156 Politeness ond Impoliteness we world) is commonly known as ‘Anglo-Saxon cultures’ autonomy has to do with negative face and affiliation with positive face, this correspondence does nop apply to other cultures such as the Spanish one, where, for in contrast, autonomy is characterized by many of the features of what B&L term positive face. We find it necessary to note here that, in spite of all this discussion about the differences and similarities among different ‘cultures’ initiated by authors at the _ end of the 20" century (not only regarding politeness, but also in cultural studieg in general), in the 21 century many authors, including the writers of this book, find it inappropriate to speak about “Spanish culture” or “Anglo-Saxon culture" due to the evident fact that it is very difficult and indeed undesirable to make generalizations about any culture in the world, considering the large number of sub-cultures and sub-groups that are found within these macro-cultures, Furthermore, even within the tiniest of sub-groups there may be differences affecting its linguistic-pragmatic features, having to do with numerous variables other than the social group, such as the gender or the personal history of its members. This is the reason why ~ as was anticipated in Chapter 1 — authors like Scollon, Wong Scollon & Jones (2012) have rejected the use of the term culture in favor of the concept of discourse system. Lavandera (1988), another Spanish-speaking author, was one of the first scholars to notice some inconsistencies in B&L's model. She observes that the phenomena politeness/impoliteness should not be seen as a dichotomy but as continuum, and she proposes the notion of politeness force as supplementary to that of illocutionary force, placing emphasis on the ‘obligatory nature’ (1988: 1196) of the former force in all utterances. Lavandera adheres to Fraser & Nolen's (1981) view that it is the conditions under which the expressions are used, and. not the expressions themselves, that make them more or less (im)polite, for (im) politeness is a property of utterances, not of sentences. Moreover, she points to the following weaknesses in B&L’s model: a) ascribing the degree of politeness to a strategy ~ as B&L do and not to the entire speech act within which the strategy occurs makes it impossible to account for the fact that the same speech act may show different (or at least more than one) strategies being used at the same time; ) B&L do not make the distinction between strategies like "Be ironie”, which are purely pragmatic, and other strategies which contain specific linguistic descriptions, such as “Employ a diminutive”; ©) B&L do not recognize the fact that politeness is a permanent component of all speech acts, and they do not present any strategies aimed at impoliteness. ® See 1.7. in this book. tance and in | of the} world: Kaul d approa the on probat Culper their re followi Ht.3. In spits very sc do whi contra additic ‘uncons Tange « coined. the phe politen wi fntimat ‘comunc of ang feature close li and im negatis and me Ey 1986, L theoryALI LIIIIIH1 /HIII1 Politeness and Impaliteness 157 dit was precisely because impoliteness was quite disregarded in B&L’s Bthat some authors started investigating the phenomenon in the 1990s. Two pioneers were Silvia Kaul de Marlangeon (1996) in the Spanish-speaking fland Jonathan Culpeper (1996) in the English-speaking world. Even though ide Marlangeor's publication was previous to Culpeper’s, and although both Daches to impoliteness are very sensible and have many points in common, pre that became more widely known around the world was Culpeper’s, ply because Kaul de Marlangeon's publication was written in Spanish and eper’s in English. Because of the impact that these two approaches had in respective macro-cultures, we consider it important to include them in the ig section of this chapter. THEORIES OF IMPOLITENESS pite of the undeniable impact and influence of B&L’s Theory of Politeness, Ysoon after its publication it became clear to many scholars that what people hen they talk or interact is not limited to avoiding face-threat. On the Hary, sometimes they purposefully threaten their interlocutor's face, or tionally, they may sometimes threaten someone's face accidentally, Bnsciously, or gratuitously. It was therefore necessary to reflect a broader of phenomena, and this is the reason why the term (ém)politeness was fed. The wider scope of this term allowed researchers to avoid dichotomizing Phenomenon in terms of two poles (politeness vs. impoliteness) in favor of ring a continuum along which numerous types of behavior can be found, Which different terms have been used (e.g. Watts’s 1989 politic behavior, PrOurati's 2001b unmarked politeness, or Kerbrat-Orecchioni's 2011 non. leness We find it important and necessary to point out here that there is a very te association between impoliteness and emotion. Itis in fact a matter of Mon knowledge that impoliteness may be caused by or may arouse feelings ger or humiliation, and thus negative emotional reactions are a common Site of most instances of impoliteness. As Terkourafi (2016) explains, the link between impoliteness and emotion is a final point on which politeness Ampoliteness differ: while impoliteness is almost universally associated with Bative feelings, politeness can arise from or trigger a varied gamut of emotions, may even pass unnoticed Even though some authors