Aurelia Puti Imani/ 19320172

Pragmatics CL

Politeness Strategy Performed in Satu Jam Lebih Dekat Talk Show on

Tv One: A Pragmatic Approach
https://jurnal.iainponorogo.ac.id/index.php/eltall/article/view/2727/1586
ABSTRACT
Talk show program on TV One is a program that uses language as a means of communication.
To create the success of cummunication, it needs a strategy. This study aims to find out the
politeness srategies used in Satu Jam Lebih Dekat talk show on TV One. The method used in
this article is descriptive qualitative method. The data source of this research is oral data
source, which is focused on the speeches between the presenter, interviewees, and mystery
guest with the sources from a number of ministers in our country by downloading on the site
www.youtube.com. For data analysis technique, the researcher used the contextual method
with the pragmatic competence-in-dividing. And for the theory, the researcher focuses on
politeness strategies by Brown Levinson's theory (1987: 94).The results indicate that there are
16 types of politeness strategies of Satu Jam Lebih Dekat program namely Bald on record,
Positive Politeness-attend to hearer, Positive Politeness-intensify interest, Positive Politeness-
use group identify marker, Positive Politeness-seek agreement, Positive Politeness-avoid
disagreement, Positive Politeness-assert speaker’s knowledge, Positive Politeness-include both
speaker and hearer in activity, Positive Politeness-give or ask reasons, Positive Politeness-give
gifts, Negative Politeness-be conventionally indirect, Negative Politeness-question, hedge,
Negative Politeness-give deference, Negative Politeness-impersonalize speaker and hearer,
Off record-give hints, and Off record-give association clues. The most dominant use of
politeness strategy is positive politeness-asking an agreement with the 42 percentage. The
politeness strategies of this speech acts support the effectiveness of talk show and will
minimize threats, protect, and extract information from interviewees without any compulsion
due to the use of this politeness strategy.
Keywords: pragmatics, politeness strategy, talk show
INTRODUCTION
This talk show has a narrower theme. This program only focuses on discussing one character
in depth to touch his humanist side. The humanist side raised is reflected in the difficult career
struggles of the speakers and many challenges of them. And the most important is we can gain
valuable lessons from all the history of its figures. In this study, the researchers focused on the
speeches between the presenter, interviewees, and mystery guest with the sources from a
number of ministers in our country.
Futhermore, this research uses politeness strategies performed in Satu Jam Lebih Dekat talk
show with some reasons, (1) a person's politeness is judged by his ability to explore the
potential of his language and its properly and correctly (2) polite language will facilitate the
delivery of messages in communication and (3) language that is less polite can hurt the
feelings of others so it often creates new conflicts in communication. Politeness here is
associated with the concept of "face" which is followed by various politeness strategies that
aim to minimize the threat of the face, which is better known as the FTA or the Face
Threatening Act (Brown Levinson, 1987: 68). This theory is famous with the four politeness
strategies, namely (1) direct politeness (bald on record), (2) negative politeness, (3) positive
politeness, and (4) indirect politeness or off record (Brown Levinson, 1987 : 68). This
politeness strategies by Brown Levinson, is expected to be able to support the effectiveness of
Satu Jam Lebih Dekat talk show on TV One.
NO LITERATURE REVIEW
METHOD
This research uses descriptive qualitative with the aim of case study (Subroto, 1992: 7). It
means the researcher records carefully and takes the data in the form of words, sentences,
discourses, pictures or photos, diaries, memoranda, videos and types. This research also uses
pragmatic. It means, this study is based on reactions or responses from the interlocutor or
listeners (Subroto, 1992: 61). The data sources of this research is taken from oral data sources
in the form of speeches between presenters, interviewees and mistery guest which contain of
directive speech acts and their politeness strategies whichs airs on January until May 2016.
In addition, this study also uses purposive sampling technique based on certain considerations
in accordance with the objectives. The purposive sampling here is based on criteria, including:
(1) Host, (2) Resource persons or interviewees,
Mistery guest who interacts directly with the speakers, and (4) politeness strategies in Satu
Jam Lebih Dekat Talk Show, on January to May 2016. The method of this data collection is
inductive. It means that the data is collected one by one then it will be analyzed (Santosa,
2014: 29). The data that is collected gradually will become large and adjusted for the purposes
of this study
And the last, for the data analysis uses contextual analysis method. According to Rahardi
(2005: 16), the contextual analysis method is a method of analysis that is applied to the data by
basing, calculating, and relating the identity of the existing of that contexts.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the data classification and analysis, the politeness strategy in the directive speech act
of Satu Jam Lebih Dekat Talk Show are bald on record, positive politenessattend to hearer his
interest, wants, needs, and goods, positive politeness intensify interest to hearer, positive
politeness-use in group identity markers, positive politeness-seek agreement, positive
politeness-avoid disagreement, positive politeness-assert or presuppose speaker’s knowledge
and concern for hearer’s want, positive politeness-include both speaker and hearer in the
activity, positive politeness-give or ask for reasons, positive politeness-give gifts to hearer,
negative politeness-be conventionally indirect, negative politeness- question, hedge, negative
politeness-give deference, negative politeness- impersonalize speaker and hearer, off record-
give hints, and negative politeness give association clues. The most dominant use of politeness
strategy is positive politeness-asking an agreement.
The politeness of directive speech acts supports the effectiveness of talk show because of
some factors which is influence such as sub-directive speech act to please, to request, to ask, to
order, to invite, to forbid, convincing, to obligate, to show, to give, to hope, to want, to warn,
to advise, to request, and to permit.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, P., dan Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Fotouhi, F., dan Ziyaei, F. (2015). The Role of Politeness Strategies in Writing Emails.
Iran: Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Scieces, vol. 5, no. 1, hlm 5294-
5298.

Gil, J.M. (2012). Face-Threatening Speech Act and Face-Invading Speech Act: An
Interpretation of Politeness Phenomena. Argentina: International Journal of Linguistics,
vol. 4, no.2, hlm 400-411.

Grice, H.P. (1989). Studies in The Way of Words. England: Harvard University Press.

Gunarwan, Asim. (2007). Implikatur dan Kesantunan Berbahasa: Tindak Tutur dan
Kesantunan Berbahasa: Beberapa Tilikan Sandiwara Ludruk dalam Yassir Nasanius
(Peny). PELLBA 18. Jakarta: Pusat Kajian Bahasa Dan Buadya Unika Atma Jaya.

Leech, Geoffrey. (2011). Prinsip-Prinsip Pragmatik (Terjemahan oleh M.D.D Oka).

Jakarta: UI Press

Leech, Geoffrey. (2015). Prinsip-Prinsip Pragmatik (Terjemahan oleh M.D.D Oka).

Jakarta: UI Press.

Mahsun. (2012). Metode Penelitian Bahasa. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada. Moleong,
Lexy J. 2015. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

Rahardi, Kunjana. (2005). Pragmatik: Kesantunan Imperatif Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta:

Erlangga
Rahardi, Kunjana.(2009). Sosiopragmatik Kajian Imperatif dalam Wadah Sosiokultural dan
Konteks Situasionalnya. Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga.

Santosa, Riyadi. (2014). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif Kebahasaan. Surakarta: Universitas

Sebelas Maret

Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Act An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J.R. (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Spradley, James P. (2007). Metodologi Etnografi. Yogyakarta: Tiara Wacana

Sudaryanto. (1993). Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa: Pengantar Penelitian Wahana
Kebudayaan Secara Linguistik. Yogyakarta: Duta Wacana University Press.

