1887
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The paper addresses the problem of (im)politeness in light of mismatches between what we/others say and what we/others mean in a multi-dialogic search for meaning where humans integrate all their competence-in-performance and co-construct situated relationships in a more or less sustainable way. We examine how these processes occur by analyzing (im)politeness mismatches in telecinematic satire using dialogic speech act typology and methods of the Mixed Game Model to describe and explain the communicative meta-meaning of (im)politeness. We demonstrate that in satire the dialogic semantics of (im)politeness is polyvalent, interactant-relative, temporally variable, scalar and self-reflexive because it is part of integrational language-in-use engagement with the world through which humans construct multiple relational domains and relationships in them.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00153.dru
2023-08-10
2024-06-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, Keith and Kate Burridge
    2006Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511617881
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617881 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ariel, Mira
    2019 “Different prominences for different inferences.” Journal of Pragmatics1541: 103–116. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.021 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakhtin, Michail
    1997Problema teksta [The problem of text] (in Russian). InCollection of worksbyM. Bakhtin, Vol.51, 1–732. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kultur.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bibler, Vladimir S.
    1975Myshlenie kak tvorchestvo: vvedenie v logiku myslennogo dialoga [Thinking as creativity: an introduction to the logic of mental dialogue] (in Russian). Moscow: Politizdat.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brock, Alexander
    2009 “Humour as a metacommunicative process.” Journal of Literary Theory3(2): 177–193. 10.1515/JLT.2009.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JLT.2009.011 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2016 “The borders of humorous intent: the case of TV comedies.” Journal of Pragmatics951: 58–66. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Lucien
    2013 “‘Mind your own esteemed business’: Sarcastic Honorifics Use and Impoliteness in Korean TV Dramas.” Journal of Politeness Research9(2): 159–186. 10.1515/pr‑2013‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2013-0008 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bubel, Claudia
    2008 “Film audiences as overhearers.” Journal of Pragmatics401: 55–71. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bunnell, Pille and Alexander Riegler
    2022 “A plurality of perspectives: Maturana’s impact on science and philosophy.” Constructivist Foundations18(1): 1–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chernigovskaya, Тatiana V.
    2020 “Biology, environment, and culture: from animal communication to human language and cognition.” Vestnik of Saint-Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies11: 157–170. 10.21638/spbu17.2020.113
    https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2020.113 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cowley, Stephen J. and Gahrn-Andresen Rasmus
    2022 “Languaging in an enlanguaged world.” Constructivist Foundations18(1): 54–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2008 “Reflections on impoliteness, relation work and power.” InImpoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. byDerek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher, 17–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208344.1.17
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344.1.17 [Google Scholar]
  13. de Jongste, Henri
    2017 “Culture and incongruity in the office (UK).” Language and Communication551: 88–99. 10.1016/j.langcom.2016.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  14. Druzhinin, Andrey S.
    2021b “X-phemisms and radical constructivism: From world-view to whirled-views.” Constructivist Foundations17(1): 29–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2021a “Euphemisms vs. Dysphemisms, or how we construct good and bad language.” Constructivist Foundations17(1): 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Eisenberg, Nancy
    2000 “Empathy and sympathy.” InHandbook of Emotions, 2nd edition, ed. byMichael Lewis and Janette M. Haviland-Jones, 677–691. NY: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Eelen, Gino
    2001A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hagh, Michael and Wei-Lin M. Chang
    2019 “The apology seemed (in)sincere: Variability in perceptions of (im)politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics1421: 207–222. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.022 [Google Scholar]
  19. Haugh, Michael and Derek Bousfield
    2012 “Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English.” Journal of Pragmatics441: 1099–1114. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Haugh, Michael and Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini
    2010 “Face in interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics421: 2073–2077. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.013 [Google Scholar]
  21. Haugh, Michael
    2010 “When is an email really offensive?: Argumentative and variability in evaluations of impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research6(1): 7–31. 10.1515/jplr.2010.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.002 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2013 “Im/politeness, social practice and 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]
  23. Hermans, Hubert J. M., Harry J. Kempen, and Rens van Loon
    1992 “The Dialogical Self: Beyond Individualism and Rationalism.” American Psychologist47(1): 23–33. 10.1037/0003‑066X.47.1.23
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.1.23 [Google Scholar]
  24. James, William
    1890Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kádár, Dániel Z. and Michael Haugh
    2013Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  26. Keller, Melanie, Phillip Striedl, Daniel Biro, Johanna Holzer, and Kate Burridge
    2021 “Circumnavigating Taboos: A Functional and Formal Typology.” Pragmatics in Cognition28(1): 5–24. 10.1075/pc.00019.bur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.00019.bur [Google Scholar]
  27. Krippendorff, Klaus
    2003 “The Dialogical Reality of Meaning.” The American Journal of Semiotics19 (1/4): 17–34. 10.5840/ajs2003191/41
    https://doi.org/10.5840/ajs2003191/41 [Google Scholar]
  28. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    2005 “Politeness: Is there an East-West Divide?” Journal of Foreign Languages61: 1–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2014The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Linell, Per
    2003 What is dialogism? Aspects and elements of a dialogical approach to language, communication and cognition. Lecture atVäxjö University. URL: https://cspeech.ucd.ie/Fred/docs/Linell.pdf
  31. 2005The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2009Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2017 “Dialogue, dialogicality, and interaction: A conceptually bewildering field?.” Language and Dialogue711: 301–336. 10.1075/ld.7.3.01lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.7.3.01lin [Google Scholar]
  34. 2018 “Dialogism is an integrationism: Reply to Peter Jones.” Language and Dialogue8(2): 326–327. 10.1075/ld.00017.lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00017.lin [Google Scholar]
  35. Linell, Per and Ivana Marková
    1993 “Acts in discourse: From monological speech acts to dialogical inter-acts.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour231: 173–195. 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.1993.tb00236.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1993.tb00236.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Locher, Miriam A.
