Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission
Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpepe...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Tantucci, Vittorio [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2022transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
17 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: 83-P - 2012transfer abstract, an interdisciplinary monthly of language studies, New York, NY [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:194 ; year:2022 ; pages:54-70 ; extent:17 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV057798869 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV057798869 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230626045758.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220808s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001781.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV057798869 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0378-2166(22)00112-6 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 570 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a BIODIV |q DE-30 |2 fid | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Tantucci, Vittorio |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022transfer abstract | |
| 300 | |a 17 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). | ||
| 520 | |a Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Corpus-based |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Reciprocity |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Politeness |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Chinese |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Representatives |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Information transmission |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wang, Aiqing |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Culpeper, Jonathan |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier |t 83-P |d 2012transfer abstract |d an interdisciplinary monthly of language studies |g New York, NY [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV016157710 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:194 |g year:2022 |g pages:54-70 |g extent:17 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a FID-BIODIV | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_21 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_72 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_77 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_90 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_120 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_121 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_130 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_131 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_147 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_172 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_183 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_184 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_191 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_216 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_754 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_1012 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 194 |j 2022 |h 54-70 |g 17 | ||
| author_variant |
v t vt |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
tantuccivittoriowangaiqingculpeperjonath:2022----:eirctadpseiiynhpoooilncosutrlauoi |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2022transfer abstract |
| publishDate |
2022 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001781.pica (DE-627)ELV057798869 (ELSEVIER)S0378-2166(22)00112-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 570 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid Tantucci, Vittorio verfasserin aut Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission 2022transfer abstract 17 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). Corpus-based Elsevier Reciprocity Elsevier Politeness Elsevier Chinese Elsevier Representatives Elsevier Information transmission Elsevier Wang, Aiqing oth Culpeper, Jonathan oth Enthalten in Elsevier 83-P 2012transfer abstract an interdisciplinary monthly of language studies New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV016157710 volume:194 year:2022 pages:54-70 extent:17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_77 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_121 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_131 GBV_ILN_147 GBV_ILN_172 GBV_ILN_183 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_191 GBV_ILN_216 GBV_ILN_754 GBV_ILN_1012 AR 194 2022 54-70 17 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001781.pica (DE-627)ELV057798869 (ELSEVIER)S0378-2166(22)00112-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 570 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid Tantucci, Vittorio verfasserin aut Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission 2022transfer abstract 17 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). Corpus-based Elsevier Reciprocity Elsevier Politeness Elsevier Chinese Elsevier Representatives Elsevier Information transmission Elsevier Wang, Aiqing oth Culpeper, Jonathan oth Enthalten in Elsevier 83-P 2012transfer abstract an interdisciplinary monthly of language studies New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV016157710 volume:194 year:2022 pages:54-70 extent:17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_77 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_121 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_131 GBV_ILN_147 GBV_ILN_172 GBV_ILN_183 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_191 GBV_ILN_216 GBV_ILN_754 GBV_ILN_1012 AR 194 2022 54-70 17 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001781.pica (DE-627)ELV057798869 (ELSEVIER)S0378-2166(22)00112-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 570 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid Tantucci, Vittorio verfasserin aut Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission 2022transfer abstract 17 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). Corpus-based Elsevier Reciprocity Elsevier Politeness Elsevier Chinese Elsevier Representatives Elsevier Information transmission Elsevier Wang, Aiqing oth Culpeper, Jonathan oth Enthalten in Elsevier 83-P 2012transfer abstract an interdisciplinary monthly of language studies New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV016157710 volume:194 year:2022 pages:54-70 extent:17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_77 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_121 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_131 GBV_ILN_147 GBV_ILN_172 GBV_ILN_183 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_191 GBV_ILN_216 GBV_ILN_754 GBV_ILN_1012 AR 194 2022 54-70 17 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001781.pica (DE-627)ELV057798869 (ELSEVIER)S0378-2166(22)00112-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 570 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid Tantucci, Vittorio verfasserin aut Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission 2022transfer abstract 17 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). Corpus-based Elsevier Reciprocity Elsevier Politeness Elsevier Chinese Elsevier Representatives Elsevier Information transmission Elsevier Wang, Aiqing oth Culpeper, Jonathan oth Enthalten in Elsevier 83-P 2012transfer abstract an interdisciplinary monthly of language studies New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV016157710 volume:194 year:2022 pages:54-70 extent:17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_77 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_121 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_131 GBV_ILN_147 GBV_ILN_172 GBV_ILN_183 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_191 GBV_ILN_216 GBV_ILN_754 GBV_ILN_1012 AR 194 2022 54-70 17 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001781.pica (DE-627)ELV057798869 (ELSEVIER)S0378-2166(22)00112-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 570 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid Tantucci, Vittorio verfasserin aut Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission 2022transfer abstract 17 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). Corpus-based Elsevier Reciprocity Elsevier Politeness Elsevier Chinese Elsevier Representatives Elsevier Information transmission Elsevier Wang, Aiqing oth Culpeper, Jonathan oth Enthalten in Elsevier 83-P 2012transfer abstract an interdisciplinary monthly of language studies New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV016157710 volume:194 year:2022 pages:54-70 extent:17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_77 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_121 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_131 GBV_ILN_147 GBV_ILN_172 GBV_ILN_183 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_191 GBV_ILN_216 GBV_ILN_754 GBV_ILN_1012 AR 194 2022 54-70 17 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in 83-P New York, NY [u.a.] volume:194 year:2022 pages:54-70 extent:17 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in 83-P New York, NY [u.a.] volume:194 year:2022 pages:54-70 extent:17 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Corpus-based Reciprocity Politeness Chinese Representatives Information transmission |
| dewey-raw |
610 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
83-P |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Tantucci, Vittorio @@aut@@ Wang, Aiqing @@oth@@ Culpeper, Jonathan @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2022-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV016157710 |
| dewey-sort |
3610 |
| id |
