Abstract
In a context of increasing globalization of academic discourse, considerations of the impact of culture on different communicative genres and discursive practices become more relevant than ever, as the construction of pragmatic meaning and its appropriate interpretation by the recipient is seen to depend on lexico-grammatical features whose use is greatly affected by cultural factors. This paper concerns the genre of blind peer review, and examines how disagreement and negative evaluation are expressed in two cultural and linguistic settings, and to what extent they are mitigated. It is based on peer reviews submitted, in English and Russian, to the Russian Journal of Linguistics, in which the reviewer provides a negative evaluation (either “reject” or “to be resubmitted after substantial revisions”). Such reviews entail possible face damage, in the terms of (Brown and Levinson 1978); and therefore one might expect reviewers to engage in discursive strategies of mitigation. The paper analyses 120 authentic blind reviews (70 Russian and 50 British English), using a pragmatic, contextual and contrastive methodology. Drawing on discourse analysis, intercultural pragmatics, (im)politeness theory and cultural studies, we explore the construction of alternative meanings in reviewers’ messages, and theorise that consideration for the face requirements of the reviewee and politeness strategies, may account not only for individual but also culture-specific choices. The results show that, as well as variations in reviewers’ individual styles, there are some culture-specific traits in this area. Mitigation strategies are more typical of English communication than Russian. We account for these differences in terms of the sociocultural context, value differences and the use of different mechanisms of politeness. Our results suggest that politeness is based on different communicative styles and expressive traditions, which appear to vary across cultures.
About the authors
Tatiana Larina is Full Professor at RUDN University, Moscow, and is the Editor-in-Chief of the Russian Journal of Linguistics. She is also a member of the editorial boards of several international journals. She has given lectures as a visiting professor in India, Kazakhstan, and Finland and presented at numerous international conferences. Her research interests and publications focus on language, culture and communication; intercultural pragmatics, intercultural communication, communicative ethnostyles, and (im)politeness theory.
Douglas Mark Ponton is Associate Professor of English Language and Translation at the Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Catania. His research interests include political discourse analysis, ecolinguistics, sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, pragmatics, corpus linguistics and critical discourse studies. His research deals with a variety of social topics, including tourism (he has published on the Montalbano effect and cruise tourism), the discourse of mediation; ecology, local dialect and folk traditions, including proverbs and Blues music.
Acknowledgments
The publication has been prepared with the support of the “RUDN University Program 5-100”. Thanks to the Russian and British reviewers who allowed their comments to be reproduced here.
References
Alba-Juez, Laura & Geoff Thomson. 2014. The many faces and phases of evaluation. In Geoff Thompson & Laura Alba-Juez (eds.), Evaluation in context, 3–23. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/pbns.242.01albSearch in Google Scholar
Alger, Christianna. 2006. ‘What went well, what didn’t go so well’: Growth of reflection in pre‐service teachers. Reflective Practice 7(3). 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940600837327.Search in Google Scholar
Angouri, Jo & Miriam A. Locher. 2012. Theorising disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 1549–1553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.011.Search in Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Barron, Anne & Klaus P. Shneider. 2009. Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(4). 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2009.023.Search in Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika (ed.). 2008a. Evaluation in Text Types. Special Issue of Functions of Language, 15.1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.book-chapter.10.1075/fol.15.1Search in Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika 2008b. Emotion talk across Corpora. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9780230285712Search in Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika. 2009. Dimensions of evaluation. Cognitive and linguistic perspectives. Pragmatics and Cognition 17(1). 146–175. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.1.05bed.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Search in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1982. Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics 3. 29–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/3.1.29.Search in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. Indirectness and politeness: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics 11(2). 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5.Search in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Julian House & Gabriele Kasper (eds.). 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood: Ablex.book-chapter.Search in Google Scholar
Bousfield, Derek & Miriam A. Locher (eds.). 2008. Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110208344Search in Google Scholar
