Group MI

Impoliteness in Pragmatics by Renowned Scholars

GROUP MEMBERS:
1. Oveno Favour Ajirioghene. ART1900574

2. Asebhota Omonze Esther. ART1900410

3. Emah Eje Joy

ART1900449

4. Igwe prince ukachukwu

ART1900484

5. Okechukwu Favour Nneka ART1903612

6. Uche Cynthia Amarachukwu

ART1900591

7. Edibei Joshua Chinaecherem

ART1900437

8. Chukwuma Miracle Blessing

ART1900427

9. OMOS JOHN ABIODUN

Art1900557
INTRODUCTION
In the study of pragmatics, where understanding communication goes
beyond literal meaning, the term and phenomenon of "impoliteness"
emerges as a fascinating and complex phenomenon. A complete deviation
from what the other scholars who studied politeness to avoid face
threatening speech acts researched and put together, the study on
impoliteness delves into how language can be used to intentionally or
unintentionally cause offense, damage someone's social standing, or violate
social norms. Although some may not strictly refer to it as a theory in itself,
impoliteness has been explored extensively by various scholars, with
Jonathan Culpeper being a prominent figure. Jonathan Culpeper, a Professor
of English Language and Linguistics in the Department of Linguistics and
English Language at Lancaster University, UK has his works on PRAGMATICS
which has significantly shaped the understanding of this multifaceted
concept of impoliteness and by extension, rudeness.

In Culpeper's framework, he proposes a comprehensive framework for

analyzing impoliteness, offering valuable tools for dissecting the
complexities involved. Some key aspects of his work include impoliteness as
Face-Threatening Acts(FTA) Face where impoliteness becomes any act that
threatens self-image, be it intentional or unintentional, impoliteness values
underlying different types of impolite utterances, impoliteness Strategies
employed by speakers to achieve their communicative goals, emphasis on
the contextual nature of impoliteness,etc.

Culpeper's framework has made significant contributions to the study of

impoliteness in pragmatics. It provides a structured approach for analyzing
impolite language, considering both the speaker's intention and the
potential impact on the hearer. His work has inspired further research in
various areas. However, it is important to note that while Culpeper's work is
highly influential, there are other scholars who have also contributed to the
study of impoliteness. This essay therefore explores these other scholars'
contribution on impoliteness in pragmatics to enrich our understanding of
this complex phenomenon and by default, their contribution to the field of
study of pragmatics, offering deeper insights into the fascinating area of
language study.

PENELOPE BROWN AND STEPHEN LEVINSON'S "THEORY OF

IMPOLITENESS"

Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson's "Theory of Impoliteness" is a

seminal contribution to the field of pragmatics, specifically in the realm of
politeness theory. Their theory offers a comprehensive framework for
understanding impoliteness and its role in communication dynamics. In this
essay, I will delve into the key tenets of Brown and Levinson's theory,
examining its main components and providing references or page citations
where applicable.

Brown and Levinson's theory of impoliteness is closely related to their

broader politeness theory, which they initially presented in their influential
work "Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage" (1978). While
politeness theory primarily focuses on strategies used to maintain positive
social relations, their theory of impoliteness addresses situations where
these strategies are deliberately violated, leading to face-threatening acts
(FTAs) and the expression of negative politeness.

One of the central concepts in Brown and Levinson's theory of impoliteness

is the notion of face, which refers to an individual's public self-image or
sense of social dignity. According to Brown and Levinson, face can be
either positive, representing one's desire to be valued and respected, or
negative, representing one's desire to be unimpeded or free from
imposition. When face is threatened, individuals may resort to various
politeness strategies to mitigate the threat and restore face. However, in
cases of impoliteness, these strategies are intentionally disregarded or
overridden, leading to face damage.
Brown and Levinson distinguish between two types of impoliteness: bald-
on-record and negative impoliteness. Bald-on-record impoliteness involves
directly and bluntly expressing disagreement, criticism, or disapproval
without regard for the recipient's face. This form of impoliteness is
characterized by its upfront and confrontational nature, as exemplified by
utterances such as "Shut up!" or "You're wrong." (Brown & Levinson, 1987,
p. 62).

