Discourse Pragmatics

Blum‐Kulka, Shoshana; Hamo, Michal

doi:10.4135/9781446289068.n8

Cited by 32 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Training each coder took approximately 15 hours. It is important to stress that the proposed analytical model is built on both verbal and nonverbal observational parameters that were found to be valid across cultures (Blum-Kulka 1997;Ekman 1997;Kestenberg et al 1996;Searle 1979). Appendix 1 provides an example of the coding system.…”

Section: Analysis Of Communication Modalities In the Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Coding of verbal communication was based on a speech act analysis (Searle 1979) using an established coding scheme, which previous studies showed is effective (Blum-Kulka 1997;Weizman 2008). The basic assumption is that linguistic expressions are able to represent acts of communication, such as declarations, questions, instructions, apologies, and gratitude.…”

Section: Analysis Of Communication Modalities In the Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Role of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior in Televised Political Debates

Grebelsky-Lichtman

2015

Journal of Political Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Analysis Of Communication Modalities In the Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis Of Communication Modalities In the Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior in Televised Political Debates

Grebelsky-Lichtman

2015

Journal of Political Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Tomlin et al 1997), or on pragmatic dimensions 1 such as politeness and cross-cultural differences in speech acts (e.g. Blum-Kulka 1997). Our study falls within the pragmatic dimension of discourse studies in the sense that it addresses the socio-pragmatic phenomenon of academic criticism -a feature inherent to science and scientific progress -which has recently drawn the attention of historians, sociologists of science, and applied linguists, especially those interested in the analysis of scientific discourse.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic criticism in Spanish medical discourse: a cross‐generic approach

Salager‐Meyer

Ariza

2003

Int J App Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

frequency has changed over time. The corpus consisted of 76 medical articles published between 1930published between and 1999published between , divided into Block A (1930published between -1969 and Block B (1970Block B ( -1999. The results show that: the frequency of AC is significantly greater in ED than in the remaining genres for both blocks, followed by RV, RP and CR; the frequency of AC is significantly higher in Block B than in Block A; and AC has increased over time in all the genres except CR. It is argued that the overall increase in AC frequency can be accounted for by the growth in the number of scientific publications over the last decades, by the scientists' need to publish, and by the paradigmatic shift from science being assertive to becoming skeptical and probabilistic, based on claim refutability, i.e. on criticism. Cross-generic differences are explained in terms of the communicative function of each genre and of the rank/ status power relations that exist between the social role assumed by the authors of the different genres and their audience.

show abstract

“…If one were a quantitative coder, DA would be the "other" category that is used because an observation cannot be fit neatly into any of the other categories. The "discourse-pragmatics" approach developed by Blum-Kulka (1997 illustrates this hybrid quality nicely as it brings together selected ideas from pragmatics with CA and ethnography of communication, as well as the ideas of theorist Mikhail Bakhtin (Morson & Emerson, 1990). Discourse analytic work in LSI, then, includes any strand of research not named above that records and transcribes segments of interaction and then interprets and analyzes excerpts of talk and text as the central means to build its arguments.…”

Section: Discourse Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first volume focuses on talk and text as language or argument structures (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, Jackson, & Jacobs, 1997a) and on cognitive processing perspectives, including a critique of the perspective (Condor & Antaki, 1997a). The second volume focuses on issues of social interaction, including an introduction to doing conversation analysis , an overview of pragmatic strands of discourse analysis (Blum-Kulka, 1997), and studies of organizational (Mumby & Clair, 1997) and institutional discourse (Drew & Sorjönen, 1997).…”

Section: Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language and Social Interaction: Its Institutional Identity, Intellectual Landscape, and Discipline-Shifting Agenda

Tracy

Haspel

2004

Journal of Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language and Social Interaction (LSI) is the intellectual home for those convinced that the smallest of language, gesture, or vocal expressions affect meaning making and can shape socially consequential outcomes. It is the residence of preference for those who believe that studying interaction in its situated and messy particularity is the best way to understand communicative life. As a division in both ICA and NCA, it is a bit of an outlier, a group whose center is not the name of a particular context of communication. Cutting against the grain-resisting commonly held beliefs or usual practices in other intellectual communities-is part of what it means to do LSI scholarship, although the communities LSI scholars argue with are quite diverse. Almost always LSI scholars have a foot, albeit sometimes only a tentative one, in some other world besides the interdisciplinary one that comprises LSI research. For those with communication pedigrees, it is most likely to be interpersonal, intercultural, group, organizational, health, or political communication. As a good number of LSI scholars come from fields other than communication, the other worlds are most likely to be sociology, linguistics, psychology, or anthropology. For many of these scholars it is the mainstream of their discipline that is the chief target of their arguments. Some of these folk build permanent homes in communication departments and like their native-born colleagues begin to engage with neighboring areas of communication study. Others spend their day-to-day lives in these other disciplines, with their intellectual foci shaped by what is routinely contested and debated in their departmental residence.This review of language and social interaction is divided into four sections. In the first section, we provide a sense of LSI as an organizational unit, tracing its history in the main communication associations and making visible how its intellectual character has changed over time. Then, we describe the major research traditions that exist in LSI and the distinctive features of each of the traditions. Because the last 7-8 years has produced a large set of LSI-focused review essays and handbooks, the third section reviews the reviews, making apparent similarities and differences among different reviews' characterizations of language and

show abstract

Discourse Pragmatics

Cited by 32 publications

References 0 publications

The Role of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior in Televised Political Debates

The Role of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior in Televised Political Debates

Academic criticism in Spanish medical discourse: a cross‐generic approach

Language and Social Interaction: Its Institutional Identity, Intellectual Landscape, and Discipline-Shifting Agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About