Towards an anatomy of impoliteness.
TL;DR: The authors consider the notions of inherent and mock impoliteness, and discuss contextual factors associated with impolite behaviour, and demonstrate that in some contexts, such as army training and literary drama, impolitity behaviour is not a marginal activity, and that we need an appropriate descriptive framework in order to account for it.
About: This article is published in Journal of Pragmatics.The article was published on 1996-03-01. It has received 1058 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Politeness.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The authors argue that politeness cannot just be equated with FTA mitigation because politeness is a discursive concept and that what is polite (or impolite) should not be predicted by analysts.
Abstract: In this paper we briefly revisit politeness research influenced by Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory. We argue that this research tradition does not deal with politeness but with the mitigation of face-threatening acts (FTAs) in general. In our understanding, politeness cannot just be equated with FTA-mitigation because politeness is a discursive concept. This means that what is polite (or impolite) should not be predicted by analysts. Instead, researchers should focus on the discursive struggle in which interactants engage. This reduces politeness to a much smaller part of facework than was assumed until the present, and it allows for interpretations that consider behavior to be merely appropriate and neither polite nor impolite. We propose that relational work, the “work” individuals invest in negotiating relationships with others, which includes impolite as well as polite or merely appropriate behavior, is a useful concept to help investigate the discursive struggle over politeness. We demonstrate this in close readings of five examples from naturally occurring interactions.
858 citations
Book•
01 Jan 2003TL;DR: The authors analyse the way that certain practices which are considered to be polite or impolite are, within particular communities of practice, stereotypically gendered, and then move on to a discussion of the theoretical work on gender and politeness which seems to replicate stereotypical views of women's politeness, rather than describing women's actual linguistic performance or interpretative frameworks.
Abstract: Introduction Given the model of gender described in the last chapter, and given the model of linguistic politeness as described in chapters 2 and 3, it is difficult, if not impossible, simply to approach the relation between gender and politeness as a question of an investigation of the production, by individual men or women of a number of linguistic features which are assumed to be unequivocally polite or impolite. What I should like to do instead is to consider the complexity of the relationship between gender and politeness, so that the common-sense nature of gender and politeness and their relation to each other is troubled. Here, I aim to analyse the way that certain practices which are considered to be polite or impolite are, within particular communities of practice, stereotypically gendered. As I discussed in chapter 4, these stereotypes do not actually exist as such, but are hypothesised by particular speakers and hearers within communities of practices, on the basis of their representation by others, and are then negotiated with. It is this connection between gendering of practices and assessments of politeness and impoliteness which is of interest. These stereotypes of behaviour which are considered to be appropriate within particular contexts feed back into individual participants' assessments of what is appropriate in terms of their own behaviour. First, in this chapter, I analyse stereotypes of gender and politeness, and then move on to a discussion of the theoretical work on gender and politeness which I argue seems to replicate stereotypical views of women's politeness, rather than describing women's or men's actual linguistic performance or interpretative frameworks.
706 citations
Book•
06 Jan 2011TL;DR: In this article, the authors introduce the notion of impoliteness and define a metadiscourse for understanding it: face and social norms, intentionality and emotions, and co-texts and contexts.
Abstract: Introducing impoliteness 1. Understanding impoliteness I: face and social norms 2. Understanding impoliteness II: intentionality and emotions 3. Impoliteness metadiscourse 4. Conventionalised formulaic impoliteness and its intensification 5. Non-conventionalised impoliteness: implicational impoliteness 6. Impoliteness events: co-texts and contexts 7. Impoliteness events: functions 8. Conclusions.
662 citations
01 Jan 2003
558 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a new definition of impoliteness and general revisions to the model were proposed, both derived from data analyses, and the structure of The Weakest Link and how it maximizes the potential for face-damage.
Abstract: Building on Culpeper (1996) and Culpeper et al. (2003), I first propose a new definition of impoliteness and general revisions to my model of impoliteness, both derived from data analyses. Given that my particular data in this paper, The Weakest Link, is a television entertainment quiz show, I will briefly account for why impoliteness might be entertaining. As a backdrop to my micro-analyses of interactions, I discuss the nature of “exploitative” chat and game shows, and I examine the structure of The Weakest Link and how it maximizes the potential for face-damage. In my analyses, I show the formulaic and creative nature of parts of the discourse, and also how analyzing prosody is key to understanding the impoliteness. I pay special attention to “off-record impoliteness”, sarcasm and mimicry, and I integrate into my model Spencer-Oatey’s (2002) revisions of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) concepts of negative and positive face. Finally, referring to Levinson’s (1992) “activity types”, I consider whether the context of the quiz show “neutralizes” the “impoliteness”. I argue that the salience of “impolite” signals engulf the context, with the result that targets often take offense in contexts where they theoretically should not.
