Cover not available
Article published In:
New perspectives on conflict
[Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 9:2] 2021
► pp. 185–214

The metalinguistics of offence in (British) English

A corpus-based metapragmatic approach

ORCID logo | Lancaster University, UK
ORCID logo | University of Queensland, Australia
Offence is a central concept in impoliteness, aggression and conflict research, yet has received only passing mention in definitions of impoliteness and related concepts. Janicki (2017) argues that impoliteness and language aggression scholars are needlessly worried about definitions. We use Janicki’s (2017) work as a springboard into a discussion of definitions of impolite or taboo language, airing potential problems and suggesting that the study of metalanguage offers at least a partial solution. We report a study of the metalanguage of offence in British English, and briefly examine whether there are any differences in Australian English, using SketchEngine to interrogate data in the two-billion word Oxford English Corpus. In so doing, we tease out different uses of the term offensive, and show that concepts such as offence are coloured by the specific linguistic and cultural contexts in which they appear. We conclude that while corpus-based metalinguistic analyses cannot completely eliminate the problem of definitional infinite regress, they do, however, offer an empirically grounded way of defining words that allows us to move beyond the intuitions of individual researchers.
Keywords: impoliteness, offence, definition, metalanguage, metapragmatics, corpora, British English, Australian English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Definitions in research on aggression and conflict
    • 2.1Janicki’s position
    • 2.2Drawing out issues for aggression and impoliteness scholars
  • 3.Metapragmatics and metalanguage
  • 4.A study of offence and its meaning
    • 4.1Some observations on the notion of offence in research on linguistic impoliteness and taboo language
    • 4.2The metalinguistics of offence: A corpus-based study
      • 4.2.1Our approach and focal point
      • 4.2.2Method
      • 4.2.3 Offensive in British English
      • 4.2.4Are there differences between British and Australian English conceptions of offence, and if so, what are they?
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00035.cul
References (59)
References
Allan, Keith. 2019. “Taboo Words and Language: An Overview.” In The Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language, edited by Keith Allan, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2001. “You Don’t Say?” Synthese 128 (1/2):15–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Blumczyński, Piotr. 2013. “Turning the Tide: A Critique of Natural Semantic Metalanguage from a Translation Studies Perspective.” Translation Studies 6 (3):261–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 2004. “Out of the Bottle: The Social Life of Metalanguage.” In Metalanguage, edited by Adam Jaworski, Nikolas Coupland and Dariusz Galasinski, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coleman, Linda, and Paul Kay. 1981. “Prototype Semantics: The English Word ‘Lie’”. Language 57(1):26–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, Paul, and Laurel J. Brinton. 2017. “Building and Evaluating Web Corpora Representing National Varieties of English.” Language Resources and Evaluation 511:643–662. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas, and Adam Jaworski. 2004. “Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Metalanguage: Reflexivity, Evaluation and Ideology.” In Metalanguage. Social and Ideological Perspectives, edited by Adam Jaworski, Nikolas Coupland and Dariusz Galasiński, 15–51. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2009. “The Metalanguage of impoliteness: Using Sketch Engine to Explore the Oxford English Corpus .” In Contemporary Corpus Linguistics, edited by Paul Baker, 66–88. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Michael Haugh. 2014. Pragmatics and the English Language. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Forthcoming. (Im)politeness and Sociopragmatics: In Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, edited by Michael Haugh, Dániel Z. Kádár and Marina Terkourafi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2019. “Linguistic Taboos in a Second or Foreign Language.” In The Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language, edited by Keith Allan, 218–232. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eelen, Gino. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Firth, John R. 1957. “A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory 1930–1955.” In Studies in Linguistic Analysis, edited by John R. Firth, 1–32. Oxford: Philological Society.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2012. “The First-Second Order Distinction in Face and Politeness Research.” Journal of Politeness Research 8(1):111–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Impoliteness and Taking Offence in Initial Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 861:36–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “The Role of English as a Scientific Metalanguage for Research in Pragmatics: Reflections on the Metapragmatics of ‘Politeness’ in Japanese.” East Asian Pragmatics 1 (1):39–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Corpus-based Metapragmatics.” In Methods in Pragmatics, edited by Andreas H. Jucker, Klaus P. Schneider and Wolfram Bublitz, 619–643. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “The Metapragmatics of Consideration in (Australian and New Zealand) English.” In From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness, edited by Eva Ogiermann and Pilar G. Blitvich, 201–225. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael, and Valeria Sinkeviciute. 2019. “Offence and Conflict Talk.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, edited by Matthew Evans, Lesley Jeffries and Jim O’Driscoll, 196–214. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hübler, Alex. 2011. “Metapragmatics.” In Foundations of Pragmatics, edited by Wolfram Bublitz and Neal R. Norrick, 107–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hübler, Axel, and Ulrich Busse. 2012. “Introduction.” In Investigations into the Meta-Communicative Lexicon in English, edited by Ulrich Busse and Axel Hübler, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. “Linguistics and Poetics.” In Style in Language, edited by Thomas Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janicki, Karol. 1999. Against Essentialism: Toward Language Awareness. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
