Experimental pragmatics research on (im)politeness generally employs “off-line” methodologies, meaning that data reflect ratings or understanding of given texts or interactions after they have been processed. “On-line” methods allow for moment-by-moment data collection as input is processed. We discuss advantages of using one on-line method, eye-tracking, in experimental pragmatics research. We also consider experimental design difficulties inherent in creating stimuli. We take as a specific example a recent study of how readers process English taboo words portrayed as being uttered by more or less typical speakers in more or less appropriate situations. We demonstrate early influences of pragmatic information, essentially concurrent with lexical access. The timing of these influences in the ongoing language processing cannot be captured using off-line methods. Further, our on-line data suggest that part of impoliteness judgments may be formed before they reach the threshold of conscious understanding.
Allan, K. & Burridge, K. 2006. Forbidden Words. Cambridge: CUP.
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Baayen, R.H., Davidson, D.J., & Bates, D.M. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 390–412.
Beebe, L.M. 1995. Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In Georgetown University Round Table on Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguistic, and Sociolinguistic Aspects, J.E. Alatis, C.A. Straehle, B. Gallenberger & M. Ronkin (eds), 154–168. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Bousfield, D. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 167]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Breheny, R., Katsos, N. & Williams, J. 2006. Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 100(3): 434–463.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP.
Buchanan, T.W., Etzel, J.A., Adolphs, R. & Tranel, D. 2006. The influence of autonomic arousal and semantic relatedness on memory for emotional words. International Journal of Psychophysiology 61: 26–33.
Crites, S.L., Fabrigar, L.R., & Petty, R.E. 1994. Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6: 619–634.
Culpeper, J. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349–367.
Culpeper, J. 2010. Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 42(12): 3232–3245.
Culpeper, J. 2011. Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offense. Cambridge: CUP.
Culpeper, J. 2012. (Im)politeness: Three issues. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1128–1133.
Dhooge, E. & Hartsuiker, R.J. 2011. How do speakers resist distraction? Evidence from a taboo picture-word interference task. Psychological Science 22: 855–859.
Eelen, G. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome.
Eilola, T.M. & Havelka, J. 2010. Behavioural and physiological responses to the emotional and taboo Stroop tasks in native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism 15: 353–369.
Fisher, D.F. & Shebilske, W.L. 1985. There is more that meets the eye than the eyemind assumption. In Eye Movements and Human Information Processing. R. Groner, G.W. McConkie & C. Menz (eds), 149–158. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Fraser, B. 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219–236.
Gibbs, R.W. 1986. On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology 115(1): 3–15.
Goffman, E. 1967. Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City NY: Anchor Books.
Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Grosser, G.S. & Walsh, A.A. 1966. Sex differences in the differential recall of taboo and neutral words. The Journal of Psychology 63: 219–227.
Guillet, R. & Arndt, J. 2009. Taboo words: the effect of emotion on memory for peripheral information. Memory & Cognition 37: 866–867.
Hadley, C.B. & Mackay, D.G. 2006. Does emotion help or hinder immediate memory? Arousal versus priority-binding mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32: 79–88.
Harris, S. 2001. Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society 12(4): 451–472.
Holtgraves, T. 1986. Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(2): 305–314.
Inhoff, A.W. & Rayner, K. 1986. Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & Psychophysics 40: 431–439.
Kilgarriff, A. & Grefenstette, G. 2003. Introduction to the special issue on the web as corpus. Computational Linguistics 29: 333–347.
Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.
Lachenicht, L.G. 1980. Aggravating language: A study of abusive and insulting language. International Journal of Human Communication 13: 607–688.
Lakoff, R. 1989. The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua 8: 101–129.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G. 2009. How far can a theory of politeness be a theory of impoliteness? Illustrated from Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf. Paper given at the Linguistic Impoliteness And Rudeness II (LIAR II) Conference. Lancaster University, UK, June 30–July 2, 2009.
Locher, M.A. & Watts, R.J. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 9–33.
Levy, R. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106: 1126–1177.
MacKay, D.G., Hadley, C.B. & Schwartz, J.H. 2005. Relations between emotion, illusory word perception, and orthographic repetition blindness: Tests of binding theory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 58(A): 1514–1533.