    2013 “Relational work and interpersonal pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics581: 138–151. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.014 [Google Scholar]
  37. Locher, Miriam A. and Richard J. Watts
    2005 “Politeness theory and relational work.” Journal of Politeness Research11: 9–33. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9 [Google Scholar]
  38. Locher, Mariam A., Bolander, Brook and Nicole Höhn
    2015 “Introducing relational work in Facebook and discussion boards.” Pragmatics251: 1–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Marková, Ivana
    2016The Dialogical Mind: Common Sense and Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511753602
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753602 [Google Scholar]
  40. Maturana, Humberto. R.
    2006 “Self-consciousness: How? When? Where?” Constructivist Foundations1(3): 91–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Messerli, Thomas
    2016 “Extradiegetic and character laughter as markers of humorous intentions in the sitcom 2 Broke Girls.” Journal of Pragmatics951: 79–92. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.009 [Google Scholar]
  42. Mills, Sara
    2011 “Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness.” InDiscursive Approaches to Politeness, ed. byLinguistic Politeness Research Group, 19–56. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110238679.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238679.19 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mills, Sarah
    2017English Politeness and Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316336922
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316336922 [Google Scholar]
  44. Morin, Edgar
    1992Towards the Study of Humankind. Volume 1: The Nature of Nature. Translated byJ. L. Roland Belanger. NY: Peter Lang. French original published in 1977.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Morreal, John
    (ed.) 1987The Philosophy of Laughter and Humour. Albany: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Natochin, Yuriy and Tatiana Chernigovskaya
    2020 “From Archebiosis to Evolution of Organisms and Informational Systems.” Biological Communications31: 215–227. 10.21638/spbu03.2020.301
    https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu03.2020.301 [Google Scholar]
  47. O’Neill, Sean. P.
    2021 “Some good words about curses, and a few damning ones about bowdlerization.” Constructivist Foundations17(1): 18–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Okazawa, Ryo
    2021 “Resisting categorization in interaction: Membership categorization analysis of sitcom humor.” Journal of Pragmatics1861: 33–44. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.09.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.09.011 [Google Scholar]
  49. Parvaresh, Vahid and Tahmineh Tayebi
    2021 “Taking offence at the (un)said: Towards a more radical contextualist approach.” Journal of Politeness Research17(1): 111–131. 10.1515/pr‑2020‑0032
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2020-0032 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schneider, Klaus P. and Maria E. Placencia
    2017 “(Im)politeness and regional variation.” InThe Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. byJonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 539–570. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_21
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_21 [Google Scholar]
  51. Scholte, Tom
    2021 “Meta-communicative interactional dynamics and the construction of meaning on screen.” Constructivist Foundations17(1): 26–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Tannen, Deborah
    1993Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Tzanne, Angeliki and Maria Sifianou
    2019 “Understandings of impoliteness in the Greek context.” Russian Journal of Linguistics23 (4): 1014–1038. 10.22363/2687‑0088‑2019‑23‑4‑1014‑1038
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-1014-1038 [Google Scholar]
  54. Vygotsky, Lev S.
    1962Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Russian original published in 1934. 10.1037/11193‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000 [Google Scholar]
  55. Watzlawick, Paul
    1977How Real is Real?New York: Vintage Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Weigand, Edda
    2000 “Games of Power.” InNegotiation and Power in Dialogic Interaction, ed. byEdda Weigand and Marcello Dascal. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2003Sprache als Dialog. Sprechtaxonomie und kommunikative Grammatik. 2nd revised edition, Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110953466
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110953466 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2010aDialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2010b “Language as Dialogue.” Intercultural Pragmatics7(3): 505–515. 10.1515/iprg.2010.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.022 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2013 “Words between reality and fiction.” Language and Dialogue3(1): 147–163. 10.1075/ld.3.1.09wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.3.1.09wei [Google Scholar]
  61. 2018 “The Theory Myth.” Language and Dialogue8(2): 289–305. 10.1075/ld.00016.wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00016.wei [Google Scholar]
  62. 2021 “Dialogue: The complex whole.” Language and Dialogue11(3): 457–486. 10.1075/ld.00106.wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00106.wei [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00153.dru
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00153.dru
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