2004
Volume 24, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

This paper brings a cross-cultural analysis of opening and closing rituals and routines in Dutch and Flemish tourist offices, from a Politeness Theory perspective. On the basis of a corpus of 200 interactions it reveals, apart from some general comparable tendencies, quite different communicative habits in both neighbouring regions. The differences point in the direction of more formal institutional interactions in the Flemish tourist offices in comparison with the Dutch interactions. More specifically, Dutch interactions appear to be less formal, show a higher level of freedom with respect to the organisation of the opening and closing sequences and attach more importance to the relational work between the speech participants.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2019.3.004.TOBB
2019-11-01
2021-12-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13845845/24/3/04_NEDTAA2019.3_TOBB.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2019.3.004.TOBB&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Albert, S. & S.Kessler(1978). Ending social encounters. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology14, 541-553.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Clark, H. & J.W.French(1981). Telephone goodbyes. Language in Society10, 1-19.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Coulmas, F.(1979). On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae. Journal of Pragmatics3, 239-266.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Coulmas, F.(1981). Conversational routine. Explorations in standardized and communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton.
  5. Coupland, N.(1983). Patterns of encounter management: further arguments for discourse variables. Language in Society12, 459-476.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Drew, P. & J.Heritage(1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.
  7. DumasI.(2003). Au-delà de la transaction, le lien social. Approche comparative d’interactions en situation de commerce et de service. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2.
  8. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C.(2015). The language of service encounters: a pragmatic-discursive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Firth, R.(1972). Verbal and bodily rituals of greeting and parting. In: J.S.La Fontaine (red.), The Interpretation of Ritual: Essays in Honour of A. I. Richards. London: Tavistock, 1-38.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Goffman, E.(1967). Interaction ritual: essay on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor.
  11. Goffman, E.(1971). Relations in Public. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
  12. Goffman, E.(1974). Les rites d’interaction. Paris: Minuit.
  13. Goffman, E.(1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
  14. Heritage, J. & D.Greatbatch(1991). On the institutional character of institutional talk: the case of news interviews. In: D.Boden & D.Zimmerman (red.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press, 93-137.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hmed, N.(2000). Comparaison des interactions dans des commerces en France et en Tunisie. In: V.Traverso (red.), Perspectives interculturelles sur l’interaction. Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon, 135-150.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hofstede, G.(1980). Culture’s consequences. International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications.
  17. Hofstede, G.(2001). Culture’s consequences. Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Second edition. Newbury Park/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications.
  18. Hofstede, G., G.-J.Hofstede & M.Minkov(2010). Cultures and organizations. Software of the mind. McGraw Hill.
  19. Lehmann, C. (1995/1982). Thoughts on grammaticalisation. München/ Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
  20. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.(1994). Les interactions verbales (tome 3). Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.(1996). La conversation. Paris: Seuil.
  22. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.(2001). ‘Je voudrais un p’tit bifteck’. La politesse à la française en site commercial. Carnets du Cediscor7, 1-12.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.(2005). Le discours en interaction. Paris: A. Colin.
  24. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.(2006). Politeness in small shops in France. Journal of politeness research2, 79-103.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.(2008). Les actes de langage dans le discours. Théorie et fonctionnement. Paris: Armand Colin.
  26. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. & V.Traverso(2008). Les interactions en site commercial: invariants et variations. Lyon: ENS éditions.
  27. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.(2014). (Im)politesse et gestion des faces dans deux types de situations communicatives: petits commerces et débats électoraux. Soprag2, 293-326.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Márquez-Reiter, R. & M. PlacenciaM.(2004). Displaying closeness and respectful distance in Montevidean and Quiteño service encounters. In: Márquez-Reiter and M.Placencia (red.), Current trends in de pragmatics of Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 121-156.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Márquez-Reiter, R. & P.Bou-Franch(2017). (Im)politeness in service encounters. In: J.Culpeper, M.Haugh & D.Kádár (red.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 661-687.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mazeland, H.(2003). Inleiding in de conversatie-analyse. Bussum: Coutinho.
  31. McCarthy, M.(2000). Mutually captive audiences: smalltalk and the genre of close-contact service encounters. In: J.Coupland (red.), Smalltalk. Harlow: Pearson, 84-109.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Schegloff, A. & H.Sacks, (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica7, 289-327.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Traverso, V.(1996). La conversation familière. Analyse pragmatique des interactions. Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon.
  34. Traverso, V.(1999). L'analyse des conversations. Paris: Nathan.
  35. Vandekerckhove, R.(2005). Belgian Dutch versus Netherlandic Dutch: New patterns of divergence? On pronouns of address and diminutives. Multilingua: journal of cross-cultural and interlanguage communication24, 379-397.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Vandekerckhove, R.(2007). ‘Tussentaal’ as a source of change from below in Belgian Dutch. A case study of substandardization processes in the chat language of Flemish teenagers. In: S.Elspass, N.Langer, J.Scharloth & W.Vandenbussche (red.), Germanic language histories from below (1700-2000). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 189-203.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Vismans, R.(2015). Negotiating address in a pluricentric language: Dutch/Flemish. In: C.Norrby & C.Wide (red.), Address practice as social action: European perspectives. London: Palgrave Pivot, 13-32.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Wiercińska, K.(2016). Diminutief als beleefdheidsstrategie: Een vergelijking tussen Nederland en Vlaanderen. Roczniki Humanistyczne64, 125-137.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Wine, L.(2008). Towards a Deeper Understanding of Framing, Footing, and Alignment. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics8(2), 1-3.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2019.3.004.TOBB
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2019.3.004.TOBB
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error