以语料库语言学MOOC为例:礼貌策略在学术会话中的运用

Mohamed Arafa Mohamed Hilal
{"title":"以语料库语言学MOOC为例:礼貌策略在学术会话中的运用","authors":"Mohamed Arafa Mohamed Hilal","doi":"10.18326/jopr.v5i1.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although politeness strategies are widely used in various types of conversations, e.g., formal emails, business, hotel conversations, movies, and others, few works have dealt with politeness strategies in academic conversations. This study attempts to shed light on the use of politeness strategies in academic conversations and to relate these strategies to the relationship between the interlocutors: whether they have the same specialization or not. The study mainly draws on Brown and Levinson's positive politeness strategies and applies them to conversations. The data was collected by downloading conversations from a MOOC entitled \"Corpus Linguistics: methods, analysis, interpretation,\" created by a team of corpus linguists at Lancaster College. It applies both a quantitative and qualitative approach to analyze the strategies. The results show that exaggeration tops the list of strategies with 23 utterances (23.5%) when the interlocutors have the same specialization. This indicates that each scholar has distinctive insights that another scholar only appreciates with the same specialization. When interlocutors have different specializations, the hierarchy of politeness strategies differs, albeit to some extent. Expressions of approval ranked first, with 11 expressions (25.0%). This indicates that a scholar with little knowledge about a branch of knowledge almost agrees with the specialized speaker.\n ","PeriodicalId":143792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pragmatics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Use of Politeness Strategies in Academic Conversations as Represented in a Corpus Linguistics MOOC\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed Arafa Mohamed Hilal\",\"doi\":\"10.18326/jopr.v5i1.24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although politeness strategies are widely used in various types of conversations, e.g., formal emails, business, hotel conversations, movies, and others, few works have dealt with politeness strategies in academic conversations. This study attempts to shed light on the use of politeness strategies in academic conversations and to relate these strategies to the relationship between the interlocutors: whether they have the same specialization or not. The study mainly draws on Brown and Levinson's positive politeness strategies and applies them to conversations. The data was collected by downloading conversations from a MOOC entitled \\\"Corpus Linguistics: methods, analysis, interpretation,\\\" created by a team of corpus linguists at Lancaster College. It applies both a quantitative and qualitative approach to analyze the strategies. The results show that exaggeration tops the list of strategies with 23 utterances (23.5%) when the interlocutors have the same specialization. This indicates that each scholar has distinctive insights that another scholar only appreciates with the same specialization. When interlocutors have different specializations, the hierarchy of politeness strategies differs, albeit to some extent. Expressions of approval ranked first, with 11 expressions (25.0%). This indicates that a scholar with little knowledge about a branch of knowledge almost agrees with the specialized speaker.\\n \",\"PeriodicalId\":143792,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pragmatics Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pragmatics Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18326/jopr.v5i1.24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pragmatics Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18326/jopr.v5i1.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

礼貌策略被广泛应用于各种类型的对话中,如正式的电子邮件、商务、酒店对话、电影等,但很少有作品涉及学术对话中的礼貌策略。本研究试图揭示礼貌策略在学术对话中的使用,并将这些策略与对话者之间的关系联系起来:他们是否具有相同的专业。该研究主要借鉴了Brown和Levinson的积极礼貌策略,并将其应用于对话。这些数据是通过从一个名为“语料库语言学:方法、分析、解释”的MOOC中下载对话收集的,该课程是由兰开斯特学院的一个语料库语言学家团队创建的。它采用定量和定性的方法来分析这些策略。结果表明,当对话者的专业相同时,夸张策略以23句话(23.5%)位居榜首。这表明每个学者都有自己独特的见解,而另一个学者只有在相同的专业领域才能欣赏。当对话者的专业不同时,礼貌策略的层次也会有所不同。“赞成”的回答最多,有11个(25.0%)。这表明,一个对某一学科知之甚少的学者几乎同意专业演讲者的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Use of Politeness Strategies in Academic Conversations as Represented in a Corpus Linguistics MOOC
Although politeness strategies are widely used in various types of conversations, e.g., formal emails, business, hotel conversations, movies, and others, few works have dealt with politeness strategies in academic conversations. This study attempts to shed light on the use of politeness strategies in academic conversations and to relate these strategies to the relationship between the interlocutors: whether they have the same specialization or not. The study mainly draws on Brown and Levinson's positive politeness strategies and applies them to conversations. The data was collected by downloading conversations from a MOOC entitled "Corpus Linguistics: methods, analysis, interpretation," created by a team of corpus linguists at Lancaster College. It applies both a quantitative and qualitative approach to analyze the strategies. The results show that exaggeration tops the list of strategies with 23 utterances (23.5%) when the interlocutors have the same specialization. This indicates that each scholar has distinctive insights that another scholar only appreciates with the same specialization. When interlocutors have different specializations, the hierarchy of politeness strategies differs, albeit to some extent. Expressions of approval ranked first, with 11 expressions (25.0%). This indicates that a scholar with little knowledge about a branch of knowledge almost agrees with the specialized speaker.  
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Rethinking on Expressive Speech Act Realization in The Comments Section on YouTube Channel Relationship Between EFL Students' Implicature Competence and Their English Academic Success Across Gender English Imperialism: A Structural Form of Colonialism in the Intercultural Communication Analysis of Impoliteness Strategies Used in Putin's Speech at Annexation Ceremony Flouting Relevance Maxim Benefits of Hillary Clinton's President Candidate Debate on 2016
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1