Intended and Unintended Offence

  • Carl Vogel
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 26)


This paper argues that politeness and impoliteness are integrally related to offence management. The outlines of a semantic theory of linguistic politeness are sketched. As a semantic theory, interfaces to both pragmatics and compositional syntax may be expected, but these are spelled out in companion papers.


offence disgust impoliteness politeness facework 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allan, K., Burridge, K.: Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachwerk, M., Vogel, C.: Establishing linguistic conventions in task-oriented primeval dialogue. In: Esposito, A., Vinciarelli, A., Vicsi, K., Pelachaud, C., Nijholt, A. (eds.) Communication and Enactment 2010. LNCS, vol. 6800, pp. 48–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bachwerk, M., Vogel, C.: Language and friendships: A co-evolution model of social and linguistic conventions. In: Scott-Phillips, T.C., Tamariz, M., Cartmill, E.A., Hurford, J.R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference (EvoLang9) The Evolution of Language, pp. 34–41. World Scientific, Singapore (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bousfield, D.: Impoliteness in Interaction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bousfield, D., Locher, M. (eds.): Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown, P., Levinson, S.: Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press (1987)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Culpeper, J.: Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In: Bousfield, D., Locher, M. (eds.) Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, pp. 17–44. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Culpeper, J.: Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offense. Cambridge University Press (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davidson, D.: Events as particulars. In: Davidson, D. (ed.) Essays on Actions & Events, pp. 181–187. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1980)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ekman, P.: Basic emotions. In: Dalgleish, T., Power, M. (eds.) Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, pp. 45–60. John Wiley & Sons (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goffman, E.: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday, New York (1956)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goffman, E.: On face-work. In: Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior, pp. 5–45. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (1967) (reprinted 2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hurford, J.: Biological evolution of the saussurean sign as a component of the language acquisition device. Lingua 77, 187–222 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson-Laird, P., Savary, F.: Illusory inferences: A novel class of erroneous deduction. Cognition 71, 191–229 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kelly, D.: Yuck! The Nature and Moral Significance of Disgust. MIT (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Locher, M., Watts, R.: Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In: Bousfield, D., Locher, M. (eds.) Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, pp. 77–99. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacNeill, D.: Growth points cross linguistically. In: Nuyts, J., Pederson, E. (eds.) Language and Conceptualization, Language, Culture & Cognition, pp. 190–212. Cambridge University Press (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Orwell, G.: Signet, New York (1949, 1984)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reichenbach, H.: Elements of Symbolic Logic. McMillan (1947)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schnurr, S., Marra, M., Holmes, J.: Impoliteness as a means of contesting power relations in the workplace. In: Bousfield, D., Locher, M. (eds.) Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, pp. 211–229. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taylor, T.J.: Mutual Misunderstanding: Scepticism and the Theorizing of Language and Interpretation. Duke University Press (1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Verkuyl, H.J.: A theory of aspectuality. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vogel, C., Woods, J.: Simulation of evolving linguistic communication among fallible communicators. In: Hurford, J., Fitch, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Evolution of Language, p. 116. Harvard University, Cambrige (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vogel, C., Woods, J.: A platform for simulating language evolution. In: Bramer, M., Coenen, F., Tuson, A. (eds.) Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXIII, Cambridge, UK, pp. 360–373 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computational Linguistics Group, Centre for Computing and Language Studies, School of Computer Science and StatisticsTrinity College DublinDublin 2Ireland

Personalised recommendations