ENL 420

PRAGMATICS

GROUP F

Topic:
THE CONCEPT OF IMPOLITENESS
Group Members

1. JOHNSON, Omotefe Iyinoluwa. ART1900502

2. Ome-Akpotu Anthonette Okeoghene ART2008867
3. Erute Serena Ogheneyoma ART2008888
4. Chidi Onyemaechi ART1900419
5. JENEWARI, Salome Okpara. ART2008860
6. Joseph Ezinne Princess ART1900503
7. Okosun Ejehiokhin Perpetual ART1900547
8. Ilegbenose Osemudiamhen Blessing ART1900487
9. Favour Apelatan ART1900408
10. Ajegba Benedicta Emike ART1910271
THE CONCEPT OF IMPOLITENESS
Definitions:
Jonathan Culpeper defines impoliteness as "the use of strategies to attack the interlocutor's
face and create social disruption." Impoliteness draws heavily from the linguistic subject of
face.
Marriam Locher and Derek Bousfield define impoliteness as "behaviour that is face-
aggravating in a particular context".
Impoliteness should be analysed independently as a field of its own and not merely as a
deviation from politeness studies. There are many definitions of the term “Impoliteness” but
similar ideas found in all of these definitions are face, social norms, intentionality and
emotions. Impoliteness always involves emotional consequences for the target (victim).
Impoliteness is a matter of perspective. Utterances are considered impolite or not based on
the situations at hand and how what is said relates to such event or situation. The closest
synonyms to Impoliteness are rudeness, insolence, bad manners, and boldness.

Face and Social norms.

Goffman (1967) defines face as "the particular image we present about ourselves; it is the
positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has
taken during a particular contact" (5). Face is an image of self delineation in terms of
approved social attributes.
Types of Face.
There are three types of face: quality, relational, and social identity.
Quality face: Spencer Oatey defines quality face as the value we effectively claim for
ourselves in terms of such personal qualities as these; competence, abilities, appearance etc,
and is closely associated with our sense of personal self-esteem.
When deciding whether quality face is involved in a potentially impolite interaction the
question asked is: “does the interaction evoke an understanding that something counters
positive value which a participant claims not only to have as a specific individual but to be
assumed by other participants as having?”
Examples;
Me: I am going to see Festus today.
Joy: I hope it's not with that outfit.
Me: (embarrassingly) Babe, shut up! (In a joke way).

Social Identity Face: According to Spencer Oatey (2002:540), social identity face is
concerned with the value that we effectively claim for ourselves, in terms of social or group
roles and is closely associated with our sense of public worth. In contrast with quality face,
social identity face is based on group or the collective.
When deciding whether social identity face is involved in a potentially impolite interaction
the question to be asked is: “does the interaction evoke an understanding that something
counters positive values which a participant claims not only to have in common with all
other members in a particular group, but to be assumed by other participants as having?”
For instance, a person from a particular country may feel a sense of pride and attachment to
their national identity, and they may strive to uphold certain cultural values or norms
associated with their nationality. This aspect of their identity influences how they interact
with others and how they present themselves in social situations, reflecting their social
identity face.
Examples:
Yoruba men are very caring.
The team loves their captain.

Relational face:
In a comprehensive review article, Chen et Al. (2006: 153) states that the relational self
reflects who a person is in relation to his or her significant others. The inclusion of
'significant others'- referring not to merely partners but to any person or group of people in a
relationship considered significant (e.g partners, family, friends).
When deciding whether relational face is involved in a potentially impolite interaction, the
question to be asked is: "does the interaction evoke an understanding that something
counters positive values about the relations which a participant claims not only to have
with a significant other or others but to be assumed by that/ those significant others and /
or other participants as having?”
An example of relational face quality according to Spencer-Oatey's framework could be seen
in a scenario where a manager gives constructive feedback to an employee. The manager
approaches the situation with sensitivity and tact, acknowledging the employee's efforts and
contributions before offering suggestions for improvement. By doing so, the manager
demonstrates respect for the employee's competence and autonomy (maintaining their
positive and negative face), while also fostering a positive and supportive relationship
(nurturing their relational face). This approach helps to preserve the employee's dignity and
self-esteem while addressing areas for development, ultimately enhancing the quality of the
relational face in the workplace dynamic.

