LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.4 THEORISING IMPOLITENESS
2.4.2 Perspectives on Impoliteness
2.4.2.1 Attempts to develop impoliteness theory
the younger are required to show respect to those who are older. Social relations are largely structured by the resulting group identities (de Kadt, 1998:182; see also Ige 2001, and Ige and de Kadt 2002).
commonsense relationship between politeness and impoliteness is absorbed by quasi-scientific conceptualisations: "Impoliteness is associated with, or represented as inappropriateness, unfavourableness, unsupportiveness, non- abidance by the CC [conversational contract], the PP [Politeness Principle] or other societal rules, non-politeness, lack of cultural scripts, or lack of FTA- redress" (2001:95).
The conversational-contract approach to politeness presented by Fraser (1975), and by Fraser and Nolen (1981), and further expanded by Fraser (1990), draws from Grice's (1975) concept of the cooperative principle (CP) and Goffman's notion of 'face', but differs significantly from Brown and Levinson's (1987) view of politeness. The conversational-contract approach (CC) claims that participants in conversations enter into a conversation conscious of certain initial quasi-contractual obligations. Fraser (1990) argues that individuals enter into conversations with prior understanding of expectations and responsibilities. In the case of context change in the course of the conversation, the participants can renegotiate the initial contract.
These rights and obligations are based on participants' social relations, which can be adjusted or readjusted during the course of time or to suit changes in context.
According to Fraser and Nolan (1981), no sentence is inherently polite or impolite.
We often take certain expressions to be impolite, but it is not the expressions themselves but the conditions under which they are used that determine the judgement of politeness or impoliteness (1981:96).
For Fraser and Nolan, impoliteness results from failure to abide by the terms of the CC. Some of the terms of the CC are imposed by conventions, which are subject to modification in terms of culture and sub-culture, such as the use of mutually comprehensible language in conversation or turn-taking by speakers. However, Fraser and Nolen (1981) dwell on politeness and do not go beyond the definition of impoliteness as the result of the breach of the CC.
Leech adopts and expands Grice's CP to account for impoliteness within the domain of rhetorical pragmatics, focusing on goal-directed linguistic behaviour. In his approach, he makes a distinction between speakers' illocutionary goals (what meaning(s) the speaker intends to be conveying by the utterance) and speakers' social goals (what position the speaker is taking on truth, politeness, irony and the like). In the light of this Leech posits two sets of conversational principles, which include interpersonal rhetoric and textual rhetoric. Interpersonal rhetoric consists of both Grice's CP and Leech's politeness principle (PP). Politeness principle maxims are divided into maxims of tact; of generosity; of approbation; and of modesty.
While the CP and its maxims explain how utterances may be interpreted to convey indirect messages, the PP and its maxims are useful for understanding the rationale behind the speaker's selection of a particular content and form. According to Leech the role of politeness is "to maintain the social equilibrium and the friendly relations which enable us to assume that our interlocutors are being cooperative" (1983:82).
Leech (1983) furthermore makes a distinction between "relative politeness" and
"absolute politeness" Relative politeness refers to politeness with respect to a specific situation or context, whereas absolute politeness refers to politeness that is inherent in the actions of the speaker (for example, the making of an offer of assistance of some kind). Leech (1983), working within a 'face-oriented' model of politeness, also argues that even within absolute politeness, some illocutionary speeches are inherently impolite (for example, in many cases, giving an order).
Leech further claims that conflictive communication tends to be "rather marginal to human linguistic behaviour in normal circumstances" (1983:105). Culpeper (1996), Lakoff (1989) and Harris (2001) show on the contrary that confrontational discourse may be marginal but can be as frequent as polite discursive strategies.
In her investigation of politeness in Israeli society, Blum-Kulka (1992) briefly discussed impoliteness but for the most part focused on politeness. She explains that the diminishing use of politeness strategies results in impoliteness. She associates impoliteness with a lack of cultural knowledge of a situation, in which the proper
cultural interpretation of 'face' concerns is not made explicit, or perhaps differs from cultural conventions. Face is based on the everyday idiomatic usage of 'losing face' or 'saving face.'13 In other words, the interpretation of 'face' can vary from culture to culture, and determines what is impolite or when the absence of politeness leads to impoliteness. However, Blum-Kulka focuses her main investigation on politeness, and says very little about impoliteness.
Lakoff (1989), in her examination of psychotherapeutic discourse and the discourse of the American trial court, attempts to expand the theory of politeness to accommodate impoliteness by extending it to "non-polite" and "rude". 14 She identifies three levels of the politeness continuum as 'polite', 'non-polite' and 'rude'.
'polite' [refers] to those utterances that adhere to the rules of politeness whether or not they are expected in a particular discourse type; 'non-polite' [refers] to behaviour that does not conform to politeness rules, used where the latter are not expected; and 'rude' [refers] to behaviour that does not utilize politeness strategies where they would be expected, in such a way that the utterance can only or most plausibly be interpreted as intentionally and negatively confrontational (1989:103).
