Freundlich oder feindlich? Zur illokutionären Struktur und phonetischen Realisierung von indirekten supportiven und derogativen Sprechakten am Beispiel von Scheinbeleidigungen (mock impoliteness)

• Authors: Bonacchi Silvia , Andreeva Bistra

Title variants

EN

Friendly or hostile? A pilot study about the illocutionary structure and phonetic realization of indi-rect supportive and derogative speech acts on the example of banter expressions (mock impoliteness)

• Languages of publication: DE

Abstracts

EN

The “Banter Principle” describes cases in which an offensive utterance (for example: DT: “Du Arsch!” or PL: “Ty draniu”) is not addressed by the speaker to the interlocutor with an offensive intention, but it is intended to be an expression of admiration which reinforces the relationship with the Addressee. In addition, use of such language reinforces social ties, i.e. identity and a sense of affiliation to the group. The appropriate reconstruction of the intended meaning (derogatory or supportive meaning, i.e. genuine or mock impoliteness) depends on the conversational setting, on the relation of the speakers, on the mental presuppositions of the interlocutors, and on the mutual acceptance of the communicative means. The use of banter utterances is quite unstable, since they can always switch from a face-enhancing to a face-threatening or aggressive act. The paper presents the results of a pilot studies on phonetic cues of banter utterances in German and Polish.

• Publisher: Instytut Komunikacji Specjalistycznej i Interkulturowej
• Journal: Lingwistyka Stosowana / Applied Linguistics / Angewandte Linguistik
• Year: 2015
• Issue: 15
• Pages: 1-19

