Jonathan Culpeper, Vittorio Tantucci, Eleanor Field
{"title":"网上不礼貌互惠","authors":"Jonathan Culpeper, Vittorio Tantucci, Eleanor Field","doi":"10.1016/j.pragma.2025.04.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Principle of (Im)politeness Reciprocity stipulates that (im)politeness is balanced across participants in an interaction. However, although it was claimed to be applicable to both politeness and impoliteness, there is little evidence to support the latter. This paper aims to rectify that situation. Specifically, it explores whether and how impoliteness reciprocity might work in online interactions. It is often claimed that online interactions are predisposed towards impoliteness. This paper examines whether that is true, and more particularly how impoliteness is distributed online compared with face-to-face. Is impoliteness matched by impoliteness? What is the role of third parties? How long do tit-for-tat impoliteness chains run for? Are there distinct characteristics of impoliteness online? Its method involves very carefully matched datasets, extensive coding of that data, and network analyses. The results reveal little difference in the general occurrence of impoliteness in online versus face-to-face data, and the Principle of (Im)politeness Reciprocity is found to be just as applicable to impoliteness as politeness in both datasets. Furthermore, the results show significant differences in the way that impoliteness is distributed, including the role of third parties, the way impoliteness escalation occurs, and the role of sarcasm and resonance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16899,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pragmatics","volume":"242 ","pages":"Pages 216-236"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impoliteness reciprocity online\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Culpeper, Vittorio Tantucci, Eleanor Field\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pragma.2025.04.011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The Principle of (Im)politeness Reciprocity stipulates that (im)politeness is balanced across participants in an interaction. However, although it was claimed to be applicable to both politeness and impoliteness, there is little evidence to support the latter. This paper aims to rectify that situation. Specifically, it explores whether and how impoliteness reciprocity might work in online interactions. It is often claimed that online interactions are predisposed towards impoliteness. This paper examines whether that is true, and more particularly how impoliteness is distributed online compared with face-to-face. Is impoliteness matched by impoliteness? What is the role of third parties? How long do tit-for-tat impoliteness chains run for? Are there distinct characteristics of impoliteness online? Its method involves very carefully matched datasets, extensive coding of that data, and network analyses. The results reveal little difference in the general occurrence of impoliteness in online versus face-to-face data, and the Principle of (Im)politeness Reciprocity is found to be just as applicable to impoliteness as politeness in both datasets. Furthermore, the results show significant differences in the way that impoliteness is distributed, including the role of third parties, the way impoliteness escalation occurs, and the role of sarcasm and resonance.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16899,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pragmatics\",\"volume\":\"242 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 216-236\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pragmatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216625000943\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216625000943","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Principle of (Im)politeness Reciprocity stipulates that (im)politeness is balanced across participants in an interaction. However, although it was claimed to be applicable to both politeness and impoliteness, there is little evidence to support the latter. This paper aims to rectify that situation. Specifically, it explores whether and how impoliteness reciprocity might work in online interactions. It is often claimed that online interactions are predisposed towards impoliteness. This paper examines whether that is true, and more particularly how impoliteness is distributed online compared with face-to-face. Is impoliteness matched by impoliteness? What is the role of third parties? How long do tit-for-tat impoliteness chains run for? Are there distinct characteristics of impoliteness online? Its method involves very carefully matched datasets, extensive coding of that data, and network analyses. The results reveal little difference in the general occurrence of impoliteness in online versus face-to-face data, and the Principle of (Im)politeness Reciprocity is found to be just as applicable to impoliteness as politeness in both datasets. Furthermore, the results show significant differences in the way that impoliteness is distributed, including the role of third parties, the way impoliteness escalation occurs, and the role of sarcasm and resonance.
期刊介绍:
Since 1977, the Journal of Pragmatics has provided a forum for bringing together a wide range of research in pragmatics, including cognitive pragmatics, corpus pragmatics, experimental pragmatics, historical pragmatics, interpersonal pragmatics, multimodal pragmatics, sociopragmatics, theoretical pragmatics and related fields. Our aim is to publish innovative pragmatic scholarship from all perspectives, which contributes to theories of how speakers produce and interpret language in different contexts drawing on attested data from a wide range of languages/cultures in different parts of the world. The Journal of Pragmatics also encourages work that uses attested language data to explore the relationship between pragmatics and neighbouring research areas such as semantics, discourse analysis, conversation analysis and ethnomethodology, interactional linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, media studies, psychology, sociology, and the philosophy of language. Alongside full-length articles, discussion notes and book reviews, the journal welcomes proposals for high quality special issues in all areas of pragmatics which make a significant contribution to a topical or developing area at the cutting-edge of research.