Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

(Im)politeness in Fictional Texts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness

Abstract

This chapter discusses the importance of fictional data for the study of (Im)politeness. After making the case for the value of fiction as linguistic data, the chapter goes on to survey work from stylistics and pragmatics on (Im)politeness in fiction that has led to new insights into the phenomenon. In particular, it discusses how fictional texts have been used to test, counter and refine the classic Brown and Levinson (Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) model of politeness. It considers how deviation from pragmatic norms in the pursuit of (Im)politeness can be explained in terms of foregrounding theory, the linchpin of stylistics. It then goes on to consider the functional effects of (Im)politeness in fiction, including its capacity for contributing to characterisation and plot development. To demonstrate some of these effects, the chapter concludes with an analysis of a scene from the US sitcom Friends.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    A schema (pl. schemas/schemata) is a bundled or organised package of knowledge an individual holds and which would be expected to be gained and refreshed or updated through social interaction or exposure to other socialising phenomena (e.g. reading literature, consuming the news, and so on). Cook (1994: 11) defines a schema as being a ‘mental representation of typical instances’. Simpson (2004: 89)explains that such ‘typical instances’ are divisible into ‘frames’ (a term, borrowed from Minsky 1975, for the physical, but non-temporal characteristics of a situation, place, or type of person) and ‘scripts’ (a term borrowed from Schank and Abelson 1977 for the logical, or expected temporal flow of events relating to or caused by the situation, place or type of person). Essentially, schemas are cognitively stored, socially acquired ‘shortcuts’ to understanding the physical or social world in which individuals find themselves.

  2. 2.

    Not knowing someone well would intuitively correlate with a high degree of social distance; however, in this case, Brown and Gilman appear to be coding distance as ‘low’ to signal the impact of the social distance. In this example, the impact is on the determination of the overall weightiness of the FTA as one component in the calculation (also including ‘relative power’ and ‘ranking of the imposition’) of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) formula: W x = D(S,H) + P (H,S) and R x (where W x = overall weightiness of the FTA which is equal to D(S,H) (Distance obtaining between the speaker and the hearer) plus P(S,H) (Power of the hearer over the speaker) and R x (the Ranking of the imposition made). Consider challenging or threatening the face of a close, personal friend whom one has known and liked for years. The fact that the social distance is so close would have a ‘high’ impact on the determination of the weightiness of the FTA.