On the other hand, negative impoliteness entails the use of indirect or

mitigated strategies to express disagreement or disapproval while
simultaneously acknowledging the recipient's face. Negative impoliteness
strategies include sarcasm, teasing, or giving backhanded compliments,
which allow the speaker to convey their message while minimizing the
threat to the recipient's face. For example, a sarcastic remark like "Wow,
you're really smart, aren't you?" (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 77) serves to
undermine the recipient's intelligence while maintaining a semblance of
politeness.

Additionally, Brown and Levinson emphasize the role of power and social
distance in impoliteness interactions. They argue that individuals with
higher social status or greater power may feel entitled to engage in impolite
behavior with impunity, as they perceive themselves to be less vulnerable
to face threats. Conversely, individuals with lower social status or less
power may resort to impoliteness as a means of asserting themselves or
retaliating against perceived injustices.

In conclusion, Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson's theory of

impoliteness provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the
dynamics of impolite behavior in communication. By examining the
concepts of face, power, and social distance, their theory sheds light on the
motivations behind impoliteness and the strategies employed to express it.
Through this essay, I have highlighted the main components of their theory
and provided references or page citations where applicable to support the
discussion.
Marina Terkourafi's research on politeness, impoliteness and
facework in multilingual and multicultural interactions.

The primary etymological accounts of im/politeness were proposed to

clarify takeoffs from the most brief, clearest, and most compact way of
talking. Whereas this early point of view tied respectfulness to aberrance,
experimental ponders from diverse societies have appeared that it is
outlandish to circumscribe a closed set of expressions whose articulation
ensures a respectful impact in any single culture, let alone generally. We
overview five sorts of prove – from survey and corpus ponders, L1 and L2
securing considers and lack of consideration thinks about – that lead us to
put at the heart of im/politeness not aberrance but conventionalization as a
three-way relationship between expressions, settings and speakers. Not at
all like past semantic-based definitions of conventionalization, this habit-
based definition permits that any expression can be conventionalized to a
speaker, and is intrinsically evaluative. The proposition displayed in outline
shape here is that conventionalized expressions (at whatever point
accessible for a circumstance or to a speaker) are utilized all else being
break even with, independent of the degree of face-threat. They can be
adjusted to a wide extend of habitually experienced circumstances with
negligible exertion and, while they are the foremost practical means of
accomplishing im/politeness, leaving from conventionalized expression is
additionally conceivable and may be related with either expanding
respectfulness or expanding impoliteness. From courteousness as
indirectness… The ubiquity of performative expressions has been a
fundamental of cutting edge etymology ever since Austin concluded,
toward the end of How to do things with words, that each articulation could
be a because because it is administered by conditions of bliss and infelicity
as well as (possibly) truth and misrepresentation (1962:144–145). And
whereas Austin was well mindful that ways of performing illocutionary acts
are not constrained to employing a performative verb (1962:148–9), it was
not until the coming of politeness … to respectfulness as
conventionalization The plausibility that respectfulness may have more to
do with conventionalization than aberrance was to begin with raised by
Blum-Kulka (1987) and gets back from a assortment of sources, which is
checked on briefly underneath. Drawing on survey information examining
ask behavior in American, Australian, and British English and Hebrew,
Blum-Kulka found that routine aberrance was judged most respectful over
the board whereas judgments around the neighborliness of insights (off-
record backhandedness) varied: Characterizing conventionalization At this
point, it is fundamental to clarify what we cruel by “conventionalization.” An
expression is considered to be conventionalized for a few utilize relative to
a setting for a speaker if it is utilized regularly sufficient in that setting to
attain a specific illocutionary objective to that speaker's involvement. This
makes conventionalization a three-way relationship between an
expression, a setting, and a speaker.

