1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict
  4. Volume 12, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper, we explore how (im)politeness and face are managed by two top diplomats of the US and Iran amidst an ongoing conflict where both claim to occupy moral high grounds. To that end, 360 relevant tweets posted on the Iranian Foreign Minister and US Secretary of State’s official accounts over one year were selected and analyzed qualitatively through the theoretical lens of Culpeper’s (2011) impoliteness formulae and implicational impoliteness framework. Three overarching pragmatic functions were identified: criticizing the adversary, giving directives, and showing solidarity with allies while projecting a significant amount of face-threat to the adversary. We also identified three main strategies that they used to justify their impoliteness, namely, appeal to the moral order, appeal to common sense, and appeal to international conventions and regulations. These findings can contribute to impoliteness literature by providing insights into the pragmatic functions and justifications in political communication, where the speakers have to balance their face needs and their communicative goals.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00091.mor
2023-12-22
2024-10-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00091.mor
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altahmazi, Thulfiqar Hussein M.
    2022 “Impoliteness in Twitter Diplomacy: Offence Giving and Taking in Middle East Diplomatic Crises.” Journal of Politeness Research18 (2): 281–310. 10.1515/pr‑2019‑0032
     https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2019-0032 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ameka, Felix K., and Marina Terkourafi
    2019 “What if…? Imagining Non-Western Perspectives on Pragmatic Theory and Practice.” Journal of Pragmatics1451: 72–82. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blommaert, Jan
    2018 Durkheim and the Internet. London: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350055223
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350055223 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bou-Franch, Patricia, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    2014a “Gender Ideology and Social Identity Processes in Online Language Aggression against Women.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict2 (2): 226–248. 10.1075/jlac.2.2.03bou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.2.2.03bou [Google Scholar]
  5. Bou-Franch, Patricia, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    2014b “Conflict Management in Massive Polylogues: A Case Study from YouTube.” Journal of Pragmatics731: 19–36. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bousfield, Derek
    2007 “Impoliteness, Preference Organization and Conductivity.” Multilingua26 (1): 1–33. 10.1515/MULTI.2007.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/MULTI.2007.001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1978 “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” InQuestions and Politeness, edited byE. Goody, 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall
    2005 “Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach.” Discourse Studies7(4–5): 585–614. 10.1177/1461445605054407
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chilton, Paul
    1990 “Politeness, Politics and Diplomacy.” Discourse & Society1 (2): 201–224. 10.1177/0957926590001002005
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926590001002005 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clarke, Isobelle, and Jack Grieve
    2019 “Stylistic Variation on the Donald Trump Twitter Account: A Linguistic Analysis of Tweets Posted between 2009 and 2018.” PLoS ONE14 (9): 1–27. 10.1371/journal.pone.0222062
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222062 [Google Scholar]
  12. Coesemans, Roel, and Barbara De Cock
    2017 “Self-Reference by Politicians on Twitter: Strategies to Adapt to 140 Characters.” Journal of Pragmatics1161: 37–50. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  13. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2005 “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link.” Journal of Politeness Research1 (1): 35–72. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  15. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Claire Hardaker
    2017 “Impoliteness.” InThe Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness, edited byJonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 199–225. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_9
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_9 [Google Scholar]
  16. Danziger, Roni, and Mia Schreiber
    2021 “Digital Diplomacy: Face Management in MFA Twitter Accounts.” Policy and Internet13 (4): 586–605. 10.1002/poi3.269
     https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.269 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dayter, Daria
    2014 “Self-Praise in Microblogging.” Journal of Pragmatics611: 91–102. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.021
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.021 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dobs, Abby Mueller, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    2013 “Impoliteness in Polylogal Interaction: Accounting for Face-Threat Witnesses’ Responses.” Journal of Pragmatics531: 112–130. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  19. Eelen, Gino
    2001 A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Eisenberg, Ann
    1992 “Conflicts between Mothers and Their Young Children.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly38 (1): 21–43. 10.2307/23087274
     https://doi.org/10.2307/23087274 [Google Scholar]
  21. Frame, Alex, and Gilles Brachotte
    2015 “Le Tweet Stratégique: Use of Twitter as a PR Tool by French Politicians.” Public Relations Review41 (2): 278–287. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  22. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, and Maria Sifianou
    2017 “(Im)Politeness and Identity.” InThe Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness, edited byJonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 227–256. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_10
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_10 [Google Scholar]
  23. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, and Dániel Z. Kádár
    2021 “Morality in Sociopragmatics.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, edited byMichael Haugh, Dániel Z. Kádár, and Marina Terkourafi, 385–407. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108954105.021
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954105.021 [Google Scholar]
  24. Garfinkel, Harold
    1964 “Studies of the Routine Grounds of Everyday Activities.” Social Problems31: 225–250. 10.2307/798722
     https://doi.org/10.2307/798722 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goffman, Erving
    1967 Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Graham, Sage Lambert
    2007 “Disagreeing to Agree: Conflict, (Im)Politeness and Identity in a Computer-Mediated Community.” Journal of Pragmatics39 (4): 742–759. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017 [Google Scholar]
  27. Harris, Sandra
    2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society12 (4): 451–472. 10.1177/0957926501012004003
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012004003 [Google Scholar]
  28. Haugh, Michael
    2013 “Im/Politeness, Social Practice and the Participation Order.” Journal of Pragmatics581: 52–72. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hemphill, Libby, Jahna Otterbacher, and Matthew A. Shapiro
    2013 “What’s Congress Doing on Twitter?” InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW, 877–886. ACM. 10.1145/2441776.2441876
     https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441876 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hoffmann, Christian R.