Social Norms.
According to social norms view of politeness summarized up by Fraser (1990:220), each
society has a particular set of norms consisting of more or less explicit rules that prescribe a
certain behaviour, a state of affairs, or a way of thinking in context. A positive evaluation
(politeness) arises when an action is in congruence with the norm, a negative evaluation
(Impoliteness = rudeness) when action is to the contrary.
Politeness, in this sense, subsumes notions such as good manners, social etiquette, social
grace e.g parents teaching their children how to greet properly.
Types of social norms
The equity social norm: Adam (1965) put forward the idea that each member of a
community is entitled to a quantity of resources or rewards that are in proportion to his or her
investment or contribution.
The reciprocity social norm: Gouldner (1960) put forward the idea that behaviour, pro-
social, anti-social or of some other kind, should be matched.
The social responsibility social norm: Deutsch (1975) put forward the idea that the more
needy should be allocated a greater proportion of the resources or rewards.
These social norms infuse a wide variety of social contexts. Consider the notion of ‘speaking
rights’. At a meeting, there may be a sense that the person who invested the most time in
writing a report should be given the most time to talk about it (the equity social norm), that
discourse perceived to be polite should be met with polite discourse (e.g. the person who is
thanked for writing the report may thank the committee for giving them the opportunity to
write it ie the reciprocity social norm), and that those who have the greatest need to speak (ie
the report affects them the most) are granted a greater proportion of the speaking time
compared with others (the social responsibility social norm).
All three of these social norms underpin people’s sense of fairness. There is an important
connection here with morality. Violating fairness is a matter of being immoral.
The violation of the social norms of behaviour leads to the attribution of immorality.
Impoliteness can involve such violations. Interestingly, people’s perceptions of fairness are
not determined solely by whether people comply with the above three social norms or not.

Intentionality and Emotions

Intention is not a fixed or pre-determined mental state that guides communication, but rather,
a dynamic and negotiable construct that emerge from interaction. Intention can be influenced
by various factors such as the speaker’s goals, the context, the norms, and the expectation of
the participants. Jonathan Culpeper challenges the traditional view that intentionality is a
necessary or sufficient condition for impoliteness.
Malle and Knob, who have thoroughly investigated ‘people folk’ notion of intentionality
and intention, concludes that performing an action intentionally requires the presence of five
components namely: a desire for an outcome, beliefs about an action that leads to the
outcome, an intention to perform the action, skill to perform the action and awareness of
fulfilling the intention while performing the action.
For example, we are thereby intentionally writing a self-referential example to illustrate our
model - that is, we wanted to provide a vivid illustration (desire): we thought that a self-
referential example might be vivid (belief): we therefore decide to write such an example
(intention): we had the skill to do so(skill) and we were aware of fulfilling our intention
(awareness) while writing the example.
Through Malle and Knobe’s investigation, it is revealed that the concept is hierarchical, and
this sheds light on the distinction between intention and intentionality. An intention is an
attribution that links desire (for an outcome) and belief (about a plan by which an action can
achieve a certain outcome) to an action. It requires desire and belief as a necessary condition.
Intentionality is an attribution that requires intention and also both skill (i.e., the actor's
ability to bring about the outcome) and awareness (at least a minimal conscious awareness).

Intentionality and Impoliteness

According to Jonathan Culpeper, impoliteness occurs when the speaker communicates face
attack intentionally or the hearer perceives or constructs behaviour as intentionally face
attacking or a combination of both.
There are two types of offence, the first is face attack, which can also be referred to as 'a
threat to face'. This means that the offending person appears to have acted maliciously and
spiteful with the intention of causing an open insult. The second one is incidental offence,
this type of offence is not done out of spite but as a bye product of something else. For
example, tutors regularly give students critical comments which may have potentially
offensive consequences, but this is a by-product of helping the students to improve, not the
primary goal – the tutor is not (usually) seeking to offend the student.
Consider this interaction:
[Former Vice-Chancellor of Lancaster University (V-C) in the UK speaking to the woman
(W) sitting next to him at a classical music concert during the interval]
V-C: When’s it due?
W:[pause] I’m not pregnant.
Here, the Vice-Chancellor assumed that woman sitting next to him was pregnant, presumably
on the basis that she looked physically larger than usual. Given that she is not pregnant, the
utterance exposes a potentially impolite assumption, namely, that she looks unusually big or
fat. However, it is unlikely that he intended to cause offence, but it was still impolite. From
the example given, it is drawn that intentionality is not an essential condition for
impoliteness.
Emotion and Offence/ Impoliteness
The traditional approach to human emotion considered emotional displays as a reflex of a
physiological state
According to Culpeper, emotion is both a cause and an effect of impoliteness. For
example, a person’s emotional display can look inappropriate in particular situations. For
example, laughing and smiling at a funeral.
The result of this emotional display will make the guest upset and think that you don't care,
bringing about impoliteness. On the one hand, emotions can motivate impoliteness, as people
may use language to express their anger, frustration, or contempt towards others. On the other
hand, emotions can also be the result of impoliteness, as people may feel hurt, offended, or
annoyed by the impolite behaviour of others

