1887
Volume 27, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The article discusses the cognitive-linguistic technique of frameshifting and its potential for deliberate impoliteness in antagonistic politically charged discourse. Frameshifting involves the construction of utterances in such a way that their comprehension involves two stages: the reader is first led to invoke one mental frame and then is forced to discard it and to invoke a different frame, with the final message being deliberately insulting. The article demonstrates that frameshifting, which has been studied predominantly in humorous discourse, can also be used in aggressive communication to intensify the insulting potential of utterances and to simultaneously increase prominence and memorability of the message. The article argues that the effects of impoliteness can depend on the manner of expression, and if the speaker chooses a particularly innovative and conspicuously intentional means of expression, the intent to insult comes to the forefront, the insulting meaning is amplified, and the resulting negative message is strengthened.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19013.kno
2021-10-06
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Attardo, Salvatore & Victor Raskin
    1991 Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor:International Journal of Humor Research4(3–4). 293–348. doi:  10.1515/humr.1991.4.3‑4.293
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1991.4.3-4.293 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bilaniuk, Laada
    2005Contested tongues: Language politics and cultural correction in Ukraine. Ithaka, London: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bou-Franch, Patricia, Nuria Lorenzo-Dus & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    2012 Social interaction in YouTube text-based polylogues: A study of coherence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17. 501–521. 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2012.01579.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01579.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Bousfield, Derek
    2007 Beginnings, middles and ends: A biopsy of the dynamics of impolite exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics39. 2185–2216. doi:  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. 2013 Face in conflict. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict1. 37–57. 10.1075/jlac.1.1.03bou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.1.1.03bou [Google Scholar]
  7. Brône, Geert & Seana Coulson
    2010 Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: Doublegrounding. Discourse Processes47(3). 212–236. 10.1080/01638530902959919
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959919 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, Penelope & 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. Coulson, Seana
    2001Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551352
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551352 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2015 Frame-shifting and frame semantics: Joke comprehension on the space structuring model. InGeert Brône, Kurt Feyaerts & Tony Veale (eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research, 167–190. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110346343‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343-009 [Google Scholar]
  11. Coulson, Seana, Thomas P. Urbach & Marta Kutas
    2006 Looking back: Joke comprehension and the space structuring model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research19(3). 229–250. doi:  10.1515/HUMOR.2006.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2006.013 [Google Scholar]
  12. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics25(3). 349–367. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2005 Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture1(1). 35–72. doi:  10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2011 Politeness and impoliteness. InKarin Aijmer & Gisle Andersen (eds.), Pragmatics of society, 5th edn., 393–438. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214420.393
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214420.393 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dalton, Eric J.
    2013 Impoliteness in computer mediated communication [Ph.D. dissertation]. Retrieved fromsdsu-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.10/4255/Dalton_Eric.pdf?sequence=1
  16. Dynel, Marta
    2013 Impoliteness as disaffiliative humour in film talk. InMarta Dynel (ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory, 105–144. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/thr.1.07dyn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.1.07dyn [Google Scholar]
  17. 2014 Participation framework underlying YouTube interaction. Journal of Pragmatics73. 37–52. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
    2002The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1975 An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society1. 123–131. doi:  10.3765/bls.v1i0.2315
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v1i0.2315 [Google Scholar]
  20. 1976 Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences280(1), 20–32. doi:  10.1111/j.1749‑6632.1976.tb25467.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Ford, Thomas E. & Mark A. Ferguson
    2004 Social consequences of disparagement humor: A prejudiced norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review8(1). 79–94. doi:  10.1207/S15327957PSPR0801_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0801_4 [Google Scholar]
  22. Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein, Ann Kronrod, Idit Elnatan, Noa Shuval & Adi Zur
    2004 Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol19. 115–141. doi:  10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2 [Google Scholar]
  23. Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein, Nurit Kotler & Noa Shuval
    2015 Know hope: Metaphor, optimal innovation, and pleasure. InGeert Brône, Kurt Feyaerts & Tony Veale (eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research, 129–146. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110346343‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343-007 [Google Scholar]
  24. Graham, Sage L.
    2007 Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics39. 742–759. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interactional ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Grimshaw, Allen D.