    2018 “Crooked Hillary and Dumb Trump.” Internet Pragmatics1 (1): 55–87. 10.1075/ip.00004.hof
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00004.hof [Google Scholar]
  31. Horgan, Mervyn
    2019 “Everyday Incivility and the Urban Interaction Order.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict7 (1): 32–55. 10.1075/jlac.00018.hor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00018.hor [Google Scholar]
  32. Kampf, Zohar
    2016a “All the Best! Performing Solidarity in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics931: 47–60. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2016b “Rhetorical Bypasses: Connecting with the Hearts and Minds of People on the Opponent’s Side.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses11 (2): 149–163. 10.1080/17447143.2016.1181639
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2016.1181639 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kampf, Zohar, Lee Aldar, Roni Danziger, and Mia Schreiber
    2019 “The Pragmatics of Amicable Interstate Communication.” Intercultural Pragmatics16 (2): 123–151. 10.1515/ip‑2019‑0007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0007 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kampf, Zohar, Dana Chudy, Roni Danziger, and Mia Schreiber
    2020 “‘Wait with Falling in Love’: Discursive Evaluation of Amicable Messages Conveyed by Opponents.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology40 (2): 188–213. 10.1177/0261927X20944977
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20944977 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kampf, Zohar, and Roni Danziger
    2018 “‘You Dribble Faster than Messi and Jump Higher than Jordan’: The Art of Complimenting and Praising in Political Discourse.” Journal of Politeness Research15 (1): 1–23. 10.1515/pr‑2016‑0044
     https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2016-0044 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.
    2004 “Introducing Polylogue.” Journal of Pragmatics36(1): 1–24. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00034‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00034-1 [Google Scholar]
  38. Khosravinik, Majid
    2014 “Critical Discourse Analysis, Power, and New Media Discourse.” InWhy Discourse Matters: Negotiating Identity in the Mediatized World, edited byMonika Kopytowska and Yusuf Kalyango, 287–306. New York:Peter Lang. https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/195164
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kountouri, Fani, and Andreas Kollias
    2023 “Polarizing Publics in Twitter through Organic Targeting Tactics of Political Incivility.” Frontiers in Political Science51. 10.3389/fpos.2023.1110953
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1110953 [Google Scholar]
  40. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Locher, Miriam A.
    2015 “Interpersonal Pragmatics and its Link to (Im)Politeness Research.” Journal of Pragmatics861: 5–10. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  42. Locher, Miriam A., and Brook Bolander
    2015 “Humour in Microblogging: Exploiting Linguistic Humour Strategies for Identity Construction in Two Facebook Focus Groups.” InParticipation in Public and Social Media Interactions, edited byMarta Dynel and Jan Chovanec, 135–155. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.256.06loc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.256.06loc [Google Scholar]
  43. Makki, Mohammad, and Andrew S. Ross
    2021 “‘We were Cocked & Loaded to retaliate’: An appraisal-based Study of Dichotomies in Trump’s Tweets about Iran.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict11 (1): 1–24. 10.1075/jlac.00069.mak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00069.mak [Google Scholar]
  44. Makki, Mohammad, and Michele Zappavigna
    2022 “Out-Grouping and Ambient Affiliation in Donald Trump’s Tweets about Iran.” Pragmatics32 (1): 104–130. 10.1075/prag.20048.mak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20048.mak [Google Scholar]
  45. Malthus, Miriam
    2019 “‘Yes, He Is, at Least, Entertaining.’” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict7 (2): 210–239. 10.1075/jlac.00025.mal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00025.mal [Google Scholar]
  46. Marwick, Alice E., and danah boyd
    2011 “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience.” New Media & Society13 (1): 114–133. 10.1177/1461444810365313
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313 [Google Scholar]
  47. Matley, David
    2018 “‘This Is NOT a #humblebrag, This Is Just a #brag’: The Pragmatics of Self-Praise, Hashtags and Politeness in Instagram Posts.” Discourse, Context & Media221: 30–38. 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.07.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  48. Mendoza-Denton, N.
    2008 “Language and Identity.” InThe Handbook of Language Variation and Change, edited byJack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes, 475–499. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Mojtahed-Zadeh, Pirouz
    2013 Security and Territoriality in the Persian Gulf. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315027548
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315027548 [Google Scholar]
  50. Nwoye, Onuigbo G.
    1992 “Linguistic Politeness and Socio-Cultural Variations of the Notion of Face.” Journal of Pragmatics18 (4): 309–328. 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90092‑P
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90092-P [Google Scholar]
  51. Oliveira, Ana Larissa Adorno Marciotto, and Monique Vieira Miranda
    2022 “‘Calling a Spade, a Spade’: Impoliteness and Shame on Twitter.” Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics13 (2): 22–32. 10.22055/RALS.2022.17800
     https://doi.org/10.22055/RALS.2022.17800 [Google Scholar]
  52. Parvaresh, Vahid, and Tahmineh Tayebi
    2018 “Impoliteness, Aggression and the Moral Order.” Journal of Pragmatics1321: 91–107. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  53. Patton, Michael Quinn
    2014 Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. 2nd edn.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Pizziconi, Barbara
    2015 “Teaching and Learning (Im)Politeness: A Look at the CEFR and Pedagogical Research.” InTeaching and Learning (Im)Politeness, edited byBarbara Pizziconi, and Miriam A. Locher, 113–151. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501501654‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501501654-006 [Google Scholar]
  55. Rauchfleisch, Adrian, and Julia Metag
    2016 “The Special Case of Switzerland: Swiss Politicians on Twitter.” New Media & Society18 (10): 2413–2431. 10.1177/1461444815586982
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815586982 [Google Scholar]
  56. Reicher, Stephen D., Anne Templeton, Fergus Neville, Lucienne Ferrari, and John Drury
    2016 “Core Disgust is Attenuated by Ingroup Relations.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113 (10): 2631–2635. 10.1073/pnas.1517027113
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517027113 [Google Scholar]
  57. Riazi, Mehdi
    2016 “Thematic Analysis”. InThe Routledge Encyclopedia of Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, edited byMehdi Riazi, 3181. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315656762
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315656762 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ross, Andrew S., and David Caldwell
    2020 “‘Going Negative’: An appraisal Analysis of the Rhetoric of Donald Trump on Twitter.” Language and Communication701: 13–27. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  59. Searle, John R.
    1976 “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society5 (1): 1–23. 10.1017/S0047404500006837
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  60. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    2007 “Theories of Identity and the Analysis of Face.” Journal of Pragmatics39 (4): 639–656. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2008 “Face, (Im)Politeness and Rapport.” InCulturally Speaking, 2nd edn., 11–47. New York: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Spencer-Oatey, Helen, and Dániel Z. Kádár
    2015 “The Bases of (Im)Politeness Evaluations: Culture, the Moral Order and the East-West Divide.” East Asian Pragmatics1 (1): 73–106. 10.1558/eap.v1i1.29084
     https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.v1i1.29084 [Google Scholar]
  63. Tajfel, Henry, and John Charles Turner
    1986 “The Social Identity Theory of Inter-Group Behavior.” InPsychology of Intergroup Relations, edited byStephen Worchel, and William G. Austin, 7–24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Tayebi, Tahmineh, and Vahid Parvaresh
    2014 “Conversational Disclaimers in Persian.” Journal of Pragmatics621: 77–93. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.011 [Google Scholar]
  65. 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]
  66. 2015 “Conventionalization: A New Agenda for Im/Politeness Research.” Journal of Pragmatics861: 11–18. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  67. Terkourafi, Marina, Lydia Catedral, Iftikhar Haider, Farzad Karimzad, Jeriel Melgares, Cristina Mostacero-Pinilla, Julie Nelson, and Benjamin Weissman
    2018 “Uncivil Twitter.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict6 (1): 26–57. 10.1075/jlac.00002.ter
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00002.ter [Google Scholar]
  68. Tracy, Karen
    2017 “Facework and (Im)Politeness in Political Exchanges.” InThe Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness, 739–758. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_28
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_28 [Google Scholar]
  69. van Dijk, Teun
    2014 Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107775404
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107775404 [Google Scholar]
  70. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
    Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 Vienna, Austria: United Nations Treaty Collection. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=III-3&chapter=3&clang=_en
  71. Watts, Richard J.
    2005 “Linguistic Politeness Research: Quo Vadis?” InPoliteness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, edited byRichard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich, 2nd edn., xi–x1vii. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199819
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199819 [Google Scholar]
  72. Wodak, Ruth
    2017 “The ‘Establishment’, the ‘Élites’, and the ‘People.’” Journal of Language and Politics16 (4): 551–565. 10.1075/jlp.17030.wod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17030.wod [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00091.mor
Loading
“A history lesson, perhaps, for my novice counterpart”
Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 12, 289 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00091.mor
/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00091.mor
/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00091.mor
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): (im)politeness; occupying moral high grounds; political debate; Twitter (X)

Most Cited

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