Discourse Analysis
POSITIVE
POLITENESS
AND
NEGATIVE
EXPRESSION IN GROUP PRESENTATION
HERLINA DADDI, S Pd
RAMLI, S.S
GRADUATE PROGRAM
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MAKASSAR
2011
PREFACE
With the name of ALLAH SWT, most compassionate and most merciful.
Praise be to him, the lord of creation who teaches us what we do not know. Then,
the honorable greeting peace and salution are everlastingly addressed to the great
Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, the choosen Prophet and messanger who
always motivate and guide us to pursue knowledge from the cradle to the grave.
The accomplishment of this assignment is definitly inseperable from the sinciere
contribution and assistance from different person. Therefore, I would like to
acknowledge them.
Firstly, I would humbly like to express my deep gratitude to Mrs. Murni M. Hum.,
P. hD. or having taught us well so that we can have better understanding on his
course named Discourse Analysis. Personally, I really get much knowledge from
her, especially on how to analyse discourse by using his own book.
Secondly, all my classmates unexceptionally deserve having my thanks for their
active participation in discourse analysis class. The discussion during the class
session, and even in extra – class ones contribute to my better understanding on
the matter.
Last, but by no means least, the writers would like to thank their friends for their
patience, good humour and support. We dedicate this work to them.
Finally, hopefuly this assignment gives valuable information especially to the
writers, Amin.
Makassar, 25 march 2011
The writers
INTRODUCTION
People may not always remember the specifics of a conversation, but they
do remember their overall impressions of the other person, as well as how well
they felt the conversation proceeded. For example, they may recall whether or not
they felt the other person was cooperative, and whether or not the other person
was friendly, polite, knowledgeable, standoffish, or rude. These conclusions are
usually reached without much thought, and the standards used to make these
judgments are largely determined unconsciously based on social factors, which lie
beneath the surface of every interaction. Moreover, people tend to assume that
their interpretation of another person’s way of speaking is the correct
interpretation, whether or not that interpretation was the person’s intent or not.
Nowdays almost of the class sat up in discussion group. When a lecture
comes to the class, every students must prepare theirselves to ready present their
paper which have been divided before. It can misure how the students understood
the subject so there will be a lively discussion. It aims to make an interaction and
feedback for the students among discussion. Sometimes we realize that Classroom
Discussion are having conversation which provides practice with problems and
concepts, discussion is a way of testing and explorating new ideas, students
recognize and invertigate their assumption, it shows respect for students’ voices
and experience, students’ awareness of, and tolearance for, ambiguity or
complexity increases. That is why discussion group is a good teahing method is
being implemented in the class.
It one of purposes the writers chose discussion group for our sourses in doing
research. In making a presentation in classroom, we have counciously understand
that our discussion must be skilled and respectful learning. In fact, it sometimes
have no a good role so we can see impolitess or rudeness expression when
question and answer among the students.
politeness and impoliteness expression in doing a discussion are able to see and
analysis when students use a good communication or verbal language or how
gestures or facial expression displayed during speaking. Moreover, yet discussion
groups are being analyzed, it may see what kind of politeness that we can find
indeed.
A.
Problem Statement
The objective is intended to describe and know analysis of discourse in
discussion group:
1. To know positive and negative politeness expression in discussion
groups
2. To describe the impolitess exression in discussion group in the
classroom.
B.
C.
Objective of the Study
This writing is aimed at describing:
1. Positive and negative Politeness expression in discussion group in the
classroom.
2. Impolitess expression in discussion group in the classroom.
Significance of the Research
The significance of the research is expected to be a meaningful contribution
or beneficial to students how to make a discussion running well with a good rules
or applying politeness expression and control theirselves to be impolite. This
writing is expected to give:
1. The concept of this discourse analysis “politeness and impoliteness
expression in discussion group” hopefully can be a resourse for students
and instructors/ lectures in setting a manageable class.
2. The input for further researches related to politeness and impoliteness
expression.
D.
Scope of Research
The research is limited and focused on the study of politeness and
impoliteness expression during discussion group.
