1887
image of The metalinguistics of offence in (British) English
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Offence is a central concept in impoliteness, aggression and conflict research, yet has received only passing mention in definitions of impoliteness and related concepts. argues that impoliteness and language aggression scholars are needlessly worried about definitions. We use 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 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 , and show that concepts such as 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00035.cul
2020-05-29
2020-07-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, Keith
    2019 “Taboo Words and Language: An Overview.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language, edited byKeith Allan, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bach, Kent
    2001 “You Don’t Say?” Synthese128 (1/2):15–44. 10.1023/A:1010353722852
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010353722852 [Google Scholar]
  3. Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann
    1966The Social Construction of Reality. NY: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blumczyński, Piotr
    2013 “Turning the Tide: A Critique of Natural Semantic Metalanguage from a Translation Studies Perspective.” Translation Studies6 (3):261–276. 10.1080/14781700.2013.781484
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2013.781484 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
    1987Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cameron, Deborah
    2004 “Out of the Bottle: The Social Life of Metalanguage.” InMetalanguage, edited byAdam Jaworski, Nikolas Coupland and Dariusz Galasinski, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110907377.311
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907377.311 [Google Scholar]
  7. Coleman, Linda, and Paul Kay
    1981 “Prototype Semantics: The English Word ‘Lie’”. Language57(1):26–44. 10.1353/lan.1981.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1981.0002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cook, Paul, and Laurel J. Brinton
    2017 “Building and Evaluating Web Corpora Representing National Varieties of English.” Language Resources and Evaluation51:643–662. 10.1007/s10579‑016‑9378‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-016-9378-z [Google Scholar]
  9. Coupland, Nikolas, and Adam Jaworski
    2004 “Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Metalanguage: Reflexivity, Evaluation and Ideology.” InMetalanguage. Social and Ideological Perspectives, edited byAdam Jaworski, Nikolas Coupland and Dariusz Galasiński, 15–51. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110907377.15
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907377.15 [Google Scholar]
  10. Croft, William
    2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2009 “The Metalanguage of impoliteness: Using Sketch Engine to Explore the Oxford English Corpus.” InContemporary Corpus Linguistics, edited byPaul Baker, 66–88. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  13. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Michael Haugh
    2014Pragmatics and the English Language. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑39391‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-39391-3 [Google Scholar]
  14. . Forthcoming. (Im)politeness and Sociopragmatics: InCambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics edited by Michael Haugh, Dániel Z. Kádár and Marina Terkourafi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dewaele, Jean-Marc
    2019 “Linguistic Taboos in a Second or Foreign Language.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language, edited byKeith Allan, 218–232. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Eelen, Gino
    2001A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Firth, John R.
    1957 “A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory 1930–1955.” InStudies in Linguistic Analysis, edited byJohn R. Firth, 1–32. Oxford: Philological Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Haugh, Michael
    2012 “The First-Second Order Distinction in Face and Politeness Research.” Journal of Politeness Research8(1):111–134. 10.1515/pr‑2012‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2012-0007 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2015 “Impoliteness and Taking Offence in Initial Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics86:36–42. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2016 “The Role of English as a Scientific Metalanguage for Research in Pragmatics: Reflections on the Metapragmatics of ‘Politeness’ in Japanese.” East Asian Pragmatics1 (1):39–71. 10.1558/eap.v1i1.27610
    https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.v1i1.27610 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2018 “Corpus-based Metapragmatics.” InMethods in Pragmatics, edited byAndreas H. Jucker, Klaus P. Schneider and Wolfram Bublitz, 619–643. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110424928‑024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-024 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2019 “The Metapragmatics of Consideration in (Australian and New Zealand) English.” InFrom Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness, edited byEva Ogiermann and Pilar G. Blitvich, 201–225. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182119.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182119.009 [Google Scholar]
  24. Haugh, Michael, and Valeria Sinkeviciute
    2019 “Offence and Conflict Talk.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, edited byMatthew Evans, Lesley Jeffries and Jim O’Driscoll, 196–214. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429058011‑12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058011-12 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hübler, Alex
    2011 “Metapragmatics.” InFoundations of Pragmatics, edited byWolfram Bublitz and Neal R. Norrick, 107–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214260.107
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214260.107 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hübler, Axel, and Ulrich Busse
