Summary of Culpeper’s Impoliteness Principles

 

Jonathan Culpeper (2011) in Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence explores how language can be used to harm, offend, and assert power, challenging traditional politeness theories.

Key Points on Politeness and Impoliteness:

1. Definition of Impoliteness:

   • Impoliteness is a negative attitude toward specific behaviors occurring in specific contexts.
   • It arises from a conflict between expectations and how those expectations are met.
   • Impolite behavior can damage social identity and cause emotional harm.

2. Challenging Traditional Politeness Theories:

   • Classic politeness theories (Brown & Levinson, Leech) focus on harmony and cooperation.
   • Culpeper argues that these theories marginalize conflict and offensive interactions.
   • He emphasizes that impoliteness is not just a failure of politeness but an intentional, structured phenomenon.

SEARLE’S CLASSIFICATION OF SPEECH ACTS

   SEARLE’S CLASSIFICATION OF SPEECH ACTS

NO	TYPE	DESCRIPTION
1	Assertive/ Representative	Assertives involve the speaker expressing their beliefs about what is true or false. They can take the form of stating facts, making assertions, drawing conclusions, and describing things. Essentially, the speaker makes statements that they feel are true or want others to believe them (Yule, 1996). EXAMPLE: I believe that social media contributes to body image issues - expresses a personal opinion through the use of the word ‘believe’
2	Declarative/ Verdictive	According to Searle (1969), declaratives are a type of speech act that can alter the state of the world through uttering them. To make a declaration correctly, the speaker must have a particular institutional position and be in a specific context. EXAMPLE: In a wedding ceremony, an officiant might say, I now pronounce you husband and wife would formally declare the couple as married.
3	Expressive	Expressives refer to speech acts in which the speaker expresses their emotional state or psychological experience. Expressives emphasize the speaker's feelings, attitudes, and per- perspectives in a particular situation (Yule, 1996). EXAMPLE These speech acts can involve statements of pleasure (e.g., This is great!), pain (e.g., That hurts, ouch!), likes (e.g., This tastes so good), dislikes (e.g., I don’t like this), joy (e.g., This is the best day ever!), or sorrow (e.g., I am sorry to hear that).
4	Directive/ Command	Directives refer to speech acts speakers use to instruct the hearer to perform a particular action (Searle, 1969). EXAMPLE Please stop talking! - a request to have someone be quiet about the speaker's desires and can take the form of commands, orders, requests, and suggestions. Directives can be either positive or negative
5	Commisive	Searle (1969) explains that commissives refer to speech acts in which the speaker commits to a future action. These speech acts reveal the speaker's intentions and can be promises, threats, refusals, and pledges. Commissives can be made by an individual or by a group of speakers. EXAMPLE I promise I will be there by 9 a.m. - expresses a commitment to be punctual.

 

 

                               

                               

                                                

5 Categories of Illocutionary acts by Searle

 

22 secondary documents found in Scopus database for Journal of Pragmatics Research

Results list shows results 1 through 22 of 22 results.

Rethinking on Expressive Speech Act Realization in The Comments Section on YouTube Channel
Hambali, A.J., Risdianto, F., Rahma, S.S., Journal of Pragmatics Research, 6(1), pp. 52–73
2024, 1

Deixis Study in Speech Text of President Joko Widodo on Independence Day
Manik, K. N., Tarigan, M. S. B., Sinaga, D. R., Journal of Pragmatics Research, 5(2), pp. 168–189
2023, 1

A cross-cultural pragmatics study of request strategies and politeness in Javanese and Sundanese
Chintawidy, P.A., Sartini, N.W., Journal of Pragmatics Research, 4(2), pp. 152–166
2022, 2

Pragmatics Principles of English Teachers in Islamic Elementary School
Pasaribu, G., Daulay, S. H., Nasution, P., Journal of Pragmatics Research, 4(1), pp. 29–40, 2022

Code Mixing Usage in Imperfect: Karier, Cinta & Timbangan Movie Directed by Ernest Prakarsa
Wibowo, A. I., Ramdhani, Z., Rahayuningsih, R., Journal of Pragmatics Research, 4(1), pp. 60–72
2022, 1

Students’ Politeness to Lecturers in WhatsApp Application Measured Using Leech Maxim
Nurdiyani, Netty, Sasongko, Sasongko, Journal of Pragmatics Research, 4(1), pp. 107–121, 2022
Internet analysis of figurative language in automotive advertisement slogans
Atmaja, K., Journal of Pragmatics Research, 4(1), pp. 18–28, 2022, 3

The Analysis of Impoliteness within Grammar Nazi Context in Twitter Tweets
Soehendro, E. I., Jumanto, J., Journal of Pragmatics Research, 4(1), pp. 73–92, 2022

PegiatJurnal.com: List Jurnal Terindeks SCOPUS Bidang Linguistics, E...

PegiatJurnal.com: List Jurnal Terindeks SCOPUS Bidang Linguistics, E...: Yang pernah S3 di Indonesia atau yang sekarang sedang S3 di Indonesia sedikit banyak terkena kewajiban ini. Dorongan yang masif dan terkesan...

Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics

  

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rUhmRNHnmV0wfKlG5ysSlCi9E0Sev2CF/view?usp=sharing

Jenny Thomas is a significant figure in the field of pragmatics, particularly known for her contributions to the understanding of **pragmatic failure**. Her seminal work, notably the 1983 article "Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure," laid the groundwork for analyzing how misunderstandings occur in communication across different cultures.

## Key Concepts of Jenny Thomas's Pragmatics

### **Pragmatic Failure**

- **Definition**: Thomas defines pragmatic failure as "the inability to comprehend what is intended by what is spoken" [1]. This concept highlights the challenges that arise when speakers and listeners come from different cultural backgrounds, leading to misinterpretations of meaning.

- **Types**: She categorizes pragmatic failures into two main types:

  - **Pragma-linguistic failure**: This occurs when there are misunderstandings about the pragmatic force of an utterance, often due to different linguistic contexts.

  - **Socio-pragmatic failure**: This type arises from differing beliefs about social norms, rights, and expectations in communication [3][4].

DISKUSI ONLINE INAPRA-PDF SERIES #33

 

Dear All INAPRA-PDF-LOVERS

INAPRA & Pragmatics Discussion Forum Proudly Presents

DISKUSI ONLINE INAPRA-PDF SERIES #33:

"Urgensi Pengajaran Pragmatik dalam program BIPA"

PEMBICARA:

 Prof. Dr. Indrya Mulyaningsih, M.Pd, UIN Siber Syekh Nurjati Cirebon

MODERATOR:

Eka Margianti Sagimin, M.Pd, Universitas Pamulang

Pada Hari Sabtu, 25 Januari 2025, JAM 09.00-11.30

VIA ZOOM for 100 seats.

INAPRA Members will get FREE ACCESS to this Webinar and dan FREE E-Certificate. For Non-INAPRA members for the E- Certificate, the donation is Rp. 25,000, -

IMPORTANT NOTE:

E-Certificate is given ONLY for registered participants with full attendance and Donation.

LINK PENDAFTARAN MEMBER INAPRA (Asosiasi Pragmatik Indonesia) : https://s.id/registrasiINAPRA

Bank Account Number for Non-INAPRA members:  135-111-6463

Bank Name:     Bank BNI 46, Account Name:  Rahmanti Asmarani

Registrasi Gratis ke:

https://s.id/registrasiPDF33

Narahubung: Dr (Li). Dra. Dian Rianita, MA. (0812-6628-233)