Boym, Svetlana. 1995. From the Russian soul to post-communist nostalgia. Representations 49. Special Issue: Identifying Histories: Eastern Europe Before and After 1989 (Winter 1995). 133–166. https://doi.org/10.1525/rep.1995.49.1.99p0271s.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomenon. In Esther N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness, 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Winnie. 2003. Intercultural conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.118Search in Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan & Douglas Biber. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text, 56–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511975752Search in Google Scholar
Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St Jerome.Search in Google Scholar
Englebretson, Robert (ed.). 2007. Stance taking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar
Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4). 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London and New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203697078Search in Google Scholar
Fernández-Amaya, Lucía. (2019) Disagreement and (im)politeness in a Spanish family members’ WhatsApp group. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23(4). 1065–1087. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-1065-1087.Search in Google Scholar
Flowerdew, Lynne. 2008. Corpora and context in professional writing. In Vijay K. Bhatia, John Flowerdew & Rodney H. Jones (eds.), Advances in discourse studies, 115–129. London and New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203892299Search in Google Scholar
Gea Valor, Maria Lluïsa. 2000. A pragmatic approach to politeness and modality in the book review articles. Valencia: Lengua Inglesa.Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interactional ritual: Essays on face-to face behavior. Garden City, New York: Anchor books.Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2). 37–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-o.Search in Google Scholar
Gudykunst, William B., Stella Ting-Toomey & Elizabeth Chua (eds.). 1988. Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Gudykunst, William B. & Tsukasa Nishida. 1994. Bridging Japanese/North American differences. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage.10.4135/9781452243184Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2005. The importance of ‘place’ in Japanese politeness: Implications for cross-cultural and intercultural analyses. Intercultural Pragmatics 2. 41–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.1.41.Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2007. Emic conceptualizations of (im)politeness and face in Japanese: Implications for the discursive negotiation of second language learner identities. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 657–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.005.Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2018. Afterword: Theorizing (im)politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 14(1). 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2017-0058.Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael & Yasuko Obana. 2011. Politeness in Japan. In Dániel Zoltán Kádar & Sara Mills (eds.), Politeness in East Asia, 147–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511977886.009Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael & Wei-Lin Melody Chang. 2019. Indexical and sequential properties of other-criticisms in initial interactions: Implications for examining (im)politeness across cultures. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23(4). 904–929. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-904-929.Search in Google Scholar
Hinkel, Eli. 1994. Appropriateness of advice as L2 solidarity strategy. RELC Journal 25(2). 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829402500205.Search in Google Scholar
Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet & Maria Stubbe. 2015. Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315750231Search in Google Scholar
House, Julian. 2006. Communicative styles in English and German. European Journal of English Studies 10(3). 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570600967721.Search in Google Scholar
Huang, Y. 2010. Speech acts. In Alex Barber & Robert J. Stainton (eds.) Philosophy of language and linguistics, 705–714. Oxford: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1996. Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics 17(4). 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.54Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2009. Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2011. Disciplines and discourses: Social interactions in the construction of knowledge. In Doreen Starke-Meyerring, Paré Anthony, Natasha Artemeva, Miriam Horne & Larissa Yousoubova (eds.) Writing in knowledge societies, 193–214. West Lafayette: Parlor Press and the WAC Clearinghouse.10.37514/PER-B.2011.2379.2.10Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Giuliana Diani (eds.). 2009. Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2001. Unparliamentary language: Insults as cognitive forms of confrontation. In R. Dirven, R. Frank & C. Ilie (eds.), Language and ideology, 235–263, vol. II: Descriptive cognitive approaches. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.205.14iliSearch in Google Scholar
Janney, Richard W. & Horst Arndt. 1993. Universality and relativity in cross-cultural politeness research: A historical perspective. Mutilingua 12(1). 13-50. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1993.12.1.13.Search in Google Scholar