Michael Haugh’s Impoliteness theory

Michael Haugh’s impoliteness theory look’s at how communication can be used to

deliberately cause offense. It is sometimes referred to as (im)politeness. Haugh’s
theory states that impoliteness is strategic. That is, words a carefully chosen to be
impolite. Thus, the theory focuses on the strategies and mechanisms to convey
impoliteness.

One of Haugh`s approach is the rejection of the classifications of "politeness" and

"impoliteness." Rather, he postulates that both concepts are intertwined and derive
meaning from their “interactional aspect” This approach challenges established
theories like Brown and Levinson's politeness theory, which prioritize face-saving
strategies. Haugh argues that “face threat”is but one dimension of language use,
and impoliteness can serve diverse purposes beyond simply violating social norms.

An important aspect of Haugh’s study is the introduction of the concept of

“implicature”. Thus argues that impoliteness can be conveyed indirectly through
seemingly polite forms. This scope of implicature expands the scope of pragmatic
thereby enriching our understanding of language use.

Also, Haugh emphasizes the “dynamic nature” of impoliteness. He argues that

interpretations are not fixed but are constantly negotiated throughout discourse.
This highlights the importance of analyzing patterns in communication, another
valuable contribution of Haugh's theory.

Michael Haugh’s impoliteness theory has significantly contributed to the study and
development of pragmatics by:

Encouraging Understanding:The focus on context and interpretation underscores

the influence of norms and values on perceptions of impoliteness. This fosters
awareness of potential misinterpretations in communication.

Again, the theory expands the Scope of Pragmatic Analysis: By emphasizing

context, implicature, and the dynamic nature of interpretation, Haugh's theory
encourages a more holistic examination of language use, enriching the insights
obtained from pragmatic analysis.

Lastly, It Bridges the Gap between Politeness and Impoliteness: Haugh's

continuum approach removes the rigid boundaries between these concepts,
prompting researchers to consider the connection between them in real world
communication.

In conclusion, Michael Haugh's impoliteness theory presents a significant

advancement in our understanding of how language is used in social relations. By
looking at the interactional aspect of (im)politeness and implicature, his theory not
only aid our understanding of everyday interactions but also help with the further
study and development of pragmatics.

Natalia Knoblock's "Impoliteness in Nigerian English"

Natalia Knoblock's exploration of impoliteness in Nigerian English offers

valuable insights into the dynamics of communication, which extend
beyond the boundaries of face-to-face interactions to encompass digital
communication and social media platforms. In her text, Knoblock
meticulously examines the linguistic strategies and cultural nuances that
contribute to impoliteness in Nigerian English, providing a framework for
understanding similar phenomena in the realm of digital communication.
In today's interconnected world, where digital communication and social
media play an increasingly central role in our lives, the study of
impoliteness takes on new significance. Knoblock's analysis sheds light on
the ways in which impoliteness manifests in verbal and nonverbal cues,
highlighting the importance of context and cultural norms in shaping
communicative behaviors.

One notable aspect of impoliteness in digital communication is the

prevalence of aggressive language and confrontational rhetoric. On social
media platforms, individuals often engage in heated debates and
arguments, resorting to insults, derogatory remarks, and ad hominem
attacks to assert their opinions or discredit opposing viewpoints. Knoblock's
examination of impoliteness in Nigerian English provides a lens through
which to understand the linguistic strategies employed in digital discourse,
revealing parallels in the ways impoliteness is conveyed across different
communication channels.

Moreover, Knoblock's exploration of face-threatening acts offers valuable

insights into the dynamics of impoliteness in digital interactions. In face-to-
face communication, individuals are often sensitive to maintaining positive
face, or social image and dignity, through politeness strategies and face-
saving techniques. However, in the realm of digital communication, the
absence of nonverbal cues and physical presence can lead to a disregard
for face-saving norms, resulting in heightened instances of impoliteness.
Knoblock's analysis prompts us to consider how the digital context shapes
the negotiation of face and the performance of identity in online
interactions.

