Skip to main content
View expanded cover

Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society pp 421–445Cite as

Impoliteness Strategies

Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS,volume 4)

Abstract

The “impoliteness strategy”, a kind of parallel to the “politeness strategy”, has dominated research for decades and is still current. However, the notion of a “strategy” is poorly understood and rarely defined. This chapter begins by critically examining this notion, as it is used in linguistics. It argues that in politeness studies it has been overly focused on the idea of a rational linguistic means of achieving certain ends or goals. That a strategy might also involve the coordination of communication through routine and shared linguistic means that are recognised within particular communities seems to have been largely overlooked. The next part of this chapter outlines Culpeper’s (1996) taxonomy of impoliteness strategies, and follows with a critical review. It notes that most problems and controversies lie at the more abstract level of the “superstrategy”. Two particularly controversial areas are discussed. One is the relationship between directness and impoliteness strategies, and especially whether there is some correlation with the degree of offence caused. The other is the relationship between impoliteness strategies and context. The final part of the chapter outlines a more recent bottom-up framework of impoliteness strategies or triggers, and one that, echoing Terkourafi’s (e.g., 2001) work on politeness, places impoliteness conventionalized for particular contexts of use at the centre.

Keywords

  • Context
  • Conventionalization
  • Directness
  • Formulae
  • Impoliteness
  • Politeness
  • Strategy

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_16
  • Chapter length: 25 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-12616-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Patronising behaviour is perhaps more usually associated with cases where the producer has a more obvious claim to relative power. However, people can engineer a power relationship that suggests that the interlocutor has less power than they think they have. Talking back to a parent implies that the word of the other is far from decisive; it challenges a power hierarchy—it is patronising.

References

  • Arundale, Robert B. 2010. Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics 42:2078–2105.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, Paddy. 1987. The dark side of politeness: A pragmatic analysis of non-cooperative communication. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Christchurch: University of Canterbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, Paddy. 1990. Politeness revisited-the dark side. In New Zealand ways of speaking English, ed. Alan Bell and Janet Holmes, 277–293. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blas Arroyo, J. L. 2001. ‘No digachorradas…’. La descortesía en el debate político cara a cara. Una aproximación pragma-variacionista. Oralia 4:9–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashman, Holly. 2006. Impoliteness in children’s interactions in a Spanish/English bilingual community of practice. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 2 (2): 217–246.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Robert, Karen Tracy, and Frances Spisak. 1986. The discourse of requests: Assessment of a politeness approach. Human Communication Research 12:437–468.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25:349–367.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1:35–72.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, Jonathan, and Michael Haugh. 2014. Pragmatics and the English language. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield, and Anne Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35:1545–1579.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cupach, William R., and Sandra Metts. 1994. Facework. London: Sage.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dews, Shelly, and Ellen Winner. 1995. Muting the meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10:3–19.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dews, Shelly, and Ellen Winner. 1997. Attributing meaning to deliberately false utterances. In The problem of meaning: Behavioral and cognitive perspectives, ed. Charlotte Mandell and Allyssa McCabe, 377–414. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dews, Shelly, Joan Kaplan, and Ellen Winner. 1995. Why not say it directly? The social functions of irony. Discourse Processes 19:347–367.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dörnyei, Zoltan, and Mary Scott. 1997. Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning 47:173–210.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Enkvist, Nils Erik. 1987. Text strategies: Single, dual, multiple. In Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday. Volume II, ed. Ross Steele and Terry Threadgold, 203–211. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2010. Introduction: The status-quo and quo vadis of impoliteness research. Intercultural Pragmatics 7 (4): 535–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel. 2003. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Golden City: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed. Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Haugh, Michael. 2006. Emic perspectives on the positive-negative politeness distinction. Cultura, lenguaje y representación 3:17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, Michael. 2007. The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (1): 84–110.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lachenicht, Lance G. 1980. Aggravating language: a study of abusive and insulting language. International Journal of Human Communication 13 (4): 607–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. Activity types and language. Linguistics 17 (5–6): 356–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. Interactional biases in human thinking. In Social Intelligence and Interaction: Expressions and Implications of the Social Bias in Human Intelligence, ed. Esther N. Goody, 221–260. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, David K. 1969. Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locher, Miriam A., and Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1 (1): 9–33.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, and Patricia Bou-Franch. 2011. On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. Journal of Pragmatics 43:2578–2593.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, James. 2014. (Im)politeness at Prime Minister’s Questions in the U.K. Parliament. Pragmatics and Society 5 (1): 76–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlidou, Theodossia. 1991. Cooperation and the Choice of Linguistic Means: Some evidence from the use of the subjunctive in Modern Greek. Journal of Pragmatics 15:11–42.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Recanati, François. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Syntax and semantics 3, ed. Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 59–82. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shum, Winnie, and Cynthia Lee. 2013. (Im)politeness and disagreement in two Hong Kong Internet discussion forums. Journal of Pragmatics 50 (1): 52–83.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2002. Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 529–545.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2005. (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1 (1): 95–119.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2008. Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures 2nd ed. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terkourafi, Marina. 2001. Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A frame-based approach. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terkourafi, Marina. 2002. Politeness and formulaicity: Evidence from Cypriot Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 3:179–201.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Terkourafi, Marina. 2003. Generalised and particularised implicatures of politeness. In Perspectives on dialogue in the new millennium, ed. Peter Kühnlein, Hannes Rieser, and Henk Zeevat, 151–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terkourafi, Marina. 2005a. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1 (2): 237–262.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Terkourafi, Marina. 2005b. Pragmatic correlates of frequency of use: The case for a notion of “minimal context”. In Reviewing linguistic thought: Converging trends for the 21st century, ed. Sophia Marmaridou, Kiki Nikiforidou, and Eleni Antonopoulou, 209–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, Jenny. 1986. The dynamics of discourse: A pragmatic analysis of confrontational interaction, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lancaster

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, Karen, and Sarah J. Tracy. 1998. Rudeness at 911: Reconceptualizing face and face attack. Human Communication Research 25 (2): 225–251.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, Teun A., and Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viejobueno, Mercedes. 2005. How to be impolite: Rating offensive strategies. MA dissertation. Michigan State University. East Lansing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viejobueno, Mercedes, Preston, Carol G., and Dennis R. Preston. 2008. How to be impolite: Rating offensive strategies. In Standards and norms in the English language, ed. Miriam A. Locher and Jürg Strässler, 367–391. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weizman, Elda. 1985. Towards an analysis of opaque utterances: hints as a request strategy. Theoretical Linguistics 12 (1): 153–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weizman, Elda. 1989. Requestive hints. In Cross cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, ed. Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Gabriele Kasper, and Juliane House, 71–95. Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

    Jonathan Culpeper

Authors
  1. Jonathan Culpeper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Culpeper .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    Alessandro Capone

  2. Dept. of Lang & Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark

    Jacob L. Mey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Culpeper, J. (2016). Impoliteness Strategies. In: Capone, A., Mey, J. (eds) Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12615-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12616-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)