.png)
.png)
Email this article 
Challenges of researching impoliteness in modern communication
https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2024-8-240-249
Abstract
The study of the basics of harmonious communication in modern communicative interaction has gained in recent decades a serious theoretical basis in the works of P. Brown and S. Levinson, the writings of J. Leech and other famous linguists. However, their theories have been critically analyzed by discourse analysis researchers J. Culpepper, G. Eelen, R. Watts, D. Bousfield and M. Locher, H. SpencerOatey, V.I. Zhelvis, S.N. Zasypkin, V.V. Leontiev, N.G. Bragina and I.A. Sharonov, A.D. Shmelev and others. The scientific polemic has highlighted a new direction of research, which was named “impoliteness”. The article evaluates classical and modern scientific-theoretical provisions on the theory of impoliteness. It is revealed that impoliteness and politeness connect aspects of the linguocultural component of communication, their evaluation contributes to the identification of the bases of rude communicative behavior and specific emotional coloring of communication. Therefore, those concepts should be considered as constructs of human consciousness and attitudes to evaluative judgments about behavior in a particular context.
About the Author
Vassili Blajenoi Gomes DiasRussian Federation
Vassili Blajenoi Gomes Dias, postgraduate student,
bld. 6, Miusskaya Square, Moscow, 125047.
References
1. Belyutina, Yu.A. (2015), “Communicative strategies of interaction and manipulation in binary opposition ‘politeness – impoliteness’”, Izvestia of Smolensk State University, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 210–219.
2. Bragina, N.G. and Sharonov, I.A. (2019), “’Pedagogical’ agression in Russian everyday communication”, Russian Journal of Linguistics, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 975–993. DOI: 10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-975-993.
3. Bousfield, D. and Locher, M. (eds.) (2008), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, DOI: 10.1017/S0047404509990674.
4. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1978), “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena”, E. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 56–310.
5. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987), Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
6. Culpeper, J. (1996), “Towards an anatomy of impoliteness”, Journal of Pragmatics, no. 25, рp. 349–367.
7. Culpeper, J. (2011), Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
8. Eelen, G. (2001), A critique of politeness theories, St. Jerome Publishing, Manchester, UK.
9. Lakoff, R.T. (1989), “The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse”, Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, vol. 2–3, no. 8, pp. 101–130.
10. Leech, G. (1983), Principles of Pragmatics, Longman, London, New York.
11. Leech, G. (2014), The Pragmatics of Politeness, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
12. Leont’ev, V.V. (2016), “Linguistic (im)politeness: On the issue of category content”, Ecology of Language and Communicative Practice, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 70–83.
13. Leontiev, V.V. (2018), “ ‘The Dark Side’ of politeness. Historico-pragmatic analysis of the nominations of its subjects in the Russian lingua-culture”, World of linguistics and communication. Electronic scientific journal, no. 54. pp. 132–162.
14. Locher, M. and Watts, R,J. (2005), “Politeness theory and relational work”, Journal of Politeness Research, no.1, pр. 9–33. DOI: 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.
15. Mehl, M. and Pennebaker, J. (2003), “The sounds of social life: A psychometric analysis of student’s daily social environments and natural conversations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, no. 84, pp. 857–870.
16. Petrova, A.A. (2021), “Basic semantic components of the concept IMPOLITENESS in Russian linguistic culture. Lexicographic analysis”, Philology. Theory & Practice, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1478–1485, DOI: 10.30853/phil210242.
17. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005), “(Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships”, Journal of Politeness Research, vol. 1, no. 1, pр. 95–119.
18. Watts, R.J. (2003), Politeness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
19. Zhel’vis, V.I. (2011), “Rudeness as a regulator of communicative behavior”, Bytie v yazyke: Sb. nauch. trudov k 80-letiyu V.I. Zhel’visa, [Being in language. Collection of scientific works on the 80th anniversary of V.I. Zelvis], Izd-vo YaGPU, Yaroslavl, Russia, pp. 258–289.
20. Zhel’vis, V.I. (2008), “Rudeness”. Issues of vocabulary classification”, Journal of Psycholinguistics” no. 7, pp. 109–113.
21. Zasypkin, S.N. (2010), “Invective. Conceptual analysis”, Alter Idem. Vyp. 3: Total’nost’ filosofskogo diskursa: problema samoopredeleniya sovremennoi filosofii,, Sb. nauch. trudov i perevodov [Issue 3: Totality of philosophical discourse. The issue of self-determination in modern philosophy. Collection of scientific works and translations], Moscow, Russia, pp. 32–37.
Supplementary files
For citation: Gomes Dias V.B. Challenges of researching impoliteness in modern communication. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin: “Literary Teory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies”, Series. 2024;(8):240-249. https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2024-8-240-249
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