    2012 “Introduction.” InInvestigations into the Meta-Communicative Lexicon in English, edited byUlrich Busse and Axel Hübler, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.220.02hub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.220.02hub [Google Scholar]
  27. Jakobson, Roman
    1960 “Linguistics and Poetics.” InStyle in Language, edited byThomas Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Janicki, Karol
    1999Against Essentialism: Toward Language Awareness. Munich: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2006Language Misconceived. Arguing for Applied Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2010 “Lay People’s Language Problems.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics20 (1):73–94. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2009.00229.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00229.x [Google Scholar]
  31. 2017 “What is conflict? What is aggression? Are these challenging questions?” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict5 (1):156–166. 10.1075/jlac.5.1.07jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.5.1.07jan [Google Scholar]
  32. Jay, Timothy
    2019 “The Psychology of Expressing and Interpreting Linguistic Taboos.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language, edited byKeith Allan, 77–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jucker, Andreas
    2020Politeness in the History of English. From the Middle Ages to the Present Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108589147
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589147 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kádár, Dániel Z., and Michael Haugh
    2013Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychlý, Pavel Smrz, and David Tugwell
    2004 “Sketch Engine.” Proceedings of Euralex, 105–116. Lorient, France.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Popper, Karl
    1945The Open Society and its Enemies. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Popper, Karl R.
    1979Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rychlý, Pavel
    2008 “A Lexicographer-friendly Association Score.” InProceedings of Second Workshop on Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Languages Processing, RASLAN 2008, edited byPetr Sojka and Aleš Horák. Brno: Masaryk University.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Rosch, Eleanor
    1975 “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General104(3):192–233. 10.1037/0096‑3445.104.3.192
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192 [Google Scholar]
  40. Scheff, Thomas J.
    2006 “Concepts and Concept Formation: Goffman and beyond.” Qualitative Sociology Review2 (3):48–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Schönefeld, Doris
    1999 “Corpus Linguistics and Cognitivism.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics4:137–71. 10.1075/ijcl.4.1.07sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.4.1.07sch [Google Scholar]
  42. Silverstein, Michael
    2003 “Indexical Order and the Dialectics of Sociolinguistic Life.” Language and Communication23 (3/4):193–229. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(03)00013‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sinclair, John
    2004Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Taylor, Charlotte
    2015 “Beyond Sarcasm: The Metalanguage and Structures of Mock Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics87:127–141. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2016Mock Politeness in English and Italian: A Corpus-Assisted Metalanguage Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.267
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.267 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2017 “The Relationship between Irony and Sarcasm: Insights from a First-order Metalanguage Investigation.” Journal of Politeness Research12 (1):209–241.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Terkourafi, Marina
    2005 “Beyond the Micro-level in Politeness Research.” Journal of Politeness Research1 (2):237–262. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2011 “From Politeness1 to Politeness2: Tracking Norms of Im/politeness across Time and Space.” Journal of Politeness Research7 (2):159–185. 10.1515/jplr.2011.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  50. Trier, Jost
    1931Der 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]
  51. Ullmann, Stephen
    1962Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Verschueren, Jef
    2000 “Notes on the Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language Use.” Pragmatics10 (4):439–456. 10.1075/prag.10.4.02ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.4.02ver [Google Scholar]
  53. Waters, Sophia
    2012 “‘It’s Rude to VP’: The Cultural Semantics of Rudeness.” Journal of Pragmatics44:1051–1062. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  54. Watts, Richard
    2003Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2005 “Linguistic Politeness Research: Quo vadis?”. InPoliteness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, edited byRichard Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, xi–xlvii. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199819.1.131
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199819.1.131 [Google Scholar]
  56. Watts, Richard, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich
    1992 “Introduction.” InPoliteness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, edited byRichard Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, 1–17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110886542‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110886542-003 [Google Scholar]
  57. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1972Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt: Athenäum.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 1988The Semantics of Grammar. (Studies in Language Companion Series 8). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18 [Google Scholar]
  59. Wittgenstein, Ludwig
    1958Philosophical Investigations. Translated byG. E. M. Anscombe. 3rd ed.New York: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00035.cul
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00035.cul
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error