Pragmatics and Society - Volume 15, Issue 4, 2024

Abstract

This diachronic study investigates Chinese ideological given names (personal names which represent the name-givers’ shared ideas and beliefs) by focusing on historical changes over five time periods between 1935 and 2012. Based on an analysis of 21,687 given names, 2,687 (12.4%) of which are ideological names, the study finds that naming practices bear historical imprints in terms of content and syllabic form. The more intensely a society is politicized, the higher the rate of occurrence of ideological given names. The data also illustrate the dynamic that exists in naming practices between conformity and individuality. In this article, we argue that names are like social cards: people play them to serve their ideological needs, as shown by the evolution of naming strategies through different historical periods. The implication is that historical changes can influence the way in which a name can communicate ideological views.

Abstract

The retraction of a previously published research article, often due to the discovery of fraud or scientific error, can pose considerable threat to an author’s career and reputation. This paper examines legitimation strategies in the retraction notice (RN), a document in which authors formally announce their decision to retract an article. By analyzing 300 RNs published between 2010–2021 in Q1 biomedical journals, this study finds that 76% RNs contain at least one legitimation strategy, with Mortification, Full/Partial Denial, and Corrective Action being the most frequently used. Moreover, a comparison of RNs that report fraud, misconduct, error, unreliable data/results, and other similar matters shows that fraud-related RNs have the highest incidence of legitimation strategies. Authors committing fraud often employ Mortification, Disclaimer, and Reassurance, while authors reporting scientific errors put more emphasis on Good Intention and Perseverance. This study contributes to the understanding of legitimation and image repair in scientific discourse.

Abstract

This study examines the speech act of criticizing in online comments on the COVID-19 lockdown breaches in Jordan in 2020. Drawing on speech act theory and the face-saving perspective of politeness, the study investigates the strategies used to criticize these breaches. The analysis of 356 online comments revealed that Jordanians used ten strategies to criticize these lockdown breaches: Insulting, Appealing to the divine, Intertextuality, Rhetorical questions, Stylized threats, Framing criticism as request, Framing criticism as advice-giving, Framing criticism as warning, Invoking legal authority, and Invoking religious ‘haram’. These criticisms were driven by safeguarding the collective interests of community members rather than merely expressing personal condemnation of the breaches. The breaches were constructed in these criticisms as communally reproachable, legally answerable, and religiously proscribed. Given their public nature, these criticisms appear to be motivated not by politeness but by expressing strong emotions, showing in-group solidarity, and aligning with other community members.

Abstract

Studies on sentencing are dominated by normative studies prescribing how judges should sentence. Few studies examine how judges actually sentence. This study provides an insight into the empirical reality of judges’ sentencing practices by examining their negative judgements (of propriety) of offenders and their behaviour in six sentencing remarks. It finds that judges are doing more appraisal work when their sentencing decisions are below or much higher than the starting point, but less appraisal work when their sentencing decisions are just a few years above the starting point. Such findings demonstrate that the starting point has a binding power on judges’ sentencing practices despite judges having the discretion to arrive at a sentencing decision of any length (whatever the starting point). Findings of the current study could provide meaningful starting points for future examination of large quantities of sentencing remarks.

Abstract

Extensive research has focused on analysing teacher-student discourse within whole-class dialogic interactions, and several descriptive tools have been proposed so far to cover possible variations. However, what still remains unanswered is what types of teacher questions are ‘better’ than others. To answer this question, I propose a pragmatic analysis of teacher-student interaction based on the criteria of authenticity and dialogicity. The analysis focuses on two types of dialogue moves, ‘information-seeking’ and ‘inquiry’ moves and their subtypes, as assessed on the basis of their degree of dialogicity, emerging from the dialogue sequence in which the moves are situated. The discussion focuses on how such a normative analysis of interaction can help teachers guide more productive dialogues with their students.

Abstract

Although there are abundant studies on the management of patient resistance in traditional face-to-face clinical settings, scant attention has been paid to that in the online context. This study thus delves into the types of patient resistance and the strategies Chinese doctors employ to manage such resistance in Online Medical Consultation (OMC). A dataset of 148 online doctor-patient conversations was collected from Chunyu Doctor. Three types of patient resistance – expertise-oriented, experience-oriented, and emotion-oriented – are identified and analyzed in Chinese OMC. Accordingly, Chinese doctors generally adopt linguistic strategies such as interpretives to justify decisions, supportives to facilitate relational work, and imperatives in the event of persistent resistance. Furthermore, the management of patient resistance is discussed as a joint goal-centered activity in Chinese OMC, aiming to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the shared decision-making process in Chinese health communication.

This article reviews The Discourse of Conflict and Crisis: Poland’s Political Rhetoric in the European Perspective978-1-3501-3563-5