Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783112329764
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112329764 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20064.zbe
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20064.zbe
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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