First Names in Starbucks: A Clash of Cultures?

Isosävi, Johanna; Lappalainen, Hanna

doi:10.1057/9781137529923_6

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nominal address of this kind only occurs in two consultations in the Sweden-Swedish dataset. In Finnish, nominal address expressed with personal names or titles as vocatives is uncommon compared with many other European languages (Yli-Vakkuri 2005, 194;Carbaugh 2005, 10;Havu et al 2014;Isosävi and Lappalainen 2015). In Finland Swedish, nominal address is also uncommon in contexts such as this.…”

Section: Indirect Addressmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, both doctors use V address, which contributes to maintaining a certain distance and formality. The doctors' use of V address can be interpreted as a way of showing respect for the patient's integrity and personal space, which is considered important in Finland (Larjavaara 1999;Isosävi and Lappalainen 2015). However, in both extracts, the doctors seek to create common ground with the patients in other ways.…”

Section: Addressmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Variation in address practices across languages and nations

Wide

Lappalainen

Rouhikoski

et al. 2019

PRAG

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article compares variation in the use of address practices across languages (Swedish, Finnish) and national varieties (Sweden Swedish, Finland Swedish). It undertakes quantitative and qualitative analyses of three sets of transcribed medical consultations. In Sweden Swedish, address pronouns which lower social distance overwhelmingly dominate. In Finnish, both address forms reducing social distance and practices maintaining greater distance are found, with age and level of acquaintance revealed as the most salient factors. Finland Swedish is located somewhere between Sweden Swedish and Finnish, displaying a stronger tendency than Finnish to use informal direct address forms to reduce social distance, but also showing similarities with Finnish in the use of direct formal address and indirect address. The differences can be related to larger socio-cultural patterns which, however, form a continuum rather than a fixed set keeping the two languages and countries completely apart.

show abstract

Section: Indirect Addressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Addressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in address practices across languages and nations

Wide

Lappalainen

Rouhikoski

et al. 2019

PRAG

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is, I would argue, a worthwhile undertaking since there is abundant evidence from interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics that there are significant cultural differences in issues regarding politeness. There is reportedly variation in the degree to which languages tolerate phatic language (Fredsted 2005), use of first naming (Isosävi and Lappalainen 2015), in levels of directness (Economidou-Kogetsidis 2005), and in the use of address terms (Norrby and Wide 2015). Specifically, in relation to Danish preferences, it has been suggested that Danes have a preference, at least in service transactions, for a straightforward interactional style where speakers do not waste time on excessive verbiage that does not relate directly to the transaction at hand.…”

Section: Adopting and Resisting Globalized Prescriptions: Employee Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…McDonald's opened its first restaurant in Moscow, the American-style friendliness and informality made customers think they were being mocked by the staff (Ashforth and Humphrey 1993). Similarly, reactions to the first naming conventions used in the American coffee chain Starbucks are said to feel "foreign" in Finland and France, where they are associated, respectively, with "intimacy" and "marketing" (Isosävi and Lappalainen 2015). In light of a well-established body of cross-cultural pragmatics that politeness conventions vary sometimes significantlyaccording to national culture Pawelczyk 2004, 2008;Haugh 2011;Reiter 2011;Félix-Brasdefer 2015), such findings should come as no surprise.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Globalizing politeness?

Hultgren¹

2019

Pragmatics &Amp; Beyond New Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Call centres are a prototypical example of how service encounters over the years have come to be increasingly "mediated". At the inception of "service encounters" as a field of inquiry more than forty years ago, a service encounter was defined as "an instance of face-to-face interaction between a server who is 'officially posted' in some service area and a customer who is present in that service area, that interaction being oriented to the satisfaction of the customer's presumed desire for some service and the server's obligation to provide that service" (Merritt 1976:321). While call centre service encounters are still "oriented to the satisfaction of the customer's presumed desire for some service and the server's obligation to provide that service", they are not "face-to-face" but mediated. They have been described as a work environment in which the main business is mediated by computer and telephonebased technologies that enable the efficient distribution of incoming calls (or allocation of outgoing calls) to available staff, and permit customer-employee interaction to occur simultaneously with the use of display screen equipment and the instant access to, and inputting of, information (Holman 2003:124).

show abstract

“…This study seeks to add a new perspective to (im)politeness by analyzing evaluations of intercultural interaction and concentrating on lesser studied languages and cultures (van der Bom and Grainger 2015: 173): in this case, Finnish and French. Reported differences exist in forms of address (Isosävi 2010;Isosävi and Lappalainen 2015) and in (im)politeness perceptions (Buchart 2010: 100). Most previous (im)politeness studies concentrated on cultural insiders' (emic) evaluations (Ogiermann and Suszczyńska 2011;Fukushima and Haugh 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural outsiders’ evaluations of (im)politeness in Finland and in France

Isosävi

2020

Journal of Politeness Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractIntercultural interaction may be complicated by differing verbal and nonverbal displays of (im)politeness. Yet cultural outsiders’ evaluations of (im)politeness have not been widely examined. To fill this gap, this study investigated perceptions of Finnish politeness among French people living in Finland and perceptions of French politeness among Finns currently or previously living in France. Focus groups were used in order to study culturally shared (im)politeness norms and their variations. Based on a dialogical discourse analysis of five focus group discussions, it is argued that personal space emerges as a salient factor for politeness in Finland, while verbal and nonverbal rapport is more important in France. These overarching themes - personal space and rapport - led to discussions about greetings, silence and holding doors open. Greeting and opening doors appeared more categorical in France, while silence was better tolerated in Finland. In addition to dominant norms, regional and individual variations were reported. Overall, (im)politeness norms appeared to be vaguer in Finland than in France. Building upon this study, future research should examine if changes emerge in Finnish (im)politeness norms related to rapport or if space remains more valued.

show abstract

First Names in Starbucks: A Clash of Cultures?

Cited by 10 publications

References 27 publications

Variation in address practices across languages and nations

Variation in address practices across languages and nations

Globalizing politeness?

Cultural outsiders’ evaluations of (im)politeness in Finland and in France

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About