from the 1980s and early 1900s (e.g, Craig et al B Lakoff 1989, Tracy 1990, Penman 1990) had pointed out that politeness Btu could be extended to include antagonistic or confrontational158 Politeness ond Impoliteness Wh communication, they did not develop a theory of impoliteness, as Kaul Marlangeon and Culpeper did, respectively, in 1995 and 1996. In effect, Jonat Culpeper (e.g. 1996, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012; Culpeper at al. 2014) and i Kaul de Marlangeon (e.g. 1995, 2005 a & b, 2008 a & b, 2010, 2014) have been pioneers in noticing that the phenomenon of politeness includes @ much widep spectrum of strategies than those initially envisaged by B&L. Thus both Cul for English) and Kaul de Marlangeon (for Spanish) have investigated the use of strategies designed to have the effect of social disruption and oriented towards attacking face. Both authors take as a point of departure B&L' strategies of politeness in order to propose a framework of impoliteness strategies, and both of them initially resort to specific types of discourse (the former the discourse of an army training camp in the film Soldier Girls, and the latter the Argentinian ‘Tango discourse of the 1920s) to illustrate the fact that there are discourse ‘communities within which the practice of impoliteness, NOT of politeness, ig taken as the norm. We now turn to these two authors. 4.3.1. CULPEPER'S APPROACH Culpeper (1996) points out that some areas of politeness are not well represented in B&L’s politeness model, and he therefore proposes an impoliteness framework where each of B&L’s politeness superstrategies has its opposite impoliteness superstrategy which attacks face instead of enhancing or supporting it. Thus, his taxonomy includes the following strategies (adapted from Culpeper 1996: 356-357, including some examples of our own): 1) Bald on record impoliteness: The use of strategies with a clear intention of attacking face in a direct way. A prototypical example of this strategy is found. in B's utterance in (23), where the emotional context is that of a heated argument, and where Bis very angry at her interlocutor: (23) A: Idon't understand why you're so stubborn and don’t wanna listen tome! B: Shut up, you idiot! 2) Positive impoliteness: The use of strategies designed to damage the addressee’s positive face wants, Examples of this strategy could be to exclude someone from the conversation by using obscure or secretive language, to be unsympathetic by denying association or common ground with the other, oF to simply ignore someone. 3 Negative impoliteness: The use of strategies designed to damage the addressee’s negative face wants. Examples of this strategy could be to ask someone about his private life with the clear intention of invading his private space and making him feel ashamed, or to scorn or ridicule an interlocutor. 5 im no! stu tha om pe! rec the ser do. Pri maYW UUIIUILIULIT Rlteness and Inpolteness 158 § Sarcasm or mock politeness: the use of politeness strategies that are obviously j insincere." These strategies refer to the use of mock politeness with the aire of provoking social disharmony. (24) exemplifies this strategy by means of the sarcastic use of honorifics: (24) Fiona and Tim are having an argument, and after Fiona rejects Tim’s invitation to make it up and instead decides not to talk to him anymore, Tim says: O.K, it seems Her Majesty is not in the mood to talk anymore today! b) Withhold politeness: the absence of politeness work where it would be expected. A prototypical example of this impoliteness strategy is found in the situation where someone does not thank somebody for a present and Aeliberately remains silent in order to hurt and offend him. Culpeper also points out that B&L’s politeness model does not take into @eount some aspects such as paralinguistic or non-verbal politeness, The bow hat Japanese people make when saluting others, for instance, can be considered jpon-verbal strategy of politeness. Culpeper provides counter-examples of inpoliteness in these areas, such as shouting and avoiding eye contact. Other br-verbal strategies of impoliteness could be rolling one's eyes at someone's Pid comment, looking at one’s watch to show that one has better things to do being with one's interlocutor, or covering ones ears with one’s hands to show willingness to listen to one’s interlocutor. In general, polite behavior entails a recognition that one’s interlocutor is a son like oneself, whereas impolite behavior does not involve that Cognition. That is why impoliteness occurs in discursive situations and texts where there is great power inequality.” One of these is the context of ceils where impoliteness is a common and systematic practice deployed by Tgeants, as Culpeper (1996) illustrates with examples taken from the peumentary film Soldier Girts (1981). He shows how three sergeants attack ate Alves’ mental stability, psychological make-up, and even her genetic Ke-up, as seen in (25): fot Culpeper sarcasm is close to Leechs (1983) conception of irony. negative irony {(Alba-Juezs 199, 1996 (2000) or Albavuez & Attardo's 2014 terms), leaving poste Hrony or banter (in Leechs terms) aside. jf Snormally assumed thatthe powerful are those who are entitled to be impolite, but fo Lal also be the case that itis the powerless who, in an act of rebelliousness, choose {>be impolite. Consider, for instance, a cheeky boy who answers his teacher back