Lakoff (1989) claims that non-polite behaviour amounts to non-conformity with politeness rules where conformity is not expected, as in the cases she explores of therapeutic discourse and courtroom discourse. While the first two types, labelled 'polite' and 'non-polite', differ from the third, 'rude', in that they are in conformity with politeness rules that are socially sanctioned norms of interaction, non- adherence to politeness principles may lead to rudeness. Rudeness constitutes a deviation from whatever counts as polite in a given social context, and is inherently
13 For more on face see Goffman 1967; Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987).
14 See Lakoff s early works on politeness (1973, 1977, 1979).
confrontational and disruptive of social harmony. Lakoff (1989) argues that the classification and analysis of discourse types must be based on their function, rather than their form. The idea is that forms may appear very similar on the surface, while in fact discourse types may differ in function. Lakoff s analysis of ordinary conversation (OC), courtroom discourse (CD) and therapeutic discourse (TD) demonstrates how discourse types (OC, CD and TD) are either designed for interaction or for eliciting information. Ordinary conversation is classified as a type designed to achieve interpersonal interaction, in which case politeness is of great importance. CD and TD, on the other hand, both professional discourses, are designed to elicit information, and specifically to discover the truth.
Lakoff (1989) further explains that discourse types determine the kind of language that is employed. Some discourse types, (like therapeutic or courtroom discourse) warrant the use by one of the participants of provocative language to elicit information. Courtroom discourse and therapeutic discourse illustrate the 'instrumental non-politeness' that is employed in discourse adopted by professionals in order to achieve a goal, the revelation of truth, "by a non-reciprocal question and answer format .... the courtroom dialogue is adversarial" (1989:108). It is potentially antagonistic and confrontational in nature, as is apparent in the dialogue between lawyer and witness. Lakoff s distinction sheds light on a possible expansion of the theory of politeness to include the analysis of impoliteness. Her proposal encourages further research into impoliteness and serves as a point of departure for other researchers.
Kasper (1990) introduces another dimension to Lakoff s threefold categorisation making a distinction between motivated and unmotivated rudeness. According to Kasper, unmotivated rudeness refers to the violation of the norms of politic behaviour due to ignorance. It may therefore lead to "pragmatic failure" and other forms of miscommunication (1990:208).
Unmotivated rudeness is largely caused by speakers' or listeners' unfamiliarity with culturally appropriate norms of behaviour and their linguistic encoding; this is prevalent amongst second language learners (Thomas 1983; Gumperz 1982 and Wolfson 1989) and is therefore likely to occur in the multilingual, multicultural group with whom the present study is concerned. Pragmatic failure, among other things, is a component of cross-cultural pragmatics. Kasper (1990) points out that the study of unmotivated rudeness in cross-cultural interaction could enhance understanding of the transferability of polite behaviour between members of different speech communities and of the types of conversational behaviour that lead to stereotyping. She claims that 'motivated rudeness' refers to impolite behaviour that is intentional, where the speaker intends to be perceived as impolite or rude. She further distinguishes three types of motivated rudeness, those "due to lack of affect control, strategic rudeness, and ironic rudeness" (1990:209). All the three categories are intentional and goal-driven.
There have been attempts to extend the scope of politeness theory to include antagonistic or confrontational communication. Beebe's (1996) discussion of polite fictions included instrumental rudeness as an extension of Lakoffs model of confrontational discourse. However, the first article that focuses comprehensively on impoliteness, investigates how it operates in practice, and considers its theoretical basis is that of Culpeper (1996) and is entitled "Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness'. He begins by defining impoliteness as the use of strategies that are designed to have the "opposite effect - that of social disruption - these strategies are oriented towards attacking face, an emotionally sensitive concept of self (1996:350).
Culpeper argues that by conceptualising face redress and face threatening acts (FTA), Brown and Levinson's theory is capable of expanding and accounting for impoliteness. However, the expansion involves building a framework for impoliteness in relation to politeness, since impoliteness, according to Culpeper, "is
very much the parasite of politeness" (1996:355). He argues that an adequate account of the dynamics of interpersonal communication requires consideration of hostile as well as co-operative communication, and he thus proposes the inclusion of impoliteness as the reverse of politeness theory.
Culpeper draws on Leech's (1983:83) category of "absolute politeness", where some illocutions are inherently impolite, for example, orders; and others, like offers, are said to be inherently polite. Brown and Levinson (198:65) point out that "it is intuitively the case that certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten 'face', and the effect of this recognition is to establish that some acts are inherently polite, while others are inherently impolite". Culpeper explains that some intentions are polite, but that no amount of polite intention could eradicate the impoliteness of some acts, such as the request: "Do you think you could possibly not pick your nose?"
(1996:350).