Kádar, Daniel & Sara Mills (eds.). 2011. Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511977886Search in Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele. 1990. Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2). 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90080-w.Search in Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele. 2009. Politeness. In Sigurd D’hondt, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.) The pragmatics of interaction, 157–173. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia.10.1075/hoph.4.09kasSearch in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004.Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2014a. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2014b. Word, context and communicative meaning. Russian Journal of Linguistics 1. 7–18.Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2015. Intercultural impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 86. 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.023.Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2016. A dialogic approach to pragmatics. Russian Journal of Linguistics 4. 26–42. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2016-20-4-26-42.Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2017. Context-dependency and impoliteness in intercultural communication. Journal of Politeness Research 13(1). 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0019.Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-co.gnitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition 17(2). 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1075/p&c.17.2.06kec.10.1075/pc.17.2.06kecSearch in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2019. English as a lingua franca: The pragmatic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316217832Search in Google Scholar
Kotorova, Elizaveta. 2013. Speech act of saying thank in German and Russian discourse: Socio-cultural, pragmatic and linguistic-structural aspects. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 58(4). 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1524/slaw.2013.58.4.417.Search in Google Scholar
Kotorova, Elizaveta. 2019. Pragmatics among linguistic disciplines: Problems of definition and classification. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23(1). 98–115. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-1-98-115.Search in Google Scholar
Koutsantoni, Dimitra. 2005. Greek cultural characteristics and academic writing. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 23. 97–138. https://doi.org/10.1353/mgs.2005.0007.Search in Google Scholar
Ladyman, James. 2002. Understanding philosophy of science. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Langlotz, Andreas & Miriam Locher. 2012. Ways of communicating emotional stance in on-line disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 1591–1606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.002.Search in Google Scholar
Larina, Tatiana. 2008. Directness, imposition and politeness in English and Russian. Cambridge ESOL: Research Notes 33. 33–38. https://www.cambridgeesol.org/rs_notes/rs_nts33.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Larina, Tatiana. 2009. Politeness and communicative styles: Comparative analysis of English and Russian language and culture traditions (Katergoriya vezhlivosti y stil’ kommunikaciyi: sopostavleniye angliyskih y russkih lingvokul’turnih tradiciy) Moscow: Jazyki slavianskih kul’tur. (In Russian).Search in Google Scholar
Larina, Tatiana. 2013. The British and the Russians: Language, culture and communication (Anglichane y Russkiye: Yazyk, kul’tura, kommunikaciya). Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures (In Russian).Search in Google Scholar
Larina, Tatiana. 2015. Culture-specific communicative styles as a framework for interpreting linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies. International Review of Pragmatics 7(5). Special issue: Communicative Styles and Genres. 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00702003.Search in Google Scholar
Larina, Tatiana, Arto Mustajoki & Ekaterina Protassova. 2017a. Dimensions of Russian culture and mind. In Katja Lehtisaari & Arto Mustajoki (eds.), Philosophical and cultural interpretations of Russian modernization, 7–19. Series: Studies in Contemporary Russia. London/New York: Routledge.book-chapter.Search in Google Scholar
Larina, Tatiana V., Vladimir I. Ozyumenko & Svetlana Kurteš. 2017b. I-identity vs we-identity in language and discourse: Anglo-Slavonic perspectives. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 13(1). 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2017-0006.Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 2007. Politeness: Is there an East-West divide? Journal of Politeness Research 3. 167–206. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr.2007.009.Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 2014. The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford studies in sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Tatiana Larina. 2014. Politeness: West and East. Russian Journal of Linguistics (former Bulletin of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Linguistics) 4. 9–34.Search in Google Scholar
Lemke, Jay L. 1995. Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor and Francis.Search in Google Scholar
Leontovich, Olga A. 2015. Positive communication: A theoretical perspective. Russian Journal of Linguistics 1. 164–176. (In Russian).Search in Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam. 2004. Power and politeness in action; disagreement in oral communication. Mouton and Gruyter, Berlin.10.1515/9783110926552Search in Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam. 2006. Advice online: Advice-giving in an American Internet health column. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.149Search in Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1. 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9.Search in Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. & Tatiana V. Larina. 2019. Introduction to politeness and impoliteness research in global contexts. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23(4). 873–903. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-873-903.Search in Google Scholar
