Abstract
Drawing on the recent contribution to the studies on linguistic impoliteness (Bousfield 2008), this chapter aims at examining and describing the role of “the inarticulate” in interpersonal conflict, with particular attention devoted to the dynamics of conflictive exchanges. “The inarticulate” is by all means a non-academic term referring to a range of off-record strategies such as silence, “wordy silence”, i.e. “a torrent of words that are not addressing the true issue” (Tannen 1990), white lies, compassionate untruths, concealments, speaking in quotes, etc. Understanding what is meant but not said involves a necessity to work out implicatures, but how easy is it to retrieve speaker intention in conflict situations? In light of the study of mental context in interaction (Kopytko 2002), one may attempt to identify the impact of the cognitive, affective and conative states and processes on the expression and perception of the above mentioned (non)verbal behaviors. With regard to conflict dynamics, the presentation will consider the emerging doubts about the Cooperative Principle; namely: is it always necessary to keep talking? Given the role of the mental context, how uncooperative is “the inarticulate”? Following the recent interest in discourse stylistics, especially in the relatively uncharted analysis of dramatic dialogues, the author will select conflictive exchanges between family members from modern American plays, e.g. by Eugene O’Neill, Tennessee Williams or Arthur Miller.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Bousfield (2008) in fact suggests that off-record FTAs should be assigned redressive strategies as well, since they are equally face-directed as on-record utterances.
- 2.
The Politeness Principle: Minimize the expression of impolite beliefs, maximize the expression of polite beliefs. It is further divided into submaxims of: Tact, Generosity, Approbation, Modesty, Agreement, Sympathy.
- 3.
Kopytko, R. (personal communication, 2010).
References
Bell, D. M. 1997. Innuendo. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 35–59.
Berntsen, D. and J. M. Kennedy. 1996. Unresolved contradictions specifying attitudes – in metaphor, irony, understatement and tautology. Poetics 24: 13–29.
Bigsby, C. W. E. 2000. Modern American drama, 1945 – 2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bousfield, D. 2008. Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brumark, A. 2006. Non-observance of Gricean maxims in family dinner table conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1206–1238.
Culpeper, J. 2005. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 35–72.
Culpeper, J., D. Bousfield and A. Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1545–1579.
Davies, B. L. 2007. Grice’s Cooperative Principle: Meaning and rationality. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 2308–2331.
Ephratt, M. 2008. The functions of silence. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1909–1938.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts, eds. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 4–58. New York: Academic Press.
Kopytko, R. 2002. The mental aspects of pragmatic theory. Poznań: Motivex.
Locher, M. 2004. Power and politeness in action. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Lowe, V. 1998. ‘Unhappy’ confessions in The Crucible. A pragmatic explanation. In Exploring the language of drama: From text to context, eds. P. Verdonk, J. Culpeper and M. Short, 128–141. London and New York: Routledge.
Lumsden, D. 2008. Kinds of conversational cooperation. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1896–1908.
Mandala, S. 2007. Twentieth-century drama dialogue as ordinary talk. Speaking between the lines. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Mey, J. L. 1993. Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Miller, A. [1947] 2006. Death of a Salesman. In: S. Barnet, W. Burto, and W. E. Cain. An introduction to literature: Fiction, poetry, and drama, 1564–1631. New York: Pearson Longman.
Mooney, A. 2004. Co-operation, violations and making sense. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 899–920.
O’Neill, E. [1955] 2002. Long Day’s Journey Into Night. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Shepard, S. [1977] 2006. Buried Child. New York: Vintage Books.
Tannen, D. 1985. Silence: Anything but. In Perspectives on silence, eds. D. Tannen and M. Saville-Troike, 93–111. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tannen, D. 1990. Silence as conflict management in fiction and drama: Pinter’s Betrayal and a short story, Great Wits. In Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments and conversations, ed. A. D. Grimshaw, 260–279. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in interaction. London and New York: Longman.
Walton, D. 1999. The fallacy of many questions: On the notions of complexity, loadedness and unfair entrapment in interrogative theory. Argumentation 13: 379–383.
Williams, T. [1954] 2004. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. New York: New Directions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bobin, J. (2011). “When We Talk, It Never Materializes”: Functions of Off-Record Communication in Conflict Talk. In: Pawlak, M., Bielak, J. (eds) New Perspectives in Language, Discourse and Translation Studies. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20083-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20083-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-20082-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-20083-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)