Impoliteness Strategies
According to Culpepper, impoliteness strategies are linguistic behaviours used to
intentionally offend or disrespect others. Some of these strategies are explained below:
1. Bald-on-Record Impoliteness: This strategy involves a face threatening act (a threat to a
person's self image). This kind of impoliteness is performed in a direct and explicit manner
without an attempt to soften the message or make it less provoking. It includes blunt
statements, commands, offensive language used without regard for the other person's
feelings. This does not put people's face or feelings into consideration. Examples include:
"Shut up!", "You are a fool", etc.

2. Positive Impoliteness: This involves the use of strategy that is performed or is aimed to
create a sense of social distance or detachment. That is, to damage the addressee's face want.
This includes behaviors such as avoiding interaction, ignoring the other person or minimizing
the importance of their presence or contributions. This also includes the use of identity
markers in addressing individuals. Instead of using a person's name to address he/she, one
tend to use the title, "Mr, Miss" etc.

3. Negative Impoliteness: This impoliteness highlights strategies aimed at undermining the

addressee's sense of face or their desire to be free from imposition or intrusion. This is
anything that poses threat to the freedom of the addressee's face. Examples are:
Frightening: Making someone think something bad will happen to them.
Acting Superior: Treating someone like they're less important
Invading personal space: Getting too close to someone or asking personal questions.
Blaming someone directly: Saying "you" to point out someone's flaws or mistakes.
Interrupting: Cutting someone while they are speaking.

4. Off Record Impoliteness: This involves conveying impoliteness indirectly, often through
implicatures (implied meaning), where one's intention clearly outweighs others. This allow
the speaker to express negative sentiments without directly confronting the other person. An
example is when you are having a conversation with a colleague who tends to talk too much
and dominate discussions. Instead of directly telling he/she to stop talking so much, you
indirectly convey your annoyance through off record impoliteness by saying "Some people
just love the sound of their own voice, don't they?". This statement does not directly tell
your colleague to stop talking, but it subtly hints at your irritation with their behaviour.
5. Withholding Impoliteness: This refers to deliberately omitting polite behaviour in
situations where it would typically be expected. Examples include:
Failing to thank someone for a gift or ignoring a greeting can be interpreted as a deliberate
act of impoliteness.

Implicational Impoliteness
Implicational impoliteness refers to subtle behaviours in communication that can come across
as rude or offensive. These behaviours might seem simple, like a brief word or gesture, but
they can have a big effect on how people perceive the conversation. To understand
implicational impoliteness, it is important to think about the bigger picture — things like the
social rules we follow and the emotions involved in the conversation. Basically, implicational
impoliteness is about noticing and understanding the small hints of disrespect or offense that
might be present in how people talk to each other.
Implicational impoliteness is classified into three groups:
1. Form –driven impoliteness
2. Convention- driven Impoliteness
3. Context-driven Impoliteness

