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
Published online: 6 December 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21024.liv
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21024.liv
Abstract
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.
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
References (35)
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The
Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Translated by Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson. Austin: The University of Texas Press.
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].
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.
Buber, Martin. 1959. The
Dialogue on Man and Being. Hebrew translation by Shmuel Hugo Bergman. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.
Bublitz, Wolfram. 1988. Supportive
Fellow-Speakers and Cooperative Conversation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cherlow, Yuval. 2018. Leshem
Shamayim – On Ethics and Dispute. Sifrei Magid, Koren Publishing. [In Hebrew].
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. “Politeness
and impoliteness.” In Pragmatics and
Society, ed. by Karin Aijmer and Gisle Andersen, 393–438. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
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].
Gardiner, Michael. 1996. “Alterity
and ethics: a dialogic perspective.” Theory, Culture and
Society 131: 121–143.
Gurevitch, Zali D. 1990. “The dialogic connection and the
ethics of dialogue.” The British Journal of
Sociology 41 (2): 181–196.
2001. “Dialectical dialogue: the
struggle for speech, repressive silence, and the shift to multiplicity.” The British Journal of
Sociology 52 (1): 87–104.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The
Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. I1. Translated
by Tim McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
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.
Hyland, Ken. 1996. “Writing
without conviction? Hedging in science research articles.” Applied
Linguistics 17 (4): 433–454.
Kádár, Daniel Z. 2019. “Introduction: Advancing
linguistic politeness theory by using Chinese data.” Acta Linguistica
Academica 66 (2): 149–164.
Kampf, Zohar, Lee Aldar, Roni Danziger & Mia Schreiber. 2019. “The
pragmatics of amicable interstate communication.” Intercultural
Pragmatics 16 (2): 123–151.
Lakoff, George. 1972. “Hedges:
A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.” Chicago Linguistic
Society 81: 183–228.
Levinas, Emmanuel. 1969. Totality
and Infinity, Translated by A. Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
. 1984. “A
dialogue.” In Dialogue with Contemporary Continental
Thinkers, ed. by R. Kearney. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Locher, Miriam and Richard Watts. 2005. “Politeness theory and relational work.” Journal of Politeness Research 11: 9–33.
Myers, Greg. 1989. “The
pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles.” Applied
Linguistics 10 (1): 1–35.
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic
Modality, Language, and Conceptualization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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].
Scollon, Ron and Susan W. Scollon. 1995. Intercultural
Communication: A Discourse Approach. New York & Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
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.
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.
Spokoiny, Ohala. 2019. An
Argumentative Discourse that Promotes Dialogue: Rhetorical Linguistic Strategies and
Characteristics, Ph.D. Thesis, Bar-Ilan University. [In Hebrew].
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. 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.