iy Ra guasPectful manner, and does not care ors not conscious about the consequences his behavior may bring about.160 Politeness and Impoliteness (25) St: Do me a favor don't have any children .. because unfortunately such a thing as heredi hereditary genes that I would hat. anybody would even closely come out like you. (1996: 3 e to think ‘This early work of Culpeper's, as well as that of Kaul de Marlangeon ( we shall discuss in 4.32), raised various issues and further research qu such as How do we really know if the speaker's intention is to be impolites counts more for the analysis of impoliteness, the intention of the speaker, or the interpretation of the addressee? What aspects of a speaker's behavior lead the interpretation that she is being impolite? When is impoliteness used ty equal relationships? Are there different degrees of impoliteness? These twp authors, as well as a number of other researchers (e.g. Marina Terkourafi, Sargh Mills, Miriam Locher, Derek Bousfield) have tried to find an answer to these and other crucial questions. Ina later publication, Culpeper clarifies some aspects of the phenomenon of impoliteness and he provides the following definition: Impoliteness comes about when: (1) the speaker communicates face-attack intentionally, or (2) the hearer perceives and/or constructs behavior as intentionally face-attacking, or a combination of (1) and (2.) (2005: 38) FEESELSRSSESEER In his later work, as well as in the work of many researchers in the 21" century, the study of (im)politeness has mainly been approached from the e relational perspective (as we shall see in 4.3.3), taking into account Hallidayfs (1978) interpersonal metafunction. ‘We shall now examine the work of Silvia Kaul de Marlangeon, who, as was anticipated above, with her 1995 article on the impoliteness of tango songs became a pioneer of impoliteness studies, in particular within the Spanish- of speaking world pt a +3.2. KAUL DE MARLANGEON’S APPROACH iE Taking as data a corpus of tango discourse (found in the lyrics of tango songs) a of the 1920s in Spanish, Kaul de Marlangeon (1995) points out, in the same way a Culpeper did a year later in English, that there are discourse strategies which are not used with a mitigating or redressive intention, but, on the contrary, with the express aim of attacking or threatening face. Thus she argues that B&L’s taxonomy of politeness strategies may be the base for a taxonomy of impoliteness strategies, both taxonomies complementing each other. In consonance with Lavandera (1988), she views the phenomenon of politeness as a continuum, within which she contends there is a natural grading for impoliteness. She illustrates, using Spanish examples, that a speaker may choose to be overtlyYM UUIIUUINITIIIITIIIIIL — Pelteress ond Impotteness él e by performing an act on record (baldly, or with some degree of redress, dng her interlocutor's positive or negative face), or she may choose to do covert way, ie. off record, by means of irony and/or sarcasm, thereby ging — at least in its formal appearance — the face threat. She also points out that power (P) is the main variable determining the use ppoliteness, and that distance (D) cannot be regarded as a symmetrical tionship (as B&L indicate for politeness) in cases of impoliteness. Likewise, fargues that within non-institutional contexts the P and D variables respond sonal factors which serve the purposes of attitudes in which referential patterns are absent. With respect to the R variable, the author observes phen the values of friendship, faithfulness (on the part of a woman in a love tionship), love for one’s mother, ete. are not shared by one of the participants acters in a tango song, then impoliteness is triggered. Within the tango Durse world of the 1920s in the Rfo de la Plata area, the model person (in the given to it by B&L), then, is a rational agent who chooses to attack and ten face with little or no redressive action as the best means for attaining his limunicative goals. And we use the masculine ‘his’ here because normally the singer or speaker is a man who often addresses a woman by showing a tive evaluation of her positive face through the use of criticisms, reproaches, , complaints, ete., as illustrated in (26) ¢No anys, che pelandruna/ que te vende de muy lejos’ esa piel de zorro Wiejo/ mas pelada que Alvear? (Don't you realize, you, poor stupid woman, that your old fox skin —balder than Alvear™ — gives you away? (Our translation|*) (1995: 29). Silvia Kaul de Marlangeon has devoted a great part of her life to the study inpoliteness and has refined her model of impoliteness in successive Heations, such as those of 2005a and b, 2008a and b, 2010, or 2014. Her (2008a) ition of impotiteness considers many factors and differs from Culpeper’s B)), for instance, in that she does not make the distinction between the hearer's Ption and construction of the speaker's intentionally impolite act. Instead, fers to replace both with the concept of interpretation, thus preventing the Hyst from having to make the choice between these two options, since lauthor here analyzes the tango poetics as an aspect of the ethos of the Rio de Pata culture, represented in tango songs and expressing a devalued view of e inparticular of women, who are treated with impoliteness. Me reference here is to Marcelo’T. de Alvear, an Argentinian politician who was bald Bhould be noted here thatthe variety of Spanish