arbiter
JournalsAccount

Eliciting the unsayable: Chinese teachers’ approximation elicitors in out-of-class settings

Xin Zhao

Discourse Studies2026https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456261416082article
ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

When students resist answering sensitive questions, teachers face dual pragmatic challenges: eliciting a response while mitigating the face-threat acts. This study conceptualizes teachers’ use of approximation elicitors, strategies to reformulate and approximate their initial questions. Based on the analysis of 26 recorded interactions, this study identifies three types of approximation elicitors: (1) authority-grounded elicitors, which frame the elicitation within institutional roles to legitimize the request; (2) logic-guided elicitors, which reduce the imposition on students’ negative face by scaffolding the response; (3) affective-alignment elicitors, which primarily address students’ positive face wants by demonstrating empathy, understanding, and solidarity, embodying the friendliness maxim. Furthermore, this study reveals a matching pattern between the choice of approximation elicitors and topical contexts, demonstrating that teachers’ pragmatic choices are highly sensitive to specific contexts. These approximation elicitors, grounded in Chinese style of politeness, offer a nuanced understanding of how teachers navigate sensitive communications beyond the classroom.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456261416082

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{xin2026,
  title        = {{Eliciting the unsayable: Chinese teachers’ approximation elicitors in out-of-class settings}},
  author       = {Xin Zhao},
  journal      = {Discourse Studies},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456261416082},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Eliciting the unsayable: Chinese teachers’ approximation elicitors in out-of-class settings

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.