Cover

pdf iconDownload PDF
 

Frontmatter

pdf iconDownload PDF
 

Contents

pdf iconDownload PDF

p. vii

read more

Acknowledgments

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. ix-x

I am pleased to acknowledge the support and guidance of the many people who have made this research and the publication of this book possible. Numerous people have been instrumental in my work and have helped shape my understanding of cross-cultural communication and linguistic inquiry...

read more

1. Politeness—It’s How You Say It

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 1-31

People may not always remember the specifics of a conversation, but they do remember their overall impressions of the other person, as well as how well they felt the conversation proceeded. For example, they may recall whether or not they felt the other person was cooperative, and whether or not the other person was...

read more

2. Exploring Linguistic Strategies

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 32-62

An addressee may feel imposed upon when asked to do something. This is because inherent in a request is the implication that the addressee should be cooperative and should comply with the request. It can be difficult to say, “No,” unless the request truly seems unreasonable. At the same time, the person who is making the request...

read more

3. Requests in ASL and English

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 63-105

Human beings who are engaged in conversation not only convey content and relay goals (functions), they also negotiate the interaction (convey textual meaning) and usually strive to present themselves as socially competent communicators by employing politeness strategies as needed. Linguistic politeness is like a dance. Just as we prefer to...

read more

4. Rejections in ASL and English

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 106-125

Turning down a request can threaten a relationship and one’s involvement because the interlocutor may be seen as uncooperative. Of course, not all rejections have the same effect. If someone makes an outlandish request, you can usually feel confident saying no. There is usually little threat to face or to the relationship...

read more

5. Two Nonmanual Modifiers That Mitigate Smaller Threats to Face

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 126-148

ASL signers and English speakers employ a variety of linguistic strategies when making requests and rejections. Although many of these strategies overlap, there are some unique strategies that are used by each language group. One particular kind of linguistic expression is unique to signed languages such as ASL: nonmanual modifiers...

read more

6. Three Nonmanual Modifiers That Mitigate More Severe Threats to Face

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 149-187

Two nonmanual modifiers (NMMs)—the polite pucker (pp) and tight lips—that are associated with small to moderate threats to face are the most commonly used NMMs in the data collected in the discourse completion test (DCT). Three additional NMMs are used to mitigate more severe threats to face, and these markers can be ordered...

read more

7. Language Fluency and Politeness

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 188-201

Deaf persons are not always born to Deaf culture and ASL. In fact, only a small minority of deaf people are born to deaf parents. Although researchers commonly report that 5% to 10% of deaf people are born to deaf parents (e.g., Lane, Hoffmeister, & Bahan, 1996; Moores & Meadow-Orlans, 1990; Neidle, Kegl, MacLaughlin...

read more

8. Why It Matters How You Say It

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 202-213

All language users communicate at least four levels of meaning in any given utterance: content, function, textual meaning, and social meaning. In this study I investigated a particular area of social meaning in ASL and English: the linguistic expression of politeness. The data from the ASL and English versions of the discourse completion...

Appendix I

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 215-217

Appendix II

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 218-220

Appendix III

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 221-223

References

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 225-230

Index

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 231-235