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
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