Form-Driven Impoliteness
This impoliteness triggered by formal aspects of behaviour like insinuation, innuendo, and
snide remarks. These behaviours can hurt people's feelings and social standing. Unlike polite
actions where you can interpret them differently, implicational impoliteness doesn't offer
polite alternatives, for instance:
• Insults: Insults directly attack someone’s character or abilities.
Example: “You’re so incompetent; it’s painful to watch.” The speaker intentionally
undermines the recipient’s competence.
• Swearing and Profanity: Swearing uses offensive language to express anger or disdain.
Example: “Go to [expletive] and leave me alone!” The speaker’s frustration is evident,
intensifying the impoliteness.
• Sarcasm: it involves saying the opposite of what you mean, often mockingly.
Example: “Oh, great job! Because clearly, setting the building on fire was the smartest
move.” The tone reveals the true negative sentiment behind seemingly positive words.
Convention- Driven Impoliteness
Implicational impoliteness driven by conventions include behaviours like sarcasm, teasing,
and certain types of humour labelled as harsh or bitter jokes. These behaviours often involve
mixed messages, combining elements that could be interpreted politely with those that could
be seen as impolite. For instance, teasing involves intentional provocation accompanied by
playful markers, which can signal that the provocation is not meant to be taken seriously. The
context plays a crucial role in determining whether these mixed messages are interpreted as
impolite. Convention-driven impoliteness violates social norms.
Consider these examples:
• Ignoring Social Norms: For example, Not saying “thank you” after receiving a favour. The
absence of gratitude violates the expected norm.
• Interrupting Conversations: For example, Abruptly saying, “Let me finish!” during a serious
discussion. The interruption challenges the listener’s face.

Context-Driven Impoliteness
Impoliteness primarily driven by strong contextual expectations, focusing on cases where the
trigger is not marked and there is no mismatch involving conventional politeness formulas. It
divides the material into two groups: unmarked behaviour and the total absence of behaviour.
Unmarked Behaviour: Language users typically rely on regularities to aid real-time language
processing. Brown and Levinson's bald-on record strategy involves unmarked utterances, but
their contexts and functions differ from what the author has in mind. They discuss scenarios
where face-threatening acts (FTA) are done without fear of retribution, often in situations of
power asymmetry.
Power Dynamics and Perception of Impoliteness: Power dynamics influence the perception
of impoliteness. It argues that the exercise of power perceived as socially legitimate is less
likely to be interpreted as impolite. The judgment of impoliteness depends heavily on
whether the exercise of power is perceived as an abuse. English informants show sensitivity
to patronizing behaviour, and potentially impolite utterances by individuals exercising
perceived legitimate power may be perceived as less impolite.
Examples of context-driven impoliteness:
• Irony and Mock Impoliteness: Sometimes, speakers use irony to express impoliteness in a
playful or teasing manner. For instance, Saying, “Oh, you’re such a wonderful friend!” with
a sarcastic tone to convey the opposite sentiment.
• Mixed Messages: An utterance may appear polite on the surface but actually carry an
impolite attitude. For instance, “You’re a fine friend!” said scornfully, implying the opposite.
• Expectations and Unmarked Utterances: In certain contexts, unmarked (non-
conventionalized) utterances can be impolite. For example, Saying nothing when expected to
express gratitude—this silence can signal impoliteness.
• Limited Shared Knowledge: In intercultural communication, where common ground is
lacking, impoliteness can arise. For instance, Non-native speakers may focus on the
propositional meaning of an utterance due to limited shared knowledge
Impoliteness Events: Co-text and Context
Culpeper describes impoliteness events as instances where individuals violate social norms of
politeness and respect within communication. These events involve actions or words that
violate social norms, expectations, or conventions of politeness.
These events can range from direct insults to more subtle forms of rudeness, such as
interrupting someone while they are speaking, to more overt forms of disrespect, such as
insulting or mocking someone.
Impoliteness events can occur in various social interactions, such as conversations with
family and friends, interactions with colleagues or acquaintances, or encounters with
strangers in public spaces. These events can be intentional or unintentional and may be
motivated by factors such as frustration, anger, power dynamics, social status, or personal
emotions.
Jonathan Culpeper emphasizes the importance of considering both the co-text and context
when analysing impoliteness events.
Co-text refers to the linguistic and communicative features surrounding a particular utterance
or action that contributes to its meaning. This includes the words and phrases used, the tone
of voice, body language, and other non-verbal cues that shape the interpretation of
impoliteness in communication.
Context encompasses the broader social, cultural, and situational factors that influence
communication. This includes the setting in which the interaction takes place, the relationship
between the interlocutors, power dynamics, and cultural norms and values that shape the
communication. The context can influence how impoliteness is perceived and interpreted by
the participants.

Co-textual Analysis: Culpeper examines how impoliteness is manifested linguistically

within discourse. This involves analysing the immediate linguistic context surrounding
impoliteness events, such as specific words, phrases, or speech acts that contribute to the
impoliteness. For example:
Direct insults: "You're such an idiot!"
Sarcastic remarks: "Oh, great job on that, your effort is greatly appreciated and not late."
Interruptions: Cutting someone off mid-sentence without acknowledging their contribution.

