Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article attempts to give a state-of-the-art picture of impoliteness studies and to indicate a few prospective research directions to enrich them. It critically surveys a number of theoretical and methodological problems (impoliteness vs. rudeness; intention; sanctioned face-threat; and impoliteness strategies), as well as the paramount topics of investigation (such as disagreement; arguments; insults, taboo words; or sarcasm), and discourse domains in which impoliteness can be found. Importantly, this paper brings to focus a selection of notions central to impoliteness, albeit not yet widely recognized in the scholarship on impoliteness. These include: slurs; pejoratives; and a number of phenomena promoted by computer mediated communication (e.g., flaming or trolling).

Abstract
Despite the fact that impoliteness research has spanned over three decades, it has been conceptualized persistently in terms of politeness as its binary opposite. In this paper, we endeavor to provide a theoretical framework for studying impoliteness as significant communicative practice. We aim to introduce Levinas' face as an alternative to Goffman's face and identify impoliteness with Levinas' face for the reason that Levinas' face, featuring absolute difference, can only be expressed through the discourse of resistance which manifests in various phenomena commonly categorized as impoliteness. We also argue that impoliteness is essentially the discourse of the authentic Self whose uncompromising difference, though potentially resulting in conflictive phenomena, facilitates understanding between individuals, not as actors, but as unique beings with their individualities and differences. We further contend that impoliteness is ethical in that the discourse of resistance does not aim for power but calls for respect for individual difference as well as responsibility for the Other in an effort to seek equality in human relations which are fundamentally power-laden and unequal. We also provide a case study to apply our theoretical construction of impoliteness to a literary classic, namely, Herman Melville's "Bartleby, the Scrivener" to illustrate our main points.

AbstractThere has been a great deal of research on impoliteness focusing on one particular language or cross-cultural differences between languages (e.g. Bousfield 2008; Bousfield and Locher 2008; Culpeper 2005, 2009; Haugh 2007, 2011; Kienpointner 1997). However, much less attention has been paid to impoliteness in intercultural communication in which all or some speakers communicate in a language other than their native tongue.On the basis of research on L1s and cross-cultural analysis of impoliteness, most of the researchers (e.g. Culpeper 2005, 2009, Haugh 2011; Watts 2003) in the field seem to agree that no act is inherently impolite, and that such an interpretation depends on the context or speech situation that affects interpretation (see Culpeper 2009). The paper will examine this context-dependency in intercultural communication where interlocutors cannot always rely on much existing common ground, shared knowledge and conventionalized context but need to co-construct most of those in the communicative process. It will be argued that limited shared knowledge and common ground may restrict the interpretation process to the propositional content of utterances, which may result in an increase in the actual situational context-creating power of utterances. Recent research (e.g. Abel 2003; Bortfeld 2002, 2003; Cieślicka 2004, 2006; House 2002, 2003; Kecskes 2007) demonstrated that in intercultural communication the most salient interpretation for non-native speakers is usually the propositional meaning of an utterance. So interpretation generally depends on what the utterance says rather than on what it actually communicates. As a consequence of their taking propositional meaning for the actual meaning of an utterance, interlocutors are sometimes unaware of impoliteness conveyed implicitly or through paralinguistic means.

When is language considered 'impolite'? Is impolite language only used for anti-social purposes? Can impolite language be creative? What is the difference between 'impoliteness' and 'rudeness'? Grounded in naturally-occurring language data and drawing on findings from linguistic pragmatics and social psychology, Jonathan Culpeper provides a fascinating account of how impolite behaviour works. He examines not only its forms and functions but also people's understandings of it in both public and private contexts. He reveals, for example, the emotional consequences of impoliteness, how it shapes and is shaped by contexts, and how it is sometimes institutionalised. This book offers penetrating insights into a hitherto neglected and poorly understood phenomenon. It will be welcomed by students and researchers in linguistics and social psychology in particular.

AbstractIt is now well recognized that the recipients' evaluations need to be given serious consideration when theorizing impoliteness. Yet despite the importance placed on evaluations by recipients, the role of the recipient in interaction has been reduced through theorizing within the field to the ascribing of (perceived) intentions or interpreting of (perceived) social norms and expectations. We suggest, in this paper, that this under-theorizes the role of the recipient vis-à-vis evaluations of impoliteness. Building on an account of (im)politeness as social practice (Haugh 2013b, 2015; Kádár and Haugh 2013), we argue that evaluations of impoliteness inevitably involve those recipients construing the speaker's action as a particular kind of social action, and holding them accountable for that particular kind of social action with respect to particular dimension(s) of the moral order (Haugh 2013a, 2015). The accountability of social action is underpinned, in part, by the presumed agency of participants. Agency involves the

This paper analyses Spanish television interviews and presents a contrast between the impolite argumentative strategies employed by the interviewer to attack the image of the interviewee in interviews with politicians and celebrities. It aims to demonstrate how the topic addressed and the subtype of interview influence the strategies employed and degree of impoliteness shown by the interviewer. The analysis of our corpus has shown that the current television interview differs from the traditional format of this genre in a number of respects. Impoliteness is used in Spanish interviews in order to attract the audience and to build the journalist"s face in political interviews as participants in ideological confrontation. Nevertheless, the detailed study of the impoliteness strategies employed by the interviewer has shown that the modification of features largely depends on the subtype examined. We observed in television celebrity interviews a wider range of strategies of verbal impoliteness, which are absent from political interviews. This explains why a variationist perspective has been adopted in the analysis of verbal impoliteness

