Abstract
This paper proposes a research agenda for studying the building blocks of amicable communication and their role in fostering sociability between states. Against the backdrop of linguistic-pragmatic, international relations, and communication theories, it first theorizes the state as a communicating actor in social interactions and conceptualizes amicable actions and their potential to advance relations in interstate communication. On the basis of 2,180 amicable statements performed by a variety of international actors in a range of communicative contexts, a classification according to variations, intended goals, and prevalence of amicable actions is suggested. The findings show a preference to perform interstate communication through solidarity-oriented and expressive actions. Asserting friendship and thanking were found to be the most popular actions, frequently utilized by international actors in a range of ceremonial contexts. Paying respect and expressions of honor were found to be the most frequent strategy for showing one’s deference to the other’s sovereignty and autonomy. In the conclusions, we argue for the importance of studying the pragmatics of interstate communication and point to factors that need to be confronted in the future in order to answer the overarching question: Under what conditions do amicable actions achieve their ends?
Funding statement: This research was supported by the ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (grant No. 789/16)
About the authors
Zohar Kampf is Associate Professor of Communication at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of 2 books (Transforming Media Coverage of Violent Conflicts: The New Face of War, 2013, Palgrave McMillan; Media at Times of War and Terror, 2012, Modan) and of more than 60 chapters and articles in leading language and communication journals. He is currently associate editor of Journal of Pragmatics.
Lee Aldar is a research student of international relations at the Swiss Center for Conflict Research at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her research interests lie at the intersection of political discourse, international norms and national identities.
Roni Danziger is a research student of language and communication at the department of communication at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her areas of interest include socio-pragmatics, (im)politeness theory, language and culture, society and communication.
Mia Schreiber is a research student of media and communication at the department of communication at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her main research interest lies in the multifaceted ties between media, language and intentions.
References
Augoustinos, Martha, Brianne Hastie & Monique Wright. 2011. Apologizing for historical injustice: Emotion, truth and identity in political discourse. Discourse & Society 22(5). 507–531.10.1177/0957926511405573Search in Google Scholar
Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Berenskoetter, Felix. 2007. Friends, there are no friends? An intimate reframing of the international. Millennium 35. 647–676.10.1177/03058298070350031501Search in Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper. 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Steven C Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæve & de Wilde Jaap. 1998. Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.10.1515/9781685853808Search in Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 1990. Politeness, politics and diplomacy. Discourse and Society 1. 201–224.10.1177/0957926590001002005Search in Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul & George Lakoff. 2005. Foreign policy by metaphor. In Christina Schäffner & Anita L Wenden (eds.), Language and peace, 37–61. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul & Christina Schäffner. 2002. Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.4Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Raymond. 1987. Theatre of power: The art of diplomatic signalling. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.07duSearch in Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 2015. The anthropology of intentions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139207706Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, David C. 2009. On the possibility of “international community.” International Studies Review 11(1). 1–26.10.1111/j.1468-2486.2008.01822.xSearch in Google Scholar
Ellis, Donald G & Ifat Maoz. 2007. Online argument between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Human Communication Research 33. 291–309.10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00300.xSearch in Google Scholar
Epstein, Charlotte. 2010. Who speaks? Discourse, the subject and the study of identity in international politics. European Journal of International Relations 17(2). 327–350.10.1177/1354066109350055Search in Google Scholar
Fenton-Smith, Ben. 2007. Diplomatic condolences: Ideological positioning in the death of Yasser Arafat. Discourse and Society 18(6). 697–718.10.1177/0957926507082192Search in Google Scholar
Fredrickson, Barbara L. 2004. Gratitude, like other positive emotions, broadens and builds. In Robert A Emmons & Michael E McCullough (eds.), The psychology of gratitude, 145–166. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195150100.003.0008Search in Google Scholar
Friedman, Elie & Zohar Kampf. 2014. Politically speaking at home and abroad: A typology of message gaps strategies. Discourse & Society 25. 706–724.10.1177/0957926514536836Search in Google Scholar
Galtung, Johan. 2006. Peace journalism as an ethical challenge. Global Media Journal: Mediterranean Edition 1(2). 1–5.Search in Google Scholar
Gavriely-Nuri, D. 2015. Israeli peace discourse: A cultural approach to CDA. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.59Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face interaction. Oxford, England: Aldine.Search in Google Scholar
Haas, David F & Forrest A. Deseran. 1981. Trust and symbolic exchange. Social Psychology Quarterly 44. 3–13.10.2307/3033857Search in Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. Theory of communicative action. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hall, Todd H. 2015. Emotional diplomacy: Official emotion on the international stage. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.10.7591/9781501701139Search in Google Scholar