MacKay, D.G., Shafto, M., Taylor, J.K., Marian, D.E., Abrams, L. & Dyer, J.R. 2004. Relations between emotion, memory, and attention: evidence from taboo Stroop, lexical decision, and immediate memory tasks. Memory & Cognition 32: 474–88.
Mathewson, K.J., Arnell, K.M. & Mansfield, C.A. 2008. Capturing and holding attention: The impact of emotional words in rapid serial visual presentation. Memory & Cognition 36: 182–200.
McGinnies, E. 1949. Emotionality and perceptual defense. Psychological Review 56: 244–251.
Palmer, C., Raizen, A. & Christianson, K. Under review. Effects of context and individual differences on the processing of taboo words.
Postman, L., Bronson, W.C., & Gropper, G.L. 1953. Is there a mechanism of perceptual defense?Journal of Abnormal Psychology 48: 215–224.
Rayner, K. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124: 372–422.
Rayner, K. 2009. The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62: 1457–1506.
Rayner, K. & Duffy, S.A. 1986. Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition 14: 734–747.
Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J. & Clifton, C.E. 2012. The Psychology of Reading. New York NY: Psychology Press.
Regel, S., Coulson, S. & Gunter, T.C. 2010. The communicative style of a speaker can affect language comprehension? ERP evidence from the comprehension of irony. Brain Research 1311: 121–135.
Reichle, E.D., Pollatsek, A. & Rayner, K. 2006. E–Z Reader: A cognitive-control, serial-attention model of eye-movement behavior during reading. Cognitive Systems Research 7: 4–22.
Rudanko, J. 2006. Aggravated impoliteness and two types of speaker intention in an episode of Shakespeare’s. Timon of Athens. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 829–841.
Sales, B.D. & Haber, R.N. 1968. A different look at perceptual defense for taboo words. Perception & Psychophysics 3: 156–160.
Sha, G. 2010. Using Google as a super corpus to drive written language learning: a comparison with the British National Corpus. Computer Assisted Language Learning 23: 377–393.
Siegrist, M. 1995. Effects of taboo words on color-naming performance on a Stroop test. Perceptual and Motor Skills 81: 1119–1122.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). ‘Face, (im) politeness and rapport’. In Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.) 11–47. London: Continuum.
Stites, M.C., Luke, S.G. & Christianson, K. 2013. The psychologist said quickly, “Dialogue descriptions modulate reading speed!”Memory & Cognition 41: 137–151.
Stroop, J.R. 1935. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 18: 643–662.
Thomas, L. & LaBar, K. 2005. Emotional arousal enhances word repetition priming. Cognition & Emotion 19: 1027–1047.
Van Berkum, J.J.A., Hagoort, P. & Brown, C.M. 1999. Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 11(6): 657–671.
Van Berkum, J.J.A., Van den Brink, D., Tesink, C.M.J.Y., Kos, M. & Hagoort, P. 2008. The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(4): 580–591.
Watts, R. 1989. Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8(2–3): 131–166.
Watts, R. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: CUP.
Weaver, M.D., Lauwereyns, J. & Theeuwes, J. 2011. The effect of semantic information on saccade trajectory deviations. Vision Research 51: 1124–1128.
Werkhofer, K. 1992. Traditional and modern views: The social constitution and the power of politeness. In Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, R.J. Watts, S. Ide & K. Ehlich (eds),155–199. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yao, B., Belin, P. & Scheepers, C. 2011. Silent reading of direct versus indirect speech activates voice-selective areas in the auditory cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23(10): 3146–3152.
Yao, B. & Scheepers, C. 2011. Contextual modulation of reading rate for direct versus indirect quotations. Cognition 121: 447–453.
Zeelenberg, R., Bocanegra, B.R. & Pecher, D. 2011. Emotion-induced impairments in speeded word recognition tasks. Experimental Psychology 58: 400–411.
Zwaan, R.A., Langston, M.C. & Graesser, A.C. 1995. The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science 6: 292–297.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Bromberek-Dyzman, Katarzyna
2024. Rethinking (Assumptions About) Irony: The Bilingual Factor. In Studying Verbal Irony and Sarcasm, ► pp. 57 ff.
2017. Experimental Approaches to Linguistic (Im)politeness. In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ► pp. 381 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.