与他人相处而不是相处:是什么引发了评价性反应?

IF 1.8 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Helen Spencer-Oatey , Jiayi Wang
{"title":"与他人相处而不是相处:是什么引发了评价性反应?","authors":"Helen Spencer-Oatey ,&nbsp;Jiayi Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.pragma.2025.05.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There has been a growing focus within (im)politeness theory on evaluation – the subjective judgements that people make on the appropriateness of verbal and non-verbal behaviour and of the interlocutors involved. However, to date there is insufficient clarity over the factors that trigger those evaluations. Often this is explained in terms of breach of norms, but there are various conceptual and empirical difficulties associated with this. This paper argues for greater attention to be paid to personal wants and concerns as additional evaluative grounds and proposes labelling these ‘personal interactional concerns’ (PICs). This concept is in line with much (im)politeness theory as well as with theorising in interpersonal psychology. Relevant literature from these fields is first reviewed to identify the range of triggers or interactional concerns that have been identified by different scholars. A dataset of metapragmatic comments, plus some associated discourse data, is analysed to identify the factors that interlocutors refer to when reflecting on their recent interactions with unfamiliar professionals. The aim is to explore (a) what triggers or concerns participants refer to and (b) whether the additional concept of PICs is helpful for explaining individual variation. The article ends by arguing that greater clarity on these trigger factors is important not only for theoretical reasons, but also for the support they can offer in helping people reflect more meaningfully on relationally salient incidents that they experience.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16899,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pragmatics","volume":"243 ","pages":"Pages 6-23"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Relating to others and (not) getting along: What triggers evaluative reactions?\",\"authors\":\"Helen Spencer-Oatey ,&nbsp;Jiayi Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pragma.2025.05.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>There has been a growing focus within (im)politeness theory on evaluation – the subjective judgements that people make on the appropriateness of verbal and non-verbal behaviour and of the interlocutors involved. However, to date there is insufficient clarity over the factors that trigger those evaluations. Often this is explained in terms of breach of norms, but there are various conceptual and empirical difficulties associated with this. This paper argues for greater attention to be paid to personal wants and concerns as additional evaluative grounds and proposes labelling these ‘personal interactional concerns’ (PICs). This concept is in line with much (im)politeness theory as well as with theorising in interpersonal psychology. Relevant literature from these fields is first reviewed to identify the range of triggers or interactional concerns that have been identified by different scholars. A dataset of metapragmatic comments, plus some associated discourse data, is analysed to identify the factors that interlocutors refer to when reflecting on their recent interactions with unfamiliar professionals. The aim is to explore (a) what triggers or concerns participants refer to and (b) whether the additional concept of PICs is helpful for explaining individual variation. The article ends by arguing that greater clarity on these trigger factors is important not only for theoretical reasons, but also for the support they can offer in helping people reflect more meaningfully on relationally salient incidents that they experience.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16899,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pragmatics\",\"volume\":\"243 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 6-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pragmatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216625001092\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216625001092","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在(非)礼貌理论中,对评价的关注越来越多——人们对言语和非言语行为以及所涉及的对话者的适当性做出的主观判断。然而,迄今为止,对引发这些评价的因素还不够清楚。这通常被解释为违反规范,但有各种概念和经验上的困难与此相关。本文主张更多地关注个人需求和关注,作为额外的评估依据,并建议将这些贴上“个人互动关注”(PICs)的标签。这一概念与多(非)礼貌理论以及人际心理学的理论一致。首先回顾这些领域的相关文献,以确定不同学者确定的触发因素或相互作用问题的范围。本文分析了元语用评论数据集,以及一些相关的话语数据,以确定对话者在反思他们最近与不熟悉的专业人士的互动时所指的因素。目的是探讨(a)参与者所指的触发因素或关注事项,以及(b)额外的“保监人士”概念是否有助于解释个体差异。文章最后认为,更清晰地了解这些触发因素很重要,不仅是因为理论上的原因,而且因为它们可以帮助人们更有意义地反思他们所经历的关系突出的事件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Relating to others and (not) getting along: What triggers evaluative reactions?
There has been a growing focus within (im)politeness theory on evaluation – the subjective judgements that people make on the appropriateness of verbal and non-verbal behaviour and of the interlocutors involved. However, to date there is insufficient clarity over the factors that trigger those evaluations. Often this is explained in terms of breach of norms, but there are various conceptual and empirical difficulties associated with this. This paper argues for greater attention to be paid to personal wants and concerns as additional evaluative grounds and proposes labelling these ‘personal interactional concerns’ (PICs). This concept is in line with much (im)politeness theory as well as with theorising in interpersonal psychology. Relevant literature from these fields is first reviewed to identify the range of triggers or interactional concerns that have been identified by different scholars. A dataset of metapragmatic comments, plus some associated discourse data, is analysed to identify the factors that interlocutors refer to when reflecting on their recent interactions with unfamiliar professionals. The aim is to explore (a) what triggers or concerns participants refer to and (b) whether the additional concept of PICs is helpful for explaining individual variation. The article ends by arguing that greater clarity on these trigger factors is important not only for theoretical reasons, but also for the support they can offer in helping people reflect more meaningfully on relationally salient incidents that they experience.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
18.80%
发文量
219
期刊介绍: Since 1977, the Journal of Pragmatics has provided a forum for bringing together a wide range of research in pragmatics, including cognitive pragmatics, corpus pragmatics, experimental pragmatics, historical pragmatics, interpersonal pragmatics, multimodal pragmatics, sociopragmatics, theoretical pragmatics and related fields. Our aim is to publish innovative pragmatic scholarship from all perspectives, which contributes to theories of how speakers produce and interpret language in different contexts drawing on attested data from a wide range of languages/cultures in different parts of the world. The Journal of Pragmatics also encourages work that uses attested language data to explore the relationship between pragmatics and neighbouring research areas such as semantics, discourse analysis, conversation analysis and ethnomethodology, interactional linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, media studies, psychology, sociology, and the philosophy of language. Alongside full-length articles, discussion notes and book reviews, the journal welcomes proposals for high quality special issues in all areas of pragmatics which make a significant contribution to a topical or developing area at the cutting-edge of research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信