540 citations
References
More filters
13,767 citations
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: Gumperz as discussed by the authors discusses politeness strategies in language and their implications for language studies, including sociological implications and implications for social sciences. But he does not discuss the relationship between politeness and language.
Abstract: Symbols and abbreviations Foreword John J. Gumperz Introduction to the reissue Notes 1. Introduction 2. Summarized argument 3. The argument: intuitive bases and derivative definitions 4. On the nature of the model 5. Realizations of politeness strategies in language 6. Derivative hypotheses 7. Sociological implications 8. Implications for language studies 9. Conclusions Notes References Author index Subject index.
9,542 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1987TL;DR: This paper presents an argument about the nature of the model and its implications for language studies and Sociological implications and discusses the role of politeness strategies in language.
Abstract: This study is about the principles for constructing polite speeches. The core of it first appeared in Questions and Politeness, edited by Esther N. Goody (now out of print). It is here reissued with a fresh introduction that surveys the considerable literature in linguistics, psychology and the social sciences that the original extended essay stimulated, and suggests distinct directions for research. The authors describe and account for some remarkable parallelisms in the linguistic construction of utterances with which people express themselves in different languages and cultures. A motive for these parallels is isolated and a universal model is constructed outlining the abstract principles underlying polite usages. This is based on the detailed study of three unrelated languages and cultures: the Tamil of South India, the Tzeltal spoken by Mayan Indians in Chiapas, Mexico, and the English of the USA and England. This volume will be of special interest to students in linguistic pragmatics, sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, anthropology, and the sociology and social psychology of interaction.
9,053 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1967TL;DR: Goffman's Interaction Ritual as mentioned in this paper is an interesting account of daily social interaction viewed with a new perspective for the logic of our behavior in such ordinary circumstances as entering a crowded elevator or bus.
Abstract: Not then, men and their moments. Rather, moment and their men, writes Erving Goffman in the introduction to his groundbreaking 1967 Interaction Ritual , a study of face-to-face interaction in natural settings, that class of events which occurs during co-presence and by virtue of co-presence. The ultimate behavioural materials are the glances, gestures, positionings, and verbal statements that people continuously feed into situations, whether intended or not. A sociology of occasions is here advocated. Social organisation is the central theme, but what is organized is the co-mingling of persons and the temporary interactional enterprises that can arise therefrom. A normatively stabilized structure is at issue, a "social gathering", but this is a shifting entity, necessarily evanescent, created by arrivals and killed by departures. The major section of the book is the essay "Where the Action Is", drawing on Goffman's last major ethnographic project observation of Nevada casinos. Tom Burns says of Goffman's work "The eleven books form a singularly compact body of writing. All his published work was devoted to topics and themes which were closely connected, and the methodology, angles of approach and of course style of writing remained characteristically his own throughout. Interaction Ritual in particular is an interesting account of daily social interaction viewed with a new perspective for the logic of our behavior in such ordinary circumstances as entering a crowded elevator or bus." In his new introduction, Joel Best considers Goffman's work in toto and places Interaction Ritual in that total context as one of Goffman's pivotal works: oHis subject matter was unique. In sharp contrast to the natural tendency of many scholars to tackle big, important topics, Goffman was a minimalist, working on a small scale, and concentrating on the most mundane, ordinary social contacts, on everyday life.o
5,862 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1983TL;DR: In this article, Leech akan memaparkan pengertian pragmatik complementer dalam setiap kajian bahasa sebagai sebuah sistem komunikasi.
Abstract: Pragmatik bisa dikatakan sebagai kajian bagaimana tuturan memiliki makna atau arti dalam situasi dan kondisi Dalam buku ini, Leech akan memaparkan pengertian pragmatik complementer dalam setiap kajian bahasa sebagai sebuah sistem komunikasi
3,995 citations
Related Papers (5)
Trending Questions (1)
Culpeper, Jonathan, 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. J. Pragmat. 25, 349e367.?
The paper discusses the concept of impoliteness and proposes a framework for understanding impoliteness behavior.