Power in communication: implications for the semantics-pragmatics interface

Leezenberg, Michiel

doi:10.1016/s0378-2166(01)00067-4

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this section, I focus on work by Leezenberg (2002), Wartenberg (1990) and Locher (2004) to show how Leezenberg and Wartenberg reject most dominating assumptions on power to develop a theorization that addresses the plurality of forms of power and how Locher applies the idea of the plurality of forms of power in her empirical research of power in disagreements. I start off with Michiel Leezenberg's approach to theorizing power since he spells out the most general propositions about what a new approach to power should look like.…”

Section: Theoretical Approaches To Power That Address Its Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Power in communication: revisiting power studies

Kucherenko

2016

Topics in Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper revisits a range of theories of power in communication and argues that there has been no methodology able to grasp the multiplicity of power in communication as a concept. As a result, the present scholarship on power in communication is characterized by a multiplicity of approaches that a) use the concept of power as a self-explanatory or vague concept in the analysis of several interactional phenomena; b) draw on a particular approach to power, disregarding multiple workings of power; or c) acknowledge the complexity of power and synthesize various approaches to power.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Approaches To Power That Address Its Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Next, I show how the multiplicity and ambivalence of power as a concept is tackled by Michiel Leezenberg (2002), Thomas Wartenberg (1990) and Miriam Locher (2004). The three of them address multiplicity and ambivalence of power in a new way.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power in communication: revisiting power studies

Kucherenko

2016

Topics in Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, he notes that the ancient Chinese doctrine of the rectification of names (zheng ming) involves the power to determine the very words and categories that language users employ (cf. Leezenberg 2003). Although it is not immediately clear how such a juxtaposition of symbolic, economic and other spheres provides a coherent whole (let alone Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated Download Date | 6/13/15 6:52 AM how these spheres interact), Wolf's linking of the symbolic and political-economical dimensions of power also implies a rejection of the idea, prevalent in earlier forms of symbolic anthropology, that symbols follow a "cultural logic" of their own.…”

Section: 4mentioning

confidence: 99%

8. Power in speech actions

Leezenberg¹

2013

Pragmatics of Speech Actions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This, in turn, invokes the crucial importance of the hearer in defining the meaning of a speech act, a somewhat neglected area of pragmatic research, with the exception of Wee (2004) and Leezenberg (2002), whom Jeffries cites. This, in turn, invokes the crucial importance of the hearer in defining the meaning of a speech act, a somewhat neglected area of pragmatic research, with the exception of Wee (2004) and Leezenberg (2002), whom Jeffries cites.…”

Section: Karen Grainger and Sandra Harrismentioning

confidence: 99%

Special Issue: Apologies: Introduction

Grainger¹,

Harris²

2007

Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The apology is a speech act which has deep and wide social and psychological significance. In both popular and academic notions of politeness it is perhaps the example par excellence of politeness at work. As Holmes (1998: 217), rightly, contends, "the apology is quintessentially a politeness strategy". In both public and private interaction, the need for an apology signifies that something has gone wrong and needs to be put right. In terms of spoken encounters, to utter an apology involves the speaker acknowledging some perceived social transgression and the hearer receiving and dealing with this act. The apology arguably puts both speaker and hearer in a precarious relational position and necessitates remedial "facework" (Goffman 1971), usually involving some form of linguistic management. Furthermore, the nature of the apology can be very important in resolving a variety of types of conflict, ranging from uncomfortable moments in conversation through serious breaches of social and/or cultural norms by an individual to incidents with national or international political significance (See Zhang 2001; Harris et al. forthcoming; Jeffries forthcoming). As such, apologies, along with requests, have probably generated more research in the past two decades than any other form of speech act. Much of this research has emerged in relation to pragmatics and politeness theory but has also come from a variety of other disciplines, i. e., sociolinguistics, social psychology, philosophy and foreign language teaching.As with other politeness phenomena, Levinson's (1987 [1978]) work has been enormously influential, particularly their conceptualization of the notion of "face", which perceives apologies as primarily a negative politeness strategy communicating a speaker's reluctance to violate negative face wants. However, the bulk of apology research, most of which is empirically based, reveals the apology to be a much more complex speech act than Brown and Levinson's analysis would suggest. Perhaps best known of these earlier studies are Cohen and Olsh-tain (1981), Olshtain and Cohen (1983), Olshtain and Weinback (1987) and Olshtain (1989) who usefully attempt to identify the main structural components of an apology i. e., (i) an illocutionary force indicating device (IFID) and (ii) an expression of responsibility/blame, as general strategies, with three further situation-specific strategies involving (iii) an explanation or account (iv) an offer of repair and (v) a promise of forbearance (Olshtain and Cohen 1983). A number of researchers have since questioned whether, indeed, any of these components can be considered as compulsory (and, hence, universal) constituent parts of an apology (e. g., Mills 2003), and the papers in this issue of Journal of Politeness Research attest to the value in looking, in particular, at situated discourse data. However, Olshtain and Cohen's taxonomy has provided a useful starting point for many studies, including some of those that follow in this issue.Meier's (1998) insightful review of apo...

show abstract

Power in communication: implications for the semantics-pragmatics interface

Cited by 16 publications

References 5 publications

Power in communication: revisiting power studies

Power in communication: revisiting power studies

8. Power in speech actions

Special Issue: Apologies: Introduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About