Sulaiman, M., dan Khoshaba, L. (2016). Speech Act as a Basic of Understanding Dialogue
Coherence with Reference to Engish-Arabic Translation. Macedonia: International Jurnal of
Social Science and Humanities, vol. 1, no. 1, hlm 68-98

Timberg, Bernard. (2004). Television A History of The TV Talk show. USA: University of
Texas Press

Tripp, S.E., Guo, J., dan Lampert, M. (1990). Politeness and Persuasion in Children’s Control
Acts. North-Holland: Journal of Pragmatic, vol. 14, hlm 307-331.

Yule, George. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Yuliana, R., Rohmadi, M., dan Suhita, R. (2013). Daya Pragmatik Tindak Tutur Dalam
Pembelajaran Bahasa Indonesia pada Siswa Sekolah Menengah Pertama, Basastra: Jurnal
Penelitian Bahasa, Sastra Indonesia dan Pengajaranya, vol. 2, no. 1, hlm 1-14.

Zhao, Y., dan Throssell, P. (2011). Speech Act Theory and Its Application to EFL Teaching in
China. Tasmania: The International Journal-Language Society and Culture, issue. 32, hlm 88-
95.
 The Principle of (Im)politeness Reciprocity
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.008
ABSTRACT
Despite featuring prominently in religions and legal frameworks, and being discussed by
anthropologists and sociologists in relation to rights and obligations in society, reciprocity has not
received the attention it deserves in the (im)politeness literature. This article proposes and defines
the Principle of (Im)politeness Reciprocity, which concerns the (mis)matching of (im)politeness
across participants in interaction – something which can be construed in terms of a debit-credit
balance sheet. We claim that this principle, driven by morality, is a fundamental mechanism in
shaping (im)politeness in interaction and triggering the search for (im)politeness implicatures. We
show how it impacts on various kinds of (im)politeness and interacts with context, especially
power. The latter part of the article, focusing on requestive exchanges, is more quantitative in
orientation, involving studies based on informant testing and corpus analysis. These reveal, for
example, that (im)politeness matching is by far the most common interaction, that mismatches are
perceived as clear deviations, and that certain kinds of (mis)matching are associated with specific
contexts (e.g. school classroom interaction is associated with downward shifts from polite to less
polite). Finally, we briefly discuss future research avenues.
Keywords: Impoliteness, Politeness, Power, Reciprocity, Requestive exchanges
INTRODUCTION
One of the most famous comedy sketches produced by the British Monty Python group is “The
Man who is Alternately Rude and Polite” (part of “Live from the Grill-O-Mat”, episode 18
of Monty Python's Flying Circus) (widely available on the Internet).
Langlotz and Locher (2017) analyze the same comedy sketch in their work on (im)politeness and
emotion, noting that the butcher's impoliteness breaks frame expectations for seller-buyer talk.
However, for us, the central aspect of this interaction is that reciprocity is violated with respect
to both politeness and impoliteness (i.e. a polite approach to someone sets up expectations of a
polite response and vice versa).
In this article, we offer the first full treatment of (im)politeness reciprocity. Section 2 introduces
the notion of (im)politeness and takes first steps towards reciprocity, whilst Section 3 focusses on
reciprocity and morality. Section 4 proposes the Principle of (Im)politeness Reciprocity (hereafter
PIR), and elaborates on some of its key aspects, the nature of the patterns it involves, issues of
pragmatic inferencing, and, importantly, the role of social context. Section 5 reports two studies,
one an informant-based study and the other corpus-based, exploring perceptions of (im)politeness
reciprocity in requestive exchanges and their contexts.
NO LITERATURE REVIEW
METHOD
We computationally extracted instances of the 12 requestive stems from the spoken section of the
(original) British National Corpus, manually identifying which occurred as a request of some kind.
Expectedly, some stems were much more frequent as requestive forms than others (e.g. normal
politeness formulas, including let me, are much more frequent than extra politeness ones like I
would be grateful). For stems used as requests that were more frequent than 200, a randomised
sample of 200 occurrences was retrieved. This was the case for let me, would you like and will
you. In total, our dataset amounted to 1141 exchanges.
Our coding scheme for mismatching responses of the requestees was that outlined in Section 5.1.
Regarding inter-rater reliability, 88% agreement was reached among three different annotators.
Anything uninterpretable was excluded.
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
This paper, having defined (im)politeness, laid out the background to reciprocity in terms of a
social debit-credit balance, and pointed to its importance in the moral order (as crystallised in
religions and legal frameworks), as well as in the rights and obligations of societies. Moreover, it
argued that its basis is in proto-morality, the basic substructure underlying cultural forms of
morality.
Framing the PIR as a sociopragmatic interactional principle, we defined it as: a constraint on
human interaction such that there is pressure to match the perceived or anticipated (im)politeness
of other participants, thereby maintaining a balance of payments. Maintaining reciprocity through
politeness matching is what people normally do, as evidenced by our study in Section 5. It is the
stuff of everyday, routine politeness. We argued that reciprocal impoliteness matching is the stuff
of tit-or-tat impoliteness, and gave evidence for this in Section 4.2. However, for practical reasons
(the lack of data in the British National Corpus (BNC)), this was not thoroughly explored; it could
benefit from further research. Conversely, deviating from reciprocity through mismatching
(im)politeness is abnormal and triggers further inferencing. Section 4.3 elaborated on this
inferencing with reference to Levinson's (2000) M-heuristic. Mismatching with a downwards shift
can trigger, context permitting, strong impoliteness implicatures (e.g. rejecting someone or
something); conversely, mismatching with an upwards shift can trigger, context permitting, strong
politeness implicatures (e.g. being magnanimous by turning the other cheek). Of course, as noted
with reference to Terkourafi (2003), the precise implicatures are dependent on the specifics of the
situation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Afifi, Walid A., Burgoon, Judee K., 2000. Behavioral violations in interactions: the combined
consequences of valence and change in uncertainty on interaction outcomes. Hum. Commun. Res.
26, 203.
Aijmer, Karin, 1996. Conversational Routines in English. Longman, London.
Arundale, Robert B., 2020. Communicating and Relating: Constituting Face in Everyday
Interacting. Oxford University Press, New York. Barker, Chris, 2000. Cultural Studies: Theory and
Practice. Sage, London.
Baron, Robert A., Richardson, Deborah R., 1994. Human Aggression. Plenum: Plenum.
Barrett, Louise, Dunbar, Robin, Lycett, John, 2002. Human Evolutionary Psychology. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ. Bergmann, Jo€rg R., 1998. Introduction: morality in discourse.
Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 31 (3/4), 279.
Bousfield, Derek, 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. John Benjamins, Philadelphia and Amsterdam.
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bryson, Anna, 1998. From Courtesy to Civility:
Changing Codes of Conduct in Early Modern England. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Bull, Peter, Waddle, Maurice, 2019. Let me now answer, very directly, Marie's question”: the
impact of quoting members of the public in Prime Minister's Questions. J. Lang. Aggress. Confl. 7
(1), 56.
Culpeper, Jonathan, 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. J. Pragmat. 25, 349.
Culpeper, Jonathan, 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Culpeper, Jonathan, Bousfield, Derek, Wichmann, Anne, 2003. Impoliteness revisited: with special
reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. J. Pragmat. 35, 1545.
Darwall, Stephen, 2006. The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Domenici, Kathy, Littlejohn, Stephen W., 2006.
Facework. Sage, London.
Fehr, Ernst, Fischbacher, Urs, Gachter, Simon, 2002. Strong reciprocity, human cooperation and
the enforcement of social norms. Hum. Nat. 13, 1e25. Flack, Jessica C., de Waal, Frans B.,
2000. Any animal whatever’. Darwinian building blocks of morality in monkeys and apes. J.
Conscious. Stud. 7 (1e2), 1e29. Fraser, Bruce, Nolan, William, 1981. The association of deference
with linguistic form. Int. J. Sociol. Lang. 27, 93.
Gallois, Cyndy, Ogay, Tania, Giles, Howard, 2005. Communication Accommodation Theory: A
look Back and a Look Ahead. In: Gudykunst, William B. (Ed.), Theorizing About Intercultural
Communication. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 121.
Garfinkel, Harold, 1964. Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Soc. Probl. 11 (3),
225.
Gensler, Harry J., 2013. Ethics and the Golden Rule. Routledge, New York.
Goffman, Erving, 1967. Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-To-Face Behavior. Anchor Books,
Garden City, New York
Gouldner, Alvin W., 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Socio. Rev. 25
(2), 161.
Greenberg, Bradley S., 1976. The effects of language intensity modification on perceived verbal
aggressiveness. Commun. Monogr. 43, 130.
Guydish, Andrew J., D’Arcey Trevor, J., Fox Tree, Jean E., 2020. Reciprocity in conversation.
Lang. Speech 1.
Harris, Linda, Gergen, Kenneth, Lannaman, John, 1986. Aggression rituals. Commun. Monogr. 53,
252.
Haugh, Michael, 2003. Anticipated versus inferred politeness. Multilingua 22 (4), 397.
Haugh, Michael, 2014. Im/politeness implicatures. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Holtgraves, Thomas, 2005. Social psychology, cognitive psychology, and linguistic politeness. J.
Politeness Res.: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1, 73.
Hornik, Kurt, Zeileis, Achim, Meyer, David, 2006. The strucplot framework: visualizing multi-
way contingency tables with vcd. J. Stat. Softw. 17 (3), 1.
Jakobson, Roman, 1971. Word and Language. Mouton, Hague and Paris.
Jay, Timothy, 2000. Why We Curse: A Neuro-Psycho-Social Theory of Speech. John Benjamins,
Philadelphia and Amsterdam. Johnson, Mark, 1987. The Body in the Mind: the Bodily Basis of
Reason and Imagination. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Ka´da´r, D´aniel Z., 2017. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in
Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Komter, Aafke Elisabeth,
1996. Reciprocity as a principle of exclusion: gift giving in The Netherlands. Sociology 30, 299.
Labov, William, 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennsylvania.
Lakoff, George, Johnson, Mark, 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind and its
Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books, New York.
Langlotz, Andreas, Locher, Miriam, 2017. (Im)politeness and emotion. In: Culpeper, J.,
Haugh, M., Ka´da´r, D. (Eds.), Palgrave Handbook of (Im)politeness. Palgrave, Basingstoke,
pp. 287.
Leech, Geoffrey N., 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London.
Leech, Geoffrey N., 2007. Politeness: is there an east-west divide? J. Politeness Res.: Language,
Behaviour, Culture 3 (2), 167.
Levinson, Stephen C., 1995. Interactional biases in human thinking. In: Goody, E.N. (Ed.), Social
Intelligence and Interaction: Expressions and Implications of the Social Bias in Human
Intelligence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 221.
Levinson, Stephen C., 2000. Presumptive Meanings: the Theory of Generalised Conversational
Implicature. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Levshina, N., 2015. How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. John
Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Locher, Miriam A., Watts, Richard J., 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. J. Polit. Res.
Lang. Behav. Cult. 11, 9.
Locher, Miriam A., Watts, Richard J., 2008. Relational work and impoliteness: negotiating norms
of linguistic behaviour. In: Bousfield, Derek, Locher, Miriam
(Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice.
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, pp. 77.
Lunan, Michela, 2019. The Dynamics of Nurse Interaction: A Comparison of Speech with Older
and Younger Patients. Lancaster University unpublished PhD thesis. MacCormack, Geoffrey,
1976. Reciprocity. Man (New Series) 11 (1), 89.
Malinowski, Bronislaw, 1932 [1926]. Crime and Custom in Savage Society. Paul, Trench,
Trubner, London. Meier, Ardith J., 1995. Defining politeness: universality in appropriateness.
Lang. Sci. 174, 345.
Murphy, James, 2014. (Im)politeness during prime minister's questions in the UK parliament.
Pragmat. Soc. 5 (1), 76.
Nenadic, O., Greenacre, M., 2007. Correspondence analysis in R, with two-and three-dimensional
graphics: the ca package. J. Stat. Software 20 (3).
Ohashi, Jun, 2008. Linguistic rituals for thanking in Japanese: balancing obligations. J. Pragmat.
40 (12), 2150.
Ohashi, Jun, 2010. Balancing obligations: bowing and linguistic features in thanking in Japanese.
J. Politeness Res. 6 (2), 183e214. Parvaresh, Vahid, Tayebi, Tahmineh, 2018. Impoliteness,
aggression and the moral order. J. Pragmat. 132, 91.
Pearce, Walter Barnett, Littlejohn, Stephen W., 1997. Moral conflict. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pomerantz, Anita, 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of
preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, J. Max, Heritage, John (Eds.), Structures of
Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57.
Robles, Jessica S., Castor, Theresa, 2019. Taking the moral high ground: practices for being
uncompromisingly principled. J. Pragmat. 141, 116.
Schneider, Klaus P., 2012. Appropriate behaviour across varieties of English. J. Pragmat. 44 (9),
1022.
Searle, John R., 1969. Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen D.M., 2002. Managing rapport in talk: using rapport sensitive incidents to
explore the motivational concerns underlying the man- agement of relations. J. Pragmat. 34 (5),
529.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen D.M., 2005. (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: unpackaging
their bases and interrelationships. J. Politeness Res.: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1 (1), 95.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen D.M., 2008. Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across
Cultures, second ed. Continuum, London and New York.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, Jiang, Wenying, 2003. Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings:
moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). J. Pragmat. 35,
1633.
Tantucci, Vittorio, 2020. From co-actionality to extended intersubjectivity: Drawing on language
change and ontogenetic development. Appl. linguist. 41 (2), 185.
Tantucci, Vittorio, Culpeper, Jonathan, Di Cristofaro, Matteo, 2018. Dynamic resonance and social
reciprocity in language change: the case of Good morrow.Lang. Sci. 68, 6.
Terkourafi, Marina, 2001. Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A Frame-Based Approach. Unpublished
PhD dissertation. University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Terkourafi, Marina, 2003. Generalised and particularised implicatures of politeness. In: Kühnlein,
P., Rieser, H., Zeevat, H. (Eds.), Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 151.
Terkourafi, Marina, 2005. Pragmatic correlates of frequency of use: the case for a notion of