Contextual Factors: Culpeper explores the broader contextual factors that influence
impoliteness events. This includes:
Cultural Norms: Cultural norms play a significant role in shaping what is considered polite
or impolite behaviour within a society. Different cultures have varying expectations regarding
appropriate communication styles, levels of directness, and expressions of respect.
For example: In some cultures, direct criticism or confrontation may be perceived as
impolite, while in others, it may be viewed as honest communication.
• Gestures, such as maintaining eye contact or bowing, can also convey different meanings
across cultures.
• In Nigeria, receiving a gift with your left hand is considered impolite and frowned upon.

Power Dynamics: Power dynamics refer to the distribution of authority or influence within a
social interaction. Impoliteness often occurs in situations where there is a perceived or real
imbalance of power between individuals.
For Example: A manager in a company dismisses a suggestion made by a junior employee
without considering it. The power dynamic between the manager and the employee
contributes to the impoliteness, as the manager's authority leads to a lack of respect for the
subordinate's input.

Social Relationships: The nature of the relationship between interlocutors influences how
impoliteness is perceived and tolerated. Close relationships may allow for more leeway in
terms of impolite language or behaviour, whereas interactions with strangers or acquaintances
may require greater adherence to social norms of politeness.
Examples:
• Among close friends, playful teasing may involve using impolite language in a light-hearted
manner. For instance, friends might jokingly call each other names or make sarcastic remarks
without causing offense, as the strong bond of friendship allows for more leeway in
communication.
• Friends may engage in banter or teasing that would be considered impolite if exchanged
between strangers.
• Family members may use direct language or expressions of frustration without causing
offense, due to the strength of their relationship bonds.

Situational Factors: The specific context in which communication occurs can impact the
perception of impoliteness. Factors such as the setting, purpose of the interaction, and social
expectations all contribute to how impoliteness is interpreted.
For Example;
During a formal dinner party, a guest interrupts the host while they are speaking, displaying
impoliteness. The setting of a formal gathering imposes social expectations of respectful
behaviour, making the interruption more noticeable and inappropriate.
Impoliteness Events: Types
Chapter 7 of Jonathan Culpeper's Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offense delves
into different types of impoliteness events, including affective, coercive, entertainment, and
institutional impoliteness:
1. Affective Impoliteness: Affective impoliteness involves language use that aims to express
negative emotions or attitudes toward the addressee. This type of impoliteness is often driven
by emotions such as anger, frustration, or irritation. Practical examples of affective
impoliteness include:
• Direct insults: Using offensive language or derogatory terms to insult or demean someone.
For example, calling someone a derogatory name or using profanity.
• Verbal aggression: Expressing anger or hostility through verbal attacks, threats, or yelling.
For instance, shouting at someone during an argument or threatening them with harm.
• Sarcasm: Using sarcastic remarks to mock or ridicule someone. This can involve saying the
opposite of what one means in a tone that suggests insincerity or mockery.

2. Coercive Impoliteness: Coercive impoliteness involves language use that aims to control
or manipulate the addressee through threats, coercion, or intimidation. This type of
impoliteness often occurs in situations where one party holds power or authority over the
other. Practical examples of coercive impoliteness include:
• Commands: Issuing orders or commands in a forceful or aggressive manner. For example, a
boss commanding an employee to complete a task immediately without considering their
feelings.
• Intimidation: Using threats or intimidation tactics to compel someone to comply with one's
demands. This could involve threatening someone with negative consequences if they refuse
to cooperate.
• Bullying: Engaging in behaviour that aims to intimidate or harm someone physically,
emotionally, or socially. This could include verbal bullying, such as name-calling or belittling
remarks.