Following Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness model, Culpeper (1996) develops a framework for impoliteness that relates to politeness. He argues that the proposed super-strategies enumerated below are opposite to those of politeness in terms of their tendency to attack 'face'. He presents five impoliteness super- strategies in parallel with Brown and Levinson's four politeness super-strategies, yet with opposite effects on interaction. These five strategies are arrived at with full consideration of the three crucial social variables: relative power, social distance, and the forcefulness of the act involved (otherwise referred to as power, solidarity, and weight). The following comparison below illustrates Culpeper's proposed impoliteness framework as parallel and yet opposite to politeness:
1. (a) Politeness: Bald on record politeness - Face threatening act (FTA) is performed 'in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way possible
(b) Impoliteness: Bald on record impoliteness - FTA performed in a direct, clear unambiguous and concise way in circumstances where face is not irrelevant or minimised.
2. (a) Politeness: Positive politeness - the use of strategies designed to redress the addressee's positive face-wants.
(b) Impoliteness: Positive impoliteness - the use of strategies designed to damage the addressee's positive face.
3. (a) Politeness: Negative politeness - the use of strategies designed to redress the addressee's negative face want.
(b) Impoliteness: Negative impoliteness - the use of strategies designed to damage the addressee's negative face want.
4. (a) Politeness: off-record - An FTA is performed where "there is more than one unambiguously attributable intention so that the actor cannot be held to have committed himself/[herself] to one particular intent" (Brown and Levinson
1987:69).
(b) Impoliteness: Sarcasm or mock politeness: "the FTA is performed with the use of politeness that is obviously insincere, and thus the politeness remains a surface realisation." (Culpeper, 1996:356).
5. (a) Politeness: Withhold the FTA.
(b) Impoliteness: Withhold the act: the absence of politeness where it is expected.
The fifth category of politeness is Culpeper's addition to Brown and Levinson's classified strategies. Culpeper points out that there are some areas of politeness that are not well represented in Brown and Levinson's politeness model. He notes that the model is primarily designed for handling matters relating to linguistic forms. The fifth category, in which the FTA or politeness is withheld, draws on Leech's (1983) politeness model, which is content-oriented, to complement Brown and Levinson's
model. Thus Culpeper reverses Leech's approach to generate impoliteness resulting from an absence of politeness: "one general way of being impolite is to minimise the expression of polite beliefs and maximise the expression of impolite beliefs"
(1996:358). Culpeper also points out that Brown and Levinson's model fails to address non-politeness.
Although Culpeper's (1996) attempt is the most comprehensive effort to theorise impoliteness, it has been critised by Eelen (2000); Harris (2000) and Mullany (2002), as insufficient in terms of universal application. Given that Culpeper's theory of impoliteness works as a parallel framework to Brown and Levinson's (1987) universal theory of politeness, it would be susceptible to the criticism raised against this politeness theory. Mullany (2002) argues that all the inadequacies found in the Brown and Levinson model of politeness, such as the over-generalizing of eurocentric norms, the overextension and the limitation of the use of the term 'face', are also applicable to Culpeper's theory of impoliteness.15 For the present research, the applicability of Culpeper's theory becomes problematic, given the diversity of language and culture that are involved. Above all, Culpeper, as well as Brown and Levinson, pays insufficient attention to differences in cultural norms, which may lead a hearer or observer to interpret a speech or action as non-polite or rude when the speaker/actor has no intention of this kind. Ignorance of each other's 'politeness codes' or even ignorance of the 'politeness code' of the lingua franca which both feel compelled to use is an important factor in my discussion of impoliteness.
Similarly, Eelen (2001) finds 'face' in the Brown and Levinson model of politeness inadequate to offer a full understanding of impoliteness. He argues that notions of 'face' and 'face-wants', which are central to Brown and Levinson's theory, lie in the fact that people expect their wants to be satisfied and can only get others to satisfy wants if they in turn satisfy theirs by means of politeness. To incorporate impoliteness would require an inclusion of another kind of 'face' with no desire that 'face-wants' to be satisfied, (which contradicts the term 'face-want'), but with a desire to disappoint the wish for 'face'.
A major gap that I have found in Culpeper's theory of impoliteness as well as in all the other attempts to develop a theory of impoliteness (such as Lakoff 1989; Kasper 1990; Beebe 1996; Harris 2001 and Mills 2002), is their failure to see identity as a factor in the deployment of confrontational language. The notion of the 'collective' and ' identities' of language users in multilingual situations in Africa will prove to be crucial for our understanding of the reasons for employing strategies like motivated impoliteness. Constantly, in an interaction, multilingual language users deconstruct, construct and reconstruct their identities as the need arises, and as such make use of different strategies to achieve their goals. It is arguable that such strategies may include deliberate impoliteness intended to cause confusion, to reject the identity that is being imposed, and to re-impose a person's own idea of him- /herself.
Recently, Culpeper et al (2003) revisited Culpeper's (1996) theory of impoliteness.
After justifying the need to develop an 'impoliteness' framework that is not "simply a mirror image of the politeness framework" of Brown and Levinson (2003:1576), they recognised the need to move beyond the single theory (lexically and grammatically defined) as to how impoliteness occurs in discourse and the role of
"prosody" in conveying impoliteness. On this occasion the investigation by Culpeper et al (2003) accounts for impoliteness encountered between traffic wardens and fined car owners16. The situations analysed are so different from those which are likely to occur in the multicultural interactions between students as to have little relevance here.