Impoliteness in interaction

By Derek Bousfield. 2008

682 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/43dffe7edf51dc59ebce6ad7847130a16fcb8100

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

1. Michael Haugh
2. Claire Hardaker
3. Lucien Brown
4. Bodo Winter

In Language and Linguistics

1. Claire Hardaker
2. Lucien Brown
3. Michael Haugh
4. Anne Wichmann
5. Bodo Winter
6. Jalal Al-Tamimi
7. D. Kádár
8. J. Culpeper

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. Lucien Brown
2. Michael Haugh
3. Claire Hardaker
4. Bodo Winter

Citations in the corpus

• Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions (2010, background): “This type of impoliteness is H-interpretation-based, rather than S-intention-based (cf. failed impoliteness ), and Bousfield (2008: 73) further distinguishes between failed politeness where H correctly recognizes that S did not intend to be impolite (but is still offended anyway), and instances…”
• Epilogue: The first-second order distinction in face and politeness research (2012, background): “…notion of face was developed first by Goffman (1955, 1967) in its own right, and later deployed through the notion of facework in accounting initially for politeness (e. g., Brown and Levinson 1978, 1987), and then subsequently in accounting for impoliteness (e. g., Culpeper 1996; Bousfield 2008).”
• Pragmatics: An Advanced Resource Book for Students (2012, background): “It is said that Leech’s model cannot account for impoliteness due to his emphasis on socially motivated cooperation (Bousfield, 2008).”
• Phonetics and politeness: Perceiving Korean honorific and non-honorific speech through phonetic cues (2014, background): “…previous research suggests that phonetics is important in determining 495 whether the sarcastic utterance is intended to be offensive or whether it simply constitutes ‘‘banter’’ or ‘‘mock 496 impoliteness’’ (see Bousfield, 2008; also Bryant and Fox Tree, 2005 for the role of phonetics in sarcasm).”
• Impoliteness and taking offence in initial interactions (2015, background): “…model outlining the range of different impoliteness triggers that may cause offence has been developed (Culpeper, 1996, 2005, 2011, 2015), our understanding of the interactional dynamics of taking offence, while acknowledged as important (Bousfield, 2008; Culpeper, 2011) is much more circumscribed.”