. 2006. Language Misconceived. Arguing for Applied Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Lay People’s Language Problems.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20 (1):73–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “What is conflict? What is aggression? Are these challenging questions?” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 5 (1):156–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jay, Timothy. 2019. “The Psychology of Expressing and Interpreting Linguistic Taboos.” In The Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language, edited by Keith Allan, 77–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas. 2020. Politeness in the History of English. From the Middle Ages to the Present Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychlý, Pavel Smrz, and David Tugwell. 2004. “Sketch Engine.” Proceedings of Euralex, 105–116. Lorient, France.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1945. The Open Society and its Enemies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1979. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rychlý, Pavel. 2008. “A Lexicographer-friendly Association Score.” In Proceedings of Second Workshop on Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Languages Processing, RASLAN 2008, edited by Petr Sojka and Aleš Horák. Brno: Masaryk University.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104(3):192–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheff, Thomas J. 2006. “Concepts and Concept Formation: Goffman and beyond.” Qualitative Sociology Review 2 (3):48–64.Google Scholar
Schönefeld, Doris. 1999. “Corpus Linguistics and Cognitivism.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 41:137–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. “Indexical Order and the Dialectics of Sociolinguistic Life.” Language and Communication 23 (3/4):193–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John. 2004. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charlotte. 2015. “Beyond Sarcasm: The Metalanguage and Structures of Mock Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 871:127–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Mock Politeness in English and Italian: A Corpus-Assisted Metalanguage Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “The Relationship between Irony and Sarcasm: Insights from a First-order Metalanguage Investigation.” Journal of Politeness Research 12 (1):209–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2005. “Beyond the Micro-level in Politeness Research.” Journal of Politeness Research 1 (2):237–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “From Politeness1 to Politeness2: Tracking Norms of Im/politeness across Time and Space.” Journal of Politeness Research 7 (2):159–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trier, Jost. 1931. Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes: Die Geschichte eines sprachlichen Feldes: Vol. 1. Von den Anfangen bis zum Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Ullmann, Stephen. 1962. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 2000. “Notes on the Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language Use.” Pragmatics 10 (4):439–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waters, Sophia. 2012. “‘It’s Rude to VP’: The Cultural Semantics of Rudeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 441:1051–1062. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Linguistic Politeness Research: Quo vadis? ”. In Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, edited by Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, xi–xlvii. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich. 1992. “Introduction.” In Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, edited by Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, 1–17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1972. Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. (Studies in Language Companion Series 8). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Gillings, Mathew
2024. Chapter 3. Politics, religion, and drama. In The Pragmatics of Hypocrisy [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 343], ► pp. 44 ff. DOI logo
Hernández-López, María de la O
2024. The Discursive Construction of Identity Through Metapragmatic Comments in BlaBlaCar Online Reviews. In Evaluating Identities Online, ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Reiter, Rosina Márquez
2024. Leveraging Relations in Diaspora, DOI logo
Izadi, Ahmad
2023. On Face and Face-Work in Iran: From Etic Theories to Emic Practices. The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 24:3 ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara, Anna Bączkowska, Chaya Liebeskind, Giedre Valunaite Oleskeviciene & Slavko Žitnik
2023. An integrated explicit and implicit offensive language taxonomy. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 19:1 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Parvaresh, Vahid & Gemma Harvey
2023. Rhetorical Questions as Conveyors of Hate Speech. In Hate Speech in Social Media, ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Vilar-Lluch, Sara
2023. Understanding and appraising ‘hate speech’. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 11:2 ► pp. 279 ff. DOI logo
Haugh, Michael
2022. (Nie)grzeczność w dyskursie. tekst i dyskurs - text und diskurs :16 (2022) ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Haugh, Michael
2022. (Online) public denunciation, public incivilities and offence. Language & Communication 87 ► pp. 44 ff. DOI logo
Haugh, Michael, Dániel Z. Kádár & Rosina Márquez Reiter
2022. Offence and morality: Pragmatic perspectives. Language & Communication 87 ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Paternoster, Annick
2022. Defining Etiquette. In Historical Etiquette, ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed
2021. Multimodal metaphor and (im)politeness in political cartoons: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of Pragmatics 185 ► pp. 54 ff. DOI logo
Bączkowska, Anna
2021. “You’re too thick to change the station” – Impoliteness, insults and responses to insults on Twitter. Topics in Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo
Culpeper, Jonathan
2021. Impoliteness and hate speech: Compare and contrast. Journal of Pragmatics 179 ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo
Statham, Simon
2021. The year’s work in stylistics 2020. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 30:4 ► pp. 407 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.