Maíz Arévalo, Carmen. 2014. Expressing disagreement in English as a lingua franca: Whose pragmatic rules? Intercultural Pragmatics 11(2). 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0009.Search in Google Scholar
Marques Reiter, Rosina. 2000. Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.83Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Peter R.R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511910Search in Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face. Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12. 403–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3.Search in Google Scholar
Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615238Search in Google Scholar
Mills, Sara. 2017. English politeness and class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316336922Search in Google Scholar
Miller, Laura. 1994. Japanese and American indirectness. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 5(1–2). 37–55.Search in Google Scholar
Mugford, Gerrard. 2020. Mexican politeness: An empirical study on the reasons underlying/motivating practices to construct local interpersonal relationships. Russian Journal of Linguistics 24(1). https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-1-31-55.Search in Google Scholar
Ponton, Douglas Mark. 2014. Inside the tower. Membership and face in a modern Buddhist group. Journal of Language and Literature 169–182.10.7813/jll.2014/5-3/31Search in Google Scholar
Reiss, Julian & Sprenger, J. 2014. Scientific objectivity. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu.Search in Google Scholar
Rowland, Fitton. 2002. The peer review. Learned Publishing 15. 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315102760319206.Search in Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 1992. Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross cultural perspective. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 2012. Disagreements, face and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 44. Special issue: Theorising disagreement. 1554–1564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009.Search in Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 2019. Conflict, disagreement and (im)politeness. In Matthew Evans, Lesley Jeffries & Jim O’Driscoll (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language in conflict. London & New York: Routledge, 176–195.10.4324/9780429058011-11Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Richard. 2006. Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99. 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414.Search in Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1993. The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In Deborah Tannen (ed.) Gender and conversational interaction, 165–188, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1007/978-1-349-92299-4_12Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Laura Alba-Juez (eds.). 2014. Evaluation in context. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.242Search in Google Scholar
Ting-Toomey, Stella & Atsuko Kurogi. 1998. Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22(2). 187–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0147-1767(98)00004-2.Search in Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna (ed.). 2010. Pragmatics across languages and cultures. Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214444Search in Google Scholar
Tzanne, Angeliki & Maria Sifianou. 2019. Understandings of impoliteness in the Greek context. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23(4). 1014–1038. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-1014-1038.Search in Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2006. An introduction to sociolinguistics. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Watts, Richard. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615184Search in Google Scholar
White, Peter R.R. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23(2). 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.011.Search in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2003/1991. Cross-cultural pragmatics, 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110220964Search in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2002. Russian cultural scripts: The theory of cultural scripts and its applications. Ethos 3.4. 401–432. https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.2002.30.4.401.Search in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1999. Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511521256Search in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2007. Two languages, two cultures, one (?)self: Between Polish and English. In Mary Besemeres & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Translating lives: Living with two languages and cultures, 96–117. Queensland: University of Queensland Press.Search in Google Scholar
Yu, Kyong-Ae. 2003. Characteristics of Korean politeness: Imposition is not always a face threatening act. Discourse and Cognition 10(3). 137–163.Search in Google Scholar
Yu, Kyong-Ae. 2011. Culture-specific concepts of politeness: Indirectness and politeness in English, Hebrew, and Korean requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(3). 385–410. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.018.Search in Google Scholar
Zhuravlev, Oleg, Natalia Savelyeva & Svetlana Yerpyleva. 2014. Individualism and solidarity in the new Russian civil movements. Journal of Social Policy Studies 12(2). 185–200.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