‘minimal context’. In: Nikiforidou, et al. (Eds.), Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging
Trends for the 21st Century. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 209.
Tomasello, Michael, 2020. The moral psychology of obligation. Behav. Brain Sci. 43.
Trivers, Robert L., 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q. Rev. Biol. 46 (1), 35.
Usami, Mayumi, 2002. Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation. Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.
Verschueren, Jef, 2004. Identity as denial of diversity. In: Brisard, Frank, Meeuwis, Michael,
Vandenabeele, Bart (Eds.), Seduction, Community, Speech. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 171.
Waddle, Maurice, Bull, Peter, Bo€hnke, Jan R., 2019. “He is just the nowhere man of British
politics”: personal attacks in Prime Minister's Questions. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 38 (1), 61.
Watts, Richard J., 2003. Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Werkhofer, Konrad T., 2005 [1992]. Traditional and modern views: the social constitution and the
power of politeness. In: Watts, R.J., Ide, S., Ehlich, K. (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in
its History, Theory and Practice, second ed. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, pp. 155.
Xie, Chaoqun, 2020. In: (Im)politeness and Moral Order in Online Interactions. In: Xie, Chaoqun
(Ed.), (Im) Politeness and Moral Order in Online In- teractions, 107. John Benjamins Publishing
Company, Amsterdam.
 Situated Impoliteness Revisited: Blunt Anti-Epidemic Slogans And
Conflicting Comments During The Coronavirus Outbreak In China
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.03.004
ABSTRACT
In this paper, blunt slogans used in China's health campaign against coronavirus are closely
examined and the public's conflicting comments on them are analyzed. These slogans, due to their
extreme effectiveness in making the public comply with the health preventive measures suggested
by the government, are called Yinghe or “hardcore” slogans by the Chinese people. Containing
harsh and taboo language, they convey threats of death and disease, insults or negative evaluation,
and harsh demands. Despite their impolite nature, “hardcore” slogans have received significantly
more positive judgment than negative judgment, especially when they made their debut in rural
areas in Henan, an agricultural province in China. Criticism towards these blunt slogans then
gradually increased after their initial appearance. Plausible factors contributing to the change of
judgment are analyzed. The public's conflicting judgment regarding the impoliteness of the slogans
may be related to the public's different positioning across time and space. This study shows that
impoliteness is a practice situated not only in discourse, genres, and institutions, but also in social,
cultural, and political contexts. More attention should be paid to impoliteness in special social
configurations (e.g., rural areas) and social emergencies, which not only contextualize a discourse
event but also define it.
Keywords: Impoliteness, Situatedness, Blunt slogans, Social emergencies, Positioning
INTRODUCTION
Propaganda posters have attracted a wide range of attention from researchers around the world
(Barnes, 2020; S. Landsberger, 1995; Landsberger, 2013; Li, 2018; Nowakowska et al., 2014;
Powell and Wong, 1997; Pretorius, 2019; Ranta, 2020; Seidman, 2008). China has had a long
history of employing propaganda posters.In this study, I look into the situatedness and pragmatic
features of a specific type of posters or banners in China's health campaign against the coronavirus
in 2020 and study civilians' response to anti-epidemic slogans printed on the banners. Throughout
the analysis, I focus on the situatedness of impoliteness, i.e., the processing and evaluating of
impolite meanings in discourse, genres, settings, and socio-political contexts. It aims to show that
(im)politeness is situated not only culturally and socially, but also temporarily and spatially.
NO LITERATURE REVIEW
METHOD AND PROCEDURE
In this study, data regarding the blunt slogans and the public's comments on them were collected.
All the data were open-access and available on the social networking site, Weibo. I identified the
twenty-two most frequently mentioned “hardcore” slogans that contained language with the
potential to aggravate the face of addressees or cause damage to interpersonal relationships such as
threats or dirty talk. These blunt slogans, initially observed in rural areas in Henan province but
quickly spread to other places outside the province, were all used by local governments to remind
people of the importance of taking preventive health measures during the coronavirus outbreak in
China. By examining the impoliteness strategies exhibited in these slogans, I then classified them
into different categories and explored how each category of impoliteness is situated in various
contexts. As for the public's reaction to the blunt slogans, I collected the comments below the posts
in relation to the blunt slogans. Most posts displayed readers' comments at the bottom.
DISCUSSION/ FINDINGS
The study has demonstrated the situatedness of the impoliteness in the blunt slogans. The blunt
slogans, widely used in many small towns and rural areas in China during the health campaign
against the coronavirus, displayed threats, insults, negative evaluation and harsh demands that were
situated in the cultural, social, historical and political contexts. Moreover, the analysis suggests that
about two-thirds of the comments were positive and that the blunt slogans were largely welcome.
The public's general welcoming gesture of the impoliteness in the blunt slogans can be ascribed to
not only the slogans' effectiveness in the prevention of the spread of the coronavirus, but also
people's acceptance of the autocratic leadership and high power distance to a certain extent.
Furthermore, people's evaluation was affected by both their positioning in time and in space. The
positioning of oneself as a moral referee or intellectual may have led to viewing the blunt slogans
as very rude and inappropriate, whereas the positioning of oneself as a common citizen anxiously
waiting effective actions to be taken would have led to reaching the opposite judgment.
This provides support to Kim's (2009) argument that the dyadic, synchronic, and cross-sectional
model of (im)politeness might be too simplistic and idealized. A diachronic perspective toward
impoliteness is an important complement to examining synchronic judgments. Impoliteness is fluid
instead of static. The subjective judgments of impoliteness can vary among people from the same
culture, depending on how they position themselves. This study has only been able to explore the
blunt anti-epidemic slogans and comments about them on social media. There were no interviews
with local residents of the areas where the blunt slogans were used. Quite a few comments about
the blunt slogans asserted that it was more effective to get things done using rudeness and
impoliteness than politeness in the rural areas in China.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ardila, J.A.G., 2019. Impoliteness as a rhetorical strategy in Spain's politics. J. Pragmat. 140,
160e170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.017.
Atkin, C.K., 2001. Theory and principles of media health campaigns. In: Rice, R.E., Atkin, C.K.
(Eds.), Public Communication Campaigns, third ed. Sage, pp.
Badarneh, M.A., Migdadi, F., 2018. Acts of positioning in online reader comments on Jordanian
news websites. Lang. Commun. 58, 93e106. Barnes, A.J., 2020. Chinese propaganda posters at the
British Library. Vis. Resour. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973762.2020.1746498 in print.
Blitvich, P.G.C., 2018. Globalization, transnational identities, and conflict talk: the superdiversity