3. Entertainment Impoliteness: Entertainment impoliteness involves language use that aims

to amuse or entertain an audience by breaking social norms or conventions. This type of
impoliteness is often found in humour, satire, or comedy. Practical examples of entertainment
impoliteness include:
• Satirical humour: Using irony or satire to mock societal norms, values, or behaviours. This
could involve making fun of social conventions or challenging traditional beliefs in a
humorous way.
4. Institutional Impoliteness: Institutional impoliteness involves language use that occurs
within institutional contexts, such as legal proceedings, educational settings, or bureaucratic
interactions. This type of impoliteness often reflects power dynamics and institutional norms.
Practical examples of institutional impoliteness include:
• Legal discourse: Using formal language and procedures in legal settings to assert authority
or control over participants. This could involve lawyers cross-examining witnesses or judges
issuing rulings.
• Educational discourse: Using teacher-student interactions to enforce discipline or maintain
order in the classroom. This could include reprimanding students for misbehaviour or using
strict language to set boundaries.
• Bureaucratic discourse: Using bureaucratic language and procedures to convey authority or
maintain hierarchy within organizational settings. This could involve issuing directives,
policies, or memos in a formal and impersonal manner.

Conventionalised Impoliteness Formulae

Labels that relate to impoliteness include bad manners, boldness, dishonour, disrespect and so
on. Each of these evoke a particular kind of negative evaluation, therefore impoliteness is a
negative attitude towards specific behaviours occurring in specific context.
Terkourafi further states that impoliteness is sustained by expectations, desires, and
beliefs about social organisations including, in particular, how one’s person or group
identities are mediated by others.
Conventionalization
Terkourafi defines conventionalisation as a relationship holding utterances and context
which is a correlate of the frequency with which an expression is used in ones experience of a
particular context, conventionalization is a matter of degree and may vary in different
speakers, also for the same speaker over time. There is a scale of conventionalisation
whereby pragmatic meanings can become more semanticised, therefore, Terkourafi argues
that there is a potential variation which keeps conventionalised inferences apart from
conventional ones. We can illustrate this in respect to impoliteness formulae, for example
using the British culture in the words cunt or wanker are semantically encoded as impolite
effects. Now, consider the final sentences of this diary report of a British student;
A close friend of mine from Norway was eating with myself and my parents. They asked
about our shared friends and my friend, Eddie, began telling stories about them. Throughout
this point, he used the word cunt severally. I was so embarrassed as I knew that Eddie uses
this word in place of guy of friend. In our circle of friends, “hi cunt” was a friendly greeting.

Impoliteness Formulae
Jonathan Culpeper defines impoliteness formulae as a form of language in context, specific
impoliteness effects are conventionalised. Impoliteness formulae are much less frequent than
politeness formulae whereby conflictive illocutions tend thankfully to be rather marginal to
human linguistic behaviour in normal circumstances. It is difficult to see how people will
function without impoliteness.
Impoliteness plays a special role and is relatively frequent in specific discourses such as army
recruit interactions, between car owners and traffic warden and so on. The crucial point of
impoliteness formulae is that it relates to specific contexts of use and it begins by collecting
utterances to which somebody typically the target displays the evidence that he took the
utterances as impolite.
Conventionalised impoliteness formulae are not only meant to trigger attributions of
impoliteness but they can also be triggered by something non-verbal or implicature.

Impoliteness Metadiscourse
Impoliteness metadiscourse refers to the language used to comment on, justify, or mitigate
impolite acts within discourse. It is essentially a meta-level of communication that sheds light
on the speaker/writer's intention or stance towards their own impolite language. It is about
understanding and discussing the way people use words or behaviours that might hurt the
feelings of other people.
Key characteristics of impoliteness metadiscourse are highlighting, justifying, and mitigating
impoliteness. It can also be used in the form of irony and sarcasm. It draws attention to
impolite utterances by explicitly labeling them as rude, insulting, or offensive.
For example, "I know this might sound harsh, but you are going to be punished."
"No offense, but this meal is tasteless.”
Some forms of impoliteness metadiscourse rely on irony or sarcasm to convey the intended
meaning indirectly, often intensifying the impolite message.
Forms of Impoliteness Metadiscourse
Explicit labels: Directly naming the act as impolite, "It's rude to interrupt someone."
Hedging: Using phrases like "maybe," "possibly," or "I'm not sure" to soften the impact of
impolite statements.
Disclaimers: Denying any intention to offend, "I don't mean to be rude, but..."
Appeals to politeness: Reminding the recipient of expected polite behavior, "Shouldn't you
know better than to do that?"
Apologies: Expressing regret after an impolite utterance, "I apologize if that came out
wrong."
With the aid of metadiscourse, we can decipher the speaker's goal and the communication's
general tone, provide insight into societal standards and conventions surrounding civility and
impoliteness. Metadiscourse also examines a variety of communication contexts, such as
internet forums, political discourse, and casual talks.