Furthermore, the rise of multimedia content in social media platforms

introduces new dimensions to impoliteness, as memes, gifs, and emojis are
employed to convey sarcasm, mockery, or disdain. Knoblock's examination
of paralinguistic cues and nonverbal communication in Nigerian English
provides a framework for understanding the role of visual elements in
digital discourse, highlighting the ways in which impoliteness can be
conveyed through both verbal and nonverbal channels.
In conclusion, Natalia Knoblock's work on impoliteness in Nigerian English
offers valuable insights into the complexities of communication, which
extend to digital contexts and social media interactions. By examining the
linguistic strategies, cultural norms, and contextual factors that contribute to
impoliteness, Knoblock's analysis provides a foundation for understanding
and navigating the intricacies of digital discourse. As we continue to
engage in online communication, Knoblock's insights serve as a reminder
of the importance of fostering respectful and empathetic interactions, both
online and offline.

Derek Bousfield’s “impoliteness and face threatening acts”.

The principles of impoliteness and face-threatening behavior are

fundamental to pragmatics, the study of interpersonal communication. They
relate to acts or words that interfere with or compromise a person's ability
to project a favorable image of themselves in social situations and their
desire to be respected, valued, and liked.

This essay will examine the idea of impoliteness and how it relates to
actions that put one's face in danger. We will examine the several ways
that rudeness is expressed and how it affects others. We will also talk
about these notions' importance in language and literary studies.

impoliteness strategies:
Impoliteness can be communicated in a number of ways, according to
Derek Bousfield, including bald-on-record good politeness, negative
politeness, and off-record tactics. The bald-on-record tactic is facing the
other person head-on without giving a thought to their facial needs. This
tactic might be interpreted as confrontational or harsh since it uses
straightforward language.
Conversely, positive politeness refers to techniques that work to highlight
the recipient's positive attributes. It involves the use of sympathizing
gestures and praises. This tactic seeks to reduce any possible threats and
foster a good environment.
On the other hand, negative politeness tactics focus on reducing the
possibility of the receiver projecting a bad image. The term "negative face"
describes a person's desire to be free from interference and imposition.
Examples of negative politeness tactics are polite requests made in an
oblique manner or apologies. These tactics seek to avoid interfering with
the recipient's independence and instead respect their autonomy.
finally, using indirect communication techniques enables the speaker to
convey their rudeness without coming off as blatantly hostile. This can
involve using innuendos or sarcasm along with irony. Off-record techniques
enable the speaker to deliver their rude message with plausible deniability.

In the fields of literature and language studies, the idea of rudeness and
face-threatening behaviors has drawn a lot of attention. Impoliteness is a
common literary tactic used by authors to build conflict, suspense, and
drama in their works. Authors might explore topics of power dynamics,
societal hierarchies, and interpersonal interactions by presenting
characters that act impolitely.

Furthermore, researching linguistic impoliteness helps scholars

comprehend the social and cultural norms that control communication. It
sheds light on how people reconcile their wants in various situations and
how rudeness is shown via language. The complexities of communication
and human interaction are better understood as a result of this research.

Daniel Z Kadar's view on “Theory of Impoliteness”

