网上不礼貌互惠

IF 1.8 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Jonathan Culpeper, Vittorio Tantucci, Eleanor Field
{"title":"网上不礼貌互惠","authors":"Jonathan Culpeper,&nbsp;Vittorio Tantucci,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Vittorio Tantucci,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

(Im)礼貌互惠原则规定(Im)礼貌在互动中的参与者之间是平衡的。然而,尽管它被认为既适用于礼貌也适用于不礼貌,但几乎没有证据支持后者。本文旨在改变这种局面。具体来说,它探讨了不礼貌的互惠是否以及如何在在线互动中起作用。人们经常声称,在线互动倾向于不礼貌。本文研究了这一观点是否正确,尤其是与面对面交流相比,不礼貌在网络上是如何传播的。不礼貌是否与不礼貌相匹配?第三方的角色是什么?以牙还牙的不礼貌行为会持续多久?网络不礼貌有什么明显的特点吗?它的方法包括非常仔细地匹配数据集,对数据进行大量编码和网络分析。结果显示,在网络和面对面的数据中,不礼貌的一般发生率几乎没有差异,并且发现(Im)礼貌互惠原则在两个数据集中同样适用于不礼貌和礼貌。此外,研究结果还显示,不礼貌行为的分布方式存在显著差异,包括第三方的作用、不礼貌行为升级的方式以及讽刺和共鸣的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impoliteness reciprocity online
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
18.80%
发文量
219
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.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信