A cross-generational and cross-cultural study on demonstration of attentiveness

Saeko Fukushima


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.

Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain
(1984) Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5.3: 196-213. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House, and Gabriele Kasper
(1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fukushima, Saeko
(2000) Requests and culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese. Bern: Peter Lang.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2004) Evaluation of politeness: The case of attentiveness. Multilingua 23: 364-387. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2009) Evaluation of politeness: Do the Japanese evaluate attentiveness more positively than the British? Pragmatics 19: 501-518.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
(1967) Logic and conversation. Unpublished Ms. from the Williams James Lectures 1967.
(1989) Logic and conversation. In P. Grice, Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 22-40.Google Scholar
Hatch, Evelyn, and Anne Lazaraton
(1991) The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael
(2003) Anticipated versus inferred politeness. Multilingua 22: 397-413. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Kallia, Alexandra
(2004) Linguistic politeness: The implicature approach. Multilingua 23: 145-169. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lebra, Takie Sugiyama
(1976) Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(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. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Marui, Ichiro, Yoshinori Nishijima, Kayoko Noro, Rudolph Reinelt, and Hitoshi Yamashita
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ohashi, Jun
(2008) Linguistic rituals for thanking in Japanese: Balancing obligations. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 2150-2174. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Riley, Philip
(2007) Language, culture and identity. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Toshihiko
(2007) A pragmatic approach to the generation and gender gap in Japanese politeness strategies. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef
(1999) Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard J
(2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar