1887
image of Metapragmatics of verbal aggression and workplace conflict
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This study advances a participant-anchored, metapragmatic account of conflict triggering in Greek private-sector workplaces. It conceptualises escalation not as a direct outcome of harsh wording but as a rights-based process through which speakers publicly contest one another’s interactional legitimacy. Drawing on 55 semi-structured interviews with Greek private-sector employees, the analysis integrates (a) an etic mapping of recurrent aggressive manifestations, (b) emic metapragmatic evaluations through which participants label and moralise offence, and (c) an interactional threshold defined by explicit offence-labelling with immediate uptake. Findings reveal that escalation occurs when moralised evaluations reallocate communicative rights, particularly in public contexts where audiences amplify face risk and moral accountability. By linking linguistic choices, moral evaluation, and interactional consequence, the study contributes to sociopragmatic theory, workplace conflict studies, and applied models of interactional management.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00154.fil
2026-07-17
2026-08-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andersson, Lynne M., and Christine M. Pearson
    1999 “Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace.” Academy of Management Review (): –. 10.2307/259136
    https://doi.org/10.2307/259136 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bou-Franch, Patricia
    2022 “Evaluation, Conflict and Prescriptive Metapragmatic Comments: (Re)Constructing Transmedia Stories.” InAnalyzing Digital Discourses: Between Convergence and Controversy, ed. byMarjut Johansson, Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, and Jan Chovanec, –. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bou-Franch, Patricia, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    2014 “Conflict Management in Massive Polylogues: A Case Study from YouTube.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bousfield, Derek
    2007 “Beginnings, Middles and Ends: A Biopsy of the Dynamics of Impolite Exchanges.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2008Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.167
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2010 “Researching Impoliteness and Rudeness: Issues and Definitions.” InInterpersonal Pragmatics, ed. byMiriam A. Locher and Sage L. Graham, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110214338.1.101
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214338.1.101 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2013 “Face in Conflict.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict (): –. 10.1075/jlac.1.1.03bou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.1.1.03bou [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  9. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2016 “Impoliteness Strategies.” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. byAlessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey, –. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_16 [Google Scholar]
  11. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Michael Haugh
    2021 “The Metalinguistics of Offence in (British) English: A Corpus-Based Metapragmatic Approach.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict (): –. 10.1075/jlac.00035.cul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00035.cul [Google Scholar]
  12. Culpeper, Jonathan, Vittorio Tantucci, and Eleanor Field
    2025 “Impoliteness Reciprocity Online.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2025.04.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2025.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dynel, Marta
    2016 “Conceptualizing Conversational Humour as (Im)Politeness: The Case of Film Talk.” Journal of Politeness Research (): –. 10.1515/pr‑2015‑0023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0023 [Google Scholar]
  14. Edmondson, Amy C.
    1999 “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly (): –. 10.2307/2666999
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 [Google Scholar]
  15. Eelen, Gino
    2001A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Filippou, Dimitra
    2023 Linguistic Impoliteness and Identity Construction in Conflict and Hate Speech Interactions. Doctoral Dissertation. National & Kapodistrian University of Athens. 10.12681/eadd/54788
    https://doi.org/10.12681/eadd/54788
  17. Fraser, Bruce, and William Nolan
    1981 “The Association of Deference with Linguistic Form.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language: –. 10.1515/ijsl.1981.27.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1981.27.93 [Google Scholar]
  18. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, and Patricia Bou-Franch
    2025 “Identities in Conflict: Latinos in Spain.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict (): –. 10.1075/jlac.00107.gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00107.gar [Google Scholar]
  19. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hames, Sam, Michael Haugh, and Simon Musgrave
    2025 “‘How Is That Unparliamentary?’: The Metapragmatics of ‘Unparliamentary’ Language in the Australian Federal Parliament.” Lingua: . 10.1016/j.lingua.2025.103932
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2025.103932 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hatzidaki, Ourania
    2020 “‘An Equal Right to Comment’: Metapragmatic Negotiation of (Im)Politeness Norms in a Confrontational Greek YouTube Polylogue Discussing Online Public Female Nudity.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict (): –. 10.1075/jlac.00037.hat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00037.hat [Google Scholar]
