ICIS Newsletter - August 2014 (Plain Text Version)
|
||
|
In this issue: |
REFLECTING ON THE CONCEPT OF IMPOLITENESS: INSIGHTS FROM RESEARCH
As part of social interaction, politeness has received generous attention in a range of fields including communication, anthropology, linguistics, gender studies, and language acquisition. Many researchers (See Additional Resources) have looked at various aspects of politeness, both linguistic (e.g., speech acts, use of honorifics, politeness routines and formulas) and nonverbal (e.g., eye contact, proxemics and chronemics). However, the other side of the spectrum—impoliteness—has not received nearly as much attention as politeness. In earlier research, impoliteness was either ignored or looked at as “a pragmatic failure to meet the politeness principles of talk” (Limberg, 2009, p. 1377). Nevertheless, impoliteness can sometimes be purposefully used for achieving certain pragmatic goals; thus, it cannot be fully explained by existing politeness theories. What the Research Says In order to better understand the nature of an impolite behavior as a sociolinguistic and intercultural phenomenon, I looked at several studies that focused on impoliteness. The main criterion I used for the selection of studies was the time of publication: I primarily looked at the research that was conducted over the past 10–15 years. Only one article—Culpeper (1996)—is an exception of this criterion, yet I included it in the analysis because the study makes a first attempt to build a framework for addressing impoliteness as a sociolinguistic phenomenon; thus, it can be considered as pioneer research in the study of impoliteness. The examination of the selected studies has demonstrated that whereas some researchers are concerned with the description of impoliteness strategies (e.g., Culpeper, 1996; 2009), not much has been done to investigate how these strategies are employed in different contexts and between interlocutors of various relationships. Nevertheless, the main conclusions of this analysis can be summarized as follows: Expanding the view on impoliteness Studies of impoliteness should embrace a more complex view of this phenomenon rather than an oversimplistic view in which impoliteness is merely seen as a desire to attack or threaten face and therefore cause social conflict or disharmony (Culpeper, 1996; Haugh & Bousfield, 2012). In fact, the purpose of mock impoliteness (banter) is to foster a social intimacy and solidarity. Culpeper (1996) provides the following example of this type of impoliteness: “I once turned up late for a party, and upon explaining to the host that I had mistaken 17.00 hours for 7 o'clock, I was greeted with a smile and the words ‘You silly bugger!’” (p. 352). In other contexts—such as army training and literary drama—people may also utilize impoliteness for “non-offence” purposes. Looking at impoliteness in a discourse Impolite behavior cannot be examined in isolation, but should be analyzed as part of discourse, considering the verbal exchanges of both interlocutors. Bousfield (2007) looked at the dynamics of impolite exchanges by focusing on the three stages of the discoursal context: the beginnings—the triggers that give ride to conflicting situations and impolite behavior; the middles—the options (respond or not) that interlocutors have in the impoliteness discourse; and the ends—the resolution options (e.g., submission, third party intervention, compromise, stand-off, and withdrawal) of the impoliteness discourse. Although this model certainly provides a further understanding of impoliteness in a discourse, the resolution options presented might not always guarantee successful resolution of the conflict, nor does it take into account the concept of apology, which could change the direction of the impoliteness discourse. Considering the context The role of the context cannot be underestimated when judging a particular behavior as either polite or impolite (Culpeper, 1996; Haugh & Bousfield, 2012; Limberg, 2009; Mills, 2007). For example, Haugh and Bousfield (2012) collected data from male-to-male interactions among Australian English and North West British English speakers. They found a variety of conversational topics that triggered impolite utterances, such as current/past relationships, sexual preferences, habits/personality, gaming, items of cultural significance, the job or profession (lack of abilities or skills in the professional area), and the lack of toughness (lack of financial independence or dependence on one’s parents). If analyzed in isolation, many expressions found in the datasets in this study could be characterized as offensive. However, considering the contextual factors along with the relationships among the participants of the interactions, their supposedly impolite expressions can be judged as jokes or mockery rather than as offence. Considering interlocutors’ relationships Along with contextual factors, the role of interlocutors should not be overlooked. Limberg’s (2009) study, for instance, demonstrated that in the situations where both interlocutors appeared to have an equal status (friends, roommates, classmates), compliance tended to be chosen most frequently as a response to a verbal threat. The author argues that friends tend to choose compliance because, in comparison to the importance of their friendships, conflicts over impoliteness are perceived as trivial. Including paralinguistic parameters Single lexically and grammatically based strategies cannot fully explain the complex phenomenon of impoliteness, let alone interpret the reasons why certain impolite strategies are utilized. In other words, we need to look not only at what is said, but also at how it is said. To this end, Culpeper, Bousfield, and Wichmann (2003) explored the role of prosody—the change of pitch and the loudness of voice—in employing impoliteness strategies. They asserted that paralinguistics needs to be taken into consideration in the study of impoliteness strategies. Having an individualistic rather than a nation-wide look at impoliteness Different cultures should not be characterized as favoring “positive politeness” or “negative politeness.” Mills (2007), for example, argues that even within one culture, there are several subcultural groups (on the social level) that may be characterized as negative polite or positive polite. The entire nation, indeed, “cannot speak with one voice” (p. 1058).
In addition to these insights on impoliteness, the analysis of the research on impoliteness has also demonstrated that certain areas of the described phenomenon deserve further investigation. The following topics appear the most salient: 1. Listener perception. Our knowledge of
impoliteness as a sociolinguistic phenomenon will be deepened by
investigating it from the perspective of the recipient of the
impoliteness. In other words, researchers need to look at how the use of
different impoliteness strategies is perceived by the hearer and how
that person responds in reaction. Hopefully these and other issues will be addressed in future studies to help us expand our knowledge of the phenomenon of impolite behavior. References Bousfield, D., (2007). Beginnings, middles and ends: A biopsy of the dynamics of impolite exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 2185–2216. Culpeper, J., (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–367. Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545–1579. Haugh, M., & Bousfield, D. (2012). Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1099–1114. Limberg, H. (2009). Impoliteness and threat responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1376–1394. Mills, S., (2007). Impoliteness in a cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1047–1060.
Elena Shvidko is a PhD student in the Department of English at Purdue University. Her research interests include second language socialization, second language writing, teacher training, and TESOL. |
|