1887
image of Strategic functions of linguistic impoliteness in US primary election debates
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Since presidential primary debates in US election campaigns serve the function of identifying the most promising nominee for the subsequent presidency, they constitute a highly adversarial multilogue. Debaters do not only exchange factual arguments but also use diverse forms of impoliteness geared towards damaging the public image of political opponents and persuading audiences to vote accordingly. Combining political discourse analysis with pragmatic approaches to impoliteness, this paper examines the ways in which verbal aggression in debates inflicts damage on the addressee’s positive and negative face. On the basis of five Democratic and five Republican debates from 2016, it is shown that impolite utterances fulfil the four central strategic functions of (a) delegitimization, (b) coercion, (c) entertainment, and (d) (self-)defence, all of which support the macro-function of political persuasion through the construction of personal preferability.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.20041.sch
2021-07-07
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Attardo, Salvatore
    2008 “A Primer for the Linguistics of Humor.” InThe Primer of Humor Research, ed. byVictor Raskin, 101–155. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198492.101
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198492.101 [Google Scholar]
  2. Beebe, Leslie M.
    1995 “Polite Fictions: Instrumental Rudeness as Pragmatic Competence.” InLinguistics and the Education of Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguistics and Sociolinguistic Aspects, ed. byJames E. Alatis, Carolyn A. Straehle, Brent Gallenberger, and Maggie Ronkin, 154–168. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Benoit, William L.
    2014Political Election Debates: Informing Voters about Policy and Character. Lanham: Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bousfield, Derek
    2008Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.167
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bousfield, Derek, and Miriam A. Locher
    (eds) 2008Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208344
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344 [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Chilton, Paul
    2004Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schäffner
    2011 “Discourse and Politics.” InDiscourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, ed. byTeun A. van Dijk, 303–330. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446289068.n15
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446289068.n15 [Google Scholar]
  9. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics25: 349–367. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. 2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2016 “Impoliteness Strategies.” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. byAlessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, 421–445. Switzerland: Springer International. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_16 [Google Scholar]
  13. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Claire Hardaker
    2017 “Impoliteness.” InThe Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. 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]
  14. Culpeper, Jonathan, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár
    (eds) 2017The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dailey, William O., Edward A. Hinck, and Shelly S. Hinck
    2008Politeness in Presidential Debates: Shaping Political Face in Campaign Debates from 1960 to 2004. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fetzer, Anita
    2011 “‘Here is the Difference, Here is the Passion, Here is the Chance to be Part of Great Change:’ Strategic Context Importation in Political Discourse.” InContext and Contexts: Parts meet Whole?, ed. byAnita Fetzer, and Etsuko Oishi, 115–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.209.08fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.209.08fet [Google Scholar]
  17. García-Pastor, María Dolores
    2008 “Political Campaign Debates as Zero-sum Games: Impoliteness and Power in Candidates’ Exchanges.” InImpoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. byDerek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 101–126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Grice, Herbert P.
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Haugh, Michael
    2015Im/Politeness Implicatures. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110240078
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240078 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jones, Jean G., and Herbert W. Simons
    2017Persuasion in Society. 3rd ed.New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315739816
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739816 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
    2013 “Politeness, Impoliteness, Non-Politeness, ‘Polirudeness’: The Case of Political TV Debates.” InAspects of Linguistic Impoliteness, ed. byDenis Jamet, and Manuel Jobert, 16–45. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kienpointner, Manfred
    1997 “Varieties of Rudeness: Types and Functions of Impolite Utterances.” Functions of Language4 (2): 251–287. 10.1075/fol.4.2.05kie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.4.2.05kie [Google Scholar]
  24. Locher, Miriam A.
    2004Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110926552
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110926552 [Google Scholar]
  25. O’Driscoll, Jim
    2017 “Face and (Im)politeness.” The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. byJonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Kádár, 89–118. London: Palgrave. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_5
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_5 [Google Scholar]
  26. Schroeder, Alan
    2016Presidential Debates: Risky Business on the Campaign Trail. 3rd ed.New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics34: 529–545. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00039‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00039-X [Google Scholar]
  28. Tracy, Karen
    2017 “Facework and (Im)politeness in Political Exchanges.” InThe Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. byJonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Kádár, 739–758. London: Palgrave. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_28
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_28 [Google Scholar]
  29. Van Leeuwen, Theo
    2018 “Legitimation and Multimodality.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics, ed. byRuth Wodak, and Bernhard Forchtner, 218–232. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Watts, Richard J.
    2003Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  31. Woolley, John, and Gerhard Peters
    1999– “The American Presidency Project (APP).” UC Santa Barbara. Accessed10 October 2019. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.20041.sch
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.20041.sch
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