    1990 Introduction. InAllen D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hardaker, Claire
    2010 Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture6(2). 215–242. doi:  10.1515/jplr.2010.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.011 [Google Scholar]
  28. Haugh, Michael
    2010 When is an email really offensive? Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research6. 7–31. 10.1515/jplr.2010.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.002 [Google Scholar]
  29. Herring, Susan C.
    1999 Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication4(4). doi:  10.1111/j.1083‑6101.1999.tb00106.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.x [Google Scholar]
  30. Herring, Susan, Kirk Job-Sluder, Rebecca Scheckler & Sasha Barab
    2002 Searching for safety online: Managing “trolling” in a feminist forum. Information Society18(5). 371–384. 10.1080/01972240290108186
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240290108186 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hutchens, Myiah J., Vincent J. Cicchirillo & Jay D. Hmielowski
    2015 How could you think that?!?!: Understanding intentions to engage in political flaming. New Media & Society17(8). 1201–1219. doi:  10.1177/1461444814522947
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814522947 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kakavá, Christina
    2001 Discourse and conflict. InDeborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 650–670. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kienpointner, Manfred
    2008 Impoliteness and emotional arguments. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture4(2). 243–265. doi:  10.1515/JPLR.2008.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2008.012 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kuiper, Nicholas A., Melissa Grimshaw, Catherine Leite & Gillian Kirsh
    2004 Humor is not always the best medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research17. 135–168. doi:  10.1515/humr.2004.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2004.002 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria
    2009 “You’re barking mad, I’m out”: Impoliteness and broadcast talk. Journal of Politeness Research5(2). 159–187. 10.1515/JPLR.2009.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2009.010 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich & Patricia Bou-Franch
    2011 On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. Journal of Pragmatics43. 2578–2593. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  37. Marcoccia, Michel
    2004 On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics36. 115–145. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00038‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  38. Marwick, Alice & Danah Boyd
    2011 “I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately”: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society13(1). 114–133. 10.1177/1461444810365313
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mateo, José & Francisco Yus
    2013 Towards a cross-cultural pragmatic taxonomy of insults. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict1(1). 87–114. 10.1075/jlac.1.1.05mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.1.1.05mat [Google Scholar]
  40. Raskin, Victor
    1987 Linguistic heuristics of humor: A script-based semantic approach. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1987(65). 11–26. doi:  10.1515/ijsl‑1987‑6503
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-1987-6503 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ritchie, David
    2005 Frame-shifting in humor and irony. Metaphor and Symbol20(4). 275–294. doi:  10.1207/s15327868ms2004_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2004_3 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sakwa, Richard
    2015Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the borderlands. London: IB Tauris. 10.5040/9780755603756
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9780755603756 [Google Scholar]
  43. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    2005 (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research1(1). 95–119. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sturt, Patrick
    2007 Semantic re-interpretation and garden path recovery. Cognition105(2). 477–488. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.10.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.10.009 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tannen, Deborah
    1993 The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. InDeborah Tanen (ed.), Gender and conversational interaction, 165–188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Terkourafi, Marina
    2008 Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. InDerek Bousfield & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice, 45–74. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Vaid, Jyotsna
    2014 ‘Absence makes the heart grow fonder, but also makes the eye wander’: Optimal innovations in proverb rejoinders. InProceedings of the international conference on empirical aesthetics. New York, NY: Hunter College.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Walters, Mark A.
    2013 Conceptualizing “hostility” for hate crime law: Minding “the Minutiae” when interpreting Section 28(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies34(1). 47–74. doi:  10.1093/ojls/gqt021
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqt021 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wilson, Andrew
    2014Ukraine crisis: What it means for the West. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wu, Zhihui
    2013 The laughter-eliciting mechanism of humor. English Linguistics Research2(1). 52–63. doi:  10.5430/elr.v2n1p52
    https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v2n1p52 [Google Scholar]
  51. Zaliznyak, J.
    2014 The new media of EuroMaidan: Online instruments to defend democracy in Ukraine. Open Europe: Cultural Dialogue Across Borders, 179.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19013.kno
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