Daniel Kadar is a theoretical linguistic.A prominent scholar in the field of

pragmatics that analyzed impoliteness in intracultural setting and compared
such cases across cultural groups rather than in encounters between
interactants with different cultural backgrounds.
Overtime,researchers have relatively neglected impoliteness in intracultural
settings reason being that they saw intracultural encounters as
less.Hence,Daniel's focus on how understanding a language helps to
negotiate social relationships,power dynamics etc.
Kadar's method to impoliteness theory is laid upon the theory of politeness
developed by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson in the 1970s. whilst
the theory of politeness explores strategies applied by individuals to
maintain positive social interaction and uphold societal rules, impoliteness
theory inquires ways in which language can be used to challenge or
threaten other's social identity.
One inherent aspects of Kadar's perspective on impoliteness is his
acknowledgment of the relational and contextual nature of
Impoliteness.Unlike politeness, which is widely understood and
appreciated,impoliteness differs depending on cultural,social and
situational factors.
Kadar emphasizes the need to consider these factors when evaluating
impoliteness in communication.Kadar insist that impoliteness is a
purposeful strategy deployed by speakers to assert power or express
disagreement and not as a result of social skill.
In addition to his theoretical work,Kadar has conducted tons of research on
impoliteness using experimental methods to research on how impoliteness
is used and perceived in different contexts.His study and theory has
brought to light dynamics of Impoliteness and has provided vivid insights
for understanding its role in communication.
In conclusion, Kadar's outlook on impoliteness in pragmatics offers a
detailed understanding of this occurrence. His work has in many ways
advanced the study of impoliteness providing researchers with important
insights into the nuances of interpersonal communication and social
interaction.

Miriam A. Locher investigation on impoliteness in various contexts

Miriam A. Locher investigates impoliteness in various contexts, including

workplace communication, by first defining relational work as the work
people invest in negotiating their relationships in interaction (Locher 2004;
Locher and Watts 2005; Locher 2006a) and discussing impoliteness in the
total aspect of social attitude or behaviour. She argued that norm and
expectations as well as non cooperativeness can result to impoliteness.
She also highlights the "discursive" nature that determines if a conversation
is polite or impolite.

Norm and expectations are unmistakably inherent in every human which

can be consequent to our environment and community. In a conversation,
what two different persons might think is rude or impolite and polite might
vary because their upbringing and social status or environment are not the
same. This can be translated into a workplace where two interactant night
see the lexeme "polite" and "impolite" in words and speeches from a
different angle as well as what they may think rude is. This norms and
expectations because it is developed over time, it is arguably impossible to
change. This is as a result of repetition of that situation to be ingrained in
the cognitive or mind of those different set of people. For example, in a
theoretical experiment between two people from different community,
words "shut up" can be offensive to a particular person but to another
person, it can mean something not so serious .

Another very important aspect that influence what people may think
im/politeness is, is the non cooperativeness in an environment eg
workplace, where two people can be at odds, over an anything. And given
their non cooperativeness, it can bring about impoliteness in that
environment. Maybe in an environment, two community does not agree on
anything or does not have any thing in common, there can be impoliteness
among them eg two villages who don't agree can be at war this can be as a
result of the unfriendliness between them. This can also be seen in two
individuals who do not agree on anything, can be at odd or see behaviours
or gestures from one another as impolite because of the difference
cognitive concept of the two individuals.

There is also the flexibility in determining if something is rude or impolite

and vice versa. Like earlier stated, words that can be seen as polite and
impolite can vary between two people or community.

In conclusion, according to Miriam A. Locher investigates impoliteness in

various contexts, including workplace communication, discussing
impoliteness in the total aspect of social attitude or behaviour. She argued
that norm and expectations as well as non co-operativeness can result to
impoliteness. She also highlights the "discursive" nature that determines if
a conversation is polite or impolite.

WORK CITED
● Miriam A. Locher and Richard J. Watts (2008) Relational work and
impoliteness:
● Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour
● Academia.edu/Daniel kadar
● Journal of Pragmatics (https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-
pragmatics)
● Bousfield D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. John Benjamins
Publishing.
● Brown P. & Levinson S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in
language usage.
● Cambridge University Press.
● Culpeper J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence.
Cambridge
● University Press.
● Locher M. A. & Watts R. J. (Eds.). (2005). Politeness in language:
Studies in its history theory and practice. Walter de Gruyter.
● Academia. Michael Haugh’s Theory of Impoliteness.
https://www.academia.edu/34601380/_Im_politeness_theory
● Haugh, Michael. Impoliteness Theory. Handbook of language in the
workplace. 2017
● Marina Terkourafi, “Conventionalization”: A new agenda for
im/politeness research, Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 86, 2015,
Pages 11-18.
● Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). "Politeness": Some universals
in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
● Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). "Politeness": Some universals
in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.