AbstractThis paper provides an overview of the strategies and techniques of hate speech in online discourse (on online discourse or computer-mediated communication in general cf. e.g.,Schwarzhaupt-Scholz 2004;Schmidt 2013;Dittler and Hoyer 2014; Seargeant and Tagg 2014). Based on a collection of online texts belonging to different genres (discussion forums, blogs, social media, tweets, homepages), this paper will provide a qualitative analysis of destructively impolite utterances in online interactions. This analysis will make use of the standard typologies of impoliteness and their recent extensions (such asCulpeper 1996,2005,2011;Kienpointner 1997,2008;Kleinke and Bös 2015), but some modifications and elaborations of these typologies will also be taken into account. Moreover, social, cultural and political reasons for the recent dramatic increase in hate speech in online interactions will be explored. Finally, the problem of how to deal with this destructive use of language will be briefly discussed and some possible solutions will be suggested (cf.Banks 2010).

International audience ; If politeness is connected to positive values, and if impoliteness is to be considered as socially inappropriate, we should then consider who fixes what is correct and what is not. As linguists have recently highlighted, historically the « ideology of politeness » emerged at the same time as the codification and standardization of the English language. Politeness is thus connected with power. Rude expressions are for example excluded from Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language. The ideology is supported by the belief that impolite words and expressions will damage the perfect English standard language. In fact, impoliteness is metonymically associated with those that speak non-standard English. Thus excluding what is considered as impolite is in fact a way to politically and socially « contain » the low classes, to keep them in place in the margins of society. If correct grammar is equated with correct and polite behaviour, impoliteness is bound to be perceived as a threat to social and political order. Modern cases of politeness might reside in the politicians's political correctness. We shall see how this correctness paradoxically verges on impoliteness as it tends to throw a polite veil on matters that should be impolitely dealt with. Rudeness and insults have virtues of their own in society. ; Si l'on peut relier la politesse à des valeurs positives, et si l'impolitesse doit être perçue comme socialement inappropriée, il convient dès lors de considérer qui fixe ce qui est correct et ce qui ne l'est pas. Comme certains linguistes l'ont récemment mis en lumière, il y a concomittance historique entre l'« idéologie de la politesse » et la codification / standardisation de la langue anglaise. La politesse ne peut donc pas s'étudier en dehors d'une problématique de pouvoir. Les expressions considérées comme « impolies » sont par exemple exclues du Dictionary of the English Language de Johnson. L'idéologie est sous-tendue par la croyance selon laquelle mots et expressions familiers ...

International audience ; If politeness is connected to positive values, and if impoliteness is to be considered as socially inappropriate, we should then consider who fixes what is correct and what is not. As linguists have recently highlighted, historically the « ideology of politeness » emerged at the same time as the codification and standardization of the English language. Politeness is thus connected with power. Rude expressions are for example excluded from Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language. The ideology is supported by the belief that impolite words and expressions will damage the perfect English standard language. In fact, impoliteness is metonymically associated with those that speak non-standard English. Thus excluding what is considered as impolite is in fact a way to politically and socially « contain » the low classes, to keep them in place in the margins of society. If correct grammar is equated with correct and polite behaviour, impoliteness is bound to be perceived as a threat to social and political order. Modern cases of politeness might reside in the politicians's political correctness. We shall see how this correctness paradoxically verges on impoliteness as it tends to throw a polite veil on matters that should be impolitely dealt with. Rudeness and insults have virtues of their own in society. ; Si l'on peut relier la politesse à des valeurs positives, et si l'impolitesse doit être perçue comme socialement inappropriée, il convient dès lors de considérer qui fixe ce qui est correct et ce qui ne l'est pas. Comme certains linguistes l'ont récemment mis en lumière, il y a concomittance historique entre l'« idéologie de la politesse » et la codification / standardisation de la langue anglaise. La politesse ne peut donc pas s'étudier en dehors d'une problématique de pouvoir. Les expressions considérées comme « impolies » sont par exemple exclues du Dictionary of the English Language de Johnson. L'idéologie est sous-tendue par la croyance selon laquelle mots et expressions familiers risquent de nuire à la perfection de la langue anglaise standard. En fait, l'impolitesse est associée métonymiquement à ceux qui parlent un anglais non-standard. Ainsi exclure ce qui est considéré comme impoli c'est politiquement et socialement « contenir » les classes populaires, les maintenir à leur place aux marges de la société. Si une grammaire correcte équivaut à un comportement correct et poli, l'impolitesse ne peut qu'être perçue comme une menace à l'ordre social et politique. Or nous verrons dans cet article que l'on peut percevoir l'impolitesse et les insultes comme de véritables vertus en soi dans la société, comme de véritables forces pragmatiques contre-interpellatives. Par ailleurs, nous étudierons en quoi, dans le voile poli qu'il jette sur des sujets sociaux cruciaux, le phénomène du « politiquement correct » peut être considéré comme un avatar de l'idéologie de la politesse.