Revisiting the duality of convention and ritual: A contrastive pragmatic inquiry

Dániel Z. Kádár 1  and Juliane House 2
  • 1 Dalian University of Foreign Languages and Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Dalian, China
  • 2 University of Hamburg /Hellenic American University, Athens, Greece
Dániel Z. Kádár
  • Corresponding author
  • Dalian University of Foreign Languages and Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Dalian, China
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
and Juliane House

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to provide a pragmalinguistically inspired framework for analysing the relationship between linguistic forms and conventional and ritual behaviour. To date, no body of pragmalinguistic research has been dedicated to the relationship between conventional and ritual phenomena, which play a fundamental role in language use. Even more importantly, the examination of this phenomenon provides insight into a longstanding issue in pragmatics, namely, how the relationship between form and language use can be pinned down. We will pursue this question on the basis of an English and Chinese corpus-based examination of expressions, which we define as ‘ritual frame indicating expressions’ (RFIEs). As a case study, we examine the Chinese RFIE ‘duibuqi’ and its English counterpart ‘sorry’. The results indicate that while ‘sorry’ is largely used in a conventional way throughout the contexts in our English corpus, ‘duibuqi’ is predominantly anchored in ritual. This, in turn, reveals how these forms are related to convention v. ritual as far as our data is concerned.

  • Ajmer, K. 2015. Recent changes in the modal area of necessity and obligation: A contrastive perspective. In P. Shaw, B. Erman, G. Melchers, and P. Sundkvist (eds.), From clerks to corpora: Essays on the English language yesterday and today, 267–284. Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.

  • Arizavi, S., & Y. Choubsaz. 2018. To use or not use the shorter forms: A corpus-based analysis of the apologetic expressions “Sorry and I’m sorry” in American spoken English discourse. Corpus Pragmatics.

  • Austin, J.L. 1962. How do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Bax, M. 2010. Rituals. In A. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 483–521. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Bednarek, M. 2005. Frames revisited: the coherence-inducing function of frames. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 685–705.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • Collins, R. 2004. Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Culpeper, J. 2010. Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 42(12). 3232–3245.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual. Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

  • Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press.

  • Han, X. 2005. Pragmatic analysis on the apology expression “Duìbùqǐ” in Chinese. Journal of Beijing University of Chemical Technology (Social Sciences Edition). 50(2). 51–55.

  • Hollywood, A. 2002. Performativity, citationality, ritualization. History of Religions 42(2). 93–115.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • House, J. 1989. Politeness in English and German: The functions of please and bitte. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, 96–119. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

  • Huang, Y. 2001. A cross-cultural analysis of the speech act of apology. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages 24(5). 33–36.

  • Ide, S. 1989. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8(2/3). 223–248.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Kádár, D.Z. 2013. In-group ritual and communication: Ritual interaction in groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Kádár, D.Z. 2017. Politeness, impoliteness and ritual: Maintaining the moral order in interpersonal interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Kádár, D.Z., & J. House. 2020. Ritual frames: A contrastive pragmatic approach. Pragmatics. doi.org/10.1075/prag.19018.kad

  • Kádár, D.Z., P. Ning, & Y. Ran. 2018. Public ritual apology: A case study of Chinese. Discourse, Context and Media 26. 21–31.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Kecskes, I. 2016. Situation-bound utterances in Chinese. East Asian Pragmatics 1(1): 107–126.

  • Kitao, K. & K. Kitao. 2013. Apology, apology strategies, and apology forms for non-apologies in a spoken corpus. Journal of Culture and Information Science 8(2). 1–13.

  • Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

  • Levinson, S.C. 1979. Activity types and language. Linguistics 17(5/6). 365–399.

  • Li, J. 2007. An analysis of the discourse patterns and pragmatic characteristics of apologizing in Chinese. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies 1. 11–19.

  • Luo, Z. 2004. The pattern of apology in Chinese. Journal of College of Chinese Language and Culture of Jinan University 1. 52–58.

  • Mey, J. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Mey, J. 2010. Reference and the pragmeme. Journal of Pragmatics 42(11). 2882–2888.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Mills, S. 2003. Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Sarangi, S. 2014. Activity types, discourse types and interactional hybridity: the case of genetic counselling. In S. Sarangi & M. Coulthard (eds.), Discourse and social life, 1–27. London: Routledge.

  • Sharoff, S., R. Rapp, P. Zweigenbaim & P. Fung. 2013. Building and using comparable corpora. New York: Springer.

  • Su, Y. & Y. Chang. 2019. Intra-lingual pragmatic variation in Mandarin Chinese apologies: Influence of region and gender. East Asian Pragmatics 4(1). 59–86.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Tannen, D. 1979. What’s in a frame? Service evidence for underlaying expectations. In R. Friedl (ed.), New directions in discourse processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

  • Terkourafi, M. 2005a. An argument for a frame-based approach to politeness: Evidence from the use of the imperative in Cypriot Greek. In R.T. Lakoff & S. Ide (eds.), Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness, 99–116. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Terkourafi, M. 2005b. Beyond the micro-level of politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 237–262.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Terkourafi, M. & D.Z. Kádár. 2017. Convention and ritual. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh & D.Z. Kádár (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness, 171–195. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Thornborrow, J. 2002. Power talk: Language and interaction in institutional discourse. London: Longman.

  • Turner, V. 1979. Frame, flow and reflection: Ritual and drama as public liminality. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 6(4). 465–499.

  • Watts, R.J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Zhang, H. 2003. Culture and apology: The Hainan Island incident. World Englishes 20(3). 383–391

  • Zhou, W. & G. Li. 2015. Chinese language teachers’ expectations and perceptions of American students’ behavior: Exploring the nexus of cultural differences and classroom management. System 49. 17–27.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics publishes high-quality articles representative of theory-based empirical research in contemporary synchronic linguistics and interdisciplinary studies of language from various perspectives. The journal serves as a forum for modern developments and trends in linguistics, with contributions from the world’s leading linguistic labs.

Search