Relational work in dispute: Negotiating norms, negotiating relationships

Abstract

Abstract Recent developments of politeness research mainly consist of the study of politeness within a broader framework of relationship or relating and the re-conceptualization of politeness as an evaluative judgement made by participants on the basis of norms and expectations. This article hopes to contribute to the study of relating by probing into the normative basis of relational work. Addressing the relational aspect of communication, Habermas’ (1979) concept of normative rightness claim highlights the normative commitment of the speaker in doing (more than judging) relational work, which has been obscured by the focus on (hearers’) judgements in current research on relational work. Habermas’ concept brings into focus the fact that participants in interaction can define and redefine their relationship through contesting the other’s normative rightness claim or the normative background thereby evoked. This dynamic process of negotiating relationships through negotiating norms can be further explicated by drawing on Culpeper’s (2008) and Kádár and Haugh’s (2013) differentiations of norms. The article explores the usefulness of such differentiations by analyzing different cases of norm variation which can be seen to underlie relational work dispute.