used in the tangos ofthe 1920s is so-called Lunfardo of the Rio dela Plata, which has avery peculiar vocabulary for hit can be very difficult to find accurate translations into English,162 Politeness ond Inpolteness ///// Cifferentiating what the hearer perceives from what she ¢ mplicated, if not im, definition differs from Culpeper’ is thee she considers that imp sometimes be involuntary, whereas Culpeper has mpoliteness ‘cannot be unintended’ (2006 32). OnstrUcts asf ‘possible task. Another way 2: The pc liten, advocated the ideq Thus, according to Kaul de Marlang following eleven instances (2008a: 258-2: A) When the speaker (S) eon, impoliteness occurs in 59 [our translation) any off ) tries to be polite to the h Teminiscent of improper, carer (HD), but for H, S's manner of expressi indecorous or disrespectful Tanguage, (1) ®) involuntarily offends 1 by 2-1) committing a gaffe or faux pas, or @ 2.2) stinting on the politeness expected by H, or (3) 23) ignoring politeness norms (4) 8) deliberately uses offensive language toward hinvherselt with different motivations (5) Polar Opposites Polar 6.1.) damage Hs face (8) 62) defend 8’ face (9) B) When 2) remains silent intent discontentment with §) } in order to indie; We shall n '8 utterance. (11) presented in K where all the ¢ ‘ate disagreement/ ‘definition, she proposes a scale of impoliteness from movies or according to the growing intensity of the Impoliteness force transmitted by DD Formeaia2 the acts in question. For the intended acts, the higher the number, the stronger GCemee the impoliteness force, ie., the Soca impolite. Ay México, Cab Mexico, yorTucts as impolitg ‘ay in Which hep mpoliteness cay d the idea thap ts in any of the of expression ig age. (1) with different hurt or mock eshinvher to (10) Agreement/ ‘politeness Asmitted by he stronger Tre 2) Politeness and Impoliteness 163 Fig. 2: The politeness-impoliteness force continuum (as in Kaul de Marlangeon & Alba-Juez 2012: 74) Bald on record face threatening acts Increasing pi Acis which are neither polite nor impo oa Formally inpole acts with a pote purpose Polar Opposites Involuntary impolite acts ae ‘Self-impoliteness acts <— ssouany Eom uee eS We shall now briefly describe each category, using some of the examples Presented in Kaul de Marlangeon & Alba-Juez (2012) (henceforth KdL & AJ), ‘where all the categories are illustrated with real or fictional examples (taken from movies or some TV series), both in Spanish and English: 1) Formally impolite acts with a polite purpose: The ludicrous use of irony Ge. mock impoliteness), which may have no impolite intention, but on some Cecasions may include such an intention or at least come across as mildly impolite. A prototypical example of this type is the famous utterance jiViva México, Cabrones!! (whose more or less literal translation would be “Long live Mexico, you bastards!! but which is pragmatically used by Mexicans to164 Politeness ond Impoliteness A express love for their country, irrespective of what anyone might think, ang showing contempt for those who don't love Mexico or have evil intentions g thoughts about that country). 2) Involuntary impolite acts: These are by definition devoid of impolite intentions, a fact that does not exempt them from having an impolite effectin, some contexts or situations. There are three types: a) Gaffes: (27) shows an embarrassing example of a real-life gaffe, when the American Vice-President Joe Biden, unaware of the fact that Senator Graham was confined to a wheel chair, asks him to stand up: (27) Biden: Ah ... Chuck Graham, State Senator is here. Chuck, stand up, Chuck! Let me get to see you ... (Biden then notices Graham is sitting in a wheel chair). Oh, God love you, what am I talking about! I'l tell you what: You're making everybody else stand up though, pal. Thank you very, very much I'll tell you what: stand up for Chuck! (the audience cheers) Thank you pal ... (Transcribed from YouTube at https:/vww. youtube. comvwatch?v=C2mzbuRgnl4 September 9, 2008, in Kal & AJ 2012: 79-80) b) S's involuntary stint on the politeness expected by H: This type reflects those cases in which the speaker unintentionally falls short of politeness, as illustrated by (28), in a scene from the movie Bridget Jones’s Diary, when Mark Darcy, instead of responding to Bridget’s thanks with a polite “You're welcome’, gives a very sincere response, thereby unintentionally offending Bridget, who by now is notably in love with Mark and would have preferred him (not his parents) to have invited her to the party (28) Bridget: Thank you for inviting me. Mark: I didn't. It must've been my parents. (Bridget Jones's Diary, in KdL & AJ 2012: 80) ©) Involuntary omission of politeness: A prototypical example of involuntary impoliteness occurs when children or teenagers forget to thank adults, which brings about the inevitable subsequent remark (in retrospective awareness) by their mothers/fathers/caregivers: (Johnny) what do you say (to Mrs. X for having invited you to her home)? Everyday experience tells us that it is possible that the adult in question will be heard saying afterwards that ‘Johnny's manners left much to be desired’, which shows that s/he has taken the teenager's omission as an instance of mild impoliteness or rudeness. 