English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In this article we take a neo-Peircean semiotic approach to analyzing an interaction in which a  routine bail hearing between a defendant and a judge goes awry. Neo-Peircean semiotics is steadily  gaining recognition within linguistics for providing a new perspective on meaning. One neo-Peircean  approach, referred to as  Relationship Thinking  (Enfield 2009, 2013), has the potential  to be influential for politeness research and linguistic pragmatics generally. In this article, we explore  how the concept of relationship can be used to explore meaning on two dimensions:   residential  and  representational  (Kockelman 2006a, 2006b). It is our  contention that both of these dimensions are crucial to developing an understanding of what happens  in the courtroom data on which this special issue focusses. We begin by providing a detailed overview  of neo-Peircean semiotics in order to demonstrate its utility for researchers from different disciplines.  We then show how a neo-Peircean analytical approach can illuminate elements of data that may not  be accounted for in other analyses. This is as a consequence of the neo-Peircean framework’s scope  and its capacity for coping with a range of interactionally significant phenomena, from individual  linguistic tokens to institutional norms. In our analysis of the data at the heart of this special issue, the  Penelope Soto case, we show that problems can arise when interactants have different understandings  of what is a  sign  and what is an  interpretant  (Peirce 1955). We make the  case that it is a misunderstanding at this level (specifically the interpretations of the word  “ value ”) that is ultimately what causes the interaction to conclude in the way that it does.  Ultimately, we suggest that a neo-Peircean approach to the study of in/appropriate behaviour can  facilitate links between the traditional (and sometimes disparate) methods of analysis used in  politeness research.

Courtroom data and politeness research: A case for neo-Peircean semiotics in interpersonal pragmatics