Home Relational work in dispute: Negotiating norms, negotiating relationships
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Relational work in dispute: Negotiating norms, negotiating relationships

  • Yanwei Hu

    Yanwei Hu has a PhD in Linguistics & Applied Linguistics from Peking University and is currently a lecturer in the English department of China University of Petroleum - Beijing. Her research interests include pragmatics and stylistics. She has been working on the pragmatic (and interdisciplinary) study of the relational and informational aspects of communication.

    EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: June 18, 2020

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.

About the author

Yanwei Hu

Yanwei Hu has a PhD in Linguistics & Applied Linguistics from Peking University and is currently a lecturer in the English department of China University of Petroleum - Beijing. Her research interests include pragmatics and stylistics. She has been working on the pragmatic (and interdisciplinary) study of the relational and informational aspects of communication.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Science Foundation of China University of Petroleum, Beijing (No. 2462017YJRC060).

References

Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618284Search in Google Scholar

Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.167Search in Google Scholar

Bousfield, Derek & Miriam Locher (eds.). 2008. Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110208344Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2008. Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam Locher (eds.). Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. 17-44. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110208344.1.17Search in Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511975752Search in Google Scholar

Ellison, Ralph. 1972. Invisible Man (Vin. ed.). New York: Random House.Search in Google Scholar

Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 1996. Towards a cognitive approach to politeness. Language Sciences 18 (3-4): 629-650.10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00039-3Search in Google Scholar

Faulkner, William. 1973. Go down, Moses. New York: Vintage Books.Search in Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14 (2): 219-236.10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-NSearch in Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce & William Nolen. 1981. The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27: 93-109.10.1515/ijsl.1981.27.93Search in Google Scholar

Gu, Yuego. 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 237-257.10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-OSearch in Google Scholar

Habermas, Jürgen. 1979. What is universal pragmatics. In Thomas McCarthy (ed. & trans.). Communication and the evolution of society. 1-68. London: Heinemann Educational.Search in Google Scholar

Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. Reason and the rationalization of society. In Thomas McCarthy (ed. & trans.) The theory of communicative action. Vol.1. London: Heinemann.Search in Google Scholar

Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. On the pragmatics of communication. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2013. Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics 58: 52-72.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003Search in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael, Daniel Kádár, & Sara Mills. 2013. Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates. Journal of Pragmatics 58: 1-11.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.009Search in Google Scholar

Ide, Sachiko. 1989. Formal forms of discernment: Neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8 (2): 223-248.10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223Search in Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 2015. Pragmatics of fiction: Literary uses of uh and um. Journal of Pragmatics 86: 63-67.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.012Search in Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139382717.006Search in Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. 2011. Postscript. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (eds.). Discursive approaches to politeness. 245-262. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110238679.245Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. The pragmatics of politeness. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Locher, Miriam A. 2006. Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua. 25: 249-267.10.1515/MULTI.2006.015Search in Google Scholar

Locher, Miriam A. 2012. Politeness research from past to future, with a special focus on the discursive approach. In Lucía Fernández Amaya, Maria de la O Hernández López, Reyes Gómez Morón, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Manuel Mejias Borrero and Mariana Relinque Barranca (eds.) New perspectives on (im)politeness and interpersonal communication. 36-60. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Locher, Miriam A. 2013. Relational work and interpersonal pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 58: 138-151.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.014Search in Google Scholar

Locher, Miriam A. 2015. Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics 86: 5-10.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.010Search in Google Scholar

Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 9-33.10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9Search in Google Scholar

Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2008. Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In Derek Bousfield and Miriam Locher (eds.). Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. 77-99. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110208344Search in Google Scholar

Locher, Miriam A. & Sage L. Graham (eds.). 2010. Interpersonal pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214338.0.1Search in Google Scholar

Mao, LuMing Robert. 1994. Beyond politeness theory: “Face” revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics 21 (5): 451-486.10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6Search in Google Scholar

Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615238.006Search in Google Scholar

Mills, Sara. 2011. Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (eds.). Discursive approaches to politeness. 19-56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110238679.19Search in Google Scholar

Mullany, Louise. 2008. “Stop hassling me!” Impoliteness, power and gender identity in the professional workplace. In Derek Bousfield and Miriam Locher (eds.). Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. 231-251. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110208344.4.231Search in Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2008. Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.). Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory. 11-47. London: Continuum.10.5040/9781350934085.ch-002Search in Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2013. Relating at work: Facets, dialectics and face. Journal of Pragmatics 58: 121-137.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.010Search in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah (1993a). What’s in a frame?: Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Deborah Tannen (ed.). Framing in discourse. 14-56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah (1993b). Introduction. In Deborah Tannen (ed.). Framing in discourse. 3-13. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Terkourafi, Marina. 2005. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 237-262.10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237Search in Google Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide, & Konrad Ehlich (eds.). Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. 43-69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110886542-005Search in Google Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615184Search in Google Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 2005. Linguistic politeness research: Quo vadis? In Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide, & Konrad Ehlich (eds.). Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. xi-xlvii. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199819.xiSearch in Google Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 2010. Linguistic politeness theory and its aftermath: Recent research trails. In Miriam Locher & Sage Graham (eds.). Interpersonal Pragmatics. 43-70. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214338.1.43Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2018-08-28
Accepted: 2019-03-12
Published Online: 2020-06-18
Published in Print: 2021-07-27

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 25.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/pr-2018-0039/html
Scroll to top button