Volume 13, Issue 5
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Based on Buber’s dialogic philosophy, ideas from the ethics of dialogue and politeness theory, we analyze letters written by members of an Israeli organization named  – who come from both the left and right wings, are both religious and secular, who decided to broaden and deepen the dialogue between different groups in Israeli society against the backdrop of the polarization, alienation and violence threatening the state’s integrity and democratic foundations.

Our analysis has three focal points: the language of the letters themselves, meta-linguistic utterances that appear in the letters and explicitly refer to the language the writers choose to use or refrain from using, and meta-textual utterances that relate more generally to the dialogic approach guiding the members of the group. Harmony is evinced among these three perspectives, thus exemplifying the conditions needed in order to hold an argumentative discourse that promotes dialogue.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1981The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Translated byMichael Holquist and Caryl Emerson. Austin: The University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergman, Shmuel Hugo
    1959 “The dialogic thinking of M. Buber.” InThe Dialogue on Man and Being, byMartin M. Buber. Hebrew translation byShmuel Hugo Bergman. 11–46. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. [in Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1978 “Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena.” InQuestions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  5. Buber, Martin
    1959The Dialogue on Man and Being. Hebrew translation byShmuel Hugo Bergman. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1970I and Thou. English translation byWalter Kaufman. New York: Touchstone.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bublitz, Wolfram
    1988Supportive Fellow-Speakers and Cooperative Conversation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.32
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.32 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cherlow, Yuval
    2018Leshem Shamayim – On Ethics and Dispute. Sifrei Magid, Koren Publishing. [In Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2011 “Politeness and impoliteness.” InPragmatics and Society, ed. byKarin Aijmer and Gisle Andersen, 393–438. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214420.393
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214420.393 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fleshman, Aharon
    2013 “What does Buber have to do with the 21st century?” Translator’s Musings onMartin Buber, I and Thou. Hebrew translation byAharon Fleshman. 149–159. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. [In Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gardiner, Michael
    1996 “Alterity and ethics: a dialogic perspective.” Theory, Culture and Society131: 121–143. 10.1177/026327696013002009
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026327696013002009 [Google Scholar]
  12. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gurevitch, Zali D.
    1990 “The dialogic connection and the ethics of dialogue.” The British Journal of Sociology41 (2): 181–196. 10.2307/590869
    https://doi.org/10.2307/590869 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2001 “Dialectical dialogue: the struggle for speech, repressive silence, and the shift to multiplicity.” The British Journal of Sociology52 (1): 87–104. 10.1080/00071310020023046
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310020023046 [Google Scholar]
  15. Habermas, Jürgen
    1984The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol.I1. Translated byTim McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Haugh, Michael and Jonathan Culpeper
    2018 “Integrative pragmatics and (im)politeness theory.” InPragmatics and its interfaces, ed. byCornelia Ilie and Neal Norrick. 213–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.294.10hau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.294.10hau [Google Scholar]
  17. Hyland, Ken
    1996 “Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles.” Applied Linguistics17 (4): 433–454. 10.1093/applin/17.4.433
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kádár, Daniel Z.
    2019 “Introduction: Advancing linguistic politeness theory by using Chinese data.” Acta Linguistica Academica66 (2): 149–164. 10.1556/2062.2019.66.2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2019.66.2.1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kampf, Zohar, Lee Aldar, Roni Danziger & Mia Schreiber
    2019 “The pragmatics of amicable interstate communication.” Intercultural Pragmatics16 (2): 123–151. 10.1515/ip‑2019‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0007 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lakoff, George
    1972 “Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.” Chicago Linguistic Society81: 183–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Leech, Geoffrey
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London & New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Levinas, Emmanuel
    1969Totality and Infinity, Translated byA. Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1984 “A dialogue.” InDialogue with Contemporary Continental Thinkers, ed. byR. Kearney. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Locher, Miriam and Richard Watts
    2005 “Politeness theory and relational work.” Journal of Politeness Research11: 9–33. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9 [Google Scholar]
  25. Myers, Greg
    1989 “The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles.” Applied Linguistics10 (1): 1–35. 10.1093/applin/10.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Nuyts, Jan
    2001Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5 [Google Scholar]
  27. Palmer, Frank R.
    1979Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Peleg, Muli
    2010 “In search of substantial community: Israeli society and the merit of normative dialogue.” Israel Studies in Language and Society3 (2), 13–32. [In Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Scollon, Ron and Susan W. Scollon
    1995Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. New York & Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    2000 “Rapport management: a framework for analysis.” InCulturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, ed. byHelen Spencer-Oatey, 11–46. London: Continuum. 10.5040/9781350934085
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350934085 [Google Scholar]
  31. Spencer-Oatey, Helen, and Wenying Jiang
    2003 “Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs).” Journal of Pragmatics35 (10–11): 1633–1650. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00025‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00025-0 [Google Scholar]
  32. Spokoiny, Ohala
    2019 An Argumentative Discourse that Promotes Dialogue: Rhetorical Linguistic Strategies and Characteristics, Ph.D. Thesis, Bar-Ilan University. [In Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Thompson, Geoff, and Susan Hunston
    2001 “Evaluation: An introduction.” InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. bySusan Hunston and Geoff Thompson, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Von Wright, Georg H.
    1951An Essay in Modal Logic, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Watts, Richard J.
    1989 “Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic behavior.” Multilingua8 (2–3): 131–166. 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2‑3.131
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.131 [Google Scholar]
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