Tampilkan postingan dengan label Referencess. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Referencess. Tampilkan semua postingan

Jumat, 22 Mei 2015

Dear Student: My Name Is Not 'Hey'

Dear Student: My Name Is Not 'Hey'

“Hey!
I wont be in class today, I feel very sick and need to sleep all day. I know we are watching the movie today so il watch that before class on Tuesday. let me know if there’s anything else I miss! I have a friend in the class who should bring u my paper but I have attached it here as well just in case.
Again I apologize for my absence but I wouldn’t be able to stay awake and let alone focus on the material in class and would just like to sleep out this cold/flu hybrid. Thanks a lot and have a great weekend! Also let me know if I need a Doctor’s note, the health center is just backed up on appointments and wouldn’t be able to take me till at least Monday.”
Unsigned.
The student who sent me this email is not a childhood friend, my next-door neighbor, a sibling, or someone I play basketball with. I am their professor. I have a name by which I ought to be addressed. And it is not “Hey!” The student might as well have said, “Hey boo, how you doin’?”
This may seem like a simple gripe about etiquette. But for many women and professors of color who teach in predominantly-white classrooms, it’s more than that. The assumed familiarity in a message like this implies that instructors like us are more laid-back or “down,” that we don’t have to be shown the same respect as our white male colleagues, and that our classrooms are perceived as one giant bro-fest.
“Any professor who doesn't think this is a major issue probably isn't a person of color or a woman — or at least a woman from a working-class background,” says Lisa Guerrero, an associate professor of critical culture, gender, and race studies at Washington State University. “White male professors demand respect and it's expected. When women and professors of color demand respect we're being unreasonable.”
“Truth be told, I don't like being called ‘Doctor,’” she says. “But a student damn well better call me ‘Professor.’ Not because I said so, but because I deserve it, and all those like me who didn't have a chance to make it here deserve it.”
Different professors have different takes on this, of course. Some say they prefer that students keep correspondences casual: They’d rather be addressed by their first names. Others include guidelines in their syllabi that detail the appropriate way to communicate via email. For those professors, writing a proper salutation, spelling out words (like “you” instead of “u”), and including a signature are all things that matter.
I retracted my student’s name from the email and shared it with a few professors and asked how they could transform it into a teachable moment for students. How should faculty members respond to these types of encounters? Here are some ideas — some colorful, some a little more by-the-books.

EXPERIMENTAL AND EMPIRICAL APPROACHES TO POLITENESS AND IMPOLITENESS. POLITENESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCOURSE: SOME PERSPECTIVES FROM TWO INSTITUTIONS IN GHANA C. Hammond

EXPERIMENTAL AND EMPIRICAL APPROACHES TO POLITENESS AND IMPOLITENESS. POLITENESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCOURSE: SOME PERSPECTIVES FROM TWO INSTITUTIONS IN GHANA

C. Hammond
ABSTRACT
Your face…….is like a book where men may read strange matters Macbeth, Act 1, Scene V. Linguistic pragmatics studies have incorporated sociolinguistic perspectives to include pragmatic variations in communicative and discursive dimensions such as computer-mediated massages, spoken and written interactional practices. Rather than adhering to a strict first order participant constructed (Culpepper 2011, 2008) or second order analyst constructed conceptions of politeness (Tekourafi 2008, Locher and Watts 2005,), this paper argues that each of them could be used to inform the other by utilizing both the first and second order methodological approaches to classify politeness strategies in organizational communication. The paper seeks to investigate the different syntactic structures of linguistic politeness strategies employed in two institutions with different organizational culture; the University of Education, Winneba and the Ghana Police Service, Winneba. By exploring and foregrounding Ting-Toomey’s face negotiation theory; in the light of why the “face” is said to be the public image of the individual that the society sees and evaluates based on perceived cultural norms and values, the paper thus attempts to bridge the gap between three pragmatic subfields: politeness research, institutional communication as a discourse and cross-cultural pragmatics. It is also tacitly demonstrated in the central portions of this paper that there are pragmatic variations realized in the use of lexical, syntactic and textual resources to mark (im)politeness in written business discourse. Through a discoursal analysis of communicative events gathered, findings from the study explicitly provide evidence that the structure, cultural expectations and requirements of an institution influence the linguistic and non-linguistic behaviours acceptable as signaling (im) politeness in different contexts.

