Cover not available
Part of
Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions
Edited by Marta Dynel and Jan Chovanec
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 256] 2015
► pp. 157–182

Impoliteness in the service of verisimilitude in film interaction

ORCID logo

This paper addresses the issue of impoliteness in the context of the verisimilitude of film discourse. Taking as its departure point the notion of participation framework encompassing two levels of communication underlying film interaction and drawing on the recent developments in the relevant scholarship on impoliteness, the present article puts forward a number of hypotheses about how impoliteness, albeit extremely frequent and superfluous, is plausibly rendered and does not strike viewers as being inconceivable given the way it is realised on the characters’ level of communication. To this end, a few pragmatic factors are discussed: impoliteness as a character trait, the speaker’s power, sanctioning impoliteness within a community of practice, and the nature of hearers’ reactions to impoliteness.

Published online: 12 February 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.256.07dyn
References (72)
Alvarez-Pereyre, Michael
2011 “Using Film as Linguistic Specimen.” In Telecinematic Discourse: Approaches to the Language of Film and Television Series, ed. by Roberta Piazza, Monika Bednarek, and Fabio Rossi, 47–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika
2010 The Language of Fictional Television: Drama and Identity. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
2011 “The Stability of the Televisual Character.” In Telecinematic Discourse: Approaches to the Language of Film and Television Series, ed. by Roberta Piazza, Monika Bednarek and Fabio Rossi, 185–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beebe, Leslie
1995 “Polite Fictions: Instrumental Rudeness as Pragmatic Competence.” In Linguistics and the Education of Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguistics and Sociolinguistic Aspects, ed. by James Alatis, Carolyn A. Straehle, Brent Gallenberger, and Maggie Ronkin, 154–168. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bircher, Gary, Robert Weiss, and John Vincent
1975 “Multi-method Analysis of Social Reinforcement Exchange between Martially Distressed and Non-distressed Spouse and Stranger Dyads”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31: 349–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, Derek
2007 “Beginnings, Middles and Ends: A Biopsy of the Dynamics of Impolite Exchanges.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 2185–2216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008a “Impoliteness in the Struggle for Power.” In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher, 127–153. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008b Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Researching Impoliteness and Rudeness: Issues and Definitions.” In Interpersonal Pragmatics, ed. by Miriam Locher and Sage L. Graham, 102–134. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bousfield, Derek, and Jonathan Culpeper
2008 “Impoliteness: Eclecticism and Diaspora. An Introduction to the Special Edition.” Journal of Politeness Research 4: 161–168.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Steven Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bubel, Claudia
2008 “Film Audiences as Overhearers.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craig, Robert, Karen Tracy, and Frances Spisak
1986 “The Discourse of Requests: Assessment of a Politeness Approach.” Human Communication Research 12: 437–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 “(Im)politeness in Drama.” In Studying Drama: From Text to Context, ed. by Jonathan Culpeper, Mick Short, and Peter Verdonk, 83–95. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2001 Language and Characterisation: People in Plays and Other Texts. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2005 “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link.” Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 35–72.Google Scholar
2008 “Reflections on Impoliteness, Relational Work and Power.” In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher, 17–44. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010 “Conventionalised Impoliteness Formulae”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3232–3245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “(Im) Politeness: Three Issues.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1128–1133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield, and Anne Wichmann
2003 “Impoliteness Revisited: With Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1545–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dynel, Marta
2010a “On ‘Revolutionary Road’: A Proposal for Extending the Gricean Model of Communication to Cover Multiple Hearers.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 6 (2): 283–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b “Not Hearing Things – Hearer/Listener Categories in Polylogues.” mediAzioni 9. [URL]Google Scholar
2011a “Stranger than Fiction. A Few Methodological Notes on Linguistic Research in Film Discourse.” Brno Studies in English 37 (1): 41–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011b “ ‘You Talking to Me?’ The Viewer as a Ratified Listener to Film Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1628–1644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011c “I’ll be there for You: On Participation-based Sitcom Humour.” In The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains, ed. by Marta Dynel, 311–333. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Setting our House in Order: The Workings of Impoliteness in Multi-party Film Discourse.” Journal of Politeness Research 8: 161–194.Google Scholar
2013a “Humorous Phenomena in Dramatic Discourse.” The European Journal of Humor Research 1: 22–60.Google Scholar
2013b “On Impoliteness and Drama Discourse: An Interview with Prof. Jonathan Culpeper.” International Review of Pragmatics 5 (1): 162–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013c “Impoliteness as Disaffiliative Humour in Film Talk.” In Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory, ed. by Marta Dynel, 105–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 (Forthcoming). “Conceptualising Conversational Humour as (Im)politeness: The Case of Film Talk.” Journal of Politeness Research.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet
1992 “Think Practically and Look Locally: Language and Gender as Community-based Practice.” Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 461–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 “Communities of Practice: Where Language, Gender and Power all Live.” In Language and Gender: A Reader, ed. by Jennifer Coates, 484–494. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eelen, Gino
2001 A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra
2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse and Society 12 (4): 451–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael, and Derek Bousfield
2012 “Mock Impoliteness in Interactions Amongst Australian and British Speakers of English.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1099–1114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet, Meredith Marra, and Bernadette Vine
2012 “Politeness and Impoliteness in New Zealand English Workplace Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1063–1076. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Infante, Dominic, and Charles Wigley III
1986 “Verbal Aggressiveness: An Interpersonal Model and Measure.” Communication Monographs 53: 61–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele
1990 “Linguistic Politeness. Current Research Issues.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 193–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kienpointner, Manfred
1997 “Varieties of Rudeness: Types and Functions of Impolite Utterances.” Functions of Language 4 (2): 251–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kozloff, Sarah
2000 Overhearing Film Dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger
1991 Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen
1992 “Activity Types and Language.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pressccc.Google Scholar
Limberg, Holger
2008 “Threats in Conflict Talk: Impoliteness and Manipulation.” In Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield and Miriam Locher, 155–179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009 “Impoliteness and Threat Responses.” Journal of Pragmatics 41(7): 1376–1394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam
2004 Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam, and Derek Bousfield
2008 “Introduction: Impoliteness and Power in Language.” In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher, 1–13. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam, and Richard Watts
2005 “Politeness Theory and Relational Work.” Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 9–33.Google Scholar
2008 “Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating Norms of Linguistic Behaviour.” In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher, 77–99. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McHoul, Alec
1987 “An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Fictional Conversation for doing Conversational Analysis.” Semiotica 67: 83–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meier, Ardith
1995 “Defining Politeness: Universality in Appropriateness.” Language Sciences 17 (4): 345–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara
2002 “Rethinking Politeness, Impoliteness and Gender identity.” In Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis, ed. by Lia Litosseliti and Jane Sunderland, 69–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 “Gender and Impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research 1 (2): 263–280.Google Scholar
Mullany, Louise
2008 “ ‘Stop Hassling Me!’ Impoliteness, Power and Gender Identity in the Professional Workplace.” In Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield and Miriam Locher, 231–251. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Palmer, Jerry
1987 The Logic of the Absurd. On Film and Television Comedy. London: BFI Publishing.Google Scholar
Piazza, Roberta
1999 “Dramatic Discourse Approached from a Conversational Analysis Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1001–1023. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “The Representation of Conflict in the Discourse of Italian Melodrama.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (12): 2087–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 The Discourse of Italian Cinema and Beyond: Let Cinema Speak. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Quaglio, Paulo
2009 Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends vs. Natural Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Kay
2010 Television Dramatic Dialogue. A Sociolinguistic Study. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schnurr, Stephanie, Meredith Marra, and Janet Holmes
2008 “Impoliteness as a means of Contesting and Challenging Power Relations in the Workplace.” In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher, 211–230. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen
2005 “(Im)politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging their Bases and Interrelationships.” Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 95–119.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina
2008 “Toward a Unified Theory of Politeness, Impoliteness, and Rudeness.” In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher, 45–74. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen
2008 “ ‘Reasonable Hostility’ – Situation-appropriate Face Attack.” Journal of Politeness Research 4: 169–191.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard
1989 “Relevance and Relational Work: Linguistic Politeness as Politic Behaviour.” Multilingua 8 (2–3): 131–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Power in Family Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 2nd ed. by Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, xi–xlvii. Berlin and New York: 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, ed. by Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich, 1–17. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by 8 other publications

Okazawa, Ryo
2024. Fictional characterization through repair, membership categorization, and attribute ascription. Text & Talk 0:0 DOI logo
Khafaga, Ayman
2023. Beyond relational work: a psycho-pragmatic analysis of impoliteness in Shakespeare’s King Lear. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1 DOI logo
Lees, Christopher
2023. Translating politeness on public notices with a directive function in Thessaloniki. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) DOI logo
Napoli, Vittorio
2023. Chapter 8. “There is no doubt, you must be right!”. In Pragmatics and Translation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 337], ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Pak, Kamilla
2023. Chapter 9. (Im)politeness and plot advancement in screen translation. In Pragmatics and Translation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 337], ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Kirner-Ludwig, Monika
2022. Data collection methods applied in studies in the journalIntercultural Pragmatics(2004–2020): a scientometric survey and mixed corpus study. Intercultural Pragmatics 19:4 ► pp. 459 ff. DOI logo
Cao, Ying, Chong Han, Xiangdong Liu & Adrian Hale
2021. ‘She is like a Yakshini’. The European Journal of Humour Research 9:4 ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
HIRATA, ICHIRO
2021. IMPLICATURES OF VOCATIVES AND THEIR THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 37:2 ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 june 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.