References

  • Ackroyd, P. 1985. Hawksmoor. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biber, D. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Conversation Text Types: A Multidimensional Analysis. In Le poids des mots: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Statistical Analysis of Textual Data, ed. G. Purnelle, C. Fairon, and A. Dister, 15–34. Louvain: Presses universitaires de Louvain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonacchi, S., and M. Mela. 2015. Multimodal Analysis of Low-Sstakes Conflicts: A Proposal for a Dynamic Model. In Conflict and Multimodal Communication, ed. F. D’Errico, I. Poggi, A. Vinciarelli, and L. Vincze, 267–294. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bousfield, D. 2007. “Never a Truer Word Said in Jest”: A Pragmastylistic Analysis of Impoliteness as Banter in Henry IV, Part I. In Contemporary Stylistics, ed. M. Lambrou and P. Stockwell, 195–208. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Researching Impoliteness and Rudeness: Issues and Definitions. In Interpersonal Pragmatics, ed. M. Locher and S.L. Graham, 101–134. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bousfield, D., and D. McIntyre. 2011. Emotion and Empathy in Martin Scorcese’s Goodfellas: A Case Study of the “Funny Guy” Scene. In Telecinematic Discourse: Approaches to the Language of Films and Television Series, ed. R. Piazza, M. Bednarek, and F. Rossi, 105–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, W. 1981. A Good Man in Africa. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremond, C. 1973. Logique du récit. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R., and A. Gilman. 1989. Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies. Language in Society 18: 159–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., and S.C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. 2007. ‘Introduction to Derek Bousfield’s “‘Never a Truer Word Said in Jest’: A Pragmastylistic Analysis of Impoliteness as Banter in Henry IV, Part I”. In Contemporary Stylistics, ed. M. Lambrou and P. Stockwell, 195–196. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, G. 1994. Discourse and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J. 1996. Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. Impoliteness in Dramatic Dialogue. In Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context, ed. J. Culpeper, M. Short, and P. Verdonk, 83–95. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001. Language and Characterisation: People in Plays and Other Texts. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J., and M. Kytö. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J., D. Bousfield, and A. Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness Revisited: With Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (10–11): 1545–1579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, M., and G. Malins. 1995. The One Where Heckles Dies, Friends, Series 2, episode 3. Burbank: Warner Bros.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dynel, M. 2012. Setting Our House in Order: The Workings of Impoliteness in Multi-Party Film Discourse. Journal of Politeness Research 8 (2): 161–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts, ed. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu, Y. 1990. Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14 (2): 237–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J., and S. Schnurr. 2005. Politeness, Humour and Gender in the Workplace. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1: 121–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jucker, A. 2016. Politeness in Eighteenth-Century Drama: A Discursive Approach. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 12 (1): 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kizelbach, U. 2014. The Pragmatics of Early Modern Politics: Power and Kingship in Shakespeare’s History Plays. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopytko, R. 1995. Linguistic politeness strategies in Shakespeare’s plays. In Historical pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English, ed. A.H. Jucker, 515–540. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, R. 1973. The Logic of Politeness: Or Minding Your P’s and Q’s. In Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. Pragmatic Principles in Shaw’s You Never Can Tell. In Language, Text and Context, ed. M. Toolan, 259–278. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, D. 2006. Point of View in Plays. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, D. 2008. Integrating multimodal analysis and the stylistics of drama: A multimodal perspective on Ian McKellen’s Richard III. Language and Literature 17(4): 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. 2002. Rethinking Politeness, Impoliteness and Gender Identity. In Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis, ed. L. Litosselitie and J. Sunderland, 69–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. Gender and Impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (2): 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M. 1975. A Framework for Representing Knowledge. In The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. P. Winston, 211–280. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukařovský, J. 1983. Standard Language and Poetic Language. In Praguiana: Some Basic and Less Known Aspects of the Prague Linguistic School, ed. J. Vachek and L. Dušková, 165–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mullany, L. 2008. “Stop Hassling Me!” Impoliteness, Power and Gender Identity in the Professional Workplace. In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. D. Bousfield and M. Locher, 231–254. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quaglio, P. 2009. Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends vs. Natural Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C., and R.P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: an Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sell, R. 1992. Literary Texts and Diachronic Aspects of Politeness. In Politeness in Language. Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice, ed. R. Watts, S. Ide, and K. Ehlich, 109–129. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semino, E., and M. Short. 2004. Corpus Stylistics: Speech, Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Writing. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, M. 1996. Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, P. 1989. Politeness Phenomena in Ionesco’s The Lesson. In Language, Discourse and Literature, ed. R. Carter and P. Simpson, 171–193. London: Unwin and Hyman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, J. 2004. Trust the text. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, M. 1993. British Traditions in Text Analysis: From Firth to Sinclair. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. M. Baker, G. Francis, and E. Tognini-Bonelli, 1–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Peer, W. 1980. Stylistics and Psychology. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, V. 2011. Making Requests by Chinese EFL Learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK

    Dan McIntyre

  2. Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

    Derek Bousfield

Authors
  1. Dan McIntyre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Derek Bousfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan McIntyre .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept of Linguistics & English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom

    Jonathan Culpeper

  2. School of Languages and Cultures, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Michael Haugh

  3. Dept of Linguistics and Modern Languages, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, United Kingdom

    Dániel Z. Kádár

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McIntyre, D., Bousfield, D. (2017). (Im)politeness in Fictional Texts. In: Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., Kádár, D. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-37507-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-37508-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation