Structuralist Approach To Language

At the beginning of the 20th century, a period which is regarded as the dawn of modern linguistics, Saussure considered that the scope of the subject should be, among other things, “to determine the forces that are permanently and universally at work in all languages, and to deduce the general laws to which all specific historical phenomena can be reduced” (SAUSSURE, 1959, p. 6). The so-called structuralist approach to language, which Saussure developed, was later adopted by other fields in the humanities, such as anthropology/sociology, with Lévi-Strauss (2008; 2013), who believed that the structural analysis in both sociology and linguistics seek “general laws” in languages and societies (LÉVI-STRAUSS, 2008, p. 60-62) and “universal laws

(p. 3)

Culture is therefore employed here as a complex concept which is intrinsically related to a wide range of aspects of social everyday life, but not in a way that members of a given group cannot differ or drift from what is usually the norm.

It is important to point out that both Wierzbicka (2003) and Spencer-Oatey (2008) use the term ‘cross-cultural pragmatics’ as referring to a field of linguistics which investigates conversation action i) taking into consideration the cultural framework of the speakers, ii) comparing how and in which aspects the usages of one group are similar or different from the other one and iii) analyzing the practical consequences of such similarities and dissimilarities in conversation exchanges and meaning conveyance. Therefore, some remarks and studies carried out by Wierzbicka (2003) remain interesting regardless of the terminological differences and will be considered here in the data analysis (see Section

Tannen (2005, p. 17) holds that styles are a result of the continuous use of linguistic devices motivated by strategies called Rules of Rapport (or Rules of Politeness), introduced by Lakoff (1973 apud TANNEN, 2005, p. 17). According to this view, these strategies are a universal, broader logic which speakers follow when they choose to employ specific linguistic mechanisms in order to establish connection and understanding in interaction. Table 3 shows the three Rules of Rapport as a logic principle, their definition and the stylistic effect they cause in discourse.

Rules of Rapport Definition Stylistic effect

1. Don’t impose There is a separation between the interactants or between them and their subject. Distance

2. Give options The speaker gives the option of decision to his or her interlocutor. Deference

3. Be friendly The speaker seeks closeness to his or her interlocutor. A person who tends to use R1 strategy (don’t impose) might feel pushed by R3 Camaraderie

Table 4 – Rules of rapport

Source: Lakoff apud Tannen (2005, p.