This paper looks into whether there are any differences in demonstration of attentiveness between different generations and different cultures. By attentiveness I mean a demonstrator’s preemptive response to a beneficiary’s verbal/non-verbal cues or situations surrounding a beneficiary and a demonstrator, which takes the form of offering. When and how often one would demonstrate attentiveness may vary according to such factors as generation and culture. Three groups of people from different generations and different cultural backgrounds (Japanese and Americans) served as the participants (280 people for the questionnaire data and 18 people for the interview data). It was investigated whether there were any differences among the participants in demonstration of attentiveness, in the reasons for demonstration of attentiveness, and in rating degree of imposition to demonstrate attentiveness. It was also examined whether there was any relationship between degree of imposition to demonstrate attentiveness and demonstration of attentiveness; and in which relationship (the relationship between a demonstrator and a beneficiary of attentiveness varied from very familiar to not very familiar at all) attentiveness was demonstrated. The data were collected using a questionnaire with six situations, based on field notes; and the interviews were conducted using the same six situations. The results show that in most situations there were no major differences among the participants in the choice of demonstration of attentiveness and the reasons for it. The participants chose to demonstrate attentiveness in four situations in the questionnaire, because they wanted to be of help to the other party. There was a relationship between degree of imposition to demonstrate attentiveness and demonstration of attentiveness in four situations. Overall, the interview data confirmed the questionnaire data.
(1967) Logic and conversation. Unpublished Ms. from the Williams James Lectures 1967.
Grice, H. Paul
(1989) Logic and conversation. In P. Grice, Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 22-40.
Hatch, Evelyn, and Anne Lazaraton
(1991) The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Haugh, Michael
(2003) Anticipated versus inferred politeness. Multilingua 221: 397-413. BoP
Kasper, Gabriele
(2000) Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 316-341.
Kallia, Alexandra
(2004) Linguistic politeness: The implicature approach. Multilingua 231: 145-169. BoP
Lebra, Takie Sugiyama
(1976) Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Leech, Geoffrey
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. BoP
Leech, Geoffrey
(2011) Pragmalinguistic vs. sociopragmatic politeness: A wrong turning in (im)politeness theory? A paper presented at the 12th International Pragmatics Conference at the University of Manchester on the 7th July, 2011.
Locher, Miriam A
(2004) Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. BoP
(1996) Concepts of communicative virtues (CCV) in Japanese and German. In M. Hellinger & U. Ammon (eds.), Contrastive sociolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 385-409.
Ohashi, Jun
(2008) Linguistic rituals for thanking in Japanese: Balancing obligations. Journal of Pragmatics 401: 2150-2174. BoP
Riley, Philip
(2007) Language, culture and identity. London: Continuum.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen
(2000) Introduction: Language, culture and rapport management. In H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: management rapport through talk across cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 1-8.
Suzuki, Toshihiko
(2007) A pragmatic approach to the generation and gender gap in Japanese politeness strategies. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.
(2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
Cited by
Cited by 13 other publications
Bella, Spyridoula & Eva Ogiermann
2019. An Intergenerational Perspective on (Im)politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 15:2 ► pp. 163 ff.
Cook, Haruko M. & Matthew Burdelski
2017. (Im)politeness: Language Socialization. In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ► pp. 461 ff.
Fukushima, Saeko
2015. In search of another understanding of politeness: From the perspective of attentiveness. Journal of Politeness Research 11:2
Fukushima, Saeko
2019. A Metapragmatic Aspect of Politeness: With a Special Emphasis on Attentiveness in Japanese. In From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness, ► pp. 226 ff.
Fukushima, Saeko
2022. Evaluation of (im)politeness. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA)► pp. 275 ff.
Fukushima, Saeko
2024. Japanese politeness revisited: from the perspective of attentiveness on Twitter. Journal of Politeness Research 0:0
Fukushima, Saeko & Michael Haugh
2014. The role of emic understandings in theorizing im/politeness: The metapragmatics of attentiveness, empathy and anticipatory inference in Japanese and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 74 ► pp. 165 ff.
Fukushima, Saeko & Maria Sifianou
2017. Conceptualizing politeness in Japanese and Greek. Intercultural Pragmatics 14:4
Haugh, Michael
2019. The Metapragmatics ofConsiderationin (Australian and New Zealand) English. In From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness, ► pp. 201 ff.
2021. How Psychosocial Factors Contribute to Japanese Older Adults’ Initiation of Advance Care Planning Discussions: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Applied Gerontology 40:10 ► pp. 1180 ff.
Ran, Yongping & Linsen Zhao
2019. Impoliteness Revisited: Evidence fromQingmianThreats in Chinese Interpersonal Conflicts. Journal of Politeness Research 15:2 ► pp. 257 ff.
Yamaguchi, Satomi, S. Robin Cohen & Miyoko Uza
2016. Family Caregiving in Japan. Journal of Family Nursing 22:3 ► pp. 392 ff.
Zhao, Linsen
2020. Mock Impoliteness and Co-Construction of Hudui Rituals in Chinese Online Interaction. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 43:1 ► pp. 45 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 april 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.