POLITENESS
Eelen (2001) points out, quite rightly, that theories of politeness have
focused far more on polite behaviour than on impolite behaviour. This is all the
more surprising since commentators on and participants in verbal interaction are
more likely to comment on behaviour which they perceive to be ‘impolite’, ‘rude’,
‘discourteous’, ‘obstreperous’, ‘bloody-minded’, etc. than on ‘polite’ behaviour,
and they tend to agree far more readily in their classification of the negative end
of the scale than of the positive end.
The term ‘politeness’ means something rather different from our everyday
understanding of it and focuses almost uniquely on polite language in the study of
verbal interaction. The aim is to approach the technical term ‘politeness’ from a
variety of perspectives, with respect to ways in which it is manifest in language
usage, and to highlight some of the controversies focusing on it. At the outset,
therefore, I should state unequivocally that my focus will be on what has been
called linguistic politeness.
In theories of politeness, the term is used almost exclusively to refer to the
different ways of conceptualising politeness. But doing this only clouds the issue,
since polite and politeness are lexemes in the English language whose meanings
are open to negotiation by those interacting in English. Their meanings are
reproduced and renegotiated whenever and wherever they are used in verbal
interaction, which of course means that related terms such as rude, rudeness,
(dis)courteous,impolite, impoliteness, etc. are also struggled over. To use a lay
concept in one language as a universal scientific concept for all languages and
cultures is particularly inappropriate.
The 1717 English translation of the Abb´e de Bellegarde’s Reflexions upon
the Politeness of Manners contains the following statement:
. . . there’s so great a Correspondence betwixt those Springs that move the Heart, and those that
move the Countenance; that we may judge by this outward Dial-plate, how the Clock-work goes in
the Soul. ([1698] 1717: 40)
The harmonious correspondence between the body and the mind/soul, i.e.
perfect union between an individual’s outward behaviour (the body) and
character (the mind/soul), was termed ‘politeness’ or ‘modesty’ and
disharmony or disjunction of body and soul/mind was termed ‘affectation’,
‘impoliteness’. (cf. Ketcham 1985: 50). Bellegarde defines ‘affectation’ in
following way:
the
his
the
not
the
Affectation is the falsification of the whole Person, which deviates from all that is
Natural, whereby it might please to put on an ascititious Ayre [sic!], wherewithal to
become Ridiculous . . . People corrupted with this Vice, have nothing natural in their way
of Talking, Walking, Dressing, turning their Eyes or Head, these are Motions unknown to
other Men. ([1698] 1717: 58)
The ideological conceptualisation of politeness, therefore, represented it as a
‘natural’ quality and placed it in opposition to affectation. Both are revealed in an
individual’s actions and, above all else, in her/his words. So right from the outset
language use, particularly civil conversation, is taken as an indicator of that
harmony between body and soul known as ‘politeness’. In the conduct writers,
and in particular in Bellegarde’s work, we can identify the following selfcontradictory and somewhat confusingaspects of the ideological conceptualisation
of politeness1 which still occupy us today:
1. Politeness is the ideal union between the character of an individual and his
external actions (e.g. the language which that individual uses).
2. Politeness is the ability to please others through one’s external actions (e.g.
through one’s language usage).
3. Politeness is the natural attribute of a ‘good’ character.
4. Politeness is a socially acquired state of mind that is adjudged to have reached a
state of being ‘polished’ and of thereby being in conformity with a set of socially
accepted forms of behaviour.
Linguists have used three approaches to explain how language users make
linguistic choices based on politeness concerns.
The Conversational Maxim View
The conversational maxim view (see, e.g., Fraser, 1990) uses Grice’s (1975)
Cooperative Principle as a starting point. Conversations require that the
interlocutors cooperate by following certain unspoken guidelines, or maxims.
Grice outlines four maxims that become the basis for face-to-face interaction, and
these can be summarized as follows:
1. Maxim of Quantity—Say as much as is necessary, but not too much
2. Maxim of Quality—Be honest
3. Maxim of Relation—Be relevant
4. Maxim of Manner—Do not be ambiguous
For example, a speaker may say, “I don’t know that I can really help you out right
now,” to turn someone down instead of saying, “I can’t help you.” The latter
utterance, of course, is direct and unambiguous, in that it matches form and
function, and is clearly a rejection. It also does not violate any of the maxims.
“I don’t know that . . . ,” the addressee realizes the speaker does indeed know, but
is using this phrasing as an attempt to mitigate or soften the rejection.
