Russian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of Linguistics2687-00882686-8024Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)2252410.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-904-929ArticlesСтатьиArticlesResearch ArticleIndexical and Sequential Properties of Criticisms in Initial Interactions: Implications for Examining (Im) Politeness across CulturesИндексальные и последовательные свойства критических замечаний в начале коммуникации: подходы к изучению (не)вежливости в кросс-культурном аспектеHaughMichaelХоМайклProfessor of Linguistics in the School of Languages and Cultures at the University of Queenslandпрофессор лингвистики, преподает в Школе языков и культур Университета Квинслендаmichael.haugh@uq.edu.auChangWei-Lin MelodyЧангВей-Лин МелодиLecturer in Chinese in the School of Languages and Cultures at the University of Queenslandпреподает китайский язык в Школе языков и культур Университета Квинслендаmelody.chang@uq.edu.auUniversity of Queensland, School of Languages and CulturesУниверситет Квинсленда15122019234Politeness and Impoliteness Research in Global ContextsИсследование вежливости и невежливости в глобальном контексте90492925122019Copyright ©; 2019, Haugh M., Chang W.M.Copyright ©; 2019, Хо М., Чанг В.М.Copyright ©; 2019, Haugh M., Chang W.2019Haugh M., Chang W.M.Хо М., Чанг В.М.Haugh M., Chang W.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/22524Cross-cultural studies of (im)politeness have tended to focus on identifying differences in linguistic behaviour by which speech acts are delivered, which are then explained as motivated by underlying cultural differences. In this paper, we argue that this approach unnecessarily backgrounds emic or cultural members’ understandings of (im)politeness. Through a comparative analysis of criticisms in initial interactions amongst Taiwanese speakers of Mandarin Chinese and amongst Australian speakers of English, we draw attention to the way in which similarities in the locally situated ways in which criticisms are delivered and responded to (i.e. their sequential properties) can mask differences in the culturally relevant meanings of criticisms (i.e. their indexical properties) in the respective languages. We conclude that cross-cultural studies of (im)politeness should not only focus on differences in the forms or strategies by which speech acts are accomplished, but remain alert to the possibility that what is ostensibly the same speech act, may in fact be interpreted in different ways by members of different cultural groups.Кросс-культурные исследования вежливости и невежливости обычно нацелены на выявление различий в вербальном поведении, проявляющихся в реализации отдельных речевых актов, которые затем объясняются основными культурными различиями. В этой статье показано, что данный подход излишне опирается на эмический взгляд на (не)вежливость, т.е на ее понимание носителями данной культуры. Посредством сравнительного анализа критики в начальной фазе общения тайваньских носителей китайского языка и австралийских носителей английского языка мы обращаем внимание на то, как сходства в способах выражения критики и ответов на нее (то есть их последовательные свойства) могут скрывать различия в релевантных для культуры значениях критики (то есть различия их индексальных свойств) в соответствующих языках. Мы пришли к выводу, что межкультурные исследования (не)вежливости должны не только выявлять различия в формах и стратегиях, с помощью которых реализуются речевые акты, но и учитывать то, что якобы одни и те же речевые акты на самом деле могут быть по-разному истолкованы членами различных культурных групп.(im)politenessspeech actcriticisminitial interaction(Australian) English(Mandarin) Chinesecross-cultural pragmatics(не)вежливостьречевой акткритиканачальная фаза взаимодействияавстралийский английскийкитайский (мандарин)кросс-культурная прагматика1.Asmuß, Birte (2008). Performance appraisal interviews. Preference organisation in assessment sequences. Journal of Business Communication, 45(4), 408-429.2.Bolden, Galina & Jeffrey Robinson (2011). Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication, 61 (1), 94-119.3.Bousfield, Derek (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.4.Brown, Penelope, & Stephen Levinson (1978). Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness (pp. 56-311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.5.Brown, Penelope, & Stephen Levinson (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.6.Carbaugh, Donal (2005). Cultures in Conversation. London: Routledge.7.Chang, Wei-Lin Melody (forthcoming). “It’s tiring to be your son”: Criticisms in Taiwanese Chinese initial interactions. Journal of Pragmatics.8.Copland, F. (2011). Negotiating face in feedback conferences: a linguistic ethnographic analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (5), 3832-3843.9.Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margaret Selting (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.Culpeper, Jonathan (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.11.Culpeper, Jonathan (2015). Impoliteness strategies. In A. Capone & J. Mey (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society (pp. 421-445). New York: Springer.12.D’Amico-Reisner, Lynne (1983). An analysis of the surface structure of disapproval exchanges. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp. 103-115). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.13.Dayter, Daria & Sofia Rüdiger (2018). In other words: ‘The language of attraction’ used by pick-up artists. English Today, 35 (2), 13-19.14.Edwards, Derek & Jonathan Potter (2017). Some uses of subject-side assessments. Discourse Studies, 19 (5), 497-514.15.Eelen, Gino (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.16.Endo, Tomoko (2013). Epistemic stance in Mandarin conversation: The positions and functions of wo juede (I feel/think). In Y. Pan & D. Kádár (ed.), Chinese Discourse and Interaction: Theory and Practice (pp. 12-34). London: Equinox.17.Flint, Natalie, Michael Haugh & Andrew John Merrison (2019). Modulating troubles affiliating in initial interactions. The role of remedial accounts. Pragmatics, 29 (3), 384-409.18.Garfinkel, Harold (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.19.Goodwin, Charles & Marjorie Harness Goodwin (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 151-189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.20.Grainger, Karen (2013). Of babies and bath water: Is there any place for Austin and Grice in inter­personal pragmatics? Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 27-38.21.Hambling-Jones, Oliver & Andrew John Merrison (2012). Inequity in the pursuit of intimacy: An analysis of British pick-up artist interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1115-1127.22.Haugh, Michael (2006). Emic perspectives on the positive-negative politeness distinction. Culture, Language and Representation, 3, 17-26.23.Haugh, Michael (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness theory: an interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3 (2), 295-317.24.Haugh, Michael (2009). Face and interaction. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, Communication and Social Interaction (pp. 1-30). London: Equinox.25.Haugh, Michael (2011). Humour, face and im/politeness in getting acquainted. In B. Davies, M. Haugh, & A. Merrison (eds.). Situated Politeness (pp. 165-184). London: Continuum.26.Haugh, Michael (2012). Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 8 (1), 111-134.27.Haugh, Michael (2015a). Impoliteness and taking offence in initial interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 36-42.28.Haugh, Michael (2015b). Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.29.Haugh, Michael (2018). Theorising (im)politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 14 (1), 153-165.30.Haugh, Michael & Donal Carbaugh (2015). Self-disclosure in initial interactions amongst speakers of American and Australian English. Multilingua, 34 (4), 461-493.31.Haugh, Michael & Chang, Wei-Lin Melody. (2015). Understanding im/politeness across cultures: an interactional approach to raising sociopragmatic awareness. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53 (4), 389-414.32.Haugh, Michael & Simon Musgrave (2019). Conversational lapses and laughter: Towards a combi­natorial approach to building collections in conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 143, 279-291.33.Haugh, Michael & Danielle Pillet-Shore (2018). Getting to know you: Teasing as an invitation to intimacy. Discourse Studies, 20 (2), 246-269.34.Headland, Thomas, Kenneth Pike & Marvin Harris (eds.) (1990). Emics and Etics. The Insider/ Outsider Debate. Newbury Park: Sage.35.Heritage, John (1988). Explanations as accounts: a conversation analytic perspective. In C. Antaki (ed.). Analysing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods (pp. 127-144). London: Sage.36.Ho, David Yau-fai (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81 (4), 867-884.37.House, Juliane & Gabriele Kasper (1981). Politeness makers in English and German. In Florian Coulmas (ed.). Conversational Routines (pp. 157-185). The Hague: de Gruyter.38.Jefferson, Gail (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene Lerner (ed.). Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13-23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.39.Kádár, Dániel Z. & Michael Haugh (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­versity Press.40.Kinnison, Li Qing (2017). Power, integrity and mask - an attempt to disentangle the Chinese face concept. Journal of Pragmatics, 114, 32-48.41.Lang, Jun (2018). ‘I am not criticizing you’. A constructionist analysis of an indirect speech act. Chinese Language and Discourse, 9 (2), 184-208.42.Leech, Geoffrey (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.43.Li, Sarah, & Clive Seale (2007). Managing criticism in PhD supervision: A qualitative case study. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (4), 511-526.44.Malle, Bertram, Steve Guglielmo & Andrew Monroe (2014). A theory of blame. Psychological Inquiry, 25 (1), 147-186.45.Mills, Sara. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.46.Morris, G.H. (1988). Finding fault. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7 (1), 1-25.47.Nguyen, Thi Thuy Minh (2008). Criticising in an L2: pragmatic strategies used by Vietnamese EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5 (1), 41-66.48.Pillet-Shore, Danielle (2015). Being a “good parent” in parent-teacher conferences. Journal of Com­munication, 65 (2), 373-395.49.Pillet-Shore, Danielle (2016). Criticizing another's child: How teachers evaluate students during parent-teacher conferences. Language in Society, 45 (1), 33-58.50.Pomerantz, Anita (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action : Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.51.Pomerantz, Anita (1986). Extreme case formulations: a way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219-229.52.Robinson, Jeffrey & GalinaB olden (2010). Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: the case of explicit account solicitations. Discourse Studies, 12 (4), 501-533.53.Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff & Gail Jefferson (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.54.Sanders, Robert & Kristine Fitch (2001). The actual practice of compliance seeking. Communication Theory, 11 (3), 263-289.55.Schegloff, Emanuel (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.56.Schuer, Jann (2014). Managing employees’ talk about problems in work in performance appraisal interviews. Discourse Studies, 16 (3), 407-429.57.Shaw, Chloe, Alexa Hepburn & Jonathan Potter (2013). Having the last laugh: on post-completion laughter particles. In Phillip Glenn & Elizabeth Holt (eds.), Studies of Laughter in Interaction (pp. 91-106). London: Bloomsbury.58.Sifianou, Maria & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (2017). (Im)politeness and cultural variation. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness (pp. 571-599). London: Palgrave Macmillan.59.Spencer-Oatey, Helen & Dániel Z. Kádár (2016). The bases of (im)politeness evaluations: culture, the moral order and the East-West debate. East Asian Pragmatics, 1 (1), 73-106.60.Stivers, Tanya (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: when nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41 (1), 31-57.61.Stivers, Tanya & Fredrico Rossano (2010). Mobilising response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43 (1), 3-31.62.Svennevig, Jan (1999). Getting Acquainted in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.63.Svennevig, Jan (2014). Direct and indirect self-presentation in first conversations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33 (3), 302-327.64.Tayebi, Tamineh (2018). Implying an impolite belief: a case of tikkeh in Persian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15 (1), 89-113.65.Tracy, Karen & Eric Eisenberg (1990/91). Giving criticism: a multiple goals case study. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24 (1), 37-70.66.Tracy, Karen, Donna Van Dusen & Susan Robinson (1987). ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ criticism: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Communication, 37 (1), 46-59.67.Tseng, Shu-Chuan (2004). Processing spoken Mandarin corpora. Traitement Automatique des Langues. Special Issue: Spoken Corpus Processing, 45 (2), 89-108.68.Tseng, Shu-Chuan (2008). Spoken corpora and analysis of natural speech. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 6 (2), 1-26.69.Vanderveken, Daniel (1990). Meaning and Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.70.Watts, Richard, Sachiko Ide & Konrad. Ehlich (1992). Introduction. In Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide, & Konrad Ehlich (eds.). Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp. 1-17). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.71.Wierzbicka, Anna (1987). English Speech Act Verbs. A Semantic Dictionary. Sydney: Academic Press.72.Wilkinson, Sue & Celia Kitzinger (2006). Surprise as an interactional achivement: reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69 (2), 150-182.73.Wu, Ruey-Jiuan (2004). Stance-in-Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amersterdam: John Benjamins