2.1.Superstrategies
Bald-on-record Impoliteness:This strategy is regarded as the least face threatening act. It is performed in a direct, clear, unambiguous andconcise way in circumstances where face is not irrelevant or minimized (Culpeper 1995: 356). It is produced by direct commands or impositions (e.g. "Shut the door.", "do your job.").This strategy was enlisted under politeness strategies according to Brown and Levinson's (1987). For them, Bald on record is a politenessstrategy in fairly specific circumstances. For example, when face concerns are suspended in an emergency, when the threat to the hearer's face is very small (e.g. "Come in" or "Do sit down"), or when the speaker is much more powerful than the hearer (e.g. "Stop complaining" …show more content…
In Culpeper's (2005:358) elaboration of negative impoliteness output strategy, he lists possible acts that might harm the addressee's negative face. They include Frightening, condescending, Invading the other's (asking for or speaking about information which is too intimate given the relationship), explicitly associating the other with a negative aspect, putting the other's indebtedness on …show more content…
The major concern of this study is to prove the idea of multifunctionality of impoliteness is so far as this study is concerned, those impolite behaviors that used to achieve goals or functions would be termed as 'functional impoliteness'.
To justify how impoliteness can be used intentionally for a function, Bousfield andLucher (2008: 3) describe impoliteness as that behavior which is face-aggravating in a particular context. They argue that one of the key elements that arises in impoliteness is that it is caused intentionally. In order to bring to light the idea that intentionality or functionality justifies impoliteness, Brown and Levinson (1987: 61) state the following:
In general, people cooperate in maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face. That is, normally everyone's face depends on everyone else's being maintained, and since people can be expected to defend their face if threatened, and in defending their own threaten others' faces, it is general in every participant's best interest to maintain each other's'
Bald-on-record Impoliteness:This strategy is regarded as the least face threatening act. It is performed in a direct, clear, unambiguous andconcise way in circumstances where face is not irrelevant or minimized (Culpeper 1995: 356). It is produced by direct commands or impositions (e.g. "Shut the door.", "do your job.").This strategy was enlisted under politeness strategies according to Brown and Levinson's (1987). For them, Bald on record is a politenessstrategy in fairly specific circumstances. For example, when face concerns are suspended in an emergency, when the threat to the hearer's face is very small (e.g. "Come in" or "Do sit down"), or when the speaker is much more powerful than the hearer (e.g. "Stop complaining" …show more content…
In Culpeper's (2005:358) elaboration of negative impoliteness output strategy, he lists possible acts that might harm the addressee's negative face. They include Frightening, condescending, Invading the other's (asking for or speaking about information which is too intimate given the relationship), explicitly associating the other with a negative aspect, putting the other's indebtedness on …show more content…
The major concern of this study is to prove the idea of multifunctionality of impoliteness is so far as this study is concerned, those impolite behaviors that used to achieve goals or functions would be termed as 'functional impoliteness'.
To justify how impoliteness can be used intentionally for a function, Bousfield andLucher (2008: 3) describe impoliteness as that behavior which is face-aggravating in a particular context. They argue that one of the key elements that arises in impoliteness is that it is caused intentionally. In order to bring to light the idea that intentionality or functionality justifies impoliteness, Brown and Levinson (1987: 61) state the following:
In general, people cooperate in maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face. That is, normally everyone's face depends on everyone else's being maintained, and since people can be expected to defend their face if threatened, and in defending their own threaten others' faces, it is general in every participant's best interest to maintain each other's'