The Politeness Principle is composed of three maxims:
1. Do not impose [do not intrude into other people’s business]
Example: May I ask how much you paid for that vase, Mr. Hoving?
2. Give options [let the addressee make his/her own decisions; leave options open
for the addressee]
Examples: I guess it’s time to leave.
It’s time to leave, isn’t it?
3. Make the hearer feel good—be friendly [create a sense of camaraderie and
equality] Examples: Use compliments and nicknames (or direct communication).
(Lakoff, pp. 298–302)
The Conversational Contract View
politeness is defined as the act of “operating within the then-current terms and
conditions of the [conversational contract]” (Fraser, 1990, p. 233).
The conversational contract view clearly places politeness within the realm of the
expectations in interaction, rather than something that is considered as an
exception to normal interaction. However, it is less clear how speakers actually
decide what linguistic devices to use during the “then-current terms and
conditions” of the conversational contract. What both the conversational maxim
view and the conversational contract view have in common is an attempt to
identify the motivation for politeness in face-to-face interaction. For the
conversational maxim view, the motivation is defined as a list of speaker goals
relative to the social dynamics of the moment, and for the conversational contract
view, the motivation is to work within the expectations regarding the rights and
obligations that the interlocutors hold toward each other.
The Face-Saving View of Politeness
Face can be understood to be of two kinds: (a) the desire to be unimpeded in one’s
actions and (b) the desire to be approved of (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Human
beings communicate these two aspects of face to let others know that they either
want approval or are expressing approval of others, and, at the same time, to let
people know that, in certain respects, they do not want to be imposed upon or do
not want to impose upon others.
Brown and Levinson (1987) use two the terms:
positive politeness for the type of politeness associated with showing approval
and camaraderie, whereas others have used the term involvement (see, e.g.,
Scollon & Scollon, 2001; Tannen, 1986). For the type of politeness associated
with wanting neither to impose upon others nor to be imposed upon.
negative politeness and others use the term independence (Scollon & Scollon;
Tannen, 1986). involvement refers to the type of face associated with expressing
approval and showing camaraderie, and independence refers to the type of face
associated with not wanting to impose.
Although the Brown and Levinson (1987) view of politeness has been criticized
for being overly pessimistic because it focuses on avoiding threats to the speaker’s
or addressee’s face needs, in fact politeness strategies may also represent
antithreats, or face-flattering acts (FFAs; Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 2005):
Every speech act could, therefore, be described as an FTA face-threatening acts, an FFA,or
a compound of the two. In correlation, two forms of politeness emerge from this theoretical
base: negative politeness [independence], which involves avoiding or softening the
formulation of an FTA (as a way of saying “I wish you no harm”); and positive politeness
[involvement], which involves the production of an FFA, possibly reinforced (as a way of
saying “I wish you well”). Seen from this vantage point, the ebb and flow of an exchange
involves a constant and subtle swinging back and forth between FTAs and FFAs. (KerbratOrecchioni, p. 31).
At least three factors determine to what degree speech acts such as requests and
rejections are mitigated: (a) the Power relation (P) between the speaker and the
hearer, (b) the relative Social Distance (D) between the speaker and the hearer,
and (c) the Ranking (R) of the Imposition in a particular culture (Brown &
Levinson, 1987, pp. 74-84). These factors provide the motivation for using more
or fewer politeness strategies within a particular context. In face-to-face
interaction, speakers communicate messages about both involvement and
independence, and addressees interpret the social meaning of these speakers.
IMPOLITENESS
Brown and Levinson’s ([1978] 1987) One of the main differences that emerges
when comparing some of these is the role assigned to the recognition of intentions
in the understanding of impoliteness:
(1) I take impoliteness as constituting the issuing of intentionally gratuitous and
conflictive face-threatening acts (FTAs) that are purposefully performed.
(Bousfield, this volume: 132)
(2) Impoliteness, as I would define it, involves communicative behaviour
intending to cause the “face loss” of a target or perceived by the target to be so.