and complexity of the Latino identity. J. Pragmat. 134, 120e133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.02.001.
Blommaert, J., 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge University Press.
Bousfield, D., 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bousfield, D., 2010. Researching impoliteness and rudeness: issues and definitions. In: Locher,
M.A., Graham, S.L. (Eds.), Interpersonal Pragmatics. Walter de Gruyter, pp. 101
Chen, Y., 2020. Risk perception of middle-aged and elderly people in critical public health
emergencies: a case study of Hefei residents during COVID-19 pandemic (published in Chinese).
Today’s Massmedia（今传媒） 5, 25
Culpeper, J., 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. J. Pragmat. 25, 349
Culpeper, J., 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J., Hardaker, C., 2017. Impoliteness. In: K´ad´ar, J., Culpeper, M., Haugh, D.Z.
(Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 199
Davies, B., Haugh, M., Merrison, A.J. (Eds.), 2011. Situated Politeness (Continuum). Fairclough,
N., 1989. Language and Power. Longman.
Fang, X., 2014. The global cholera pandemic reaches Chinese villages: population mobility,
political control, and economic incentives in epidemic pre- vention, 1962-1964. Mod. Asian
Stud. 48 (3), 754e790. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X12000807.
Fedriani, C., 2019. A pragmatic reversal: Italian per favore ‘please’ and its variants between
politeness and impoliteness. J. Pragmat. 142, 233e244. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.008.
Hanson, M., 2008. Maoist public-health campaigns,Chinese medicine, and SARS. Lancet 372,
1457e1458. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61610-4. Haugh, M., 2010. Intercultural
(im)politeness and the micro-macro. In: Trosborg, A. (Ed.), Pragmatics across Languages and
Cultures. De Gruyter, pp.139
Haugh, M., 2013. Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. J. Pragmat. 58, 52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003.
Haugh, M., 2015. Im/politeness Implicatures. Mouton de Gruyter.
Haugh, M., Bousfield, D., 2012. Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in
Australian and British English. J. Pragmat. 44 (9), 1099e1114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M., 2010. Culture and Organizations, third ed. McGraw-
Hill. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300. House, J., 2010. Impoliteness in Germany:
intercultural encounters in everyday and institutional talk. Intercult. Pragmat. 7 (4), 561
Ka´da´r, D.Z., 2017. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual. Cambridge University Press.
Kecskes, I., 2015. Intercultural impoliteness. J. Pragmat. 86, 43
Kecskes, I., 2017. Context-dependency and impoliteness in intercultural communication. J.
Politeness Res. 13 (1), 7
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C., 2013. Politeness, impoliteness, non-Politeness, “polirudeness”: the case of
political TV debates. In: Aspects of Linguistic Impoliteness.
Cambridge Scholars publishing, pp. 16
Kim, C.-K., 2009. Personal pronouns in English and Korean texts: a corpus-based study in terms of
textual interaction. J. Pragmat. 41 (10), 2086e2099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.03.004.
Kim, K., 2011. Positioning and multidimensional (im) politeness in Korean Oriental medical
discourse. J. Asian Pac. Commun. 21 (1), 34
Ladegaard, H.J., 2012. Rudeness as a discursive strategy in leadership discourse: culture, power
and gender in a Hong Kong workplace. J. Pragmat. 44 (12), 1661.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.003.
Landsberger, S., 1995. Chinese Propaganda Posters: from Revolution to Modernization. ME
Sharpe.
Landsberger, S., 2013. Contextualising (propaganda) posters. In: Henriot, C., Yeh, W. (Eds.),
Visualising China. Brill, pp. 1845e1965. https://doi.org/10.5860/ choice.49-1844, 379.
Li, S., 2018. “Carry on the Revolution to the End”?: Propaganda Posters in China. The Center for
Modern China Foundation.
Limberg, H., 2008. Threats in conflict talk: impoliteness and manipulation. In: Bousfield, D.,
Locher, M.A. (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and
Practice, pp. 155
Locher, M.A., 2008. Relational work, politeness and identity construction. In: Antos, G., Ventola,
E., Weber, T. (Eds.), Handbooks of Applied Linguistics: Interpersonal Communication. Mouton de
Gruyter, pp. 509.
Locher, M.A., 2011. Situated impoliteness: the interface between relational work and identity
construction. In: Davies, B., Haugh, M., Merrison, A.J. (Eds.), Situated Politeness, pp. 187.
Locher, M.A., 2013. Relational work and interpersonal pragmatics. J. Pragmat. 58, 145.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.014.
Locher, M.A., Watts, R.J., 2008. Relational work and impoliteness: negotiating norms of linguistic
behaviour. In: Bousfield, D., Locher, M.A. (Eds.), Impo- liteness in Language. Studies on its
Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77
Mills, S., 2009. Impoliteness in a cultural context. J. Pragmat. 41, 1047e1060.
Mugford, G., 2018. Critical intercultural impoliteness: “Where are you located? Can you please
transfer me to someone who is American? J. Pragmat. 134, 173e182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.014.
Nowakowska, U., Ignatowicz, H., Nowakowska, U., Ignatowicz, H., 2014. ‘Crops for the state!’
Agriculture and the countryside in 1950s propaganda posters of central and eastern Europe. Folk
Life 52 (1), 62e81. https://doi.org/10.1179/0430877813Z.00000000021.
Parvaresh, V., Tayebi, T., 2018. Impoliteness, aggression and the moral order. J. Pragmat. 132,
91e107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.010. Perelmutter, R., 2018. Globalization,
conflict discourse, and Jewish identity in an Israeli Russian-speaking online community. J.
Pragmat. 134, 134e148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.019.
Powell, P., Wong, J., 1997. Propaganda posters from the Chinese cultural revolution. Historian 59
(4), 777e794. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6563.1997.
Pretorius, D., 2019. Sluit NOU AAN ! South African union defence force recruitment posters from
the second world war. S. Afr. Hist. J. 71 (1), 41e69. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02582473.2019.1574311.
Ranta, M., 2020. Mao's Homeworld(s)-A comment on the use of propaganda posters in post-war
China. Semiotica 232, 53e78.
Ruggiero, T.E., Lattin, K.S., 2008. Intercollegiate female coaches' use of verbally aggressive
communication toward African American female athletes. Howard J. Commun. 19 (105e124).
Schnurr, S., Marra, M., Holmes, J., 2007. Being (im)polite in New Zealand workplaces: maori and
Pakeha leaders. J. Pragmat. 39, 712e729.
Schumacher, A.C., 2017. Humor in Public Health Messaging: Past, Present, Future [University of
Iowa (Dissertation)].
Seidman, S.A., 2008. Posters, Propaganda, and Persuasion in Election Campaigns around the
World and through History. Peter Lang.
Sin, M.S.Y., 2016. Masking fears: SARS and the politics of public health in China. Crit. Publ.
Health 26 (1)
Spencer-Oatey, H., 2005. (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: unpack- aging their
bases and interrelationships. J. Politeness Res. 1, 95e119. Spencer-Oatey, H., Ka´da´r, D.Z., 2016.
The bases of (im)politeness evaluations: culture, the moral order and the East-West debate. East
Asia Pragmatics 1 (1),
Terkourafi, M., 2008. Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In:
Bousfield, D., Locher, M.A. (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power
in Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45e76.
Vladimirou, D., House, J., 2018. Ludic impoliteness and globalisation on Twitter: ‘I speak England
very best’ #agglika_Tsipra, #Tsipras #Clinton. J.
Pragmat.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.005.
Watts, R.J., 2003. Politeness. Cambridge University Press.
Watts, R.J., 2005. Linguistic politeness research: quo vadis? In: Watts, R.J., Ide, S., Ehlich, K.
(Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, second ed. Mouton de
Gruyter, pp. 1e20. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199819.
Zhao, L., Ran, Y., 2019. Impoliteness revisited: evidence from qingmian threats in Chinese
interpersonal conflicts. J. Politeness Res. 15 (2), 257e291. https:// doi.org/10.1515/pr-2017-0027.
 Interaction Ritual and (Im)Politeness
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.021
ABSTRACT
This paper provides insight into interaction ritual theory, by devoting special attention to the
interface between interaction ritual and (im)politeness. We focus on several key pragmatic features
of interaction ritual, illustrating their operation. We also describe different research approaches for
systematically studying interaction rituals. Finally, we present a case-study of Chinese university
military trainings to illustrate the operation of ritual in a morally loaded aggressive scenario. Our
study shows that interaction ritual theory provides an analytic focus on recurrent and as such
replicable aspects of language use. This sense of replicability is indispensable if we want to model
language use across linguacultures.
Keywords: Interaction ritual theory, (Im)Politeness, Aggression, Military training
INTRODUCTION
In this contribution to the Festschrift dedicated to Michael Haugh, we provide an overview of
interaction ritual theory, with a special focus on the interface between interaction ritual and
(im)politeness. Michael has conducted in-depth studies of a range of pragmatic phenomena and
concepts with intrinsic relationship with interaction ritual, such as teasing and jocular mockery
(e.g. Haugh, 2017), denunciation and inflicting shame (Márquez Reiter and Haugh, 2019), and the
Japanese emic notion of ‘place tachiba’ (e.g. Haugh, 2005). He has also conducted extensive
research on the concept of ‘moral order’ (see e.g. Kádár and Haugh, 2013), which is central to
interaction ritual (see Kádár, 2017).
In this paper, we first discuss interaction ritual theory, by examining why interaction ritual is
particularly relevant for (im)politeness research. We then overview the key pragmatic features of
interaction ritual. We also describe approaches by means of which this phenomenon can be
studied. Finally, we present a case study of morally loaded ritual aggression, a phenomenon
closely related to Michael's research.
NO LITERATURE REVIEW
METHOD AND PROCEDURE
Researchers following a top-down approach normally preset the context to be investigated,
followed by data collection and analysis. This approach provides a gateway to the relationship
between interaction ritual and the enveloping sociocultural context. A bottom-up approach
encompasses both social interaction and pragmalinguistic/corpus-based methodologies. Previous
social interaction research has pursued an interest in how an interaction reveals the existence and
operation of a certain interaction ritual. For instance, Horgan (2019) explored the Goffmanian
phenomenon of ‘civil inattention’, a ritual of fundamental importance which, however, emerges in
interaction only when it is clearly violated. The authors of this paper recently proposed a
pragmalinguistic, corpus-based and bottom-up approach to study the ways expressions indicate
ritual frames (see Kádár and House, 2020b).
The top-down and bottom-up approaches to interaction ritual can be combined into a multimethod,
cross-cultural pragmatic methodology (see House and Kádár, 2021).
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In this paper, we have shown that interaction ritual theory is highly relevant to a variety of
pragmatic phenomena relating to (im)politeness. We have argued that research on interaction ritual
is of a very broad scope: it encompasses both mainstream interaction ritual theory and other areas
of pragmatic investigation. We have provided an overview of both the main pragmatic features and
research approaches to interaction ritual. Finally, we have provided a case study drawn from
Chinese, illustrating the link between ritual and aggressive behaviour, using the concept of ritual
frame.
We hope that interaction ritual theory will gain further momentum in pragmatic research because it
can provide new insights into a wide variety of pragmatic phenomena. Furthermore, interaction
ritual theory triggers an analytic focus on recurrent and as such replicable aspects of language use.
This sense of replicability is indispensable if we want to model language use across linguacultures
(see House and Kádár, 2021). As the case study presented in this paper has shown, interaction
ritual theory provides an approach to systematise certain everyday events which otherwise defy
systematisation. This potential for systematisation inherent in interaction ritual makes it a powerful
concept.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bax, Marcel, 2010. Epistolary presentation rituals: face-work, politeness, and ritual display in
early-modern Dutch letter writing. In: Culpeper, J., Ka´d´ar, D. (Eds.), Historical
(Im)Politeness. Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 37
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, 1993. “You gotta know how to tell a story”: telling, tales, and tellers in
American and Israeli narrative events at dinner. Lang. Soc. 22 (3), 361
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, Kasper, Gabriele, 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:
Requests and Apologies. Ablex, Norwood, NJ. Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C., 1987.
Politeness: Some Universals of Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Chang, Wei-Lin Melody, Haugh, Michael, 2011. Evaluations of im/politeness of an intercultural
apology. Intercult. Pragmat. 8 (3), 411
Coulmas, Florian, 1981. Conversational routine. In: Coulmas, Florian (Ed.), Conversational
Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech.
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 1
Durkheim, E´mile, 1912. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Trans. Carol Cosman
[1954/2001]. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Edmondson, Willis, 1981. Spoken Discourse: a Model for Analysis. Longman, London.
Edmondson, Willis, House, Juliane, 1981. Let's Talk and Talk about it: a Pedagogical Interactional
Grammar of English. Urban & Schwarzenberg, München. Goffman, Erving, 1967. Interaction
Ritual. Essays on Face-To-Face Behavior. Doubleday, Garden City, NY.
Goffman, Erving, 1974. Frame Analysis: an Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA. Goffman, Erving, 1983. The interaction order. Am. Socio. Rev.
48 (1), 1
Gu, Yueguo, 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. J. Pragmat. 14 (2), 237
Haugh, Michael, 2005. The importance of “place” in Japanese politeness: implications for cross-
cultural and intercultural analyses. Intercult. Pragmat. 2 (1), 41.
Haugh, Michael, 2013. Disentangling face, facework and im/politeness. Sociocult. Pragmat. 1 (1),
46
Haugh, Michael, 2017. Mockery and (non-) seriousness in initial interactions amongst American
and Australian speakers of English. In: Carbaugh, D. (Ed.), The Handbook of Communication in
Cross-Cultural Perspective. Routledge, New York and London, pp. 104
Horgan, Mervyn, 2019. Everyday incivility and the urban interaction order: theorizing moral
affordances in ritualized interaction. J. Lang. Aggress. Confl. 7 (1), 32
House, Juliane, 1989. Politeness in English and German: the functions of please and bitte. In:
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies.
Ables, Norwood, NJ, pp. 96
House, Juliane, Ka´da´r, D´aniel Z., 2021. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Ide, Sachiko, 1989. Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of
linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8 (2/3), 223
K´ada´r, Da´niel Z., 2017. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral
Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
K´ada´r, D´aniel Z., House, Juliane, 2021. Performatory mimesis and ritual frames: a case
study of military training in Chinese universities. Lang. Commun.
Ka´da´r, D´aniel Z., Haugh, Michael, 2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. Ka´da´r, D´aniel Z., House, Juliane, 2020a. The pragmatics of ritual: an
introduction. Pragmatics 30 (1), 1
Ka´da´r, D´aniel Z., House, Juliane, 2020b. Ritual frames: a contrastive pragmatic
approach. Pragmatics 30 (1), 142
K´ada´r, D´aniel Z., Szalai, Andrea, 2020. The socialisation of interactional rituals: a case study of
ritual cursing as a form of teasing in Romani. Pragmatics 30 (1), 15
Koutlaki, Sofia, 2002. Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: Tæ’arof in Persian.
J. Pragmat. 34 (12), 1733
Labov, William, 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. The
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. M´arquez Reiter, Rosina, Haugh, Michael,
2019. Denunciation, blame and the moral turn in public life. Discourse. Context Media 28,
35e43. Rampton, Ben, 1995. Language crossing and the problematisation of ethnicity and
socialization. Pragmatics 5 (4), 485
Ren, Wei, Guo, Yaping, 2020. Self-praise on Chinese social networking sites. J. Pragmat. 169,
179e189. Senft, Gunter, Basso, Ellen, 2009. Ritual Communication. Berg Books, Oxford.
Smith, Philip, Phillips, Timothy, King, Ryan, 2010. Incivility: the Rude Stranger in Everyday Life.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Song, Jingyao 宋璟瑶, 2012. Xiandai Hanyu fuci ‘zai’ de yixiang yu xide yanjiu 现代汉语副
词“再”的义项与习得(A Study of the Meanings and Acquisition of the Chinese Adverb “zai”).
Peking University. MA thesis.
Staal, Fritz, 1979. The meaningless of ritual. Numen 26 (1), 2.
Terkourafi, Marina, 2005. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. J. Politeness Res. 1 (2),
237
Terkourafi, Marina, Ka´da´r, Da´niel Z., 2017. Convention and ritual (im)politeness. In:
Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., K´ad´ar, D. (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic
(Im)Politeness. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 171
Turner, Victor, 1979. Frame, flow and reflection: ritual and drama as public liminality. Jpn. J.
Relig. Stud. 6 (4), 465
 The Climate of Climate Change: Impoliteness as A Hallmark of
Homophily in Youtube Comment Threads on Greta Thunberg's
Environmental Activism
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.03.003
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates impoliteness and value homophily (‘thinking alike’) in the context of
YouTube-based ideological discussions beneath the videos critical towards the Swedish
environmental activist – Greta Thunberg. Drawing on the idea of rapport management, the study
finds a remarkable scale of homophily as the postings follow recurrent patterns of face and
sociality rights attacks echoing the same point of view. Consequently, while impoliteness has been
recognized as widespread in social media for reasons such as anonymity and social detachment,
this paper offers an insight into how the phenomenon contributes to the process of consolidation
and homogenization of views through social comparison. As the study concludes, impoliteness in
ideological discussions on YouTube may serve as the glue to ad hoc social contact between like-
minded individuals –ultimately leading to social identification in relevant groups and formation of
homophilous online communities.
Keywords: Impoliteness, YouTube, Value homophily, Social identity, Ideological (dis)affiliation
INTRODUCTION
In order to account for potentially vague dichotomy, the current study adopts the extension to the
traditional notion of face as an ‘identity or self-image’ (Goffman, 1955), and Brown and
Levinson's (1987) division between positive and negative face, proposed by Spencer-Oatey (e.g.,
2008) as the model of ‘relational management’. This model establishes a relevant distinction
between self-value (face) and social value –the latter concerned with a person's sense of public
worth and his/her value in terms of social relationships. However, while it can be assumed that in
the current data, impoliteness against both face and social value of Greta Thunberg will be
identified, the analysis intends to deploy the tenets of Spencer-Oatey's model in line with Garcés-
Conejos Blitvich's (2010) argument that in the deindividuated context of intergroup
communication, attacks towards face should be perceived as addressed to an individual as a
member of a relevant group, and so to collective rather than individual face. Consequently,
impoliteness will be viewed here in terms of the resonance between the participants' efforts to
reinforce and (re)affirm (pre)existing ideological beliefs and their social identity claims.
To sum up: the goal of the paper is to analyze the relationship between value homophily and
expression of impoliteness towards Greta Thunberg's environmental activism in YouTube
discussion threads. The overarching question to ask, however, is whether the current data do
exhibit a homophilous profile.
NO LITERATURE REVIEW
METHOD
This study combined qualitative and quantitative methodologies, this study contributes to the body
of much-needed corpus research into impoliteness. The study offers corpus-informed, quantitative
(including an automatic technique for word clustering retreival; section 3.1 below) and qualitative
perspectives on how this process unfolds in discourse. As argued in the recent literature,
combining different methods and approaches (corpus analysis in particular) is a necessary step
towards understanding the nuanced and complex nature of impoliteness (Haugh and Culpeper,
2018).
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis has found the comment threads to exhibit a largely homophilous profile –validating
the ideological position of the video, reiterating alike beliefs, and approving of the conveyed
values. The general hypothesis that (re)affirmation of the user's (pre)existing beliefs may be a vital
incentive to actively contribute to the discursive content on the platform, and a gratifying tangent
point between the participants, seems therefore to be the case.
Further, the idea that impoliteness is a vehicle of the ad hoc social comparison between groups, has
also been confirmed. The adopted model of rapport management (Spencer-Oatey, 2008) has
proved useful identifying and assessing the categories of impoliteness in the data, which were
assumed to reflect certain value positions. The most important finding of this part of the analysis is
the prevalence of attacks toward Greta Thunberg's social worth, as opposed to face related
impoliteness – interestingly, each type turned out to be realized via quite different bottom-up
formulae. What this finding suggests is that the users share not only certain views, but perhaps also
the view on how to convey them.
The presence of value homophily in the data was further confirmed in the investigation of the
degree of acceptance of the point of view and impoliteness in the discussion threads. The analysis
indicated a general prevalence of endorsement– importantly – regardless of the impoliteness
category involved. As argued above, this finding pertains to the intricacies of ideological
(dis)affiliation in online intergroup interactions, where validation of the same values may outweigh
the rules of civility in public discourse.
Finally, potentially significant effects have been identified between the scale of agreement/
disagreement/ conflict and the video, which is likely related to the scope of diversity of the
involved audiences. A more robust picture of this factor could be captured in a large-scale
investigation of the ideological composition of the users’ personal networks.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abreu, Luis, Jeon, Doh-Shin,
¼ 2019. Homophily in Social Media and News Polarization. Working