Hodges, Adam. 2013. Discourses of war and peace. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199937271.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Jönsson, Christer & Martin Hall. 2003. Communication: An essential aspect of diplomacy. International Studies Perspectives 4. 195–210.10.1111/1528-3577.402009Search in Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel. 2013. Relational rituals and communication: Ritual interaction in groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230393059Search in Google Scholar
Kampf, Zohar. 2009a. The age of apology: Evidence from the Israeli public discourse. Social Semiotics 19. 257–273.10.1080/10350330903072649Search in Google Scholar
Kampf, Zohar. 2009b. Public (non-) apologies: The discourse of minimizing responsibility. Journal of Pragmatics 41. 2257–2270.10.1016/j.pragma.2008.11.007Search in Google Scholar
Kampf. Z. 2012. From “there are no Palestinian people” to “sorry for their suffering”: Israeli discourse of recognition of the Palestinians. Journal of Language and Politics 11(3). 427–447.10.1075/jlp.11.3.06kamSearch in Google Scholar
Kampf, Zohar. 2013. Mediated performatives. In J. O. Östman & J. Verschueren (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hop.17.med1Search in Google Scholar
Kampf, Zohar. 2016a. All the Best! Performing solidarity in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 93. 47–60.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.006Search in Google Scholar
Kampf, Zohar. 2016b. Rhetorical bypasses: Connecting with the hearts and minds of people on the opponent’s side. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 11. 149–163.10.1080/17447143.2016.1181639Search in Google Scholar
Kampf, Zohar & Nava Löwenheim. 2012. Rituals of apology in the international arena. Security Dialogue 43. 43–60.10.1177/0967010611431095Search in Google Scholar
Katriel, Tamar. 1986. Talking straight: Dugri speech in Israeli Sabra culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kriesberg, Louis. 2002. The relevance of reconciliation actions in the breakdown of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, 2000. Peace and Change 27. 546–571.10.1111/1468-0130.00244Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 2000. The language war. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520928077Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A & Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 1(1). 9–33.10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9Search in Google Scholar
Mitchell, Christopher. 2000. Gestures of conciliation: Factors contributing to successful olive branches. New York: St Martin’s Press.10.1057/9780230376960Search in Google Scholar
Mitzen, Jennifer. 2006. Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations 12(3). 341–370.10.1177/1354066106067346Search in Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2018. Nations as persons: Collective identities in conflict. In The discursive construction of identities on- and offline. Personal - group – Collective, 249–266. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.78.11musSearch in Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal R. 1978. Expressive illocutionary acts. Journal of Pragmatics 2. 277–291.10.1016/0378-2166(78)90005-XSearch in Google Scholar
Oelsner, Andrea & Antoine Vion. 2011. Friends in the region: A comparative study on friendship building in regional integration. International Politics 48(1). 129–151.10.1057/ip.2010.37Search in Google Scholar
Schäffner, Christina. 2005. The balance metaphor in relation to peace. In Schäffner Christina & L Wenden Anita (eds.), Language and peace, 75–91. New York and London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203984994Search in Google Scholar
Schäffner, Christina & Anita L Wenden. 2005. Language and peace. New York and London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203984994Search in Google Scholar
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2002. Goffman meets IR: Dramaturgical action in international community. International Review of Sociology 12(3). 417–437.10.1080/0390670022000041411Search in Google Scholar
Schreiber, Mia & Zohar Kampf. 2018. Intention work: The scope of journalistic interpretation of political speech acts. Journalism. doi:10.1177/1464884918798156.Search in Google Scholar
Scollon, Ron, Susan Wong & Rodney H Jones. 2001. Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5. 1–23.10.1017/S0047404500006837Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511609213Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 2010. Making the social world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Sharp, Paul. 2003. Herbert butterfield, the English school and the civilizing virtues of diplomacy. International Affairs 79(4). 855–878.10.1111/1468-2346.00340Search in Google Scholar
Suzuki, Taku. 2013. Narrating war and peace at the battle ruins. In A Hodges (ed.), Discourses of war and peace, 249–278. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199937271.003.0011Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, John B. 1995. The media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tran, Van Dinh. 1987. Communication and diplomacy in a changing world. New Jersey: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615184Search in Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 2004. The state as person in international theory. Review of International Studies 30(2). 289–316.10.1017/S0260210504006084Search in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1987. English speech act verbs: A Semantic dictionary. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical investigations. Oxford, UK: Bazil Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Hang. 2001. Culture and apology: The Hainan Island incident. World Englishes 20(3). 383–391.10.1111/1467-971X.00222Search in Google Scholar
Zoizner, Alon, Tamir Sheafer & Stefaan Walgrave. 2017. How politicians’ attitudes and goals moderate political agenda setting by the media. The International Journal of Press/Politics 22(4). 431–449.10.1177/1940161217723149Search in Google Scholar
Zupnik, Yael –Janette. 2000. Conversational interruptions in Israeli—Palestinian dialogue events. Discourse Studies 2(1). 85–110.10.1177/1461445600002001004Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