(Culpeper, this volume: 36)
(3) impoliteness occurs when the expression used is not conventionalised relative
to the context of occurrence; it threatens the addressee’s face (and, through that,
the speaker’s face) but no face-threatening intention is attributed to the speaker by
the hearer. (Terkourafi, this volume: 70)
Locher andWatts, who in fact state that the conceptual space of impoliteness is
also shared by other negatively evaluated terms within face-aggravating linguistic
behaviour. They note that:
Negatively marked behaviour, i.e. behaviour that has breached a social norm . . ., evokes
negative evaluations such as impolite or over-polite (or any alternative lexeme such as rude,
aggressive, insulting, sarcastic, etc. depending upon the degree of the violation and the
type of conceptualisation the inappropriate behaviour is profiled against). (Locher
andWatts, this volume: 79)
2.1. Impoliteness as a means to negotiate relationships
In all chapters of this collection, the feeling that we are not dealing with an easy to
grasp or one-dimensional concept is all pervasive. Several researchers in fact
point out that we are only at the beginning of our understanding of the
phenomenon (e.g. Bousfield; Culpeper; Terkourafi). Impoliteness, even if most
generally seen as face-aggravating behaviour in a specific context, clearly
involves the relational aspect of communication in that social actors negotiate
their positions vis-`a-vis each other. Locher and Watts (this volume and
elsewhere; see also Bousfield, this volume) maintain that impolite behaviour and
face-aggravating behaviour more generally is as much part of this negotiation as
polite versions of behaviour.
2.2. First order and second order investigations
The distinction between first order and second order approaches in politeness
research stems from work which goes back to Watts, Ehlich and Ide (1992) and
Eelen (2001). First order concepts are judgements about behaviour, such as
impolite, rude, polite, polished, made by the social actors themselves. They arrive
at these judgements according to the norms of their particular discursive practice.
We are, in other words, dealing with a lay-person’s understanding of the concepts
italicised above. Second order approaches use the concepts and consider them on
a theoretical level. These theories do not disregard first order notions as, in fact, it
is argued that the second order theories are necessarily informed by first order
notions in the first place (see, e.g.Bousfield, this volume).
2.3. The negotiation of norms in discursive practices
A number of researchers explicitly argue with a Community of Practice (see
Eckert andMcConnell-Ginet 1992),Activity Type (see Levinson 1992) or, more
generally, a discursive practice approach when interpreting data (Graham; Locher
and Watts; Mullany; Schnurr, Marra and Holmes). This means that the researchers
do not link the observation of a linguistic strategy, for example indirectness,
directly with a judgement as towhether this strategy is to be interpreted as impolite
or polite. Instead, they claim that this judgement has to bemade with the norms of
the particular discursive community in mind. In addition, judgements about
relational work (be it polished, polite, impolite, rude, or uncouth,etc.) are said to
be points of reference, placed along a continuum with fuzzy borders between the
concepts.
Impoliteness
(Locher andWatts 2005: 17;) captures at least some hypotheses about factors that
underlie (im)politeness, and specifically two hypotheses about impoliteness:
(1) it is negatively marked/ politic/inappropriate behaviour, and
(2) it can be related to “over-politeness”.
Negatively marked/ politic/inappropriate behaviour
(Watts 2003: 19), and is illustrated by the following examples:
A: Would you like some more coffee?
B: Yes, please.
M: Hello, Mr. Smith. How are you?
S: Hello David. Fine thanks. How are you?
(Watts 2003: 186, emphasis as original)
Politeness, on the other hand, is positively marked behaviour. Watts (2003: 19)
writes that “[l]inguistic behaviour perceived to go beyond what is expectable, i.e.
salient behaviour, should be called polite or impolite depending on whether the
behaviour itself tends towards the negative or positive end of the spectrum of
politeness”. By way of illustration, we can re-workWatts’s examples accordingly:
A: Would you like some more coffee?
B: Yes, please, that’s very kind, coffee would be wonderful.
M: Hello, Mr. Smith. It’s great to see you.We missed you. How are you?
S: Hello David. I’m fine thanks. It’s great to see you too. How are you?