ELV057798869 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV057798869</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626045758.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220808s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001781.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV057798869</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0378-2166(22)00112-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">570</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BIODIV</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tantucci, Vittorio</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">17</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021).</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021).</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Corpus-based</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Reciprocity</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Politeness</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Chinese</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Representatives</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Information transmission</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang, Aiqing</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Culpeper, Jonathan</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="t">83-P</subfield><subfield code="d">2012transfer abstract</subfield><subfield code="d">an interdisciplinary monthly of language studies</subfield><subfield code="g">New York, NY [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV016157710</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:194</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:54-70</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:17</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-BIODIV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_21</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_72</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_77</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_121</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_130</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_131</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_172</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_183</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_184</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_191</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_216</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_754</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_1012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">194</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="h">54-70</subfield><subfield code="g">17</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Tantucci, Vittorio |
| spellingShingle |
Tantucci, Vittorio ddc 610 ddc 570 fid BIODIV Elsevier Corpus-based Elsevier Reciprocity Elsevier Politeness Elsevier Chinese Elsevier Representatives Elsevier Information transmission Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission |
| authorStr |
Tantucci, Vittorio |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV016157710 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
610 - Medicine & health 570 - Life sciences; biology |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
610 VZ 570 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission Corpus-based Elsevier Reciprocity Elsevier Politeness Elsevier Chinese Elsevier Representatives Elsevier Information transmission Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 610 ddc 570 fid BIODIV Elsevier Corpus-based Elsevier Reciprocity Elsevier Politeness Elsevier Chinese Elsevier Representatives Elsevier Information transmission |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 610 ddc 570 fid BIODIV Elsevier Corpus-based Elsevier Reciprocity Elsevier Politeness Elsevier Chinese Elsevier Representatives Elsevier Information transmission |
| topic_browse |
ddc 610 ddc 570 fid BIODIV Elsevier Corpus-based Elsevier Reciprocity Elsevier Politeness Elsevier Chinese Elsevier Representatives Elsevier Information transmission |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
a w aw j c jc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
83-P |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV016157710 |
| dewey-tens |
610 - Medicine & health 570 - Life sciences; biology |
| hierarchy_top_title |
83-P |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV016157710 |
| title |
Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV057798869 (ELSEVIER)S0378-2166(22)00112-6 |
| title_full |
Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission |
| author_sort |
Tantucci, Vittorio |
| journal |
83-P |
| journalStr |
83-P |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology 500 - Science |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2022 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
54 |
| author_browse |
Tantucci, Vittorio |
| container_volume |
194 |
| physical |
17 |
| class |
610 VZ 570 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Tantucci, Vittorio |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 |
| dewey-full |
610 570 |
| title_sort |
reciprocity and epistemicity: on the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission |
| title_auth |
Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission |
| abstract |
Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). |
| abstractGer |
Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021). |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_21 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_77 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_121 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_131 GBV_ILN_147 GBV_ILN_172 GBV_ILN_183 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_191 GBV_ILN_216 GBV_ILN_754 GBV_ILN_1012 |
| title_short |
Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Wang, Aiqing Culpeper, Jonathan |
| author2Str |
Wang, Aiqing Culpeper, Jonathan |
| ppnlink |
ELV016157710 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T17:11:54.040Z |
| _version_ |
1803850522603552768 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV057798869</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626045758.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220808s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001781.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV057798869</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0378-2166(22)00112-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">570</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BIODIV</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tantucci, Vittorio</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Reciprocity and epistemicity: On the (proto)social and cross-cultural ‘value’ of information transmission</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">17</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021).</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Reciprocity is a (proto)social mechanism that involves (im)politeness as a balance of positive and negative actions among individuals: doing something good to someone is expected to be reciprocated in kind (cf. Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The same applies for negatively charged behaviour (Culpeper & Tantucci 2021). The present study advances the theory of reciprocity both empirically and theoretically, as it extends the model to contexts of information transmission, i.e. cases where some news is being communicated from one interlocutor to another. What we found is that the way people react to ‘being informed of something’ remarkably involves (im)politeness and is mediated by two maxims of epistemic reciprocity: Engagement E (be interested) maxim and Knowledge exchange Ke maxim (be interesting in return). Our case study is centred on Chinese telephone conversations among family members and shows that the costs and benefits realised by an information giver are matched by the information receiver when a propositional contribution to the current flow of information is produced in return. Conversely, when responses occur via bare backchanneling or absence of informative contribution to the on-going interaction, then reciprocity is not properly maintained, and perceptions of impoliteness are more likely to arise. Despite the context-dependent nature of our data, we will further argue that this finding has cross-cultural significance. Our methods triangulate between Likert-scale judgments, large scale corpus-based analysis and multivariate conditional inference tree modelling (Levshina 2015; Tantucci 2021).</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Corpus-based</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Reciprocity</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Politeness</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Chinese</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Representatives</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Information transmission</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang, Aiqing</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Culpeper, Jonathan</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="t">83-P</subfield><subfield code="d">2012transfer abstract</subfield><subfield code="d">an interdisciplinary monthly of language studies</subfield><subfield code="g">New York, NY [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV016157710</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:194</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:54-70</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:17</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.012</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-BIODIV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_21</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_72</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_77</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_121</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_130</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_131</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_172</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_183</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_184</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_191</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_216</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_754</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_1012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">194</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="h">54-70</subfield><subfield code="g">17</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4008865 |