Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Conventionalized impoliteness formulae

Research

Associated organisational units

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Conventionalized impoliteness formulae

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Conventionalized impoliteness formulae. / Culpeper, Jonathan.
In: Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 42, No. 12, 12.2010, p. 3232-3245.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Culpeper, J 2010, 'Conventionalized impoliteness formulae', Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 3232-3245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007

APA

Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalized impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3232-3245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007

Vancouver

Culpeper J. Conventionalized impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics. 2010 Dec;42(12):3232-3245. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007

Author

Culpeper, Jonathan. / Conventionalized impoliteness formulae. In: Journal of Pragmatics. 2010 ; Vol. 42, No. 12. pp. 3232-3245.

Bibtex

@article{19908cfdcbe24a1298eb80ceceef4eb8,
title = "Conventionalized impoliteness formulae",
abstract = "This paper makes a contribution to the study of impoliteness. More particularly, it explores conventionalised impoliteness formulae and their basis. It taps into debates about whether impoliteness (or politeness, for that matter) can be inherent in expressions, and argues that there is a sense in which it can. An important foundation for this paper is Terkourafi{\textquoteright}s (e.g. 2001, 2002) work on formulaic politeness expressions. However, it argues that Terkourafi{\textquoteright}s strong focus on the frequency of people{\textquoteright}s direct experience of linguistic expressions in specific contexts, whilst appropriate for politeness, does not entirely suit an account of conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Indirect experience of impoliteness, especially via metadiscourse, does much to shape what counts as impolite and thus what may be conventionalised as impolite. Such impoliteness metadiscourse is driven not only by the salience of impoliteness, but by the social dynamics of impoliteness itself. Finally, this paper proposes two methods for identifying conventionalised impoliteness formulae (one being akin to Terkourafi{\textquoteright}s method), and offers a preliminary list of such formulae in English.",
keywords = "Conventionalisation, Contextualization cues , Formulae , Impoliteness , Metadiscourse , Politeness , Social norms",
author = "Jonathan Culpeper",
year = "2010",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "3232--3245",
journal = "Journal of Pragmatics",
issn = "0378-2166",
publisher = "ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV",
number = "12",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conventionalized impoliteness formulae

AU - Culpeper, Jonathan

PY - 2010/12

Y1 - 2010/12

N2 - This paper makes a contribution to the study of impoliteness. More particularly, it explores conventionalised impoliteness formulae and their basis. It taps into debates about whether impoliteness (or politeness, for that matter) can be inherent in expressions, and argues that there is a sense in which it can. An important foundation for this paper is Terkourafi’s (e.g. 2001, 2002) work on formulaic politeness expressions. However, it argues that Terkourafi’s strong focus on the frequency of people’s direct experience of linguistic expressions in specific contexts, whilst appropriate for politeness, does not entirely suit an account of conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Indirect experience of impoliteness, especially via metadiscourse, does much to shape what counts as impolite and thus what may be conventionalised as impolite. Such impoliteness metadiscourse is driven not only by the salience of impoliteness, but by the social dynamics of impoliteness itself. Finally, this paper proposes two methods for identifying conventionalised impoliteness formulae (one being akin to Terkourafi’s method), and offers a preliminary list of such formulae in English.

AB - This paper makes a contribution to the study of impoliteness. More particularly, it explores conventionalised impoliteness formulae and their basis. It taps into debates about whether impoliteness (or politeness, for that matter) can be inherent in expressions, and argues that there is a sense in which it can. An important foundation for this paper is Terkourafi’s (e.g. 2001, 2002) work on formulaic politeness expressions. However, it argues that Terkourafi’s strong focus on the frequency of people’s direct experience of linguistic expressions in specific contexts, whilst appropriate for politeness, does not entirely suit an account of conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Indirect experience of impoliteness, especially via metadiscourse, does much to shape what counts as impolite and thus what may be conventionalised as impolite. Such impoliteness metadiscourse is driven not only by the salience of impoliteness, but by the social dynamics of impoliteness itself. Finally, this paper proposes two methods for identifying conventionalised impoliteness formulae (one being akin to Terkourafi’s method), and offers a preliminary list of such formulae in English.

KW - Conventionalisation

KW - Contextualization cues

KW - Formulae

KW - Impoliteness

KW - Metadiscourse

KW - Politeness

KW - Social norms

U2 - 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007

DO - 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007

M3 - Journal article

VL - 42

SP - 3232

EP - 3245

JO - Journal of Pragmatics

JF - Journal of Pragmatics

SN - 0378-2166

IS - 12

ER -