Relational work in this perspective incorporates the issue of whether behaviour is
marked or not. Markedness here relates to appropriateness: if the behaviour is
inappropriate, it will be marked and more likely to be noticed. Unmarked
behaviour is what Watts (1989, 2003) refers to in his earlier work as “politic
behaviour”6: “[l]inguistic behaviour which is perceived to be appropriate to the
social constraints of the ongoing interaction, i.e. as nonsalient, should be called
politic behaviour” (Watts 2003: 19),
Over politeness
Watts (2005), writes that marked behaviour:
[m]ay be perceived as negative either if it is open to an interpretation as impolite (or as
downright rude), or if it is perceived as over-polite, i.e. those kinds of negatively marked
non-politic behaviour tend towards similar kinds of affective reaction on the part of coparticipants. Certain speakers consistently evaluate polite behaviour as unnecessary and
offensive.The figure is thus meant to represent situations in which the communicative
effects of over-polite behaviour may seem remarkably similar to those of downright rude
behaviour, which is why the two ends of the spectrum are shown as turning in upon
themselves. (Watts 2005: xliv)
Similarly, Locher (2004: 90) remarks: “over-politeness is often perceived as
negative exactly because it exceeds the boundary between appropriateness and
inappropriateness”, also adding the usual caution that the “the final decision as to
whether something is perceived as polite or impolite lies in H’s interpretation,
who judges the relational aspect of the utterance with respect to H’s own norms
(frames, appropriateness, expectations, personal style, etc.)”.
thatWatts’s claim appears to fly in the face of that made by Leech (1983):
[t]here will naturally be a preference for overstating polite beliefs, and for understating
impolite ones: while an exaggeration such as That was a delicious meal! is favoured in
praising others, an uninformative denial – a typical device of understatement – is frequently
used in criticism: I wasn’t over impressed by her speech.7 (Leech 1983: 146)
However, Watts is referring to over-politeness, whereas Leech is discussing
overstatement, i.e. hyperbole, treating politeness as one possible motivating
factor. Thus, That was a delicious meal! could well be taken as an appropriate
amount of politeness in the context, yet still be hyperbole from a Gricean point of
view(a departure fromthe Maxim of Quality). Note here that departures from
Gricean cooperation in no way imply departure from polite, social cooperation; in
fact, in the classic politeness theory perspective, departures from Gricean
cooperation can be motivated by the wish to maintain polite, social cooperation.
over-politeness might mean (e.g. is it the use of language that is too polite for the
situation? the overly-frequent use of otherwise politic language?), accommodate a
range of evaluations (positive to negative), and also pay attention to
communicative dynamics (e.g. the (mis)management of interpersonal
relationships and interactional goals).
Impoliteness and rudeness
Locher andWatts (2005: 12) do not clarify this point (although they are clear
about the converse situation, “polite behaviour is always politic”). There seems to
be some support in Locher’s (2004: 83) comments: “If S’s goal is to hurt H’s
feelings, he or she can still choose to do so via language. I believe that
considerations of acceptabilitywill not be of primary importance then.”Watts
argues on a number of occasions that if politic behaviour is “missing”, it “tend[s]
to lead to an evaluation of a participant’s behaviour as ‘impolite’, ‘brash’,
‘inconsiderate’, ‘abrupt’, ‘rude’, etc.” (Watts 2003: 169, see also 131, 182).
Furthermore, Locher andWatts (this volume: 81) write that they understand
impoliteness as “breaches of norms that are negatively evaluated by interactants
according to their expectation frames”. In general, then, impoliteness and
politic/appropriate behaviour seem to be mutually exclusive. However, one
particularly problematic area relates to contexts, such as army Reflections on
impoliteness, relational work and power 29 recruit training, in which faceattacking discourse of some kind plays a central role, and thus might be said to be
“normal”. Such discourses are accommodated byWatts, who refers to them as
“sanctioned aggressive facework” (2003: 260).
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
EXRACT 1
S1: Well, that was my explanation about constructed SLA,
And My partner Mr. Khaedir Malik will continue it. Time is yours.
S2: thank you
Assalamulaku alaikum warahmatullahiwabarakatu
A: aalaikumsalam
(few students give back greeting to the speaker. But some students make
dialogue loudly during speaker opens his speech)
S2: I meant there is no attention to the speaker.
A2: o...hhh..no.. no..we give you fully attention, (some students spontaniously
give response )
S2: Thank you.
