Je ne suis pas Charlie. Metadiscourses of impoliteness following “France’s 9/11” in selected print media

• Authors: Milan Ferenčík
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Almost immediately after the Charlie Hebdo shootings of 7 January 2015, some print media made room for alternative opinions of what had happened. The articles and the discussions they inspired are replete with evaluations which lend themselves to analysis using methods and procedures of Politeness Theory. The paper examines an example of a metadiscourse of (im)politeness which questions the “moral orders” underlying the cartoonists’ as well as other participants’ social practices vis-à-vis their ideological foundations, esp. freedom of speech as one of the principal liberties of our society. To that end, the approach to politeness as “social practice” is employed which, while insisting on multiple understandings of politeness, places participants’ evaluations at the centre of politeness research.

Keywords

EN

Charlie Hebdo shooting; impoliteness; metacomment; politeness as discursive struggle; politeness as social practice

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Topics in Linguistics
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 42-58

Dates

published

2015-12-01

online

2015-12-30

Contributors

author

Milan Ferenčík

• Inštitút anglistiky a amerikanistiky Filozofická fakulta Prešovskej univerzity Ul.17. novembra 1 080 01 Prešov Slovak Republic Phone: [phone]

References

• ARUNDALE, R.B., 2010. Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 42, pp. 2078-105.[WoS]
• BROWN, P. and LEVINSON, S., 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In: E. N. Goody, ed. Questions and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.56-289.
• BROWN, P. and LEVINSON, S., 1987. Politeness, some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• CULPEPER, J., 2005. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 35-72.
• CULPEPER, J., 2008. Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In: D. Bousfield and M. A. Locher, eds. Impoliteness in language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17-44.
• CULPEPER, J. and HAUGH, M., 2014. Pragmatics and the English language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• DONTCHEVA-NAVRATILOVA, O., 2007. Some aspects of politeness in public speaking. Topics in Linguistics, no.1, pp. 30-35.
• GOFFMAN, E., 1955. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal of Interpersonal Relations, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 213-231.
• GOFFMAN, E., 1979. Footing. Semiotica, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1-29.
• GOFFMAN, E., 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• GRAINGER, K., 2011. ʽFirst orderʼ and ʽsecond orderʼ politeness: Institutional and intercultural contexts. In: Linguistic Politeness Research Group (eds.) Discursive approaches to politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.167-88.
• HALLIDAY, M. A. K., 1978. Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
• KÁDÁR, D. and HAUGH, M., 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• KRESS, G. and VAN LEEUWEN, T., 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
• LAKOFF, R., 1973. The logic of politeness; or minding your p’s and q’s. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. pp. 292-305.
• LEECH, G., 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
• LEECH, G., 2014. The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• LIMBERG, H. 2008. Threats in conflict talk: Impoliteness and manipulation. In: D. Bousfield and M. A. Locher, eds. Impoliteness in language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.155-179.
• LOCHER, M., 2011. Situated impoliteness: The interface between relational work and identity construction. In: B.L. Davies, M. Haugh and A. J. Merrison, eds. Situated politeness, New York: London: Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 187-208.
• LOCHER, M. A. and WATTS, R. J., 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9-33.
• LOCHER, M. A. and WATTS, R. J., 2008. Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In: D. Bousfield and M. A. Locher, eds. Impoliteness in language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77-99.
• MIŠŠÍKOVÁ, G., 2007. Maxim hedges in political discourse: A contrastive perspective.Topics in Linguistics, no.1, pp. 76-79.
• O´DRISCOLL, J. 2011. Some issue with the concept of face, In: F. Bargiela-Chiappini and D. Z. Kádár, eds. Politeness across cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 17-41.
• RÁZUSOVÁ, M., 2008. Specific nature of question-answer exchanges of television political interview in English. Topics in Linguistics, no. 2, pp. 63-66.
• SPENCER-OATEY, H. 2005. (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, vol.1, pp. 95-119.
• TERKOURAFI, M. 2008. Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness and rudeness. In: D. Bousfield and M. A. Locher, eds. Impoliteness in language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45-74.
• VERSCHUEREN, J. 1999. Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.[WoS]
• WATTS, R. J., IDE, S. and EHLICH, K., (eds.), 1992. Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• WATTS, R. J., 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• WENGER, E., 1998. Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/topling-2015-0010