Paper No. 19-05. NET Institute. Retrieved on. https://papers. ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id

3468416. (Accessed 30 August 2020).
Angouri, Jo, Tseliga, Theodora, 2010. “You Have No Idea what You are Talking About!” from e-
disagreement to e-impoliteness in two online fora. J. Polit. Res.Lang. Behav. Cult. 6 (1), 57
Baider, Fabienne H., Millar, Sharon, Assimakopoulos, Stavros, 2020. Defining, performing and
countering hate speech. Pragmat. Soc. 11 (2), 171
Barbera, Pablo, 2015. How social media reduces mass political polarization. In: Evidence from
Germany, Spain, and the U.S. Working Paper for APSA Conference.
Baym, Nancy, 1996. Agreements and disagreements in a computer mediated discussion. Res.
Lang. Soc. Interact. 29 (4), 315
Benamara, Farah, Taboada, Maite, Mathieu, Yannick, 2016. Evaluative language beyond bags of
words: linguistic insights and computational applications. Comput. Ling. 43 (1), 201
Benson, Phil, 2017. The Discourse of YouTube: Multimodal Text in a Global Context. Routledge,
New York and London.
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bou-Franch, Patricia, Garce´s-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, 2014. Conflict management in massive
polylogues: a case study from YouTube. J. Pragmat. 73, 19.
Boutyline, Andrei, Willer, Robb, 2016. The social structure of political echo chambers: variation in
ideological homophily in online networks. Polit. Psychol.38 (3), 551.
Bosson, Jennifer K., Johnson, Amber B., Niederhoffer, Kate, Swann William, B., 2006.
Interpersonal chemistry through negativity: bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others.
Pers. Relat. 13, 135.
Boyd, Michael S., 2014. (New) participatory framework on YouTube? Commenter interaction in
US political speeches. J. Pragmat. 72, 46.
Chinn, Sedona, Hart, P. Sol, Soroka, Stuart, 2020. Politicization and polarization in climate change
news content, 1985-2017. Sci. Commun. 42 (1), 112e129. Culpeper, Jonathan, 1996. Towards an
anatomy of impoliteness. J. Pragmat. 25, 349.
Culpeper, Jonathan, 2005. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: the weakest
link. J. Politeness Res. 1, 35e72. Culpeper, Jonathan, 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to
Cause Offence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Culpeper, Jonathan, 2016. Impoliteness strategies. In: Capone, A., Mey, J.L. (Eds.),
Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics. Culture and Society, pp. 421.
Dynel, Marta, 2014. Participation framework underlying YouTube interaction. J. Pragmat. 73, 37.
Dubois, Elizabeth, Blank, Grant, 2018. The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of
political interest and diverse media. Inf. Commun. Soc. 21 (5), 729.
Durkheim, E´mile, 1912 (1995). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Trans. Karen E.
Fields. The Free Press, New York.
Edwards, Arthur, 2013. (How) do participants in online discussion forums create ‘echo
chambers’?: the inclusion and exclusion of dissenting voices in an online forum about climate
change. J. Argum. Cont. 2 (1), 127.
Fairclough, Norman L., 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.
Routledge, New York.
Feldman, Ronen, Sanger, James, 2007. The Text Mining Handbook. Advanced Approaches in
Analyzing Unstructured Data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Festinger, Leon, 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7 (2), 117.
Franzke, Aline S., Bechmann, Anja, Zimmer, Michael, Ess, Charles, 2020. The Association of
Internet Researchers. Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf.
Garce´s-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, 2010. The YouTubification of politics, impoliteness and
polarization. In: Taiwo, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Discourse Behavior and Digital
Communication: Language Structures and Social Interaction. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 540.
Garce´s-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Bou-Franch, Patricia, 2013. Relational work
in anonymous, asynchronous communication: a study of (dis)
affiliation on YouTube. In: Kecskes, I., Romero-Trillo, J. (Eds.), Research Trends in Intercultural
Pragmatics. Walter de Gruyter, Boston, pp. 343e365. Garimella, Kiran, De Francisci Morales,
Gianmarco, Gionis, Aristides, Mathioudakis, Michael, 2018. Political discourse on social
media: echo chambers,
gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship. In: The Web Conference (WWW2018), pp. 913
Graham, Sage, 2015. Relationality, friendship and identity. In: Georgakopoulou, A., Spiloti, T.
(Eds.), Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 305
Graham, Sage, Hardaker, Claire, 2017. (Im)politeness in Digital Communication. Palgrave
Handbooks of Linguistic Politeness, Basingstoke, UK (Palgrave Macmillan).
Gro€mping, Max, 2014. ‘Echo chambers’ partisan facebook groups during the 2014 Thai
election. Asia Pac. Media Educat. 24 (1), 39
Gu, Bin, Konana, Prabhudev, Raghunathan, Rajagopal, Chen, Hsuanwei Michelle, 2014. The
allure of homophily in social media: evidence from investor responses on virtual communities. Inf.
Syst. Res. 25 (3), 604
Goffman, Ereving, 1955. On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements of social interaction.
Psychiatry: J. Study Inter. Process. 18 (3), 213
Haugh, Michael, Culpeper, Jonathan, 2018. In: Ilie, C., Norrick, N.R. (Eds.), Integrative
pragmatics and (im)politeness theory. Pragmatics and Its Interfaces.
John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 213
Hardaker, Claire, 2010. Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: from user
discussions to academic definitions. J. Politeness Res. 6 (2), 215
Johansson, Majrut, 2017. YouTube. In: Hoffmann, C.R., Bublitz, W. (Eds.), Pragmatics of Social
Media. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin/Boston, pp. 173e200. Ka´da´r, Daniel, Haugh, Michael,
2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kienpointner, Manfred, 2018. Impoliteness online: hate speech in online interactions. Inter.
Pragmat. 1 (2), 329e351. Kies, Raphae€l, 2010. Promises and Limits of Web-Deliberation.
Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Kleinke, Sonja, Bo€s, Birte, 2015. Intergroup rudeness and the metapragmatics of its
negotiation in online discussion fora. Pragmatics 25 (1), 47e71. Kuteeva, Maria, Mauranen,
Anna, 2018. Digital academic discourse: texts and contexts. Discourse Context Media 24, 1.
Lachenicht, Lance G., 1980. Aggravating language. A study of abusive and insulting language.
Pap. Ling. Int. J. Hum. Commun. 13, 607e687. Lange, Patricia, 2014. Commenting on YouTube
rants: perceptions of inappropriateness or civic engagement? J. Pragmat. 73, 53.
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara, 2017. Incivility and confrontation in online conflict
discourses. Ło´d´z Papers in Pragmatics 13 (2), 347.
Levinson, Stephen C., 2000. Presumptive Meanings. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Locher, Miriam, 2004. Power and Politeness in Action. Disagreements in Oral Communication. De
Gruyter Mouton.
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Garce´s-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, Bou-Franch, Patricia, 2011. On-line
polylogues and impoliteness: the case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton
YouTube video. J. Pragmat. 43, 2578e2593.
McPherson, Miller, Smith-Lovin, Lynn, Cook, James, M., 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in
social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27, 415e444. Meloy, John R., Amman, Molly, 2016. Public
figure Attacks in the United States, 1995e2015. Behav. Sci. Law 34, 622e644.
Mikolov, Thomas, Sutskever, Ilya, Chen, Kan, Corrado, Greg, Dean, Jeffrey, 2013. Distributed
representations of words and phrases and their composi- tionality. In: Advances in Neural
Information Processing Systems, vol. 26. NIPS, pp. 3111.
Moor, Peter. J., Heuvelman, Ard, Verleur, Ria, 2010. Flaming on YouTube. Comput. Hum. Behav.
26 (6), 1536.
Ouvrein, Gae€lle, De Backer, Charlotte, J.S., Vandebosch, Heidi, 2018. Joining the clash or
refusing to bash? Bystanders reactions to online celebrity bashing.
Cyberpsychology 12 (4) article 5.
Perelmutter, Renee, 2013. Klassika zhanra: the flamewar as a genre in the Russian blogosphere. J.
Pragmat. 45, 74e.
Reicher, Steve D., Spears, Russel, Postmes, T., 1995. A social identity model of deindividuation
phenomena. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 6, 161.
Sellers, Mortimer, 2004. Ideals of public discourse. In: Sistare, C.T. (Ed.), Civility and its
Discontents. University Press of Kansas, Kansas, pp. 15.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 2002. Managing rapport in talk: using rapport sensitive incidents to explore
the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. J. Pragmat. 34, 529.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 2008. Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory.
Continuum, London and New York. Sternberg, Robert, Sternberg, Karin, 2008. The Nature of
Hate. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Sunstein, Cass R., 2001. Republic.com. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Sunstein, Cass R., 2009. Going to Extremes. How like Minds Unite and Divide. Oxford University
Press, Oxford. Tannen, Deborah, 1990. You Just Don't Understand. Ballantine, New York.
Tajfel, Henri, Turner, John C., 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In:
Worchel, S., Austin, W.G. (Eds.), The Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Nelson-Hall,
Chicago, pp. 7.
Tomasello, Michael, 2008. Origins of Human Communication. The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass. Van Dijk, Teun, 2006. Ideology and discourse analysis. J. Political Ideol. 11 (2), 115.
Van Dijk, Teun, 1998. Opinions and ideologies in the press. In: Garrett, P., Bell, A. (Eds.),
Approaches to Media Discourse. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 21.
Vladimirou, Dimitra, House, Juliane, 2018. Ludic impoliteness and globalisation on Twitter:
‘I speak England very best’ #agglika_Tsipra, #Tsipras #Clinton. J.Pragmat. 134, 149.
Whittaker, Elizabeth, Kowalski, Robin M., 2014. Cyberbullying via social media. J. Sch.
Violence 14 (1), 11.
Yang, Janet Z., Chu, Haoran, Kahlor, LeeAnn, 2018. Fearful conservatives, angry liberals:
information processing related to the 2016 presidential election and climate change. J. Mass
Commun. Q. 96 (3), 107.