Cover not available
Article published In:
Dialogicity in Political Discourse
Edited by Elda Weizman and Zohar Livnat
[Pragmatics and Society 13:5] 2022
► pp. 837–860

Dialogic language and meta-language in a conflictual discourse

| Efrata College
| Bar-Ilan University
Based on Buber’s dialogic philosophy, ideas from the ethics of dialogue and politeness theory, we analyze letters written by members of an Israeli organization named Besod Siach – who come from both the left and right wings, are both religious and secular, who decided to broaden and deepen the dialogue between different groups in Israeli society against the backdrop of the polarization, alienation and violence threatening the state’s integrity and democratic foundations.
Our analysis has three focal points: the language of the letters themselves, meta-linguistic utterances that appear in the letters and explicitly refer to the language the writers choose to use or refrain from using, and meta-textual utterances that relate more generally to the dialogic approach guiding the members of the group. Harmony is evinced among these three perspectives, thus exemplifying the conditions needed in order to hold an argumentative discourse that promotes dialogue.
Keywords: meta-language, dialogue, face-work, politeness strategies, ethics of dialogue, dialogic philosophy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Dialogue and face-work
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1General ideological points
    • 3.2Meta-linguistic utterances
    • 3.3The language of the letters
      • 3.3.1Expressions of emotion
      • 3.3.2Hedges
      • 3.3.3Questions
      • 3.3.4A final comment
  • 4.Discussion and summary
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21024.liv
References (35)
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Translated by Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson. Austin: The University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bergman, Shmuel Hugo. 1959. “The dialogic thinking of M. Buber.” In The Dialogue on Man and Being, by Martin M. Buber. Hebrew translation by Shmuel Hugo Bergman. 11–46. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. “Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena.” In Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buber, Martin. 1959. The Dialogue on Man and Being. Hebrew translation by Shmuel Hugo Bergman. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.Google Scholar
. 1970. I and Thou. English translation by Walter Kaufman. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram. 1988. Supportive Fellow-Speakers and Cooperative Conversation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cherlow, Yuval. 2018. Leshem Shamayim – On Ethics and Dispute. Sifrei Magid, Koren Publishing. [In Hebrew].Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. “Politeness and impoliteness.” In Pragmatics and Society, ed. by Karin Aijmer and Gisle Andersen, 393–438. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleshman, Aharon. 2013. “What does Buber have to do with the 21st century?” Translator’s Musings on Martin Buber, I and Thou. Hebrew translation by Aharon Fleshman. 149–159. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. [In Hebrew].Google Scholar
Gardiner, Michael. 1996. “Alterity and ethics: a dialogic perspective.” Theory, Culture and Society 131: 121–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Gurevitch, Zali D. 1990. “The dialogic connection and the ethics of dialogue.” The British Journal of Sociology 41 (2): 181–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. “Dialectical dialogue: the struggle for speech, repressive silence, and the shift to multiplicity.” The British Journal of Sociology 52 (1): 87–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. I1. Translated by Tim McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael and Jonathan Culpeper. 2018. “Integrative pragmatics and (im)politeness theory.” In Pragmatics and its interfaces, ed. by Cornelia Ilie and Neal Norrick. 213–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1996. “Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles.” Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 433–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Daniel Z. 2019. “Introduction: Advancing linguistic politeness theory by using Chinese data.” Acta Linguistica Academica 66 (2): 149–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kampf, Zohar, Lee Aldar, Roni Danziger & Mia Schreiber. 2019. “The pragmatics of amicable interstate communication.” Intercultural Pragmatics 16 (2): 123–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1972. “Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.” Chicago Linguistic Society 81: 183–228.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinas, Emmanuel. 1969. Totality and Infinity, Translated by A. Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
. 1984. “A dialogue.” In Dialogue with Contemporary Continental Thinkers, ed. by R. Kearney. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam and Richard Watts. 2005. “Politeness theory and relational work.” Journal of Politeness Research 11: 9–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Greg. 1989. “The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles.” Applied Linguistics 10 (1): 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1979. Modality and the English Modals. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Peleg, Muli. 2010. “In search of substantial community: Israeli society and the merit of normative dialogue.” Israel Studies in Language and Society 3 (2), 13–32. [In Hebrew].Google Scholar
Scollon, Ron and Susan W. Scollon. 1995. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. New York & Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. “Rapport management: a framework for analysis.” In Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, ed. by Helen Spencer-Oatey, 11–46. London: Continuum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, and Wenying Jiang. 2003. “Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs).” Journal of Pragmatics 35 (10–11): 1633–1650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spokoiny, Ohala. 2019. An Argumentative Discourse that Promotes Dialogue: Rhetorical Linguistic Strategies and Characteristics, Ph.D. Thesis, Bar-Ilan University. [In Hebrew].
Thompson, Geoff, and Susan Hunston. 2001. “Evaluation: An introduction.” In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Susan Hunston and Geoff Thompson, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Von Wright, Georg H. 1951. An Essay in Modal Logic, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 1989. “Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic behavior.” Multilingua 8 (2–3): 131–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ke, Yuguo
2023. Integrated positive and negative analyses of cognitive-mediation strategies in the social quarrels. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.