Interpersonal Pragmatics

doi:10.1017/9781108954105.030

27 - Interpersonal Pragmatics

from Part III - Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2021

Miriam A. Locher and

Edited by

Dániel Z. Kádár and

Michael Haugh: Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Dániel Z. Kádár: Affiliation:
Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics, and Dalian University of Foreign Languages
Marina Terkourafi: Affiliation:
Leiden University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Since the 2010s, a number of scholars have explicitly worked with the term ‘interpersonal pragmatics’ in order to zoom in on the relational and interpersonal side of communication. The purpose of the chapter is to demonstrate how the research interest on the interpersonal and relational is inspired by (im)politeness, identity construction and communication studies in order to tackle questions about pragmatic variation and interpersonal effects. Interpersonal pragmatics does not propagate a particular methodology nor only one theory but is conceptualized as a perspective on the interpersonal side of language and communication. The chapter draws on and points to a number of earlier chapters dealing with key concepts for this field, such as (im)politeness, relational work, face, identity construction, roles and the social and historical embeddedness of communication. Key themes within interpersonal pragmatics are, among others, negotiations of agreement and disagreement, negotiations of (clashes of) norms and understandings of self and other in particular social contexts.

Keywords

interpersonal communication relationships identity (im)politeness health communication methodology

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 569 - 591

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954105.030 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bateman, J., Wildfeuer, J. and Hiippala, T. (2017). Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis – A Problem-Oriented Introduction. New York: Mouton.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bloor, M. and Bloor, T. (2014). Critical discourse analysis. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 189–213.Google Scholar

Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A. (eds.). (2008). Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N., ed., Questions and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–289.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.Google Scholar

Cap, P. (2018). Critical discourse analysis. In Jucker, A. H., Schneider, K. P. and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 425–52.Google Scholar

Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. (eds.). (2010). Historical (Im)politeness. Vol. 65. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.CrossRef Google Scholar

Davies, B. and Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.CrossRef Google Scholar

Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. and M. Birch, , eds., Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley, CA: Women and Language Group, pp. 89–99.Google Scholar

Edelsky, C. (1981). Who’s got the floor? Language and Society, 10(3), 383–421.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, S. (2010). Changes in the meanings of politeness in eighteenth-century England: Discourse analysis and historical evidence. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D., eds., Historical (Im)politeness. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, pp. 87–115.Google Scholar

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2013). Introduction: Face, identity and im/politeness. Looking backward, moving forward: From Goffman to practice theory. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 1–33.CrossRef Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gordon, C. (2011). Gumperz and interactional sociolinguistics. In Wodak, R., Johnstone, B. and Kerswill, P., eds., The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, pp. 67–84.CrossRef Google Scholar

Graham, S. L. (2007). Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 742–59.Google Scholar

Graham, S. L. (2008). A manual for impoliteness? The impact of the FAQ in an electronic community of practice. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 281–304.Google Scholar

Graham, S. L. (2009). Hospitalk: Politeness and hierarchical structures in interdisciplinary discharge rounds. Journal of Politeness Research, 5(1), 11–31.CrossRef Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar

Hall, K. and Bucholtz, M. (2013). Epilogue: Facing identity. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 123–132.Google Scholar

Haugh, M., Kádár, D. and Mills, S. (2013). Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 1–11.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Jewitt, C. (ed.). (2009). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jones, R. (2013). Multimodal discourse analysis. In Chapelle, C. E., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 3992–6.Google Scholar

Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistics Society, 9, 292–305.Google Scholar

Langlotz, A. and Locher, M. A. (2013). The role of emotions in relational work. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 87–107.Google Scholar

Langlotz, A. and Locher, M. A. (2017). (Im)politeness and emotion. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave, pp. 287–322.Google Scholar

Larson, E., Hamilton, H. E. and Eisenberg, J. (1998). Hospitalk: An exploratory study to assess what is said and what is heard between physicians and nurses. Clinical Performance and Quality Health Care, 6(4), 183–9.Google Scholar

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2008). Relational work, politeness and identity construction. In Antos, G., Ventola, E. and Weber, T., eds., Handbooks of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 2, Interpersonal Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 509–40.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2011). Situated impoliteness: The interface between relational work and identity construction. In Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J., eds., Situated Politeness. New York: Continuum International, pp. 187–208.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2013). Politeness. In Chapelle, C. E., ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 4457–63.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2014). The relational aspect of language: Avenues of research. In Mergenthal, S. and Nischik, R. M., eds., Anglistentag 2013 Konstanz: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 309–22.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2015). Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 5–10.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. (2017). Reflective Writing in Medical Practice: A Linguistic Perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L. (2010a). Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics. In Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L., eds., Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. and Graham, S. L. (eds.). (2010b). Interpersonal Pragmatics. Vol. 6. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. and Schnurr, S. (2017). (Im)politeness in health settings. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D., eds., Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave, pp. 689–711.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. and Thurnherr, F. (2017). Typing yourself healthy: Introduction to the special issue on language and health online. Linguistics Online, 87(8/17), 3–24.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. and Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. A., eds., Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–99.Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62.CrossRef Google Scholar

O’Driscoll, J. (2013). The role of language in interpersonal pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 170–81.Google Scholar

Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 95–119.Google Scholar

Tannen, D. and Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In Tannen, D., ed., Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–76.Google Scholar

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H. and Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.