 |
Speech Acts Bibliography:
Reprimanding / Responding
García, C. (1996). Reprimanding and responding
to a reprimand: A case study of Peruvian Spanish speakers. Journal
of Pragmatics, 26, 663-697.
This study analyzes the responses of ten male and ten female Peruvians from Lima when reprimanding or being reprimanded. The average age of the respondents was 43. They were asked to perform role play tasks. When reprimanding, both males and females preferred solidarity over deferential politeness strategies, and strategies threatening the face of the other. Males were far more authoritative than females. Females were more likely to express concern for the interlocutor. Furthermore, older participants and upper middle class participants were more forceful and imposing. When responding to a reprimand, participants preferred deferential approaches as opposed to solidarity politeness strategies. Males were more confrontational and in a challenge mode. Females balanced their confrontation with an admission of responsibility. Older and upper middle class participants were more deferential when responding to a reprimand.
García, C. (2004). Coercion and cooperation. In Márquez Reiter, R. & Placencia, M. E. (Eds.), Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish (pp. 231-64). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
Reprimands and responses to reprimands in Argentinean Spanish (AS) are examined in order to identify preferred politeness strategies as well as gender differences. Twenty NS of Argentinean Spanish (10 male and 10 females) participated in two role play scenarios. In the first situation, participants performed the reprimand, and in the second, they responded to the reprimand. Head acts and supporting moves were analyzed in terms of strategy type and politeness orientation (i.e., bald on record, positive politeness, and negative politeness). When reprimanding, the AS participants preferred bald on record strategies and positive politeness when performing head acts. Males showed a tendency to use BORS and females PPS. Females also used slightly more supporting moves to mitigate and aggravate when reprimanding. Males opted for coercion strategies and females for cooperative strategies. In general, when reprimanding, the AS participants tended to threaten their interlocutor’s positive and negative face equally as well as maintain their own authority and freedom of action. When responding to a reprimand, there were less gender differences. Overall, the AS participants preferred to threaten their own negative and positive face, as opposed to their interlocutor’s positive or negative face. Nevertheless, they approached the interaction somewhat symmetrically and from a cooperative framework by maintaining the preference for BORS and PPS.
García, C. (2004). Reprendiendo y respondiendo a una reprimenda. Spanish in Context, 1, 113-47.
The politeness strategies of reprimands and responses to reprimands of NS of Peruvian and Venezuelan Spanish are compared in terms of politeness strategies. Twenty Peruvians (male--n=10; female--n=10) and twenty Venezuelans (male--n=10; female--n=10) participated in two role plays with a constant interlocutor. The age range of the participants was between 24 and 65 years of age. Head acts and supportive moves of each of the role plays were coded and classified. Similarities and differences between the two dialectical groups were found. When reprimanding, both groups preferred to threaten the positive (29%) and negative face (71%) of their interlocutor. They only threatened their own negative face. Also, both groups opted for direct strategies. However, the Venezuelan group tended to be more verbose, opted for mitigators over aggravators, and followed three clear stages in the reprimand: (1) present the reprimand, (2) response to interaction, and (3) conclusion. The Peruvians, on the other hand, preferred aggravators over mitigators and did not follow an ordered sequence of reprimand stages. They did, however, demonstrate the existence of three steps that could be interchanged: (1) reprimand, (2) justification, and (3) response to justification. Overall, the main difference observed between the two groups when reprimanding is how they exercise power. When responding to the reprimand, the groups expressed more variance. Again, the Venezuelan group was more verbose and more varied. Venezuelan participants showed a preference for direct strategies (47%), followed by positive politeness (31%), and finally negative politeness strategies (22%). Overall, they were more aggressive and tended to opt for self-defense, attack of their interlocutor, and acceptance of the reprimand. The Peruvian group was less aggressive and showed a different preference for response strategies: negative politeness (60%), direct strategies (26%), and positive politeness (14%). In general, the variance is correlated with a different perception of power. Implications of the similarities and differences are discussed.
|
|