Politeness and Impoliteness Strategies: An Analysis of Gender Differences in Geralyn l. Horton's Plays

Abstract

This paper aims to analyse the speeches in six one-act plays by an American woman playwright, Geralyn L. Horton, to examine the gender differences in impolite acts. In the analysis of impoliteness, two classifications are taken as basis: types of strategies are classified according to the conventionalized impoliteness formulae and implicational impoliteness in Culpeper's latest book, Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence; responses to impoliteness are classified within the framework in Bousfield'sImpoliteness in Interaction. The findings show that men use more impoliteness than women in their speech, and the frequency rates of the types of strategies deployed by men and women show differences.Keywords
  • Impoliteness strategies
  • gender differences
  • Geralyn L. Horton
  • American women dramatists
References
  • Brown, 1980
  • Brown, P. (1980). How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, & N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 111-136). New York: Praeger.
  • Brown and Levinson, 1987
  • Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown and Gilman, 1989
  • Brown, R. and Gilman A., (1989) Politeness Theory and Shakespeare's Four Major Tragedies .Language in Society, Vol.18,No:2 pp159-212 Bousfield, D.;1; (2006)) The Grand Debate: Where next for politeness research? Culture, Language and Representation Vol. III: 9-16 Bousfield, D.;1; (2008) Impoliteness in Interaction, Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
  • Coates and Jennifer/Cameron, 1998
  • Coates, Jennifer/Cameron, Deborah. (eds.) (1998): Women in Their Speech Communities. London: Longman.
  • Cooper, 1998
  • Cooper, M.M. (1998). Implication, convention and The Taming of the Shrew. In Culpeper, J; Short, M.; Verdonkt, P. (eds) Exploring the Language of Drama: From text to context. London: Routledge.
  • Culpeper, 1996
  • Culpeper, J. (1996). Toward an Anatomy of Impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics25:349-67.
  • Culpeper, 1998
  • Culpeper, J. (1998). (Im) politeness in dramatic dialogue. In Culpeper, J; Short, M.; Verdonkt, P. (eds) Exploring the Language of Drama: From text to context. London: Routledgea.
  • Culpeper, 2001
  • Culpeper, J. (2001). Language and Characterization: People in Plays and Other Texts. London: Longman.
  • Culpeper, 2005
  • Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1: 35-72.
  • Culpeper, 2011
  • Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Culpeper et al., 2003
  • Culpeper, J., Bousefield, D. and Wichmann, A. (2003) Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1545-1579.
  • Goffman, 1967
  • Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Doubleday.
  • Grice, 1975
  • Grice, P. (1975).’Logic and conversation’. In: Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. pp. 41-58.
  • Holmes, 1995
  • Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
  • Horton, 2002
  • Horton, G.L. (2002). Under Cover. Retrieved from http://www.stagepage.info/oneactplayscripts/_oneact.html on Apr.2nd, 2012 Horton, G.L.;1; (2003). Happy Hour. Retrieved from http://www.stagepage.info/oneactplayscripts/_oneact.html on Apr.2nd, 2012 Horton, G.L.;1; (2008). The Dark Side. Retrieved from http://www.stagepage.info/oneactplayscripts/_oneact.html on Apr.2nd, 2012.
  • Horton, 2010
  • Horton, G.L. (2010). Party,Party: Tea and Antipathy. Retrieved from http://www.stagepage.info/oneactplayscripts/_oneact.html on Apr.2nd, 2012 Horton, G.L.;1; (2010). On Speaking Terms. Retrieved from http://www.stagepage.info/oneactplayscripts/_oneact.html on Apr.2nd, 2012.
  • Horton, 2011
  • Horton, G.L. (2011). Kiss the Twins for Me. Retrieved from http://www.stagepage.info/oneactplayscripts/_oneact.html on Apr.2nd, 2012.
  • Lakoff, 1973a
  • Lakoff, R. (1973a.)’The logic of politeness: or, minding your p's and q's’. In: C. Corum et al.,eds., Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society. pp. 292-305.
  • Lakoff, 1973b
  • Lakoff, R. (1973b). Language and woman's place, Language in Society. 2, 45-80.
  • Leech, 1992
  • Leech, G. (1992), Pragmatic principles in Shaw's You never can tell: in Toolan, M. ed., Language, text and context: essays in stylistics, London, Routledge, 259-278.
  • Magnusson, 1992
  • Magnusson, L. (1992). The Rhetoric of Politeness in Henry XIII. Shakespeare Quarterly Winter 1992, 43,4. pp. 391-409.
  • Mills and S, 2003
  • Mills, S (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • O’Barr and Atkins, 1980
  • O’Barr, W.M., & Atkins, B.K. (1980). Women's language” or “powerless language? In S. McConnell-Ginet, N. Borker, & R. Thurman (eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society, New York: Praeger, 93-110.
  • Tannen, 1990
  • Tannen, D. (1990). You just Don’t Understand. New York: Ballentine Books Watts, R.;1; (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hafize Keser Ankara University, Turkey.Tel.: +21 765 3221.Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.