3) Self-impoliteness acts: Acts by means of which people use impolite or rude language toward themselves. Self-impoliteness may be a) authentic or b) yi! feign while mani (Kert @®) 30)night ink, ang vil inter tions og oid of impolite upolite effect in gaffe, when the t that Senator P: uck, stand up, am is sitting in ut! Tl tell you 4, pal. Thank (the audience httpsi/www, in KdL & AJ type reflects of politeness, mmes's Diary, with a polite intentionally kand would ‘party: involuntary ank adults trospective What do you ®perience Ard saying th shows Fe or miia or rude ie or b) Politeness and Impoliteness 165 feigned. Examples of these two kinds are given in (29) and (30) respectively, While in (29) the speaker is sincere about his feelings, in (30) he strategically manipulates his message with the aim of eliciting a Face-Flattering Act (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 2004) from the hearer (29) Charles realizes he has made a big mistake in his Math exam, and sincerely expresses: Chartes: Damn! What an idiot I art! (80) Vladimir (whose native language is Russian) has made a silly mistake when speaking in English, and in order to save face with his teacher (but not because he really thinks he is a fathead), he says Vladimir: How stupid of me, what a fathead I am! Teacher: Oh, no! How can you say such a thing! You are a very smart student. 4 Formally polite acts with an impolite purpose: Here politeness forms are paradoxically used as a means to achieve impoliteness. All ironic uses of polite forms of address fall into this category, as well as some manifestations of cynicism, as shown in (31), an example taken from The Shawshank Redemption,” where both the linguistic and non-linguistic context help the viewer interpret Hadley’s last utterance (in bold) as not precisely a ‘welcoming’ one, in spite of its literal meaning: 1) Norton: This is Mr. Hadley, Captain of the Guard. I am Mr. Norton, the warden. You are convicted felons; that’s why they've sent you to me. Rule number one: no blasphemy. I will not have the Lord's name taken in vain in my prison. The other rules you'll figure out as you go along. Any questions? Convict: When do we eat? Hadley: (Cued by Norton's glance, steps up to the con and screams right in his face): YOU EAT WHEN WE SAY YOU EAT! YOU SHIT WHEN WE SAY YOU SHIT! AND YOU PISS WHEN WE SAY YOU PISS! YOU GOT THAT YOU MAGGOT-DICK MOTHERFUCKER (Hadley rams the tip of his club into his belly. The man falls to his knees, gasping and clutching himself. Hadley takes his place at Norton’s side again, and soft) says): AA film in which the protagonist, Andy Dufresne, is accused of having killed his wife ‘and is therefore sent to prison. On the first day in Shawshank prison, Warden Norton introduces the new prisoners to the Captain of the Guard, Mr. Hadley, a corrupt, cynical and cold character who abuses his power to a cruel extent.Norton: Any more questions? (Silence) ... I believe in two th Discipline and the Bible. Here, you'll receive both (holdg Bible). Put your trust in the Lord. Your ass belongs tg Welcome to Shawshank 5 (From The Shawshank Redemption, in KdL & AJ 2012: 82) S's voluntary stint on the here interpreted as such ba than acti oliteness expected by H: The i sed on the speaker's deliber n. However, the omission is not complete, for sh npolite behavior rate omission, rather he participates inthe exchange, but withholds politeness to a certain extent, thus flouting Grigey Quantity Maxim by avoiding the upper points of a compliment or admission as illustrated in (82), where Humphrey's impoliteness is brought about by hig reluctance to tell Bernard his secret (82) Bernard: What are we supposed to do about it? Humphrey: Can you keep a secret? Bernard: Of course! Humphrey: So can I, rom Jay & Lynn's (1994) “Yes, Minister” Video Series Episode: ‘Open Government’, in KdL & AJ 2012: 83) 6) Overwhelming s nce acts: Overwhelming silence is the silence that is used to show disagreement or a certain degree of contempt for, 0 the interlocutor's previous comment or behavii disapproval of, A prototypical example of this kind of impoliteness is found in (33), where the speaker flattering comment about a third person, to which the in with this type of silence, which is interpreted as makes erlocutor responds a form of disagreement, equivalent to other occasions when the answer is verbal b: namely when son better not to say t derogatory, ‘one responds by saying “No comment”, implying that itis thing because if she did, it would include a very negative criticism. Overwhelming silence in these cases is, then manifestation of stint on the politeness expected by H (Typ. (88) A: I think Mr the extreme 5 above), hite is a wonderful teach B: (Overwhelming silen ) Fustigation® impoliteness acts: this type of impoliteness consists of verbal ggression in a confronting or challenging situation, where the main and Kaul de Marlangeon (2005a) draws on the meaning of the term fustigation (in the sense of “wh ping somebody or something”) and uses it in a metaphorical way apr toge Bric fist aim stro that prac aligt basi pers whic char graf| two things h (holds upg longs to me » behavior ig ssion, rather ‘ipates in the iting Grice admission, bout by hig >de: ‘Open atis used >roval of, example makes a ‘esponds ‘cement, >gatory, that itis legative xtreme verbal in and Politeness ond Impolitenes express aim is to damage the interlocutor’ face. It may be enacted through direct or indirect strategies, as shown in the utterances in bold in (34) and (36) respectively G1) Hadiey: What's your malfunction you fat fuckin’ barrel of monkey. spunk? Fat ass: PLEASE! I AIN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE! NOT ME! Hadley: 1 ain't gonna count to three! Not even to one! Now shut the fuck up or I'll sing you a lullaby! (From The Shawshank Redemption, in KdL, & AJ 2012: 86) Bridget, who is in a relationship with Daniel, finds a woman naked and hiding in Daniel’ bathroom, and therefore looks at her in astonishment, while Daniel clumsily tries to introduce them: Daniel: Tis is Lara, from the New York office. Lara, this is Bridget Lara: Hey there. (To Daniel) I thought you s she was thin, (From Bridget Jone: Diary, in KdL. & AJ 2012: 87) !n (4) we find an instance of direct verbal aggression within the context of a prison and in (85) Lara’ sarcastic allusion to Bridget’s overweight condition, ogether with the fact that she had been having sex with Daniel shortly before Pridget’s arrival, constitutes an instance of indirect but utterly humiliating fustigation impoliteness towards Bridget. As we have seen in this section, Kaul de Marlangeon’s (2008a) taxonomy aims to include the whole gamut of impolite acts, from the mildest to the meaidest. She adopts a socio-cultural and pragmatic perspective by pointing out that Gin)polite verbal behavior is idiosyncratic to each culture or community of tices and although her work s free from any universalistic assumptions, she {tions with Leech's (1988, 2014) belief that there exist common shared patteme ce pasic universal principles without which it would be impossible te speale of pabpoliteness in the first place. This author (2010) also adopts a topological perspective for the delimitation of both polite and impolite community practices which constitute her units of analysis of (im)polite discourse, and which are characterized by their social, extralinguistie and multidimensional nature withi {Sociocultural pragmatic approach. In her many publications about impoliteness She has looked into different contexts: theatre plays, ethnic jokes, horoscopes, Graffiti, football discourse, the discourse of celebrities, reviews of scientific Publications, and social network discourse. See also Kaul de Marlangeon (2010).168 Poli 2 and Impol in Having presented the earliest theoretical approaches to the phenomenon gf impoliteness, in order to round off the chapter we shall now comment briefly oq some further work on the topic that has been done in the 21" century so far. 4.3.3. FURTHER WORK ON (IM)POLITENESS: THE RISE OF THE RELATIONAL VIEW As the reader may have noticed, most of the authors (e.g. Leech, Culpeper, Kaa de Marlangeon) who began writing about (im)politeness at the end of the agi century have continued to do so in the 21* century, showing an evolution in their work. In particular there has been a tendency towards the consideration of (im)politeness as an all-pervasive phenomenon that is by no means one: dimensional or easy to grasp (Locher & Bousfield 2008: 4), its main characteristie being that it involves relational work (ie. the work done by social actors who are constantly negotiating their positions, cf. 4.2) and therefore forms part of a wider communicative experience. Part of the discussion has also turned to whether impoliteness and rudeness are the same thing or not. Both Bousfield (2008) and Culpeper (2008) consider that the key for impoliteness is the hearer’s understanding of the speaker's intentions, while in contrast Terkourafi (2008) argues that the recognition of intentions constitutes rudeness rather than impoliteness, but in any case, itis clear that in the relational work spectrum, the two terms occupy a similar conceptual space. Another important issue is what kind of (im)polite behavior is marked or unmarked. In Locher and Watts's (2005) perspective, relational work includes various kinds of behavior: appropriate polite behavior is positively marked, whereas over-polite behavior is negatively marked. Inappropriate impolite behavior is also negatively marked, rudeness being its most extreme representation (which shows that for these authors, rudeness is the worst or most aggressive kind of impoliteness). The unmarked behavior would be what Watts (2003) calls politic behavior,” something in-between the two marked poles, which, like polite behavior, is also appropriate. Culpeper (2008: 23) notes that this raises the issue of how 'markedness' differs from ‘appropriacy’, and suggests tha the distinguishing characteristic of markedness is its relationship with affect. Once more when dealing with pragmatic topics, we see how the emotional context is crucial for the interpretation of a phenomenon: the unmarked relational Politic behavior is defined by Watts (2008: 19) as “linguistic behavior which Is pet ceived to be appropriate to the social constraints of the ongoing interaction, Le. aSWHHL Pelteness ond Inmpolteness 168 options, which tend to display a neutral emotion, are contrasted with the positively and the negatively marked, which involve a negative or a positive emotion. This is precisely the main topic touched on in Culpeper et al. (2014), as seen from a cross-cultural perspective. In summary and to conclude, it can be said that, in the view of many specialists on the topic, the relational framework offers an all-embracing perspective, covering not only politeness and impoliteness, but also other kinds of relational practice (such as politic behavior). Holmes & Schnurr (2005: 124) indicate that one of the advantages of treating the phenomenon as relational work is that it avoids “the definitional traps, referential slipperiness, and ‘emotional baggage of the term ‘politeness”. But whatever the approach taken, it is clear that (Im)politeness constitutes one of the key topics for understanding the pragmatics of any given language, culture, or social group. 