Dates

published

2015

Contributors

author

Bonacchi Silvia

• Uniwersytet Warszawski

author

Andreeva Bistra

• Uniwersytet Kraju Saary

References

• Arndt, H./ R. W. Janney (1985), Politeness revisited: cross modal supportive strategies. In: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 23 (4), 281–300.
• Arndt, H./ Janney, R. W. (1987), Intergrammar: Toward an Integrative Model of Verbal, Prosodic and Kinesic Choices in Speech. Berlin.
• Beckman, M.E./ J.B. Pierrehumbert (1986), Intonational structure in English and Japanese. In: Phonology Yearbook 3, 255–310.
• Blakemore, D. (2002), Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge.
• Bolinger, D. L. (1964), Intonation across languages. In: J.H. Greenberg/ C.A. Ferguson/ E.A. Moravcsik (Hrsg.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. 2: Phonology. Stanford, CA., 471–524.
• Bonacchi, S. (2012), Zu den idiokulturellen und polykulturellen Bedingungen von aggressiven Äußerungen im Vergleich Polnisch-Deutsch-Italienisch. In: M. Olpińska-Szkiełko/ S. Grucza/ Z. Berdychowska/ J. Żmudzki (Hrsg.), Der Mensch und seine Sprachen. Frankfurt a.M. etc., 130–148
• Bonacchi, S. (2013), (Un)Höflichkeit. Eine kulturologische Analyse Deutsch – Italienisch – Polnisch. Frankfurt a.M.
• Bonacchi, S. (2014), Scheinbeleidigungen und perfide Komplimente: kulturologische Bemerkungen zur obliquen Kommunikation in interkultureller Perspektive. In: K. Lukas/ I. Olszewska (Hrsg.), Deutsch im Kontakt und im Kontrast. Festschrift für Andrzej Kątny zum 65. Geburtstag. Frankfurt a.M., 341–356.
• Brown, P./ S.C. Levinson (1987), Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge.
• Carston, R. (2002), Thoughts and utterances. The Pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford.
• Cheang, H.S./ M.D. Pell (2008), The sound of sarcasm. In: Speech Communication 50, 366–381
• Chen, A./ C. Gussenhoven/ T. Rietveld (2004), Language-specificity in the perception of paralinguistic intonational meaning. In: Language and Speech 4, 311–350.
• Culpeper, J. (1996), Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. In: Journal of Pragmatics 25 (3), 349–367.
• Culpeper, J. (2011), It‘s not what you said, it´s how you said it!: Prosody and impoliteness. In: Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Hrsg.), Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin etc., 57–83.
• Culpeper, J./ D. Bousfield/ W. Wichmann (2003), Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. In: Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1545–1579.
• d’Avis, F./ J. Meibauer (2013), Du Idiot! Din Idiot! Pseudo-vocative constructions and insults in German (and Swedish). In: B. Sonnenhauser/ H. Noel Aziz Hanna (Hrsg.), Vocative!, Berlin etc., 189–217.
• Goffman, E. (1986), Interaktionsrituale. Über Verhalten in direkter Kommunikation. Frankfurt a.M..
• Grauwunder, S./ B. Winter (2010), Acoustic correlates of politeness: prosodic and voice quality measures in polite and informal speech of Korean and German speakers. In: Proceedings of the International Conference for Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago 5/2010, Speech Prosody 2010, 100316: 1–4.
• Grice, M./ S. Baumann (2002), Deutsche Intonation und GToBI. In: Linguistische Berichte 191, 267–298.
• Grice, M./ S. Baumann/ R. Benzmüller (2005), German Intonation in Autosegmental-Metrical Phonology. In: S.-A. Jun (Hrsg.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford, 55–83.
• Gussenhoven, C. (2014), The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge.
• Gussenhoven, C. (2002), Intonation and Interpretation: Phonetics and Phonology. In: B. Bel/ I. Marlien. (Hrsg.). Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002. Aix-En-Provence. 47–57.
• Haiman, J. (1998), Talk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation and the evolution of language. New York.
• Haugh, M. (2015), Im/Politeness Implicatures. Berlin etc.
• House, J. (2008), Constructing a Context with Intonation. In: Journal for Pragmatics 38, 1542–1558.
• Kaufer, D. S. (1981), Understanding ironic communication. In: Journal of pragmatics 5, 495–510.
• Ladd, D. Robert (1996), Intonational Phonology. Cambridge.
• Leech, G. (1983), Principles of Pragmatics. Longman.
• Leggitt, J./ R. Gibbs (2000), Emotional reactions to verbal irony. In: Discourse Processes 29, 1–24.
• Mateo, J./ F. Yus (2013), Towards a cross-cultural pragmatic taxonomy of insults. In: Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 1 (1), 86–113.
• McKinnon, S./ P. Prieto (2014), The role of Prosody and Gesture in the Perception of Mock Impoliteness. In: Journal of Politeness Research 10(2), 185–219.
• Morton, E.S. (1977), On the occurrence and significance of motivation-structural rules in some bird and mammal sounds. In: The American Naturalist 111, 855–869.
• Murray, I.R./ Arnott, J.L. (1993), Toward the Simulation of Emotion in Synthetic Speech: A Review of the Literature on Human Vocal Emotion. In: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93(2), February, 1097–1108.
• Nakassis, C./ Snedeker, J. (2002), Beyond sarcasm: Intonation and context as relational cues in children’s recognition of irony. In: A. Greenhill/ M. Hughs/ H. Littlefield/ H. Walsh (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville Mass, 429–440.
• Nowick-Dziewicka, E. (2012), Banter and the Echo/Pretence Distinction. In: E. Walaszewska/ A. Piskorska (Hrsg.), Relevance Theory: More than understanding. Cambridge, 245–259.
• Ohala, J.J. (1983), Cross-language use of pitch: an ethological view. In: Phonetica 40, 1–18.
• Ohala, J.J. (1984), An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 in voice. In: Phonetica 41, 1–16.
• Ohala, J.J. (1994), The frequency code underlines the sound symbolic use of voice of pitch. In: L. Hinton et al. (Hrsg.), Sound symbolism, Cambridge. 325–247.
• Pierrehumbert, J./ M.E. Beckman (1988), Japanese Tone Structure. Cambridge, MA.
• Pierrehumbert, J. (1980), The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation (Ph.D thesis, MIT).
• Rockwell, P. (2000), Lower, slower, louder: Vocal cues of sarcasm. In: Journal of Psycholinguistics Research 29, 483–495.
• Rockwell, P. (2006), Sarcasm and other mixed messages. The ambiguous ways people use language. New York.
• Searle, J. R. (1982), Indirekte Sprechakte. In: J.R. Searle, Ausdruck und Bedeutung. Frankfurt a.M., 51–79.
• Sperber, D./ D. Wilson (1981), Irony and the use-mention distinction. In: P. Cole (Hrsg.) Radical Pragmatics. New York. Reprinted in S. Davis (Hrsg.) (1991) Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford, 550–563.
• Sperber, D./ Wilson, D. (2002), Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge.
• Sperber, D. (1984), Verbal irony: Pretense or echoic mention? In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113, 130–136.
• Stadler, S. A. (2006), Multimodal (Im)politeness: The Verbal, Prosodic and Non-Verbal Realization of Disagreement in German and New Zealand English. Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics. University of Auckland and Universität Hamburg.
• Wilson, D./ D. Sperber (1992), On verbal irony. In: Lingua 87, 53–76.
• Wilson, D./ T. Wharton (2006), Relevance and Prosody. In: Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1559–1578.
• Wilson, D. (2013), Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. In: Journal of Pragmatics 59, 40–56.
• Žegarac, V. (1998), What is “phatic communication”? In: V. Rouchota/ A. Jücker (Hrsg.), Current Issues in Relevance Theory. Amsterdam etc., 327–362.
• Zwaan, R./ G. Radvansky (1998), Situation models in language comprehension and memory. In: Psychological Bulletin 123 (2), 162–185.

Identifiers

ISSN

2080-4814