Impoliteness in parliamentary discourse: a cognitive-pragmatic and sociocultural approach
Abstract
This article focuses on the use of impoliteness strategies in the discourse of American, Bulgarian, Polish, and Ukrainian parliaments. Our research of impolite rhetoric, also known as unparliamentary language, is located on the intersection of cognitive pragmatics, cultural linguistics, and discourse analysis. We use an integrative framework, in which the pragmatics of impoliteness is underpinned by the cognitive model of the concept of impoliteness. We offer a description of impoliteness strategies in parliamentary discourse, single out the leading strategy of devaluation of the opponent, and define the stereotypical for each parliament verbal means of the strategy of devaluation and its tactics: criticism and belittlement of one’s merits and importance. Their verbal markers are lexicalized and syntactic units bearing the meaning of negative characterization, disrespect, mockery, sarcasm. We hypothesize that the variation of impoliteness strategies is different parliamentary discourses corresponds to linguistic, pragmatic, and sociocultural dissimilarities, and provide support for this through an empirical study. Linguistically, discursive means of devaluation in the American, Bulgarian, Polish, and Ukrainian parliaments are context free and context dependent, and their ratio varies. In all these parliamentary discourses, the lexicalized markers of impoliteness come from common mental source domains: negative evaluation, legal offence, democracy, deception, hostilities, their variation is due to corresponding construals of the world. Culturally, we claim that the form and content of impoliteness strategies is indirectly connected with a low-context culture in the USA as opposed to a high-context type of Slavic cultures. In the former, devaluation of opponents is mostly reached by lexicalized markers with inherent negative meaning; and in the latter, by syntactic context-dependent means. Pragmatically, the specific properties of impoliteness strategies in the four parliamentary discourses reveal their relation to the dominant politeness principles, which are negatively oriented in modern English and positively in Bulgarian, Polish, and Ukrainian.
Downloads
References
Bondarenko, I. (2020).Tools of Explicit Propaganda: Cognitive Underpinnings. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 10(1), 23-48. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2020.101003
Bousfield, D. (2008). Chapter 6. Impoliteness in the struggle for power. In D. Bousfield & M. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language (pp. 127–154). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344.3.127
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1988). Politeness. Some Universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London, England: Routledge.
Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C. (2002). Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse. In P. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 1-41). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Cole, N.L. (2020, August 27). So What Is Culture, Exactly? Retrieved April 30, 2021, from https://www.thoughtco.com/culture-definition-4135409
Copeland, L., & Griggs, L. (1986). Going International: How to Make Friends and Deal Effectively in the Global Marketplace. New York: New American Library.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349-367. http://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3
Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3232-3245. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Retrieved from http://www.cambridge.org
Culpeper, J. (n.d.). Impoliteness: Using and Understanding the Language of Offence. ESRC project website: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/projects/impoliteness/bibliography.htm
Culpeper, J., & Tancucci, V. (2021). The principle of (im)politeness reciprocity. Journal of pragmatics, 175, 146–164. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.008
Dictionary by Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com.
Dijk, T.A. van (2008). Critical discourse studies: a sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer. Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. (pp. 63–85). London: Sage Publishing.
Frolova, I. (2017). Konfrontatsiia kak stratgiia angloiazychnogo dikursa [Confrontation as a strategy of English language discourse]. In I. S. Shevchenko (Ed.) Kak narisovat’ portret ptitsy: metodologiia kognitivno-kommunikativnogo analiza iazyka: kollektivnaja monografiia (pp. 148–205). Kharkiv: KhNU im. V.N.Karazina (in Russian). Retrieved from http://dspace.univer.kharkov.ua/bitstream/123456789/14566/2/%d0%ba%d0%be%d0%bb_%d0%bc%d0%be%d0%bd%d0%be%d0%b3%d1%80%d0%b0%d1%84%d0%b8%d1%8f.pdf
TheFreeDictionary by Farlex. (2021). Retrieved April 30, 2021, from https://www.thefreedictionary.com
Graham, R. (2016). Withdraw and apologise: a diachronic study of unparliamentary language in the New Zealand parliament, 1890-1950. A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/5425
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.
Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace: a sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Ilie, C. (2001). Unparliamentary language: Insults as cognitive forms of ideological confrontation. In R. Dirven, R. Frank, & C. Ilie (Eds.), Language and ideology: Descriptive cognitive approaches (Vol. II, pp. 235-263). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ilie, C. (2004). Insulting as (un)parliamentary practice in the British and Swedish parliaments: A rhetorical approach. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 45-86). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ilie, C. (2015). Parliamentary discourse. K. Tracy (General Ed.), C. Ilie and T. Sandel (Associate Eds). The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, First Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463/wbielsi201
Kecskés, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kienpointner, M. (2008). Impoliteness and emotional arguments. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture, 4 (2), 243-265. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2008.012
Kopytko, R. (1993). Polite discourse in Shakespeare’s English. Poznan: Wydawnictwo naukowe universitety im. Adama Mickiewicza.
Locher, M. A., & Bousfield, D. (2008). Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.). Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 1-13). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online. (n.d.). Retrieved April 30, 2021, from https://www.ldoceonline.com.
Macmillan dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved April 30, 2021, from https://www.macmillandictionary.com.
Martynyuk, A., & Meleshchenko, O. (2019). Twitter-based multimodal metaphorical memes portraying Donald Trump. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow. The journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, IV(2), 128-167.
Mills, Sara (2004). Class, gender and politeness. Multilingua, 2, 56-71.
Mills, Sara (2009). Impoliteness in a cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1047-1060.
Mills, Sara (2017). Sociocultural approaches to (im)politeness. In: Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., Kadar, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. (pp. 41-60). Palgrave. MacMillan, Basingstoke.
Mugford, G. (2018). Critical intercultural impoliteness: “Where are you located? Can you please transfer me to someone who is American?” Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.014.
Palonen, K. (2014). Politics of parliamentary procedure: The formation of the Westminster procedure as a parliamentary ideal type. Leverkusen-Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Petrenko, O. M. (2018). Stratehii nevvichlyvosti u dyskursi dram V. Shekspira: kohnityvno-prahmatychnyi aspekt [Impoliteness strategies in the discourse of Shakespearean dramas: a cognitive-pragmatic aspect]. Unpublished candidate dissertation. V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv, Ukraine (in Ukrainian).
Pilkington, C. (1999). The Politics Today Companion to the British Constitution. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Schmid, H.-J. (Ed.). (2012). Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural Linguistics. Ethnolinguistics, 28, 33-61. https://doi.org/10.17951/et.2016.28.31
Shevchenko, I., Goncharova, T., & Gutotov, V. (2020). Cognitive pragmatics of American presidential debates: a case for economic metaphors. In Cognition, communication, discourse, 21, 36-49. https://doi.org/10.26565/2218-2926-2020-21-03
Shevchenko, I., & Gutorov, V. (2019). A cognitive-pragmatic perspective on apologies in English and Ukrainian discourse. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow. The journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, IV(2), 301-341. Retrieved from https://lartis.sk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ShevchenkoGutorov_Issue-2_2019.pdf
Shevchenko, I., & Petrenko, O. (2019). Dyskursyvni stratehii nevvichlyvosti v kohnityvno-prahmatycnii perspektyvi [Discursive strategies of impoliteness in cognitivepragmatic perspective]. Visnyk Lvivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia Filolohiia, 70, 91-101. Retrieved from http://publications.lnu.edu.ua/bulletins/index.php/philology/article/view/9759
Sifianou, M. (2019). Im/politeness and in/civility: A neglected relationship? Journal of Pragmatics, 147, 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.008
Sifianou, M., Blitvich, P. G.-C. (2019). Im/politeness and discursive pragmatics Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 91-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.015
Terkourafi, M. (2015). Conventionalization: A new agenda for im/politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.004
Zhabotynskaya, S. A. (2013). Имя как текст: концептуальная сеть лексического значения (анализ имени эмоции) [The name as a text: conceptual network of lexical meaning (analysis of the name of emotion)]. Cognition, communication, discourse, 6, 47-76 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.26565/2218-2926-2013-06-04
Copyright (c) 2021 Iryna Shevchenko, Donka Alexandrova, Volodymyr Gutorov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors, who publish with this journal, accept the following conditions:
The authors reserve the copyright of their work and transfer to the journal the right of the first publication of this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Non-Derivs License (CC BY-NC-ND), which allows other persons to freely distribute a published work with mandatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.
Authors have the right to enter into separate additional agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal (for example, to post the work in the electronic institutions' repository or to publish as part of a monograph), provided that the link to the first publication of the work in this journal is given.
The journal policy allows and encourages the authors to place the manuscripts on the Internet (for example, in the institutions' repositories or on personal websites), both before the presentation of this manuscript to the editorial board and during review procedure, as it contributes to the creation of productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
