On Verbal Impoliteness In Conversation

Recently, researchers have increasingly realized that, rather than a marginalized phenomenon, impoliteness is the very counterpart of politeness. As a response to this tendency, there have arisen a handful of systematic studies of impoliteness. However, these studies have mainly focused on single lexically or grammatically-based strategies. Little attention has ever been paid to investigate the dynamic development of impoliteness, namely its triggering, responding and final resolution, from the macro discourse perspective. In consideration of such inadequacy, this study, by combining the previous research, is intended to explore not only the strategic realizations but also the dynamic process of impoliteness within extended discourses.Under Bousfield’s impoliteness model, this study has analyzed data collected from Chinese dramatic discourses and reached the following three conclusions. Firstly, impoliteness can be realized by using some particular, identifiable strategies within specific contexts. They are on record impoliteness with four sub-strategies, namely, using taboo words, threats, criticism and negative evaluation, and off-record impoliteness with sarcasm and withholding of politeness under its heading. When it comes to the dynamics of impoliteness at the discourse level, it is found that impoliteness is triggered by what is perceived by the utterer to be an offending event(s). In face of impoliteness, the recipients have a number of strategies available to defend face. Most of them choose to respond, and less than one-tenth of them stay silent. In response, recipients tend to counter the face attack with offensive or defensive strategies of which the defensive countering ones are more preferable towards the defense of their face. Finally, the study has identified six impoliteness resolution formats, namely, standoff, withdraw, compromise, submission to opponent, dominant third party intervention and interruption of circumstances.The study has also interpreted impoliteness with regards to its pragmatic motivations by resorting to Adaptation Theory. It is proved that the use of impoliteness and its responses are all the outcomes of adaptation to the contextual correlates which also change from time to time to correspond to the participants linguistic choices. For the use of impoliteness, it is due to a "self-oriented" adapting process by which interactants tend to be impolite so as to adapt to (a) communicative motivations like maintaining their self-identity and protecting their face; and (b) the needs of releasing their negative emotions. As to the responses to impoliteness, it is also due to the adaptation to both the mental worlds and the social worlds which constitute the communicative context between interactants.