So far little work has been done to investigate impoliteness, but a lot has been done on politeness. Can politeness even work without a complete overview of impoliteness in the same amount? Not only has there been rarely any research on how impoliteness works and when it occurs, but also the research of how people cope with impoliteness has been vastly neglected.
Especially when it comes to insults people tend to pretend that they never insult anybody or even swear. Only would they insult somebody if they were insulted. Too many theories consider (im)politeness a single-turn-thing, but it gets even more interesting when it occurs in interaction. In insult situations there will always be the insulter who realizes the first insult and the insultee who receives the insult. The insultee sometimes will become an insulter as well.
Why do insultees feel the urge to retaliate the insult being paid on them? Gouldner puts forward the idea of a reciprocity social norm, meaning that behavior, prosocial or anitsocial should be equally matched. Does this retaliation differ across gender? Are males or females more likely to counter with aggressive strategies? Who uses which strategy most and especially which taboo words are used in combination with insults?
To investigate this field a discourse completion task has been conducted to elicit counterstrategies to insults. The informants were high school students aged between 15-19, both male and female, from a small town called Rosebud-Lott in the South-East of Texas. To understand responses to insults, the next chapter will introduce the general idea of impoliteness and shows how impoliteness, face and insults belong together. Furthermore previous studies to impoliteness and first attempts to come up with impoliteness-strategies are explained.
The third chapter will give detailed information on the methodology. Why using a DCT was useful, who were the informants, how the data was collected and what the drawback of a DCT is. In the end the coding scheme will be listed and explained to understand the next chapters where the data is being analyzed. In chapter four the most interesting results will be presented and further down the line in chapter five we will discuss contradicting and striking results focusing on female and male differences which will be compared to previous studies. Chapter six will summarize the question posed, the findings, limitations of study and then give an outlook for further research.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Responses to insults
2.1. The connection of impoliteness, face and insults
2.2. Counter-strategies to insulting behavior
3. Methodology
3.1. Instrument
3.2. Informants
3.3. Data collection procedure
3.4. Coding scheme
4. Findings
5. Discussion
6. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This study investigates the linguistic strategies used by high school students in Texas when responding to verbal insults. It specifically aims to analyze gender-based differences in retaliation strategies and the impact of social power dynamics on impolite communication within a "culture of honor" context.
- Analysis of gender variation in insult response strategies
- Application of Culpeper’s conventionalised impoliteness formulae
- Impact of social power imbalances (Boss vs. Brother) on communication
- Role of taboo words and intensifiers in aggressive responses
- Examination of the reciprocity social norm in retaliatory behavior
Excerpt from the Book
2.1. The connection of impoliteness, face and insults
When one thinks about insults or insulting behavior it will be seen that this phenomenon is most likely linked to the notion of impoliteness or moreover to impolite behavior. So before we can define what an insult is, we first have to define impoliteness and further phenomena such as face, because naturally face will be at risk. Locher and Bousfield (2008:3) claim that "there is no solid agreement in the chapters as to what "impoliteness actually is". Culpeper (2011:22) already states that not all impoliteness is actually impolite, and that it lies in the eye of the beholder, e.g. banter in cases of ritualistic instults vs. real offence. You could scream and shout at your friend and he/she might think that this is really impolite, but the same behavior at a football scene might not be taken impolite at all (cf. Culpeper 2011:22). Thus, Culpeper (2011:23) defines impoliteness as follows:
Impoliteness is a negative attitude towards specific behaviours occurring in specific contexts. It is sustained by expectations, desires and/or beliefs about social organisation, including, in particular, how one person‘s or a group‘s identities are mediated by others in interaction. Situated behaviours are viewed negatively - considered ,impolite‘ - when they conflict with how one expects them to be, how one wants them to be and/or how one thinks they ought to be. Such behaviours always have or are presumed to have emotional consequences for at least one participant, that is, they cause or are presumed to cause offence. Various factors can exacerbate how offensive an impolite behaviour is taken to be, including for example whether one understands a behaviour to be strongly intentional or not.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: Presents the research motivation, the lack of previous research on impoliteness responses, and the study's focus on Texan high school students.
2. Responses to insults: Explores theoretical foundations including the concepts of impoliteness, face, face-attack, and established counter-strategies to aggressive behavior.
3. Methodology: Details the discourse completion task (DCT) used, the participant demographics, the collection process, and the categorization scheme based on Culpeper.
4. Findings: Presents the empirical results, highlighting the frequency of specific strategies used and the observed gender differences in response patterns.
5. Discussion: Evaluates the findings against existing stereotypes and theories, specifically addressing the influence of the Southern "culture of honor".
6. Conclusion: Summarizes the study’s insights, noting the pioneers of taboo word usage and the limitations of the small sample size.
Keywords
Impoliteness, Insults, Face-attack, Gender variation, Texas, High school students, Discourse completion task, Conventionalised impoliteness, Taboo words, Reciprocity social norm, Culture of honor, Relational work, Aggressive strategies, Counter-insults, Pragmatics
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this research?
The research examines how high school students in Texas react to verbal insults, focusing on the strategies they employ to retaliate or defend themselves.
Which key thematic areas are addressed?
Key themes include gender differences in linguistic aggression, the role of power dynamics in social interactions, and how cultural factors influence the usage of taboo words.
What is the core research question?
The study aims to determine how impoliteness strategies vary across gender and power hierarchies and whether these responses align with or contradict existing American cultural stereotypes.
Which methodology was applied?
The author employed a discourse completion task (DCT), a type of production questionnaire, to elicit responses to four specific insult scenarios.
What is covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section covers the theoretical definitions of face and impoliteness, the methodology of data gathering, the presentation of findings, and a discussion on gender-related counter-strategies.
Which keywords define this work?
The work is defined by terms like impoliteness, face-attack, gender variation, culture of honor, and discourse completion task.
How does the "culture of honor" affect the findings?
The "culture of honor" in Texas explains why male participants feel a strong pressure to defend their status and why the reciprocity norm leads to frequent aggressive retaliation.
Why did female participants use more offensive strategies than expected?
The findings showed that, contrary to gender stereotypes, female students were often more frequent users of specific taboo words and aggressive "challenging questions," suggesting a shift in how they express themselves in conflict.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Katja Grasberger (Autor:in), 2014, "I‘m not A Bitch, I‘m THE Bitch, and it‘s MISS Bitch to you!" Responding to insults among Texan high school students, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/322900