Grounded in naturally-occurring language data and drawing on findings from linguistic pragmatics and social psychology, Jonathan Culpeper. Politeness and Impoliteness Jonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University) 1. Introduction Thirty or so years ago politeness was a specialist, even somewhat. Impoliteness strategies. Jonathan Culpeper. Uploaded by. Jonathan Culpeper. Loading Preview. Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the .
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||15 September 2011|
|PDF File Size:||19.55 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.83 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Transcultural communicative practices of Muslim French youth. I conducted a impolitenses of impoliteness events reported by British undergraduates. This is not to say that it is easy: Human Communication Research 25 2: For each variable “there is not one value, but a tension between at least two interpretations of culpwper situation” Myers Broadly speaking, Leech a pursues the same line.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior Mouton de Gruyter, The study reported in Culpeper Terkourafi offers a coherent, rich, pragmatic account of politeness. Note that Brown and Levinson’s book was published in a sociolinguistics series, exemplifying interactional sociolinguistics. Thirdly, no publication has shown how relevance theory can produce effective analyses of stretches of naturally-occurring discourse, a limitation Watts Further criticisms are given in Eelen Derek Bousfield and Miriam A.
This leads us to our final consideration in this section, namely, the fact that context is inadequately handled in the classic politeness models, being reduced to a handful of social variables which do not reflect the complexity of real world interactive events for an excellent illustration of this, see Turner’s discussion of power.
Levinson’s particular contribution was to characterise generalised implicatures as a level of meaning between particularised implicatures and fully conventionalised non-defeasible implicatures. Hu ; Homuch modern writing on face draws upon the work of Goffman e. As a far as the label post-modern signals a concern with cultural and individual relativism and a dislike of universalising generalisations, it is accurate, but it brings some unwanted baggage with it, and so I will deploy the label discursive.
You will have observed that I have in the last two paragraphs largely been discussing the validity of the output strategies.
Politeness and Impoliteness | Jonathan Culpeper –
Turning to Brown and LevinsonI will review each of culpepeg aspects of the model noted in the previous section. Politeness always involves ipmoliteness overall contextual judgment; as is frequently pointed out, politeness is not solely determined by forms alone cf.
Clearly, politeness is not the issue here but rather “impoliteness”, an area I will attend to in section 3. Here, in the direct speech, we see a conventionalised insulting vocative, “you bitch”, and also a conventionalised dismissal, “get out of here”. The term is perhaps most commonly used in English in the idiom “losing face”, meaning that one’s public image suffers some damage, often resulting in humiliation or embarrassment.
So, what might a purely discursive approach to politeness look like? Matsumotofor example, points out that Japanese culture stresses the group more than the individual see also Ide ; Gu ; Mao ; Nwoye ; Wierzbicka , for similar culpeoer In brief, she proposes that there are two rules of pragmatic competence, one being ‘be clear’, which is formalised in terms of Grice’s Cooperative Principle, and the other being ‘be polite’, which is impoltieness in terms of a Politeness Principle.
Is there an East-West divide? Terkourafi a; see also Haugh b, for a related point.
What is not so clear is whether the label discursive applies to the whole resulting combination or culpeer the more discursive aspect. The surge in politeness studies has had profound effects on the study of pragmatics. People are actively involved in maintaining and enhancing their own faces, and not merely hoping for reciprocal facework.
Recent approaches to politeness have in fact impoliteneas to shift back towards Goffman e. The speaker’s face threatening intention can be worked out by means of an inference triggered by the flouting of a maxim. This ignores the multi-functionality and complexity of discourse situations see, for example, Thomas Regarding the constructions of participants, let us turn to Richard Watts, whose work on politeness, spanning more than two decades, culminated in his book, the most important work on politeness in recent years.
Facework, according to Goffman, is made up of “the actions taken by a person to make whatever he [sic] is doing consistent with face” Strategies The strategy in an impoliteness strategy A taxonomy of impoliteness strategies Are the impoliteness strategies valid?
There was a problem providing the content you requested
However, even the leading politeness discursive work has but some characteristics of a purely discursive approach and not impolitenezs.
Journal of Pragmatics 39 1: Is impolite language only used for anti-social purposes? Intercultural Pragmatics 5 3: Face is treated as discursively constructed within situated interactions. In Fine, Jonathan ed. Special issue of Pragmatics 18 4.