Why do people take offence? Exploring the underlying expectations

Tayebi, Tahmineh

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.006

Cited by 29 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that offence may occur whether or not the language directed at the hearer is impolite (Tayebi, 2016). This gives an opinion that the action of offence is intentionally or unintentionally to aggravate addressee's face is impoliteness behaviour.…”

Section: A Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assertive Speech Acts as Strategy Revealing Impoliteness: A Case of Translation Quality in Translated Novels The Silkworm and The Cuckoo’s Calling

Waluyo¹,

Nababan²,

Santosa³

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the Fifth Prasasti International Seminar on Linguistics (PRASASTI 2019)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research is a translation study trying to explore how assertive speech acts could be used for revealing impoliteness. In many situation impoliteness as a strategy of speech act aims at disharmony interactions. The disharmony was indicated by their utterances used in interaction. The goals could be reached by using types of speech acts to confirm its impoliteness. Assertive speech acts found in this research were proved be able to use as a strategy to reveal impoliteness. The data is qualitative conveyed by some utterances revealing impoliteness and explored as descriptive method. Content analysis is used in analysing the data by purposive sampling to catch the research goal. The impoliteness theory proposed by Culpeper is used to determine impoliteness strategy. There are 5 strategies, i.e. bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, off-record impoliteness and withhold politeness. Otherwise, in assessing the translation quality refers to Nababan et.als assessment model including accuracy, acceptability and readability aspects. The results show that assertive speech acts could be used as strategy revealing impoliteness with high degree of translation quality. This research hopefully may contribute in discussion of impoliteness next time.

show abstract

Section: A Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assertive Speech Acts as Strategy Revealing Impoliteness: A Case of Translation Quality in Translated Novels The Silkworm and The Cuckoo’s Calling

Waluyo¹,

Nababan²,

Santosa³

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the Fifth Prasasti International Seminar on Linguistics (PRASASTI 2019)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, when there is a departure from this default footing, the respondent claims victim status, while the original complainant is cast as the perpetrator, having posted a review which is unreasonable, dishonest or malicious. As Haugh (2015) and Tayebi (2016) have noted, the discursive practice of "taking offence" can represent a powerful form of social action, enabling the offended party to claim the moral high ground over their opponent. In such cases, respondents typically use speech acts of accusation, expressing negative evaluations of the review as unfair, wrong, and damaging, while contrastingly positioning themselves as exemplars of positive values such as hard work and honesty:…”

Section: Departures From Default Role Templatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oppositional Stance and Footing Shifts in Responses to Customer Complaints on Tripadvisor

Hopkinson¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports on the results of a sociopragmatic study of restaurant-owners' public responses to negative customer reviews posted on TripAdvisor. Responses to customer complaints are typically apologetic, taking a deferential stance towards the customer. This study focuses on responses which shift away from this default position and take an explicitly oppositional stance. Drawing on Goffman's concept of footing and informed by sociopragmatic theories of facework and relational work, I explore the discursive mechanisms and linguistic resources by which restaurant-owners manipulate the footings which underlie their responses to complaints-with a particular focus on radical reframings of the participants' status and roles (the customer may be publicly denigrated or mocked). Such practices reflect the dynamic, fluid nature of a genre that may at first sight appear to be highly conventional in nature.

show abstract

“…While in more recent studies (see, e. g., Culpeper 2011; Kádár and Haugh 2013;Haugh 2015a;Spencer-Oatey and Kadar 2016;Tayebi 2016;Langlotz and Locher 2017; Ogiermann and Blitvich 2019; Parvaresh 2019; Kádár 2020, to name but a few) impoliteness is shown to be a negative evaluative meaning (Eelen 2001) which is arrived at by the participants in the interaction. A pertinent question which has not yet been properly answered would be what counts as a legitimate inference for which the hearer might be able to hold the speaker accountable (Haugh 2017)?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The study of impoliteness beyond what could be called the 'intention paradigm' has recently gained considerable momentum. These studies are triggered by the discovery that (i) people can and do take offence without necessarily being the target of markedly or grossly offensive language or conduct, and (ii) people do not readily take offence at words or conduct that are generally associated with impoliteness (Haugh 2010;Culpeper 2011;Kádár and Haugh 2013;Tayebi 2016Tayebi , 2018.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, on many occasions during the course of an interaction, it is clearly evident that there is dissonance, or rather lack of agreement or harmony, between the speaker and the hearer in how they evaluate certain language (or conduct) as offensive (Tayebi 2016;Parvaresh and Tayebi 2018;Haugh and Chang 2019). This is particularly important because, in reality, impoliteness is not always resolved.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Taking offence at the (un)said:Towards a more radical contextualist approach

Parvaresh

Tayebi

2020

Journal of Politeness Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many researchers in impoliteness studies have set themselves the task of determining, amongst other things, (i) what linguistic or non-linguistic phenomena can cause offence, and (ii) why people take offence. However, the reality of interaction clearly shows that, on many occasions, there appears to be a marked dissonance between the speaker and hearer in their evaluations of offensive language, even in locally situated interaction. More research is therefore needed to account for and explain why and how the hearer assigns a particularly offensive meaning to an utterance during the course of an interaction. With this aim, and by drawing on insight from what is referred to as “radical contextualism”, in this study we discuss the possibility of looking at how interactants can arrive at their own (subjective) evaluations of impoliteness in ways that do not match up with the alleged intentions of the so-called offender. Drawing on a number of exchanges that involve such instances of taking offence, we will argue that the taking of offence should best be viewed as a process over which the hearer has a more active control. Accordingly, the paper contributes to current attempts at explaining the variability involved in the taking of offence.

show abstract

Why do people take offence? Exploring the underlying expectations

Cited by 29 publications

References 23 publications

Assertive Speech Acts as Strategy Revealing Impoliteness: A Case of Translation Quality in Translated Novels The Silkworm and The Cuckoo’s Calling

Assertive Speech Acts as Strategy Revealing Impoliteness: A Case of Translation Quality in Translated Novels The Silkworm and The Cuckoo’s Calling

Oppositional Stance and Footing Shifts in Responses to Customer Complaints on Tripadvisor

Taking offence at the (un)said:Towards a more radical contextualist approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About