Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness: A study of impoliteness events reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany and Turkey : Intercultural Pragmatics Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Intercultural Pragmatics

Editor-in-Chief: Kecskes, Istvan


IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 1.070
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.211
Rank 51 out of 179 in category Linguistics in the 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.286
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.827
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.456

99,00 € / $149.00 / £75.00*

Online
ISSN
1613-365X
See all formats and pricing



Select Volume and Issue
Loading journal volume and issue information...

Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness: A study of impoliteness events reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany and Turkey

Jonathan Culpeper / Leyla Marti / Meilian Mei / Minna Nevala / Gila Schauer

Correspondence address:

Citation Information: Intercultural Pragmatics. Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 597–624, ISSN (Online) 1613-365X, ISSN (Print) 1612-295X, DOI: 10.1515/iprg.2010.027, November 2010

Publication History

Published Online:
2010-11-04

Abstract

This paper investigates cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness. It is based on 500 impoliteness events reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany, and Turkey. The main analytical framework adopted is Spencer-Oatey's (e.g. Rapport management: A framework for analysis, Continuum, 2000) “rapport management,” covering various types of face as well as sociality rights. We offer some clarifications of this framework, and explain and demonstrate how it can be operationalized for quantitative analysis. In general, it offers a good account of our data, though accommodating ambiguous cases proved to be a major challenge. Our quantitative analysis suggests that three of the five categories of Spencer-Oatey's framework are key ones, namely, quality face, equity rights, and association rights. Furthermore, differences between our geographically separated datasets emerge. For example, the England-based data has a preponderance of impoliteness events in which quality face is violated, whereas the China-based data has a preponderance where equity rights are violated. We offer some explanations for these differences, relating them where possible to broader cultural issues.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Charlotte Taylor
Journal of Pragmatics, 2015, Volume 87, Page 127
[2]
Istvan Kecskes
Journal of Pragmatics, 2015
[3]
Ann Marie Ryan and Jennifer L. Wessel
Human Resource Management Review, 2015, Volume 25, Number 2, Page 162
[4]
Zia Tajeddin, Minoo Alemi, and Sajedeh Razzaghi
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 2014, Volume 43, Number 4, Page 304
[5]
Zsuzsanna Ittzes Abrams
System, 2014, Volume 46, Page 55
[8]
Stephen Michael Croucher, Rand Otten, Meghan Ball, Tamara Grimes, Brett Ainsworth, Kieran Begley, and Laci Corzo
Communication Studies, 2013, Volume 64, Number 1, Page 18

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.