  22. Haugh, Michael
    2024 “(Im)Politeness as Object, (Im)Politeness as Perspective.” Journal of Politeness Research (): –. 10.1515/pr‑2023‑0082
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2023-0082 [Google Scholar]
  23. Haugh, Michael, and Valeria Sinkeviciute
    2019 “Offence and Conflict Talk.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, ed. byMatthew Evans, Lesley Jeffries, and Jim O’Driscoll, –. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429058011‑12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058011-12 [Google Scholar]
  24. Haugh, Michael, Dániel Z. Kádár, and Rosina Márquez Reiter
    2022 “Offence and Morality: Pragmatic Perspectives.” Language & Communication: –. 10.1016/j.langcom.2022.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2022.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  25. Haugh, Michael, Dániel Z. Kádár, and Sara Mills
    2013 “Interpersonal Pragmatics: Issues and Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.009 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hershcovis, M. Sandy, and Julian Barling
    2010 “Comparing Victim Attributions and Outcomes for Workplace Aggression and Sexual Harassment.” Journal of Applied Psychology (): –. 10.1037/a0020070
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020070 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hymes, Dell
    1974Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jay, Timothy
    1992Cursing in America: A Psycholinguistic Study of Dirty Language in the Courts, in the Movies, in the Schoolyards and on the Streets. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.57
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.57 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kádár, Dániel Z., and Michael Haugh
    2013Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kádár, Dániel Z., Vahid Parvaresh, and Puyu Ning
    2019 “Morality, Moral Order, and Language Conflict and Aggression: A Position Paper.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict (): –. 10.1075/jlac.00017.kad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00017.kad [Google Scholar]
  31. Lachenicht, Lance G.
    1980 “Aggravating Language: A Study of Abusive and Insulting Language.” Papers in Linguistics (): –. 10.1080/08351818009370513
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818009370513 [Google Scholar]
  32. Langlotz, Andreas, and Miriam A. Locher
    2017 “(Im)Politeness and Emotion.” InThe Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness, ed. byJonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, –. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_12
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_12 [Google Scholar]
  33. Locher, Miriam A.
    2015 “Interpersonal Pragmatics and its Link to (Im)Politeness Research.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  34. Locher, Miriam A., and Richard J. Watts
    2005 “Politeness Theory and Relational Work.” Journal of Politeness Research (): –. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, and Patricia Bou-Franch
    2011 “On-Line Polylogues and Impoliteness: The Case of Postings Sent in Response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube Video.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ogiermann, Eva, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    (eds) 2019From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness: Multilingual and Multicultural Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182119
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182119 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sifianou, Maria
    2019 “Im/Politeness and In/Civility: A Neglected Relationship?” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.008 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sifianou, Maria, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    2018 “Editorial: Globalization and Im/Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.06.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.06.014 [Google Scholar]
  39. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00039‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00039-X [Google Scholar]
  40. 2008Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. 2nd edn.London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2011 “Conceptualising ‘the Relational’ in Pragmatics: Insights from Metapragmatic Emotion and (Im)Politeness Comments.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  42. Spencer-Oatey, Helen, and Dániel Z. Kádár
    2016 “The Bases of (Im)Politeness Evaluations: Culture, the Moral Order and the East–West Debate.” East Asian Pragmatics (): –. 10.1558/eap.v1i1.29084
    https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.v1i1.29084 [Google Scholar]
  43. Tepper, Bennett J.
    2000 “Consequences of Abusive Supervision.” Academy of Management Journal (): –. 10.2307/1556375
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375 [Google Scholar]
  44. Terkourafi, Marina
    2008 “Towards a Unified Theory of Politeness, Impoliteness, and Rudeness.” InImpoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. byDerek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208344.1.45
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344.1.45 [Google Scholar]
  45. Watts, Richard J.
    2003Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00154.fil
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00154.fil
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: private-sector ; metapragmatics ; workplace conflict ; emic approach ; verbal aggression
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