2014 · 867 citations · 0 references
Artificial IntelligenceTurn-takingLanguage EvolutionNativelike SelectionPsycholinguisticsCommunicationPoliteness TheoryLinguistic TheorySecond Language AcquisitionLanguage AcquisitionDiscourse AnalysisConversation AnalysisLanguage StudiesInteractional LinguisticsSociolinguisticsDeference PolitenessPhilosophy Of LanguageGlobal Politeness SystemsMulticultural CommunicationHuman CommunicationInterpersonal CommunicationLanguage ScienceIntercultural CommunicationArtsLinguistics
Interethnic communication has become a modern reality, permeating technological, business, legal, and educational bureaucracies, and is framed by AI and cognitive science concepts of frames, schemata, and scripts. The chapter investigates how speakers distribute turns and determine conversation topics, explores self/face presentation, and proposes that gatekeepers resolve interethnic gatekeeping by voluntarily employing deference strategies. The study finds that multi‑ethnic communication is widespread, that taciturnity signals deference politeness while volubility signals solidarity, and that global politeness systems mirror group values of distance and power differences.
Since World War II interethnic communication has emerged as a fact of the modern world. Pluralism in communicative style is found throughout world and national technological, business, legal and educational bureaucracies. This chapter looks at the distribution of talk or how speakers exchange turns at speaking and how the topic of a conversation is determined. It makes brief reference to the work in artificial intelligence and cognitive science which deals with frames, schemata, and scripts. The chapter elaborates most fully on the presentation of self or face. It argues that multi-ethnic communication is a fact of the modern world. It also argues that taciturnity reflects an assumption of deference politeness and volubility reflects an assumption of solidarity. The only way to untie the double bind of interethnic gatekeeping encounters is for the gatekeeper to voluntarily use strategies of deference. The global politeness systems reflect the overriding values on distance (D) and power (P) differences held by members of particular groups.