4.4. CONCLUSION The body of work presented in this chapter constitutes one of the major achievements of pragmatics to date. Half a century ago, the notion of politeness was only associated with good manners. If linguists or dictionary-writers mentioned it at all, they did so in order to warn their readers how to avoid rude crinappropriate language. It was in the wake of Grice’ insights into the principles underlying conversation that linguists gained a radically new understanding of how politeness is ruled by principles and maxims analogous to those identified for conversation in general. Using the methodology and techniques of pragmatics, linguists came to see that politeness was central to the strategies deployed in interaction, and various theories were developed to account for those aspects of linguistic behavior that follow from such notions as face, rationality, strategic options, self-effacement and respect. It was only a matter of time before linguists developed an equally strong interest in what had been mistakenly taken to be merely absence of politeness, namely impoliteness. Authors from various cultures have now looked into different aspects of impolite behavior, but for the purposes of this book we have placed special emphasis on the pioneering work of the English-speaking and Spanish-speaking worlds, where ways have been found to classify and understand impolite language behavior as a much more complex Phenomenon, from a sociocultural viewpoint which involves different shades and types of relational work. The next chapter will turn to another of the great achievements of Pragmatics, the development of Relevance Theory.170 Politeness ond Impoliteness /// SUMMARY (CHAPTER 4) 1 are constitutes an ideal framewor language. conversational-contract view, the saving view, the emotive perspective, approach, and the rapport management the conversational maxim and the face-saving views, 5. The conversational-maxim view takes as i Cooperative Principle (CP) and the associated Mane, advocate of this view was Lakoff (1973), who propo Competence, the second Politeness, covering a sc 4. The major exponent of the c “onversational-maxim view who formulates a Politenes: w is Leech (1977, 1988), rentary to the CP and a sociopragmatic potiteness scale, respectively. 5. Inhis last publication, General Strategy of Polite book emphasizes the sociopra the relational perspective t view. The most influential of which (‘Be polite’) is divided into three “ale Formal-Informal-Intimate. 's Principle that is comple ional states of interacting, , the frame have been ts major inspiration Gricey ms. The first prominent ses Rules of Pragmatic Rules of ditions and practices of politeness in Chines reat store by the concept of the work of Brown & Levinson (B&L), (positive fa Both nega illocutionar are classif positive fa Politeness threatenin politeness. 9, BAL distin of the loss FTA with } and absta contextua these stra particular of an FTA 10, Both Leec proposed to accour argued (1 autonomy data con: criticism 11. In pragm: asa use c since the de Marla present. | kinds of negative politenes 12, Kaul de] impolite stints, inoliteness ond Impoliteness (71 ‘The face-saving view, represented above all by B&L, ([1978] 1987), takes face and rationality as the basis for an understanding of politeness. Politeness is seen as a rational strategy for achieving one’s desires without offending the other's or one's own face. Face is defined as incorporating two ‘wants the desire to be unimpeded (negative face) and the desire to be approved of (positive face), Both negative and positive face can be threatened by a whole range of illocutionary acts. These are known as Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs), which are classified as threatening to the hearer’s negative face, the hearer’s positive face, the speaker's negative face or the speaker's positive face. Politeness in this view involves using language to make an FTA less threatening, either through negative politeness and/or through positive politeness. BEL distinguish five strategies, ordered according to the speaker's estimate of the loss of face involved: FTA without redressive action (‘bald on record’), FTA with positive politeness, FTA with negative politeness, FTA off record, and abstaining from doing the FTA. In addition, they recognize three contextual variables that together set the background for the operation of these strategies: D(istance), P(ower) and R(anking) (of imposition in the particular culture). They propose an equation for assessing the weightiness of an FTA as a function of the three variables. Both Leech's and B&L’s work, despite claims especially by the latter to have proposed a universally valid system, have been criticized for a failure to account for politeness in non-Western cultures. In addition, it has been argued (Bravo 1999) that in Spanish-speaking cultures values such as autonomy and affiliation play the role taken by considerations of face in the data considered by B&L. Finally, Leech and B&L have both encountered criticism for excluding impoliteness from their proposals. In pragmatics, impoliteness is now not seen as the absence of politeness but as a.use of language sparked off by a range of emotions. It has been studied ice the nineties, notably for English by Culpeper and for Spanish by Kaul de Marlangeon, in a series of works by each from the mid-nineties to the present. Culpeper reacts to B&L’s Politeness Theory by distinguishing five kinds of impoliteness: bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, sarcasm or mock politeness, and the withholding of politeness. Kaul de Marlangeon provides a classification of impolite acts as formally impolite with a polite purpose, involuntarily impolite (gaffes, involuntary stints, involuntary omissions), self-impolite, formally polite but impolitem2 Politeness ond Impoliteness voluntary stints, overwhelming silences, or involving fustigation impoliteness. Issues that have occupied impoliteness researchers in recent times hay been the question whether rudeness is to be distinguished frog impoliteness and the possibility that excessive politeness can'ta experienced as impolite, giving rise to the notion of ‘politic behaviga (Watts 2003) lying between extremes of politeness and impolitenes, Within this framework, politeness and impoliteness are found within te Spectrum of relational work, where appropriate behavior is unmarkes and inappropriate behavior is markedPoliteness ond Impoliteness 173 fustigation SELF-EVALUATION QUESTIONS (CHAPTER 4) it times haye ished from tess can be ic behaviog’ woliteness, within the unmarked, Choose the most appropriate answer for each question. 1, Politeness in linguistics is mainly concerned with a) social manners. b) appropriateness, ©) correct grammar 2, There is/are ... to the phenomenon of politeness, a) only one approach b) four approaches ©) various approaches 8. The most influential approaches to politeness have been a) the social-norm view and the conversational-contract view. ») the frame approach and the emotive approach. ©) the face-saving view and the conversational-maxim view. 4 According to Lakoff (1973), if a speaker has to choose between politeness and clarity, she will choose a) politeness, b) clarity. ©) neither of the two. 5. With the concept of absolute politenes , Leech (1983) refers to his view that @) some illocutionary acts are inherently polite or impolite ») politeness varies according to specific situations. ©) there is a fixed number of politeness maxims, 6. Leech (2014) is in favor of a view of politeness that is a) completely relativistic b) completely univers: tie ©) in between the relativistic and the universalistic views. 7. Gu (1990, 1997) and Ide (e.g. 1989, 1993) are authors who have emphasized @) the similarities between Eastern and Western cultures. ») the contrast between the politeness behavior in the Eastern and the Western worlds. ©) their opposition to the Gricean approach to Politeness,m Politeness and Impoliteness we 8. In Brown & Levinson's (1987) view, negative face has to do with a) the hearer ‘wanting the wants’ of the speaker. b) the want of every human being that their acti ns be unimpeded ©) the desire of the speaker to please her interlocutor. 9. What type of politeness strategy (following B&L's taxonomy) is used by | Anthony in the following situation? Anthony is having a conversation and celebrating his biethday with hig Wi friends in his house when all ofa sudden he hears a strange noise, so he saye A “Shhh! Stop talking!” F a) Off record *») ) Bald on record » ©) On record with negative politeness ° 10. What type of politeness strategy (following B&L’s taxonomy) is used by Bre Carmen in the following situation? a Carmen is a bit annoyed because her husband never takes the initiative to go an out or travel to different places, so when her husband comes back from work A one day and asks her if dinner is ready, she replies: “I wish I had an adventurous friend to enjoy life with!” B a) Off record a) 'b) On record with positive politeness b) ©) On record with negative politeness ° 11, Which of the following combinations of the sociological variables (P, D & R) 15. W would be the most probable in the following exchange, in a situation in which an English Engineer (A) is talking to his friend (B), who nevertheless happens to be his boss: A: Will you be coming to the office tomorrow morning? B: Yes, why? A: Tjust wanted to invite you for lunch. a) Low D, low P, and high R b) Low D, high P, and high R ©) Low D, high P, and low RUMMMUUIIIIUIHL Politeness and Impoliteness 175 2, B&L’s politeness theory was criticized for its a) relativistic view b) claim to uniqueness. ©) claim to universality . Following Culpeper’s (1996) taxonomy of impolite acts, say what type of impoliteness is found in B's reply, in a situation in which she knows that A is Iying to her: A: Believe me, I have never cheated on you. B: Yeah, right!!! a) Sarcasm or mock politeness b) Bald on record impoliteness ©) Positive impoliteness . Following Kaul de Marlangeon’s (2008) taxonomy of impolite acts, say what type of impoliteness is found in B's reply, in a situation in which A is very angry at her friend: A: What's the matter with you today??? B: Shut up and get the hell out of here, NOW! a) Fustigation impoliteness b) Overwhelming silence ©) Formally polite act with an impolite purpose Within the relational work perspective on (im)polite behavior, over-polite behavior is a) positively marked, b) negatively marked. ©) neutral.