Denoting Offence

Abstract

Abstract. A framework for articulating formal semantic theories of linguistic politeness and impoliteness is provided. A theory of (im)politeness is developed within this framework. This builds on recent argument that (im)politeness behaviors arise from offence management associated with disgust.

Taboo semantics

“…9 This treatment allows both semantic and pragmatic analysis to make reference to a shared ontology: the underlying events.…”

“…Thus, the principle, even expressed as a conditional, is best understood as dependent on additional parameters left unspecified here. This framework can be used to model the interpretation of (im)polite utterances and to make predictions about linguistic and non-linguistic politeness behaviors that may emerge as a speaker evaluates an event and its participants [8], [9].…”

“…A formal semantic analysis of these expressions is provided, again using a semantic framework recently developed for the analysis of (im)politeness [9]. Within this framework, taboo is an extreme of impoliteness.…”

“…The semantic theory applied here is informed by the view that politeness and impoliteness behaviors are manifestations of efforts to manage the generalized effects of the human disgust response [9]. Ultimately, the idea here is that it is the desire not to be ostracized as disgusting which prompts politeness and the perception of disgust which elicits impoliteness.…”

Some Puzzles of Politeness and Impoliteness Within a Formal Semantics of Offensive Language

“…The semantic theory invoked here is informed by the view that politeness and impoliteness behaviors are manifestations of offence management, offence rooted in disgust [45,44]. 1 This etiological account of politeness and impoliteness has the advantage of offering an explanation for the existential puzzle of linguistic (im)politeness: the energy required for these locutions is significant, and unlike other forms of complexity in language, for example, referential descriptions, which become less involved and more phonologically reduced with each reference in conversation, the language of (im)politeness does not appear to undergo reduction on the same scale.…”