The metalinguistics of offence in (British) English

Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh
{"title":"The metalinguistics of offence in (British) English","authors":"Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh","doi":"10.1075/jlac.00035.cul","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Offence is a central concept in impoliteness, aggression and conflict research, yet has received only passing\n mention in definitions of impoliteness and related concepts. Janicki (2017) argues that\n impoliteness and language aggression scholars are needlessly worried about definitions. We use Janicki’s (2017) work as a springboard into a discussion of definitions of impolite or taboo language, airing\n potential problems and suggesting that the study of metalanguage offers at least a partial solution. We report a study of the\n metalanguage of offence in British English, and briefly examine whether there are any differences in Australian English,\n using SketchEngine to interrogate data in the two-billion word Oxford English Corpus. In so doing, we tease out different uses of\n the term offensive, and show that concepts such as offence are coloured by the specific linguistic and\n cultural contexts in which they appear. We conclude that while corpus-based metalinguistic analyses cannot completely eliminate\n the problem of definitional infinite regress, they do, however, offer an empirically grounded way of defining words that allows us\n to move beyond the intuitions of individual researchers.","PeriodicalId":280087,"journal":{"name":"Thematic issue: New perspectives on conflict","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thematic issue: New perspectives on conflict","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00035.cul","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Offence is a central concept in impoliteness, aggression and conflict research, yet has received only passing mention in definitions of impoliteness and related concepts. Janicki (2017) argues that impoliteness and language aggression scholars are needlessly worried about definitions. We use Janicki’s (2017) work as a springboard into a discussion of definitions of impolite or taboo language, airing potential problems and suggesting that the study of metalanguage offers at least a partial solution. We report a study of the metalanguage of offence in British English, and briefly examine whether there are any differences in Australian English, using SketchEngine to interrogate data in the two-billion word Oxford English Corpus. In so doing, we tease out different uses of the term offensive, and show that concepts such as offence are coloured by the specific linguistic and cultural contexts in which they appear. We conclude that while corpus-based metalinguistic analyses cannot completely eliminate the problem of definitional infinite regress, they do, however, offer an empirically grounded way of defining words that allows us to move beyond the intuitions of individual researchers.
(英国)英语中冒犯行为的元语言学
冒犯是不礼貌、侵略和冲突研究中的一个核心概念,但在不礼貌及相关概念的定义中却很少被提及。Janicki(2017)认为,不礼貌和语言攻击学者没有必要担心定义。我们以Janicki(2017)的工作为跳板,讨论了不礼貌或禁忌语言的定义,提出了潜在的问题,并建议元语言的研究至少提供了部分解决方案。我们报告了一项关于英国英语中冒犯的元语言的研究,并简要检查了澳大利亚英语中是否存在任何差异,使用SketchEngine对20亿单词的牛津英语语料库中的数据进行查询。在这样做的过程中,我们梳理出了“冒犯”一词的不同用法,并表明诸如“冒犯”这样的概念会受到它们出现的特定语言和文化背景的影响。我们的结论是,虽然基于语料库的元语言分析不能完全消除定义无限回归的问题,但它们确实提供了一种基于经验的方式来定义单词,使我们能够超越个体研究人员的直觉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信