Analysis (politeness)
The conversation talk about SLA and before S2 deliver his presentation, the S1
used to make the S2 feel good to allow him explain the topic and the S2 did it, in
this situation the spekers know each other fairly well. it attempts to avoid conflict,
some strategies of positive politeness include statements of friendship like ‘thank
you’, solidarity, compliments, and the following examples from Brown and
Levinson: 1978
The first bold lines he just remind the audience to pay attention to him. He want
them to seriously join in discussion group by giving decision. In relation to the
conversation, we conclude it is negative politeness use the term (Scollon &
Scollon; Tannen, 1986) it is involvement associated with expressing approval
from the students and showing camaraderie to each others. In the discussion, it is
an act that affirms or denies a future act of the hearer creates pressure on the
hearer to perform act. It can be remindings.
Exract 2
D:
Now we move to the next question namaly asking and answering session
I invite for each groups to deliver question and suggestion for the all groups
that has presented the material.
Ok ehhhh......one...two....no question (every students still keep silent)
No question thank you (laughing)
I think all of partisipants have understood the materials
No question thank you Arigato...(still laughing)
(while the students present the paper, our lecture is monitoring the student’
activities)
In the exract, moderator is very aggresive to hendle presentation, he really does
not give enough time to student to deside whether they have a question or not
between the other speaker and audence. In the question and answer session, all
decision is dominated by moderator. he communicates messages and addressees
or students interpret the social meaning of these speaker referring to overpoliteness, whereas the he is overstatement and hyperbole, over-politeness is the
use of language that is too polite for the situation. Let see the last line that
although there is no response. Moderator directly give decision and even added
another expression to say thank (arigato) .because in impolite or over-polite (or
any alternative lexeme such as rude, aggressive, insulting, sarcastic, etc.
depending upon the degree of the violation and the type of conceptualisation the
inappropriate behaviour is profiled against. (Locher andWatts, this volume: 79)
Extract 3
A: masalah word order saya sedikit sya pernh tanya ibu saya sepeupu saya
dalam keluarga saya...SLA bagus ada pd anak pertm dan yg bungsu nah ..
bgaiman itu kn word order ehhh dr atas berarti klo kita bilang seperti itu.
berarti anak itu yang bungsu nda terlalu baguslah dibandingkan anak ketiga
klo empat bersaudaraanak ketikga legbih bgus dr anak kempat anggaplah
klo kita kembali dr pantuan saya, pengalaman saya, ibuku bilang kakamu yg
pertama dr umur segini dia sudah bisa begini, dan yg bungsu juga kan saya
yg bungsu smaji dengan kakamu yg kelima..........
S: BEGINI SAYA MENERIMA YA maukan driiiiii eeeeeeee adinda ...Tapi
ini adlah hasil finding dn tdi aku hanya meperkuat dengan apa yang
aku temukan apa yg sy liat krn begini kita juga tidak serta merta
membantah teori dan juga ap yg anda kemukan tidak serta merta kita
membantahnya
A: Iyaa
S: kita butuh Proses pembuktian nah..ini kita liat pengalaman dan kita liat ini
sebagainya dan sebagainya yg mendukung fakta-fakta tentang itu
In the excract, we may see that there seems debating between student and speaker,
in relation with, the previous statement, the student has another statement based
on experience in her family which different with the speaker’s explanation. But
the speaker gave feedback that she agreed but it sometimes theory and
implementation are quite different but she strongly stand on her statement. After
analyze it, it is categorized in negative politeness.
Please ....?
CONCLUTION
Politeness is best expressed as the practical application of good manners.
In sociology, manners are the unenforced standards of conduct which demonstrate
that a person is proper, polite, and refined. They are like laws in that they codify
or set a standard for human behavior, but they are unlike laws in that there is no
formal system for punishing transgressions can sometimes be quite rude or
simply strange in another cultural context. While the goal of politeness is to make
all of the parties relaxed and comfortable with one another, these culturally
defined standards at times may be manipulated to inflict shame Shame Shame is,
variously, an affect, emotion, cognition, state, or condition. The roots of the word
shame are thought to derive from an older word meaning to cover; as such,
covering oneself, literally or figuratively, is a natural expression of shame on a
designated party.
REFERENCES
Hoza, jack. 2007. It’s not What you sign it’s how you sgn it. Gallaudet University
Press:
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Politeness
RICHARD J . WATTS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo
2003 Cambridge University Press
Language, Power and
Social Process 21
Editors
Monica Heller
Richard J.Watts
Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin.