Advancing (Im)politeness Studies: Cultural, Digital and Emotional Aspects (Advances in (Im)politeness Studies) [1st ed. 2023] 3031370635, 9783031370632

Citation preview

Advances in (Im)politeness Studies Series Editor: Chaoqun Xie

Chaoqun Xie Editor

Advancing (Im)politeness Studies Cultural, Digital and Emotional Aspects

Advances in (Im)politeness Studies Series Editor Chaoqun Xie, School of English Studies, Zhejiang International Studies University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

The book series Advances in (Im)politeness Studies advances new perspectives, challenges and insights on (im)politeness studies and, in so doing, furthers understanding and interpretation of human worlds (online and offline) and human beings. (Im)politeness has, over the last several decades, become a multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary endeavor. (Im)politeness can be seen as a complex system, the production, perception, and evaluation of which may involve various components, linguistic, behavioral, cognitive, social, contextual, emotional, moral, historical, cultural and ethical. A full understanding of the (im)politeness system may only be reached by looking into the complex, fluid and dynamic interaction among those components. The series invites innovative monographs and edited volumes that contribute to charting and shaping the discipline with respect to contemporary (im)politeness practice and research, that experiment with new and creative approaches to describing and explaining specific (im)politeness phenomena in either face-to-face communication or mediated interaction, or expound philosophical dimensions and implications of (im)politeness as a critical and essential lens through which to examine the full complexities and intricacies of human interpersonal interaction and human nature. Both experienced researchers and young enterprising scholars are welcome to submit their book proposals. The volumes in this series appeal to scholars and students of social interaction in general and pragmatics, sociolinguistics, philosophy, psychology, language teaching and learning in particular. For inquiries and submission of proposals authors can contact the editor-in-chief, Chaoqun Xie, via: [email protected]

Chaoqun Xie Editor

Advancing (Im)politeness Studies Cultural, Digital and Emotional Aspects

Editor Chaoqun Xie Institute of Discourse Pragmatics Zhejiang International Studies University Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

ISSN 2524-4000 ISSN 2524-4019 (electronic) Advances in (Im)politeness Studies ISBN 978-3-031-37063-2 ISBN 978-3-031-37064-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37064-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgements

This volume would not have been possible without the help of many people. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the contributors of this collection. Without their enthusiasm, support, and patience, this project could not have materialized. My thanks also go to the team at Springer for their supportive and valuable assistance across various stages of the process. The anonymous reviewers of the volume are also to be acknowledged for their expert advice and thought-provoking comments. Finally, I would like to acknowledge support from Major Humanities and Social Sciences Research Projects in Zhejiang higher education institutions (No. 2023GH069) and Zhejiang Federation of Humanities and Social Sciences (No. 22YJRC11ZD).

v

About This Book

Over the last four decades, research on (im)politeness has consistently demonstrated the enduring appeal and intricate complexity of a seemingly commonplace concept. However, grasping the multifaceted and sophisticated nature of (im)politeness remains a significant challenge. This volume brings together contributions from both established and up-and-coming scholars, exploring the theoretical foundations of (im)politeness, as well as emotional and digital (im)politeness. By offering a nuanced exploration of this important aspect of human communication, the book provides readers with a varied view of (im)politeness in different genres and contexts and sheds light on its enduring role in social interaction. Through the inclusion of diverse perspectives, the book highlights the multifaceted nature of (im)politeness, enhancing our understanding of this critical aspect of human existence.

vii

Contents

Introduction: Advancing (Im)politeness Studies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chaoqun Xie

1

Cultural (Im)politeness Culture, Emotion, and (Im)politeness Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Helen Spencer-Oatey

15

Norms and Normativity in Indirectness Across Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen Grainger

33

Personality and (Im)politeness: Evidence from WeChat/QQ Group Chats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xinren Chen and Mengxin Li Politeness, Respect, Care, and Bias in Social Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mollie Teitelbaum and Aaron Ben-Ze’ev

51 73

Emotional (Im)politeness Positive Emotions and Pragmatic Choice: Politeness Practices in the Mexican Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gerrard Mugford

95

Textual Emotivity and Literary (Im)Politeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Zongxin Feng “So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint Responses in BELF Phone Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Ping Liu and Huiying Liu Digital (Im)politeness (Im)politeness in Online Consumer Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Wei Ren ix

x

Contents

Impoliteness and Negative Comments on Google Reviews: Nursing Homes in Spain and the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Rosa M. Pacheco-Baldó Strategic Impoliteness in E-commerce Communication: How Online Shops Challenge Negative Customer Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Jingli Chen and Dezheng Feng Teasing in Identity Work on Chinese Social Media: Forms and Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Ying Tong and Chaoqun Xie

Editor and Contributors

About the Editor Chaoqun Xie is Chair Professor and Director of the Institute of Discourse Pragmatics at Zhejiang International Studies University, China. Internet pragmatics and (im)politeness are his current primary scholarly interests. His recent publications include (Im)politeness and Moral Order in Online Interactions (John Benjamins, 2020), Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and Practice (co-edited with Francisco Yus and Hartmut Haberland, John Benjamins, 2021), The Philosophy of (Im)politeness (Springer, 2021), The Pragmatics of Internet Memes (John Benjamins, 2022), and Self-Praise Across Cultures and Contexts (co-edited with Ying Tong, Springer, 2022).

Contributors Aaron Ben-Ze’ev Department of Philosophy, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel Jingli Chen School of English Studies, Zhejiang International Studies University, Hangzhou, China Xinren Chen School of Foreign Studies/China Research Center for Language Strategies, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China Dezheng Feng Department of English and Communication, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China Zongxin Feng Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Karen Grainger Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK

xi

xii

Editor and Contributors

Mengxin Li School of Foreign Languages, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China Huiying Liu School of English Education, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China Ping Liu School of English for International Business, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China Gerrard Mugford Modern Languages Department, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico Rosa M. Pacheco-Baldó Department of English Philology, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain Wei Ren School of Foreign Languages, Beihang University, Beijing, China Helen Spencer-Oatey Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Mollie Teitelbaum Department of Philosophy, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel Ying Tong School of Foreign Languages, Nanjing Xiaozhuang University, Nanjing, China Chaoqun Xie Institute of Discourse Pragmatics, Zhejiang International Studies University, Hangzhou, China

Introduction: Advancing (Im)politeness Studies? Chaoqun Xie

Abstract This volume represents a concerted effort by both established and emerging scholars in the field to push the boundaries of research on (im)politeness. By delving into the cultural, emotional, and digital dimensions of (im)politeness across diverse genres, this collection presents a range of approaches that deepen our understanding of this essential phenomenon in everyday human interaction. The introduction offers a succinct synopsis of this volume, followed by an earnest examination, through three confessions, of the obstacles and complexities inherent in advancing (im)politeness studies. Particularly noteworthy is the inclusion of five small poems that seek, in a creative manner, to depict the intricate and ambiguous nature of (im)politeness. Keywords Cultural (im)politeness · Emotional (im)politeness · Digital (im)politeness · Nature of (im)politeness

Throughout history, human beings have demonstrated an unwavering interest in (im)politeness. For instance, “An American Gentleman” wrote a book in 1853 prescribing the epitome of ‘true politeness’, which included “politeness towards those with whom you may have dealings” as one of “the essential and distinguishing characteristics of a gentleman” (An American Gentleman, 1853: 64; italics original). The relationship between (im)politeness and human existence is undeniable, with instances where (im)politeness has even been a matter of life and death. Scholars of (im)politeness are familiar with the pioneering contributions of Goffman (1959, 1967), Lakoff (1973), Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), and Leech (1983, 2014). Over the past four decades, three waves of (im)politeness research have repeatedly confirmed the enduring popularity and intricate complexity of this seemingly ordinary concept (Xie, 2021). This volume delves into both theoretical and empirical aspects of this intriguing topic, with a view to advancing our understanding of (im)politeness across various C. Xie (B) Institute of Discourse Pragmatics, Zhejiang International Studies University, Hangzhou, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Xie (ed.), Advancing (Im)politeness Studies, Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37064-9_1

1

2

C. Xie

genres. Comprised of three parts, the collection covers cultural (im)politeness, emotional (im)politeness, and digital (im)politeness respectively. By exploring different aspects of (im)politeness, this collection tries to offer a nuanced and multifaceted perspective on this essential and enduring part of human communication. Part I, devoted to the cultural dimension of (im)politeness, opens with Helen Spencer-Oatey’s exploration of the close interconnections between culture, emotion and (im)politeness evaluations. It can be said that human beings are emotional animals, that human (re)actions are often emotion-driven, and that emotion may affect both (im)politeness production and perception. In her contribution, Spencer-Oatey explores how emotions play a part in the process of (im)politeness evaluation and how they are affected by cultural elements, elaborating on the following key factors: the causes of emotions, particularly regarding issues of reputation, objectives, and responsibilities, the process of evaluation and the individual stages involved, and the tendencies of (re)actions. Indeed, the next chapter by Karen Grainger is also related to intercultural (im)politeness. By analyzing indirectness in British and southern African people from a ‘third wave’ interactional perspective, this chapter aims to show that the combination of a socio-historical approach and an ethnomethodological approach is useful for capturing both intercultural interlocutors’ repertoire of cultural norms and the moment-by-moment unfolding of natural interpersonal interaction, and convincing explanations for intercultural misunderstanding can thus be provided. In so doing, this chapter seeks to harmonize the discursive approach to politeness with the conventional scientific approach that perceives politeness norms as objective elements present at the societal level. By resorting to WeChat/QQ group chats, Xinren Chen and Mengxin Li call our attention to the relationship between personality and (im)politeness that has not yet been sufficiently researched in current (im)politeness studies. It may be common sense that personality is intricately related to a person’s (a)social (inter)actions, but it remains to be discovered to what extent it may impact on (im)politeness (re)actions. This chapter demonstrates that personality traits of both producer and perceiver constitute a basis for (im)politeness evaluation, and that in the absence of the frame, (im)politeness evaluation would follow the widely shared convention and, as a consequence, the risk of interpersonal misjudgment may arise. Part I closes with Mollie Teitelbaum and Aaron Ben-Ze’ev’s chapter devoted to politeness, respect, care, and bias in social interactions and to some fundamental aspects of a deeper understanding of (im)politeness mainly from a philosophical perspective. This chapter distinguishes preventing politeness from promoting politeness that is “profoundly meaningful,” arguing, among other things, that the highest aim of politeness is “to communicate and exercise deep respect for others,” that genuine caring contributes to the most profound acts of politeness, and that a better understanding of human biases is conducive to respecting and valuing people for who they are. Part II focuses on emotional (im)politeness. Emotion and (im)politeness are intertwined in almost every interaction we find, which often necessitates a balance between them. Generally speaking, politeness demands restraints, and we should hold back what we feel inside. Sometimes, when our emotions overflow, politeness may fade for the time being, with our true selves being shown. In this sense, the

Introduction: Advancing (Im)politeness Studies?

3

relationship between emotion and (im)politeness seems to point to some issues of human authenticity. Gerrard Mugford analyzes the relationship between emotion and (im)politeness in a particular Mexican setting, aiming to comprehend how emotions can enhance, damage, sustain, or even repress one’s face and how individual and collective identities are established through emotional means. For them, people are driven by various emotional reasons to adopt a particular behavior, as the demonstration of Mexican politeness is not exclusively centered on the other person. Rather, individuals often want to present themselves as involved, thoughtful, and empathetic conversational partners, and emotions play a vital role in achieving these goals. In his chapter, Zongxin Feng explores the role of emotional language in written text and literary (im)politeness, as well as how readers perceive and react to them both emotionally and cognitively. He argues that literature provides a unique environment for both written and spoken communication, where readers can use their linguistic and communicative abilities to infer emotional expressions between characters in the story or play, between the narrator and the intended audience, and even the emotional stance of the author. This chapter shows that representation of emotivity and (im)politeness on multiple levels of interaction is what makes literary communication fascinating, as textual emotivity is dramatically exemplified, and that the study of literary (im)politeness not only enriches literary studies but also contributes to linguistic and cultural studies of (im)politeness. Ping Liu and Huiying Liu, situating their study in the field of intercultural pragmatics, employ a discursive approach to investigate the guidelines for expressing negative emotions by customers and the management of negative emotions by customer service agents in a Business English as a lingua franca setting. One of their findings is that the operational mechanism of the techniques utilized by the agents indicates that their preferences and choices in managing emotions are restricted by the objectives of the institution. As a result, the agents are obligated to regulate their own emotions and those of the customers in particular manners, which may lead to instances of excessive institutionalization where they appear robotic. Part III addresses digital (Im)politeness. Recent years have witnessed more and more interest in (im)politeness in online interactions (see e.g., Xie, 2020). This is understandable, given that digital living has become an everyday and ordinary fact. Largely because netizens feel more freedom to express their ideas online, forms and functions of online (im)politeness may manifest more varieties and/or uncertainties. In his contribution, Wei Ren conducts an investigation of the implementation of (im)politeness strategies in Chinese consumer reviews, utilizing a collection of usergenerated online comments extracted from Amazon China. His study identifies three categories of politeness tactics, which involve utilizing CMC indicators to convey emotions, employing euphemisms, and applying negation before expressing a positive or negative sentiment, and two forms of impoliteness, namely the use of sarcasm and the utilization of expletives or taboo language. The results indicate that impoliteness was infrequent in the Chinese consumer reviews and that the sentiment of the review (positive or negative) was discovered to impact the utilization of euphemisms, sarcasm, and expletives or taboo language. Rosa M. Pacheco Baldó in her chapter investigates impoliteness present in negative remarks about nursing homes shared

4

C. Xie

by users on Google reviews, arguing that regardless of whether negative comments about nursing homes posted on Google reviews are truthful or not, they should still be seen as impolite because they harm the reputation of the center and offer strong public criticism. Analyzing the differences found in the negative remarks of Spanish and American users, this chapter demonstrates how cultural factors such as individualism, masculinity, or high/low context impact the way people communicate. Jingli Chen and Dezheng Feng investigate how e-retailers on Taobao combat negative reviews by examining 102 responses from 14 popular e-shops. They identify three main strategies used by e-retailers: disputing critical reviews, attributing blame to the reviewers, and defending their e-shops. The third strategy, which involves showing self-compassion, defending e-shop representatives, and promoting products and services, is the most commonly employed. Their research findings suggest that e-shop representatives on this e-commerce platform can strategically use impoliteness tactics to (re)shape their image and improve customer-business relationships. Finally, Ying Tong and Chaoqun Xie discuss, based on data collected from a Chinese transgender celebrity’s online activities including her interaction with other online users, how storytelling on social media is used to perform and express trans identity at a small-scale level, revealing that the intentional sequences of stories facilitated by Sina Weibo, along with the meta-pragmatic labels incorporated within the stories, not only perform but also influence the social practice of teasing, and that they contribute to creating and demolishing gender identities, with the purpose of establishing the genuineness and credibility of transgender individuals, while also entertaining a wider audience. This book, contributed by both established and emerging scholars, represents a dedicated effort to advance research on (im)politeness. Through its examination of theoretical and empirical aspects of (im)politeness across various genres, this collection offers multiple approaches to expanding our comprehension of this complex phenomenon. However, whether this volume can truly advance (im)politeness studies remains uncertain, as (im)politeness is inherently multifaceted and complicated. In the following paragraphs, I will share some random thoughts on (doing) (im)politeness. Recently, before I started talking about discourse and (im)politeness for an introductory course on discourse analysis, I asked my undergraduates to share their understanding of politeness and impoliteness. One response stood out as particularly thought-provoking: “Biases and prejudices abound in politeness. For example, ‘Lady first!’” While it is widely accepted that ‘Lady first’ is a display of politeness towards women, how many of us have considered the biased or prejudiced implications behind this seemingly polite expression? How many of us have paused to reflect on the fact that by uttering ‘Lady first’, we are attempting to address a situation that is unfair or disadvantageous for the woman? Language has the power to reveal and conceal information, and this applies to (im)politeness as well. It is crucial to understand what information is being disclosed or withheld, as well as the underlying reasons and methods for such actions. Doing (im)politeness has become something profitable in the sense, among other things, that people can make a (good) living by means of doing research on

Introduction: Advancing (Im)politeness Studies?

5

(im)politeness. In other words, people do not necessarily approach (im)politeness for the sake of obtaining a deep and profound picture of (im)politeness and related issues. Some may want to further the understanding of (im)politeness and establish a career in the field resulting in personal and professional development at the same time, while others may simply want to make a living by writing something about (im)politeness, or to survive regular performance assessments. As a result, one may find, although numerous publications pertinent to (im)politeness appear one after another, some of them appear to be merely of homogeneous nature in terms of arguments, approaches and/or data, offering limited genuine knowledge or wisdom about the relationship between (im)politeness and human existence. In fact, the very idea of making a good living or aiming for high scores in academic assessments motivates/ forces some people to prefer to have their research papers published in the so-called SSCI-indexed journals, refusing to have book chapters published. This practice is of course understandable, however, it may be quite hard to understand that some others look down upon or denigrate those published in edited volumes. Although much can be criticized about current academic evaluation practices, it may be erroneous and disgusting to establish a simplistic positive link between papers published in SSCIindexed journals and high scholarly quality. This means that the scholarly quality of a research paper is not solely guaranteed by whether it appears in a high-impact journal. On the other hand, it is of course not the case that truly great scholars cannot survive without great journals. Some people may know that the late biochemist Hans Krebs won a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1953 for his important discovery known as the “Krebs cycle,” but that his paper illustrating this very discovery was once rejected by Nature in June 1937!1 In point of fact, even those denigrating book chapters on (im)politeness may be fully aware that Robin Lakoff was called “the mother of modern politeness theory” (Eelen, 2001: 2) mainly because of her widelycited paper published in a conference proceeding (Lakoff, 1973). At this juncture, it is worth noting that some individuals involved in (im)politeness research may harbor unfounded and unsavory prejudices against certain outlets for this field of study. Isn’t this an angry shame? Isn’t this a most heartbreaking instance of impoliteness? Isn’t this an act of desecrating (im)politeness studies? It’s worth asking ourselves once in a while: Are we doing (im)politeness for the very sake of (im)politeness? Returning to the question of how to advance (im)politeness studies, I must admit that I am not entirely sure how to answer this question satisfactorily. However, as someone who has written extensively on the topic of (im)politeness, I feel compelled to make a couple of confessions (cf. Xie, 2022). Firstly, when I write about politeness, I am not only addressing myself, but also many others, both present and absent, likable and unlikable. As such, I often find myself navigating a stream of consciousness, and at times, I seem to grow weary of adhering to the current norms of scholarly writing, particularly with regards to empirical research. In fact, I sometimes question whether (im)politeness is a phenomenon that can and should be studied empirically. I wonder which aspects of (im)politeness can be approached through empirical research, and which cannot. This indeed raises questions about the

1

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Krebs_(biochemist) (accessed 16 October 2022).

6

C. Xie

methodology of (im)politeness research, which can be complex and even controversial (cf. Landone, 2022). It is important to note that certain aspects of (im)politeness may not be fully captured through empirical methods, and there may be certain sensitive topics that are difficult or inappropriate to discuss openly. As such, it is crucial for researchers to approach (im)politeness research with sensitivity and care, while also acknowledging the limitations of empirical methods. If you agree with what has been mentioned above, then I must admit that when I am reflecting on (im)politeness, I sometimes delve into the unsayable aspects of the phenomenon. This is because I have observed that when I am speaking to myself, I feel a greater sense of freedom and a desire to express thoughts that I might not feel comfortable sharing in public. However, it is unfortunate that the realm of unsayable (im)politeness remains largely unexplored in current literature, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The next question may naturally be this: What is unsayable in (im)politeness research? This very question indeed raises several other inquiries, such as: Who or what is responsible for constraining or imprisoning the unsayable? What factors contribute to the unsayable being unsayable? Is the unsayable inherently dangerous, or does its danger arise from speaking about it? Are we permitted to speak about the unsayable, or should we heed Wittgenstein’s (1922: 189) admonition that “[w]hereof one cannot speak thereof one must besilent?”2 Additionally, how can we transform the unsayable into something that can be articulated? Rilke’s (2011: 115) words, “[w]ork of seeing is done, now do heart-work on the images in you,” come to mind at this moment. Although I am unfamiliar with the context in which Rilke expressed this thought-provoking sentiment (but see Prater, 1986: 248–250; Schweizer, 2023: 112–113), it resonates with the study of (im)politeness. Has the work of seeing (im)politeness been completed? To what extent can we claim to have seen(im)politeness? lf the work of seeing (im)politeness is finished, what have we observed? Can we articulate our observations without hesitation? What images of (im)politeness have we formed within ourselves? Why and how should we engage in heart-work on these images? Does this involve delving back into the inner world of (im)politeness? lf so, what does this inner world look like? How might the insights gained from heart-work differ from those achieved through paper-work or the work of the eyes? Will engaging in heart-work on the images of(im)politeness enable us to better understand ourselves, others, and the life-world around us? Here comes the second confession. Despite my interest in (im)politeness for over 20 years, I do not believe that I know a substantial amount about the topic. In fact, as I wrote several years ago, the more I contemplate politeness, the less I feel I truly comprehend it. lt seems that we all believe ourselves to be quite familiar with (im)politeness, to the point where we often take it for granted. In other words, it is because we are so familiar with (im)politeness that we don’t know much about it. This realization is not only painful, but also evident in many other areas of life. For instance, while politeness may theoretically benefit human beings, genuine politeness 2

According to Engelmann (1967: 97), “Wittgenstein passionately believes that all that really matters in human life is precisely what, in his view, we must be silent about.”

Introduction: Advancing (Im)politeness Studies?

7

may actually cause harm. Additionally, it appears that the practice of politeness is declining. Perhaps I can give you a small poem: The Decline of Politeness Some things are hard to predict, like the weather, so erratic. Bright sunshine may quickly fade away, replacing light with darkened gray. Rain may pour down, a sudden deluge, a natural force we can’t subdue. Walking down a narrow lane, I found myself in the pouring rain. A sleek Porsche raced by in a hurry, splashing puddles, in such a flurry. My white shirt had become stained, but the luxury car seemed unashamed. I stood there, lost in thought, pondering what this moment had brought. Some things are hard to predict, like the human heart, so complex and intricate. Yet a sudden rain can sometimes reveal, what’s hidden and kept under seal.

Now you may see why I say I don’t know much about politeness. In fact, perhaps partly because I don’t know much about politeness, I have, now and then, been deceived by it. Here comes a short story in the form of a poem: He Did See Her, but Failed to See Her Through By chance or by design, she caught his eye in this life-world so fine. She caught his eye and he was drawn, and soon they were chatting like old friends gone. She appeared to be polite and sincere, and he felt obliged to help her with her career and to guide. He introduced her to business trends and gave her advice on how to ascend. But little did he know, her intentions were not pure as snow. She played tricks on him, with seductive words and images that were anything but absurd. He failed to see through her veneer of politeness, and thus fell prey to her wickedness. She used his private messages to bring him down, and tarnished his reputation in the town. Looking back, he should have known that she was not what she had shown. Her politeness was only skin deep, and her true nature was hard to keep. She was bitter, sharp, and hostile, and her intentions were anything but docile.

8

C. Xie He should thank her for the lesson she taught, on how people’s true nature can be fraught. In this life-world so complex and crowded, it’s hard to know who’s sincere and who’s shrouded. But with lessons learned, he’ll be more aware, and not fall prey to others’ deceitful snares.

In fact, I often compare now with then: Then and Now In the past, life was simple, but hard, and we found happiness in our own backyard. Now, life is easy, with plenty to spare, yet we find ourselves in despair. We often wonder and complain, why is it that with full mouths, our minds remain vain? In the past, life was slow and sweet, with relationships that were lasting and neat. Now, life is fast and fleeting, and relationships are shallow and unyielding. We barely have time to lament, as we consume instant coffee and noodles, so convenient. In this fleeting world, nothing is permanent, and our hearts are left feeling empty and desolate. In the past, time and space kept us apart, but our hearts were close, never to part. Now, distances have shrunk, and we are near, yet our hearts are distant, filled with fear. We cannot help but cry out, why are our hearts so full of doubt? Why does the shortening of distances in time and space, fail to bring us closer, to a loving embrace? In the past, we were kind to one another, helping those in need, like a sister or a brother. Now, we are polite, yet indifferent to those in tribulation, in case a helping hand is hurt by a harmful heart’s sensation. We shake with fury and despair, wondering where our conscience has gone, where? When goodness is met with rudeness or even enmity, what happened to empathy and our sense of humanity? In the past, we eagerly sought out friends, believing in the benefits of connections till the end. Now, we find it hard to distinguish, true friends from those with ulterior motives, who astonish. We are shocked to realize, that friends can take pleasure in our demise. What we once trusted and believed, has been destroyed and left to grieve.

Introduction: Advancing (Im)politeness Studies?

9

Now, as we empathize with Shelly’s lamentation, “Friendship too rare!”, we choose deliberate alienation. We walk the path of seclusion, celebrating the value of solitude, a life of reflection. We cherish the tranquility and detachment, in a world that is overly connected and relentlessly intense.

To say the truth, I have even begun to hate politeness. And this is the third confession I want to make. Why do I hate politeness? I Hate Politeness I hate politeness. Why? It’s elusive. It’s beyond my grasp. Isn’t politeness something ordinary? Don’t buy it. The ordinary is often extraordinary. Isn’t politeness something trivial? Don’t buy it. The trivial is often essential. I hate politeness. Why? Some people are not polite; they are just being polite and I don’t know! Why are people just being polite? Because they have desires. Sometimes, politeness can be fake, a mask worn to fulfill desires, and that’s what makes my heart ache. Why is it hard to discern, when people are simply being polite? It’s because the human heart is a riddle, a puzzle that’s hard to get right.

Not only do I hate politeness, I also talk myself into embracing impoliteness: Where Are You Going, Mr. Polite? Where are you going, Mr. Polite? “To the land of impoliteness,” he said with might. “Politeness is a mystery to me,” he sighed. “I used to think it meant respect and care, a feeling of pride. But now I see it’s merely a guise, a mask for selfishness in disguise. People can be polite to get what they desire, but when they’ve got it, they’ll light the fire.

10

C. Xie They can speak kindly, but act with malice, leaving us wondering, where is the balance? Politeness can be a mere fallacy, an illusion so pretty. And that’s why I now seek a different conclusion, gritty. Politeness, once sunlight to my eyes, now harshness in disguise. It blinded me to the dark reality, that courtesy can be calamity. Now I fear the sunlight and its harsh rays, and seek refuge in the shelter of the dark, hidden ways. I’m not afraid of the dark, for I know its strength, to protect me from harm and any potential length. The dark night is a perfect shelter for me, a place where I can rest and be free. I’ll stay alert and vigilant in the darkness, watching out for any potential harshness. The dark night is not just a place of fear, it’s also a place where I learn to see things clear.”

I have no intention of commenting on the small poems above, as I prefer to defer any commentary to those who are interested. Now I would like to stop my confessions for the time being, but I want to point out that the above confessions indicate, partly at least, that (im)politeness seems to be in deep waters. This point can be understood in at least two senses. First, (im)politeness is not something easy to grasp as usually believed or normally perceived; (im)politeness seems to be something that wears various masks and that denies access to an adequate and accurate understanding. Second, although the current research on (im)politeness is vast and has revealed many intricacies and complexities, there is still much room for further exploration and rethinking. It seems that the iceberg of (im)politeness is vast and complex, and we must continue to dig deeper to fully understand it. Understanding the complex and intricate nature of (im)politeness presents a significant challenge. While this volume may offer some new insights, there is much more work to be done to advance our knowledge of this topic. This book represents only a small step in that direction, and numerous approaches can be taken to continue exploring (im)politeness. As the introduction suggests, we must propose and practice new ways of approaching (im)politeness to deepen our understanding of this phenomenon. It is clear that further research and exploration are necessary to fully comprehend the nuances of (im)politeness and its impact on human communication and human existence.

Introduction: Advancing (Im)politeness Studies?

11

References An American Gentleman. (1853). True politeness: A handbook of etiquette for gentlemen. Leavitt and Allen. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56–311). Cambridge University Press. Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. St. Jerome. Engelmann, P. (1967). Letters from Ludwig Wittgenstein: With a memoir, ed. by B. McGuinness. Basil Blackwell. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. Anchor Books. Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 9(1), 292–305. Landone, E. (2022). Methodology in politeness research. Springer. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman. Leech, G. N. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press. Prater, D. (1986). A ringing glass: The life of Rainer Maria Rilke. Clarendon Press. Rilke, R. M. (2011). Selected poems (S. Ranson & M. Sutherland, Trans.). Oxford University Press. Schweizer, H. (2023). Rilke’s hands: An essay on gentleness. Routledge. Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus (C. K. Ogden, Trans.). Routledge. Xie, C. (2020). (Im)politeness and moral order in online interactions. John Benjamins. Xie, C. (2021). Introduction: Approaching (im)politeness philosophically. In C. Xie (Ed.), The philosophy of (im)politeness (pp. 1–12). Springer. Xie, C. (2022). Doing (im)politeness with and beyond discourse pragmatics. Keynote speech delivered at the 1st international conference on discourse pragmatics, Zhejiang International Studies University, 21–23 October 2022.

Cultural (Im)politeness

Culture, Emotion, and (Im)politeness Evaluations Helen Spencer-Oatey

Abstract This chapter explores the interconnections of culture, emotion, and (im)politeness evaluations. Emotions have always been an integral facet of (im)politeness and yet they have often neither been incorporated fully into theory nor researched in detail. After an initial introduction, the chapter first addresses the notion of ‘emotion’ and argues that the concept is more complex than it might appear at first sight. It then explores the role of emotions in the evaluation process by considering three main aspects: (a) triggers of emotion, especially as they relate to concerns for face, goals, and rights and obligations; (b) the appraisal/evaluation process and the component steps; and (c) (re)actional tendencies. Throughout the chapter, authentic incidents are used to illustrate the points. Keywords Emotion · Culture · Evaluation · (Im)politeness · Face · Goals · Rights and obligations · Moral order · Social order

1 Introduction As Hernández López (2012: 117) points out, there is an intimate connection between emotions and speech, including with (im)politeness and the management of relations. In early politeness work, although much of the focus was on rational language choice, emotions were also an integral (albeit downplayed) element. For example, Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) posit a ‘model person’ with two key properties: rationality and face. In discussing threats to face, they mention a number of emotions that people may experience when their face is threatened, such as fear, anger, hatred, and embarrassment. They also refer to emotional leakage, which they treat not just as a consequence to face threat but also as damaging to face in itself (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 66–68). Goffman (1967: 6) is even more explicit about the link between face and emotion, arguing as follows: H. Spencer-Oatey (B) Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Xie (ed.), Advancing (Im)politeness Studies, Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37064-9_2

15

16

H. Spencer-Oatey A person tends to experience an immediate emotional response to the face which a contact with others allows him; he cathects his face; his “feelings” become attached to it. If the encounter sustains an image of him that he has long taken for granted, he probably will have few feelings about the matter. If events have established a face for him that is better than he might have expected, he is likely to “feel good”; if his ordinary expectations are not fulfilled, one expects that he will “feel bad” or “feel hurt.”

More recently, and especially with the increased interest in relational matters, emotion has been referred to even more explicitly. For example, Spencer-Oatey (2005: 116) included emotional reactions in her diagrammatic representation of the dynamic perceptions of rapport, listing joy (contentment/pleasure; pride), surprise, anger (irritation/annoyance, frustration, and disgust), and sadness (disappointment, shame, and embarrassment). Other studies (e.g., Chang & Haugh, 2011; Culpeper, 2011; Hernández López, 2012; Spencer-Oatey, 2011) have explored emotion and (im)politeness in interaction. Nevertheless, little or no attention has been given to the focus of this chapter: how culture may impact emotion and (im)politeness, especially in terms of the evaluation process. I start by considering the nature of emotion.

2 Conceptualising Emotion Superficially, one might think that everyone knows what is meant by the term ‘emotion’. Yet as the following definitions illustrate, the interpretation of the term is actually very complex. … emotions are complex states of the organism involving feelings, behaviour, impulses, physiological changes and efforts at control, … (Plutchik, 1994: 139) The English word emotion combines in its meaning a reference to “feeling”, a reference to “thinking”, and a reference to a person’s body. (Wierzbicka, 1999: 2) Emotions are thoughts somehow ‘felt’ in flushes, pulses, ‘movements’ of our livers, minds, hearts, stomachs, skin. They are embodied thoughts, thoughts seeped with the apprehension that ‘I am involved’. (Rosaldo, 1984: 143) The general concept of “emotion” forms a category that does not have a similar meaning across cultures and does not even seem to exist in all languages. The fact that not every language contains a term that refers to the same range of phenomena, or is characterized by the same features as the English-language “emotion”, may lead us to question the universality of the phenomena that such a concept picks out […]. Alternatively it might be argued that emotions themselves are universal but that different languages encode them in very different ways and to very different degree. (Parkinson et al., 2005: 31) I will be using it [= emotion] as an abbreviation for, roughly speaking, “feelings based on thoughts.” […] But while “feeling” cannot be defined, “ordinary people” generally assume that the way one feels can be described and that one can tell other people how one feels. (Wierzbicka, 1999: 12–13)

Two key features emerge from the various definitional interpretations: the concept of ‘feelings’, and the close interconnection between ‘feelings’, ‘thinking’, our own

Culture, Emotion, and (Im)politeness Evaluations

17

Table 1 Shaver et al.’s (1987) classification of emotions Love

Joy

(Surprise)

Anger

Sadness

Fear

Affection Fondness Liking Tenderness Compassion

Cheerfulness Happiness Excitement Contentment Pride

(Astonishment) (Amazement)

Irritation Exasperation Rage Disgust Envy

Suffering Sorrow Disappointment Shame Embarrassment

Horror Anxiety Nervousness Worry Dread

behaviour and the behaviour of others. In this chapter, we regard emotion primarily as ‘feelings’, but consider how it relates to the other elements. According to Shaver et al. (1987), emotions can be classified into five (or possibly six) broad categories, as illustrated in Table 1. This range of emotions or feelings can be divided into two broad categories: positive emotions (love and joy) and negative emotions (anger, sadness, and fear), with ‘surprise’ (which some people do not classify as a ‘true’ emotion) coming somewhere in between. In terms of emotion as a broader concept that entails thinking and behaviour as well as feelings, Parkinson et al., (2005: 4) identify six important aspects: 1. Emotional triggers: Emotions are related to issues that occur in the world, and we need to understand how those issues trigger emotional reactions. 2. Appraisal: We evaluate the events that happen, often appraising them as positive or negative. 3. Physiological change: Strong emotions cause physiological changes in our bodies. 4. Action tendencies: When we experience emotions, we may feel strong impulses to behave in certain ways (e.g., to retaliate or to run away). 5. Expression or display: Particular emotions are associated with certain muscular movements (e.g., smiling or frowning). 6. Regulation: We may try to influence any of the above, such as changing our appraisal of events or controlling how much emotion we display. I use a number of these points as an organising principle for this chapter, thinking particularly of how they may be affected by cultural factors. I start with their first point: emotional triggers.

3 Emotional Triggers Spencer-Oatey (2008) proposes that rapport is affected by three key interrelated factors: face, sociality rights and obligations, and interactional goals. She explains them as follows:

18

H. Spencer-Oatey Face: It is concerned with people’s sense of worth, dignity and identity, and is associated with issues such as respect, honour, status, reputation, and competence. People have a fundamental desire for others to evaluate them positively and NOT to evaluate them negatively. When others fail to do this, it can cause upset and disturb rapport. Goals: People often (although not always) have specific goals when they interact with others. These can be relational as well as transactional (i.e. task-focused) in nature. These ‘wants’ can significantly affect their perceptions of rapport because any failure to achieve them can cause frustration and annoyance and hence disturb rapport. Rights and obligations: People regard themselves as having a range of sociality rights and obligations in relation to other people. People develop behavioural expectations in relation to their perceived sociality rights and obligations, and if these are not fulfilled, interpersonal rapport can be negatively affected. Based on Spencer-Oatey (2008: 14, 15, 17)

In this section, I consider how expectancy breaches to each of these can trigger emotional reactions, as well as an evaluation process, often revealed in metapragmatic comments. I use a number of authentic incidents to illustrate the points.

3.1 Triggers from Face Sensitivities First, I consider triggers that arise from face sensitivities—incidents that challenge or enhance in some way our sense of dignity, competence, or reputation (or similar), and that have emotions associated with them. Example 1 was reported by a British university undergraduate student who was on a work placement in France as part of her degree programme. Example 1: Misinterpretation of the context I was on a break with one of the managers in my team, um, and the staff from the agency happened to come along at this moment. We ended up meeting upstairs but had taken different lifts. I thought one of the guys from the agency was leaving so I just leaned in [to the other lift] for a kiss but no, he was just trying to hold the door for me. So, so yeh, that was really embarrassing, and they were like, “don’t worry, she’s English”. (Spencer-Oatey, unpublished research data)

Here, we can note two things: the British student had misinterpreted the situation (she thought the man from the agency was leaving when he was not) and she had probably overgeneralised the stereotypically French practice of kissing on the cheek for greetings and farewells. So, in front of others, she leaned over inappropriately for a kiss and, as a result, felt very embarrassed when her mistake became apparent. This embarrassment resulted from her sense that she had ‘made a fool of herself’ in front of her work colleagues, which could be argued was a face loss for her. In this case, the student felt embarrassed. Sometimes, other emotions may be felt, as illustrated in Example 2. This example took place in a master’s level class in a British university and concerns an interaction among a group of students.

Culture, Emotion, and (Im)politeness Evaluations

19

Example 2: Criticism by another student Setting: A group discussion during a university seminar. There were four group members, one British, two Russians and one Chinese. The teacher asked us to discuss in groups. As we were sitting together, we spontaneously formed a group. When we started to discuss, the other three were actively discussing with each other. As the topic was hard for me, I either remained silent or offered some supportive comments. However, the British student suddenly turned to me and said seriously ‘use your brain, say something’. I was very annoyed and felt face-threatened, as such a comment is super-impolite in my perception. Meanwhile, the other two felt the awkwardness as well, and they said to the British student, ‘Oh don’t do that’. However, he continued to pose questions to me, I chose to ignore him, and he seemed quite unsatisfied with my reaction. (Spencer-Oatey, unpublished research data)

Here, we see that the Chinese student was very annoyed by the British student’s behaviour and felt face-threatened by it. In both Examples 1 and 2, there was perceived to be a problem with the agent’s behaviour (misjudgement of the context in Example 1, and failure to participate actively in Example 2), and in both cases this face-threat triggered an emotional reaction: embarrassment in the first example and annoyance in the second. In the second example, the agent’s behaviour was commented on by another person (the British student) and explicitly criticised. Of course, this naturally results in face threat and triggers emotional reactions. Miller (1992: 190) points out that if a person is “blissfully unaware of a social transgression”, s/he is unlikely to feel embarrassed. This is particularly pertinent for intercultural interactions as people may have different expectations which may affect their evaluations of behaviour. In fact, this can work from two angles: people may be unaware of the unacceptability of a particular behaviour in other people’s eyes and hence not feel any embarrassment, or else people may feel embarrassed by a certain thing even though others may not regard it as problematic. The following example, Example 3, illustrates both angles. It describes an incident that took place in the USA during an official Chinese delegation visit. It took place in a question and answer session after an American presentation. Example 3: Embarrassment and awareness in a business meeting Background: A Chinese ministerial delegation was visiting the USA and this ‘incident’ occurred immediately after a presentation given by an American speaker. During the question and answer session, the Chinese delegates started discussing her responses and became so loud that the interpreter (who was Chinese but recruited by the Americans) had difficulty continuing. The interpreter needed to raise her voice in getting them to be quiet. This occurred more than once. At the end of the meeting, the interpreter thanked the speaker for her wonderful presentation and then explained to her that the reason why the delegates were talking so loudly was because they were so interested in what she was saying. Privately afterwards, members of the Chinese delegation and the American speaker each commented on the incident, with the Chinese blaming the interpreter and the American praising her.

20

H. Spencer-Oatey Head of Chinese delegation: She [the interpreter] also explained to the Americans in the end, which was pointless. She seemed condescending by doing that. […] This may embarrass her and us and may affect our guanxi with the American side. American speaker: I did feel slightly uncomfortable when the group began talking, rather loudly and in an animated manner, after some of my answers. It was explained to me that this was not meant as disrespectful so I was fine with it. I think it was just a situation where cultural norms may be different in China versus in the U.S. […] I take it as a compliment, now that I know, that my comments sparked debate and conversation amongst them and am not offended at all. I think the job the interpreter I worked with was ideal. (Spencer-Oatey & Wang, 2019)

In this interaction, the American speaker felt uncomfortable because she did not understand why the audience was talking so loudly. For the Chinese, though, their animated discussion was perfectly acceptable, and they did not anticipate that the speaker would be uncomfortable with it. When the interpreter explained to the American that the audience was very interested in what she had said, she no longer felt uncomfortable; on the contrary, she regarded it as a compliment and probably felt pleased with their spirited reaction. In contrast, the head of the delegation was displeased with the interpreter’s explanation to the American speaker and regarded it as embarrassing both for his delegation as well as for the American speaker. In other words, the head of the delegation felt the interpreter’s explanation was problematic and potentially embarrassment-inducing, while the American speaker found it very helpful. So here we can see how different expectations triggered different emotional reactions. This example also hints at the other side of the coin to face-threat and embarrassment: pride, pleasure, or satisfaction (in other words, the ‘joy’ cluster in the terms of Shaver et al., 1987).

3.2 Triggers from Goal Desires The examples so far have all related primarily to image or face issues, and associated emotions (especially embarrassment, and also annoyance). However, as SpencerOatey (2008) argues, interactional goals are also closely associated with rapport and emotions. In support of this, Spencer-Oatey (2011), who explores the metapragmatic emotion comments of people engaged in a Sino-British set of collaborative projects, reports that the achievement of project-related tasks and goals was a major source of emotional volatility. When tasks/goals were achieved, positive emotions were mentioned, and when hindrances occurred, negative emotions were reported. The latter reflected all three negative prototype clusters—anger, sadness, and fear. She argues that this makes it clear that “goals need to be included in any model of motivational concerns underlying the smooth management of relations” (SpencerOatey, 2011: 3575).

Culture, Emotion, and (Im)politeness Evaluations

21

Example 4, which concerns an American sales team working for a Japanese subsidiary, also illustrates this (Clarke & Lipp, 1998). The American sales team was very happy because they had surpassed the sales goals set by their Japanese leaders. A formal dinner was arranged during their annual sales conference (to which they could invite their spouses) and they were feeling very excited, expecting their superiors (Japanese as well as American) to be pleased with their achievement and to congratulate them at the formal dinner. However, this did not happen and everyone had strong emotional reactions. Example 4: Goal achievement and emotions Background: The sales staff of a Japanese subsidiary in the USA had surpassed the goals set for them. In order to mark their achievement, their annual sales conference was arranged in a well-known resort (spouses were invited) and there was a formal dinner on the first night to kick the event off. The following people were to speak at this dinner: American director of sales, Japanese president of the subsidiary, Japanese vice-president for sales. The Americans were very excited, looking forward to celebrating their accomplishments. After a brief welcome from the Japanese president, the Japanese Vice-President for sales stood up to speak. What he said and what happened subsequently are reported below. Japanese Vice-President: “Thank you for your hard work this fiscal year. […] You have done a good job but do not allow yourselves to celebrate. We have no time for that. You must prepare yourselves to work even hard this year. […] I hope you do a better job in the new fiscal year.” The American audience sat in stunned silence during most of the vice-president’s speech. Near the end, they began whispering among themselves and shifting around uncomfortably. As soon as the vice-president sat down, the American director of sales stood up to speak. American Director of Sales: “Disregard everything he just said. We are here to celebrate your fantastic achievements this year, so give yourselves a good hand. [Everyone applauded.] Enjoy your dinner everyone!” Afterwards, they each commented as follows: American Director of Sales: “The whole point of [of the event] was to celebrate our accomplishments. It was unthinkable that the Japanese would stand up and tell us not to celebrate. Give me a break! I couldn’t just sit there and watch him turn the whole conference sour, so I did what I could to salvage the situation. […] Even then, I don’t think it worked. In spite of my attempt at damage control, the mood during the rest of the conference was ruined.” Japanese Vice-President: “I was successfully communicating to the Americans, and my words were motivating them—in fact some of them started voicing their agreement near the end of my speech. Then I was rudely and disrespectfully treated by my American subordinate, who told them to disregard what I had said. I felt directly contradicted by what he did—it was total insubordination! I just do not understand his behaviour. I am still shocked by it. I was so upset that I had to speak to the president about it. […] The president said it was outrageous. (Clarke & Lipp, 1998: 232–235)

22

H. Spencer-Oatey

As Example 4 reports, the American sales team were shocked when, instead of being congratulated on achieving their goals, they were told to work harder. The comment that they began “shifting around uncomfortably” suggests that they were also nervous and confused. Then, when the American director of sales intervened, emotions ran even higher among everyone: shock, disappointment, discomfort, and outrage (Shaver et al.’s, 1987, emotion clusters of surprise, sadness, fear, and anger). These reactions also relate to the third main factor to affect rapport, sociality rights and obligations, which I consider next.

3.3 Triggers from Beliefs About Rights and Obligations Spencer-Oatey (2008) proposes that two fundamental beliefs underlie our sense of rights and obligation: equity (the right to be treated fairly and for cost/benefits to be kept roughly in balance) and association (the right for a level of involvement with others that is in keeping with the nature of the relationship). It is likely that the American sales team felt (albeit probably subconsciously) that they were ‘owed’ praise because of their achievement (i.e., an equity right, based on the principle of reciprocity). Similarly, it is likely that the Japanese vice-president felt that he was ‘owed’ respect and support from his subordinate, especially in front of so many people (i.e., an association right, based on the hierarchical nature of their role relationship). All involved experienced negative emotions because of the breach of their various sociality rights. Example 5 provides a further example with respect to equity rights. It concerns a British academic who was asked by another department to take on the doctoral supervision of a student whom, for staffing reasons, they were unable to continue to provide supervision for. Example 5: Fair terms and conditions British academic: Another department asked me if I could take on the main supervision of a doctoral student. A fee would be transferred to my department and I was told that it would be £500 per annum. I felt very annoyed by this as it was less than 5% of the tuition fee that the other department was charging the student. I felt it was a very unfair and exploitative proposition and decided to refuse to do it unless they made a dramatically improved offer. (Spencer-Oatey, unpublished research data.)

The academic was very annoyed by the fee offered, since it was so low relative to the tuition fee in that department. The fee was to go to her department, not to her personally, so it was not a matter of personal gain or loss. Rather she felt the offer was very unfair—that she (and her department) had the right to be treated in a just and equitable manner. On other occasions, it may be people’s association rights that are threatened, as Example 6 illustrates. This incident was related to a student from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and describes an interaction among a group of Chinese students who were chatting together.

Culture, Emotion, and (Im)politeness Evaluations

23

Example 6: Are you one of us? PRC student: We (a group of students) were chatting the other day. I asked a girl who was strange to me, “Where are you from?” She answered, “Hong Kong”. I said, “Oh, I’m a Chinese as well”. She responded immediately, “No, I’m not a Chinese. I’m a Hong Kong-er and I wish Britain could take back Hong Kong.” Having heard that, I was very angry, but I didn’t say anything. I was angry because as a Chinese, she showed so little filial devotion that she even forgot her Mother (Motherland). (Spencer-Oatey, research data, reported in Spencer-Oatey, 2002: 538)

In this example, the PRC student believed that the student from Hong Kong should identify as Chinese and was very annoyed when she did not. In other words, she perceived a breach in their association rights and this made her feel very angry. Spencer-Oatey (2008) points out that people’s sense of rights and obligations can derive from several sources, including beliefs about role responsibilities, social conventions and protocols, and contractual or legal requirements. Example 7 illustrates the latter. It describes a newspaper report on what happened to a group of young British and Canadian tourists when they climbed a sacred mountain in Malaysia and dared each other to strip naked at the top. Example 7: Inappropriate behaviour on a sacred mountain In 2015 four British and Canadian tourists were arrested and fined for stripping naked on a mountain in Malaysia. The guide who was with them had advised them not to do so. The prosecution argued that, according to Malaysian law, anyone committing an “obscene act” which causes annoyance in a public place should be jailed for up to three months. He claimed that many Malaysians had been outraged by the group’s behaviour and that the case was about “upholding the [country’s] morals and customs”.1

In this example, we once again see that people were annoyed by a breach of their sociality rights and obligations—in this case, the failure of the tourists to fulfil their obligation of behaving in a morally upright manner in a public place.

4 Appraisal of Events Implicit within all the discussion in the previous section is the notion of appraisal. People make judgements of situations and of the behaviour/comments of themselves and/or others, evaluating them as good or bad, polite or rude, appropriate or inappropriate, and so on. These appraisals very often have emotions associated with them, as the examples above indicate. Here I consider the appraisal process. Although it can take place almost instantaneously, in fact it comprises a number of elements, and people may reflect afterwards on one or more of those elements. Building on the work of Spencer-Oatey and Xing (2019) and Spencer-Oatey and Kádár (2021), Spencer-Oatey (2022, pp. 196–197) proposes that the evaluation process entails four key elements: 1

See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-33105999 (accessed 21 October 2019).

24

H. Spencer-Oatey

1. Assessment of the ‘normalcy’ of the behaviour for the given context. If it is unexpected, then … 2. Evaluation of the behaviour and the agent, drawing on the evaluation warrant which comprises . Interpersonal concerns: face + goals + rights and obligations . Socio-moral order(s) 3. Judgement of appropriateness (offensive—complimentary) of behaviour and agent 4. Impact on interpersonal rapport.

4.1 Assessment of Normalcy People’s judgements of normalcy are closely linked to the situational context in which the behaviour takes place. This is because over time, through socialisation and personal experiences of interacting in many different contexts, they build up schematic-type knowledge of those situations, such as what the key roles are and the typical procedures for carrying out the event. This background knowledge—often conceptualised as cultural schemas and cultural norms—gives rise to expectations as to what is or is not likely to happen, and people often link this with beliefs about what should or should not happen. People bring their socialisation/experience-based expectations into any communicative activity, and it is these expectations that give rise to evaluative moments. If a form of behaviour is completely expected, it will fall below the evaluation trigger threshold and so will typically not even be noticed. If it is perceived to be a deviation, but only a minor one, it will typically be ignored, and the evaluation process stops here on this occasion. In other words, these instances of behaviour that a participant regards as not deviating or only deviating to a minor degree from their expectations remain below the evaluation trigger threshold and are probably barely noticed. When the divergence from expectations is greater and exceeds a person’s subjective trigger threshold (i.e., it is marked in some way), this is when the (im)politeness evaluation process truly gets started. It is important to note that the trigger threshold can be exceeded in both positive and negative senses. In the examples presented in the previous section, expectations were breached as follows: . Example 1: The British girl unexpectedly reached out for a kiss, when this is usually only done during farewells. . Example 2: The Chinese girl was unexpectedly sharply criticised in front of others by the British group member, when criticism, especially in public, is not usual. . Example 3: The American speaker did not expect the audience to talk so loudly among themselves after answering one of their questions; she was uncertain what was happening. The Chinese delegation did not expect the interpreter to tell them sharply to be quiet, nor to explain to the American speaker why she had done so.

Culture, Emotion, and (Im)politeness Evaluations

25

. Example 4: The Japanese Vice-President did not expect the American Director of Sales to contradict him in public, while the American Director of Sales did not expect the Japanese Vice-president to tell the American sales staff they should work hard rather than simply congratulate them. . Example 5: The British academic did not expect the other department to offer such a small sum of money for the work involved. . Example 6: The PRC student did not expect the Hong Kong student to deny she was Chinese. . Example 7: The local Malaysian authorities did not expect the Western tourists to strip naked on a sacred mountain. All these breaches of expectations were sufficiently noticeable that the evaluation process was triggered.

4.2 Evaluation of Behaviour and Agent This triggering of the evaluation process often results in a dual evaluation: assessment of the behaviour itself and assessment of the person carrying out the behaviour. There seem to be two elements to this: an emotional response and a justification process. In the opinion of many psychologists, including proponents of the Moral Foundations Theory (e.g., Haidt & Kesibir, 2010; Graham et al., 2018; see also below), it is the intuitive (including emotional) reactions that occur first, and the justification is more of a post hoc process. Graham et al., (2018: 212) explain this immediate, intuitive reaction as follows: These judgments are associative, automatic, relatively effortless, and rapid, and they rely on heuristic processing; they occur by processes that many researchers call “System 1” thinking (Kahneman, 2011).

However, these rapid intuitive reactions are typically accompanied by justificatory rationales. Kádár and Haugh (2013) propose that this involves (implicit) appeals to a moral order, and yet they do not unpack this further. As Spencer-Oatey and Xing (2019) and Spencer-Oatey and Kádár (2021) argue, helpful insights into the concept of the moral order can be gained by looking at work in moral psychology, including the work of Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues (e.g., Graham et al., 2011; Haidt & Graham, 2007; Haidt & Kesebir, 2010). Haidt proposes that there are five universal foundations to morality: ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, and purity/sanctity. Table 2 gives a brief explanation of each of these categories. How then do these foundations affect (im)politeness evaluations in intercultural interaction? If we look back at the examples given in the previous main section, it is possible to map many of them against Haidt’s moral foundations, as shown in Table 3.

26

H. Spencer-Oatey

Table 2 Moral foundations according to Haidt and colleagues (e.g., Graham et al., 2018) Moral foundation

Explanation

Care–harm

Concerns for the suffering of others, including virtues of caring and compassion

Authority–subversion

Concerns related to social order and the obligations of hierarchical relationships, such as obedience, respect, and the fulfilment of role-based duties

Fairness–cheating

Concerns about unfair treatment, cheating, and more abstract notions of justice and rights

Loyalty–betrayal

Concerns related to obligations of group membership, such as loyalty, self-sacrifice, and vigilance against betrayal

Purity–degradation

Concerns about physical and spiritual contagion, including virtues of chastity, wholesomeness, and control of desires

Table 3 Mapping of Examples 1–7 (see previous main section) against the moral foundations of moral foundations theory Moral foundation

Example Comment

Care–harm

2 3

The Chinese student felt that the British student’s explicit criticism of her showed no care or consideration towards her The American speaker appreciated the explanation given by the interpreter because it showed consideration, helping reduce the confusion she felt at the delegates’ unexpected behaviour

Authority–subversion 4 3

The Japanese Vice-President was shocked and upset because he felt he had been disrespected by the American Director of Sales and that his authority had been challenged or undermined The Chinese delegation felt that the interpreter’s behaviour was disrespectful towards them and undermined their position

Fairness–cheating

5

The British academic felt the uneven distribution of the student fee was unfair and so refused to take on the work unless a more equitable fee was agreed

Loyalty–betrayal

6

The PRC student was angry because the Hong Kong student did not show any loyalty towards Mainland China

Purity–degradation

7

The local Malaysians were annoyed and upset because they felt the behaviour of the tourists was obscene, and particularly unacceptable on a sacred mountain

In all these examples, Examples 2–7, the type of moral foundation helps explain the source of people’s evaluations, adding some richness to our understanding of the bases of their judgements. Haidt and Graham (2007) argue that people may attach differential importance to the various moral foundations, for example, according to their political persuasions. I would argue that the same is true for people from different cultural backgrounds. Cultural differences can impact in several ways, including

Culture, Emotion, and (Im)politeness Evaluations

27

. Differing interpretations of the context . Differing contextual expectations . Differing importance of underlying moral foundations. For instance, in Example 1, the British student misinterpreted the context. She thought a particular person was leaving, when in fact he was not. This is probably not a specific cultural difference, but rather a reflection of a more general unfamiliarity with the whole workplace context and who is who. In Example 3, the American speaker was not expecting the audience to talk so loudly and for so long among themselves, while the Chinese delegation did not seem to find that unusual; they themselves, though, were not expecting the interpreter to tell them so blatantly to be quiet and to explain afterwards to the American speaker what was happening, whereas to the American speaker this was helpful. In this, the interpreter was focusing on her goal achievement and her responsibilities as an interpreter (if she had not told the delegation to be quiet, she could not have heard the next question and thereby fulfill her role as interpreter), whereas the delegation were concerned about face and attached particular importance to the moral foundation of authority (for more details of this incident, see Spencer-Oatey & Wang, 2019: 433). In Example 4, the Japanese Vice-President was not expecting to be contradicted so blatantly in front of all the staff, whereas the American Director of Sales attached greater importance to the reaction of the sales team and less to the Vice-President’s face and senior position. In Example 6, the PRC student attached particular importance to the moral foundation of loyalty, whereas the Hong Kong student disputed the fundamental interpretation of the context—that they both have Chinese nationality. In Example 7, the local Malaysians attached great importance to the moral foundation of purity, while the tourists seemed to attach no importance to this at all. As these various examples show, cultural differences emerged at different stages of the appraisal process, with different participants often paying attention to and attributing differential importance to different elements. It is also possible (although it cannot be confirmed from these examples alone) that in contexts where people attach particular importance to one or more of the moral foundations (e.g., authority/respect in contexts where high power distance values prevail, or purity/sanctity among people with certain religious beliefs), their evaluative judgements and emotional reactions are likely to be stronger than those made by people who attach a lower degree of importance to that foundation. Readers may have noticed that in Table 3, Example 1 was not mapped against any of the moral foundations. They may also have noticed the term socio-moral order(s). In both moral psychology and interpersonal pragmatics, the social order and moral order are often distinguished. For instance, in moral psychology, a distinction is widely made between social proscriptions/prescriptions and moral proscriptions/ prescriptions (e.g., Huebner et al., 2010; Turiel, 1983). Similarly, some pragmaticists (e.g., Culpeper, 2011) have distinguished between ‘social oughts’ and ‘moral oughts’. The basic idea is that some behavioural patterns seem to be just a matter of

28

H. Spencer-Oatey

convention—they are local protocols and simply facilitate social interaction through a shared understanding of group etiquette. There does not seem to be a strong moral underpinning to them. These are known as social rules or ‘social oughts’. In contrast, moral rules seem to proscribe behaviour that is more wrong and more punishable, with the wrongness being more authority-independent. So, for example, if a person disagrees with someone else’s opinion and interrupts them to express their viewpoint, most adults would interpret this as less ‘bad’ than someone physically hitting the other person. Turn-taking patterns would be regarded as a social rule or social convention while avoiding physical or emotional harm to others would be regarded as a moral rule. It would seem that the British student’s ‘social mistake’ in Example 1 was a matter of social convention rather than a breach of a moral foundation, and hence is not included in Table 3. However, a number of other theorists (e.g., Huebner et al., 2010) regard there to be a continuum between social orders and moral orders; hence the term sociomoral order(s). Breaches on all parts of the spectrum can affect interpersonal relations and the stronger people feel about the socio-moral issue at stake, the stronger their emotions are likely to be at a breach. Moreover, there is likely to be greater cultural variation towards the social end of the spectrum and so acquiring intercultural competence in upholding social order is likely to be particularly challenging.

4.3 Judgement of Appropriateness and the Impact on Rapport Steps three and four of the evaluation process account for the judgements that people make and the impact that these judgements have on interpersonal rapport. Such judgements can be positive or negative and hence enhance rapport or undermine it. Even though it is a person’s behaviour that triggers the evaluation process, people’s emotional reactions are frequently aimed primarily at the person responsible, and for this reason it then can have a significant impact on their relations. Somewhat surprisingly, within politeness theory, the target of people’s evaluation is rarely mentioned explicitly. For instance, even though Eelen (2001: 109) argues that “the very essence of (im)politeness lies in the evaluative moment”, he does not discuss what, or who, is being evaluated. Similarly, Locher and Watts (2005) do not discuss the target explicitly and in their conceptualisation of ‘relational work’, they apply their judgement labels of impolite, over-polite, non-politic, and inappropriate to behaviour alone. Haugh (2013: 53) likewise focuses on ‘interactional practices’, arguing that we need to pay careful attention to these if we are to explore the grounds or warrants of (im)politeness evaluations. The same is true of Kádár and MárquezReiter (2015) who, in their exploration of bystander interventions, understandably focus on the evaluations of the wrongdoers’ actions, even though their data show (e.g., Kádár & Márquez-Reiter, 2015: 251, their example 3) not only bystander evaluations of the behaviour but also evaluative comments of the wrongdoers themselves. In contrast, a few people have started making an explicit distinction between the evaluation of behaviour and the evaluation of the performer of that behaviour, including

Culture, Emotion, and (Im)politeness Evaluations

29

Davies (2018) and Spencer-Oatey and Xing (2019) (see also Spencer-Oatey & Kádár, 2021). This distinction is important because if people automatically attribute their judgement to the agent, this can have very important consequences for the degree of rapport between the participants concerned, enhancing it or undermining it. When the judgement is positive, it is likely to enhance interpersonal relations. When the judgement is negative, it is likely to have a negative impact on interpersonal relations, undermining rapport, unless other steps are taken (such as an apology) to mitigate it. This brings us to the third main facet of the nexus of emotion, thinking, and behaviour: people’s (re)action tendencies.

5 (Re)Action Tendencies When people make a judgement about another person and their behaviour, a key issue is what happens next. When someone is at fault and they acknowledge it, they may feel guilty and then apologise. On the other hand, if they disagree that they are at fault, or if they believe the other person is wrong, they have to decide what to do next; for instance, whether to challenge the other person, say nothing, or use some other strategy. (For more details on this, see Spencer-Oatey & Kádár, 2021.) However, from an intercultural (im)politeness perspective and in terms of the management of relations, there is another angle that needs considering. As has been explained above, the judgements that people make, and the reasons for them, can be influenced by cultural differences. So, if people are not to build inappropriate, negative stereotypes about the other person and/or members of his/her social group, it is important to help them separate interpretations and judgements of behaviour from interpretations and judgements of people. This entails talking through the following: . . . . .

The facts of what happened (separating ‘facts’ from ‘interpretations’); How the participant(s) felt and why; Underlying assumptions that gave rise to participants’ particular expectations; The differing interpretations and evaluations that could be given to the same event; Re-evaluations of the initial judgements.

In other words, this process attempts to make people more aware of possible differences in the respective norms they hold, along with the expectations that are associated with them. The process also helps them think through relevant elements of their evaluation warrants—such as their interpersonal sensitivities (e.g., face, or rights and obligations) and their beliefs about right and wrong (i.e., their social and moral orders) that form the foundations of the evaluation warrant. In fact, it is not as easy to separate facts from judgements as it might seem, let alone think through the other elements. In our experience, it can be particularly helpful to work with a peer (preferably from a different cultural background) in thinking and talking through the above issues, as this can help people gain different perspectives. Intercultural trainers often use specific tools to help with this; one such tool is the

30

H. Spencer-Oatey

3R Review tool (Spencer-Oatey et al., 2022). This provides prompts to help students think through incidents in three stages: reporting what happened, reflecting on what happened, and re-evaluating what happened. People from a range of backgrounds have found this approach, or something similar, extremely helpful for promoting positive intercultural relations.

6 Concluding Comments In this chapter, I have explored the complex nexus of culture, emotions, and (im)politeness evaluations, and demonstrated their close interconnections. However, there are several important issues that still need addressing. For instance, there is a need for a much clearer theorisation of the place and role of emotions in (im)politeness evaluations. For instance, are certain emotions more frequently associated with certain types of evaluation triggers? How far do emotions influence people’s reactive responses, and how far do cultural factors play a role in their expression? There is a certain amount of research in psychology on these issues (e.g., Matsumoto, 1990; Matsumoto et al., 2002), but not so much from a pragmatics perspective. In line with the approach taken in this chapter, I encourage more interdisciplinary work, so that by combining the strengths and insights of scholars working from different angles, our understanding of intercultural relations, which is so important for our globalising world, can be enhanced even further.

References Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomenon. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–311). Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Chang, W.-L.M., & Haugh, M. (2011). Strategic embarrassment and face threatening in business interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2948–2963. Clarke, C. H., & Lipp, G. D. (1998). Danger and opportunity. resolving conflict in U.S.-based Japanese subsidiaries. Intercultural Press. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness. Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press. Davies, B. L. (2018). Evaluating evaluations: What different types of metapragmatic behaviour can tell us about participants’ understandings of the moral order. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 121–151. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2017-0037 Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. St Jerome. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. Anchor Books. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385. Graham, J., Haidt, J., Motyl, M., Meindl, P., Iskiwitch, C., & Mooijman, M. (2018). Moral foundations theory. In K. Gray, & J. Graham (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 211–222). The Guilford Press.

Culture, Emotion, and (Im)politeness Evaluations

31

Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11211-11007-10034-z Haidt, J., & Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 797–852). John Wiley. Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.1007.1003 Hernández López, M. (2012). When health matters: The display of emotions as relational practice in genre-based cross-cultural contexts. ES. Revista De Filologia Inglesa, 33, 115–141. Huebner, B., Lee, J. J., & Hauser, M. D. (2010). The moral-conventional distinction in mature moral competence. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853710 X156497149 Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press. Kádár, D. Z., & Márquez-Reiter, R. (2015). (Im)politeness and (im)morality: Insights from intervention. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-20150010 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin Books. Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33. Matsumoto, D. (1990). Cultural similarities and differences in display rules. Motivation and Emotion, 17(3), 195–214. Matsumoto, D., Consolacion, T., Yamada, H., Suzuki, R., Franklin, B., Paul, S., & Uchida, H. (2002). American-Japanese cultural differences in judgements of emotional expressions of different intensities. Cognition and Emotion, 16(6), 721–747. Miller, R. S. (1992). The nature and severity of self-reported embarrassing circumstances. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(2), 190–198. Parkinson, B., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2005). Emotion in social relations. Cultural, group, and interpersonal processes. Psychology Press. Plutchik, R. (1994). The psychology and biology of emotion. Harper Collins College Publishers. Rosaldo, M. Z. (1984). Towards an anthropology of self and feeling. In R. A. Shweder, & R. A. Levine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self and emotion (pp. 135–137). Cambridge University Press. Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1061–1086. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 529–545. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 95–119. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (2nd ed., pp. 11–47). Continuum. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2011). Conceptualising the ‘relational’ in pragmatics: Insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im)politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3565–3578. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2022). Intercultural competence and harmonious intercultural relations: Interdisciplinary perspectives and insights. In X. Dai, & G.-M. Chen (Eds.), Conflict management and intercultural communication: The art of intercultural harmony (2nd ed., pp. 192–208). Routledge. Spencer-Oatey, H., & Kádár, D. Z. (2021). Intercultural politeness: Managing relations across cultures. Cambridge University Press. Spencer-Oatey, H., & Wang, J. (2019). Culture, context, and concerns about face: Synergistic insights from pragmatics and social psychology. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(4), 423–440.

32

H. Spencer-Oatey

Spencer-Oatey, H., & Xing, J. (2019). Interdisciplinary perspectives on interpersonal relations and the evaluation process: Culture, norms and the moral order. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.1002.1015 Spencer-Oatey, H., Franklin, P. & Lazidou, D. (2022). Global fitness for global people: How to manage and leverage cultural diversity at work. Castledown. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge University Press. Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals. Cambridge University Press.

Norms and Normativity in Indirectness Across Cultures Karen Grainger

Abstract It is widely acknowledged that politeness norms vary greatly across and between cultures and this has led to a great deal of research into the nature of this variation and how it may affect communication (e.g., Gumperz, 1982; BargielaChiappini & Kadar, 2011). However, post-modern theorists within the field of politeness research question the assumption that cultural norms can exist a priori, outside of the context of the interaction (e.g., Eelen, 2001) and, similarly, whether there can be any such thing as ‘intercultural communication’ since “all communication is interpersonal communication” (Scollon & Scollon, 2001: 138). And yet, as Grainger et al. (2010) have argued, studies of intercultural politeness seem to address our intuitions that people from diverse communities communicate according to different sets of expectations. By attempting to pinpoint these norms we may be able to account for instances of communication difficulty and so improve intercultural relations. This paper attempts to reconcile the discursive approach to politeness with the more traditional scientific one that regards politeness norms as objective entities existing at the level of society (Eelen, 2001:187). With reference to my research on indirectness in British and southern African people, I will argue that it is not only possible, but also necessary, to analyse intercultural interactions by referring to the interlocutors’ repertoire of cultural norms as well as to the dynamic unfolding of meaning in the moment. In doing this I align myself with theorists in the ‘third wave’ of politeness research, such as Terkourafi (2005) and Haugh (2007). My own approach demonstrates how the shortcomings of traditional scientific approaches to politeness can be compensated for by taking both a socio-historical approach to establishing norms, and an ethnomethodological approach to the analysis of naturally-occurring discourse data. In so doing, we can account for instances of actual or potential misunderstanding. Keywords Norms · Normativity · Ideology · Indirectness · Intercultural politeness · Socio-historical approach · Ethnomethodological approach · Discursive approach · Misunderstanding

K. Grainger (B) Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Xie (ed.), Advancing (Im)politeness Studies, Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37064-9_3

33

34

K. Grainger

1 Introduction While the issue of normativity is discussed by politeness scholars in various places (e.g., Eelen, 2001; Fraser, 1990; Gu, 1990; Kadar & Haugh, 2013; Mills, 2018), it is not often examined in intercultural contexts. Nevertheless, normativity is particularly important when it comes to analysing indirectness across and between cultures since the judgement of whether indirectness is a feature of politeness relies on an underlying assumption of what is normal in that culture. This paper explores the theoretical notions of normativity and indirectness, taking, as a case study, intercultural encounters between British English speakers and Zimbabwean English speakers living in the UK. Both concepts (normativity and indirectness) are individually problematic, and even controversial, in politeness research as well as being linked to each other. This paper will discuss why the idea of cultural norms is important in understanding how indirectness works in different cultures. In thinking about this concept in relation to intercultural encounters, I find that I am brought to a more nuanced treatment of normativity than is usually the case in either first wave or second wave politeness research (see Culpeper, 2011; Grainger, 2011a, b). I will argue for a third wave (Grainger, 2011b) or ‘middle ground’ (Haugh & Culpeper, 2018) approach that attempts to combine the analyst’s understanding of situated politeness with participants’ interpretations (Kádár & Haugh, 2013). Thus, I rise to Haugh’s (2011) challenge of reconciling the individual and the social (both emic and participant perspectives) and I include both universal and relativistic (culture specific) perspectives. In my analysis of intercultural interactions, I will show how individual speakers both manage the moment to moment management of the interactions while also orienting to broader societal norms. I will also argue that when analysing the phenomenon of indirectness across cultures it is necessary to explore the issue of normativity from an angle that differs from the one usually taken in cross-cultural politeness research; the question we need to be focusing on in examining data on indirectness is not ‘Is this behaviour evaluated as polite relative to a norm?’, but rather, ‘Is this behaviour evaluated as normal?’ If an utterance or encounter is not deemed normal it may or may not be evaluated as impolite.

2 Literature Review 2.1 Norms and Normativity in Politeness Studies The question of normativity underpins much of politeness research. Most politeness scholars agree, either explicitly or implicitly, that norms are fundamental to politeness. Whereas scientific ‘first wave’ (Culpeper, 2011; Grainger, 2011b) politeness studies attempt a non-prescriptive, non-moralistic theory of politeness norms, ‘second wave’ approaches (Culpeper, 2011; Grainger, 2011b) aim to encompass the moral orientation of the particular community in question. According to Eelen

Norms and Normativity in Indirectness Across Cultures

35

(2001), even the scientific Gricean studies, which are very focused on the individual and on the speaker, seek to describe the norms that are in operation in society, even though they may not explicitly say so. Lakoff (1973) establishes ‘rules’ of politeness which are rules in the sense of describing what people generally do, rather than being prescriptive (Lakoff, 1977). Leech’s ‘Politeness Principle’ (Leech, 1983) is similarly something to be oriented to by speakers, rather than ‘obeyed’. In both cases, argues Eelen (2001), they are “a direct reflection of norms operative in society” (Eelen, 2001: 124). Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) also acknowledge the relevance of norms to their model in that it is an attempt to reduce “some norms of language usage—to the outcome of rational choices of individuals’ and is an explanation of the ‘rational bases for conventions” (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 59). Thus Brown and Levinson seek to explain linguistic norms and conventions (which are perhaps otherwise apparently irrational) in terms of speakers’ rational choices. Even models that deal in universals cannot fail to acknowledge that there is cultural and situational variation in politeness norms. Leech (2014) agrees that normativity is a key feature of sociopragmatic politeness and that politeness is “relative to norms in a given society, group or situation” (Leech, 2014: 88) and “As I see it, the nature of sociopragmatic politeness, involves convergence on, or divergence from, a norm of what is regarded as appropriately polite for a given set of situational parameters” (Leech, 2014: 44). While Lakoff (1977, 1990) states that her ‘rules’ apply differently to different situations and cultures. Brown and Levinson’s model allows for cultural variations in estimations of power, distance and the ranking of impositions and they talk about the ‘ethos’ of different cultures which may be overall “positive politeness cultures or negative politeness cultures” (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 59, 243). While the work of Lakoff, Leech and Brown and Levinson is primarily concerned with what is common to the expression of politeness in all languages, the work of Blum-Kulka and colleagues (for example, Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989) has been primarily concerned with what differentiates cultures, albeit still based on an essentially Gricean model of pragmatics. In discussing how and why politeness is expressed and understood differently in different languages and cultures she relies on the idea of a cultural norm or ‘script’ (Blum-Kulka, 1992), which is the set of conventional expectations that a person brings to an interaction. Fraser’s (1990) idea of the ‘Conversational contract’ also involves the idea of participants’ expectations but expresses these in terms of rights and obligations. Thus, he defines the conversational contract as “an understanding of some initial set of rights and obligations that will determine… what the participants can expect from each other” (Fraser, 1990: 232). He goes on to argue that “Politeness is a state that one expects to exist in every conversation; participants note not that someone is being polite—this is the norm—but rather that the speaker is violating the CC [conversational contract]” (Fraser, 1990: 233). Thus, an element of judgement about appropriateness is involved here which could be regarded as a forerunner to discursive politeness studies. In the discursive approach to politeness—the second wave—the idea of normativity becomes much more central to the theorising of politeness, since it is argued that the focus of analysis should be on hearers’ evaluations of utterances as polite or

36

K. Grainger

impolite. In this framework, then hearers must have some basis, some set of norms against which to make their judgements. In this view, language use is not interpreted as (im)polite independently of the cultural norms at play in that situation. In fact, for Watts (1989, 2003) and Locher and Watts (2005), it could be said that some behaviour is so normal, so expected, as to go unnoticed by participants. In this case, they say it is not polite at all but is ‘politic’. Although neither Fraser nor Locher and Watts deal with intercultural encounters, this approach would seem very appropriate for analysing levels of (in)directness in interactions between people with different ideas of what is appropriate linguistic behaviour in particular situations. As my data will show, what participants are concerned with is not how (im)polite the other person is being but rather how normal they are being. In terms of norms, then, first wave and second wave approaches are attempting to do different things: the first wave approach attempts to establish the universal principles which all cultures orient to and against which different cultures can be compared (“we hope in fact by this means to be able to characterise to some extent the ‘ethos’ of a culture or subculture” [Brown & Levinson, 1987: 59]). The problem with this is that, as so many commentators have pointed out, there is a tendency to make ethnocentric assumptions about the motivations for politeness behaviour. Second wave approaches, on the other hand, attempt no such universal description but instead talk about the specific politeness norms of a culture in its own terms. Rather than attempt to explain why certain norms and conventions exist, the whole enterprise, it is argued (for example, Eelen, 2001; Watts, 2003), should be to establish what those norms and conventions are. The problem with this approach is that there is no baseline against which to compare different cultural behaviours. As Mills (2018) observes, there is a tendency for politeness theorists to foreground the differences between cultures and thus commonalities of human experience and practice may be overlooked. It is important to note that, in both first and second wave research, the idea of norms and normativity is rarely explicitly defined. In Eelen’s lengthy discussion of normativity, however, he asserts that the concept of a norm actually covers 3 things: appropriateness, sharedness and normality. Appropriateness can be said to be “the right amount and kind of politeness applied at the right time…as determined by social norms” (Eelen, 2001: 128), while sharedness relates to the unspoken understandings or ‘cultural scripts’ (Blum-Kulka, 1992) that members of a community have agreed upon. Normality refers to the perceived typical characteristics of the majority of a group. Thus, a norm is partly about judgement (and thus morality) and partly about expected and usual behaviour. In all three cases, a norm relates to the social community, rather than the individual. Agha (2007) also identifies 3 types of norm but, as well as appropriateness and normality, he includes the statistical norm, which is arguably a more objective idea. What he refers to as ‘a normative standard’ (appropriateness), is a matter of moral judgement and breaches may lead to sanctions. It is this type that is often implicit in second wave politeness studies, and for some authors the main purpose of politeness research is to identify to what extent behaviours are considered ‘polite’. This is sometimes referred to as the ‘social norm’ and has been rejected by first wave theorists as not the proper object of scientific

Norms and Normativity in Indirectness Across Cultures

37

study since it involves prescribing behaviour and folk notions of what is right and wrong (see Lakoff, 1977; Fraser, 1990). First wave studies, therefore, either eschew the notion of the social norm as the object of study (for example Brown & Levinson, 1987) or at least attempt a more neutral understanding of ‘norm’- one that is perhaps more akin to the statistical norm. Leech, for example, states “I see no problem in recognising the existence of statistically observable politeness norms…as a background against which individuals’ behaviour can deviate in a positive or negative direction” (Leech, 2014: 44). In my analysis below I would like to use the term ‘norm’ in this more descriptive sense, referring to the most commonly used, conventionalised behaviours that a group adheres to. Norms, in this sense, are democratic, in that they are what most people do and implicitly agree on. Ideologies, on the other hand, are hierarchical and may be explicit and conscious iterations of the norms of the dominant social group. Thus ideologies are not as accessible to ‘ordinary’ speakers as norms but both concepts are relevant to analysis since speakers may use both as a resource. Mills (2018) acknowledges there is a need to reconcile analysing ideological politeness with individual behaviour, since the normative and ideological backdrop will influence speaker choices. As Goffman (1983) states, “the moral norms of considerateness…bind individuals qua interactants” (Goffman, 1983: 28). A ‘third wave’ (Grainger, 2011b) approach to politeness research may offer a way of doing this since, although third wave approaches may take a number of different manifestations, they all see politeness norms as a resource that are oriented to in the interaction—this assumes speakers have access to norms of some sort, but they manage them on an individual, moment to moment basis. Terkourafi (2005), for example, argues for a frame-based approach to analysis that recommends both micro-level and macro level analysis of data, where socio-historical information that may suggest a preferred interpretation, but the interpretation should be “ratified in actual occasions of use” (Terkourafi, 2005: 255). By examining turns at talk and the use of speech acts in the interactional context— the way in which interlocutors construct and negotiate meaning in the ongoing action, we can theorise about the way in which individual behaviours relate to social and ideological norms. In this way, the individual and the social can be reconciled. As Haugh (2011) puts it: Politeness at the individual level can be theorised as pragmatic acts… involving both behaviours and evaluations enacted in interaction…it is through examining the orientations of participants to particular normative positionings…that we can better understand the role that norms play at the individual level…. (Haugh, 2011: 261)

In some ways, though it is often overlooked by scholars of intercultural pragmatics, Gumperz’s study of inter-ethnic communication in Britain in the 1970s was already making the link between cultural norms and individual behaviours by using the concept of the ‘contextualisation cue’ (Gumperz, 1982). This is a specific linguistic or paralinguistic feature that triggers particular inferences and could be a politeness token (such as “please” or “thank you”), particular syntactic constructions (e.g., use of conditional in English to trigger the inference that a request is meant), a feature

38

K. Grainger

of intonation or a turn-taking style. A third wave analysis of interaction can take all these things into account—using concepts from a variety of theoretical sources— while also referring to the macro socio-cultural context. Such an analysis affords a very rich interpretation.

2.2 Norms and Conventions In considering norms in relation to intercultural indirectness, as I do in this chapter, it is important to consider whether norms are the same as conventions. Like norms, the idea of conventional language is very commonly alluded to in politeness research and overlaps with the idea of a norm in the sense that they are a socially agreed set of behaviours that, in turn, lead interactants to expect each other to behave in a certain way. Blum Kulka (1992), for example, talks about ‘conventional cultural scripts’ as those which, like norms, members of a culture use to assess the politeness of a linguistic expression. Kádár and Haugh (2013) associate conventions with linguistic routines: “Those forms of recurrent schematic behaviour which follow patterns associated with understandings of politeness, as well as humour, sarcasm and so on, are defined as conventional” (Kádár & Haugh, 2013: 140). Thus, in English, requests made using modal verbs and the conditional aspect (‘could you close the window?’ for example) are so routinely used to convey a polite attitude that they have become the conventional means of doing so. However, as I have argued previously (Grainger, 2011a, 2016), conventional politeness does not always involve formulaic language such as that used in ‘conventionally indirect’ English requests, but in fact, going off-record can also be conventional in some communities since its underlying meaning, and its polite intention, is understood by other members of the same community. Kádár and Haugh (2013) make a similar point: conventional politeness can be ‘typically understood on the basis of not only what is actually said, but what is left unspoken’ (Kádár & Haugh, 2013: 140). Conventional politeness, then, may be said to be considered ‘normal’ by speakers from the same community and this leads to what Kadar and Haugh call the ‘visibility issue’, where “members of a network do not do not usually hide their intentions…but simply take them for granted” (Kádár & Haugh, 2013: 147). Once again, a similar point has previously been made by Gumperz et al. (1979) in his work on interethnic encounters in the UK: “This area of conventionality is automatic; its something we do without thinking and without reflection…that affects our judgement of each other in ways we are rarely aware of” (Gumperz et al., 1979; cited in Harris & Rampton, 2003: 273). Unlike Fraser (1990: 233), who says that “the intention to be polite is not signalled” and that speakers are polite “only if their utterances reflect an adherence to the obligations they carry in that particular conversation,” Gumperz claims that speakers actually do signal their intention to be polite via contextualisation cues. In the case of intercultural encounters, then, because one member of the encounter does not recognise a behaviour as conventional politeness, it may be assumed that

Norms and Normativity in Indirectness Across Cultures

39

there is intentionality behind it and this can lead to attributions of deceptiveness or deliberate vagueness (i.e., not observing the maxim of quantity), or, indeed, to moral evaluations of impoliteness. However, different cultural groups may have different ways of signalling their intention to be polite. These ways are conventional and not conscious and so will be considered ‘normal’ by the members of the same communities. As I will show below, one of the ways for Zimbabwean speakers of English to signal politeness is by going off-record. If this is not understood by the interlocutor it will not necessarily be perceived as impolite, but rather as simply ‘odd’.

2.3 Norms, Ideology and Culture Studies of cross-cultural politeness is “a highly active research area” (Leech, 2014: 275) and forms a large proportion of the field of politeness research. It follows on from a strong tradition of cross-cultural pragmatics, spear-headed by the likes of Blum-Kulka (1982, 1987, 1992), Kasper (1992), and Wierzbicka (2003). In fact, one might go so far as to say that it is the very observable differences in linguistic behaviour between and across cultures that motivate much of the research that is carried out in the politeness field. However, the notion of culture is notoriously difficult to pin down, not only in politeness studies but also in anthropology, sociolinguistics and so on. As Eelen (2001), Kádár and Mills (2011) and others have pointed out, too many studies make assumptions about culture—that it is homogeneous, that it is fixed, that it is first and foremost a national characteristic and that it exists apart from the interaction to which it applies. There is often an assumption when the word ‘culture’ is used that it is synonymous with ‘nation’ or with ethnic group or language group. So, for example, Sifianou (1992) discusses the differences between Greek and English politeness in terms of the values attached to ‘imposition’. She further claims that, in contrast to Greek culture, “the English seem to place a higher value on privacy and individuality” (Sifianou, 1992: 41). Ogiermann (2009) compares indirectness in English, German, Polish and Russian; Pizziconi (2007) compares English lexical politeness with Japanese and Gu (1990) discusses Chinese politeness. These studies tend to discuss the politeness phenomena in these languages as if the languages were homogeneous and represent a single unified culture. As Culpeper (2012: 1128) observes, “the label for the language becomes a convenient label for the culture” and there seems to be an unspoken assumption that a national norm for politeness exists. As discussed by Kadar and Mills (2011), this conception of a culture is often based on a stereotype or on the ideology of the dominant group. Quite obviously all these assumptions are problematic as, in practice, there is great variation across individuals and groups in terms of their values, attitudes and behaviours. What Sifianou is describing may apply to only a sub-section of English society—probably one that is middle-class. Moreover, attitudes values and behaviour change over time and from situation to situation.

40

K. Grainger

This problem of cultural reductionism also applies to Gumperz’s intercultural communication studies. These are based on the assumption of cultural norms that are not understood across a cultural divide. Gumperz’s (1982) work is a prime example of this. Similarly, the work of House (2012) and Clyne et al. (1991) highlights that different norms lead to different perceptions of politeness which lead to intercultural misunderstanding. However, these studies have been criticised for reducing cultures to homogeneous entities and for reifying cultural differences. Roberts and Sarangi (1993) criticise intercultural communication studies that ‘celebrate miscommunication’ and in which the notion of ‘culture’ is in itself an explanation of the dynamics of intercultural encounters. Sarangi (1994) instead argues for the study of ‘interculturality’, a discourse approach that looks at what people do with cultural differences in real-life encounters. Scollon and Scollon (2003) also propose an interdiscursive approach to intercultural communication, in which they “set aside any a priori notions of group membership and identity and ask instead how and under what circumstances concepts such as culture are produced by participants as relevant categories for interpersonal ideological negotiation” (Scollon & Scollon, 2003: 544). This orientation is perhaps reflected in the work of House (2012) wherein, successful communication, rather than miscommunication, is identified. She asserts that among speakers of English as a lingua franca there is “a remarkable dearth of misunderstandings” and that they “creatively employ various strategies to safeguard understanding…” (House, 2012: 285). The foregoing discussion might call into question, whether intercultural miscommunication is a worthy object of study at all, but, as I have previously argued (Grainger, 2011a), it does still seem to be both theoretically and practically meaningful to examine the way in which politeness practices differ across and between groups. Haugh (2011: 254) makes the point that “… a denial of the existence of broader ‘cultural’ politeness norms flies in the face of the experiences of anyone who has ventured into other societies.” Thus knowledge of the norms (both elite and non-elite) to which speakers orient, whether or not they actually reproduce them, would seem to be an essential part of analysis. It is important to establish what these pre-existing norms are and to link them to the ongoing interaction since they have enormous explanatory power. However, before moving on to the illustrative data analysis, some remarks on the relationship between norms and ideology are necessary. Studies of cross-cultural pragmatics, intercultural pragmatics and discursive politeness studies all have a tendency to conflate norms with ideologies. In other words, the politeness conventions that are being talked about or oriented to in the interaction are ideals of behaviour that are considered to be desirable and correct according to the values or mores of the dominant strata of society. Mills (2018: 108) quite rightly says that all three types of norm that Agha (2007) mentions, are operational in linguistic politeness but that when scholars talk about ‘cultural norms’ of politeness what they often are referring to is an ideology or a stereotype. This type of ‘norm’ then may be merely an ideal, and may not bear much relation to real usage in terms of it being a statistical norm. It is important, then, in interpreting politeness in interaction to be clear how norms relate to any ideologies—elite or otherwise—which

Norms and Normativity in Indirectness Across Cultures

41

may be in play. In the analysis that follows, I show how the participants are orienting to differing expectations of how to achieve their communicative goal and this leads to discomfort on the part of the speakers. These are naturally occurring encounters which may be considered ‘intercultural’ to the extent that they take place between speakers who acquired their conventions and routines of speaking in geographically and socially divergent groups. These are not necessarily instances of miscommunication. Indeed, it could be said that the participants effectively exhibit ‘interculturality’ (Sarangi, 1994). Nevertheless, it is instructive to place these micro-behaviours in their more macro cultural and ideological context in order to understand where the discomfort comes from.

3 Data Analysis In response to my impressions about interactions with southern Africans, I gathered interactional data in a number of situations with my African friends and acquaintances whom I had met in England because of my participation in a southern African choir. Most of these data appear in existing publications (for example Grainger, 2011a) but are reproduced here for the purposes of illustrating the argument. All involve ethnographic data collection methods and are naturally- occurring encounters. All involve myself as one of the speakers (and hence giving access to first-hand insider perspective) but whereas some were audio-recorded, others were recalled from memory. What I will argue in all these encounters is that what is at issue for the participants is not primarily politeness, but clarity, understanding and sometimes competence. However, these things are an issue because of differing norms of politeness in the different situations. Furthermore, norms and ideologies are accessed at differing levels of awareness in the participants.

3.1 Implicit Norms: Encounter 1 Below is a reproduction of a conversation between myself and a Zimbabwean refugee in the UK. I had been put in touch with her through a mutual friend, also a Zimbabwean refugee. She had been working for me on an ad hoc basis as a cleaner. The conversation that follows took place shortly after she had obtained refugee status, and, on hearing this from our mutual friend, I was wondering if she would continue to clean for me. Her first language was Ndebele but, as you will see from the transcript, she spoke perfectly understandable English. 1. Karen: Congratulations on getting your papers 2. Lizzie: Yes I was very happy 3. Karen: So you’ll be looking for a job now?

42

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

K. Grainger

Lizzie: Yes I’m looking for accommodation at the moment Karen: Oh do you have to move out? Lizzie: Yes on the 13th. That’s why I want to move to L___ Karen: Oh do you have someone you can stay with there? Lizzie: Yes my brother Karen: We’ll miss you if you go Lizzie: Thank you for everything you’ve done for me. You have helped me a lot. Karen: You’ve helped us too Lizzie: Next week I’ll be coming on Wednesday Karen: OK, that’s OK. And will you be coming the week after that? Lizzie: No. Next week is my last week.

Analysing this on a micro-level, I would point out that in this whole interaction Lizzie never puts it on record that she is quitting her job despite me asking her directly whether she is looking for a job (line 3). Instead, she mentions accommodation, taking the topic in a different direction. At line 9 Karen takes up the implied message that Lizzie may move too far away to return to work for her but still registers her uncertainty with the phrase ‘if you go’. At this point, Lizzie manages to imply that their service recipient-provider relationship is coming to an end (line 10) while at the same time paying attention to my face needs. In Brown and Levinson’s terms she redresses both my negative face and positive face by thanking me and then praising me. Thus, the interaction is both polite and efficacious and, in many important senses, is unproblematic since there is no ‘communication breakdown’ (Clyne et al., 1991). That is to say, the important details about Lizzie’s intentions regarding her employment with me have been communicated, albeit indirectly. According to Sarangi (1994), I should avoid falling into the trap of ‘analytic stereotyping’, where the analyst brings macro-level assumptions about the situation being (inter)cultural in nature simply because the participants originate from different parts of the World. The indirectness we find here, it could be argued, is to be expected in this situation, regardless of the cultural origins of the speakers, since Lizzie is doing something that Karen doesn’t want (ceasing her cleaning services). Is there any point, then, in discussing this as an intercultural encounter? Certainly, on the basis of this one conversation it is very difficult to make a sustainable argument about different cultural norms with regard to indirectness. However, I believe an argument can nevertheless be made for the existence of macro-level cultural norms to which the speakers are orienting. Indeed, I would go further and say that such an analysis is important since, without it, there could be a cumulative effect of repeated misattribution of intentions and competencies (on both sides). But an analysis of cultural norms has to be robustly defended on the basis of different types of evidence that marry both micro-interactional events and macro norms and ideologies. Firstly, at least one of the participants (me) found it a slightly odd, non-normative, conversation: in my ‘frame’, or set of expectations, for such a situation I would have expected Lizzie to use the opening I provided in line 3 to put on record that she

Norms and Normativity in Indirectness Across Cultures

43

would no longer need the job. I would have expected this to be a difficult and facethreatening situation for Lizzie (and to some extent for myself) but nevertheless my expectation was that in a business-like situation, there is also a need for clarity and therefore to be explicit about future arrangements. Thus, because Lizzie hasn’t behaved in the way I would have expected, this makes visible my otherwise invisible norms. However, these norms are still not on the macro ‘cultural’ level until patterns of behaviour across different people in different situations can be observed. This is precisely what happened with me. I had numerous encounters with Zimbabwean friends and acquaintances where I found their communicative habits to be ‘vague’ and ‘round the houses’ and it was only then that I began to suspect that, rather than it being an individual or situational phenomenon, there may also be a community norm involved. Furthermore, I would argue that because of a mis-match in cultural norms about how to behave in such a situation—specifically whether it is appropriate to go on record—there is a danger of attributing negative personal attributes to each other. Lizzie’s contributions could be taken as evasive, and hence somewhat dishonest, and conversely my behaviour could be taken by Lizzie to be face-threatening, overly intrusive. If these evaluations take place, what prompts them is first and foremost a deviation from expected norms rather than any sense of impoliteness. Negative attributions take place precisely because the norms are invisible to the speakers. In other words they do not realise that the oddness of the interaction is down to community norms rather than individual personality or competence.

3.2 Norms as Conventional Politeness: Encounter 2 Another encounter with Lizzie over the phone, some weeks after the event described above, illustrates even more clearly the divergent norms of Karen and Lizzie in terms of putting face-threatening acts on record. Shortly after finishing working for me and moving away, Lizzie phoned me up. She asked me how I was, and how my children were and mentioned that she would be coming back to Sheffield for a visit. After exchanging what I saw as mere ‘pleasantries’, she ended the conversation and put the phone down. As with encounter 1, as a participant (first order politeness), I evaluated the conversation as perfectly polite. However, I also thought it was ‘odd’: it did not fit my cultural script for a conversation between 2 people who were mildly acquainted through a relatively formal relationship (service recipient and service provider). Therefore, what was important here was not that I found the interaction rude, but rather that I simply did not understand the purpose of it. In this sense, then, this was an instance of miscommunication which was baffling for me and may have been unsatisfactory for Lizzie. It was only when I reported the conversation to our mutual Zimbabwean acquaintance (who had lived in the UK longer and was more familiar with British ways) that I understood that her phone call was an off-record request to do some work for me while she was in town and earn a bit of extra money. For my friend, this

44

K. Grainger

strategy was unsurprising and conventional: a commonly used politeness strategy for avoiding face-threat to both parties. The fact that a fellow country-woman had no trouble comprehending the unspoken part of the message seems to be further evidence that some norms common to their community are underlying Lizzie’s behaviour. Thus, the question to be addressed here is what norms and ideologies of interaction are at play here that lead to particular politeness strategies? As has been suggested above, when it comes to societal norms and conventions most members of a society by definition have at least subconscious access to some of these norms. There may also be a level of conscious awareness (as with our mutual acquaintance who could provide me with an interpretation of the phone call with Lizzie) as in the interaction below between myself and another Zimbabwean friend (‘Themba’), where we are discussing previously made arrangements for going out for a meal and a film1 :

3.3 Explicit Norms: Encounter 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Themba: Will you be very hungry? Karen: I don’t know. I might be by then. Themba: Do you want to go somewhere for some food? Karen: I thought we were going to S____ (name of café-bar)? Themba:Yes we are. Will that be enough for you or will you be very hungry? Karen: Erm we could go somewhere else if you like. Themba:Its just that in my experience S____ does very small portions. Karen: Oh do they? I only suggested there because it doesn’t look too expensive. Themba: It’s not very good value for money. Karen: We could go somewhere else. Do you have anywhere else in mind? Themba: No, it’s just that I think I will be VERY hungry by then. We could go to S____ for a bite before the film and then go somewhere else afterwards. Karen: No, let’s go somewhere else. Why don’t we talk about it when you get here. Themba:OK. Karen:(laughing) I wish I’d had that conversation on tape. It was a very good example of Zimbabwean indirectness. Themba:(laughing) you mean I should just have said ‘I will be very hungry. Can we go somewhere else’? Karen: Yes, you could have said that. Themba: But I have to be polite don’t I?

Themba’s way of suggesting an alternative restaurant by asking about my needs is slightly at odds with my own set of expectations about how to go about doing this. As I argue in Grainger (2011a), there is a difference in conventional practices of putting 1

This conversation is fully discussed and analysed with reference to Zimbabwean indirectness in Grainger (2011a).

Norms and Normativity in Indirectness Across Cultures

45

one’s own desires on record. Once again, in this encounter, while I found Themba’s approach to changing the venue of the restaurant to be slightly odd and unnecessarily indirect, that assessment did not automatically lead me to an evaluation of rudeness. In this encounter, perhaps unusually, those norms are referred to explicitly in lines 14–17, where Themba clearly states that he regards putting his own desires on record and using ‘conventional’ English indirectness (“Can we go somewhere else?”)2 as not polite. This is strong evidence that in asking about my needs he is not just being vague but is orienting to a politeness norm. Since I do not share these norms for this situation, I do not recognise Themba’s enquiries about my hunger as cues for politeness. Instead, I simply find them puzzling. These metapragmatic utterances, then, fortuitously give access to the norms he is orienting to. His communicative behaviours (going off record to save face) appear to be similar to those of Lizzie’s in encounters 1 and 2 so this gives strength to the supposition that these may be cultural norms rather than just individual character traits.

3.4 Relating Norms to Ideology In attempting to understand these norms, however, it would be useful to explain them in terms of ideology. I have argued elsewhere (Grainger et al., 2010) that by referring to the (limited) literature on southern African pragmatics and cross-cultural communication, we can suggest an explanation that is in terms of southern African ideologies of communication and interpersonal relations. This literature suggests that in southern African nations the mutual showing of respect is enshrined in the twin concepts of ‘hlonipha’ and ‘ubuntu’. These are a named set of behaviours that are recognised by peoples from a cluster of southern African nations (including the Xhosa, Nbebele and Zulu nations)]. Ubuntu can be translated as ’humanity’, but it really stands for a set of values about the connectedness of each human being to others; a recognition that we could not exist without each other and therefore others must be respected as if they were part of you. “Ubuntu ... is the essence of being human....I am human because I belong [and] my humanity is bound to yours” (Tutu, 1999: 31). This can be contrasted with the British autonomous self, discussed by Culpeper and Demmen (2011) who attribute it partly to the rise of Protestantism starting in seventeenth century Britain and which took full hold in the nineteenth century. Hlonipha can be translated as ‘to pay respect’. de Kadt (1998) describes it as being complementary to ubuntu: “set ways of showing the necessary respect to those above one in the social hierarchy” (de Kadt, 1998: 182). Typically this respect is shown through a system of avoidance, such as off record speech acts or not mentioning someone’s name. These philosophies fit with the behaviours I have encountered in my interactions with Zimbabweans: both Lizzie and Themba could be said to be 2

In Grainger and Mills (2016) we argue that the use of the phrase ’conventional indirectness’ to refer to this type of request is not helpful in discussing the phenomenon of indirectness generally.

46

K. Grainger

engaging in avoidance behaviour by not going on record with requests, suggestions and assertions and by showing concern for my needs in preference to their own. Other commentators on southern African pragmatics have made similar observations in non-intercultural situations. For example, both de Kadt (1995) and Kasanga (2003) state that southern Africans tend not to make requests using negative politeness formulations (sometimes called ‘conventional indirectness’ by Anglo-American scholars). de Kadt (1992, 1995) also says that speakers of southern African languages cue respect by going ‘off record’ and using hints (de Kadt, 1995), and says that Zulu indirectness emerges over a number of turns (Chick, 1995; de Kadt, 1992). This chimes with Lizzie’s preference for making requests and giving undesirable news off-record and with Themba’s metapragmatic comments about his own usage. Both Nwoye (1992) and de Kadt (1998) claim that traditional Igbo and Zulu cultures are collectivist in orientation (though de Kadt is cautious about the use of the label ‘collectivist’, lest it should over-simplify differences both within and between cultures). There is further evidence about the ideological basis of this form of politeness from an interview with Themba in which he reveals that he is conscious of these norms as an ‘African’ way of being. Talking about his style of leadership in leading a choir, he says: Then people felt maybe I do not know what I wanted to say “Just tell us what you want us to do”... But er in an African way you just go in like that [puts hand at an oblique angle to indicate indirectness]… The way we speak. There are so many proverbs before you say “OK this is exactly what I want to do.” You need to convince the council of elders to your way of thinking. Then you say “this is it”... A lot of people would say Africans are not direct. They would talk without actually mentioning what they want. They would say that’s the African way. But I’m saying no—its a universal way of doing it. In this society, that kind of speak has been trapped in courts where the lawyer would ramble on trying to convince the jury. The courts still retain that ancient way of saying things whereas in Africa that still goes on.

This quote nicely illustrates that Themba both has access to ideological norms from his geographical origins but also engages with them in a dynamic way. He invokes being ‘African’ as a part of his way of talking but also refuses to reduce this behaviour to a national cultural stereotype. Thus, Lizzie and Themba cannot be said to merely reflect pre-existing norms in an automatic way. Rather, both participants in each encounter are in the process of “negotiating their intercultural identities” (Zhu, 2011: 259); pre-existing norms are oriented to and, to an extent, reproduced in the interactions but nevertheless meaning has to be negotiated in an intercultural space where the participants do not have access to the same norms. Thus, Themba and Lizzie both eventually went on record (“Next week is my last week”; “Its just that I will be very hungry”) when I asked them a direct question (“Will you be coming after that”; “Do you want to go somewhere else?”). Just as we found a philosophy of communication behind the Zimbabwean style, it could be argued that there are socio-historical reasons for the English style of hedging and so-called ‘conventional indirectness’. For example, Qu (2013) says that English politeness behaviours originate in the seventeenth century when England was undergoing a process of urbanisation and the division between public and private spaces

Norms and Normativity in Indirectness Across Cultures

47

led to the avoidance strategies of negative politeness. Just as Lizzie and Themba may have differing levels of consciousness about the influence of the twin philosophies of hlonipha and ubuntu on their interactional styles, British people also treat the use of modal verbs and the conditional as normal behaviour without necessarily having any knowledge of its ideological origins. Finally, it is important to remember that these norms are not principally national— they are constructed over a long period of time in response to the environment and its demands (e.g., urbanisation, religious belief). Thus, these characteristics cannot be said to be quintessentially African or British but may intersect with other types of communities that have similar characteristics, e.g., a need to share resources rather than compete for them. And that is why similar norms may crop up in many different sorts of communities across the World. For example, Grainger et al. (2015) discuss the phenomenon of ‘insisting’ (repeatedly offering) in hospitality situations with Libyan Arabic speakers. This behaviour is contrary to the norms of many British English speakers who regard it as overly imposing. However, this type of offering behaviour is also described by Gu (1990) as occurring in (educated) Chinese interactions for similar reasons: the need to demonstrate sincerity and generosity on the part of the host. Insistence should not therefore be seen as something which is uniquely Arabic or uniquely Chinese. Rather, it is normative behaviour that comes about in certain communities based on their ideological beliefs about how to interact with others. Similarly, the sense of connectedness to others that seems to be captured in the philosophy of ‘ubuntu’ may well also be reflected in interactional norms of other communities which also prioritise the needs of the collective over those of the individual. Arguably, the interactional norms of speakers from the townships or rural areas of southern Africa may have more in common with speakers from the less affluent parts of Britain than they do with the norms of middle-class academics.

4 Conclusions In politeness research, especially in the second wave of discursive politeness, normativity is often assumed to mean moral norms and expected standards against which a speaker’s behaviour is measured and evaluated as either polite or not. However, in this paper I have argued that in intercultural encounters a speaker can be judged as being polite and yet breaching the norms expected by the other participant. Thus, in understanding intercultural politeness it is important to carefully define what we mean by a norm and to differentiate between norms as simply expected or conventional behaviour and norms as the moral standard which members of the speech community are expected to live up to. This paper has analysed intercultural encounters from a ‘third wave’ interactional perspective and in so-doing has examined both the micro-level dynamics of the specific conversations as well as the macro-level cultural and ideological context in which they take place. The discussion has problematised the whole question of intercultural miscommunication but has argued that if we consider interactions from

48

K. Grainger

the point of view of a mis-match in norms, that this can be useful in terms of understanding encounters that may be perceived as odd, incompetent or sometimes impolite, by either or both participants. I have argued that while norms cannot be considered to be something which exists outside of the encounter and which determine politeness practices in any mechanistic way, they are nevertheless present and can be particularly visible in intercultural encounters. Participants have access to norms (and ideologies) in more or less conscious ways while they are talking and orient to them as an available resource. A consideration of such norms can help to explain the emerging turns at talk and, importantly, may point to the use of conventional politeness strategies that are not necessarily recognised as such by both speakers. Furthermore, by taking an interactional approach that examines the dynamics of face-work we can get beyond superficial and relativist observations about different politeness practices in different cultures, and begin to see that the motivation to be polite (to attend to face) is common to most interactions, even though different dimensions of politeness (face needs) will be foregrounded or backgrounded according to the norms and ideologies of the particular culture.

References Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge University Press. Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29–59. Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131–146. Blum-Kulka, S. (1992). The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 255–280). Mouton de Gruyter. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56–311). Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Chick, K. (1995). Interactional sociolinguistics and intercultural communication in South Africa. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Language and social history: Studies in South Africa (pp. 230–241). David Philip. Clyne, M., Ball, M., & Neil, D. (1991). Intercultural communication at work in Australia: Complaints, apologies and turns. Multilingua, 10, 251–273. Culpeper, J. (2011). Politeness and impoliteness. In K. Aijmer, & G. Anderson (Eds.), Pragmatics of society (pp. 391–436). Mouton de Gruyter. Culpeper, J. (2012). (Im)politeness: Three issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1128–1133. Culpeper, J., & Demmen, J. (2011). Nineteenth-century politeness: Negative politeness, conventional indirect requests and the rise of the individual self. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(2), 49–81. de Kadt, E. (1992). Requests as speech acts in Zulu. South African Journal of African Languages, 12(3), 101–106.

Norms and Normativity in Indirectness Across Cultures

49

de Kadt, E. (1995). The cross-cultural study of directives: Zulu as a non-typical language. South African Journal of Linguistics, Supplement, 27, 45–72. de Kadt, E. (1998). The concept of face and its applicability to the Zulu language. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 173–191. Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. St. Jerome. Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219–236. Goffman, E. (1983). Felicity’s condition. American Journal of Sociology, 89(1), 1–53. Grainger, K. (2011a). Indirectness in Zimbabwean English. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), Politeness across cultures (pp. 171–193). Palgrave Macmillan. Grainger, K. (2011b). ‘First order’ and ‘second order’ politeness: Institutional and intercultural contexts. In Linguistic politeness Research Group (Ed.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 167–188). Mouton de Gruyter. Grainger, K., Kerkham, Z., Mansor, F., & Mills, S. (2015). Offering and hospitality in Arabic and English. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(1), 41–70. Grainger, K., & Mills, S. (2016). Directness and indirectness across cultures. Palgrave Macmillan. Grainger, K., Mills, S., & Sibanda, M. (2010). “Just tell us what to do”: The Southern African concept of face and its relevance to intercultural communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2158–2171. Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237–257. Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J., Jupp, T., & Roberts, C. (1979). Crosstalk. BBC. Harris, R., & Rampton, B. (Eds.). (2003). The language, ethnicity and race reader. Routledge. Haugh, M. (2011). Epilogue: Culture and norms in politeness research. In D. Z. Kádár, & S. Mills (Eds.), East Asian politeness (pp. 252–264). Cambridge University Press. Haugh, M., & Culpeper, J. (2018). Integrative pragmatics and (im)politeness theory. In C. Ilie, & N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Pragmatics and its interfaces (pp. 213–239). John Benjamins. House, J. (2012). (Im)politeness in cross-cultural encounters. Language and Intercultural Communication, 12(4), 284–301. Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press. Kádár, D. Z., & Mills, S. (Eds.). (2011). Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge University Press. Kasanga, L. (2003). ‘I am asking for a pen’: Framing of requests in black South African English. In K. Jaszczolt, & K. Turner (Eds.), Meaning through language contrast (Vol. 2, pp. 213–235). John Benjamins. Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203–231. Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or minding your p’s and q’s. Papers from the 9th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 9(1),292–305. Lakoff, R. (1977). What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics and performatives. In A. Rogers, B. Wall, & J. P. Murphy (Eds.), Proceedings of the Texas conference on performatives, presuppositions and implicatures (pp. 79–105). Center of Applied Linguistics. Lakoff, R. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language in our lives. Harper Collins. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman. Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press. Locher, M., & Watt, R. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33. Mills, S. (2018). English politeness and class. Cambridge University Press. Nwoye, O. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 309–328. Ogiermann, E. (2009). Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research, 5(2), 189–216. Pizziconi, B. (2007). The lexical mapping of politeness in British English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1471–1506. Qu, W. (2013). Dehistoricized cultural identity and cultural othering. Language and Intercultural Communication, 13(2), 148–164.

50

K. Grainger

Roberts, C., & Sarangi, S. (1993). “Culture” revisited in intercultural communication. In T. Boswood, R. Hoffman, & P. Tung (Eds.), Perspectives on English for international communication (pp. 97–102). Hong Kong City Polytechnic. Sarangi, S. (1994). Intercultural or not? Beyond celebration of cultural differences in miscommunication analysis. Pragmatics, 4, 409–427. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourse and intercultural communication. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 538–547). Blackwell. Sifianou, M. (1992). Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective. Oxford University Press. Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(2), 237–263. Tutu, D. (1999). No future without forgiveness. Random House. Watts, R. (1989). Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behaviour. Multilingua, 8(2–3), 131–166. Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press. Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics (2nd ed.). Mouton de Gruyter. Zhu, H. (2011). Introduction: Themes and issues in the study of language and intercultural communication. In H. Zhu (Ed.), The language and intercultural communication reader (pp. 1–14). Routledge.

Personality and (Im)politeness: Evidence from WeChat/QQ Group Chats Xinren Chen and Mengxin Li

Abstract It has almost become common sense in the second-wave politeness research that (im)politeness is not an inherent property of linguistic forms, or even situated utterances; nor is it a necessary product of the speaker’s intention. Rather, it is understood as stemming from the evaluation of the targeted recipient or/and perhaps side-participant(s) as well. While aligning with this understanding, this paper purports to draw attention to a somewhat neglected factor that contributes to the judgement of whether a speaker’s utterance will be interpreted as polite or, otherwise, notably the participants’ personality. It will be shown on the basis of analysing a few extracts of WeChat/QQ group chats from an insider’s perspective that both the speaker’s and the recipient’s personalities form an essential interpretive frame for the latter’s (im)politeness evaluation of an utterance. In the absence of the frame, (im)politeness evaluation would follow the widely shared convention and, as a consequence, the risk of interpersonal misjudgement would arise. It is hoped that this study can serve to stimulate research on individual differences regarding the topic of (im)politeness, against the backdrop of pursuing more universal theorising of the interpersonal phenomenon. Keywords (Im)politeness · Personality · WeChat/QQ group chat · Interpretive frame · Individual differences

X. Chen (B) School of Foreign Studies/China Research Center for Language Strategies, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China e-mail: [email protected] M. Li School of Foreign Languages, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Xie (ed.), Advancing (Im)politeness Studies, Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37064-9_4

51

52

X. Chen and M. Li

1 Introduction The past decades have witnessed the shift of (im)politeness analysis from the firstwave paradigm through the second one to the third one (Culpeper & Haugh, 2014; Kádár & Haugh, 2013). Despite the diversity of approaches that have emerged, e.g. discursive approach (e.g., Eelen, 2001; Mills, 2003; Watts, 2003), relational approach (e.g., Locher & Watts, 2005; Spencer-Oatey, 2000, 2005; Watts, 2005) and interactional approach (e.g., Arundale, 2006, 2010; Culpeper & Haugh, 2014; Haugh, 2007; Kádár & Haugh, 2013), there seems to be a consensus in the second- and thirdwave literature that (im)politeness is not an inherent property of linguistic forms, or even situated utterances; nor is it a necessary product of the speaker’s intention; rather, it is understood as constituted through the evaluation of the targeted recipient or/and perhaps side-participant(s) as well. This study aims to contribute to the emerging body of second- and third-wave scholarship on the issue of (im)politeness by investigating a somewhat neglected factor that contributes to the evaluation of whether a speaker’s utterance will be interpreted as (im)polite, notably the participants’ personality. We shall examine a few extracts of WeChat/QQ group chats from an insider’s perspective, suggesting that both the speaker’s and the recipient’s personalities may form an essential interpretive frame for the latter’s (im)politeness evaluation of an utterance. It is hoped that this study can complement existing scholarship of pursuing a universal theorisation of (im)politeness by stimulating research on individual differences on the issue, thus providing new references and advice for the conceptualisation of (im)politeness.

2 Theoretical Background Linguistic (im)politeness has long been a hot topic area in pragmatics and related disciplines, where the past decades have witnessed some significant theoretical developments and methodological shifts. The following is a brief outline of the developments in politeness literature characterised by several “waves” (Culpeper, 2011; Grainger, 2011; Kádár & Haugh, 2013; Shum & Lee, 2013).

2.1 Classic Views on Politeness The first wave of politeness theory is represented by the classic models, which can be generally traced back to classic pragmatic theories. Lakoff (1973: 298) is a pioneer in conceptualising politeness as rules, i.e., “Don’t impose,” “Give options” and “Make A feel good, be friendly,” further suggesting that the need for politeness supersedes the need for clarity. Leech (1983) proposes the pragmatic framework of six politeness maxims in response to Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle, partly equating

Personality and (Im)politeness: Evidence from WeChat/QQ Group Chats

53

politeness with indirectness. Yet it is Brown and Levinson’s (1978) model that has undoubtedly been the most influential, best known and most researched. In their model, politeness is conceptualised as strategic behaviours to redress face threats. In the classic theories of politeness, “politeness is viewed as rational, rule(principle-) governed activity deeply rooted in the human need to maintain smooth, harmonious relationships and avoid conflicts” (Kasper, 1990: 194, cited from Sifianou, 2010: 23). This view, however, has aroused substantial criticisms from numerous scholars (e.g., Arundale, 2006; Gu, 1990; Spencer-Oatey, 2002; Watts, 2003). First, the first wave of politeness theories unduly assumes that politeness is a universal phenomenon (most conspicuously marked in the title of Brown & Levinson’s work). For example, it is claimed that “so far our knowledge of intercultural differences in this sphere is somewhat anecdotal” (Leech, 1983: 150); “despite the rich cultural elaborations, the core ideas have a striking familiarity” (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 13). Second, the models tend to focus more on speakers’ intentions in the production of politeness, ignoring how it is understood by hearers (Culpeper, 2008, 2011; Watts, 2003). Third, taking politeness to be a property of certain forms fails to account for complex forms of social interactions, such as irony, sarcasm and jocular mockery. Fourth, the discussions are limited to short exchanges and utterances with single functions, failing to probe into the co-constructed and interactional negotiation of interpersonal meanings and relationships by speaker and hearer (Culpeper, 2008; Locher, 2004; Watts, 2003). Last but not least,1 impoliteness has not been treated as a research area in its own right, but is only associated with “the result of doing nothing” (Culpeper, 2008: 18) or “failed or absent politeness” (Eelen, 2001: 98). Treating impoliteness as the opposite of politeness seems to be an overgeneralisation and simplification since there are some important differences between the two.2

2.2 Alternative Approaches to (Im)politeness Most recent research adopts a more constructionist perspective by introducing the concept of first-order (im)politeness. This second-wave development is often referred to as a “post-modern” view, represented by the emergence of a “critical turn” (Kádár, 2010) to discursive approach. Kádár and Mills (2011) take the three monographs, namely, Eelen (2001), Mills (2003) and Watts (2003) to mark the “discursive” turn in politeness research. 1

In addition, early conceptualisation of politeness draws on the notion of face to interpret interpersonal interaction, but whether and how face is related to politeness have not been clarified, and face is sometimes intertwined with the notion of “self” and “facework,” as Brown and Levinson (1987) defined face as two kinds of desires. Haugh and Bargiela-Chiappini (2010: 2073) noted that “while acknowledging the important role that face plays in politeness and impoliteness research, it is suggested that the time has come for face to be theorised on its own terms.” 2 For instance, Culpeper (2011: 29) found that “impoliteness has its own sets of conventionalised impolite formulae.”

54

X. Chen and M. Li

On the discursive approach, (im)politeness is conceptualised as “linguistic behaviour that carries a value in an emergent network in excess of what is required by the politic behaviour of the overall interaction” (Watts, 2003: 162), or as a site of discursive struggle “over what constitutes appropriate/politic behaviour” (Locher & Watts, 2005: 29). A distinction is drawn between first-order and second-order politeness (Eelen, 2001; Watts, 2003), shifting the focus from the analysts’ interpretation of politeness (second-order politeness) to the layperson’s perception (first-order politeness), emphasising that (im)politeness should be accessed from interlocutors’ evaluation (Eelen, 2001; Spencer-Oatey, 2000, 2005; Watts, 2003) and interpersonal attitude (Culpeper, 2011; Locher & Watts, 2005; Watts, 2005). As has been pointed out by Spencer-Oatey (2000: 2), “sentences or linguistic constructions are not ipso facto polite or rude; rather, politeness is a social judgment: speakers are judged to be polite or rude, depending on what they say in what context. Politeness, in this sense, is a question of appropriateness.” Haugh (2007: 2) identifies the essence of the discursive approach as shifting the focus of politeness to “broader issues of interpersonal interaction.” Face is conceptualised as discursively constructed in situated interactions, where relational work drives “the entire continuum from polite and appropriate to impolite and inappropriate behaviour” (Locher, 2004: 51). While emphasising the role of the interlocutor and the evaluative nature of (im)politeness, the second-wave researchers have gone so far as to play done the role of the speaker in the joint construction of (im)politeness. The interactional approach to (im)politeness represents the third wave, addressing the above problems of the second-wave research. Rather than taking (im)politeness as “a category to be defined, explained, and operationalised in a rational theory of human behaviour” (Watts, 2010: 55), this further line of research conceptualises (im)politeness as an emergent social practice (Kádár & Haugh, 2013) conjointly constituted in a collaborative interaction (Arundale, 1999; Haugh, 2007, 2013a) based on the co-constituting model of communication (Arundale, 1999, 2006). In a more recent conceptualisation, Haugh (2013a: 55–56) notes that the “evaluations of im/ politeness do not simply arise in ongoing social practice, but are themselves a form of social practice,” proposing that it is the moral order that grounds participants’ evaluation of (im)politeness in interactional achievement. More importantly, this approach embraces both the classic and post-modern views of interpreting (im)politeness, suggesting that the evaluations of interactants and analysts can be complementary to each other (Haugh, 2007; Shum & Lee, 2013).

2.3 Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Research on Politeness In response to Western scholars (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987; Leech, 1983, 2014; Spencer-Oatey, 2000, 2005) who have put forward numerous politeness theories or principles, some scholars (e.g., Gu, 1992; Ide, 1989; Xu, 1992) have formulated theories of East Asian politeness. As has been pointed out by Lakoff and Ide (2005: 11), the understanding of politeness in different cultures is essential

Personality and (Im)politeness: Evidence from WeChat/QQ Group Chats

55

in helping us communicate with people from different national and cultural backgrounds and “survive and flourish together.” This may help explain why there have been numerous endeavours (e.g., Bayraktaro˘glu & Sifianou, 2001; Félix-Brasdefer, 2008; Fukushima & Haugh, 2014; Spencer-Oatey & Kádár, 2016) to explore the issue of politeness cross-culturally. For example, Sifianou (1999) compares politeness phenomena in England and Greece. Haugh and Hinze (2003) compare “face” and “politeness” in Chinese, English and Japanese. Fukushima (2000) compares politeness in British English and Japanese. Félix-Brasdefer (2008) examines the variation of refusals in Mexican and Dominican Spanish from a sociocultural perspective, indicating that, despite speaking the same language, Mexicans tend to more frequently use refusal strategies with fewer and shorter turns than Dominican. Like Bayraktaro˘glu and Sifianou (2001), who make a pioneering contribution to the politeness research between two similar cultures (Greek and Turkish), Kádár and Mills (2011) explore politeness phenomena within the East Asian culture, revealing cross-national variations in Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Singapore Chinese. Cross-cultural pragmatic research, while significant, has its problems. In Stadler’s (2011: 98) words, “a great deal of the research on politeness has studied features of politeness in one culture and then compared them to features of politeness in another culture,” but such studies will fail to give us valuable insights into the variations among members of the same cultural/lingual community. Little systematic attention has been paid to intra-lingual variation in diverse varieties of one language or cultural community (Félix-Brasdefer, 2008). Schneider and Barron (2008: 5) also comment that the assumption underlying much cross-cultural pragmatic research that “the members of the target language community act uniformly” is problematic. Moreover, regarding the factors underlying cross-cultural variations in politeness, researchers have only dealt with “micro-sociolinguistic factors” (Kasper, 1995: 72, cited from Barron, 2005: 521), namely, the degree of imposition, the social power relations and social distance. In contrast, the effect of “macro-sociolinguistic factors” (Kasper, 1995: 72, cited from Barron, 2005: 521) (e.g., age, gender, occupation, educational background, region and L2 language proficiency) on the management of politeness repertoire and strategies remains understudied (Barron, 2005). According to Schneider and Barron (2008: 18), further research is needed “to investigate the interaction between micro-social and macro-social factors.”

2.4 Variational Pragmatic Research on Politeness The burgeoning development of variational pragmatics (Barron & Schneider, 2009; Ren & Chen, 2012) has witnessed and acknowledged the importance of analysing intra-cultural variations in politeness (Bayraktaro˘glu & Sifianou, 2001; Fukushima & Haugh, 2014; Spencer-Oatey & Kádár, 2016). However, unlike cross-cultural politeness research, intra-cultural or intra-lingual politeness variation in a specific culture has been relatively understudied.

56

X. Chen and M. Li

Among the limited number of studies, the collaboration of Bargiela-Chiappini and Kádár (2011) contributes to the intra-cultural politeness research by collecting culturally situated studies from Canadian (Mullany, 2011), Israeli (Kampf & BlumKulka, 2011), Korean (Brown, 2011), Georgian (Rusieshvili, 2011) and Chinese (Gu, 2011) settings. In China, some researchers explore the effect of gender on politeness variations (e.g., Zhang & Wang, 1997; Shi & Li, 2002; Zhong, 2002; Duan, 2008; Wu & Zhu, 2009; Zhang & Zong, 2015). He (2010) examines deixis variation in Spanish and investigates the pragmatic functions of the variational usage based on politeness framework, pointing out that the variation is subject to the openness of the deixis system in this language. Based on a large-scale social survey and working within the framework of variational pragmatics, the research project led by Chen Xinren from Nanjing University has shed light on how social-cultural variables, i.e., age, gender, generation, occupation, educational background, urban–rural background and medium make a difference to conceptions and practices of linguistic politeness in the Chinese sociocultural context.

2.5 Research Gaps While research to date has concentrated on gender effect on intra-cultural variations of Chinese politeness (e.g., Wei, 2001; Shi & Li, 2002; Zhang & Zong, 2015) and increasing attention is being paid to regions, educational background, occupation and other social-cultural factors (Chang & Fukushima, 2017; Chen & Li, 2019; Li et al. 2019), participants’ personality has remained a neglected aspect. This can be a serious oversight, given that individuals’ personality is associated with their interpersonal relationship (Figueredo et al., 2009). Methodologically, existing intra-cultural research on politeness employs questionnaire surveys as the method of data collection, instead of naturally occurring data. The method may significantly hinder us from getting to know how social and personal factors may actually affect the ways we express and perceive politeness in dynamic contexts. In view of the research gaps above, we shall explore how personality may affect the interpretation of (im)politeness on the basis of real-life data of interaction among Chinese people in close social distance, notably classmates, friends and colleagues.

Personality and (Im)politeness: Evidence from WeChat/QQ Group Chats

57

3 Theoretical Considerations 3.1 Personality and Language Behaviour There are various definitions of personality in dictionaries. For example, it is defined as “someone’s character, especially the way they behave towards other people” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English), “the various aspects of a person’s character that combine to make them different from other people” (Oxford Advanced Learners’ English-Chinese Dictionary) or “the sum total of all the behavioural and mental characteristics by means of which an individual is recognised as being unique” (Collins English Dictionary). From the dictionary definitions, we find that personality is associated with the psychological features that distinguish one person from others. Thus, individuals can be identified based on their personality; those who share the similar personality traits can be classified into the same kind of people. For example, some people fit into a humble type while others a wise-guy type; some people can be described as passionate while others iceberg. In the field of personality psychology, personality has generally been defined on two strongly contrasting approaches: conceptualising personality as a set of attributes or conceptualising personality as the underlying system (Saucier, 2009: 379). In the former case, personality is taken to be a set of traits “which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation” (Cattell, 1950: 2). In the latter case, personality research focuses on the system that generates the attributes, notably “the underlying causes within the person of individual behaviour and experience” (Cloninger, 2000: 3). Despite the lack of a generally agreed-upon definition, a Five-factor model (Big Five) has been widely applied to define personality (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Digman, 1990; Hofstee, 1994), with each dimension associated with a set of personality traits, as illustrated in Table 1. For ease of identification and presentation, personality in this paper is defined as a general direction in which people form ideas, i.e. looking on the bright side of things Table 1 Interpretations of Big Five (Adapted from Barrick & Mount, 1991: 3–5) Dimensions

Traits

Extraversion

Sociable, gregarious, assertive, talkative, active

Neuroticism

Anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried, insecure

Agreeableness

Courteous, flexible, trusting, good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, soft-hearted, tolerant

Conscientiousness

Careful, thorough, responsible, organised, planful, hardworking, achievement-oriented, persevering

Openness

Imaginative, cultured, curious, original, broad-minded, intelligent, artistically sensitive

58

X. Chen and M. Li

or planning for the worst, trusting or doubting each other, being mean or generous, pursuing egoism, altruism or cynicism. Personality psychology finds that people’s use of language provides multiple sources for exploring basic personality traits (e.g., Cattell, 1943; Goldberg, 1981; Norman, 1963). Linguistics research indicates that people’s use of language may influence recipients’ judgments of the personality of the speaker (Blankenship & Holtgraves, 2005; Bolkan & Holmgren, 2012; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2016; Hendriks, 2010). However, so far, little literature is available on the correlation between different personality traits and politeness behaviour in interpersonal communication. While it is challenging to explore it, it is worthwhile to pursue it, even if in exploratory terms, because the finding thereof may enable us to find how our polite behaviour may vary according to different personality types of people we encounter. As Figueredo et al. (2009) have rightly pointed out, there is a close relationship between individuals’ personality and their relational behaviour. On the one hand, variation in personality is highly influential in driving individuals into different kinds of relationship, e.g., partners and friends. On the other hand, variation in personality is an essential predictor of relationship outcomes. Since (im)politeness stems from the evaluation of the participants in interpersonal interactions, variation of personality should be taken into consideration in discussing the factors that underpin people’s judgement of (im)politeness. It is thus hypothesised that (im)politeness judgement can be dependent on personality-driven values.

3.2 Bases of (Im)politeness Evaluation 3.2.1

Norms and Moral Order as Foundations of (Im)politeness Evaluation

Evaluation of (im)politeness is a central issue in (im)politeness research, and it has been universally acknowledged that “we assess people to be polite or impolite, based on our interpretations of their behaviour/language” (Spencer-Oatey & Kádár, 2016: 74). According to Kádár and Haugh (2013: 80), politeness is “located in evaluations of social actions and meanings by persons that are situated relative to both time and social space.” Researchers have attempted to identify the grounds or warrants for (im)politeness evaluation, highlighting two interrelated bases: social/cultural norms (Eelen, 2001; Fukushima, 2004; Geyer, 2021; Locher, 2004; Terkourafi, 2005, 2011) and moral order (Haugh, 2013a; Kádár & Haugh, 2013). With regard to norms, Locher (2004: 91) notes that “politeness will always be identified and evaluated by both the speaker and the hearer as norm-based.” According to Terkourafi (2005: 250), “politeness is a matter not of rational calculation, but of habit,” in which norms perform a regulatory role that “is fundamental to the preservation of social order” (Terkourafi, 2011: 179). Spencer-Oatey and Kádár (2016:

Personality and (Im)politeness: Evidence from WeChat/QQ Group Chats

59

Fig. 1 Cultural norms, hearer’s expectation and hearer’s evaluation (Fukushima, 2004: 380)

74) also point out that the evaluation of (im)politeness is “inevitably closely associated with cultural norms and expectations.” Fukushima (2004) conducts a crosscultural comparison on evaluation of attentiveness and proposes a framework of analysing (im)politeness, including the hearer’s judgement as an important component, as shown in Fig. 1. When one’s behaviour meets the hearer’s expectation, his/ her behaviour will be evaluated as appropriate and therefore high evaluation will be achieved. Notably, the expectation is influenced by cultural/social norms in the context concerned. According to Kádár and Haugh (2013: 67), moral order refers to “what members of a sociocultural group or relational network ‘take for granted.’” Spencer-Oatey and Kádár (2016: 74) further define the notion as “a system that regulates social life through psychological processes such as values, virtues, norms and practices”. Moral order is “multi-faceted and multi-layered” (Haugh, 2013b: 48) and “co-constituted through interaction” (Haugh, 2013a: 57) among participants. Yet, while attempts have been made to investigate the grounds for (im)politeness evaluation (Fukushima, 2004; Haugh, 2013a; Kádár & Haugh, 2013; Locher, 2004; Terkourafi, 2005, 2011), there has been less attention paid to the cross- and intracultural variations of these foundations. Spencer-Oatey and Kádár (2016) revisit the East–West debate on the framework for conceptualising and evaluating the moral foundations and values of (im)politeness from an interdisciplinary perspective, suggesting that differences in people’s moral foundations across different languages and cultures may lead to variations of (im)politeness evaluation. In addition, the authors note that further studies on the factors that influence the perception of (im)politeness are needed.

3.2.2

Personality-Driven Evaluations

Haugh (2013a: 61) points out that the fundamental question in the analysis of (im)politeness evaluation lies in “for whom is this polite, impolite and so on.” Meanwhile, Mitchell and Haugh (2015) suggest that the participants’ agency should be taken into consideration in theorising (im)politeness. Okamoto (2021) investigates Japanese speakers’ metapragmatic comments on honorifics used in blogs and findings indicate wide intra-cultural diversity concerning the evaluation of politeness.

60

X. Chen and M. Li

Fig. 2 Revised model for (im)politeness evaluations

Due to the fact that personality plays a role in affecting individuals’ behaviour, we may well assume that personality traits can, to some extent, account for participants’ judgement of (im)politeness. That is to say, some individuals’ (im)politeness evaluation might be based on their own personality traits or those of the interlocutor(s), instead of invariably on widely shared norms or moral order. Specifically, as we shall demonstrate on the basis of our data, the participants’ expectations are subject to influence of personality from two aspects: recipient’s perception of producer’s personality and the personality of the recipient (see Fig. 2). For example, one of my colleagues was absent from the meeting and asked me to tell her what has been discussed. When I explained to her in detail, her response went like this: “两句话能讲清楚的事情说这么多?” (“Why don’t you make a long story short?”). In encounters with our colleagues, mutual respect and harmonious relationship are generally promoted, which represents the social norms or moral order in the workplace. However, when I explained everything to the colleague out of kindness, the complaint from her was not consistent with what I had expected: her saying “thanks” was more appropriate and polite in this situation. However, in actuality, my perception of her behaviour was influenced by my knowledge of her personality. As I knew that she was a careless person, direct and indifferent to trivial manners, I did not evaluate her behaviour as impolite. Nevertheless, it would have been a completely different scene if I had known that she was cautious with her words and deeds. Thus, this scenario shows that the recipient’s perception of the speaker’s personality may make a difference in the evaluation of (im)politeness. On the other hand, in face of the same behaviour, a person with a sensitive soul would have viewed my colleague’s behaviour as highly offensive.

Personality and (Im)politeness: Evidence from WeChat/QQ Group Chats

61

4 Personality and Politeness: Evidence from WeChat/QQ Group Interaction The data analysed in this study was collected in the course of approximately 1 year of observation of naturally occurring interactions taking place in WeChat/QQ group chats, involving groups of alumni (Excerpts 1 and 2), colleagues (Excerpt 3) and relatives (Excerpt 4). For all the interactions, either of the co-authors was involved as a member of the groups. Although it might not be accurate to count the method adopted as an emic approach, both the co-authors did benefit from a good understanding of the participants’ personality, which makes it possible to interpret the interactants’ verbal behaviour from an insider’s or (side) participant’s perspective. Altogether four typical excerpts are analysed in this section. The first two excerpts represent the effect of recipient’s perception of producer’s personality on participants’ judgement of (im)politeness, while the subsequent excerpt shows the effect of recipient’s personality on their (im)politeness evaluation of producer’s behaviour. Excerpt 4 demonstrates the conflict between participants as a result of personality mismatch.

4.1 Speakers’ Personality as an Interpretive Frame for (Im)politeness Evaluation As we shall see, speakers’ personality is a critical factor in recipients’ interpretation of (im)politeness of his/her behaviour. Excerpts 1 and 2 are both taken from the chat in WeChat groups of alumni, with one of the co-authors as a member of them. The participants have been fully acquainted with each other. The first two excerpts show that when the speakers’ personality is familiar to the recipients, the use of a conventionally improper or impolitic expression is not likely to be interpreted as it is. Excerpt (1) from WeChat Group Chat 1. Betty: 我到家啦 [I’m home now] 2. Queenie: 不要脸 [Shame on you] 3. Betty: 啊哈哈, 你们路上小心 [Haha. You take care on your way] 4. Vic:

.

Excerpt 1 is taken from a WeChat group interaction among some old schoolmates: Betty, Queenie, Vic and one of the co-authors of this paper. It takes place when Betty gets home and informs others of her arrival after a small-sized school reunion. Queenie responds with a negative personalised assessment (“不要脸” “Shame on you”) of Betty’s act in line 2. In Chinese, “不要脸” is a conventionalised impoliteness formula, often used to criticise someone for being unethical and imply one’s loss of dignity. Although it is argued that (im)politeness is partly inherent in linguistic

62

X. Chen and M. Li

expressions (Culpeper, 2010), from Betty’s response (i.e., an echoic word “啊哈哈” for laughter and a kind reminder for the other two to take care “你们路上小心”) in line 3, we find that Queenie’s use of the formula has not been interpreted as conveying impoliteness. As has been discussed by Culpeper et al., (2003: 1552), the speaker’s intention plays an essential role in the evaluation of (im)politeness, but no one can claim to “reconstruct the actual intention of speakers.” Instead, with adequate evidence, such as the interactant’s prosody and politeness strategies (Culpeper et al., 2003), we may pursue the plausible intentions. In this example, Queenie’s personality may account for Betty’s understanding of the non-existence of her intention of impoliteness. She knows, as does one of the co-authors, that Queenie is an emotional, critical, sometimes cynical but nevertheless kind-hearted person. Although sometimes she sounds somewhat envious and sarcastic in her speech, she is not being genuinely hostile, or deliberately jocular. In the scenario, her habitual use of the linguistically offensive form reveals her mixed feelings, for it still takes an hour or so for her to get back home. This explains why Betty sees her words as a dispositional response rather than genuine impoliteness. In line 4, Vic’s response with a joking sticker (literally asking Betty not to laugh “不能笑” to avoid irritating Queenie) continues the banter among the three participants. The jocular nature of the sticker provides further evidence for the necessity of taking into account Queenie’s personality in understanding her utterance and responding to it. Excerpt (2) from a WeChat Group Chat 1. Elizabeth: 有木有好看的综艺推荐啊 啊 [Any recommendations for a variety show?] 2. Stella: 奇葩说 [U Can U Bibi] 3. Stella: 吐槽大会 [Roast] 4. Elizabeth: 奇葩说没兴趣, 吐槽大会看完了 [(I’m) Not a fan of U Can U Bibi and (I’ve) watched Roast] 5. Stella: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Jane: 我来推荐个综艺 [I’d like to recommend a show] Elizabeth: 说 [Shoot] Stella: 通灵的? [(something) psychic?] Jane: 通灵之战 [Psychic Challenge] Elizabeth: 那是什么 [What is that] Stella: 啊, 好看 [Ah, a good show] Jane: Stella好懂我 [Stella can read my mind] Elizabeth: 在哪看的 [Where did you watch that?] Jane: 我在B站看滴 [I watched it on the B site] Elizabeth: OK Elizabeth: 找到啦 [(I) Nailed it!]

Personality and (Im)politeness: Evidence from WeChat/QQ Group Chats

63

17. Stella: 兰兰胆子真大 [Lanlan’s got a nerve]. Excerpt 2 is taken from a WeChat group chat among some former classmates of one of the co-authors. Elizabeth initiates the chat by asking for recommendations of a variety show. Stella immediately proffers a few options in lines 2–3, which are turned down off hand by Elizabeth in line 4. Generally, we would interpret her rejection as threatening Stella’s positive face. In response, Stella posts a reluctant face sticker in line 5, apparently to imply her discontent. However, in actuality, she does not take Elizabeth’s bluntness seriously and evaluates it as impolite. Intimately acquainted with Elizabeth, Stella knows her frankness and bluntness. Indeed, the following lines, such as line 10, do show Elizabeth to be a lady of little worldly wisdom, for she does not know “通灵之战” [Psychic Challenge], which is a horror game. Also, she uses an explicit imperative (“说” [“shoot”]) in line 7, and gives no thanks in line 16 to Jane for her help. The observation that Stella has not taken amiss at the latter’s apparently impolite utterances is also evidenced in line 23, where, following Elizabeth’s announcement that she has found the show, Stella addresses her with her nickname “Lanlan.”

4.2 Interpreters’ Personality as an Interpretive Frame for (Im)politeness Evaluation As mentioned earlier in this paper, participant’s evaluation of certain interactional behaviour as (im)polite is also dependent on the interpreters’ personality. As we have observed in our data, participants of different personalities responded to particular utterances differently. Excerpt 3 is taken from a QQ group chat among faculty members in a university, where one of the co-authors once worked for a few years. Basically, this is a work-oriented QQ group, where instructions and requirements are given and sometimes notifications concerning staff activities and benefits are also shared. Consider Excerpt 3. Excerpt 3 from a QQ Group Chat 1. Jason: 各位女士, 女神节快乐! [Ladies, happy Goddess Day!] 2. May: XX3 同乐 [The same to you, XX] 3. May: 快发福利

[Some material benefits, please]

4. Sylvia: @Jason 别来这种假假的!我们要看做领导的实际行动! [Don’t be hypocritical! We are looking forward to the leader’s practical actions!] 5. Daisy: 3

The job title of Jason in Labour Union.

64

X. Chen and M. Li

6. Wendy: 谢谢Jason老师, 同祝院里所有 goddess们, 节日快乐快乐 [Thank you, Jason. Best wishes to all goddesses in our college. Happy holiday!] 7. Sylvia: @Wendy 别睬他假惺惺的 [Ignore him. Crocodile tears.] 8. Emily: 9. Wendy: @Sylvia Jason老师是第一个祝俺节日快乐的男性同胞了, 家里人 都给忘了, 哈哈哈 [Jason is the first male who wished me a happy holiday. My family members all forgot about this.] 10. May: 11. Sylvia: @Wendy 那批你家里人, 但不意味着要感谢他极其空洞乏力的表达 [Your family members are to blame. It does not mean you should be grateful for his extremely empty and impotent language.] (2 min) 12. Sylvia: 我们毕竟是弱势群体。五一节。十一节, 端午节, 清明节等等都放假, 我们的节却上午上课, 下午开会!!!什么世道啊啊 [We are, after all, vulnerable populations. People go on vacation on Labor Day, National Day, Dragon Boat Festival, Qingming Festival, etc. However, we have class in the morning and have meeting in the afternoon!!! What a world] 13. Henry: 重要身份才有节日的@Sylvia [Holidays are celebrated only for important identities]. In Excerpt 3, Jason, who has a high position in Labour Union in a university department, initiates the conversation with Women’s Day greetings in line 1. As a relational act (Wu & Lin, 2017), this phatic expression is a conventional way of expressing politeness. Immediately, it evokes May’s return of blessing in line 2. Her follow-up request for some material benefits in line 3 is a joke, as judged from her naughty face emoji . However, in the subsequent lines 4 and 7, Sylvia addresses Jason directly (@Jason) and roundly considers Jason’s greetings to be hypocritical and untrustworthy. In China, evaluating someone as “假惺惺” (“hypocritical”) characteristically amounts to a trenchant criticism against his/her character and moral qualities, which is conventionally interpreted as impolite. Her response evokes Daisy’s reaction with a string of sniggering stickers in line 5, suggesting that her perception of Jason’s greeting accords with the conventional interpretation instead of supporting Sylvia, although she does not openly express it. Unlike Daisy, Wendy acts more strongly. Following Sylvia’s first criticism in line 4, she first thanks Jason in line 6, and then in line 9, she retorts directly to Sylvia (@Sylvia) by implicating that she should have been grateful to Jason, for the reason that he is the first male to send her greetings, while the males in her family have forgotten to do so. Her counter-attack is a bit surprising to May, who responds with a string of sniggering stickers

. However, Sylvia does not buy Wendy’s explanation but rather

further turns to her (@Wendy) in line 11. She not only asks Wendy to criticise her family members, but further strengthens her criticism of Jason by using the intensifier “极其” (“extremely”) and negative evaluative modifier “空洞乏力的” (“impotent”).

Personality and (Im)politeness: Evidence from WeChat/QQ Group Chats

65

After a noticeably long gap (2 min, line 12), Sylvia turns her criticism from the individual to the system, complaining about the busy schedule on Women’s Day, compared to other holidays, such as Labour Day, National Day, Dragon Boat Festival and Qingming Festival. She triples the exclamation mark and adopts a rhetorical question, emphasising her dissatisfaction. Henry’s subsequent turn in line 13 simply states that only important people can have holidays, which implies a challenge to Sylvia’s self-denigration as one of the vulnerable people. In this excerpt, the variation of the responses to Jason’s greetings indicates the variation of participants’ evaluation of (im)politeness. May, Daisy and Emily, who are sweet-tempered and vivacious, all take Jason’s relational act as polite in the sense that they make others feel good (Leech, 1983). In particular, May returns greetings to Jason and Wendy thanks him. Unlike them, however, Sylvia, who is a critical and picky colleague, takes Jason’s relational act as hypocritical and insincere. There is another manifestation of the effect of hearers’ personality on the interpretation of (im)politeness in Extract 3. Specifically, towards Sylvia’s unfair criticisms of Jason, which is conventionally considered impolite, Wendy, who is smart and considerate, does not take Sylvia’s criticisms seriously because she knows that she is a critical and picky person. Instead, when she senses an air of tension, she takes active measures to melt down the potential embarrassing situation. Her witty remarks are oriented to maintaining the relationship between Sylvia and Jason. Unlike Wendy, Henry, who is relatively a precise and austere man, directly raises a challenge in line 13 to Sylvia’s earlier criticism complaint in line 12. In other words, he interprets Sylvia’s speech as a disrespectful action, especially in a work-oriented group chat. As Mitchell and Haugh (2015) suggest, recipient’s perception of social norms, the perceived intentions of the speaker as well as the socially mediated agency of the recipients offer abundant source for the evaluation of (im)politeness. In this extract, we can see that recipients’ personality well accounts for their perception of speaker’s behaviour and its underlying intention, and licenses their agency in evaluating and reacting to interpersonal acts.

4.3 Impoliteness and Conflict as a Consequence of Personality Mismatch Participants’ judgments of (im)politeness sometimes diverge because of their different perspectives (Locher, 2004: 91), e.g., the behaviour that recipient understands as impolite is not necessarily perceived in the same way by the producer. The interaction may fall into conflict as a consequence of this mismatch of judgements, where the personality of the participants plays an essential role. Excerpt 4 is taken from a WeChat group chat among a few relatives of one of the co-authors. The interaction was focussed on a conventional and joyful activity in Chinese group

66

X. Chen and M. Li

chats, namely, sending and receiving “red envelope,” which, however, has caused an unpleasant result. Excerpt 4 from a WeChat Group Chat 1. Jun: 今天是Peter的生日, 我来发个红包[It’s Peter’s birthday today. Let me send a red envelope] (June在群里发了一个红包) [June sends a red envelope in the group] 2. Gui: 我抢到了 [I’ve grabbed it] 3. Jun: @ Gui 不是给你的, 谁让你抢的啊 [@ Gui, it’s not for you. Who has asked you to grab it?] 4. Jing: @ Jun 她不知道你是专门给Peter发的 [She doesn’t know you intend it for Peter only] 5. Gui: 干嘛说话这么凶, 不就抢了你一个红包, 有什么了不起 [Why are your words so fierce? I just grabbed a red envelope from you. It isn’t a big issue, is it?] 6. Jun: 这不是一个红包的问题, 那是我一片心意 [It’s not just a matter of a red envelope. It’s my care and respect.] 7. Gui: 别说了, 我发一个还给你。下次我发你也别抢 [I don’t want to listen to you any more. I return a red envelope to you now. Next time, when I issue a red envelope, you don’t grab at it.] 8. Ren: @ Gui @ Jun 我来补发一个红包, 大家都可以抢 [Let me issue a red envelope. You and others are welcome to grab at it. Extract 4 is an excerpt from an extended family WeChat group chat. After some exchanges with a couple of group members, Jun offers to send a “red envelope” (also called “lucky money”) via the WeChat group to Peter as a birthday gift. Mistakenly thinking that the “red envelope” is open for grabbing,4 Gui quickly acts and gets the lucky money. Finding his red envelope has been taken away by the wrong person, Jun addresses Gui (@ Gui), clarifying that the “red envelope” is not for her. Feeling that Jun’s words sound blunt and might offend Gui, Jing pops in and explains to Jun (@ Jun) that Gui has grabbed the “red envelope” by mistake, with an additional reminder to Gui that Jun has intended the “red envelope” to go to Peter. However, her effort goes in vain, because in the next turn, line 5, Gui is already in a bad mood. She regards Jun’s words as very fierce, and goes so far as to show contempt at Jun. In response, Jun makes no apology for his “fierce” words, but continues to explain how much his red envelope means to him, implying that Gui has spoiled his care for Peter. Irritated, Gui asks Jun to shut up and says revengefully that he must not grab at any red envelope she will issue in future. Finding June and Gui are in serious conflict, 4

“Red Envelope Grabbing” is China’s popular mobile chat app program, based on electronic payment, that allows members of a chat group to send and grab cash in the “red envelope.” When a red envelope is sent to the whole group, the cash is usually allotted randomly. When it is sent to a particular individual, the cash is for him or her only. In the latter case, the sender may mark it as specially sent to someone. When it is not marked, it might be grabbed by others in the group, as what happens in the excerpt.

Personality and (Im)politeness: Evidence from WeChat/QQ Group Chats

67

Ren pops in and tries to distract them from the dispute by issuing a red envelope for them and others to grab. In this excerpt, the conflict between Jun and Gui results largely from their personality. Jun is a blunt and serious speaker, whose tone always sounds harsh and fierce. Thus, when June utters the question in line 3, he, as one co-author knows, is only asking a neutral question rather than launching a criticism or attack. He is not aware that an utterance like the question may be perceived as impolite. However, the fiercesounding question proves provoking enough to Gui, who is very suspicious and irritable. Fortunately, Gui does not seem to keep the “offence” for long and once she is distracted from the moment, she will recover her good mood. On the other side, while Jun will become aware of his bluntness and refrain from it for a moment after someone reminds him of it, he will continue to be blunt next time you talk to him. After all, personality disposes.

5 Conclusion As (im)politeness has been understood as the participants’ evaluation, efforts have been put into investigating the grounds for such evaluation. This study has demonstrated the variations of (im)politeness evaluations as bearing on participants’ personality, thus enriching the existing scholarship on variational pragmatic research on politeness. The analysis of WeChat/QQ group chats offers tentative evidence for the position that both the producer’s and the recipient’s personalities constitute a basis for (im)politeness judgement. It has been argued, on the one hand, that the participants’ personality functions as an interpretive frame in locally situated interactions. Accordingly, the interpreters’ familiarity with the speaker’s personality counts significantly in the process of evaluation. When the interpreter has a clear understanding of the producer’s personality, he/she will take it into consideration in evaluating what has been uttered, e.g., taking some conventionally impolite expressions to be non-impolite. On the other hand, when the interpreter is not the same kind of man as the speaker or when the recipients have very little in common with each other, chances are that the variation might lead to dispreferred responses or even conflict. Thus, we show that personality is a key element in interpersonal interaction, for the understanding of the participants’ personality will enhance the mutual understanding of each other. Indeed, in the context of exploring the foundations of (im)politeness evaluation and focussing on the cross- and intra-cultural variations of such foundations, this study has tried to give recognition to the role that personality plays in the evaluation, by examining natural-occurring interactions in Chinese WeChat/QQ group chats. This study suffers some limitations. First, attempting to interpret the interactions concerned from an emic perspective, we chose the group chats that involved either of the co-authors. Yet this selection of the data as well as our analysis of them is inevitably subjective. In addition, the discussion in the study is limited to a small number of cases, without a full coverage of different types of personality traits and

68

X. Chen and M. Li

their effect. Future studies are needed to provide more sources for the exploration of the variation of (im)politeness evaluation in interpersonal interaction. Last but not least, the categorisation of the personality of each of the participants in the studied cases might not be precise enough. Thus, it is hard to generalise on the basis of the personality profiles presented in the paper. Funding This study was supported by a major project titled “Language Issues in the Social Management of Cyberspace” funded by National Social Science Fund of China (grant number: 20&ZD299).

References Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119–153. Arundale, R. B. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(2), 193–216. Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2078–2105. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Kádár, D. (Eds.). (2011). Politeness across cultures. Palgrave Macmillan. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. Barron, A. (2005). Variational pragmatics in the foreign language classroom. System, 33(3), 519– 536. Barron, A., & Schneider, K. P. (2009). Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 425–442. Bayraktaro˘glu, A., & Sifianou, M. (Eds.). (2001). Linguistic politeness across boundaries: The case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins. Blankenship, K., & Holtgraves, T. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(1), 3–24. Bolkan, S., & Holmgren, J. L. (2012). “You are such a great teacher and I hate to both you but...”: Instructors’ perceptions of students and their use of email messages with varying politeness strategies. Communication Education, 61(3): 253–270. Brown, L. (2011). Korean honorifics and ‘revealed’, ‘ignored’ and ‘suppressed’ aspects of Korean culture and politeness. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), Politeness across cultures (pp. 106–127). Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56–311). Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–507. Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality: A systematic theoretical and factual study. McGraw-Hill. Chang, W. L. M., & Fukushima, S. (2017). ‘Your care and concern are my burden!’: Accounting for the emic concepts of ‘attentiveness’ and ‘empathy’ in interpersonal relationships among Taiwanese females. East Asian Pragmatics, 2(1), 1–23. Chen, X. R. & Li, J. [陈新仁，李捷]. (2019). 当代中国礼貌观城乡差异调查与分析[An empirical study of contemporary Chinese politeness variation between urban and rural areas]. 外语 研究 [Foreign Languages Research], (1), 29–36. Cloninger, S. C. (2000). Theories of personality: Understanding persons. Prentice-Hall.

Personality and (Im)politeness: Evidence from WeChat/QQ Group Chats

69

Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In D. Bousfield, & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 17–44). Mouton de Gruyter. Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3232– 3245. Culpeper, J. (2011). Politeness and impoliteness. In G. Andersen, & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Pragmatics of society (pp. 393–438). Mouton de Gruyter. Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness reviewed: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545–1579. Culpeper, J., & Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English language. Palgrave Macmillan. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. Duan, C. G. [段成钢]. (2008). 汉语礼貌语言使用的性别与年龄差异研究 [An empirical test of gender- and age-linked language effect on politeness in a public speaking setting in a Chinese context]. 语言教学与研究 [Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies], (3), 57–63. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2016). Variation in evaluations of the (im)politeness of emails from L2 learners and perceptions of the personality of their senders. Journal of Pragmatics, 106, 1–19. Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. St. Jerome. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Sociopragmatic variation: Dispreferred responses in Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 81–110. Figueredo, A. J., Gladden, P., Vasquez, G., Wolf, P. S. A., & Jones, D. N. (2009). Evolutionary theories of personality. In P. J. Corr, & G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 265–274). Cambridge University Press. Fukushima, S. (2000). Requests and culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese. Peter Lang. Fukushima, S. (2004). Evaluation of politeness: The case of attentiveness. Multilingua, 23(4), 365–387. Fukushima, S., & Haugh, M. (2014). The role of emic understandings in theorizing im/politeness: The metapragmatics of attentiveness, empathy and anticipatory inference in Japanese and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 165–179. Geyer, N. (2021). Friendly or condescending? Negotiating appropriateness in online discourse on medical practitioners’ non-use of honorifics. East Asian Pragmatics, 6(1), 87–108. Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 141–165). Sage. Grainger, K. (2011). ‘First order’ and ‘second order’ politeness: Institutional and intercultural contexts. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Ed.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 167–188). Mouton De Gruyter. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press. Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(22), 237–257. Gu, Y. (2011). Modern Chinese politeness revisited. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), Politeness across cultures (pp. 128–148). Palgrave Macmillan. Gu, Y. G. [顾曰国]. (1992). 礼貌、语用与文化 [Politeness, pragmatics, and culture]. 外语教学 与研究 [Foreign Language Teaching and Research], (4), 10–17. Haugh, M. (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3(2), 295–317. Haugh, M. (2013a). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72. Haugh, M. (2013b). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48, 41–56. Haugh, M., & Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2010). Face in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2073– 2077.

70

X. Chen and M. Li

Haugh, M., & Hinze, C. (2003). A metalinguistic approach to deconstructing the concepts of ‘face’ and ‘politeness’ in Chinese, English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1581–1611. He, X. J. [何晓静]. (2010). 西班牙语中的受话者指示变异与言语礼貌 [Variation in addressing deixis and speech politeness in Spanish]. 解放军外国语学院学报 [Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages], 33(5), 36–40. Hendriks, B. (2010). An experimental study of native speaker perceptions of non-native request modification in emails in English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(2), 221–255. Hofstee, W. K. B. (1994). Who should own the definition of personality? European Journal of Personality, 8, 149–162. Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8(2), 223–248. Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 193– 218. Kasper, G. (1995). Wessen Pragmatik? Für eine Neubestimmung fremdsprachlicher Handlungskompetenz [Whose pragmatics? For a new definition of foreign language competence]. Zeitschrift Für Fremdsprachenforschung, 6(1), 69–94. Kádár, D. Z. (2010). Reflections on the critical turn: A research report. https://research.shu.ac.uk/ politeness/meetingdec09.html (accessed 21 July 2020). Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press. Kádár, D. Z., & Mills, S. (2011). Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge University Press. Kampf, Z., & Blum-Kulka, S. (2011). Why are Israeli children better at settling disputes than Israeli politicians? In F. Bargiela-Chiappini, & D. Kádár (Eds.), Politeness across cultures (pp. 85–105). Palgrave Macmillan. Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p’s and q’s’. Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 9(1), 292–305. Lakoff, R. T., & Ide, S. (Eds.). (2005). Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness. John Benjamins. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman. Leech, G. N. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press. Li, M. X., Guo, Y. D., & Chen, J. [李梦欣，郭亚东，陈静]. (2019). 当代中国大学生礼 貌观性别差异调查与分析 [Gender variations in contemporary Chinese politeness among undergraduates]. 外语研究 [Foreign Languages Research], (1), 37–43. Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness research and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33. Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge University Press. Mitchell, N., & Haugh, M. (2015). Agency, accountability and evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 207–238. Mullany, L. (2011). Im/politeness, rapport management and workplace culture: Truckers performing masculinities on Canadian ice-roads. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), Politeness across cultures (pp. 61–84). Palgrave Macmillan. Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583. Okamoto, S. (2021). Your politeness is my impoliteness: Variable understandings of the grammar and indexical meanings of honorifics. East Asian Pragmatics, 6(1), 39–64. Ren, Y. X., & Chen, X. R. [任育新, 陈新仁]. (2012). 《变异语用学》 介绍 [An introduction to Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages]. 当代语言 学 [Contemporary Linguistics], 14(2), 190–193. Rusieshvili, M. (2011). Modes of address between female staff in Georgian professional discourse: Medical and academic contexts. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), Politeness across cultures (pp. 149–168). Palgrave Macmillan.

Personality and (Im)politeness: Evidence from WeChat/QQ Group Chats

71

Saucier, G. (2009). Semantic and linguistic aspects of personality. In P. J. Corr, & G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 379–399). Cambridge University Press. Schneider, K. P., & Barron, A. (Eds.). (2008). Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages. John Benjamins. Shi, J. L., & Li, S. L. [石景玲, 李淑兰]. (2002). 中国大学生拒绝邀请的礼貌策略 [Politeness strategies of invitation refusals by Chinese university students]. 湖南大学学报(社会科学版) [Journal of Hunan University (Social Sciences)], 16(2), 86–89. Shum, W., & Lee, C. (2013). (Im)politeness and disagreement in two Hong Kong internet discussion forums. Journal of Pragmatics, 50, 52–83. Sifianou, M. (1999). Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective. Oxford University Press. Sifianou, M. (2010). Linguistic politeness: Laying the foundations. In M. A. Locher, & S. L. Graham (Eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (pp. 17–42). Mouton De Gruyter. Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2000). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. Continuum. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(5), 529–545. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 95–119. Spencer-Oatey, H., & Kádár, D. Z. (2016). The bases of (im)politeness evaluations: Culture, the moral order and the East-West debate. East Asian Pragmatics, 1(1), 73–106. Stadler, S. (2011). Intercultural communication and East Asian politeness. In D. Z. Kádár, & S. Mills (Eds.), Politeness in East Asia (pp. 98–124). Cambridge University Press. Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(2), 237–262. Terkourafi, M. (2011). From politeness1 to politeness2: Tracking norms of im/politeness across time and space. Journal of Politeness Research, 7(2), 159–182. Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press. Watts, R. J. (2005) Linguistic politeness research: Quo vadis? In R. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. xi–xvii). Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, R. J. (2010). Linguistic politeness theory and its aftermath: Recent research trails. In M. A. Locher, & S. L. Graham (Eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (pp. 43–70). Mouton De Gruyter. Wei, Y. Z. [魏耀章]. (2001). 恭维语的性别差异研究 [A study of gender differences in compliments]. 西安外国语大学学报 [Journal of Xi’an Foreign Languages University], 9(1), 1–5. Wu, D., & Lin, M. (2017). Relational acts and identity construction by Chinese celebrities on Weibo. In X. Chen (Ed.), Politeness across Chinese genres (pp. 110–134). Equinox. Wu, Y., & Zhu, Q. D. [吴雁, 朱秋荻]. (2009). 英语性别语言话语风格特征比较 [A contrastive study of men’s and women’s conversational styles]. 江西财经大学学报 [Journal of Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics], (3), 93–96. Xu, S. H. [徐盛桓]. (1992). 礼貌原则新拟 [Revisiting politeness principle]. 外语学刊 [Foreign Language Research], (2), 1–7. Zhang, C., & Zong, S. H. [张超, 宗世海]. (2015). 汉语访谈节目中的男女礼貌策略对比研究 [A comparative study on politeness strategies between males and females in Chinese talk shows]. 语言文字应用 [Applied Linguistics], (1), 46–55. Zhang, S. J., & Wang, X. T. [张绍杰, 王晓彤]. (1997).“请求”言语行为的对比研究 [A contrastive study of the speech act of requests]. 现代外语 [Modern Foreign Languages], (3), 64–72. Zhong, X. [钟馨]. (2002). 性别与礼貌原则的运用[Gender vs the use of politeness principle]. 湖 北大学学报 (哲学社会科学版) [Journal of Hubei University (Philosophy and Social Science)], 29(6), 116–118.

Politeness, Respect, Care, and Bias in Social Interactions Mollie Teitelbaum and Aaron Ben-Ze’ev

Abstract To honor the intrinsic worth of others during social interactions is a complex task. That humans are multifaceted implies that so, too, are the rules that govern their normative behavior. Society sets some of these rules officially in the form of standards of politeness. Polite behaviors can be split into two categories: Preventing politeness aims to smooth social interactions and prevent offense. Promoting politeness shows appreciation for others’ inherent value; this can be likened to the sort of Kantian respect that all people deserve by virtue of their human dignity. The rules of preventing politeness can be superficial, relating to material and less significant values. However, the highest aim of politeness—to communicate and exercise deep respect for others—is extremely profound, relating to the most meaningful aspects of individuals. In assessing other people’s polite acts, we should keep in mind that it is hard to know someone else’s intent, so impoliteness resulting from sincerity or personal limitations, or politeness that is mainly motivated by self-interest, can be misleading. In issues of social relations, increased mindfulness provides clarity. We have all kinds of biases, or built-in attitudes that constitute (sometimes in a distorted manner) our perception of the meaningful aspects of other people. Understanding our biases makes it easier to appreciate people for who they are, and this respect should be communicated via, among other things, polite behavior. Keyword Social interaction · Politeness · Respect · Care · Bias

1 Politeness: The Prevailing View The standards for engaging with people politely are set by societal norms. These norms are put in place in order to keep us from hurting other people’s feelings and to smooth social interactions. These goals are widely understood to be ethical, but without some sort of universal rules to enforce these goals, there would be chaos. For example, in one on one interactions, when the goal is to be polite, we aim M. Teitelbaum · A. Ben-Ze’ev (B) Department of Philosophy, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Xie (ed.), Advancing (Im)politeness Studies, Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37064-9_5

73

74

M. Teitelbaum and A. Ben-Ze’ev

to communicate our respect and attentiveness to the other person. If people went about achieving these goals according to their own rules, the message could not be delivered. One person might decide that the best way to show she is listening is to write down everything someone is saying. Another person might constantly interject to give personal opinions. A different person could believe that repeating back everything that someone says is a clear way to demonstrate interest. Someone else might nod and maintain eye contact. It is not typically individual instincts that determine how one should go about being polite. It is societal rules. The last option, to nod and maintain eye contact, is commonly thought of as signifying polite responsiveness. The rules of politeness are partly arbitrary and partly influenced by the given context (in that established polite behaviors have probably been chosen for a reason, like facilitating active listening). Regardless of why a standard has been set, it is important to acknowledge that it is typically a baseline that has been agreed upon. The most common definition of politeness denotes behaving according to the social norms that are appropriate in the given context (Fraser, 1990; Thomas, 1995; Escandell-Vidal, 1996). The perspective of the society is valued in this understanding. It is the other people involved in social interactions who set the standards for acceptable polite behavior. Some of the politeness literature emphasizes the value of politeness in cultivating and strengthening social relations (Fraser, 1990, 2002; Thomas, 1995). Politeness has been conceived of as a means of reducing interpersonal aggression to allow for better communication (Brown & Levinson, 1978). It is unsurprising that a polite tone is conducive to understanding others’ perspectives. Politeness has also been framed as acting with consideration for others’ feelings; this includes considering the relationship to and status of the individual one is addressing (Brown, 2001). Linguistic studies are also relevant in understanding politeness. The polite way to say something is not necessarily the most direct or explicit way (Grice, 1975; Searle, 1969). It involves tact and discretion in communicating one’s ideas without causing offense. Personal context must be considered to acknowledge varying capacities for linguistic politeness (Eelen, 2001). Knowledge of social norms is not the only external influence relevant to this conversation. In assessing the politeness of a behavior, various situational and social aspects should be considered (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1995). While these many understandings of politeness are not identical, they point to the complexity of politeness. We will indicate some major aspects of politeness. It seems important to note that this framework leaves much space for interpretation. Notions of appropriateness, social relationships, and context, for instance, which are relevant for assessing politeness, are subjective. This reflects the partly subjective nature of politeness, since social context greatly influences the meaning of a polite or impolite act. What may look like a polite act can sometimes not actually come from a place of genuine caring. One can pretend to be polite quite easily, and it seems that even if

Politeness, Respect, Care, and Bias in Social Interactions

75

this deceitful behavior reflects the appropriate factors that social norms emphasize, it is incompatible with genuine politeness.

2 Respect and Caring The prevailing view of politeness described above is adequate in most cases of politeness, but is not sufficient for describing the more profound aspects of politeness. Profound attitudes of caring and respect are clearly expressed, for example, in tact, where personal and contextual factors gain further importance (Ben-Ze’ev & Teitelbaum, 2021). Respect and caring are essential in moral human behavior; claiming that politeness is also central in such behavior, should indicate the presence of caring and respect in politeness as well.

2.1 Respect Respect is foundational for our moral life. Kant prioritizes respecting all people as a way to acknowledge their human dignity. He understands the human capacity to reason as mandating a certain level of proper treatment. Famously, Kant asserts that no one should be treated as mere means, but always also as ends in themselves (Kant, 1998). Of course, we use people instrumentally all of the time. In our professional and personal lives alike, we depend on others to achieve our goals, ranging from the most simplistic to the very complex. This points to the interdependence of human beings in our social world. While we can use each other’s special skills and abilities to further our own ends, it is most important that all the while, we acknowledge the intrinsic worth of those with whom we interact. This sort of respect requires regarding others in a holistic way. This entails maintaining mindfulness of the fact that the people whom we encounter—the grocery clerk, the woman behind us in line, or the man who cuts us off—have their own, full stories. All individuals have attributes that are meaningful and wonderful, and others, which aggravate their loved ones to no end. People have values they try to abide by, and belief systems they aim to uphold. There are all sorts of relationships to attempt to keep in balance—familial, friendship, romantic, and professional. People all have needs and desires, and obstacles they must reconcile in pursuit of these ends. To treat others with respect requires that as we interact with them, we keep in mind all of these factors that are implied by their very humanity. This means understanding that all people are constantly engaging with a physical and mental life as compelling as our own. When we act, significant weight should be attached to considering how our actions affect people. Recognizing the inherent value in others is a very meaningful and important kind of respect.

76

M. Teitelbaum and A. Ben-Ze’ev

There is another kind of respect, which is less universally mandatory, but still relevant. This is respect that is earned by virtue of the achievement of some pursuit. Perhaps this pursuit is someone’s skillset or profession—we respect successful painters, doctors, or mothers—for fulfilling their roles, and carrying out their duties with fluency (Darwall, 1977). This kind of particularized respect can also apply to one’s specific characteristics. We can respect someone for being funny, friendly, humble, or an overall good person, for example. Respecting people involves giving them credit for having qualities that we evaluate positively (Cranor, 1975). When we notice that someone does an action or exhibits a trait that reflects our values, often (and unsurprisingly), we communicate our approval. This kind of respect likely comes more naturally to us. When we instinctively support a behavior or attitude, it is in our best interest to express this, to promote the behavior’s continuation. Our biases, or built in attitudes, lay the groundwork for those aspects of people that we are inclined to like or dislike. We are predisposed to respect certain qualities and habits that clearly resonate with our goals and how we want to live our lives. It is likely more natural for us to respect people for what we admire and to disrespect them for what we disapprove of. This predisposition puts us at risk for prioritizing the respect that is earned by skills and characteristics above the kind that is granted by virtue of one’s very humanness. While the former allows us to promote our goals, the latter lays the groundwork for our normative behavior. Both sorts of respect are foundational to civil society.

2.2 Caring Caring is significant in human interactions. It is associated with sensitivity, combined with actual deeds. Caring is more profound in close relationships, but is also present in interacting with strangers. Thus, caring is central in both theories of (parental and romantic) love and in theories concerning the relationship between care-givers and care-receivers. Without question, care, which is a type of benevolence, is central in love. It goes beyond a positive attitude towards, and the wish to be with, the beloved, seeking to enhance the beloved’s wellbeing. Erich Fromm describes love as “the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love” (Fromm, 1956: 26). In this view, genuine love has less to do with the individual’s own needs and more to do with a strong concern for the other, accompanied by actual deeds. The care model is most relevant in relationships that involve significant inequality, such as parental love, love of God, and love for someone who is unwell. In such cases, there is nothing wrong with one-sided caring. However, among equals, as in the ideal form of romantic love, one-sided caring (and love) is problematic. Nevertheless, caring is still essential in all types of love. One-sided caring is also evident in relationships between care-givers and care-receivers, such as, for example, in nursing. Profound caring often involves high degree of emotional intelligence.

Politeness, Respect, Care, and Bias in Social Interactions

77

We believe that like respect, care is also vital in politeness. This is especially true for profound types of politeness, like tact.

3 Superficiality Versus Profundity The distinction between the superficial and the profound is pivotal in understanding emotional and normative behavior (Ben-Ze’ev, 2019). This distinction is instinctual, and very useful for gaining clarity in understanding our priorities. Superficial concerns affect only the surface and are limited in their scope and impact—although their effects can become considerably negative if we engage in them excessively. What is superficial typically relates to material needs and social norms. Something that is profound extends far below the surface and has a lasting impact. Profound emotional experiences, which relate to the objective circumstances of one’s environments and personalities, have a lingering impact on our life and personality. What is profound is meaningful, not because of constructed social concerns, but because it is related to deep, inherent human needs and values. Ends such as close human connection and personal flourishing provide satisfaction, by nature. They infuse our lives with meaning and purpose. Profound meaningful activities are not necessarily pleasant. Some writers and artists, such as Vincent van Gogh, experience great agony in the process of creating their works. In such cases, profundity typically involves deep meaningful satisfaction in overcoming difficulties while using one’s most distinctive capacities. Profound satisfaction involves optimal functioning, using and developing one’s essential capacities and attitudes. Part of profound and meaningful satisfaction is the ability to overcome problems and progress. While laziness can provide fleeting pleasure, work and activities afford profound satisfaction. Considering that the most common purpose of politeness is to smooth social interactions, often by enforcing conventions, polite acts are often superficial. Some superficial motives for behaving politely include wanting status, pleasing authority, gaining favor, avoiding conflict, and fearing to violate a social norm. However, politeness can also be very meaningful. Profound motivations to behave politely include respect, sensitive caring, wanting to connect, improving someone’s mood, communicating respect, and making others feel comfortable, wanted, and validated. This superficiality-profundity distinction proves useful in analyzing the sort of normative meaning that can be attributed to two different categories of politeness. Preventing politeness, which relates to what is both superficial and profound, and promoting politeness, which mainly deals with what is profound.

78

M. Teitelbaum and A. Ben-Ze’ev

3.1 Preventing and Promoting Politeness Tory Higgins (Higgins, 1997) distinguishes between promotion-focused behavior, which concerns strong ideals related to attaining accomplishments or fulfilling hopes, and prevention-focused behavior, which concerns felt obligations related to protection, safety, and responsibility. This distinction highlights the difference between behaviors relating to nurturing, versus those relating to security. In the prevention mode, interactions between people occur only when something is going wrong— when some “should” are violated. The promotion mode is characterized by ongoing activities related to the creation of optimal conditions for fulfilling strong ideals. In the prevention mode, there is hardly any sense of development; in the promotion mode, there is a sense of development toward fulfilling shared ideals (Higgins, 1997). Preventing polite behaviors aim to prevent offense or social transgressions. For instance, it is polite to say “excuse me” after a burp, “God bless you” after a sneeze, and to shake peoples’ hand upon meeting them. Rules governing preventing politeness can vary depending on culture and context. However, they are likely not totally random, but grounded in our socialness, as many parallels in politeness rationale can be drawn through cultures and time. For instance, table manners help to conserve the perception of the mouth as one of the windows of the soul, even in the act of eating. That is why people strive not to speak with a full mouth, or to let food drop from their mouths onto the plate. It is why forks and chopsticks were invented, and why when some Africans, when they eat with their fingers, shape their hands gracefully so that the food passes without trace into the mouth. This maintains the sociable aspect as the food is ingested (Scruton, 2011). While they are called for in that we need a code of conduct, the question as to why these specific rules of politeness were adopted does not relate to very meaningful values. To this extent, the guidelines of preventing politeness are relatively superficial. Sometimes, our rules of politeness have more profound origins. Rules like not walking into people, saying please and thank you, and not interrupting people while they speak are more logical preventers of offense. The values they represent— respecting others’ personal space, expressing gratitude, and listening to what people have to say—are very significant. Reinforcing Kantian respect, they refer back to our basic human dignity and principles of treating others how you want to be treated. Often, we cultivate preventing polite behaviors as habits. Our capacity to treat people well in this fundamental way, without needing to try consciously to be polite constantly, is very useful. This ability allows us to navigate the many complex tasks that consume our minds, without having to actively monitor every little interaction in order to ensure proper treatment. Habituated social skills save a lot of time and energy, which can be put towards any pursuit. Engaging in preventing politeness, we can maintain our social standards and be decent towards one another, with relatively minimal effort. Preventing polite behaviors are very important for smoothing social interactions and enforcing respectful interactions amongst people. However, that we habituate preventing politeness means that we can be polite without actively considering human

Politeness, Respect, Care, and Bias in Social Interactions

79

dignity and meaningful respect. This makes preventing politeness less significantly profound than the other kind of politeness. Promoting politeness aims at contributing positively to others’ sense of well being. We use it to communicate in a more direct manner that we value and respect people. For example, through active listening and responsiveness, we can help others to feel validated in all sorts of scenarios. If someone has a problem, by politely listening and communicating, we can validate their frustrations, help them cope, and consider strategies going forward. If someone is celebrating, we can gain understanding of which values and goals make the accomplishment so important and communicate genuine praise for a job well done. Promoting polite behaviors acknowledge other peoples’ values and go a step further in supporting the ways in which those values manifest themselves in someone’s life experience. By supporting people’s interests and ideas, we promote their self-esteem. Positive reinforcement, especially from those we are closest to, makes us proud and motivated. Promoting politeness is most profound because it encourages personal flourishing. It facilitates human connection, one of our most fundamental needs as human beings. Feeling supported by those around us goes along way for promoting our wellbeing. It is a very deep satisfaction that comes from experiencing people caring about the things that you say and do.

3.2 Profound Politeness, Respect, and Care Promoting politeness is profoundly meaningful because it mainly responds to people’s inherent value as human beings. It denotes the kind of Kantian respect that is not earned by virtue of one’s skills, abilities, or even attitudes, but is granted to all people in acknowledgement of their humanity. Being compassionate, responsive, and attentive all contribute to someone’s wellbeing. Beyond merely avoiding harm, these behaviors aim to promote the other. Preventing polite behaviors, such as offering your chair in a bus to an elderly woman, or avoiding talking about topics that are sensitive for someone, can be profoundly meaningful as well. Context is relevant in understanding the profundity of certain preventing polite acts that evade offense tactfully. Tact is a form of promoting politeness that involves discretion and astuteness. Like politeness in general, tact can either prevent harm or promote flourishing. Tact is always subtle and aims to improve a situation. Sometimes it serves to protect the other by subtly steering situations away from harmful consequences. Other times, its goal is to make people feel good about themselves. This involves casually introducing ideas or behaviors into a situation to have a positive influence on people’s feelings and interactions (Ben-Ze’ev & Teitelbaum, 2021). The most profound acts of politeness stem from a place of genuine caring. Rick Furtak (2018) argues that we experience our life as meaningful because we care about its elements, including experiences, events, people, and the future. Things are

80

M. Teitelbaum and A. Ben-Ze’ev

emotional for us because they matter to us. Caring about aspects of our social world make us vulnerable to perceive experiences as meaningful, through our emotional reactions. Care and interest are described as a priori to designate that they actually precede and structure experience. They constitute our perspective, by elucidating our value system and sense of reality in the world (Furtak, 2018). In politeness, social conventions, which are not a priori in the sense of preceding all human experiences, are a priori, in the sense that if being adopted they precede specific experiences. It is unsurprising that care and interest constitute the emotional a priori because these same attitudes contribute to profound respect. As Furtak notes, care and interest are always present, at least to some extent, as evidenced by our attachment to our experiences and ability to derive meaning from them. External influences, such as social conventions and habits, can either support or interfere with the perspective established by the emotional a priori. The ends that care and interest prioritize can be neglected due to many factors, such as self-interest, negative emotions, weak will, and bad habits. Acts of profound politeness are evidence of the emotional a priori shaping experience rather unimpeded, or perhaps even supported by good habits, positive emotions, and the pursuit of moral values and goals. Politeness allows us to actually communicate our genuine care and interest. The most meaningful polite acts are instances of actively helping others by attending to their most basic needs of human connection, acceptance, and approval. The notion of politeness may seem to be employed too generously here. Would these attitudes and behaviors not be better characterized as instances of utter respect and kindness? We would argue that the line between politeness and respectful behaviors can be unsurprisingly blurry. There is a tradition in Asia of treating your partner with the respect you accord a guest. Simple polite gestures are often maintained throughout the relationship. This is true even if you have been with your loved one for a long time. The other person always deserves your full respect. Reverence is the nature of our love (Hanh, 2014). Respect requires total politeness—how could you demonstrate that you value someone as a person, without also communicating consideration for her feelings and needs? These concepts are intimately related; therefore, aiming at being respectful in our socially constructed society likely includes attempts at regulating polite behaviors—of both the promoting and preventing varieties.

4 Intentions in Politeness Interpreting politeness, behavior is often the dominant consideration. As in all other moral and normative behavior, a factor issue that is naturally relevant here is intention. What motivates the agent to behave in a polite manner? Possible motivators of politeness include to make someone feel good, to avoid awkwardness, to achieve self-interested gain, or to follow conventions. Understanding intentions is essential in evaluating a polite act.

Politeness, Respect, Care, and Bias in Social Interactions

81

The merits of polite acts become questionable if politeness stems from selfinterest, as this makes it insincere. However, not all insincere polite acts are selfinterested. One important issue we would like to examine is the distinction between benign and malicious insincere politeness. In order to clarify this issue, we begin by examining the related issue of benign and malicious envy.

4.1 Benign and Malicious Envy and Polite Insincerity An important classification of the different types of envy is that between benign and malicious envy (Lange & Crusius, 2015; Sterling, van de Ven, & Smith, 2016). In both types of envy, there is the desire to eradicate one’s inferiority, especially since this inferiority is perceived to be undeserved. The main difference between the two types is in their motivational component regarding how to eliminate this sense of inferiority. Malicious envy is associated with the motivation to harm the position of a superior other, and benign envy is related to the motivation to improve oneself by moving upward. Malicious envy includes a profoundly hostile attitude, which is nicely illustrated in the proverb, “The envious man thinks that he will be able to walk better if his neighbor breaks a leg.” Benign envy involves a positive attitude towards the other, but a negative attitude towards one’s own situation; hence, a non-acceptance of the situation. Malicious envy is typically associated with a situation in which the agent perceives the other’s superiority as undeserved and sometimes even immoral. Benign envy is usually related to a situation in which the other’s superiority is perceived as deserved, though the agent’s own situation is still regarded as undeserved (Ben-Ze’ev, 2016). A somewhat similar analysis can be applied to the distinction between benign and malicious polite insincerity. The agent’s intention, which expresses the agent’s action readiness, is also crucial in judging the agent’s polite behavior. Take, for example, the agent’s intention in insincere politeness, when voicing, for example, benign lies (what is usually termed “white lies”). As is the case of benign and malicious envy, also in benign and malicious insincere polite behavior, the agent does not like the current situation of the other. However, while in envy the agent suffers from unpleasant inferiority, in benign insincerity, the agent’s concern is improving the other’s unfortunate circumstances. Envy can be benign when one does not want to hurt the other in improving one’s situation. Insincerity can be benign when the agent’s insincerity intends to help the other and not oneself. Envy and insincerity are malicious when improving one’s situation is done while hurting the other; they are benign, when it is done without hurting the other, and in the case of benign insincerity, it involves helping the other.

82

M. Teitelbaum and A. Ben-Ze’ev

4.2 Benign and Malicious Insincerity and Polite Behaviors Politeness constitutes malicious insincerity when it aims to achieve status, money, reputation, or trust, for example. Flattery is often malicious, as well. The flatterer uses our deep human need to feel good about ourselves to her advantage. It is an instance of malicious, deceitful politeness if someone is overly nice and attentive to a boss to achieve a promotion, or to a teacher, to receive a higher grade. This sort of deceit capitalizes on the notions that politeness prevents offense and makes people feel good about themselves. When self-interest largely and maliciously motivates behavior, it cheapens both promoting and preventing polite behaviors. It manipulates people’s value systems, it is dishonest, and it is the epitome of treating people as mere means and not as ends in themselves. Deceitful politeness of this nature constitutes a significant lie. It communicates falsehood with an ulterior motive. Self-interest prioritizes superficial concerns such as power, money, and favor above profound cares, like justice, dignity, and human connection. Self-serving intentions qualify these acts as stemming from malicious insincerity, rather than benign insincerity. They are profoundly hurtful and disrespectful. Benign insincerity is less culpable, and at times, even socially useful. It takes shape in white lies, which are often less significant and offensive, smaller lies. It is less crucial that the liar successfully deceives listeners into believing that a white lie is true. White lies can qualify as beneficially polite because they are not primarily meant to deceive, they aim to prevent offense, and sometimes they even facilitate communication (Camden et al., 1984). Terkourafi (2018) highlights that the social meaning of a white lie is sometimes productive, and does not depend upon the lie being thought to be true. Insofar as white lies can be worthy of fulfillment due to social standards of politeness, they may not even qualify as real lies. One can imagine a situation in which everyone is dressed beautifully and fittingly for an event, except for one person whose appearance is haphazard and sloppy. If someone begins to give a compliment, “You all look wonderful,“ to the group, before seeing the unstylish outlier, obviously the white lie entailed by not pointedly adding in, “Except you,” upon spotting her, is not merely excusable, but favorable. Politeness involving deceit can be merited when it avoids offense or promotes an individual.

5 Politeness and Bias Social interactions operate far more smoothly when governed by the rules of politeness. It is useful and important that we give some weight to these rules because they relate to moral values. We are well equipped to notice the extent to which people behave with respect and care, which social norms often reinforce.

Politeness, Respect, Care, and Bias in Social Interactions

83

When people are being polite or impolite, our judgment of their behavior is accompanied by a bias, or a built-in attitude. While often people understand the word bias as inherently negative, we are using it in a neutral way. Aspects of individuals, such as their beliefs, characteristics, and conceptions of social norms, inform their predispositions to react to specific behaviors in certain ways. Biases are essential. They save time and energy by habituating our responses in ways that are often useful. Biases are necessary shortcuts for navigating the complex and extensive thought processes that we are inherently dependent upon. We need automatic, spontaneous responses to be efficient, to protect ourselves, and to behave with fluency. While these biases are crucial to our social lives, they can be misleading, and even harmful because they influence our perception automatically. They often disregard important factors that distinguish various kinds of polite behavior, including intent, personality, and cultural norms. Understanding these factors and their influence on behavior provides clarity. In light of the distinctions between different sorts of politeness, and the extent to which the behaviors that characterize them can appear the same, the judgments we make in response to politeness can be unfounded. It is important to gain awareness of these distinctions and our implicit assumptions that conflate them. In this way, we can try to regulate our biases to only inform our impressions of others reasonably and fairly.

5.1 Politeness Halo and Impoliteness Halo The simplest relevant biases involve evaluating polite behavior positively and impolite behavior negatively. After all, we learn good manners from our parents, and from our institutions, and we are taught that they are correlated with good nature and care for others. When people behave in accordance with these rules, they act acceptably; when they break them, it is a transgression of social etiquette. However, as bias neglects relevant context, our judgments based on small, possibly insignificant actions are likely to impact our overall impressions of individuals disproportionately (Banaji & Greenwald, 2016). In the case of positive bias towards politeness, this phenomenon can be referred to as a politeness halo: someone acts politely, and in response, we (being partly unaware of it) associate her with overall goodness. This produces generous character judgments that can often be unmerited. On the opposite side of the coin, when people are impolite, this can motivate an impoliteness halo, so that they are perceived as more malicious than is merited based on their social transgressions. These responses can be disproportionate to the behavior that elicits them because they fail to accurately account for intention. When someone exhibits polite, preventing behavior (for instance, by acting considerately, tactfully not hurting anybody’s feelings), it is difficult to know whether this is genuine or “just polite,” based on the surface. When politeness does its job—smoothing social interactions to

84

M. Teitelbaum and A. Ben-Ze’ev

make us feel comfortable and valued—it is likely that we will think quite highly of the polite person. However, the very fact that there are rules of politeness that we all understand (and commonly acknowledge the social value of) means that someone can adopt and abide by these rules intentionally for a deceitful purpose. It is noteworthy that people can act as if they care, regardless of whether they experience genuine caring. When we interpret someone’s politeness as profound because we do not realize that it is largely motivated by self-interest, the politeness halo produces mistaken positive judgments. It can become harmful when politeness elicits admiration and feelings of closeness towards someone who merely wants to seem like the kind of person who values the merits that politeness stands for. On the other hand, we tend to be turned off by impolite behavior, even though it may not be reflective of someone’s deep character or motives. An impoliteness halo can respond to social faux pas that are accidental, or stem from justifiable ignorance of the rules of etiquette. Additionally, some cultures emphasize politeness far more than others do. In certain countries, nose blowing in public is acceptable, and in others, it is deplorable. In some places, please and thank you are considered mandatory courtesies in almost any interaction; in others, people will laugh at you if you use them too much, as bluntness and candor are prioritized. Combating cultural values are evidence that perception, which is influenced by bias, is not necessarily accurate. Judgments rooted in bias require critical analysis to mediate their influence on our behavior. Someone who is rude or seems to be faking niceness may actually be experiencing genuine caring. For some people, it runs counter to their personality to behave sweetly. Unfortunately, there are people who just always look unnatural with a smile on their face. Others look particularly peeved, when their expression is actually neutral. Also, if someone is very anxious, it can be difficult for her to communicate comforting, supportive behavior, even if her true intention is to provide such genuine support. Individuals on the autism spectrum often have trouble adhering to rules of politeness, which is not at all indicative of their level of caring for others. Additionally, if people feel uncomfortable in their own skin, their actions can seem less genuine if they are calculating each step, word, and expression, so that they do not appear to behave organically. This tends to be largely circumstantial and to require a lot of time and energy to overcome. Discounting someone on the basis of this sort of impolite act can be hurtful and rude, but beyond that, it represents a disinterested attitude towards connecting with this person. This is a shame if the person has not actually done anything seriously morally wrong. It blocks personal connection and can perpetuate unfair stereotyping of an individual. From a moral standpoint, the person who cares just as much, but is worse at relaying this care is equally as ethical. It could even be argued that for those for whom it is more difficult to make their behaviors align with the rules of politeness, attempts to do so are more impressive—these individuals invest more efforts in behaving this way than someone who is naturally polite with ease.

Politeness, Respect, Care, and Bias in Social Interactions

85

5.2 Paradoxical Politeness Biases We habitually interpret polite behavior positively and impolite behavior negatively, but sometimes, we also do the opposite. This is paradoxical because it seems logically inconsistent, but actually, it is true and so, obviously logically possible. Impoliteness is received positively when candor that borders on rudeness is appreciated for its honesty. Tone and intention are very relevant in this domain. The very same sentiment can be perceived as unacceptably rude or virtuously honest, depending on context and on the nature of delivery. When impoliteness comes from a place of caring and prioritizing truth, it can be perceived as positive. Take the scenario of a man discussing with his friend whether he might have a chance at pursuing a romantic relationship with a particular woman whom both of them know. The friend cannot actually know for certain whether the woman will be interested. The polite response is the optimistic one, in which he encourages his friend to pursue his romantic interest. This is the simplest way to keep the interaction smooth and to appease the friend who would obviously be happier to hear that his dream could be actualized. However, if the friend has seen the two interact, and has a hunch that the woman is not interested, he could give a very different response that the man might still evaluate positively. To say that the woman is probably not interested is the less polite response. Yet, to have a friend say what he knows you do not want to hear can be evidence of significant value being place on the friendship. If two people have a strong connection, then communicating the truth can at times signify deeper respect than mere politeness for the sake of convention. Conversely, politeness is sometimes perceived negatively. Since we all know to some extent that politeness can be used to deceive, we can fall into the trap of skepticism: we doubt whether politeness is genuine, even when it is. We can be suspicious that well-intending polite behavior is actually motivated by self-interest. Politeness allows people to get what they want, so in some sense, our radar is always up, attempting to detect whether flattery or kindness is being employed with deceitful intentions. Therefore, polite behavior does not solely elicit positive bias, but it can be the source of negative bias, as well. However, we should be careful about evaluating others negatively for seeming to fake genuine politeness. This could potentially prevent the establishment of meaningful personal connections. Assuming that someone’s considerate acts are fake can stop a relationship before it even starts. Social anxiety and feelings of vulnerability can make it hard to trust that polite acts are genuine. However, openness to new, meaningful connections promotes growth and flourishing. Sometimes we fake promoting behavior with preventing behavior, and this has its merits. If you fake caring, for example, by being careful not to offend someone or be rude, you typically do succeed in preventing offense. Additionally, you might eventually adopt the values underlying more profound caring, and actually begin to care more. Faked politeness can also generate good feelings in whomever it is directed towards.

86

M. Teitelbaum and A. Ben-Ze’ev

Even more significantly, we must allow that when we interpret politeness as fake, this judgment can be fallible. Many of the same exculpating factors that explain failure to communicate politeness are also important for defending the impolite or overly polite. Factors, such as anxiety, autism, insecurity, and a negative disposition are often largely (or completely), out of one’s control. It is important not to underestimate the influence that these factors can have on significant behaviors. Of course, all individuals can make strides towards behaving more politely. However, it can be justifiable that there are merely more pressing factors on one’s mind and polite behavior does not make the cut. It is important to be compassionate in judgments relating to politeness, as one does not always know what is motivating behavior. Values associated with politeness can be extremely important when they are profound, communicating genuine care for others. But it is important to keep in mind the extent to which we can only truly know if polite behavior is honest when it is our own behavior. We should strive to cultivate positive polite habits in ourselves, which will hopefully influence and strengthen our own profound, polite attitudes. When assessing the politeness or impoliteness of others, often, we do not have all of the information. Additionally, we lack the superhuman capacity to know what really motivates people’s actions. Therefore, particularly when interacting with strangers, we should keep in mind that behavior does not always mean what it seems to. Politeness is nice, but it is not reliably an accurate indicator of the significant virtues of others.

6 Tuning into Interpersonal Biases to Achieve Profound Politeness Our misjudgments of intentions in assessing the politeness of an act can distort our moral evaluations dramatically. This emphasizes the meaningful role that politeness plays in our society. We have strong intellectual and emotional reactions to acts that we take to be polite or impolite. These influence how we assess all sorts of essential aspects of how we relate to others, including the extent to which we: like or dislike them, enjoy their company or not, want to know them better, respect and admire them, etc. which stand to influence the most profound parts of our lives. Our most significant relationships, as designated by time spent or value endowed with, shape our goals, actions, ideals, and many other defining features. That we are susceptible to predictably immoral and irrational misinterpretations produces an obligation to be more attentive to those around us; we should aim to receive them fairly and objectively (insofar as this is possible). Evidently, social norms, personalities, circumstances, and emotions are largely implicated in this domain. Considerations of politeness are social concerns. When we analyze our social world and how we interact with it, our perception is influenced by our own tendencies and various other partly external influences. Therefore, passively or even passionately

Politeness, Respect, Care, and Bias in Social Interactions

87

believing that overall, people are valuable and worthy of being treated with human dignity does not ensure the maintenance of this tenant. It is easy to go through the motions of politeness absent-mindedly, without representing our most meaningful attitudes towards others. We are prone to misperceiving, in ways that are subtle, but significant. To gain clarity in understanding our social interactions requires mindful and intentional interpretations. Going back to the reasons why the (often superficial) rules of politeness were established in the first place allows for a more constructive approach to behaving politely. It is important to think critically about how and why to treat others well. The most profound politeness is the sort of respect that Kant (and many since) argued that we owe to all people, to acknowledge their intrinsic value and human dignity. This is a very important positive promoting behavior. The goal of politeness is to communicate respect for others and to respect others means to value them in and of themselves. We cannot act wholly politely without being respectful and vice versa. So many aspects of ourselves, like emotions, habits, and goals, can interfere with the pursuit of our moral ends. Imagine a man is unhappy when his wife publishes a book because his envious feelings are making him wish he himself were the author. His wife’s intellect and drive, which made the book possible, are characteristics that he loves. Moreover, one of his goals is to help and support her in fulfilling her goals, so his emotional response should certainly be a positive one, from both a personal and ethical perspective. When he responds to his wife’s accomplishment negatively, the impoliteness signified by his lack of enthusiasm, rude tone, or eye rolling has great potential to harm his partner because of their close relationship. We can also imagine a classic lunchroom bully scenario. Someone is being teased for wearing unstylish clothing at school and a whole group of students gathers to watch. It is common knowledge that anyone who tries to defend the kid being bullied will in turn, be bullied. Self-interest motivates the gaggle of bystanders to remain idle. Some of them feel morally guilty and ignore it, others are so wired to value the social status of fitting in that they experience no pangs of guilt—their priorities are set. When one’s self-interest or a social value drives behavior one-dimensionally, feelings are often hurt. These sorts of superficial ends tend to conflict with more profound goals of making people feel good. To communicate respect and caring through politeness, in moments when circumstances and traits interfere with moral intentions, we must turn to the foundations of respect and caring. This demands an adjustment of perspective. By default, we tend to consider our own interests and preferences as our focal point. Acknowledging that more crucial than our own agenda is that all people are treated with human dignity is a valuable priority check. To ensure proper treatment, we must be prepared to appreciate all people for who they are. This imperative demands the complex task of analyzing people’s qualities and assessing them fairly. We must think critically about the extent to which we consider qualities to be positive versus negative and superficial versus profound.

88

M. Teitelbaum and A. Ben-Ze’ev

How do we influence our perceptual tendencies to align with our values? Looking past other people’s peccadillos and our own, it is worthwhile to admire those characteristics that are most meaningful. It is useful to distinguish four kinds of interpersonal biases.

6.1 Superficial Negative Bias “She’s so full of herself.” “His hair is always greasy—does he even shower?” “She’s late…all the time.” Judgments such as these, though admittedly not reactions to the most severe wrongdoings, often demand our attention as soon as we make them. When these biases are conscious, sometimes they can be useful, as when deciding between job candidates or romantic partners. The problem with superficial negative biases is that even though they are directed towards relatively small offenses, we assign them disproportional weight. Biases that we acknowledge consciously also impact our behavior subconsciously. They make us treat people less kindly, for instance, by demonstrating through our tone and body language that we don’t care about what others are saying (Brennan, 2016). Needless to say, this is not very polite. Without realizing it, we are overreacting to what is superficial as if it is profound. In actuality, the superficial negative is often more innocent than it seems, largely motivated by context and factors outside of someone’s control. People’s peccadillos are often connected to their deep insecurities and vulnerabilities. When someone activates our superficial negative biases, it is most moral to overcome (or at least hide) our disapproval by making an effort to behave politely.

6.2 Profound Negative Bias A profound negative bias is elicited by acts that reflect deep and meaningful wrongdoing, as with extreme selfishness, malice, close-mindedness, or immorality. If a racist commits a hate crime, this is profoundly bad and warrants judgment. This extreme example obviously demonstrates a profound level of negativity, but other biases, against greed, lateness, or egoism, for example, must be evaluated on a case by case basis to understand the extent to which they are profound versus superficial. Assessing this requires taking into account factors like intent, personality, control, and context. Profound qualities are often revealed over time due to their complex and personal nature. Profound negative biases should be taken seriously when assessing one’s character and deciding what sort of relationships to (or maybe not to) establish. These biases are least conducive to politeness and respect. They target truly culpable

Politeness, Respect, Care, and Bias in Social Interactions

89

qualities, so acting politely and respectfully in spite of them could be harmful. Alternatively, one might decide that these biases represent a legitimate attitude of disapproval that should be expressed, through impolite or even disrespectful behavior. This could be meant to ensure justice or to motivate the wrongdoer to improve.

6.3 Superficial Positive Bias As with superficial negative biases, superficial positive biases can impact our impressions of people disproportionately. While being influenced to perceive someone as more positive might seem like it would be advantageous, to overvalue what is merely a superficial quality is problematic. Consider how physically beautiful people tend to be treated better in a restaurant, or the workplace—complete strangers and peers, alike, act more kindly and are more attentive to these individuals due to a biological trait they have no responsibility for. These people have a real societal advantage. In choosing a romantic partner, it is easy to be smitten by superficial positives like flattery, charm, athleticism, and social class, but in the long run, these sorts of qualities do not necessarily contribute to healthy, successful relationships. These biases are valuable, however, in establishing initial connections with people (Ben-Ze’ev, 2019). The politeness halo is a good example of this kind of bias. Superficial positive qualities seem connected to those preventing polite behaviors that are more superficial. As a result, these biases are useful for putting into perspective what may be less relevant for earning our profound politeness and respect. They should not consume the polite person’s attention.

6.4 Profound Positive Bias Traits such as compassion, patience, caring, kindness, responsiveness, and sincerity are profoundly positive. They reflect a genuine, deep interest in others’ wellbeing; and their expression, especially when reciprocal, allows people to cultivate meaningful relationships. These are not qualities that are necessarily apparent upon meeting someone and their tendency to be accompanied by calmness and a disinterest in recognition or praise makes them easy to overlook. Tuning into this kind of bias influences us to treat people with humanity, through both the obvious and subtle behaviors that come with positive attitudes like profound politeness, respect and admiration. Unsurprisingly, it is also useful to focus on profoundly positive attributes when choosing romantic partners (Ben-Ze’ev, 2019). Unfortunately, a phenomenon called the Negativity Bias makes us far more sensitive to negative things than to positive ones. If two disparate events are of equivalent strength, the event that is negative will elicit much greater psychological activity and will affect behavior more (Baumeister et al., 2001). Therefore, our minds are not

90

M. Teitelbaum and A. Ben-Ze’ev

automatically keenly attuned to the most worthy qualities. What is negative and even superficially positive is much more likely to grab our attention. Making an effort to maintain awareness of profound positive biases is very conducive to achieving goals of politeness and respect.

6.5 Bias Mediation It is unsurprising that it is a Buddhist practice that proves useful in controlling misguided impressions that stem from biases. Buddhism acknowledges the powerful, and often harmful, capacity of mental states to motivate irrational behavior that one would not consciously endorse. To cultivate the skill of mindfulness, Buddhists (and nowadays, many others who see the value in this practice) actively observe their thoughts, and try to be present in their experiences. By gaining awareness of anxious, chaotic, or counterproductive mental processes, one can merely acknowledge these thoughts, not give them weight, and let them go. There has been significant research demonstrating the utility of mindfulness in combating bias (Langer & Stapleton, 2008; Lueke & Gibson, 2015). Mindfulness requires an intentional, investigative inner voice: Do you like that individual because of a quality that is superficial or profound? Was your impression of someone as impolite or phony polite the result of an assumption or unfair stereotype, or was there time and thought involved in gaining true understanding? Being diligent about acknowledging the sources of our perceptions can prevent unethical actions rooted in baseless impressions. Beyond that, deciding to concentrate less on the negative (especially when it is superficial) and more on the positive (particularly, when profound) elicits our respect and admiration for the most meaningful qualities of the people around us. Biases should never be given free rein in motivating behavior, however, when we intentionally align them with our priorities, they become valuable tools in leading the good life.

7 Conclusion Politeness seems simple at first, but upon analysis it is revealed to be complex. Moreover, it is essential to our social lives. Politeness is effective for smoothing social interactions, and can create space to communicate more deep and genuine respect. Preventing polite behaviors avoids harming the other through violation of an upheld social or personal regulation. Acts of promoting politeness encourage the other’s flourishing and wellbeing, contributing to positive joint interactions. The most profound politeness communicates the sort of valuing of the other that designates an attitude of deep respect. The ways in which we perceive and value politeness influence our interpretations of social interactions. This great social value can lead to unwanted consequences.

Politeness, Respect, Care, and Bias in Social Interactions

91

Sometimes we attribute too much value to polite and impolite acts. We can also interpret unintended meaning, by misjudging (or failing to consider) the underlying intentions and extent of control. It is important to consider the fallibility of certain judgments that include assessments of politeness or impoliteness. Reflecting upon an individual overall will always breed more authentic understanding than any isolated incident. In putting behaviors and characteristics into perspective, we should appreciate the significance of the profound and be aware of the tendency to overvalue what is superficial. Issues of politeness are complex. This is evident by the fact that at times, we even have trouble distinguishing the most meaningful aspects of polite behavior. A polite act may look the same when it is fake as when it is genuine. However, one aspect definitely differs in genuine versus fake politeness: how it feels for the agent. To behave in a truly polite manner is to follow the customs of politeness out of respect for the other. The value does not come from the conventions of politeness themselves, but from the meaning we attribute to them while carrying them out. To act politely with the aim of making someone else feel respected, appreciated, and valued is a profound and worthy undertaking.

References Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2016). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. Bantam. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2016). Envy and inequality in romantic relationships. In R. Smith, U. Merlone, & M. Duffy (Eds.), Envy at work and in organizations (pp. 429-454). Oxford University Press. Ben Ze’ev, A. (2019). The arc of love: How our romantic lives change over time. The University of Chicago Press. Ben-Ze’ev, A., & Teitelbaum, M. (2021). The value of politeness in romantic love. In C. Xie (Ed.), The Philosophy of (Im)politeness (pp. 137-153). Springer. Brennan, S. (2016). The moral status of micro-Inequities: In favor of institutional solutions. In M. Brownstein, & J. M. Saul (Eds.), Implicit bias and philosophy: Moral responsibility, structural injustice, and ethics (pp. 235–253). Oxford University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–311). Cambridge University Press. Brown, P. (2001). Politeness and language. In N. Smelser, & P. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 11620–11624). Elsevier Sciences. Cranor, C. (1975). Toward a theory of respect for persons. American Philosophical Quarterly, 12, 303–319. Darwall, S. (1977). Two kinds of respect. Ethics, 88, 36–49. Djikic, M., Langer, E. J., & Stapleton, S. F. (2008). Reducing stereotyping through mindfulness: Effects on automatic stereotype-activated behaviors. Journal of Adult Development, 15, 106– 111. Escandell-Vidal, V. (1996). Towards a cognitive approach to politeness. Language Sciences, 18, 629–650. Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219–236. Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. HarperCollins.

92

M. Teitelbaum and A. Ben-Ze’ev

Furtak, R. A. (2018). Knowing emotions. Oxford University Press. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press. Hanh, T. N. (2014). How to love. Parallax Press. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. Kant, I. (1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor & J. Timmermann, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. Lange, J., & Crusius, J. (2015). Dispositional envy revisited: Unraveling the motivational dynamics of benign and malicious envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 284–294. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman. Lueke, A., & Gibson, B. (2015). Mindfulness meditation reduces implicit age and race bias: The role of reduced automaticity of responding. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 284–291. Scruton, R. (2011). Beauty: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge university press. Sterling, C. M., van de Ven, N., & Smith, R. H. (2016). Studying benign and malicious envy in the workplace. In R. Smith, U. Merlone, & M. Duffy (Eds.), Envy at work and in organizations (pp. 57–84). Oxford University Press. Terkourafi, M. (2018). Intention recognition in lying: The case of white lies. Keynote speech presented at the International Symposium on Advances in (Im)politeness Studies 2018, Fujian Normal University, 25–27 May. Thomas, J. A. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Longman.

Emotional (Im)politeness

Positive Emotions and Pragmatic Choice: Politeness Practices in the Mexican Context Gerrard Mugford

Abstract Emotions, the temporary affective expression of feelings (Arndt & Janney, 1987), play a key role in relational work as interactants establish, construct, develop and maintain interpersonal relationships. Expressed in different ways across different cultures, emotions are strongly linked to face and identity (Langlotz & Locher, 2017: 303) and reflect appropriate or inappropriate participant behaviour as interactants engage in expected and unexpected conduct or what (Watt, 2003) terms politic and polite behaviour. Reflecting “both personal and social phenomena” (Langlotz & Locher, 2017: 303), emotions need to be understood within specific sociocultural contexts as interlocutors engage in rapport management (Spencer-Oatey, 2018) and express varying degrees of involvement (Arndt & Janney, 1987) e.g., supportiveness and solidarity or antagonism and aggression. I examine the concept of emotion and politeness within a specific Mexican context to understand how face can be expressively boosted, undermined, maintained or even suppressed and how identity is established emotionally at the individual and collective levels. This is often expressed in Mexican Spanish through individual alignment with ‘the hearer’s positive face’ (Curcó, 2007: 114) and interpersonally by emphasising close involvement with other interlocutors through highlighting respeto (respect) and “confianza, that is values of openness, informality, camaraderie and closeness” (Félix-Brasdefer, 2008: 166). Keywords Politeness practice · Positive emotion · Mexican · Pragmatic choice · Relational work · Rapport management

1 Introduction Within politeness research, emotion is often seen as a pragmatic add-on as researchers focus on how interactants value and express relationships and convey consideration, respect and concern towards others. However, in this chapter, I maintain that emotion is a key dimension to understanding politeness practices and patterns through building G. Mugford (B) Modern Languages Department, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Xie (ed.), Advancing (Im)politeness Studies, Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37064-9_6

95

96

G. Mugford

on Langlotz and Locher’s argument that “all interaction contains emotional, relational and socio-normative elements” (2017: 293). Whilst emotion and politeness have been researched in negative terms (e.g., for discussion see Bousfield, 2008; Culpeper, 2011), I focus on the positive dimension to expressing emotions since the positive dimension potentially enhances both the speaker and listener as they can project their own, the hearer’s or a joint face (Goffman, 1967). I argue there is a strong link between emotion and politeness on individual, interactional and societal levels as interlocutors aim to achieve mutual positive affect (Arundale, 2010: 141). However, politeness and emotion can only be fully understood in contextual terms as interactants express involvement, supportiveness and engagement with others. Therefore, to understand the contextual and sociocultural expression of positive affect, I examine Mexican politeness patterns and practices as interactants wish others well, promote their own face and adhere to societal norms. To examine positive emotions, politeness and pragmatic choice within the Mexican context, I have structured the chapter in the following way. First of all, I study emotion in terms of activity and effect and examine how Mexican interactants seek to achieve mutual positive affect by engaging in relational practices that focus on the self and others. Secondly, I follow the three-wave approach to understanding politeness in order to interrelate emotion and politeness within the Mexican context. I then present the results from 32 participants who reflected on Mexican politeness practices and their emotional effect. Finally, I conclude that politeness and emotion in the Mexican context reflects a strong interactional rather than societal dimension.

2 Emotion and Affect Individuals engage in interpersonal and transactional communication with different degrees of interest, intensity and involvement which are expressed through emotion. Interest reflects the inclination/willingness/enthusiasm to pursue communicative goals. Intensity reveals how much effort interactants are willing to invest in expressing emotion. Involvement discloses the degree of im/personal commitment interlocutors make in expressing speech events (Arndt & Janney, 1987). Emotion, therefore, involves acting upon a feeling which in the case of positive emotions may express happiness, affection, respect, warmth, gratitude, kindness, sympathy, etc. As will be examined later in this chapter, each society has its own way of expressing positive and negative emotions and furthermore, emotions are conveyed through a variety of means including vocal cues, verbal cues, body cues, physiological cues and facial cues (Planalp, 1998, quoted in Langlotz & Locher, 2017: 303). The degree of interest in expressing emotion depends on how interactants want to participate or come across in a given interaction. This will depend on whether they are interested, uninterested or disinterested parties. As a result, they may wish to participate as an anonymous interactant (Mugford, 2014, 2019) who shows no real interest or concern in the speech event, as an indifferent anybody (Aston, 1988, 1993) who can access a range of emotional resources but is largely uninterested in

Positive Emotions and Pragmatic Choice: Politeness Practices …

97

developing interpersonal relationships or as an attentive somebody (Aston, 1988, 1993) who is fully committed to expressing him/herself and participating as fully as possible in a specific interaction. Intensity of emotion is reflected through the ability of interactants to utilise pragmalinguistic/sociopragmatic resources (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1983). Pragmalinguistic knowledge focuses on “the particular resources which a given language provides for conveying particular illocutions” (Leech, 1983: 11). Therefore, “imbued with pragmatic meanings” (Culpeper, Mackey & Taguchi, 2018: 30), pragmalinguistic resources allow interlocutors to express emotions in strong, neutral or weak terms e.g., closeness/familiarity vs. intimacy/affection or sympathy/compassion vs. concern/attentiveness. Meanwhile, sociopragmatic knowledge responds to “more specific ‘local conditions on language use’” (Leech, 1983: 10) as interactants select the appropriate emotional response to a given situation. Sociopragmatic knowledge ‘captures the specific contextual phenomena that shape pragmatic meanings on a particular occasion of use’ (Culpeper, Mackey & Taguchi, 2018: 30). Emotional involvement (Arndt & Janney, 1987) reveals how interactants approach affective states and their level of commitment to other interactants or the context. Furthermore, interactants’ awareness of others’ degree of involvement is a key component of interpersonal and/or transactional communication: ‘Inferences about levels of involvement (high vs. low) and types of involvement (personal vs. interpersonal) figure importantly in the interpretation of speech events’ (Arndt & Janney, 1987: 351). Degrees of emotional involvement reveal the strength of relationships with others as argued by Tannen (1989: 12) who sees involvement as “an internal, even emotional connection individuals feel which binds them to other people as well as to places, things, activities, ideas, memories, and words.” Furthermore, she notes that involvement reflects “the interactive nature of conversational interaction” (Tannen, 1989: 12). Therefore, any discussion of emotion must examine not only speaker action and motivation but also the hearer’s reactions and perceptions. As noted by Svennevig (1999), involvement is closely related to conversational style and especially with regard to positive politeness, as will be discussed in the next section. In conclusion, interactants’ interest, intensity and involvement when expressing emotion involve action and reaction. As speakers take a position or stance, this will create an effect on the addressee(s). However, whilst trying to construct, consolidate and maintain relationships, it is important to note that emotional work (Langlotz & Locher, 2017: 315) may not be appreciated to the same degree by (all) the hearer(s).

2.1 Mexican Emotions The expression of emotions by Mexican interlocutors is exemplified through Goffman’s (1967) concepts of line and face. As defined by Goffman, interactants will take a line which ‘is a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which he expresses his view of the situation and through this his evaluation of the participants, especially

98

G. Mugford

himself ’ (Goffman, 1967: 5, my italics). It is important to recognise that an interactant is concerned with how his/her participation is being viewed by others. In the Mexican context, taking a line with regards to emotions can be directed at satisfying a hearer/addressee, projecting him/herself or at conforming to societal expectations. Related to line is face which Culpeper, Mackey and Taguchi (2018: 44) argue “relates to one’s public image, reputation and self-esteem.” This will mean that he/she will project a face which Goffman defines as: as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes—albeit an image others may share, as when a person makes a good showing for his profession or religion by making a good showing for himself. (Goffman, 1967: 5)

It is important to note that, adhering the Goffman’s definition, face per se is not individually focused but a collaboration with others and fulfilment of social expectations. Face, therefore, can be understood through those actions interlocutors take to avoid face-threatening acts (FTAs), to engage in face-maintaining acts (FMAs) and to undertake face boosting acts (FBAs).

2.2 Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs) Avoiding FTAs is one of the chief concerns of classic politeness theory (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1987; Lakoff, 1983; Leech, 1983, see below for a fuller discussion). Brown and Levinson identified FTAs as “certain kinds of acts [which] intrinsically threaten face, namely those acts that by their nature run contrary to the face wants of the addressee and/or the speaker” (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 65). So, in order to avoid undermining the addressee’s face, Mexican interactants will often mostrar respeto (show respect). Drummond (2006) argues that respect reflects both a negative and positive emotion and reveals an attitude towards other people. In Mexican Spanish, respect is emotionally conveyed through the appropriate use of the T/V pronouns: tú and usted and through the use of distancing structures such as the impersonal third person e.g., ¿ Le gustaría comer? (Would you like to eat?). On one level, tú expresses familiarity and closeness while usted reinforces distance and respect. Respect is often conveyed indirectly and is closely associated with ‘formality, tentativeness, and a concern for helping the interlocutor’ (Félix-Brasdefer, 2008: 156). At the same time, respeto may not always employed to show deference towards the hearer. It may also be used by an interactant to augment his/her social image e.g. to be seen as considerate of others and bien educado (well educated). Demonstrating respeto can also be interpreted as maintaining group face (Curcó, 2007) as interactants may be more concerned with how they are perceived by their peers rather than wanting to project an individual face. On another level, conveying respect may reflect societal norms: “It is important to note that expressing respeto (‘respect’) in Mexican society does not mean that the speaker is protecting the hearer’s individual territory or self-image,

Positive Emotions and Pragmatic Choice: Politeness Practices …

99

as commonly noted among the Americans, but rather, showing respeto in accordance with the social rules established by the society…” (Félix-Brasdefer, 2008: 167). Closely associated with respeto is dar su lugar (to recognise one’s social status) which is achieved through acknowledging the occupation and social status of the interactant. For instance, doctors, engineers and architects may well be addressed as doctor, ingeniero and arquitecto. At the same time, honorifics such as Don (for men) and Doña (for women) may be employed to distinguish social status, especially that of older people. Meanwhile, other interactants maybe recognised for achieving academic success and may be addressed as licenciado (if, they hold a B.A.) and doctor (if they have a PhD).

2.3 Face-Maintaining Acts (FMAs) When engaged in maintenance of face (Archer, 2017a; Goffman, 1967), interlocutors are not always focused on protecting the face of other interactants since facework is much more extensive in scope and depth. Domenici and Littlejohn (2006: 10) define facework “as a set of coordinated practices in which communicators build, maintain, protect, or threaten personal dignity, honor, and respect.” Consequently, face maintenance could involve face-saving as an interactant “may want to save his own face because of his emotional attachment to the image of self which it expresses, because of his pride or honor, or because of the power his presumed status allows him to exert over the other participants, and so on” (Goffman, 1967: 12). Therefore, facework has a positive and constructive dimension with respect to emotions since interlocutors may actually wish to enjoy, maintain and consolidate relationships. Furthermore, Domenici and Littlejohn (2006: 104) argue that “[h]ow we define, respond to, and express emotion has implications for self-face, other-face and mutual-face.” They argue how we express emotions is “affected by culture, and the ways in which individuals in relationships come to understand and act on feelings may well be influenced by their cultural backgrounds” (Domenici & Littlejohn, 2006: 104). This is especially the case of Mexican interactants who engage in such practices as ser servicial (to be helpful and responsive), acomedirse (to be more than willing to help) and hacer el bien (to do good to others) in order to maintain interpersonal and transactional relationships and focus on the well-being of the hearer/addressee. Whilst in Anglo cultures the practice of ser servicial would be considered to be unduly submissive and subservient, in Mexico it is a way for interactants to demonstrate their responsiveness to others’ face needs. It means identifying others’ wishes and requirements and trying to satisfy them. Whilst respeto and dar su lugar are to a large degree verbal, ser servicial is demonstrated through emotional action and the performers do not necessarily expect to be duly thanked for going out of their way to help others. They see the practice of ser servicial as their responsibility and duty. In the same vein, acomedirse (to be more than willing to help) and hacer el bien (to do good to others) mean that interactants follow their conscience and do what is morally correct and therefore often reflects societal norms of behaviour.

100

G. Mugford

2.4 Face Boosting Acts (FBAs) Face boosting acts (FBAs) are carried out when interactants want their addressees to feel good i.e., the “primary intent is to enhance face” (Archer, 2017a: 393). FBAs go under a number of labels including face-enhancing act (Archer, 2017a, 2017b) intimacy enhancement (Aston, 1988), face-boosting acts (Bayraktaro˘glu, 1991, 2001) face enhancement (Sifianou, 1995) and rapport enhancement (Spencer-Oatey, 2008). Interactants employ FBAs to strengthen and reinforce interpersonal and transactional relationships and they may also be employed to compensate for FTAs and to “reduce social distance” (Svennevig, 1999: 44). Bayraktaro˘glu (1991: 15; italics added) argues that face boosting acts aim to “satisfy the face wants of the addressee and/or speaker.” Therefore, FBAs may also be aimed at promoting one’s own face. In summary, FBAs promote supportiveness and solidarity and aim to bolster and boost interpersonal relationships. They stand in stark contrast to FTAs where interactional choices are based on avoiding any destabilizing and undermining moves. To engage in FBAs, Mexican interactants will often mostrar confianza (show proximity, assurance and understanding) and mostrar cariño (display attachment, affinity and warm-heartedness towards addressees/hearers). Fitch argues mostrar confianza is a bond “denoting a relationship-specific degree of trust and intimacy between two people” (Fitch, 2007: 248). It stands in opposition to distancia (distance) where people are cautious and reluctant to openly reveal their feelings and emotions. Meanwhile mostrar cariño underscores a strong emotional dimension to interpersonal relationships. It reflects “sincere affection” (Fitch, 2007: 257) and is often demonstrated through: intimate naming e.g., hijito/hijita (literally meaning ‘little son/little daughter’ but can be used outside the family with close friends); the use of paralanguage e.g., through physical contact such as touching and emotional hugging; and by enthusiastically expressing endearment and warmth with expressions such as mi vida (literally meaning ‘my life’) and mi corazón (literally meaning ‘my heart’). In conclusion, face-threatening acts (FTAs), face-maintaining acts (FMAs) and face boosting acts (FBAs) reflect relational work as participants engage in and reveal emotional actions and responses as they interact with addressees/hearers. These strategies help Mexican interactants to achieve mutual positive affect (Arundale, 2010: 141).

3 Politeness Politeness can be defined as the manifestation, implementation and assessment of everyday interaction as interlocutors establish, develop, consolidate and maintain interpersonal and transactional relationships. Theoretical, discursive and discursivetheoretical understandings reveal the emotional dimension to politeness patterns and practices. These have been research in terms of three waves.

Positive Emotions and Pragmatic Choice: Politeness Practices …

101

3.1 First-Wave Approach First-wave approaches reflect theoretical attempts to understand politeness and have been forwarded principally by Lakoff (1973), Brown and Levinson (1987) and Leech (1983). Consequently, practical examples are then found to support theory. Lakoff (1973: 298) outlines the rules of politeness as follows and which reflect a strong emotional strand: Don’t Impose; Give Options; Make A feel good—be friendly [A refers to addressee]. These maxims convey a degree of emotional sensitivity. For instance, Don’t impose means ‘Remain aloof, don’t intrude into “other people’s business”’ (Lakoff, 1973: 298). This closely relates to the Mexican practices of showing respeto (respect) and dar su lugar (to recognise social status). Lakoff argues that this rule is often achieved through the use of passive and impersonal structures. Meanwhile, Give Options signifies that interlocutors will give addressees choices by not imposing their views on them and using structures such as hedges “which have the effect of suggesting that the speaker feels only a weak emotional commitment toward what he’s discussing” (Lakoff, 1973: 299). This rule is reflected in the Mexican practices of ser servicial (to be helpful and responsive), acomedirse (to be more than willing to help) and hacer el bien (to do good to others) as interactants cater to the addressees’ needs. Finally, the rule Make A feel good—be friendly produces “a sense of camaraderie between speaker and addressee” (Lakoff, 1973: 301). In one sense this rule mirrors face boosting acts because it aims to make hearers feel valued and appreciated and is expressed through mostrar confianza (show proximity, assurance and understanding) and mostrar cariño (display attachment, affinity and warm-heartedness towards addressees/hearers). Brown and Levinson’s (1987) approach to politeness centres on “face, facework and acts that threaten face, sociological variables influencing face threat, and five general ways (or ‘superstrategies’) of counterbalancing face threat with (at least some) specific linguistic strategies” (Culpeper, Mackey & Taguchi, 2018: 44). To some degree Brown and Levinson’s framework reflects a theory of face rather than of politeness “dealing only with the mitigation of face-threatening acts” (Locher & Watts, 2005: 10). However, their definition of politeness in terms of positive politeness and negative politeness does highlight the desire of the speaker to sustain and strengthen interpersonal and transactional relationships. Brown and Levinson (1987: 101) define positive politeness as “redress directed to the addressee’s positive face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the actions/acquisitions/values resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable.” It reflects the language of “exaggerated expressions of approval and interest (‘How ábsolutely márvellous! I simply can’t imagine how you manage to keep your roses so exquísite, Mrs B!’) …” (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 101–120, accents in the original). Positive politeness by its very nature contains a strong emotional dimension as interactants express increased affection and interpersonal warmth. Furthermore, positive politeness appears to be expressed through face boosting acts in Mexican interactional patterns and practices. Meanwhile, negative politeness reflects emotion restraint. Brown and Levinson (1987: 129) define negative politeness as “redressive action addressed to the

102

G. Mugford

addressee’s negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his action unimpeded. It is the heart of respect behaviour, just as positive politeness in the kernel of ‘familiar’ and ‘joking’ behaviour.’” Therefore, negative politeness can be seen in Mexican politeness practices in terms of showing respeto (respect) and dar su lugar (to recognise social status). Besides emphasising respect, negative politeness “is characterized by self-effacement, formality and restraint, with attention to very restricted aspects of H’s self-image, centring on his want to be unimpeded” (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 70) [H refers to hearer]. Brown and Levinson use the term affect when discussing emotion and argue that “the display of affect is socially constructed, with cultural and situational expectations about what and how feelings should be displayed, [and] work here links in directly with our discussions of face-threatening acts …, positive politeness strategies …” (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 28). Affect can be seen to closely align with the Mexican politeness practices of mostrar confianza (show proximity, assurance and understanding) and mostrar cariño (display attachment, affinity and warm-heartedness). Leech (2014) approaches politeness practices through a series of maxims which focus on satisfying the hearer’s needs: Tact, Generosity, Approbation, Modesty, Agreement and Sympathy. These maxims have the underlying objective of placating the hearer: “In order to be polite, S [the speaker] expresses or implies meanings that associate a favorable value with what pertains to O [the addressee] or associates an unfavorable value with what pertains to S (S = self, speaker)” (Leech, 2014: 90). Therefore, the expression of emotion involves the speaker in suppressing his/ her feelings and in giving a high value to the addressee’s wants and desires. So, for instance, in adhering to the Sympathy maxim, the speaker “is expressing common feeling over some favorable action of event associated with O” (Leech, 2014: 210). These practices can be seen to correspond to Mexican politeness behaviour in terms of ser servicial (to be helpful and responsive), acomedirse (to be more than willing to help) and hacer el bien (to do good to others) where satisfying the hearer’s feelings is paramount.

3.2 Second-Wave Approach Second-wave approaches to understanding politeness and emotion involves examining discursive incidents and trying to understand the co-constructive dimension to politeness practices and the localised nature of relational practices. For instance, Félix-Brasdefer (2015) examined the joint nature of service encounters in the United States and Mexico and examined levels of involvement and distance. In his examination of pragmatic variation in a Mexican market, Félix-Brasdefer underscores the degree of relational work: In this interaction, the female customer used the formal form of addressee, V (implicit in the verb cómo ha estado? ‘how have you v been?...), whereas the male vendor employed the informal pronoun….. In addition to the unequal and consistent use of pronoun of address (T used by the male vendor and V used by the female customer), the participants employed a

Positive Emotions and Pragmatic Choice: Politeness Practices …

103

variety of names, using the diminutive … to express solidarity with the interlocutor, as well as other family terms, such as mamá (lit. mom), papá (lit. dad) …. (Félix-Brasdefer, 2015: 146–147)

The interaction reveals how interactants construct interpersonal relations in terms of respect and distance (with the use of T and V pronouns of address), use of diminutives to show cariño (endearment) and family terms to construct relationships and consequently demonstrating not only cariño but also confianza. A further example of Spanish-language politeness and emotion can be found in Placencia (2019) who examined how on-line sellers refused bargaining offers. She notes … numerous affiliative devices such as greetings and farewells (e.g. saludos ‘greetings’), friendly forms of address (e.g. amigo ‘friend’) are used by both buyers and sellers. As such both buyers and sellers appear to seek to present themselves in a good light as friendly and/or respectful people according to their choice of greeting formula, for example, thus compensating for the possible offence or threat that their offer or rejection might cause. (Placencia, 2019: 191)

An analysis once again reveals the concern with respect and how it is coconstructed between interactants, the emotional desire to be on friendly terms and trying to come across in the best way possible. This chapter examines how cariño are confianza are used as polite choices to construct, maintain and further interpersonal relations.

3.3 Third-Wave Approach Third-wave approaches attempt to relate discursive data with politeness theory as opposed to starting off with a theory and finding evidence to support its claims. However, with regards to Mexican politeness studies, less work has been undertaken in this area with perhaps the notable exceptions of Félix-Brasdefer (2012) and Márquez-Reiter (2019). In examining pragmatic variation by gender in market service encounters in Mexico, Félix-Brasdefer reported that related research (but not service encounters) “shows that in the Mexican regions examined there is an increasing preference for T (to express solidarity and confianza ‘trust’) over V (used to signal deference, social distance, and social power)” (Félix-Brasdefer, 2012: 21). In his own research, FélixBrasdefer noted that ongoing regular relationships demonstrated more emotional closeness since “the degree of familiarity (due to frequency of interaction) was often characterized by the familiar form T (tú) by both interlocutors” (Félix-Brasdefer, 2012: 24). This study underscores the use of confianza and familiarity at the transactional level and then attempts to find theoretical explanations with which to explain variation by gender in market service encounters. Márquez-Reiter (2019) examined telephone interaction between a call-centre agent and a client with each having their own transactional goals: the agent was

104

G. Mugford

trying to interest the client in buying a product whilst the client want to obtain a product to which she was not seemingly entitled. Márquez-Reiter examined how the client uses affectivity to pursue her transactional objective. The client can be seen “to display affectivity as evidenced by the insertion of the endearment term mi amor (‘my love’) to pressure the agent into mutually co-ordinating closure…” (MárquezReiter, 2019: 139). The client appears to be using cariño as an emotional weapon to achieve her transactional objective. This study therefore highlights the deliberate use of politeness terms to achieve a transactional objective. In conclusion, Mexican politeness practices, described in terms of the three waves, reveal that emotion and politeness are closely intertwined. However, it remains to be seen how Mexican interactants themselves understand the use of politeness to achieve mutual positive emotional effects. To this end, I carried out research to understand Mexican interactants’ evaluations and understandings.

4 Methodology In order to understand how Mexican interactants themselves understand and engage in the use of politeness and emotion, I conducted research with 32 participants who were asked to reflect on Mexican politeness patterns and how they judged the emotional effect of such practices.

4.1 Research Questions The research questions regarding Mexican politeness practices have two objectives. First of all, I want to understand why people engage in certain politeness routines and especially whether these routines reflect social, interpersonal or individual motivation. Secondly, I want to examine the effect of carrying out such practices and how they are perceived by other interactants. The overarching research questions are: 1. Why do Mexican interactants engage in specific politeness practices such as mostrar respeto, ser servicial, acomedirse, mostrar confianza and mostrar cariño. 2. What is the emotional response of other interactants when observing a speaker engaging in politeness practices such as mostrar respeto, ser servicial, acomedirse, mostrar confianza and mostrar cariño? These research questions examine whether politeness practices reflect emotional responses in trying to avoid face-threatening acts (FTAs) e.g., mostrar respeto; to engage in face-maintaining acts (FMAs) e.g., ser servicial and acomedirse; or to undertake face boosting acts (FBAs) e.g., mostrar confianza and mostrar cariño. At the same time, participants’ responses were examined to ascertain whether these

Positive Emotions and Pragmatic Choice: Politeness Practices …

105

politeness practices can be understood in terms of the three waves that describe politeness research. First-wave approaches will help identify whether Mexican interactants focus on trying to placate the hearer’s feelings. Second-wave interpretations reveal participants’ emotional desire to be on friendly terms and co-construct pragmatic understandings. Third-wave approaches allow actual practices to be matched with politeness theory.

4.2 Research Justification The study of Mexican politeness behaviour provides valuable insights into handson practices rather than theorising about how people may establish, grow, develop, consolidate and maintain interpersonal and transactional relationships. Furthermore, classic approaches are highly influenced by Anglo cultural perspectives (for discussion, see Culpeper, 2011; Terkourafi, 2005: 240). Meanwhile, Kasper (2009: 159) goes as far as to argue that “Brown & Levinson’s face notion conflicts with cultural orientations outside the Anglo-American community.” Brown and Levinson have had an especially strong influence on Spanish-language politeness studies: “The model of politeness that has had the greatest impact in the work of Hispanists, as in the work of other language specialists, is without doubt that of Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987)” (Márquez Reiter & Placencia, 2005: 177). Given the strong emphasis on Brown and Levinson’s face theory, little politeness research in Mexico reflects second- and third-wave approaches (for discussion, see Mugford & Félix-Brasdefer, 2021).

4.3 Participants The 32 participants who reflected on Mexican politeness practices and their emotional effect were personally known to the researcher. They are all middle-class Mexican professionals aged between 20 and 30 years old with university-level education. All the respondents answered in English although they were free to answer in Spanish. This is probably because their relationship with the researcher was usually carried out in English. All the participants were assured of anonymity in giving their answers which have not been changed or modified.

4.4 Instrument Research was undertaken using a written questionnaire which asked respondents to identify the motivation for employing certain Mexican politeness practices and

106

G. Mugford

categories them with regards to speaker self-interest, social or cultural pressure or concern for the other. The respondents were also asked how they viewed people who used these strategies. (For complete details, see Appendix). The categories were chosen on the basis of whether they reflected the need to avoid face-threatening acts (FTAs) e.g. mostrar respeto; to engage in face-maintaining acts (FMAs) e.g. ser servicial and acomedirse; or to undertake face boosting acts (FBAs) e.g. mostrar confianza (show proximity, assurance and understanding) and mostrar cariño (to display attachment, affinity and warm-heartedness towards addressees/ hearers). Within this framework, the categories also reflected whether interactants adhered to a speaker-focused motivation or more of a co-constructive dimension when carrying out Mexican politeness practices.

4.5 Procedure To undertake the research, emails were sent to 54 potential participants of which 32 agreed to take part. The questionnaire was sent out to the interactants in October 2019 and the answers were received by the end of November 2019. In answering the questionnaire, interactants were allowed to tick more than one option since the use of politeness strategies is often multi-strategic and may not centre on achieving a single objective.

5 Results In order to understand the motivations behind Mexican politeness practices, the presentation and analysis of data examine whether interactional behaviour reflects interlocutors’ interest in advancing a positive image of themselves, showing consideration for others, developing interpersonal relationships or following societal norms. Mostrar respeto In the first question, respondents were asked why interactants engaged in the practice of mostrar respeto (show respect). The results indicated a strong emphasis on cultural and individual emotional factors (Table 1). The emotional emphasis for showing respect is not particularly focused on the addressees. But rather on adhering to cultural practices (30.9%) and reflecting individual choice (26.2%). These findings would suggest that mostrar respeto (show respect), is not particularly centred on satisfying the other’s wants and needs. In the category ‘other’, the following six replies were recorded: education; values are taught at home; to create a good impression on the person who receives the respect; admiration; usually people are taught to be respectful, but I think it’s individual choice to do it; and manners taught at home.

Positive Emotions and Pragmatic Choice: Politeness Practices … Table 1 Reasons for engaging in mostrar respeto

107

Speaker motivation

No. of replies

1

Cultural practice

26

Percentage (%) 30.9

2

Individual choice

22

26.2

3

Recognition of other

10

11.9

4

Care about others

10

11.9

5

Social pressure

7

8.3

6

Submission

3

3.6

7

Others

6

7.1

84

99.9

Total

The interactants were generally supportive of mostrar respeto: 27 respondents (84.3%) revealed a positive attitude while only five (15.6%) were neutral. Explanations regarding why people mostrar respeto focused firstly on the smooth running of society: Whatever the reason is, it is nice that someone shows respects to you, everybody should respect other individuals and we must be respectful to others in order to have a nicer environment. Secondly, family values were also an important consideration: It shows to me that this person have values taught by his/her parents, and I appreciate when someone respects me and the people around me and I think it shows that the person has good manners and was brought up correctly; knows how to properly address to others and behaves in a measured way. Thirdly, respeto is important in maintaining relationships: it reflects relational work I think it is important in order to have a better relationship with people around you. and I think showing respect to others is important to make any relationship work. Mostrar respeto is a calculated communicative decision as participants decide how they want to interact with others as they develop and maintain relationships and how they want to be perceived and evaluated by others. Ser servicial In the second question, the practice of ser servicial (to be helpful and responsive) reflected participants’ personal projection and looking after the emotional needs of others. The results were as follows (Table 2). The results suggest that the primary objective in ser servicial rests with the speaker rather than with addressee. The results reveal that creating a good impression (29.9%) and individual choice (29.9%) were equal concerns. Creating a good impression focuses on how the speaker wants to be seen by others as opposed to how he/she responds to others’ needs (19.6%). Whilst twenty participants had a positive opinion regarding this practice, 12 respondents looked upon this practice negatively. The positive replies emphasised how ser servicial reflects selflessness and altruism: I know that ser servicial can be difficult, so I completely appreciate when someone else’s willing to make an extra effort and help others and … it shows that people are willing to help others without receiving anything in return. Among the more negative views of ser servicial, respondents saw the practice as representing

108

G. Mugford

Table 2 Reasons for engaging in ser servicial 1

Speaker motivation

No. of replies

Create good impression

22

Percentage (%) 23.9

2

Individual choice

22

23.9

3

Care about others

18

19.6

4

Cultural practice

17

18.5

10

10.8

5

Social pressure

6

Submission

1

1.1

7

Others

2

2.2

Total

92

100

ingrained family values: behaving like this has a lot to do with how they were raised and … culturally speaking, Mexican families raise their children to help out as much as possible. The link between giving a positive impression and family values is summed up in this observation: In this case I think people do it just to create a good impression … The truth here is that not all people do it because they want to, just because they have to and there the perspective changes. In conclusion ser servicial seems to be more focused on achieving the individual’s own self-satisfaction, family values and cultural appropriateness rather than on showing any underlying concern for others’ needs. Mostrar confianza The third question explored mostrar confianza (show proximity, assurance and understanding) through which Mexican speakers robustly display and enact emotional relationships with other interactants. The results were as follows (Table 3). The act of mostrar confianza demonstrates a high degree of interactivity since 29 respondents (38.2%) said that it showed closeness and intimacy. Individual choice (27.6%) played an important role in deciding to engage in this practice. At the same time, only 17 interactants had a positive view of the practice and 15 were indifferent. Table 3 Reasons for engaging Mostrar confianza Speaker motivation

No. of replies

Percentage (%)

1

Show closeness

29

38.2

2

Individual choice

21

27.6

3

Care about others

9

11.8

4

Create good impression

8

10.5

5

Cultural practice

6

7.9

6

Social pressure

1

1.3

7

Others

2

2.6

76

99.9

Total

Positive Emotions and Pragmatic Choice: Politeness Practices …

109

Positive views focused on the interactive dimension of mostrar confianza: When someone muestra confianza to me I feel like I am worth their trust and that I am a reliable person to them… and Personally, when a friend shows confianza, it means that we are closer, and that we can count on each other. Therefore, mostrar confianza can be seen as relational work as interactants bolster developing and existing relationships. However, not all comments were positive as this practice is sometimes seen as overbearing and invasive: I think it depends on the type of relationship and the degree of actual closeness with the person. It could be rated from nice all the way to intrusive when it is not requested and the relationship is not that close and It can be positive or negative depending on who you are talking to. If they like and are doing it themselves it’s okay, but if is one-sided you come off as confianzudo. [Confianzudo means being overfamiliar and too free and easy), The above comments reveal that mostrar confianza has emotional limits. Whilst engaging in familiarity and closeness, interactants need to know these limits and boundaries in a given relationship and determine how far they can go interpersonally. Acomedirse In the fourth question, acomedirse (to be more than willing to help) appeared demonstrated emotional restraint as interactants privileged the needs of others (Table 4). The results indicate that to be more than willing to help is equally an individual decision (24.2%) as well as cultural practice (23.1%). Similar to ser servicial, it appears to focus on creating a good impression (22.0%). Care for others (14%) is given much less prominence. In the results, 17 respondents viewed this practice positively, one negatively and 14 indifferently. So like ser servicial, acomedirse is also about individual choice, cultural practice, creating a good impression and, to a lesser degree, caring about others. Consequently, it appears to be more about projecting oneself than focusing on others. The self-centred aspect of individual choice and creating a good impression with acomedirse can be found in the following comments: For me, acomedirse is to help, but helping while trying to leave a good impression of oneself and Sometimes is quite evident that there are ulterior motives and the attitude Table 4 Reasons for engaging acomedirse Speaker motivation

No. of replies

Percentage (%)

1

Individual choice

22

24.2

2

Cultural practice

21

23.1

3

Create good impression

20

22.0

4

Care about others

13

14.3

5

Social pressure

8

8.8

6

Submission

4

4.3

7

Others

3

3.3

91

100.0

Total

110

G. Mugford

is not honest, nor sincere. It was also be seen to a large degree by participants as cultural practice: This has to do with social practices that are common in Mexican families, [it] is easier for us I guess to offer our help and Acomedirse is a practice I believe is mostly cultural, some people do it genuinely but some others do it just because they’re supposed … The cultural aspect is an important motivator behind acomedirse because interactants may engage in acomedirse due to peer and societal pressures. At the same time, many respondents felt acomedirse was an exaggerated way of being servicial: Sometimes when you overdo it, it may seem forced and people may think you want something in exchange and Sometimes people are acomedida to a point where you can get to think “ok…thank you but that’s enough… The practice acomedirse appears to reflect a careful balance between promoting oneself, following cultural practice and caring for others, and not overexaggerating the practice to the point that it appears to be insincere. Mostrar cariño The fifth and final question examined the emotional display of mostrar cariño (to display attachment, affinity and warm-heartedness towards addressees/hearers). The results were as follows (Table 5). Respondents reported that closeness (29%) and individual choice (29%) are equal considerations when engaging in mostrar cariño. However, care about others was an important consideration. At the same time, 23 respondents deemed mostrar cariño as positive, one as negative and eight were indifferent. In contrast to the other politeness practices examined in this chapter, expressing closeness was a strong goal and articulated in the interactants’ comments: As Mexicans, we are very close. … We tend to hug, touch and kiss more than other cultures and get into such practices very early in a relationship. We tend to show our emotions and get to trust people in a short period of time and My mother’s side family like to mostrar cariño every opportunity they have. They like to kiss/hug each other to show closeness. Replies regarding mostrar cariño stressed genuineness and sincerity: “mostrar cariño” is an action of heart, it cannot be fake, I appreciate that people do so because that reflects the real care they have a bout others and … it’s not fake I think that Table 5 Reasons for engaging mostrar cariño Speaker motivation

No. of replies

Percentage (%)

1

Show closeness

27

29.0

2

Individual choice

27

29.0 25.8

3

Care about others

24

4

Cultural practice

9

9.6

5

Create good impression

3

3.2

6

Social pressure

2

2.2

7

Others

1

1.1

93

99.9

Total

Positive Emotions and Pragmatic Choice: Politeness Practices …

111

these people are really nice because they are not afraid of showing their feelings and it feels good to know that other people have positive feelings for you. Respondents who were indifferent to the use of mostrar cariño referred to interactants’ personality traits: I love to show affection to my friends, family but I know some of them are not comfortable with it so I show my affection in some other way and I respect when people don’t follow it because they might have a background which doesn’t make them feel comfortable doing it. The results indicate that the practice of mostrar cariño reflects a strong emotional action but one that constantly needs to take into consideration the reaction of others.

6 Discussion The results indicate that Mexican politeness patterns and practices reflect a strong emotional dimension. The emotional focus reflects the speaker’s concern for him/ herself, how he/she wants to portray him/herself and his/her concern for the addressee and his/her needs. Cultural and societal considerations also play an important role in Mexican politeness conduct. Nevertheless, the underlying common denominator is the element of choice which was either in first or second place in the results as respondents identified the fundamental reasons for choosing a given politeness strategy. Mexican politeness practices can be understood in terms of Watts’s politic and polite behaviour. Certain practices were seen by the respondents as culturally and/ or socially expected behaviour e.g., mostrar respeto (show respect). Mostrar respeto falls within the category of politic behaviour and, at the same time, shows little emotional intensity and involvement. However, other behaviours such as ser servicial (to be helpful and responsive) and acomedirse (to be more than willing to help) went well beyond expected behaviour but nevertheless could be considered as being extremely appropriate. Even so, they also lack emotional intensity and involvement. Mexican politeness practices would suggest that Watts’s (2003) categories of politic and polite behaviour may need extending regarding the Mexican context with perhaps the development of a super-politic category. While politeness strategies are often hearer-focused, as argued by Lakoff (1973), Brown and Levinson (1987) and Leech (1983, 2014), the results of the study indicate that Mexican interlocutors are as just as concerned about their own face and how they want to be evaluated by their addressee(s), peers and, in general, by society. This finding indicates that Mexican politeness practices are not just focused on safeguarding the hearer or on co-constructing relationships but also contain a degree of self-promotion. The self-focus in relational work indicates that interactants are concerned about presenting a positive face and the possible resulting transactional gains for themselves in terms of gaining respect, esteem and appreciation. At the same time, respondents were well aware of the discursive nature of politeness practices as they considered mostrar confianza (show proximity, assurance

112

G. Mugford

and understanding) and mostrar cariño (to display attachment, affinity and warmheartedness towards addressees/hearers) to only be productive and effective if they were co-constructed with the hearer(s). These practices reflect a strong element of interest, intensity and involvement. At the same time, mostrar confianza and mostrar cariño suggest that Mexican politeness strategies should be discussed in terms of constructing individual, hearer and joint face. In contrast, the categories within the face-threatening acts (FTAs) are largely focused on the hearer. On the other hand, the co-constructive joint dimension can be seen in politeness conduct aimed at achieving face-maintaining acts (FMAs) and in undertaking face boosting acts (FBAs). The results also indicate that Mexican politeness practices can also be examined in terms of public, private and semi-private politeness. For instance, showing respeto, ser servicial and acomedirse are public displays of politeness which can be examined by bystanders and passers-by who may approve of their use even if they are not (fully) appreciated by the addressee(s). Meanwhile, mostrar confianza and mostrar cariño are more intimate and emotional expressions of politeness. Mexican politeness practices demonstrate different degrees of involvement with other interactants. Avoiding FTAs e.g. showing respeto, ser servicial and acomedirse reflect degrees of emotional distance as there is a lack of involvement, supportiveness and engagement. On the other hand, mostrar confianza and mostrar cariño actively work to maintain and even boost face. Finally, Mexican politeness practices may not be fully understood by researchers who adopt an Anglo-American approach. For instance, ser servicial and acomedirse may be seen as unduly subservient by Anglo-American cultures rather than being understood as an emotional choice which is usually appreciated by addressees/ participants. On the other hand, researchers may judge mostrar confianza and mostrar cariño to be overbearing and intrusive in Anglo-American relationships where interactants often value interpersonal distance and the freedom to act away from the influence of relational/peer pressure.

7 Conclusion The study of politeness patterns and practices provides emotional insights into how interpersonal relationships are developed, constructed, maintained and how interactants adhere to societal and cultural norms within a given community. As seen in these results, the element of choice is a key factor is understanding Mexican politeness strategies. Whilst there are identifiable and established practices such as mostrar respeto, ser servicial, acomedirse, mostrar confianza and mostrar cariño, their enactment and adherence are a matter of personal choice as interactant seek to achieve Arundale’s (2010) mutual positive effect. Furthermore, individuals have different emotional motivations in following a certain practice as the enactment of Mexican politeness is not always focused on the ‘other’ as interactants often want to project themselves as concerned, considerate and sensitive interactants.

Positive Emotions and Pragmatic Choice: Politeness Practices …

113

References Archer, D. (2017a). Politeness. In A. Barron, Y. Gu, & G. Steen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 384–398). Routledge. Archer, D. (2017b). (Im)politeness in legal settings. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 713–737). Palgrave Macmillan. Arndt, H., & Janney, R. W. (1987). Intergrammar: Toward an integrative model of verbal, prosodic and kinesic choices in speech. Mouton de Gruyter. Arundale, R. B. (2010). Relating. In M. A. Locher, & G. L. Sage (Eds), Interpersonal pragmatics (pp. 137–165), Mouton de Gruyter. Aston, G. (1988). Learning comity: An approach to the description and pedagogy of interaction speech. Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna. Aston, G. (1993). Notes on the interlanguage of comity. In G. Kasper, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 224–250). Oxford University Press. Bayraktaro˘glu, A. (1991). Politeness and interactional imbalance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 1991(92), 5–34. Bayraktaro˘glu, A. (2001). Advice-giving in Turkish: “Superiority” or “solidarity”? In A. Bayraktaro˘glu, & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Linguistic politeness across boundaries: The case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 177–208). John Benjamins. Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. John Benjamins. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomenon. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–311). Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press. Culpeper, J, Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: From theory to research. Routledge. Curcó, C. (2007). Positive face, group face, and affiliation: An overview of politeness studies on Mexican Spanish. In M. E. Placencia, & C. Garcia (Eds.), Research on politeness in the Spanish-speaking world (pp. 105–120). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Domenici, K., & Littlejohn, S. W. (2006). Facework: Bridging theory and practice. Sage. Drummond, J. J. (2006). Respect as a moral emotion: A phenomenological approach. Husserl Studies, 22, 1–27. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A contrastive study of the realization and perception of refusals. John Benjamins. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2012). Pragmatic variation by gender in market service encounters in Mexico. In J. C. Félix-Brasdefer, & D. A. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts: Methodological issues (pp. 17–48). John Benjamins. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The language of service encounters: A pragmatic-discursive approach. Cambridge University Press. Mugford, G., & Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2021). Politeness Research in the Spanish-speaking world. In D. A. Koike, & J. C. Félix-Brasdefer (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish pragmatics (pp. 353–369). Routledge. Fitch, K. L. (2007). Two politeness dilemmas in Colombian interpersonal ideology. In M. E. Placencia, & C. Garcia (Eds.), Research on politeness in the Spanish-speaking world (pp. 243–260). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. Anchor Books. Kasper G (2009) Politeness In S. D’hondt, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), The pragmatics of interaction (pp. 155–173). John Benjamins. Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or minding your p’s and q’s. Papers from the 9th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 9(1), 292–305.

114

G. Mugford

Langlotz, A., & Locher, M. A. (2017). (Im)politeness and emotion. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)Politeness (pp. 287–322). Palgrave Macmillan. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman. Leech, G. (2014). Pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press. Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33. Márquez-Reiter, R. (2019). Navigating commercial constraints in a service call. In P. GarcésConejos Blitvich, L. Fernández-Amaya, & M. de la O Hernández-López (Eds.), Technology mediated service encounters (pp. 121–144). John Benjamins. Márquez Reiter, R., & Placencia, M. E. (2005). Spanish pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan. Mugford, G. (2014). Giving Mexican EFL users a social voice: The struggle between conformity and individuality. In S. Marshall, A. Clemente, & M. Higgins (Eds.), Shaping ethnography in multilingual and multicultural contexts (pp. 225–249). The Althouse Press. Mugford, G. (2019). Addressing difficult situations in foreign language learning: Confusion, impoliteness, and hostility. Routledge. Placencia, M. E. (2019). Responding to bargaining moves in a digital era: refusals of offers on Mercado Libre Ecuador. In P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, & L. Fernández Amaya, & M. de la O Hernández López (Eds.), Technology mediated service encounters (pp. 173–197). John Benjamins. Planalp, S. (1998). Communicating emotion in everyday life: Cues, channels, and process. In P. A. Andersen, & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 29–48). Academic Press. Sifianou, M. (1995). Do we need to be silent to be extremely polite? Silence and FTAs. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95–110. Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.) (2008). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across culture (2nd ed.). Continuum. Svennevig, J. (1999). Getting acquainted in conversation: A study of initial interactions. John Benjamins. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge University Press. Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(2), 237–262. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112. Watt, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press.

Textual Emotivity and Literary (Im)Politeness Zongxin Feng

Abstract Against the backdrop that human emotion and (im)politeness are both cognitively and pragmatically related and that studies of (im)politeness have mostly focused on spoken interaction, this paper addresses some issues concerning textual emotivity and literary (im)politeness and the reader’s cognitive and emotional responses. In view of the interconnections between the emotive and conative functions of language, the emotional and emotive aspects of communication, and the multiple levels of literary communication between different types of addresser and addressee (i.e., characters and characters in the fictional world, the narrator and the narratee in the text world, the author and the reader in the actual world, etc.), this paper concludes that textual emotivity and literary (im)politeness involve complicated aspects and that fictional representation of emotionality is a valuable resource for understanding human emotion and (im)politeness. Keywords Emotion · Emotionality · Textual emotivity · Literary communication · Authorial (im)politeness · Reader response

1 Introduction The increasing attention paid to the study of emotion in recent years has significantly broadened the scope of contemporary pragmatics under the cognitive turn. Although emotion and politeness are distinctly separate topics, each being multifaceted in its own way, that have different dimensions in the analytical framework, they are functionally (i.e., cognitively and pragmatically) related. Studies on the emotive function of language (Bühler, 1934, 2011), the pragmatics of emotive communication (Caffi & Janney, 1994), emotive communication in a particular language (Suzuki, 2006), linguistic emotivity (Maynard, 2002), etc. invariably touch upon issues of politeness (and rudeness). In contrast, works on linguistic politeness make references to such aspects as “emotional impact” and “emotional content” (Lakoff, Z. Feng (B) Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Xie (ed.), Advancing (Im)politeness Studies, Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37064-9_7

115

116

Z. Feng

1973), “emotional bond” and “emotional agreement” (Brown & Levinson, 1978, 1987), “emotional pressure” (Leech, 2014: 241), etc. but do very little in theorizing linguistic emotivity. With emotivity and politeness studies being taken into further depth, discourses in which there are conflictive illocutions are recognized as “non-marginal human linguistic phenomena” and worthy of “critical consideration” (Bousfield, 2008: 1) and especially since impoliteness was brought onto an equal status with politeness as “(im)politeness” (Culpeper, 1996, 1998, 2005, 2010, 2011; Culpeper et al., 2003, 2017) or “im/politeness” (Haugh, 2015; Terkourafi, 2017), written textual aspects of emotivity and (im)politeness have necessarily added dimensions to the study of emotive communication in social interaction and of emotive or affective literary (im)politeness in fictional discourse as a very important topic in or approach to cognitive pragmatics in particular and contemporary pragmatics in general. This paper will discuss issues concerning the interface of emotivity and (im)politeness, textual emotivity and emotionality, textual emotivity and the actual reader’s cognitive and emotional engagement, and the validity of fictional representation of emotion(ality) and (im)politeness in and of literary texts as a means of understanding human interaction.

2 The Interface of Emotion and (Im)politeness Human emotions such as happiness, sorrow, panic, anger, compassion, fear, disgust, surprise, regret, etc. are subjective experiences of conscious mental reactions to a person, thing, or situation. Some emotions like panic are occurrences, and others like hostility are dispositions; some emotions like anger are short-lived, and others like grief are long-lived; some emotions like the fear of a suddenly looming object involve primitive cognitive processing, and others like the fear of losing a game involve sophisticated cognitive processing; some like disgust about an insect in sight are conscious, and others like the fear of failing in life are unconscious; some emotions like surprise have prototypical facial expressions, and others like regret are not expressed; some emotions like rage involve strong motivations to act, and others like sadness do not involve motivations; some emotions such as fear are shared by all animals, and others such as schadenfreude are human-specific. While emotions have close relevance to one’s conceptions and expressions of politeness or impoliteness, specific studies on emotion(ality) and (im)politeness in pragmatics came quite late. In works of sociology, cultural anthropology and anthropological linguistics, the key notion in politeness (i.e., face) has been invariably defined in relation to emotion and feelings. Hu (1944: 46–49) observes that one can “feel” when gaining a moral advantage or losing face, and that every discountenanced action might call forth unpleasant “feelings” (such as envy and dislike) in other people. Although Ho (1976: 876) believes that the individual can possibly play the game of face “with emotional detachment,” he recognizes that losing face is “accompanied by the reaction of shame.” Goffman (1967: 6–7) defines face as “emotionally sensitive,” and Brown and Levinson (1978: 66) define face as “emotionally invested,”

Textual Emotivity and Literary (Im)Politeness

117

which can be “lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to.” They say that expressions of “strong (negative) emotions” (e.g., hatred, anger, lust), “violent (out-of-control) emotions” and “raising of dangerously emotional or divisive topics” are “intrinsic FTAs” in their first distinction (Brown & Levinson, 1978: 67); and that certain expressions stress the “emotional bond” and “emotional agreement” (1978: 109) between two individuals engaging in a conversation. In works of linguistic pragmatics at the early stage, however, emotion used to be a trivial concept in the study of politeness. For example, throughout his seminal work, Principles of Pragmatics, Leech (1983: 101) only mentions “emotion” once, equating it with “attitude.” Since Leech’s “general pragmatics” framework only distinguishes pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics (1983: 10–11), he spares no attention to a possible psycho-pragmatics or cognitive pragmatics in his dichotomy.1 In their pragmatics of emotive communication, Caffi and Janney (1994: 343) focus on the concepts of “emotive meaning,” “involvement,” “emotive markedness,” “degree of emotive divergence,” “objects of emotive choice,” “loci of emotive choice,” etc. and take politeness as an important point of interest. For instance, in outlining four broad linguistic categories commonly associated with the “potency” dimension, they include a variety of notions such as the speaker’s “cognitive commitment” to the message, “politeness principles,” “supportive strategies,” “indirectness,” “face saving strategies,” “self vs. outside focus of the message,” and “linguistic assertiveness,” etc. Although the evaluation of linguistic behavior as being polite or impolite has been a major concern, work specifically on the language of evaluation does not explicitly address issues of politeness, at least terminologically. In their study of appraisal systems in English, Martin and White (2005: 35) regionalize “Appraisal” as three interacting domains: “attitude,” “engagement,” and “graduation,” and make frequent uses of terms such as “feelings,” “emotional reactions,” “judgements of behavior” and “evaluation of things,” etc. Their concept of “attitude” moves beyond that of “emotion” to deal more comprehensively with feelings, including affect, judgement and appreciation. To them, the emotional dimension of meaning is “affect,” which is concerned with registering positive and negative feelings (Martin & White, 2005: 42). Noticeably, in spite of their distinctions of the “positive” and “negative” poles of Affect (“satisfaction” vs. “dissatisfaction”; “happiness” vs. “unhappiness,” etc.) (Martin & White, 2005: 51), and Judgement (“admire” vs. “criticism,” “praise” vs. “condemn,” etc.) (Martin & White, 2005: 53), they never squarely address politeness or impoliteness, except for giving only one mention of “polite” together with “respectful, reverent …” (2005: 53) throughout their book. Many years after the advent of the relevance theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1995), Leech (2014) gives more weight on “emotion” and “emotional” aspects in his comprehensive study on the pragmatics of politeness. Since his focus is more on 1

In fact, Leech (1983) has in mind some cognitive aspects in linguistic pragmatics, as can be seen in his use of such phrases as “cognitive processes” (Leech, 1983: 72) and “cognitive verbs” (Leech, 1983: 207) most possibly on the “cognitive basis of linguistic structures” observed by Bever (1970), on the belief that issues related to “prototypic category” are to be “apparently applicable to perceptual and cognitive processes in general” in addition to “linguistic or logical concepts” (Leech, 1983: 72).

118

Z. Feng

pragmalinguistics as an area “somewhat neglected of late” (Leech, 2014: ix), he regards “expressing emotion” as one of the “pragmalinguistic strategies” (Leech, 2014: 199). By quoting Locher’s (2004) analysis, Leech (2014: 202) takes most of the pragmalinguistic devices of disagreement as “devices of mitigation,” which include “giving personal or emotional reasons for disagreeing.” He also sees “using emotionally charged and taboo language” as “other manifestations of verbal attack” for impoliteness (Leech, 2014: 223), and that swear words can be used (in certain social contexts) to express a range of negative emotions—anger, irritation, annoyance, etc. (Leech, 2014: 230). On the basis of Terkourafi’s (2008: 74) observation that “swear words may semantically encode face-threat” and Allan and Burridge’s (2006: 237) observation that “[f]orbidden words are the most emotionally evocative of all language stimuli,” Leech (2014: 231) recognizes some “general-purpose emotional aggravators.” Drawing from Culpeper (2011), Leech (2014) says that the role of intonation and paralinguistic features in conveying emotion and attitude can be very important, especially in the expression and recognition of rudeness. Instead of taking rudeness as the negative pole of politeness, Leech alternatively takes politeness as an “institutionalized safeguard against rudeness,” on the belief that the self-serving aggressive emotion-driven use of language easily “tips over into physical violence” (Leech, 2014: 232), and that banter, which is related to an individual’s “emotional pressure,” has a positive function of a “safety valve” (Leech, 2014: 241). With sociopragmatics (Haugh et al., 2021) coming to the center stage, emotional aspects of expressions in human interaction have caught more attention, especially when the humanities and social sciences have witnessed a paradigm change – the “emotional turn” or “affective turn” (Lemmings & Brooks, 2014). In fact, such a turn has reshaped disciplines and approaches in similar ways as the linguistic turn did in the 1970s (Lemmings & Brooks, 2014: 3). Based on George Lakoff’s (2016: 4) observation that “the conceptual is inseparable from the emotional, and vice-versa,” Alba-Juez (2021: 340–341) points out that human interaction is strongly loaded with, influenced by, and conceptualized and expressed through language, which is human-specific. Since the laws of etiquette and social politeness are observed in social interaction, the study of politeness or impoliteness is essentially the study of emotion(ality) in interaction. Since emotion falls into the subjective experiencing of emotionality and emotional/physiological responses to these experiences, there is a clear distinction of the emotive and the conative aspects of verbal expressions. Thus, the scenario is more complex than it may seem. For one thing, there are close relationships between emotions and (im)politeness strategies. For another, there are clear distinctions on a number of dimensions between positive and negative emotions, positive and negative (im)politeness, the speaker-oriented and the hearer-oriented, the verbal and the behavioral, and the pragmalinguistic and the sociopragmatic, etc. Emotions themselves are not intrinsically polite or impolite, but may be emotively expressed as one or the other and conatively perceived and experienced as such. It is not emotions themselves that are polite or impolite, but the very act of expressing them that can be perceived as polite or impolite. Mills (2017: 46) states that when we analyze politeness we are in fact analyzing interactants’ “judgements of politeness” rather than politeness per se. Culpeper (2011: 60) observes that displaying

Textual Emotivity and Literary (Im)Politeness

119

emotions such as contempt or anger has nothing in itself to do with impoliteness, but displaying them publicly may cause emotional reactions such as embarrassment or anger and may be judged as appropriate or inappropriate. On impoliteness and emotional reactions, Culpeper (2011: 69) holds emotions to be of key importance to impoliteness, which has affective aspects and emotive aspects. And he observes that impoliteness is “nasty stuff” that gets people “hurt or angry” (2011: 234); however, it can be designed for the over-hearing audience as well as for the target addressee, and that audience can be entertained by programs stuffed with verbal violence (2011: 234). According to Langlotz and Locher (2017: 288), it is the acquired knowledge of sociality and related sociocultural norms that can shape interactions and relationships of individuals. These studies have positively pointed to a close interconnection between the emotive aspect of language and the social manifestation of (im)politeness. Thus, neither emotivity nor (im)politeness is a purely linguistic matter, but what individuals can feel by drawing on relevant notions possibly at work. Since (im)politeness does not reside in a language or in the individual structures of a language (Watts, 2003: 98), and a judgement of (im)politeness involves a moral and “emotional” stance in relation to them (Kádár & Haugh, 2013), studies of emotivity and (im)politeness can be more adequately located in the interface of the linguistic and the behavioral, the ontological and the functional, and the emotive and the conative aspects of language on both ends of the communicative channel.

3 Emotionality and Textual Emotivity Studies of emotion and emotionality in relation to language have a number of problems that call for attention. Firstly, studies seem to focus more on spoken language than on written language possibly because spoken forms more explicitly manifest human emotions. Second, they focus on the expressive function (Ausdrucksfunktion) of language without paying sufficient attention to the appealing function (Appellfunktion) of language in Karl Bühler’s (1934) classical model, or giving priority to the emotive function on the part of the addresser over the conative function on the part of the addressee in Roman Jakobson’s (1960) model. Thirdly, they have not paid sufficient attention to the distinction of the “emotional” plane and the “emotive” plane of language made by Stankiewicz (1964: 239) and the distinction of the emotional communication and the emotive communication made by Janney and Arndt (1992) and Caffi and Janney (1994). Studies of emotionality and emotivity in relation to language mostly focus on the speaker/hearer as speech participants rather than the writer/reader as discourse participants in written communication. Thus, the problems of spoken communication have been more acutely felt in the study of textual aspects of emotionality and emotivity. On the mutual relation between the system of language and the language experience, Prague School linguists have observed that language lacking experience would be “no more than an unchanging system of relations with no possibilities of development” (Trnka, 1983: 227), and important features for the characterization

120

Z. Feng

of language are “the intellectuality and the emotionality of language manifestations” (Prague Linguistic Circle, 1983: 88). Mathesius (1983 [1929]: 122–123) sees language as “something living,” not only expressing the speaker or writer’s communicative intentions beneath the words but also having the words “aimed at a hearer or reader.” Against the traditional notion of “emotional neutrality,” Daneš (1987: 169) assumes that any utterance or discourse unit has “an emotional value” and proposes taking all the aspects of emotional manifestations into consideration in studying emotion. He believes that the essential character of human experience is “affective involvement with the object being experienced”; emotion is “the most typical and natural manifestation of people’s involvement with language” (Daneš, 1994: 256) and “a specific aspect of the overall linguistic behavior of speech participants” (Daneš, 1994: 262). These observations fairly and insightfully assume equal status of speaker/hearer and the writer/reader. Yet, they intuitively incline toward “speech participants” and their emotional involvement of language in spoken communication. While spoken discourse is immediate, “directly emotional” and “more heartfelt” (Lakoff, 1982: 242), it is mostly colloquial and instantaneous in contrast to written discourse that is more formal and lasting, each having specific roles to play. Considering the degree of difficulty in formulating texts and the irreplaceable communicative function of writing for emotive purposes, the way written texts are emotionally coded and decoded is as important as, if not more than, spoken discourse. The emotive function of language can be traced to Bühler’s (1934: 148; 2011: 165) classical tripartite model, which consists of the expressive, the representational, and the appealing functions. This model was taken up by Jakobson (1960: 354–355) in his six-function model, in which the “emotive” (or expressive) function focuses on the addresser and aims a direct expression of the speaker’s attitude toward what he is talking about, while the “conative” (or appealing) function orients toward the addressee, and finds its purest grammatical expression in the vocative and imperative. In more general terms, Halliday’s (1973) tripartite metafunctional model incorporates the addresser and the addressee at both ends of the communicative channel and his interpersonal metafunction “subsumes both the expressive and the conative” on the belief that they are “not in fact distinct in the linguistic system” (1973: 106). Although an individual is both the speaker and the hearer at different moments in relation to his interlocutor in a conversation, there is a difference between the emotional use of language and the emotive function of language, or between what is intended by the speaker and what is actually perceived by the hearer in the same conversation, since there is a clear distinction between the speaker meaning and the hearer meaning (Grice, 1989). In the same way, the manifestations of these in written discourse in terms of the author’s and the reader’s emotional involvement with language can be as important as those in spoken discourse, especially when emotivity and emotionality are not necessarily realized by explicit uses of emotionally-loaded language, and much that is communicated depends on the addressee’s perception and interpretation. The theoretical confusion between the instinctive nature of language and the linguistic dimension of emotivity has made studies more problematic. In his seminal article, “Problems of Emotive Language,” Stankiewicz (1964: 239) attributes the roots of this confusion to naturalistic or pragmatic concepts of language, which

Textual Emotivity and Literary (Im)Politeness

121

direct the attention to the participants of the speech-event, to their emotional state in their use of linguistic material, rather than to the intrinsic value of the linguistic elements within concrete systems. To cope with the fact that modern theorists of emotive language often tend to link expressive language with the emotional attitude of the addresser and with his instinctive, emotional reflexes (which are symptoms) from the point of view of the addressee, Stankiewicz (1964: 240) distinguishes the “emotional” plane and the “emotive” plane: the former reveals itself through “signals which are inextricably bound to the situation which evokes them and which they evoke,” and the latter is rendered “through situationally independent, arbitrary symbols.” He emphasizes that the symbolic aspect of emotive language can be identified only if we acknowledge such a distinction. In the same vein, Janney and Arndt (1992: 27) distinguish two kinds of communication: the emotional and the emotive. The former consists of “affective displays which are simply spontaneous, unplanned physical externalisations of internal affective states”; and the latter consists of “affective displays which are produced consciously... to influence others’ perceptions and interpretations of conversational events.” Although the relation between the two is very complicated and the differences between the two types of language use are sometimes indiscernible, when affective signals are used for emotive communication, cultural and social conventions are in fact regulating such a communication. Maynard (2002) further points out that when emotion becomes a research topic in linguistics, it is discussed in relation to the expressive function of language; but expressivity of language includes all aspects of self-expression, whether they are dispositions, general mood and feelings, aroused emotive responses, evaluative attitudes, sense-based judgments, or cultural sentiments, as long as they are linguistically expressed. Thus, she takes emotivity as only a specific case of expressivity, and observes that some emotional expressions can serve as “politeness markers” (Maynard, 2002: 287). Such emotional expressions are on what Stankiewicz calls the “emotive” plane, but not all emotional expressions are intrinsically polite or impolite when removed from specific contexts of situation and not all politeness markers are necessarily emotional. The picture can be more complicated if we take paradoxes of politeness and impoliteness into consideration: a very polite (often formal) linguistic expression can be perceived as sarcastic and what is intended to be extremely polite may turn out to be extremely offensive, or vice-versa. While certain emotions can be verbally and behaviorally expressed and perceived the same from the speaker to the hearer, certain other emotions can be expressed in one way and perceived in another even in face-to-face interaction. The “joint enterprise” (Grice, 1989: 370) that requires cooperative efforts of the writer and the reader who very often do not share the same contexts of situation poses more problems for the study of emotionality and emotivity in written communication, where even a very plain and non-emotionally coded statement can be decoded as functionally emotive or a statement intended by the author to be emotive fails its purpose in the reader. Textual emotionality and emotivity have special manifestations in spite of the similarities between writing and speech. In spite of the difference between the

122

Z. Feng

meaning “in the context” and meaning “in the text” in the oral and the literate tradition (Tannen, 1982: 2), every text, spoken and written, is communicative, experiential, and interactional. Textual emotionality and emotivity can be an important topic of research to complement the study of instantaneous spoken communication. The study of language in use is the study of both conversational and textual emotivity and emotionality manifested in meta-emotional and non-emotional language as well as emotionally charged language in terms of the distinctions of emotional value of the text, the emotive function of language on the part of the writer and conative effect on the part of the reader.

4 Literary (Im)politeness and the reader’s Engagement The classical politeness theory proposed by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) has been successfully applied in the analysis of politeness in literary texts by a large number of scholars. On the basis that their proposal of power, distance, and extremity of a face-threatening act as universal determinants of politeness levels in dyadic discourse, Brown and Gilman (1989) have tried to test the theory in Shakespeare’s use of Early Modern English exemplified in the four major tragedies (Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, and Othello) for three reasons: typical representation of colloquial speech in dramatic dialogue, access to inner life in psychological soliloquies, and the tragical representation of the full range of society, all of which are relevant to the study of politeness. For example, they have found that the four tragedies contain more than 100 different forms of address aside from Christian names and pronouns, such as names with honorific adjectives (i.e., “valiant” Othello, “worthy” Macbeth, “good” Hamlet, “good” Iago, and so on) and titles with honorific adjectives (“good” my lord, “gentle” lady, my “dread” lord, “sweet” lord, “good” my liege) in contrast to those without honorific adjectives (e.g., general, captain, sir, madam, my lord, your Grace, your Majesty). The many titles and especially the many reiterations of the same title to the same person can be very rare in everyday conversations but are literarily employed for various purposes of politeness or impoliteness. They conclude that the study of a dramatic text with politeness theory in mind has much in common with the study of protocols of spontaneous child speech with a grammar and a theory of acquisition in mind, and that the methodologically looser naturalistic study is a valuable supplement to controlled experimental methods (Brown & Gilman, 1989: 208). Although literary representation of politeness phenomena may be unnatural and different from natural talk in present-day English, a stylistic analysis, however incomplete it may be in comparison with the work of a sociolinguist or psychologist, can definitely add to the modern reader’s knowledge of the Elizabethan society to which we have no other access. Meanwhile, such an analysis deepens the reader’s understanding of Shakespeare’s plays as literature. Following Brown and Gilman (1989), Bouchara (2009) studies the analysis of Shakespeare’s four comedies (Measure for Measure, Twelfth Night, Taming of the Shrew, and Much Ado about Nothing) and further confirms the explanatory power of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory.

Textual Emotivity and Literary (Im)Politeness

123

Studies of politeness in modern plays have also been substantial, such as Leech’s (1992) reiteration of his own Politeness Principle and its maxims (1983) in the study of G. B. Shaw’s You Never Can Tell, Simpson’s (1989) analysis of politeness phenomena in Eugène Ionesco’s The Lesson, Bennison’s (1998) analysis of the development of characters in Tom Stoppard’s Professional Foul, and Feng’s (1998, 2002) pragmastylistic study of politeness strategies in stage directions as well as dialogues in three plays in the Theatre of the Absurd. In addition to dramatic dialogues, studies of dialogues in modern fiction have also yielded promising results. In their study of power in dialogue in E. M. Forster’s Howards End, Buck and Austin (1995) highlight the fact that social power is not something given but constantly negotiated by the conversational participants. In her analysis of fictional dialogues in Forster’s A Passage to India, Buck (1997: 103) suggests a separation of the notions of speech act and face-threatening act the speech act expressed at the level of the sentence appears to be a reflection of a more complex and abstract system of face interaction that imposes itself on the discourse. And in her study of the linguistic mechanisms of power in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, Ermida (2006) focuses on built-in social and interpersonal asymmetries and looks into the way dialogues are structured, which sheds light on how hierarchy and power are linguistically determined in the characters’ verbal interaction. Studies of literary politeness in the light of, and in variant modified versions of, Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory and its developments by other scholars, have proved a complementary approach to (im)politeness studies in social interaction on one hand and a critical literary practice from pragmatic and stylistic perspectives in the study of both classical and modern literature on the other. However, most studies take fictional interaction as representation of data and heavily focus on character–character interaction in dramatic or fictional dialogues. Literary discourse is richer than any other type of discourse because it consists of both written and spoken genres with almost everything that can be found in social interaction, even if oral expressions of emotion can be used for poetic purposes (Tabakowska, 1998). Fundamental and extremely common patterns of parables essential to everyday thought, reasoning, and action can neatly show up in literary examples because “literature takes its instruments from the everyday mind” (Turner, 1996: 26). More importantly, literature consists of several levels of interaction in which different types of addresser and addressee communicate for different purposes (Feng, 1998, 2002; Feng & Shen, 2001). A literary text (whether poetry, fiction, or drama) is made up of communications between characters in the fictional world, between the narrator and the narratee in the text world, and between the author and the different types of readers in the actual world. Thus, authorial (im)politeness toward the reader, or politeness of literary texts as noted by Sell (1991a, 1991b), is a more important aspect of literary (im)politeness. While a reader needs to assume different types of addressee in the text, he also assumes a dialogic relationship with the author and narrator of the text. In every addressee role framed by the literary text, the reader responds to different types of addressers cognitively and emotionally. Literature is so resourceful that it has served pragmatic purposes as well as nonpragmatic (poetic) purposes. McIntyre and Bousfield (2017) take fiction as data

124

Z. Feng

for stylistic analysis on the grounds that theories and models of (im)politeness can help stylisticians to explain interactions between characters. Based on Sinclair’s (2004: 51) observation that literature is “a prime example of language in use” and “a natural specialization of categories which are required in other parts of the descriptive system,” McIntyre and Bousfield (2017: 761) reasonably see fiction as playing a role in the development of linguistic models and analytical frameworks, including theories of (im)politeness. Hogan (2011: 11) specifically discusses what literature can teach us about emotion, saying that the artists (novelists, painters, and musicians) sometimes depicted or appealed to aspects of human perception, thought, feeling, or memory “in more complex and accurate ways” than the standard views of scientists. Leech and Short (2007: 95–98) take language as a “cognitive code” and observe that the emotion generated by an apparently flat description is quite complex and ambivalent. With an example of Hemingway’s theory that more can be felt than understood, they show how James Joyce’s choice of words refers to “emotional states and feelings” rather than “things” and how Henry James’s description appears “more full of active feelings and attitudes and less full of palpable objects” (2007: 155). Inspired by the relevance theory of Sperber and Wilson (1995), Pilkington (2000) acknowledges that emotions and moods are as integral as propositions for the production of poetic effects since at some level “all emotions are complex physiological states triggering different types of conscious awareness,” some in the form of “thoughts” and some in the form of “feelings” (Pilkington, 2000: 145), and an analysis of the cognitive properties of emotions can be used to show “how poetic effects create a wider range of, and stronger conditions for, evoking the feeling or qualitative properties of an emotion” (Pilkington, 2000: 152). On the basis of Sell’s (1991b) observation of literary politeness, Majola-Leblond (2013) raises the issue of “narrative impoliteness.” While authors, as a rule, show politeness to their potential readers, fictional characters in literary texts may not show politeness to each other. This is a very important advance on Sell’s theory of literary politeness which only implicitly entails impoliteness. A lot of interactions represented in literature are intentionally designed to be offensive to interlocutors and the actual reader of the text can directly perceive the author’s intentionality, which is to produce something to read as emotionally charged and textually face-threatening. Such textual impoliteness is defined according to the addresser’s intentionality “to cause offense” with language (Culpeper, 2011). While the reader can identify himself with characters in the story who are emotionally addressed for polite or impolite purposes, he also identifies himself with the addressee of the author on a higher level of (im)politeness. Black (2006: 74) observes an inherent impoliteness to invite readers to read a book, and a written text may expose the reader to uncomfortable views of the world and show them the perspective of people with whom the reader profoundly disagrees; and in the attempt to make the text clear, interesting, and indicating what is particularly interesting, the author normally attends to the reader’s positive face. By focusing on a particular group of curses in contemporary Polish that make explicit reference to the devil, Tabakowska (1998: 265) concludes that expressions of the inexpressible have irreplaceable functions and what is traditionally

Textual Emotivity and Literary (Im)Politeness

125

taken as a property of poetry is now a subject of both literary and linguistic studies in the light of cognitive theory of metaphor. The modern discipline that has inherited Prague School functionalism the most in studying the emotive aspect of language is stylistics. Wales (2014: 10) distinguishes the emotions of the addresser and addressee in a clearer terminological distinction of the “affective” and the “affected,” since traditional affective criticism evaluates or explains literary texts in terms of their degree of success in producing appropriate emotional, even physical, responses in the reader. Fish’s (1970) theorization of affective stylistics as part of the reader response criticism is interested not only in emotional responses but also particularly in the mental operations involved in the process of reading. This has paved the way for cognitive stylistics (Semino & Culpeper, 2002) and cognitive poetics (Stockwell, 2002, 2019) that are interested in how emotional responses are actually produced in the reader. Cognitive literary studies have not only confirmed affect as a distinguishing quality of the literary experience, but also highlighted the fact that literature is the best resource to express emotions for the reader to experience affecting others and being affected by others both cognitively and emotionally. The linkage between the text and the reader’s mental representation has fascinated literary critics as well as cognitive scientists. Maynard (2002: 92) raises the question of “How do we experience such often intense emotions simply by reading words on a page?” and gives a clear account of the way the reader can interpret textual emotivity. In spite of the differences between emotions experienced in texts and those in faceto-face conversations, emotional experiences are more or less the same in terms of senses and bodily response. In reading a literary text, the reader visualizes mental images from the description of the author, hears the narrator’s voice and characters’ talk, observes their actions, shares their perspectives, and experiences their emotions and emotional experiences. While the negotiation of meaning in spoken communication takes place in a one-to-one channel between the speaker and the hearer, the negotiation of meaning in literary communication takes place in multiple channels in which the reader interacts with every type of addresser in the fictional world, the text world, and more importantly with the author and the whole text in the actual world. When fictional characters talk and interact in the fictional world, their emotions and attitudes affect the reader. When the author or his constructed addresser “speaks” to any type of addressee, the actual reader naturally assumes these roles according to literary conventions. “Idle reader: thou mayest believe me without any oath that …” in the Author’s Preface of Cervantes’s Don Quixote, “I know there are readers in the world, as well as many other good people in it, who are no readers at all …” in Laurence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy, and “I report, then, only the outward facts” and “You may think novelists always have fixed plans” in John Fowles’s The French Lieutenant’s Woman, etc. are typical examples of explicitly addressing the actual reader of literary works. Reading a text is not simply an act of recognizing words on the page but of experiencing cognitive processes in which words evoke mental images on the stage. The reader experiences various types of emotion, which are the most important to the quality and meaning of our existence. Whether occurrences or dispositions,

126

Z. Feng

short-lived or long-lived, primitive or sophisticated, conscious or unconscious, etc. can be represented in one way or another in literary texts. Cook (1994: 23) recognizes a particular kind of relation between schema and language in literary texts and believes that literature can change our mental representations of the world and alter our schemata. The special role of the reader in experiencing literary emotivity and (im)politeness is that he can remain an observer or by-stander while he immerses in the fictional text. Even if he finds that the authorial stance is negatively emotive and literarily impolite, he may not, as a rule, feel actually imposed on or offended. This is because literary reading involves the reader’s “poetic faith” or dramatic illusion, or “willing suspension of disbelief” in Coleridge’s (2009 [1817] Chapter XIV) words. Following this convention, the reader can thus assume a “suspension of impoliteness” since he is aware that in literature none of the authorial or narratorial strategies of being imposing or face-threatening actually causes discomfort, the text only aims to take the reader into a fictional world where a different version of reality takes place, and that normal rules of emotional experiences, positive or negative coloring and polite or impolite speech strategies do not apply for the moment. This does not mean that the fictional character’s unpleasant feelings and their impolite verbal behaviors do not affect the reader. Throughout the cognitive and emotional processes, the reader is the participant and experiencer in and observer of the fictional world and an interlocutor with everyone in the text. Typical regulators of politeness (i.e., the choices of speech act, mode of address, level of style) and the regulation of the situational appropriateness of the utterance (i.e., paralinguistic features, gesture and body language and movement, and the like) may appear in literature (Enkvist, 1991: 18) and the affective function of expressing or suggesting moods or emotional states in literature has been recognized (Attridge, 1982). Wales (2014: 11) observes that the same rhythmic pattern can express different effects, and affective functions must be judged in conjunction with the meaning suggested by other linguistic features. This all the more highlights the creative role of the reader in co-producing the text. Literature is a special type of text in which both the author/narrator and characters select from a wide variety of styles and tones, and everything on the phonological, lexical, syntactic, and emotional levels gives the reader impressions of something he likes or dislikes (cf. Nash, 1980: 157). Larkin (1983 [1957]) emphasizes the three stages of writing a poem, whose ultimate purpose is to construct a verbal device to reproduce the emotional concept in the reader, and Verdonk (1991: 95–96) argues that the reader is a verbal creature that habitually responds to the poet’s verbal structure and that the poet’s text becomes a meaningful discourse only at the time when it is being read. It is well recognized that literary devices can intensify the emotional impact of a narrative as well as an argument. Leech (2008: 25) points out the lack of linguistic warranty for metaphor, whose compensatory connection is to be sought in some kind of “psychological, emotional or perceptual relation” between the literal and figurative meanings. While a “fine organization” manifests itself in an interplay or balancing of contrasting emotional movements (Leech, 2008: 43), questions either tend to be rhetorical and expressive of an individual’s strong emotional and intellectual involvement, or of doubt, puzzlement, or uncertainty (Leech, 2008: 158). He

Textual Emotivity and Literary (Im)Politeness

127

discusses a feature that is characteristic of Woolf’s individual style: “It expresses the thoughts and feelings of the narrator in a dramatic and emotionally charged way” (Leech, 2008: 173). In fact, Leech and Short (1981: 175, 2007: 140) have noticed the difficulty of demarcating fictional point of view due to the difficulty of determination where “the narrative refers to psychological events and states: to perceptions, volitions, emotions, thoughts, judgements.” Even a non-emotional statement such as “John finds Mary reading a novel” would cognitively and emotionally evoke the reader, who, in this case, is not only led into making out what emotional state John is in at finding an action or event going on, but also making out what emotional state Mary is in before she starts reading a novel and during the time of reading, and her emotional response to John at his appearance, etc. These complex processes take place in the reader’s mind just because of the fact that a statement is inherently an emotional report. And in a literary context, it can be an emotional report of an emotional report of an emotional report. In literary communication, fictional characters’ verbal behavior and emotional responses to each other evoke the reader’s cognitive and emotional responses. The author’s text (including paratext such as Foreword, Note to the Reader, Afterword, etc.) as a whole evokes the reader’s responses. On either level, it is the author that speaks to the reader via literary communication. Whatever narrative devices or agents the author may use to hide himself, such as creating a reliable or an unreliable narrator, it is the author that actually speaks to the reader. But literary critics have long focused their attention on the character–character communication. Therefore, the reader’s emotional responses and their judgement of politeness or impoliteness are largely what the reader feels in the story rather than what he or she feels in the work of art. Since the late 1980s, discourse-oriented literary stylisticians have paid increasing attention to the writer–reader communication of literary texts (Feng, 1998, 2002; Feng & Shen, 2001; Short, 1989, 1996), and studies of politeness in and of literature (Feng, 1998, 2002; Sell, 1991b; Simpson, 1989) have been carried out. (Im)politeness is a cognitive phenomenon, since no linguistic form or utterance or speech act is “intrinsically threatening to face” (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 24) or “inherently more or less polite” (Locher, 2004: 86), the reader is willingly led into presuming the author’s functional politeness, and will discard the book halfway through reading only because of something else, rather than because of authorial impoliteness. Sell (1991a) argues that a literary text is a text which “is designated as literary within a certain milieu” (1991a: xx), in which different values tend to be read from the same text and different values are regarded as literary, the psychological reality of literary value judgements nevertheless arises from particular features and qualities of texts (1991a: xxi). In the light of Watts (1991) and Verdonk (1991) who take literary communication as interpersonal or interactive, Sell (1991a: xxi) asserts that both “the writing and reading of literary texts are interactive.” Although literary communication is not face-to-face, one-to-one, or even contemporaneous communication, there is at least enough interaction for politeness or impoliteness to be perceived by the reader. Many years have passed and the study of literary interaction as a means of studying politeness has progressed enormously and the politeness theory has proved a valuable

128

Z. Feng

framework for analyzing literary texts from a range of different genres (Chapman & Clark, 2014: 5). Various types of face-related behavior can be represented in literary texts, which not only display the way texts are structured and construed in terms of how fictional or dramatic characters interact in the fictional world and how the fictional narrator and the implied reader interact in the discourse world, but also how the author and the actual text reader interact in the actual world. From studies on the author’s politeness and the reader’s perception of authorial politeness in literary texts, we can possibly conclude that textual emotivity and literary (im)politeness are manifested on at least two levels of communication: on the character–character level in the fictional world, and on the author–reader level in the actual world. At the same time, we can distinguish several types of the reader’s cognitive and emotional engagement: (1) what characters say and how they behave in the fictional world; (2) what the narrator says about the characters’ experiences and feelings in the fictional world; (3) what the author says directly to the reader in the actual world; and (4) the message that the author is conveying to his potential readers in the whole text. On every channel of literary communication, the reader is a discursive participant that naturally perceives and responds to literary emotions and (im)politeness strategies represented in verbal art.

5 Concluding Remarks The study of textual emotivity and literary (im)politeness involves some complicated aspects of human interaction. For one thing, textual emotivity has its own special manifestations since emotion is much more difficult to recognize in written texts than in spoken discourse. For another, without direct perception of facial expressions, prosodic features, and proxemic and kinesic information that accompany spoken discourse, written text is limited in paralinguistic information and its lexicalgrammatical items can be extremely ambiguous so that the reader has to make use of their intuition, contextual factors and world knowledge. Literature, however, offers a special context of written and spoken communication, in which the reader can use his own linguistic and communicative competence to infer the emotive communication between fictional or dramatic characters on one hand, and between the narrator and the narratee on the other hand. Meanwhile, the reader can recognize the authorial emotional attitude being explicitly or implicitly conveyed to the reader in the actual world. And the study of literary (im)politeness involves the competent reader’s conscious use of his knowledge about how communication takes place in actual social interaction. The recognition of (im)polite emotions and emotional (im)politeness in literature (i.e., between characters) is not an automatic process, and the careful reader must often read between the lines, since not every emotional state of fictional characters is emotionally expressed but have to be contextually inferred. Literary representation of emotivity and (im)politeness on multiple levels of interaction is what makes literary communication fascinating, in which textual emotivity

Textual Emotivity and Literary (Im)Politeness

129

is dramatically exemplified. The study of literary “(im)politenesses” in and of literature can not only take literary studies into depths but also contribute to linguistic and cultural studies of (im)politeness. Since many issues that are being studied by empirical scientists can also be contemplated by reflecting on and responding to what fictionally happens in literature and what actually happens with literature, the study of fictional representation of (im)politeness can be a valid approach to experiencing human emotions and understanding complex issues of (im)politeness. Funding Research work for this paper has been supported by the project “Cognitive Poetics and the Reconstruction of Its Theoretical Landscape” granted by the National Social Sciences Foundation of China (20&ZD291).

References Alba-Juez, L. (2021). Affect and emotion. In M. Haugh, D. Z. Kádár, & M. Terkourafi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics (pp. 341–362). Cambridge University Press. Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words. Cambridge University Press. Attridge, D. (1982). The rhythms of English poetry. Longman. Bennison, N. (1998). Accessing character through conversation: Tom Stoppard’s Professional Foul. In J. Culpeper, M. Short, & P. Verdonk (Eds.), Exploring the language of drama: From text to context (pp. 67–82). Routledge. Bever, G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–352). Wiley. Black, E. (2006). Pragmatic stylistics. Edinburgh University Press. Bouchara, A. (2009). Politeness in Shakespeare: Applying Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory to Shakespeare’s comedies. Diplomica Verlag. Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. John Benjamins. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56–311). Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1989). Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society, 18, 159–212. Buck, R. A., & Austin, T. R. (1995). Dialogue and power in E. M. Forster’s Howards End. In P. Verdonk, & J. J. Weber (Eds.), Twentieth century fiction: From text to context (pp. 63–77). Routledge. Buck, R. A. (1997). Towards an extended theory of face action: Analyzing dialogue in E. M. Forster’s A Passage to India. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 83–106. Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache [Language theory: The representational function of language]. Gustav Fischer. Bühler, K. (2011). Theory of language: The representational function of language (D. F. Goodwin, Tran.). John Benjamins. Caffi, C., & Janney, R. W. (1994). Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 325–373. Chapman, S., & Clark, B. (2014). Pragmatic literary stylistics. Palgrave Macmillan. Coleridge, S. T. (2009 [1871]). Biographia literaria. The Floating Press. Cook, G. (1994). Discourse and literature. Oxford University Press. Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–367.

130

Z. Feng

Culpeper, J. (1998). (Im)politeness in dramatic dialogue. In J. Culpeper, M. Short, & P. Verdonk (Eds.), Exploring the language of drama: From text to context (pp. 83–95). Routledge. Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 35–72. Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3232– 3245. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press. Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545–1579. Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., & Kádár, D. Z. (Eds.). (2017). The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness. Palgrave Macmillan. Daneš, F. (1987). Cognition and emotion in discourse interaction: A preliminary survey of the field. In B. Werner, J. Schildt, & D. Viehweger (Eds.), Preprints of the plenary session papers. XIVth International Congress of Linguistics (pp. 168–179). Academie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Daneš, F. (1994). Involvement with language and in language. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 251–264. Enkvist, N. E. (1991). On the interpretability of texts in general and of literary texts in particular. In R. Sell (Ed.), Literary pragmatics (pp. 1–25). Routledge. Ermida, I. (2006). Linguistic mechanisms of power in Nineteen Eighty-Four: Applying politeness theory to Orwell’s world. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 842–862. Feng, Z. (1998). Pragmastylistics and the study of The-Theatre-of-the-Absurd plays. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Peking University. Feng, Z. (2002). Pragmastylistics of dramatic texts: The play off the stage. Tsinghua University Press. Feng, Z., & Shen, D. (2001). The play off the stage: The writer-reader relationship in drama. Language and Literature, 10(1), 79–93. Fish, S. (1970). Literature in the reader: Affective stylistics. New Literary History, 2(1), 123–162. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Anchor Books. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. Edward Arnold. Haugh, M. (2015). Im/politeness implicatures. Mouton de Gruyter. Haugh, M., Kádár, D. Z., & Terkourafi, M. (Eds.). (2021). The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics. Cambridge University Press. Ho, D. Y. (1976). On the concept of face. The American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 867–884. Hogan, P. C. (2011). What literature teaches us about emotion. Cambridge University Press. Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concepts of “face.” American Anthropologist, 46(1), 45–64. Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). MIT Press. Janney, R., & Arndt, H. (1992). Intracultural tact versus intercultural tact. In R. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 21–41). Mouton de Gruyter. Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, G. (2016). Language and emotion. Emotion Review, 8(3), 269–273. Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p’s and q’s. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 9(1),292–305. Lakoff, R. (1982). Some of my favorite writers are literate: The mingling of oral and literate strategies in written communication. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 239–260). Ablex. Langlotz, A., & Locher, M. A. (2017). (Im)politeness and emotion. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 287–322). Palgrave Macmillan. Larkin, P. (1983). Required writing: Miscellaneous pieces 1955–1982. Faber & Faber. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.

Textual Emotivity and Literary (Im)Politeness

131

Leech, G. (1992). Pragmatic principles in Shaw’s You Never Can Tell. In M. Toolan (Ed.), Language, text and context: Essays in stylistics (pp. 259–278). Routledge. Leech, G. (2008). Language in literature. Longman. Leech, G. (2014). Pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press. Leech, G., & Short, M. (1981). Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. Longman. Leech, G., & Short, M. (2007). Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose (2nd ed.). Pearson. Lemmings, D., & Brooks, A. (2014). The emotional turn in the humanities and social sciences. In D. Lemmings, & A. Brooks (Eds.), Emotions and social change: Historical and sociological perspectives (pp. 3–18). Routledge. Locher, M. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Mouton de Gruyter. Majola-Leblond, C. (2013). “Who are they to talk to us like that?”: Narrative impoliteness and the reader. In D. Jamet, & M. Jobert (Eds.), Aspects of linguistic impoliteness (pp. 145–157). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Martin, J., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. Mathesius, V. (1983 [1929]). Functional linguistics. In J. Vachek, & L. Dušková (Eds.), Praguiana: Some basic and less known aspects of the Prague Linguistic School (pp. 121–142). John Benjamins. Maynard, S. K. (2002). Linguistic emotivity: Centrality of place, the topic–comment dynamic, and an ideology of pathos in Japanese discourse. John Benjamins. McIntyre, D., & Bousfield, D. (2017). (Im)politeness in fictional texts. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 759–783). Palgrave Macmillan. Mills, S. (2017). Sociocultural approaches to (im)politeness. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 41–60). Palgrave Macmillan. Nash, W. (1980). Designs in prose: A study of compositional problems and methods. Longman. Pilkington, A. (2000). Poetic effects: A relevance theory perspective. John Benjamins. Prague Linguistic Circle. (1983). Problems of research into languages of different functions, especially Slavic (part of “Theses presented to the First Congress of Slavists held in Prague in 1929” originally published “in loose sheets as Congress materials”). In J. Vachek, & L. Dušková (Eds.), Praguiana: Some basic and less known aspects of the Prague Linguistic School (pp. 88–99). John Benjamins. Sell, R. (1991a). Literary pragmatics: An introduction. In R. Sell (Ed.), Literary pragmatics (pp. xi–xxiii). Routledge. Sell, R. (1991b). The politeness of literary texts. In R. Sell (Ed.), Literary pragmatics (pp. 208–225). Routledge. Semino, E., & Culpeper, J. (2002). Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis. John Benjamins. Short, M. (1989). Discourse analysis and the analysis of drama. In R. Carter, & P. Simpson (Eds.), Language, discourse and literature (pp. 139–168). Unwin Hyman. Short, M. (1996). Exploring the language of poems, plays and prose. Longman. Simpson, P. (1989). Politeness phenomenon in Ionesco’s The Lesson. In R. Carter, & P. Simpson (Eds.), Language, discourse and literature (pp. 171–193). Unwin Hyman. Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text. Routledge. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Basil Blackwell. Stankiewicz, E. (1964). Problems of emotive language. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Approaches to semiotics (pp. 239–264). Mouton & Co. Stockwell, P. (2002). Cognitive poetics: An Introduction. Routledge.

132

Z. Feng

Stockwell, P. (2019). Cognitive poetics: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge. Suzuki, S. (2006). Emotive communication in Japanese. John Benjamins. Tabakowska, E. (1998). Go to the devil: Some metaphors we curse by. In A. Athanasiadou, & E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualisation and expression (pp. 253–269). Mouton de Gruyter. Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1982). Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Ablex. Terkourafi, M. (2008). Towards a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In D. Bousfield, & M. Locher (Eds.). Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 45–74). Mouton de Gruyter. Terkourafi, M. (Ed.). (2017). Interdisciplinary perspectives on im/politeness. John Benjamins. Trnka, B. (1983 [1948]). Linguistics and the ideological structure of the period. In J. Vachek, & L. Dušková (Eds.). Praguiana: Some basic and less known aspects of the Prague Linguistic School (pp. 211–229). John Benjamins. Turner, M. (1996). The literary mind. Oxford University Press. Verdonk, P. (1991). Poems as text and discourse. In R. Sell (Ed.), Literary pragmatics (pp. 94–109). Routledge. Wales, K. (2014). A dictionary of stylistics (3rd ed.). Routledge. Watts, R. J. (1991). Cross-cultural problems in the perception of literature. In R. Sell (Ed.), Literary pragmatics (pp. 26–43). Routledge. Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press.

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint Responses in BELF Phone Interactions Ping Liu and Huiying Liu

Abstract Responding to customer complaints is a delicate issue, as customers are likely to hold negative emotions while complaining. This becomes even more challenging when English is used as a business lingua franca (BELF) by Chinese employees working at the complaint center to respond to English-speaking customers in voice-to-voice phone interactions. Positioned within intercultural pragmatics, this chapter draws data from 38 recordings of telephone interactions made between customers and employees of a complaint call center of one Chinese airline, lasting about seven hours in total. A discursive approach is adopted to address the research question: how do customer service agents of complaint centers manage customers’ negative emotions in complaint responses? Data analysis reveals that the agents’ priorities and decisions in emotion management are not only goal-driven, but also highly institutionalized. By employing such strategies as shifting cognitive focus, altering attention, neutralizing strong emotion, and showing sympathy, they demonstrate commitment to their institutional roles. Faced with linguistic, sociocultural, and institutional constraints, the agents are professionally institutionalized and interpersonally de-individualized, which can sometimes make them sound like a machine. This study concludes that there is a tendency of over-institutionalization in BELF phone interactions. The findings shed light on intercultural pragmatics and emotion management practices in business institutions. Keywords Emotion management · Customer service · Complaint response · (Im)politeness

P. Liu School of English for International Business, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China H. Liu (B) School of English Education, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Xie (ed.), Advancing (Im)politeness Studies, Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37064-9_8

133

134

P. Liu and H. Liu

1 Introduction In business settings, customer service employees sometimes experience emotionally intense situations or engage in emotionally laden events where emotions need to be managed or regulated before they gain traction and become overwhelming. In complaint responses, emotion is hardly absent from interactions, as customers may feel angry, anxious, sad, frustrated, or disappointed while making complaints. These negative emotions are expressed and displayed verbally and nonverbally through words, actions, voice, facial expressions, and gestures. Although the role of emotion in communication has received substantial attention from different research fields, most studies have concentrated exclusively on emotion identification using nonverbal cues (e.g., Ekman, 1972; Fridlund, 1994), differences in emotional expression between humans and animals (e.g., Darwin, 1872) and emotion management/regulation in pragmatics and cross-cultural communication (e.g., Ayadi et al., 2011; Hochschild, 1979, 1983; Spencer-Oatey, 2002; for comprehensive reviews, see Schuller et al., 2011). Insufficient attention has been paid to the challenge of identifying emotions in spoken discourse by relying on features extracted from spoken discourse itself (Chen et al., 2018), and moreover, there is a lack of inquiry into emotion management in complaint responses in the English as a business lingua franca (BELF) context. Complaining refers to a situation in which a speaker points out some transgression or misconduct on the part of the subject who has performed some complainable action, and such complainable activity usually generates a grievance on the part of the complainer (Drew, 1998; Edwards, 2005). A complaint in the business context is specifically defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction for the purpose of drawing attention to a perceived misconduct by an organization and for achieving personal or collective goals” (Einwiller & Steilen, 2015: 196). Hence, to complain means to express discontent/dissatisfied feelings about some state of affairs, for which responsibility can be attributed to some person, organization, or other factors with the intention to achieve specific goals. A complaining act is conflictive by nature, and is usually laden with negative emotions, which makes emotion management inevitable in complaint responses. By complaining, something that was initially a personal problem, experience, or situation is transformed into an openly acknowledged interpersonal or institutional issue or difficulty. In addition, a complaint is often accompanied by other speech acts such as accusing, blaming, attacking, and criticizing, which likely reflect negative emotions, for example, anger, disgust, and frustration. Nevertheless, in the business context, by complaining, customers choose to communicate with an organization in order to seek a solution to an experienced problem or to initiate a change in the current regulations and/or business practices. Therefore, it gives the organization an opportunity to provide some form of remedy and/or take corrective action. In this sense, complaining can be treated as a positive event. However, if the organization fails to respond adequately and satisfy complainants, it may lose them as customers and its organizational image may be damaged as well. Depending on organizational

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

135

goals and the characteristics of complaints, customer service employees are expected to make efforts to manage customers’ negative emotions, for it is important for them to preserve the institutional image, as well as to maintain solidarity and rapport with customers. This dual orientation is displayed in the way call center employees manage customers’ negative emotions in complaint responses, which deserves a close examination. There is a lack of inquiry in the field of pragmatics on the subject of emotion recognition and management in business settings. Previous research on complaints and responses is mainly concerned with factors affecting complaining activity (e.g., Fan et al., 2015; Li et al., 2016; Wan, 2013); types, strategies, and management of complaints and complaint responses (e.g., Bippus et al., 2012; Dersley & Wootton, 2000; Filip, 2013; Heinemann & Traverso, 2009; Holt, 2012; Janda et al., 2021; Pomerantz, 1978; Schegloff, 1988; Selting, 2012); and recipients’ attitude toward complaints (e.g., Garín-Muñoz et al., 2016; Javornik et al., 2020). Most of these studies have focused on daily and institutional communication from different perspectives and approaches, such as marketing management (e.g., Jeanpert et al., 2021; Valentini et al., 2020; Yilmaz et al., 2016), cross-cultural communication ( Li et al., 2016), speech acts theory (e.g., Akram & Behnam, 2012; Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan, 2015), conversation analysis (e.g., Drew, 1998; Drew & Walker, 2009; Ekström & Lundström, 2014; Holt, 2012), and genre analysis (e.g., Zhang & Vásquez, 2014). Emotion extraction is difficult in voice-to-voice communication where nonverbal language is absent; it is even more challenging in BELF phone interactions in which people from different lingual-cultural backgrounds interact. Moreover, when identifying negative emotions in communication, customer service employees are expected to deal with those that are often incongruent with organizational goals. With these challenges in mind, this chapter intends to address the following research question: how do employees of complaint call centers manage customers’ negative emotions in complaint responses in BELF phone interactions? The aim is to reveal the emotion management strategies that call center employees use in complaint responses in an attempt to shed light on customer service training, especially with regard to helping customer service employees to deal with emotional challenges. The remainder of this chapter proceeds as follows. It begins by reviewing the theoretical and practical insights of emotion and emotion recognition, and then elucidates emotion management and strategies from a pragmatic perspective and in business settings. Subsequently, the method and data of this study are introduced, leading to the presentation of the findings and discussion. It culminates in a number of potentially fruitful avenues for further research.

136

P. Liu and H. Liu

2 Literature Review 2.1 Emotion, Emotion Display, and Recognition For both theoretical and practical reasons, researchers have defined emotions from different perspectives. Emotions are commonly defined as “subjective experiences which are dependent on the context in which they arise” (Arguedas et al., 2016: 518). However, emotions are not just subjective experiences or feelings; they are first and foremost intentions to act (Frijda, 2007). This is because their associated psychological and biological states are likely to induce people to take action (Goleman, 1995). That is to say, having an emotion entails a readiness to take action, since emotions are “transient, bio-psycho-social reactions to events that have consequences for our welfare and potentially require immediate action” (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2012: 92). In a more comprehensive manner, emotion is regarded as “a mental state of action readiness that arises from cognitive appraisal of events or thoughts, accompanied by physiological processes and is often expressed physically” (Bagozzi et al., 1999: 184). This definition highlights the fact that emotions consist of not only the motivation to take action, but also an evaluation of situations and nonverbal physical expressions. A given emotion has two dimensions: valence and arousal (Russell, 1980, 2003). Valence indicates the hedonic value (positive or negative), ranging from inactive (e.g., uninterested, bored) to active (e.g., alert, excited); arousal indicates the emotional intensity (from low to high), ranging from unpleasant (e.g., sad, stressed) to pleasant (e.g., happy, elated). Xiao et al. (2018) examine the impact of expressing different discrete emotions with a mixed valence (anger and hope) in organizational crisis communication on negative word-of-mouth on social media. In a more comprehensive way, Plutchik (1997) lists eight basic emotions, four of them negative (fear, anger, sadness, and disgust) and four positive or neutral (joy, surprise, trust, and anticipation). Following the literature reviewed above, emotion in this chapter is conceptualized as a mental state of action readiness that arises from cognitive appraisal of events or thoughts, which is linguistically manifested and socially constructed in interactions. Emotions are displayed and expressed by a combination of words, actions, facial expressions, and gestures. Describing and tracking accurate emotions in human communication contains evidence in the vast body of research work related to different fields of psychology, social sciences, linguistics, human–computer interactions, and communications (for a review, see Jaina et al., 2017). The focus here is the related research on emotion recognition relying on verbal means.

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

137

Emotions can be recognized by lexical-based methods (i.e., keyword-spotting) and semantic-based methods (i.e., concept-based) (Chen et al., 2018). Lexical-based methods rely on the presence of linguistic labels for emotion categories in language, for instance, positive or negative emotion terms such as “happy,” “angry,” and “sad.” It is notable that the actual emotion behind a word may not be interpreted by its lexical meaning, as the linguistic context also plays a role in emotion expression. Semanticbased methods intend to determine the text’s emotion at the concept level ( Trnka et al., 2018). They are considered superior to purely syntactical techniques because they can analyze multi-word expressions that do not explicitly convey emotion but are related to concepts that convey emotion. It is more reliable to combine linguistic information (lexical and semantic meanings) and contextual information to identify emotions (Griol et al., 2019). For example, a speaker is probably getting angry if he has repeated the same piece of information in several consecutive turns, which can give a reliable indication of the speaker’s emotional state at that moment. In terms of contextual information, certain situations or events, for example, complaining, may be characterized by the more frequent appearance of negative emotions. Emotion identification becomes more complex when linguistic messages are confrontational, conflictive, or mixed. These include impolite patterns with a confrontational meaning such as “I hate to be rude but…” and “no offense but…,” which have been conventionalized as disclaimers (Hongladarom, 2007), pragmatic reversals, or verbal formula mismatches, meaning they consist of “a pragmatic shift whereby a politeness marker is progressively used with conflictive meanings” (Mazzon, 2017); or expressions of mixed messages, in that they “mix features which point towards a polite interpretation and features which point towards an impolite interpretation” (Culpeper, 2011: 165–166). Such phrases “express some mitigation of the negative impact of what is just about to be delivered” without preventing the speaker, however, from delivering it (Culpeper, 2011: 174– 178). These expressions initially convey conventional politeness, but, as Culpeper shows, they often give rise to conventionalized impolite messages; that is to say, they are mixed messages conventionalized as impolite. These expressions tend to be indicative of specific emotions. Emotion recognition becomes even more complex in intercultural communication. This is because emotional displays in discourse are shaped and constrained by both explicit and implicit behavioral norms at play in different social situations (Weatherall & Robles, 2021). Recent empirical evidence has shown that cultures vary in terms of emotion-related values (e.g., Tsai & Clobert, 2019), as well as in the complexity and differentiation of display rules (Matsumoto et al., 2009). This is because emotions are largely a function of the sociocultural environment in which they occur (Mesquita & Boiger, 2014). It means that cultural contexts trigger different methods of making sense of the world, and these methods consequently also participate in dynamic constructions of emotional experiences and behaviors in time and space (Boiger & Mesquita, 2015).

138

P. Liu and H. Liu

To describe the relationship between culture and emotional experience, Matsumoto and Hwang (2012) developed a theoretical conceptualization of various cultural influences on the emotional life of individuals, which includes three domains: priming reactions, subjective experience, and emotion meanings. Priming reactions are immediate responses that occur in reaction to an event stimulus. The contribution of culture within this domain is relatively low. Subjective experience covers self-reported experience, various forms of internal interpretation, and labeling. This domain is more strongly influenced by culture, relative to priming reactions, because it requires language as a verbal property provided by culture. Finally, emotion meanings consist of attitudes, values, beliefs, and concepts of emotion, which are highly related to cultural influences. To elaborate the complex relationship between culture and emotions, Trnka et al. (2018) propose a conceptual framework to distinguish five components of cultural complexity relating to emotions: (1) emotion language, (2) conceptual knowledge about emotions, (3) emotion-related values, (4) feelings rules (norms for subjective experience), and (5) display rules (norms for emotional expression). They consider these areas to be the main components, or subsystems, contributing in different ways to the structural background related to emotions in a given culture. Among these components, display rules have attracted the most attention. They are defined as “cultural norms that dictate the management and modification of emotional displays depending on social circumstances” (Ekman & Friesen, 1969). Fernández et al. (2000) conducted a cross-cultural study including samples from 21 cultures to explore various kinds of display rules for joy, sadness, and anger in both the verbal and nonverbal domains. European and North American cultures reported higher verbal and nonverbal emotional expressions of sadness and anger than Asian and Latin American cultures. Asian cultures had the lowest level of emotional expression in all emotions, including joy. In an even larger investigation, Matsumoto et al. (2009) asked participants from 32 different countries what they would do if they felt each of the seven emotions (i.e., anger, contempt, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise) in the two settings (public and private) and across many interacting targets. The strongest differences in display rules were found for high-activation positive emotions. Following the line of cultural variations in the experience of positive or negative emotions, it is reported that the co-occurrence of pleasant and unpleasant emotions is more prevalent in East Asian cultures than in Western cultures (Schimmack et al., 2002). Tsai and Clobert (2019) suggest that East Asian cultures generally value a balance between positive and negative emotions more than members of Western cultures. These findings mirror cultural variations in the desire to maximize positive and minimize negative emotional experiences.

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

139

2.2 Emotion Management Emotion management is defined as either managing the antecedents to one’s own or others’ emotions or manipulating one’s or others’ emotional responses (Fuoli & Bednarek, 2022; Little et al., 2012: 407). It includes emotion awareness and emotional feedback (Feidakis et al., 2013). Whereas psychology research mainly focuses on self-management or self-regulation (for an overview, see Gross & Thompson, 2007), an increasing number of studies in linguistics and communication have recently been dedicated to the management or regulation of others’ emotions (e.g., Fuoli & Bednarek, 2022; Niven et al., 2009; Williams, 2007) in terms of how to elicit or change emotions in others or what strategies people use to bring about their chosen states. Emotion management or regulation is goal-oriented; it is about changing or maintaining a state in line with some kind of reference goal (Carver et al., 2015). Viewing emotion management primarily as a goal-directed process affords the insight that it is driven by some kind of motive (Niven, 2017). For example, prosocial goals are likely to result in attempts to improve others’ feelings, whereas instrumental goals could drive attempts to worsen the way others feel (Niven, 2016). Thus, goals influence the choice of emotion management strategy, for example, whether people select antecedent-focused strategies to change how others actually feel or response-focused strategies to change only the outward display of emotion in others (Gross, 2013). Moreover, emotion management is deliberate. Unlike some automatic nonverbal language, by which people influence others without any idea that they are doing so (via, for example, emotional contagion), emotion management is intentional, controlled, resource-intensive, and engaged with conscious awareness (Bargh, 2014).

2.2.1

Emotion Management in Pragmatics

The role of emotion is expressed either explicitly or implicitly in nearly all major pragmatics research (Spencer-Oatey, 2011: 3568), which has a close association with interpersonal relationship factors such as face, right, and im/politeness. In early theorizing in politeness, emotion was frequently implied in, for example, “disarm[ing] potential aggression” (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 1), the “minimization of risk of confrontation” (Lakoff, 1989: 102), “smooth communication” (Ide, 1989: 225), and maintaining “social equilibrium and friendly relation” (Leech, 1983: 82). Goffman (1967: 6–8) more explicitly referred to the feelings attached to face, such as feeling good, bad, hurt, ashamed, embarrassed, and chagrined. To relate feelings to specific incidents, Spencer-Oatey (2002) explored the nature of “rapport-sensitive” incidents. She defines rapport-sensitive incidents as “incidents involving social interactions that [respondents] found to be particularly noticeable in some way, in terms of their relationship with the other person(s)” (2002: 534). The “noticeable” impact of these interactions could be either negative or positive and, in attempting to elicit accounts of such incidents from respondents, she listed a range of emotion labels (e.g., annoyed,

140

P. Liu and H. Liu

insulted, embarrassed, proud, happy, etc.) to help respondents understand what she meant by a negative or positive effect. She then analyzed the incident data that she collected in order to explore the interactional concerns that seemed to underlie people’s reactions. Culpeper et al. (2010) carried out a follow-up study that builds on this approach. They focused on events that had a particularly negative effect, and used emotion labels (e.g., hurt, offended, embarrassed, humiliated, etc.) to help respondents understand the kind of incidents they wanted them to report. They also explicitly asked respondents to describe their feelings, and so collected a range of emotion labels. Culpeper (2011: 62–65) also reports the associations between these emotion labels and Spencer-Oatey’s (2002) rapport management categories of face, equity rights, and association rights. He reports that self-conscious emotions such as sadness and fear dominate all his data, but that other-condemning emotions such as anger take on increased importance when equity rights have been breached. A more focused approach has recently been taken by Chang and Haugh (2011). They examine strategic face threatening in business interactions and link it with the emotion of embarrassment. With regard to the role of emotions in general, Arndt and Janney (1985) argued that successful interaction is dependent on the production and interpretation of emotive cues and that interpersonal equilibrium is difficult to maintain without this. More recently, Kienpointner (2008) has taken a productive perspective and explores the impact of emotions on (im)polite behavior. Other theorists have explored the links between different key concepts: for example, Ruhi (2007, 2009) has drawn attention to the close interconnections between face, affect, and self-presentation, and Locher and Langlotz (2008) have discussed interpersonal dimensions of human interaction by integrating cognitive, discourse analytical, and emotional notions.

2.2.2

Emotion Management in Inter/Cross-Cultural and Business Research

Emotions are regulated socio-culturally whereby members of the same discourse communities are taught which emotions are considered appropriate in particular social situations and which are viewed as improper (Jaggar, 1988). Hochschild (1979, 1983) contends that emotions are guided by feeling rules that delineate expectations for emotional displays in a given social or institutional context. She coined two terms, ‘feeling rules’ and ‘emotion labor’ to investigate emotion management in business settings. Feeling rules are generalized expectations about the appropriateness of emotional experiences in different contexts; they prescribe what emotions people should feel in specific situations (Hochschild, 1983), and they may influence the readiness or propensity to experience various discrete emotions (Bickhard, 2000). Thus, discrete emotions vary in their desirability and perceived appropriateness across different cultures (Eid & Diener, 2001). Earlier, Hochschild (1979) investigated the training of flight attendants at Delta Airlines in the late 1970s, revealing explicit rules about

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

141

which emotions were supposed to be displayed before, during, and after flights. One of the findings was that flight attendants were taught to display empathy and kindness to passengers even when the latter’s behavior was disrespectful, aggressive, or sexually harassing. Not only were explicit feeling rules promulgated, but techniques for managing one’s emotions were also taught. Emotion labor, another term coined by Hochschild, refers to the management of feelings when there is a conflict between feeling rules and employees’ internal feelings (Hochschild, 1983: 7). Drawing on Goffman’s sociological theories and Freud’s psychological theories, she posited both display rules (sociology) and an inner self (psychology) that works consciously on emotions to bring them in line with mandated feeling rules. While retaining Hochschild’s (1983) basic premise about feeling rules, Zembylas (2005) offers a post-structural-discursive revision to Hochschild’s positing of emotion labor as unidirectional imposition of feeling rules on compliant workers. Instead, he conceptualizes emotion labor as dynamic, multidimensional, and multi-directional, “continually constructed and reproduced through interactions of domination and resistance” (Zembylas, 2005: 59). Recently, Fuoli and Bednarek (2022) introduce a novel linguistic framework for analyzing how emotional labor is performed in discourse using three complementary methods: lexical, move and dialogic analysis. Concentrating on one kind of emotion, namely moral emotions, Sy et al. (2018) describe how leaders use emotions such as compassion, admiration, and anger to compel their followers to act. Moral emotions are distinct from other emotions because they appear to have evolved to regulate the behavior of individuals within a group (Sy et al., 2018: 60). Among others, the other-condemning emotions such as anger, contempt, and disgust are initiated by the perception of unfairness, immorality, and injustice, or violations of moral code and ideals, and they suggest action tendency of revenge (anger), expulsion, avoidance, or ostracism (disgust), and reduction in respect and regard (contempt) (see Matsumoto et al., 2013, 2014; Rozin et al., 1999). To the best of my knowledge, only the work by Park and Gates (2009) has tackled the challenge of identifying sentiment in call center conversations by using features extracted from the text itself.

2.2.3

Emotion Management Strategies

Emotion management or regulation is goal-driven, and an essential aspect of it is the activation of a goal to influence the emotion (Gross, 1998). A goal can be either intrinsic, i.e., to influence one’s own emotions, or extrinsic, i.e., to influence other’s emotions. A goal can also be hedonic or instrumental. A hedonic goal is to change the emotion so that one feels positive rather than negative emotions, such as regulating anger because it is often unpleasant to feel angry. An instrumental goal is to change the emotion in order to meet another important goal, such as regulating anger to effectively make one’s point in complaint responses.

142

P. Liu and H. Liu

Taking a process approach to emotion regulation, Gross (1999) identifies five stages of emotion regulation which occur at different points in the emotion generation process: situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. Furthermore, a similar typology has been used in describing two types of emotion management strategy, antecedent-focused and response-focused, although different authors use slightly varied terminology. Antecedent-focused strategies aim to remedy the problem by addressing the causes (antecedents) of emotions. They are employed before fully developed emotional responses can arise in a given situation. The first and most proactive antecedentfocused strategy is situation-altering, which aims to counteract negative emotions by modifying or removing some or all of its emotion-provoking elements (Gross & Thompson, 2007; Little et al., 2012: 409; Williams, 2007). The second is attention altering, which involves distracting attention away from the emotion-provoking situation (Williams, 2007). The third strategy is cognitive reappraisal or cognitive focus shift, which aims to alter the cognitive meaning of the situation causing the negative emotional responses, namely by reinterpreting the situation as being less harmful (Hochschild, 1983; Little et al., 2012; Niven et al., 2009). The fourth antecedentfocused strategy is control, which involves making efforts to control the situation (Hochschild, 1983). Response-focused strategies, on the other hand, aim to interrupt emotional outbreaks (responses), which occur after emotional responses have already arisen (Gross & Thompson, 2007; Loewenstein, 2007). The common strategy of this type is suppression, for example, to interrupt an emotional outbreak by encouraging the affected person to calm down or breathe deeply (Little et al., 2012; Williams, 2007). Following Hochschild (1983), Grandey (2000) distinguishes between deep acting and surface acting. Deep acting involves changing one’s perception of the situation so as to feel a different emotion, whereas surface acting requires the employee to fake, intensify or suppress emotions. Culture also plays a role in emotion management. Emotion norms, rules, or scripts serve as back-end cultural regulators of emotional reactions. By regulating emotions via norms, cultures ensure that behaviors follow culturally prescribed scripts, increasing social coordination and decreasing social chaos (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2012). Language plays a key role in cultural constructions of concepts, attitudes, values, and beliefs about emotion. Although biological emotions provide a platform for universal representations of emotional states in language, different cultures construct specific categories of emotion terms represented in a language as well as specific attitudes, values, and beliefs (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2012). It has been found that East Asian cultures generally value emotional expression less and suppression more than Western cultures (Butler et al., 2007; Tsai & Clobert, 2019). One study focusing on desired and undesired emotions in the United States, Australia, Taiwan, and China revealed that participants from China consistently showed the lowest experiences in almost all kinds of emotions, and there is a general tendency to consider emotions as dangerous, irrelevant, or even illness-causing in China (Eid & Diener, 2001). Regulation strategies, such as the suppression of emotions, are generally

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

143

highly valued in East Asian cultures, and the preference for a moderated emotional life can also be found in these cultures.

2.3 Research Question and Objectives The interest of this chapter is the management of negative emotions in complaint responses in BELF phone interactions. It is intuitive that the employees of the complaint center regularly face negative emotions. There is a conflict of interest in complaint settlement, so interactions between customers and the complaint center are hardly absent of emotions. In addition, negative emotions demonstrate functional value. People may attempt to increase the presence of negative emotions in complaining as it may improve the likelihood of obtaining desirable outcomes. For instance, the expression of dissatisfaction or anger may increase the probability of concessions from the other party, and sadness and frustration can improve their solicitation of help and support. What is more, using BELF in complaint responses creates additional challenges, as people from different cultures may follow different feelings and display rules. Therefore, the research question to be addressed in this chapter is: how do employees of complaint call centers manage customers’ negative emotions in complaint responses in BELF phone interactions? This chapter has three objectives. The first is to develop ways of identifying negative emotional components in the language in BELF phone interactions. As we know it is not ideal to investigate the process and outcome of emotion management purely based on linguistic data. This is because it is hard for us to know about people’s internal emotional states, and therefore we cannot be certain whether the emotions indexed through linguistic cues are authentic or not. Furthermore, it is challenging to identify negative emotions in phone interactions due to the absence of nonverbal signals. Nevertheless, these challenges do not constitute a central problem in this research, as emotions and their expressions are deeply socialized, even in BELF interactions. Unlike previous studies, which have mostly focused on nonverbal emotion expressions, this chapter aims to describe the linguistic displays of negative emotions. The second objective is to examine the strategies employed in BELF phone interactions to manage negative emotions (i.e., emotion labor), as well as their impact on complaint settlement. The idea of emotion management is of central importance to relational work. If call center employees can manage customers’ emotional orientations and thereby influence their relationships with them, then they may be able to settle complaints more smoothly and easily. To facilitate successful complaint settlements, the employees may react or act proactively towards customers’ negative emotions, for example, to moderate anger and anxiety and relieve their worries. Previous studies have demonstrated that other-oriented emotion management can indeed influence people’s behavior (Fuoli & Bednarek, 2022; Little et al., 2016), although it has also been shown that emotion management sometimes fails to have

144

P. Liu and H. Liu

the intended consequences on targets’ affect due to factors such as selection of inappropriate strategies and unskilled implementation of strategies (e.g., Dixon-Gordon et al., 2015; Niven, 2017; Williams & Emich, 2014). This chapter aims to explore the strategies that customer service agents use in dealing with negative emotions. The third objective is to describe the functioning of emotion management strategies in complaint responses. A discursively constructed approach is to be used in functional analysis. Emotion management is goal-driven, suggesting that the choice of strategies may in turn influence a host of outcomes. Following Matsumoto and Hwang (2012) and Gross (1999), the emotion management process will be understood according to the following three stages: priming event stimulus, customer subjective experience and emotion, and strategy choice. It is contended that emotionally effective and socially competent customer service agents are likely to build a harmonious relationship with customers and thus settle complaints more smoothly and successfully.

3 Data and Method 3.1 Identifying Negative Emotions The data were drawn from 38 recordings of phone interactions, lasting about seven hours in total, between customers and employees of the complaint center of one Chinese airline in a period of two months in 2018. The contents of each phone call have been transcribed verbatim. Each adjacency pair and its turns have been marked so that any quotation can be identified and traced back to the original conversation. The airline in question and its employees, as well as other airlines and some place names mentioned, are kept anonymous. Signs X (for person’s name) and XX (for organization or place name) are used when they are mentioned either in the extracts or in the data analysis. X1, X2, … Xn are used to represent different persons; XX1, XX2, … XXn are used to represent different organizations and places. Each data excerpt presented in Sect. 4 is numbered consecutively. Our interest is to identify and track occasions of negative emotions in customer utterances. Negative emotion-relevant or laden discourse segments are identified based on a combination of words, conversational routines, and discursive features (e.g., a string of consecutive words and utterances). The judgment of emotion type combines linguistic features with contextual factors. Emotion identification is operationalized by the appearance of the following linguistic and discursive features: (1) the presence of linguistic labels for negative emotion words such as “angry,” “sad,” “depressed,” and “hate”; (2) the use of particular conversational routines laden with negative emotions such as negation, repetition, interruption, wh- questions, and mixed messages; (3) the presence of particular emotion-laden or emotion-relevant speech acts such as directives, repair signals, and metatalk; and (4) the comforting responses from customer service agents as indirect evidence. After identifying all

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

145

Table 1 Negative emotions and their expressions in customer utterances Types of emotions

Subtypes

Emotion/emotion-laden words

Syntax/discursive features

Inactive negative . Self-pity emotions (5 . Confusion occasions) . Frustration . Sadness

Confusing, unbelievable, sad, frustrated, disappointing

Negation, repetition, wh-questions

Active negative emotions (28 occasions)

Fault, misuse, problem, liar, cheating, deception, nothing, deceiving, angry, unacceptable unfair, false, funny, not happy, bad, unbelievable irritated, impossible, insane

Negation, interruption, repetition, metatalk, wh-questions, rhetorical questions, directives, evidential, self-disclosure, empathy

. . . .

Impatience Dissatisfaction Anger Disgust

negative emotion-laden discourse segments, following Russell (1980, 2003), Plutchik (1997), Culpeper (2011), and Spencer-Oatey (2002), our findings are reported under two categories: (1) inactive negative emotions, referring to self-conscious, passive emotions such as confusion, fear, and sadness; and (2) active negative emotions, referring to other-condemning, aggressive emotions such as impatience, dissatisfaction, anger, and disgust. The occasions of negative emotions and their linguistic expressions in the data are summarized and presented in Table 1.

3.2 Describing Emotion Management Strategies and Functioning Process Following Williams (2007), Gross and Thompson (2007), Hochschild (1983), and others, emotion management strategies are identified and classified based on two broad types: antecedent-focused and response-focused. Antecedent-focused strategies aim to remedy problems by addressing the causes of emotions; response-focused strategies aim to interrupt and stop emotional outbreaks. Table 2 presents the major types of emotion management strategies identified in the data. The functioning process of emotion management strategies is analyzed via the following three steps: (1) priming event, (2) subjective experience and emotion meanings, and (3) customer service agent’s strategic choice. It is argued that emotion labor varies according to different emotion meanings. Thus, the analysis in Sect. 4 will be divided into two parts, i.e., inactive negative emotions and active negative emotions, with each illustrating one type of negative emotions.

146

P. Liu and H. Liu

Table 2 Typology of emotion management strategies Strategy type

Sub-strategies

Definitions

Antecedent-focused

Situation-altering

To counteract negative emotions by modifying or removing emotion-provoking elements

Attention altering

To distract attention away from the emotion-provoking situation

Cognitive reappraisal

To alter the cognitive meaning of the situation causing the negative emotional responses

Ignoring

To pay no attention to an emotional outbreak

Aligning

To accept other’s position in the emotion-provoking event

Suppression

To interrupt an emotional outbreak

Sympathizing

To align with customers

Self-disclosure

To relate to self-experience and stories

Situation-altering

To counteract negative emotions by modifying or removing some or all of its emotion-provoking elements

Response-focused

3.3 Interviews Interview data were collected from nine employees (six females and three males) working at the complaint center of the Chinese airline in question. The semistructured interviews, conducted in December 2018, consist of nine subjective questions, focusing on the process and method of complaint handling and emotional management in complaint responses. The interviews were conducted in Chinese by three interviewers separately (one interviewer interviewed three agents), each lasting about 30 minutes, and were recorded throughout. Before the interview, the interviewees had been informed of the purpose of the recording, and their consent had been obtained. After the interview, the nine recordings were transcribed word for word.

4 Functioning of Emotion Management Strategies in Complaint Responses 4.1 Inactive Negative Emotions Data analysis revealed that customers displayed self-pity, confusion, frustration, and sadness when they were told that their flights had been changed or canceled, they could not bring their pets with them, or they may not get a refund. These priming events triggered their negative experiences. The emotion labels and emotion-laden expressions used in their description and conceptualization include “confusing,”

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

147

“unbelievable,” “sad,” “frustrated,” “please,” and “disappointing.” At the syntax and discourse level, the customers used negation, repetition, and wh- questions. The customer service agents chose antecedent-focused strategies to maintain an outward friendly demeanor while interacting with unhappy and disappointed customers. For instance, the agent might reappraise the event to make the customer feel better or differently, as illustrated in Example 1 (Note: all examples used in this chapter are cited in their original forms; misspellings or other errors are in the original.) Example 1 (C: customer; A: agent of complaint center. The agent told the customer about a flight change.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

C: Oh. (0.2) So there is not flight that I can go now? A: XX1 to XX2 should 4:35. I can change for another airline. C: Check it for me. I want to go to XX3 today. [Please]. A: [No flight]. I’m so sorry. C: Please book me another airline from XX1 to XX2. A: So, (0.5) can you accept the new flight information we organized for you? If you accept, we can try to do it again. Do you need a message? Do you need a message for the flight information? C: Yes, please. Because, my mind (0.1) closes now. A: OK, I will send you a message. (2) You will ride on the generally thirty-one morning. (150) Thanks for waiting, madam. You have to look at the message first now.

The customer was anxious to fly back home, but her flight was canceled and there was no flight available, which triggered negative emotions. The word “please” (lines 3, 5, and 8) was used several times, indicating the customer’s frustration and anxiety. Nevertheless, at the same time, she was actively seeking help. The self-disclosure statement “my mind closes now” (line 8) was used to gain sympathy, and she asked the agent to find her a new flight. In response, the agent told her that there was no flight available; meanwhile, the agent showed understanding and sympathy, and actively provided the customer with new information to help her. The agent adopted a sympathizing strategy. Facing a mixture of negative and positive emotions, the agents appeared to be more patient, helpful, and friendly, even when the customer’s request could not be satisfied according to the company regulations. Consider Example 2:

148

P. Liu and H. Liu

Example 2 (The customer asked for compensation which is against the company regulation.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

C: OK. That’s fine. Is there a way that you guys can make it more clear on the website? Because on the website, it is not very clear at all. I don’t know. Because there is a way to refund the ticket. Because to me, it’s not clear and your customer service is not available when I want to book the flight. The check is a little bit disappointing. And I thought before the dog was no problem. A: Madam. If you call us before you made a ticket, we might [a] C: [I] called you three times. I called you three times. A: Even for that is not working, Madam. The transportation means that you have more than one flight and transfer to another flight, not another airline. C: Is there a problem? I just want to make sure I can get a refund because the fact your customer service between 24 to 7 was not available. At the time I called three times. I think someone hang up on me. And I just want to make sure I can get a refund. A: Your ticket is not refundable, Madam. C: I just want to get a refund because your customer service wouldn’t take up. A: Your ticket is not refundable. C: Well, we need to figure something out because it’s 450 dollars which is a lot of money and I want to make sure I can get my money back or I can bring my dog to where I want to bring my dog. A: Madam. We need to follow the regulations. C: But the regulation is like they also need to have a good customer service, this is like an exceptional circumstance, either more clear which it isn’t. I don’t think it’s fair if your customer service is not available when I want to use customer service and happen a problem like this. I like XX, I never had a problem with XX. I just want to make sure this is something that can be fixed. I want make sure is there a manager or someone I can talk to A: Hold on. Madam. C: so that I can get an exception and get this fixed. (3m 40s) A: Hello. Madam. Just now we still can’t make this application, we can just forward your information to our customer service department and need them to reply you. In this case, I need to record your contact information including your phone number and your E-mail address. C: OK. That would be great.

The priming event was the company’s pet travel policy, as well as the unavailability of customer service when needed. The customer complained about the company’s website for not offering the right information on animal travel and the availability of customer service when she booked the flight because of different time zones. Her narrative of her bad experiences indicates a mixed valence emotion (Xiao et al., 2018), that is, a mixture of inactive, self-conscious negative emotions (including frustration, sadness, and expectation) and positive emotion (hope and expectation). Apart from the emotion label and emotion-laden words, for example “disappointment,” “problem,” “not fair,” and “like,” she also used repetition and negation to

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

149

emphasize her request. Moreover, the positive comment on her past experiences with this airline “I like XX, I never had a problem with XX” (Line 20) indicates her effort to seek a favorable resolution to her request or an exception as a loyal customer. Facing a request for a refund for a nonrefundable ticket, the agent first patiently explained the company policy and insisted on a “no,” but her response changed after the customer said some nice words about the company, and she finally agreed to transfer the issue to another department for a possible solution, which gave the customer some hope that she might get a refund as an exception. At the very least, the customer would receive further information from another department. The agent adopted a situation-altering strategy to change the target of the complaint and provided some hope for a satisfactory solution in the near future.

4.2 Active Negative Emotions Active negative emotions account for 85% of all the negative emotion-laden occasions in customer utterances. The priming events covered a wide number of issues, ranging from trivial ones (such as agents’ inadequate English proficiency, inconvenient time for receiving a call, high charges for international calls, and unavailability of customer service when needed) to more substantial ones (such as poor attitude of crew members, inefficient flight booking system, unsatisfactory compensations for delayed and canceled flights, and high charges for rescheduling flights). In complaining about these issues, the customers displayed impatience, dissatisfaction, anger, and even disgust, reflected in the use of emotion-laden words or labels such as “fault,” “liar,” “nothing,” “unfair,” “angry,” “irritated,” and “insane.” In addition, at the syntax and discourse levels, the customers use negation, interruption, repetition, metatalk, and directives. The agents demonstrated more a professional and impersonal demeanor when customers displayed active negative emotions in interactions, perhaps due to their professional training. They were institutionalized to respond in fixed patterns; however, sometimes, their automatized responses made them seem too impersonal, or like a machine. In Example 3, the agent chose to ignore the customer’s negative emotions and appeared highly professional and impersonal.

150

P. Liu and H. Liu

Example 3 (The agent informed the customer of a flight change, but the customer commented on her English proficiency.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

C: Hello? A: Hello, excuse me, sir. This is XX Airline. Are you available to talk now? C: So-Sorry? A: This is XX Airline Complaint Centre. (.) Are you available to talk now? C: Yeah, but your English is not very good. A: (Inhale) OK, thank you, sir, because we have done the complaint, because you have a problem in ticke[t] C: [No]. [Wait]. Your English is really bad, OK? So if you’re on the customer complaints, your English needs to be a lot better so that I can understand it, because at the moment, I don't understand it. A: OK, because we just want to tell you that the seat has been changed. (.) But we couldn't help you change [it]. C: [Say] again? A: (Inhale) Because the flight has been changed, and your seat has been changed either. But we have helped you, tried our best to help you. Make sure that your original seat we couldn't help you to change. We’re so sorry for that. C: (0.2) No, this is what your customer complaints department should have done. The very first call when I called up and I had to spend forty-five minutes of my time, the way they answered the phone was completely inconsiderate towards the customer. A: Yes, I mean [that] C: [By the] way, okay, now you have a new customer complaint. OK? Hello? A: Yes, I'm here. C: Are you making notes? A: I'm hearing you, sir.

The priming events that trigged the customer’s bad emotion were the way the complaint center handled his original complaint about his seat change, as well as the agent’s English proficiency. The customer sounded very angry, impatient, and even contemptuous, as indicated by the frequent use of negation and repetition. Negative comments such as “but your English is not very good” (Line 5) and “Your English is really bad” (Line 7) sounded very direct, personal, and unkind. The strategy the agent chose is attention altering. She ignored the customer’s bad emotions and personal attacks and proceeded with the task she was supposed to accomplish, i.e., telling him about the seat change. She apologized for the inconvenience that the company caused him and even thanked the customer for his negatively commenting on her English. It seems that the agent was well-trained and professional, and immune to other-condemning negative emotions. Customer service agents play an important role in determining not only what to tell customers regarding their original complaints, but also how to tell them. This is because their inappropriate handling of the original complaint can trigger a second or third round of complaints targeting the complaint center itself. Sometimes, the agents

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

151

may behave too professionally and end up sounding like a machine, as illustrated in Example 4. Example 4 (The agent informed the customer of the flight information.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

C: Hello? A: Hello, excuse me, sir. This is XX Airline. Are you available to talk now? C: So-Sorry? A: This is XX Airline Complaint Centre. (.) Are you available to talk now? C: Yeah, but your English is not very good. A: (Inhale) OK, thank you, sir, because we have done the complaint, because you have a problem in ticke[t] C: [No]. [Wait]. Your English is really bad, OK? So if you’re on the customer complaints, your English needs to be a lot better so that I can understand it, because at the moment, I don't understand it. A: OK, because we just want to tell you that the seat has been changed. (.) But we couldn't help you change [it]. C: [Say] again? A: (Inhale) Because the flight has been changed, and your seat has been changed either. But we have helped you, tried our best to help you. Make sure that your original seat we couldn't help you to change. We’re so sorry for that. C: (0.2) No, this is what your customer complaints department should have done. The very first call when I called up and I had to spend forty-five minutes of my time, the way they answered the phone was completely inconsiderate towards the customer. A: Yes, I mean [that] C: [By the] way, okay, now you have a new customer complaint. OK? Hello? A: Yes, I'm here. C: Are you making notes? A: I'm hearing you, sir.

The priming event is a delayed flight. The customer was angry at the confusion caused by the change in his travel plans. His anger was expressed in the use of negation, as in “Your sorry is nothing” (Lines 9 and 11), and his repetition of “because of your problem” (Lines 13 and 14) several times. The agent automatically responded to the customer’s accusations much like a machine. She fully accepted what the customer said word-for-word without emotion, and at the same time, she told the customer about the company’s regulations. Obviously, the strategy she chose is ignoring. No matter what the customer said, she filtered out the emotional elements by focusing on the task at hand. Sometimes, the agent sounded fully institutionalized, as illustrated in Example 5.

152

P. Liu and H. Liu

Example 5 (The customer complained about a flight cancellation.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

C: What is your position? Supervisor? Manager? A: We’re the complaint center. C: Yeah. What is your position? A: We didn’t have a position, because we’re just the complaint center, and XX didn’t get the final answer from us. C: So what are you, a telephone? Who are you, a telephone? A: No, we just a colleague in [XX] C: So you’re not a supervisor. You’re not a manager. A: Yes. I’m a supervisor. Yes, I’m not. C: You’re not even a manager? A: Yes. C: OK. So there must be a manager in your department, X1? A: I’m sure, that’s sure because there is no anymore answer for that. C: Okay, I will find a line to get to your manager, please. A: No, I'm sorry, sir. C: I will be still on the line. A: No, sir. C: What do you mean “no, sir”? A: Because these answers are for XX, and are final answer. C: So-OK can you give me the President of XX? A: Because we couldn't offer this information to you, sir. I'm so sorry. C: Well, I'm not leaving the phone, X1, until you tell me the president. A: OK. We respect you. Sir. C: No, you don’t. If you respect me, we wouldn't be in this situation now. A: If you need to complain me, I could mark down it, and we will give you another colleague to answer you. C: Sorry? A: If you would like to complain me, I will mark down my mistake and my information, and make our staff to answer you. But if you need our president’s information, I’m sorry we couldn’t offer you that. C: OK, so I need someone to answer about your complaint, please. A: Yes, of course. And after that, we will call you back. C: Wait. A: In three workdays. C: OK. So today, that is on Thursday, I will be expecting two phone calls, one regarding X2, one regarding you. And I'm still waiting for the one regarding X3. A: Okay, including today, in three workdays. C: I have three customer complaints running. A: Yes. I mean that. And I will mark all the information.

The priming event is the way the complaint center dealt with his complaint about a flight cancellation. The customer asked about the agent’s position in the company and became very angry when the agent was unable to tell him anything about it. The interrogation “So what are you, a telephone? Who are you, a telephone?” (Line 5) reveals

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

153

his anger and dissatisfaction. It shows that he was fed up with the routinized communication and wanted to conduct a meaningful interaction with the agent. Because of the agent’s language proficiency, it took a while for the customer to figure out the agent was not a manager (see Lines 7–11). He then insisted on talking to the manager, and even asked to talk to the president after the agent rejected his request. It seemed that he became more and more impatient and angry while talking to the agent, indicated by the use of interrogative and wh- questions. The agent performed her duty calmly and did not display any emotions. It seemed that she has been programmed to respond to customers in this way. Her response, “No, we just a colleague in [XX]” (Line 6), when she was called a telephone by the customer showed that she did not take this accusation personally. The strategy chosen is attention altering. Deliberately or not, she took the literal meaning of telephone and replied to the customer seriously that she was a colleague (i.e., employee) of her company. When the customer insisted on talking to her manager and the company president directly, she stated that she was not in a position to provide this information. She ignored the customer’s negative emotions and merely performed her duty as a customer service agent. She even suggested that the customer complain about her, noting that she would mark down the information herself and her colleague would contact the customer for a solution. Very rarely, the customer service agent may also show a little initiative in defending the company, as shown in Example 6. Example 6 (The customer was angry at how he was treated by the complaint center.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

C: I asked a very simple question. OK? A: Yes, I'm hearing you, sir. Please say it. C: Okay. Can I ask you a question who pays your salary? A: Our salary is paid from our company. C: Not from the customers? A: It’s all the service. C: The customer pays your salary. A: Yes, you're right. C: I know I’m right. (0.2) So you didn’t know who pays your salary. The online supervisors don’t know who pays their salary. (0.2) Something is wrong. And this is the way you treat the customer? A: We didn’t treat the customer too bad, and we will [offer] C: [Wait]. Excuse me. Have you listened to the phone call that was made during lunch time last Thursday between me and X and the (immediate?) telephone handler? Because the way you treated the customer there, you are-were [???]? A: [No]. C: Terrible. A: No, sir. I’m so sorry. C: So [why you] speak to the customer and I mean XX was disgraceful. A: Okay. We feel really sorry for that, and we will apologize.

154

P. Liu and H. Liu

The priming event is a flight cancellation, but the customer was dissatisfied and angry about the way he was treated by the complaint center during the complaint handling process, indicated from the use of emotion-laden words, such as “wrong,” “terrible,” and “disgraceful,” and negation in response to the agent’s apologetic responses. In fact, the customer tried to make the situation difficult for the agent by raising a tricky question, “who pays your salary?” (Line 3). The question functioned like a “trap,” with the aim of teaching the agent a lesson. The agent’s strategy was to align with the customer cognitively in order to dampen his anger, indicated in her response “Yes, you are right” (Line 8). By agreeing with the customer’s position, she admitted the value of customers to the company. Apart from alignment, the agent apologized twice (Lines 17 and 19). From a follow-up interview, this is found to reflect an “overt feeling rule” (Hochschild, 1983), that is, the agents are supposed to say sorry and apologize on behalf of the company even if the complaint is groundless. Nevertheless, in this example, the agent was not totally passive; she made attempts to defend her company, denying that her company treated customers badly when the customer said “something is wrong” (Line 10).

5 Discussion Complaint and responses are “rapport-sensitive” incidents (see Culpeper et al., 2010; Spencer-Oatey, 2002), where emotions are hardly absent in communication. The role of emotion has been studied widely in psychology and sociology, but has received less attention in linguistics and applied linguistics. Positioned in intercultural pragmatics, this chapter explores the process of negative emotion management in complaint responses using BELF in a business context. To advance previous research, which mainly targets nonverbal expressions and displays of emotions, this chapter navigates occasions of negative emotions relying on a combination of verbal means and contextual information. The analysis of triggering issues of complaints, identification of negative emotions, and functioning process of emotion management in voice-to-voice BELF phone interactions can shed light on emotion research more broadly. Beginning with the causes of complaints, often the triggers of negative emotions, customers became emotional either because of their original complaints about unsatisfactory travel experiences or the ways the complaint center handled their complaints. The main causes consist of cultural differences, language proficiency, asymmetrical information access, poor facilities, and different working norms and practices. Table 3 sums up the target, type, and cause of complaints based on the data collected. Emotion management in complaint responses is extrinsic and instrumental, that is, it is intended to change or maintain a state in line with institutional goals (Carver et al., 2015; Gross, 1998, 2015). As revealed in the interviews, there are specific principles and feelings display rules that the agents are supposed to follow in dealing with customers’ emotions. For example, they are told that they can ask an angry customer

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

155

Table 3 A summary of the target, type, and cause of complaints Target

Type

Cause

Complaint center

Bad signal

Facilities

Miscommunication

Agent’s English proficiency and way of handling complaints

Information access

Asymmetrical knowledge

Inefficiency of complaint settlement Different work norms and practices Other departments Availability of customer service

Different time zones

In-cabin service (food type)

Dietary restrictions

High charges/fees (international calls, rescheduling flights)

Asymmetric knowledge

Airport staff’s bad attitude

English proficiency and diverse communication styles

Refund and compensation for flight/ Company policy/regulation seat change and flight delay Pets/animals travel regulation

Information unavailability

Failure of booking/ticket system

Inefficient online system

who uses impolite and offensive words to calm down three times before they stop talking to them. Their bottom line is to stick to company policy and regulations no matter how emotionally out of control a customer becomes in complaining. An agent’s inappropriate handling of original complaints can trigger a second or third round of complaints targeting the complaint center itself (as in Examples 4, 5, and 6). To the agents, language proficiency is one of the problems though BELF speakers are supposed to be more patient and tolerant of each other (see Kankaanranta & Brigitte, 2010; Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005). Example 3 shows that failing to understand each other can hinder smooth and effective communication. The customer pointed out this problem directly by saying “Your English is not very good”; “Your English is really bad, OK?”; and “So if you’re on the customer complaints, your English needs to be a lot better so that I can understand it, because at the moment, I don’t understand it.” In the follow-up interviews, some agents said they do feel personally involved and a bit unhappy if the customers blame them for their English and accent. However, they would not display any personal feelings or involvement in response to these accusations. In addition, BELF speakers have diverse cultural backgrounds, so it is highly probable that the agents and customers follow different emotion display rules, as it is reported that European and North American cultures demonstrate higher verbal and nonverbal emotional expressions of sadness and anger than Asian and Latin American cultures (see Fernández et al., 2000). A division of negative emotions into inactive and active ones can reveal the process of emotion management more clearly. Among the 33 emotion-laden episodes, only five (15%) of them displayed inactive negative emotions. On those occasions, in

156

P. Liu and H. Liu

which customers were sad, frustrated, and helpless, the agents showed more interpersonal involvement in complaint responses. Strategies employed include sympathizing, comforting, and cognitive reappraisal. The agents became even more helpful when customers showed mixed valence emotions (Xiao et al., 2018). This may be because Chinese agents are more familiar with the co-occurrence of pleasant and unpleasant emotions in public settings in China and they are more experienced in handling such situations, as it is reported that Chinese culture values a balance between positive and negative emotions (see Schimmack et al., 2002; Tsai & Clobert, 2019). Comparatively speaking, customer service agents are less personally involved and more professionally and institutionally involved when facing active negative emotions. In these situations, they are more concerned with their institutional role as an agent handling complaints on behalf of the company than with self-face and self- and other-affect. The close interconnections between face, affect, and selfpresentation discussed by Ruhi (2007, 2009) are less evident in the BELF setting. The data showed that in 28 (85%) occasions of active, other-condemning emotions, the agents adopted a professional position in responding to complaints. In this rapport-sensitive event, rather than considerations of face and association rights (see Spencer-Oatey, 2002), the customers are more concerned with their equity rights. As Culpeper (2011: 62–65) reported, other-condemning emotions take on increased importance when equity rights have been breached. The customers become angry and even furious when they think that they have been deprived of equity rights. The major strategies the agents adopt in these cases are suppressing, neutralizing, situation shifting, and cognitive reappraisal. They appear to be highly professional, de-individualized, and less personally involved. In the follow-up interviews, they admitted that they seldom take any accusations personally or display negative emotions in their work. This is because they fully understand their roles at work and they are trained to follow a specific procedure of reminding customers at least three times to calm down when they get angry and use offensive words. If the customers continue to be impolite, they can use a mute mode or terminate the call and call them back later. They also use some formulaic language, such as “I am sorry,” “I apologize,” and “I would like to help, but…” as indicated in the data collected and confirmed in the interviews. However, the customers do not feel better if their complaints cannot be resolved satisfactorily. These expressions sound empty, meaningless, and thus less helpful in these cases. One problem or side effect of this kind of institutionalization is that sometimes the agents sound too professional and de-individualized. This phenomenon can be explained according to the following aspects. The first factor is sociocultural differences. As Jaggar (1988) points out, emotions are regulated socio-culturally whereby members of discourse communities are taught which emotions are considered appropriate in particular social situations and which are viewed as improper. However, BELF speakers are from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The feelings display rules (see Ekman & Friesen, 1969; Hochschild, 1979, 1983; Matsumoto et al., 2009) dictating the management and modification of negative emotions vary by culture. Similar to Fernández et al.’s (2000) research findings, the data analysis of this

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

157

research demonstrated that Chinese customer service agents displayed a lower level of negative emotional expressions of sadness and anger. Chinese culture is a collectivist culture with high power distance, and customer service employees control their self-emotions, particularly negative ones. As a result, they may sound less emotionally involved in complaint responses in the BELF context. The second cause is institutional constraints. Different airlines have different regulations and work norms. A lack of information and misunderstanding of company policy and regulations may make the customers confused, frustrated, and sad. It is the agent’s obligation to inform them of the company’s policies and possible solutions in complaint responses. To a certain extent, the agents have been institutionalized. As Sy et al. (2018: 60) mention, business leaders may use moral emotions such as compassion, admiration, and anger to compel their followers to act. The complaint center also asks its agents to demonstrate certain emotions when faced with different emotion-laden situations. Emotion management serves important functions in relationships. After identifying and tracking customer negative emotions in complaint responses, adopting appropriate strategies to deal with them plays an important role in organizational image and reputation, which in turn affects customer satisfaction and loyalty and, therefore, influences organizational performance. To take customer anger as an example, the display of anger implies an attitude of nonacceptance and dissatisfaction and a cognitive assessment that the organization has failed to accommodate the customer’s wishes, goals, and values. The agents’ strategies, such as cognitive reappraisal, attention altering, and sympathy showing, serve important functions in coordinating and regulating relationships (e.g., Keltner & Haidt, 1999), so that a harmonious relationship can be restored and maintained. Nevertheless, a tendency of over-institutionalization may hinder smooth communication and hence damage organizational image and goals.

6 Conclusion It is challenging for Chinese employees working at complaint centers to respond to English-speaking customers in voice-to-voice phone interactions. Multiple factors constrain interactions, such as multiculturality, institutional constraints, the nature of complaints, and English proficiency. Positioned within intercultural pragmatics, this research adopts a discursive approach to explore the display rules of customers’ negative emotions and customer service agents’ negative emotion management in the BELF context. The functioning process of the strategies employed by the agents revealed that their priorities and decisions in emotion management are constrained by institutional goals. Complaint responses are prescribed and highly institutionalized through regular employee training, including norm-setting and following, case study, and story sharing. The agents are required to manage self- and other-emotion in specific patterns, which can result in occasions of over-institutionalization in which they sound like a machine.

158

P. Liu and H. Liu

This research contributes to the current literature pertaining to emotion management in BELF phone interactions, and the findings can provide valuable insights into future research in intercultural pragmatics and ELF (English as a lingua franca) communications. For example, some attempts can be made to correlate aspects of individual identities of agents, such as work experience, age, gender, or ethnicity, and the effectiveness of complaint responses. In practice, this research can guide employee training. Rather than adopting a predetermined routine in dealing with complaints, perhaps genuine care should serve as the guiding principle in emotion management. Customer service agents should evaluate and prioritize various institutional and interpersonal objectives as they consider the best practice in managing customers’ negative emotions, particularly in intercultural business communications. Conflict of Interest Statement No conflict of interest. Funding This chapter is part of the research outcome by the “Business Discourse Research Innovation Team” funded by the Department of Education of Guangdong Province, China (No. 2021WCXTD007).

Appendix: Transcription Conventions

Meaning

Symbol

Example

Unintelligible text Guess at unclear text false start

(???) (word?) wo-word

(???) I mean natural (leaves?) nothing to the imagination idea is cl-very clear to me now

Overlapping text

[word]

Doris: all men think this is [just great] Andrea: [of course]

Micropause Brief pause Pause of indicated length

(.) (-) (0.5)

well (.) enjoy (.) hm (.) what do I enjoy it (-) eh you can look at other when (0.2) when in a country

A nonverbal activity

(( ))

((Throat clear)) ((Ring))

References Akram, A., & Behnam, B. (2012). The pragmatic knowledge of Iranian EFL learners in using face keeping strategies in reaction to complaints at two different levels. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 78–92. Arguedas, M., Daradoumis, T., & Xhafa, F. (2016). Analyzing how emotion awareness influences students’ motivation, engagement, self-regulation and learning outcome. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 87–103.

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

159

Arndt, H., & Janney, R. W. (1985). Politeness revisited: Cross-modal supportive strategies. IRAL, 23(4), 281–300. Ayadi, M. M. H., Kamel, E. S., & Karray, F. (2011). Survey on speech emotion recognition, features, classification schemes, and databases. Pattern Recognition, 44, 572–587. Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 184–206. Bargh, J. A. (2014). Our unconscious mind. Scientific American, 4, 30–37. Bickhard, M. H. (2000). Motivation and emotion: An interactive process model. In R. D. Ellis, & N. Newton (Eds.), The caldron of consciousness: Motivation, affect and self-organization—An anthology (pp. 161–178). John Benjamins. Bippus, A. M., Dunbar, N. E., & Liu, S. (2012). Humorous responses to interpersonal complaints, effects of humor style and nonverbal expression. The Journal of Psychology, 146(4), 437–453. Boiger, M., & Mesquita, B. (2015). A socio-dynamic perspective on the construction of emotion. In L. F. Barrett, & J. A. Russell (Eds.), The psychological construction of emotion (pp. 377–398). Guilford. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and culture, are the social consequences of emotion suppression culture-specific? Emotion, 7(1), 30–48. Carver, C. S., Johnson, S. L., Joormann, J., & Scheier, M. F. (2015). An evolving view of the structure of self-regulation. In G. H. E. Gendolla, M. Tops, & S. L. Koole (Eds.), Handbook of biobehavioral approaches to self-regulation (pp. 9–23). Springer. Chang, W. M., & Haugh, M. (2011). Strategic embarrassment and face threatening in business interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 2948–2963. Chen, C. H., Lee, W. P., & Huang, J. Y. (2018). Tracking and recognizing emotions in short text messages from online chatting services. Information Processing & Management, 54(6), 1325– 1344. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offense. Cambridge University Press. Culpeper, J., Marti, L., Mei, M., Nevala, M., & Schauer, G. (2010). Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness, a study of impoliteness events reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany and Turkey. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 579–624. Darwin, C. (1872). The expressions of emotions in man and animals (1st ed.). John Murray. Dersley, I., & Wootton, A. J. (2000). Complaint sequences within antagonistic arguments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 375–406. Dixon-Gordon, K., Samantha, B. L., & Christensen, K. (2015). Recent innovations in the field of interpersonal emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 36–42. Drew, P. (1998). Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31(3/4), 295–325. Drew, P., & Walker, T. (2009). Going too far: Complaining, escalating and disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics, 4, 2400–2414. Edwards, D. (2005). Moaning, whining and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies, 7(1), 5–29. Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures, inter and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 869–885. Einwiller, S. A., & Steilen, S. (2015). Handling complaints on social network sites: An analysis of complaints and complaint responses on Facebook and Twitter pages of large US companies. Public Relations Review, 41, 195–204. Ekman, P. (1972). Emotions in the human face. Pergamum Press. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire or nonverbal behavior, categories, origins, usage and coding. Semiotics, 1, 49–98. Ekström, M., & Lundström, F. (2014). The termination of complaints in calls to an authority for student support. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 132–149.

160

P. Liu and H. Liu

Fan, A., Mattilab, A. S., & Zhao, X. (2015). How does social distance impact customers’ complaint intentions? A cross-cultural examination. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 47, 35–42. Feidakis, M., Daradoumis, T., Caballe, S., Conesa, J., & Gañán, D. (2013). A dual-modal system that evaluates user’s emotions in virtual learning environments and responds affectively. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 19(11), 1638–1660. Fernández, I., Carrera, P., Sánchez, F., Paez, D., & Candia, L. (2000). Differences between cultures in emotional verbal and non-verbal reactions. Psicothema, 12, 83–92. Filip, A. (2013). Complaint management: A customer satisfaction learning process. Procedia— Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 271–275. Fridlund, A. J. (1994). Human facial expression: An evolutionary view. Academic Press. Frijda, N. H. (2007). The laws of emotion. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fuoli, M., & Bednarek, M. (2022). Emotional labor in webcare and beyond: A linguistic framework and case study. Journal of Pragmatics, 191, 256–270. Garín-Muñoz, T., Pérez-Amaral, T., Gijón, C., & López, R. (2016). Consumer complaint behavior in telecommunications, the case of mobile phone users in Spain. Telecommunications Policy, 40, 804–820. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Anchor Books. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Bantam Books. Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95–110. Griol, D., Molina, J. M., & Callejas, Z. (2019). Combining speech-based and linguistic classifiers to recognize emotion in user spoken utterances. Neurocomputing, 326–327, 132–140. Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299. Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion regulation: Past, present, future. Cognition & Emotion, 13, 551–573. Gross, J. J. (2013). Emotion regulation: Taking stock and moving forward. Emotion, 13, 359–365. Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26, 1–26. Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–24). The Guilford Press. Heinemann, T., & Traverso, V. (2009). Complaining in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2381–2384. Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551–575. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart, commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press. Holt, E. (2012). Using laugh responses to defuse complaints. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 430–448. Hongladarom, K. (2007). “Don’t blame me for criticizing you … ”: A study of metapragmatic comments in Thai. In W. Bublitz, & A. Hubler (Eds.), Metapragmatics in use (pp. 29–47). John Benjamins. Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8, 223–248. Jaggar, A. M. (1988). Love and knowledge: Emotion in feminist epistemology. Inquiry, 32, 151–176. Javornik, A., Filieri, R., & Gumann, R. (2020). "Don’t forget that others are watching, too!" The effect of conversational human voice and reply length on observers’ perceptions of complaint handling in social media. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 50, 100–119. Jaina, V. K., Kumara, S., & Fernandes, S. L. (2017). Extraction of emotions from multilingual text using intelligent text processing and computational linguistics. Journal of Computational Science, 21, 316–326. Jeanpert, S., Jacquemier-Paquin, L., & Claye-Puaux, S. (2021). The role of human interaction in complaint handling. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 62, 102670.

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

161

Kankaanranta, A., & Brigitte, P. (2010). BELF competence as business knowledge of internationally operating business professionals. Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), 380–407. Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at multiple levels of analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 13(5), 505–522. Kienpointner, M. (2008). Impoliteness and emotional arguments. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 243–265. Lakoff, R. T. (1989). The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua, 8(2–3), 101–129. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman. Li, M., Qiu, S., & Liu, Z. (2016). The Chinese way of response to hospitality service failure: The effects of face and guanxi. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 57, 18–29. Little, L. M., Gooty, J., & Williams, M. (2016). The role of leader emotion management in leadermember exchange and follower outcomes. Leadership, 27, 85–97. Little, L. M., Kluemper, D., Nelson, D. L., & Ward, A. (2012). More than happy to help? Customerfocused emotion management strategies. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 261–286. Locher, M. A., & Langlotz, A. (2008). Relational work: At the intersection of cognition, interaction and emotion. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquee (VALS-ASLA), 88, 165–191. Loewenstein, G. (2007). Affect regulation and affective forecasting. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 180–203). Guilford Press. Louhiala-Salminen, L., Mirjaliisa, C., & Kankaanranta, A. (2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24(4), 401–421. Martínez-Flor, A., & Usó-Juan, E. (2015). The role of instruction on EFL learners’ use of complaining apologizing semantic formulas. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 212, 23–28. Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2012). Culture and emotion: The integration of biological and cultural contributions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 91–118. Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. C., & Frank, M. G. (2013). Emotional language and political aggression. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(4), 452–468. Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. C., & Frank, M. G. (2014). Emotions expressed in speeches by leaders of ideologically motivated groups predict aggression. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 6(1), 1–18. Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Fontaine, J. (2009). Hypocrisy or maturity? Culture and context differentiation. European Journal of Personality, 23(3), 251–264. Mazzon, G. (2017). Paths of development of English DMs, (inter)subjectification, deontic reversal and other stories. In C. Fedriani, & A. Sansò (Eds.), Pragmatic markers, discourse markers, and modal particles: New perspectives (pp. 289–304). John Benjamins. Mesquita, B., & Boiger, M. (2014). Emotions in context: A sociodynamic model of emotions. Emotion Review, 6(4), 298–302. Niven, K. (2016). Why do people engage in interpersonal emotion regulation at work? Organizational Psychological Review, 6(4), 305–323. Niven, K. (2017). The four key characteristics of interpersonal emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 17, 89–93. Niven, K., Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2009). A classification of controlled interpersonal affect regulation strategies. Emotion, 9, 498–509. Park, Y., & Gates, S. C. (2009). Towards real-time measurement of customer satisfaction using automatically generated call transcripts. Proceedings of CIKM, 9, 1387–1396. Plutchik, R. (1997). The circumflex as a general model of the structure of emotions and personality. American Psychological Association, 1, 17–45. Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79–112). Academic Press.

162

P. Liu and H. Liu

Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 574–586. Ruhi, S. ¸ (2007). Higher-order intentions and self-politeness in evaluations of (im)politeness, the relevance of compliment responses. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 27(2), 107–145. Ruhi, S. ¸ (2009). Evoking face in self and other-presentation in Turkish. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini, & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 155–174). Equinox. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumflex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178. Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110, 145–172. Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew, & A. J. Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order (pp. 89–135). Cambridge University Press. Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2002). Cultural influences on the relation between pleasant emotions and unpleasant emotions, Asian dialectic philosophies or individualism-collectivism? Cognition & Emotion, 16(6), 705–719. Schuller, B., Batliner, A., Steidl, S., & Seppi, D. (2011). Recognising realistic emotions and affect in speech: State of the art and lessons learnt from the first challenge. Speech Communication, 53(9–10), 1062–1087. Selting, M. (2012). Complaint stories and subsequent complaint stories with affect displays. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 387–415. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 529–545. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2011). Conceptualising ‘the relational’ in pragmatics: Insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im) politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3565–3578. Sy, T., Horton, C., & Riggio, R. (2018). Charismatic leadership: Eliciting and channeling follower emotions. The Leadership Quarterly, 29, 58–69. Trnka, R., Šolcová, I. P., & Tavel, P. (2018). Components of cultural complexity relating to emotions: A conceptual framework. New Ideas in Psychology, 51, 27–33. Tsai, J. L., & Clobert, M. (2019). Cultural influences on emotion: Established patterns to established patterns. In D. Cohen, & S. Kitayama (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 292–318). Oxford University Press. Valentini, S., Orsingher, C., & Polyakova, A. (2020). Customers’ emotions in service failure and recovery: A meta-analysis. Marketing Letters, 31, 199–216. von Janda, S., Polthier, A., & Kuester, S. (2021). Do they see the signs? Organizational response behavior to customer complaint messages. Journal of Business Research, 137, 116–127. Wan, L. C. (2013). Culture’s impact on consumer complaining responses to embarrassing service failure. Journal of Business Research, 66(3), 298–305. Weatherall, A., & Robles, J. (2021). How emotions are made to do things. In J. Robles, & A. Weatherall (Eds.), How emotions are made in talk (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins. Williams, M., & Emich, K. (2014). The experience of failed humor: Implications for interpersonal affect regulation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 651–668. Williams, O. (2007). Building genuine trust through interpersonal emotion management: A threat regulation model of trust and collaboration across boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 32, 595–621. Xiao, Y., Hudders, L., Claeys, A., & Cauberghe, V. (2018). The impact of expressing mixed valence emotions in organizational crisis communication on consumer’s negative word-of-mouth intention. Public Relations Review, 44, 794–806. Yilmaz, C., Varnali, K., & Kasnakoglu, B. T. (2016). How do firms benefit from customer complaints? Journal of Business Research, 69, 944–955.

“So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint …

163

Zembylas, M. (2005). Teaching with emotion: A postmodern enactment. Information Age Publishing. Zhang, Y., & Vásquez, C. (2014). Hotels’ responses to online reviews: Managing consumer dissatisfaction. Discourse, Context & Media, 6, 54–64.

Digital (Im)politeness

(Im)politeness in Online Consumer Reviews Wei Ren

Abstract Existing studies on online consumer reviews predominantly investigate English. Many researchers have called for more research on a greater variety of languages to better understand the linguistic features of this genre and the localization of the social practice. In addition, to date, little research has explored (im)politeness in online consumer reviews. Therefore, this study provides an analysis of (im)politeness practice in Chinese consumer reviews, based on a dataset of user-generated online comments collected from a Chinese e-sales website (Amazon China). The study examines the usage of different types of (im)politeness strategies in consumer’s reviews and the effect of review valency on such strategies. The study demonstrates that the investigation into (im)politeness in Chinese online consumer reviews could provide insights into pragmatic practices in this genre and reanalysis of recipient participation roles in digital communication. Keywords Politeness · Impoliteness · Online consumer reviews · Chinese · Digital communication · Participation status

1 Introduction With the popularity of online shopping, consumers’ post-purchase online reviews have substantive consequences for the purchasing behaviors of potential customers, and the seller and the brand reputation (Feng & Ren, 2019; Ho, 2017; Ren, 2018c). Although it is just a relatively new genre, online consumer review has been a hot topic in marketing research and has also received increasing research attention in linguistics research (Cenni & Goethals, 2017; Ren, 2018b, 2019; Schuckert et al., 2015; Tian, 2013; Vásquez, 2011, 2014). However, the existing linguistics literature has mostly been confined to the tourism industry, on TripAdvisor in particular, and in English. More studies are needed to investigate online consumer reviews in languages other than English (Ren, 2018b, 2019; Vásquez, 2014). W. Ren (B) School of Foreign Languages, Beihang University, Beijing, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Xie (ed.), Advancing (Im)politeness Studies, Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37064-9_9

167

168

W. Ren

In addition, linguistic research on online consumer reviews has focused on linguistic features (intertextuality and interdiscursivity in Vásquez, 2015a; mitigation strategies in Ren, 2018b; intensification strategies in Ren, 2019), the components, the organizational features or the move structure (Cenni & Goethals, 2017; Vásquez, 2011, 2014), the discursive construction of identities (Vásquez, 2014), and parodies in this genre (Vásquez, 2016). Although (im)politeness in digital communication has attracted tremendous attention in linguistics research, few studies have explored the (im)politeness strategies in online consumer reviews. Therefore, this study intends to examine the uses of (im)politeness in Chinese user-generated consumer reviews on the e-commerce site, Amazon. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 through 4 will review some of the most relevant literature to this study, including online consumer reviews, (im)politeness research, and up-to-date expansions of the traditional speaker-hearer participation status framework. In Section 5, I introduce the methodology of this study and in Section 6, I present the results. Section 7 discusses these results and explains why examinations of (im)politeness in online consumer reviews can enrich the analysis of (im)politeness research. Finally, in Section 8, I provide conclusions and suggestions for future work.

2 Online Consumer Reviews Online consumer reviews, which are “primarily a text-based, asynchronous (and very often, anonymous) genre of computer-mediated communication” (Vásquez, 2014: 3), have become pervasive in contemporary life. Many platforms nowadays provide consumers with places to rate products and publish comments. Customers who seek to purchase a product from the Internet tend to read other customers’ comments, regardless of whether they may choose to publish their own. In addition, even when the customers’ comments are impolite, social media experts advise companies against deleting negative reviews because by doing so the company may harm transparency that will do the company more harm than good (Britton, 2016). Because online consumer review is likely to influence potential customers’ behavior, it has been examined widely in management and communication studies (e.g., Levin et al., 1998; Park & Kim, 2008; Willemsen et al., 2011). In applied linguistics and discourse studies, online consumer review has also received increasing research attention. To date, hotel reviews, particularly on TripAdvisor, are more investigated compared to other product types. Previous studies have examined various aspects of hotel reviews including complaint strategies (Vásquez, 2011), engagement (Tian, 2013), evaluation, and stance (Vásquez, 2014). For example, Vásquez (2011) examined consumers’ online complaints on TripAdvisor and found that such acts often occurred as a speech act set. The consumers tended to publish their complaints together with advice and recommendations rather than warnings and threats. Overall, the majority of the complaints could be considered indirect or third-party complaints, with some examples blurring the direct and indirect dichotomy in complaints

(Im)politeness in Online Consumer Reviews

169

research. In addition, the field has also started to investigate other types of online consumer reviews, for example, digital cameras (Mackiewicz, 2010), linguistics textbooks sold on Amazon (Virtanen, 2017), restaurants, films, and recipes (Vásquez, 2014, 2015b), and Amazon Kindle E-reader (Ren, 2018b, 2019). Mackiewicz (2010) found that online reviewers valued expertise so much that they even explicitly acknowledged when they lacked it. Nevertheless, by admitting a lack of expertise, reviewers could obtain credibility by being sincere and similar to the audience. By examining reviews of linguistics textbooks on Amazon, Virtanen (2017) found that the reviews accompanied very high ratings, with the most common assessment being a maximum of five stars. Product types were found to have an influence on the language uses of online reviews, as demonstrated by Vásquez’s (2015b) examination of temporal references in five types of reviews: hotels (TripAdvisor), common consumer goods (Amazon), restaurants (Yelp), films (Netflix), and recipes (Epicurious). The existing literature has predominantly investigated online consumer reviews in English. With the exceptions of Ren’s (2018b, 2019) examinations of mitigation and intensification strategies in Chinese online consumer reviews, few studies have explored this genre in Chinese, despite of China’s leading role in the global e-commerce. More studies on consumer reviews in languages other than English are needed (Ren, 2018b; Vásquez, 2014). As an attempt to expand research into languages other than English, Ren (2018b) investigated mitigation in Chinese online consumer reviews. He found that understater, subjectivizer, negating, hedge, disclaimer, downtoner, computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues, and euphemism were the mitigation strategies in Chinese online consumer reviews. For the reviewers, they did not mitigate only to be polite. Instead, the reviewers mitigated out of caution, consideration, or uncertainty (Caffi, 2007) to reduce their commitment (Sbisà, 2001) to the reader. In another study examining the same dataset, Ren (2019) noted that Chinese consumers tended to employ intensifiers, expletive/taboo words, metaphors, repetition, and punctuation emphasis to strengthen their comments online. In addition, review valence had an impact on some mitigation and intensification strategies in online consumer reviews (Ren, 2018b, 2019). Kamoen et al. (2015) found that attribute framing in online reviews of hotels and restaurants affected the evaluation of the object. For positive comments, direct wording (e.g., “good”) is considered more positive than indirect wording (e.g., “not bad”), whereas, for negative ones, there is generally no difference between direct and indirect wording (e.g., “bad” versus “not good”). Ren (2018b) observed that Chinese reviewers often negated an extremely positive expression, for example, “not too good,” the scope of which was broader than that of an indirect negative wording (e.g., “not good”) or that of a direct negative word (e.g., “bad”), resulting in a vague or even ambiguous meaning to mitigate the review. Therefore, investigations into pragmatic practices in Chinese online consumer reviews can enrich the findings of the field and provide more insights into the issue of universality versus locality in this genre (Ren, 2018a). Additionally, although it is hypothesized that the customer is left with more power and more freedom to express themselves in comment-posting

170

W. Ren

platforms (Orthaber, 2019), to date, the use of (im)politeness has not been explored in the genre of online consumer reviews.

3 Politeness and Impoliteness: A Brief Overview Politeness has attracted an enormous amount of research attention in pragmatics since the 1970s (Brown, 2017). On the other hand, impoliteness has also become a oft-investigated phenomenon in linguistics research (e.g. Bousfield, 2008; Culpeper, 2011; Culpeper et al., 2010; Dynel, 2015). In this chapter, for the reasons of brevity and space, I will use (im)politeness to denote politeness and impoliteness. Most (im)politeness researchers nowadays have reached a consensus that it is not the linguistic form per se invariably carrying politeness or impoliteness across contexts. Instead, it is the speaker’s intention or the hearer’s evaluation of the speaker that is polite or impolite (Eelen, 2001; Locher & Watts, 2005; Mills, 2003; Watts, 2003). In addition, polite and impolite cannot cover all the judgment of an individual’s or a co-participant’s utterance or social behavior. An utterance may be evaluated, in laypersons’ words, appropriate, polite, not polite, not appropriate, over-polite, impolite, rude, and so on. Watts (2005) proposes a diagram to encompass the entire continuum of verbal behavior. He suggests the term “politic” to refer to unmarked socially appropriate behavior, and “polite” to refer to positively marked political behavior, that is, what is perceived to be more than socially required and expected. However, marked behavior may be perceived as negative in two ways, impolite (or more severely as rude) and overpolite. Watts (2005) reminds us that the boundaries between the perceptions of impolite, politic, polite, and over-polite vary considerably from speaker to speaker, from community of practice to community of practice, or even across different contexts. Thus, researchers need to identify the norms of individual practices and assess a given utterance as polite or impolite against such norms. This has brought us to another issue: whose norms should researchers base their evaluations on to assess an utterance against the continuum of impolite to polite or even over-polite? Cross-cultural and second language pragmatics have revealed that people from different cultures perceive (im)politeness differently (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989; Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993). In addition, even native speakers of the same language differ along the lines of socio-economic status, ethnicity, age, gender, education, and so on (Davies, 2004). For example, variational pragmatics studies (Schneider & Barron, 2008); Barron & Schneider, 2009; Lin et al., 2012; Ren et al., 2013; Barron, 2017; Ren, 2018d) have observed intralingual differences in native speakers’ pragmatic strategies across regions and genders. In intercultural and lingua franca communication, preceding studies have found that people tend to focus on clarity (Mauranen, 2006; Ren, 2016, 2018c), and perform requests and respond to requests in a very direct, unmitigated way (Cogo & Dewey, 2012; House, 2014). In Grainger and Mills’ (2016) examination of directness and indirectness across cultures, most bilinguals interviewed reported that they would prefer clarity

(Im)politeness in Online Consumer Reviews

171

and directness if they were encountering the same situations as the roleplays. The authors elaborated that “going off record seems to create ambiguity in intercultural situations because not saying something is interpreted in different ways by different communities” (Grainger & Mills, 2016: 139; emphasis original). Recent researchers (Watts, 2003; Locher, 2004; Haugh, 2013; Kádár & Haugh, 2013) suggest theorizing (im)politeness “as a form of social practice in and of itself” (Haugh, 2013: 54). By doing so, Haugh (2013) points out that the fundamental issue in analyzing (im)politeness evaluations in interaction should not just focus on whether some utterance or conduct is (im)polite, (im)proper, (in)appropriate and so on. By contrast, researchers should investigate for whom is the utterance or conduct polite or impolite. Therefore, in multi-party talks and CMC genres, it is necessary to go beyond a dyadic speaker–hearer model of communication in (im)politeness evaluation and related research, in accordance with norms negotiated in a community of practice (Dynel, 2012a; Haugh, 2013; Kádár & Haugh, 2013; Locher et al., 2015). For example, Ferenˇcík (2017) investigated how (im)politeness evaluations were made within an Internet discussion forum, analyzing the commenters’ uses of (im)politeness as social practice (Kádár & Haugh, 2013). He demonstrated that the comments unpacked the commenters’ individual, group-based, and societal values. By negotiating consensus over these values, the commentators present their assessments of each other’s behavior as (im)polite on the interpersonal level and on the meta-discursive level to participate in the establishment of the ultimate moral order of all social groups, which represents the ideological foundation of the societal order. Likewise, Dynel (2012b) also noted that norms within an e-community of practice emerge as a result of members’ collaborative work and are followed by members as the local convention. When the norms are violated, impoliteness or rudeness arises.

4 Participation Status The classical model of interaction involving speaker–hearer dyad is deemed insufficient in the contexts of multi-party talks (Zare, 2016), the media (Dynel, 2012a; Jautz, 2014), and various CMC interactions (Dynel, 2012b, 2014; Ferenˇcík, 2017; Lorenzo-Dus et al., 2011). Goffman (1981: 146) decomposed the “crude” notions of hearer and speaker. For the production format, he distinguishes the footing of the speaker into animator, author, and principal (see Goffman, 1981 for the seminal discussion on the different speaker footings). For the participation framework, he divides recipients to ratified and unratified participants. The ratified participants include the addressee and those not addressed (third-parties). The latter consists of bystanders, eavesdroppers, and overhearers. Haugh (2013) argues that the notion of speaker footing needs to be complemented by the notion of recipient footing. In his proposed model (Haugh, 2013), the animator (or producer) who produces the talk has a counterpart in the various recipients attending that talk; the role of the author who constructs the talk has a counterpart in the interpreter; the role of the principal who is socially responsible

172

W. Ren

for those meanings is necessarily complemented by the accounter; and finally, the production role of figure is a potential target. Different modes of communication engender various questions complicating the participation status in interaction. Dynel (2012a) contends that to analyze media talk or film discourse, more categories than the premised speaker and hearer in preceding conceptualizations of impoliteness (Bousfield, 2010; Bousfield & Culpeper, 2008; Culpeper, 2011) should be proposed. Similar to Goffman (1981), she expands the taxonomy of hearer to include ratified participants and unratified participants. Ratified participants are divided into addressee and third-party; unratified hearers are also called overhearers, who are participants that can hear and do listen to the talk. She argues that it is reasonable to perceive film viewers as recipients rather than overhearers in a theoretical sense (Dynel, 2012a). Likewise, analyzing conversations in radio phone-in programs, Jautz (2014) suggests to add a category of addressed but not ratified recipient to Goffman’s (1981) participation framework. She argues that for a mass medium like radio, there is no intention to limit the audience. Therefore, everyone should be perceived as addressed, although they are not necessarily ratified. Kádár and Haugh (2013) note that the development of various technologies such as digital communication means that there are increasing numbers of different types of mediated forms of indirect communication. Thus, the model of participation status in Goffman (1981) needs to include not only evaluations of (im)politeness by participants, but also evaluations of metaparticipants. They emphasize that the crucial difference between participants and metaparticipants is that in the latter, “the distinction between ratified and unratified recipients becomes less clear-cut” (Kádár & Haugh, 2013: 91). Metaaddressees and metaside-participants can be considered as (un)ratified recipients, whereas metabystanders and meta-overhearers can be treated as (un)ratified recipients as well. Dynel (2014) proposes a model of three levels of communication in YouTube interaction: the level of the speaker and hearers/listeners in video interaction, the level of the (collective) sender and the recipient of a video, and the level of YouTube speaker who produces a comment and YouTube hearers who read it. At the reception ends, YouTube users are conceptualised as, according to the three levels of communication, (un)ratified hearers/listeners in videos, recipients who watch videos, and addressees and non-addressed hearers (third-parties) who read one another’s commentaries, respectively. Graham and Hardaker (2017) correctly note that, to date, few studies have compared (im)politeness across different genres of CMC. As revealed by the above literature review, little research has explored (im) politeness in the pervasive genre of online consumer reviews. In addition, the participation status has not been explored either in the genre of online consumer reviews. It is timely to revisit the notion participation framework in different forms of communication (Gerhardt et al., 2014). Therefore, the present study intends to contribute to the literature by investigating the (im)politeness strategies in Chinese online consumer reviews, and the extent to which review valency has influenced in the use of (im)politeness strategies. The following specific questions guided the present study:

(Im)politeness in Online Consumer Reviews

173

1. What are the (im)politeness strategies employed by Chinese consumers in online reviews? How frequently are the (im)politeness strategies employed? 2. Does the employment of the (im)politeness strategies vary across negative versus positive online reviews?

5 Methodology 5.1 Data To limit the possible influence of the product type in online consumer reviews, the present study decided to focus on consumer reviews of the Kindle Paperwhite Ereader on the website of Amazon China (www.amazon.cn). As new reviews are posted every day, the comment section provides a considerable amount of user-generated reviews. To collect data, I first scanned all the reviews of Kindle Paperwhite E-reader since its launching in China (1 July 2015) to the end of 2015. There were hundreds of reviews published each month, which were sufficient for both quantitative and qualitative examinations. Therefore, I randomly chose the reviews written in October 2015 for analysis. There were 355 reviews posted in this month, of which 21 reviews were rated with one-star, 16 with two stars, 32 with three stars, 69 with four stars, and 217 with five stars. Online consumer reviews represent a typical example of a public environment to study without consent (Ren, 2018b). In the context of user-generated reviews in Amazon, it is not required for reviewers to have any public profiles. Reviewers can choose to set up their usernames or remain anonymous. They are fully aware that they are operating in a public space and are faced with a potentially large and anonymous audience who will likely read their reviews. Since the comments can be published by simply creating an account through email and are available to be viewed publicly without any account or log-in required, they cannot be considered communications of a closed or private group. Therefore, the online consumer review in Amazon can be examined for research purposes without any ethical considerations (for the latest version of Association of Internet Research for ethical concerns on CMC research, see Markham & Buchanan, 2012).

5.2 Data Analysis The collected online consumer reviews were analyzed with the assistance of NVivo for Mac (Version 11) under the framework of grounded theory (Birks & Mills, 2015; Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The coding procedures were as follows. The reviews were first read through by the author and the utterances containing (im)politeness usages were coded. The strategies with similar functions were grouped into a main category based on their pragmatic functions.

174

W. Ren

It has to be noted that not all mitigation strategies were coded as polite in this study. As Ren (2018b) has demonstrated, the reviewer mitigates out of caution, consideration, or uncertainty to reduce their commitment to the reader on their evaluations, not necessarily because of their intention to be polite. In addition, since online consumer reviews can be addressed to multiple recipients simultaneously, it is impossible to be certain whether the reviewer intends to be polite or impolite. Because the evaluation of (im)politeness varies according to the participant’s role in the interaction, it is legitimate to analyze the (im)polite uses from a meta-recipient’s (in this case, an analyst) perspective (Dynel, 2012a). During the coding process, I checked with two other researchers who specialized in Chinese linguistics. After several rounds of reading and coding the comments, the following polite and impolite strategies were identified from the dataset in the present study. Politeness Strategies a. Emotion represented by CMC cues (to save space, CMC cues hereafter): including emoticons; onomatopoeic words b. Euphemism: e.g., 我是醉了 ‘I am speechless’ (literally ‘I am drunk’); ‘Give me a break’ (literally ‘I really kneel down’) c. Negating a negative/positive expression: e.g., 不太灵敏 ‘not very sensitive’; 不 如期望的好 ‘not as good as expected’ Impoliteness Strategies ‘nonsense’; White个屁 ‘it’s a. Expletive/taboo words: e.g., 垃圾 ‘garbage’; not white at all!’; K ? ‘Don’t b. Sarcasm: e.g., 不知道快递公司交通工具用的是马车, know whether the express company used horse-drawn carts, camels, or donkeys.’

6 Findings This section presents the results of the present study, starting with the frequency of polite and impolite strategies and the analysis of each individual one. The section then analyzes the employment of such strategies according to the review valence (positive or negative ratings of the review).

6.1 Polite and Impolite Strategies Figure 1 presents the frequency of each polite and impolite strategy in the Chinese online consumer reviews. As indicated in Fig. 1, more occurrences of politeness strategies were observed than that of impoliteness strategies, 61 times vs. 23 times, respectively. Three types of polite strategies were identified in the present study: negating a negative or positive expression (39 times), CMC cues and euphemisms

(Im)politeness in Online Consumer Reviews

175

Frequency of polite and impolite strategies 45

39

40 35 30 25 20 15

11

11

CMC cues

Euphemism

10

10

13

5 0

Negating

Expletive/taboo words

Sarcasm

Fig. 1 Polite and impolite strategies in online consumer reviews

(both 11 times); two types of impolite strategies were identified: expletive/taboo words (10 times) and sarcasms (13 times). Among the usages of “negating a negative/positive expression,” it occurred eight times preceding a negative/derogatory expression, for example, 不太伤眼 ‘not too harmful for eyes,’ whereas 31 times preceding a positive expression, for example, 不 太好 ‘not very good’; 没有说的那么好 ‘not as good as said’; 反光不是很强 ‘The reflection is not very strong.’ Except three times of “not as good as …,” the Chinese consumers mostly negated an extremely positive expression in their online reviews. Kamoen et al. (2015) observed that direct and indirect wordings (e.g., “bad” vs “not good”) were interpreted as expressing the same evaluation for negative reviews. However, the direct and indirect wordings did not indicate the same evaluation in the present study. In Chinese, the scope of negating an extremely positive expression is broader than that of an indirect negative wording. 不是很强 ‘not very strong’ is different from and broader than the indict wording 不强 ‘not strong’ and the direct negative wording 弱 ‘weak,’ as 不是很强 can also refer to “acceptably strong, but not too strong.” In addition, as shown in the above examples, no matter whether the negation precedes an extremely negative or positive expression, the whole phrase indicates a negative evaluation: “not too harmful for eyes” admits “harmful for eyes”; “the reflection is not very strong” admits “reflection exists, at least to some extent.” The 11 CMC cues were employed to add emotions to express feelings not written in the comments. Nine occurrences of the CMC cues were emoticons, one was the Chinese character 笑 ‘laugh’ in brackets and the other was onomatopoeic words. Among the nine emoticons, except one to end the consumer review, the other eight uses were all accompanying negative expressions regardless of the rating of the whole review. That is, the emoticons were employed, in most cases, to attenuate the accompanied complaint or criticism and to make the comments more vivid and playful. Likewise, euphemisms also created a humors effect. For example, the ‘Give me Chinese consumers wrote 我是醉了 ‘I am speechless’ and

176

W. Ren

a break’ to mitigate their discontent or anger, although the translations from Chinese to English may lose the intended humor. Impoliteness strategies were not very frequently observed in the present study. Expletive/taboo words were employed only 10 times in the 355 consumer reviews (2.82%). A close analysis of the expressions revealed that the expletive/taboo words used in Chinese online consumer reviews were not very offensive. Many expressions could be frequently observed in conversations among friends, particularly for young ‘nonsense’; XXX个屁 ‘not XXX at all.’ Here the use of people, for example, “White个屁” (It’s not white at all!) in the review, rather than 白个屁 ‘It’s not white at all!,’ indicated that even in daily communication among Chinese, young people may translanguage (Li, 2018) to creatively adapt some simple English expressions in daily conversations. This is in line with the observation of interaction in Chinese reality TV shows by Ren and Woodfield (2016). In addition, one taboo word was mitigated by using a letter only to represent the pronunciation of a four-letter word. The consumer wrote “K” to attenuate his/her anger. Here, “K” indicated “Kao,” the pronunciation of 靠 ‘fuck’ (but not as strong and offensive as the four-letter English word), a frequently used taboo word in Chinese. It is a common Internet usage to replace Chinese characters with pinyin (Chinese pronunciation) or acronyms of pinyin as mitigating strategies for expletives and taboo expressions. Chen (2014) also discusses the function of pinyin acronyms of expletives to mitigate the offense and indicate a playful atmosphere. By contrast, Stapleton (2010) analyzes the intensifying and reinforcing function of taboo words as one function of swearing. In this case, the reviewer used the first letter of pinyin to replace the Chinese character of the taboo word, which was a common strategy in CMC in contemporary China. By such uses, the reviewer achieved expressing his/her strong feelings and meanwhile published the comment successfully because the direct use of taboo words was not allowed in Amazon’s comment forum (probably would be blocked by Amazon). Sarcasm is a common impolite strategy (Culpeper, 2016). For example, rather than criticizing the slow speed of delivery, the customer wrote 不知道快递公司交通工具 ? ‘Don’t know whether the express company used horse用的是马车, drawn carts, camels, or donkeys.’ It is obvious that nowadays logistics companies use modern transportation such as lorries, trains, and airplanes to deliver goods. The customer metaphorically asked whether the courier company used horses, camels, or donkeys, exaggerating the slow speed and poor management of the company and thus indirectly indicating his/her unhappy experience. Another consumer wrote 没 有半颗星吗? ‘Isn’t there a half star?’ to indicate that he/she was very dissatisfied with the product and/or the purchase experience so that he/she felt that even one-star was higher than his/her evaluation.

6.2 The Impact of Negative/Positive Rating This section examines the extent to which the review valency (positive vs. negative) may influence the consumer’s use of (im)politeness strategies. Amazon divides

(Im)politeness in Online Consumer Reviews

177

Table 1 Employment of (im)politeness strategies in negative vs. positive reviews

CMC cues

Negative reviews (N = 69)

Positive reviews (N = 286)

Frequency

Frequency

Per review

10

0.03

1

Per review 0.01

Fisher’s exact test

0.70

Euphemism

6

0.09

5

0.02

0.01

Negating

8

0.12

31

0.11

0.83

Expletive/taboo words

7

0.10

3

0.01

0.001

Sarcasm

6

0.09

7

0.02

0.02

consumer reviews into positive (4- and 5-star ratings) and critical (1–3-star ratings) (in Amazon’s terms). Therefore, the present study grouped reviews with 1- to 3-star ratings as negative and reviews with 4- and 5-star ratings as positive. As mentioned in Section 6.1, there were different numbers of reviews for each rating: 21 one-star reviews, 16 two-star reviews, 32 three-star reviews, 69 four-star reviews, and 217 five-star reviews. That is, the data sample contained 69 negative reviews, but 286 positive reviews. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate the density of politeness and impoliteness strategies (the number of strategies per review) when comparing the impact of negative and positive ratings. Table 1 presents the frequency of each (im)politeness strategy and its occurrence per review in negative and positive reviews. As shown in Table 1, on average the Chinese consumers employed more euphemisms in negative reviews than in positive reviews, 0.09 per review vs. 0.01 per review, respectively, and the difference reached a significant level (p = 0.01). In addition, the Chinese reviewers used the two types of impoliteness strategies more frequently in negative reviews than in positive reviews: for expletive/taboo words, 0.10 vs. 0.01 per review (p = 0.001), and for sarcasm, 0.09 vs. 0.02 per review (p = 0.02). On the other hand, the employment of CMC cues and negating a positive/negative expression did not differ significantly regardless of the review valency (negative vs positive) of the comment.

7 Discussion It is generally believed that the anonymity of CMC affords people more freedom to express their feelings and describe their experiences. Previous research has found various impoliteness phenomena in different CMC genres (Dynel, 2015; Hardaker, 2010; Orthaber, 2019; Vladimirou & House, 2018). However, the impoliteness practices were not frequently observed in the genre of online consumer reviews, occurring aggregately 23 times out of 355 reviews (6.48%). In addition, the reviewers also employed politeness strategies in their online comments, occurring 61 times out

178

W. Ren

of 355 reviews (17.18%). Existing studies have revealed the importance for online consumers to position themselves as credible and trustworthy in their published reviews (Mackiewicz, 2010; Ren, 2018b; Vásquez, 2014). The infrequent use of impoliteness strategies may indeed reflect the reviewers’ intention that they would like their comments to be read and their advice to be followed. The reviewers do not want to be perceived as irrational customers looking for places to just relieve their emotions. Thus, the reviewers at times used euphemisms to attenuate their comments and to demonstrate their resignation. It is also reasonable to postulate that online consumer reviews may function as various speech acts simultaneously. The consumers may write their reviews as an explicit praise or a direct complaint/ criticism to the seller, or as a recommendation or a warning to potential customers. The multiple addressees in mind may restrain their uses of impolite strategies as well. The reviewers were aware of the affordance (Hutchby, 2001; Ren, 2018a) of the online consumer review genre, which was text-based and asynchronous (Vásquez, 2014) and in which they normally could only publish comments in a single turn. The reviewers were also fully aware of the lean nature of online reviews as a CMC genre (Herring, 2001; Ren, 2018b, 2019). Thus, they adapted to technological affordances to include CMC cues to reveal and represent more emotions in their comments. The present study observed that the 11 CMC cues were predominately employed to accompany negative expressions regardless of the rating of the whole review. That is, the CMC cues were employed in most cases to mitigate the accompanied complaint or criticism and to add more vividness and playfulness to the comments. In addition, the constraints of the media platform may also limit the reviewer’s choices of language use because comments containing strong foul language would be blocked and deleted. Therefore, even if they chose to use expletive/taboo words to express their anger and dissatisfaction, they had to restrain their language from very offensive swearing. The present study found one occurrence of K to indicate “Kao,” the pronunciation of 靠 ‘fuck.’ It is worth noting that the Chinese word 靠 Kao is much less strong than its English translation. The Chinese word is a commonly used taboo expression in Chinese, particularly among young generations born in the 1980s and afterward. Even so, the reviewer used only the first letter of the word to further mitigate its offensiveness and possibly to reduce the risk of being blocked. The employment of pinyin or acronyms of pinyin as mitigating strategies for expletives and taboo words demonstrates that certain CMC affordances may affect the users’ adoption of polite strategies. The purpose of taboo words is to aggravate the strong feeling whereas the use of pinyin, particularly only the abbreviation, serves as a means to mitigate the offense, similar to the finding of taboo related pinyin acronyms in Chinese internet language (Chen, 2014). It is interesting to explore the reviewer’s realization of the complex feeling, to express their dissatisfaction, and at the same time to show their rationality and civilization (politeness). Furthermore, the present study found that consumers at times employed impoliteness strategies to strengthen their expressions to represent their strong feelings in online reviews, particularly in negative ones. To be specific, the Chinese consumers

(Im)politeness in Online Consumer Reviews

179

tended to employ more sarcasm and expletives/taboo words to modify their evaluations and to express their feelings in negative reviews than in positive ones. However, at the same time, they used more euphemisms to mitigate their strong feelings in conveying such negative evaluations. The motivation to use both polite and impolite strategies in negative comments, echoing the practice of mitigating the swear word analyzed in the above paragraph, may be to reduce and/or avoid the risk of being perceived as imposing or rude. This is an interesting and intriguing phenomenon that presents a challenge for existing accounts of (im)politeness: if a speaker wishes to be impolite, why do they employ polite expressions at the same time? Culpeper (2011) has discussed how conventionalized polite forms and formulae can be used together with impolite messages, such as “Could you just fuck off?” and “no offense” before offensive and disrespectful utterances. Culpeper (2011) terms such usages as “verbal formula mismatches” and suggest that the polite token is blatant lip service being paid to politeness, indicating that the speaker does not want to be mean but they have to (Culpeper, 2011: 175). Murphy (2019) shows that participants react variably to the expression “I’m sorry” before an impolite message such as “You are such an arsehole”. Some treat the phrase as apologies, while others reject them as apologies. A number of native speakers perceive the usage of “I am sorry” prefacing impolite expressions as a way of attenuating the face threat which is to follow. In addition, the present findings evidenced the significant impact of review valence on the consumer’s use of euphemism and the two impoliteness strategies, i.e., sarcasm and expletive/taboo words. The Chinese consumers used significantly more euphemisms, and sarcasm in negative reviews than in positive reviews, echoing the more frequent uses of indirect wording in negative reviews of hotels and restaurants noted by Kamoen et al. (2015). The results indicate that whether to write a positive or negative review significantly influences the reviewers’ uses of certain (im)politeness strategies. This finding is in line with previous studies by Ren (2018b, 2019), in which he found that the valence of online consumer reviews has significant impacts on customers’ uses of particular mitigation and intensification strategies. The findings reveal that in digital communication such as online consumer reviews, a simple hearer–speaker dichotomy of (im)politeness cannot fully explain the reviewer’s motivation to employ (im)politeness strategies. The study, therefore, has demonstrated the need to expand the dyadic communication model in (im)politeness research, particularly in CMC genres (Dynel, 2012a, 2014; Haugh, 2013; Kádár & Haugh, 2013). In particular, it is necessary to broaden the framework in digital communication research and reconsider the recipient participation status, where (im)politeness evaluation works differently from face-to-face settings. In the genre of online consumer reviews, the speaker/writer is the review producer, that is, the customer who chose to publish their comments. However, on the other side, the recipient is much more complex. As discussed above, the customer may have multiple addressees in mind when writing online consumer reviews. If the writer would like to recommend or warn future customers, they are addressing potential consumers. If they are complaining or praising, they may address the collective seller, which may consist of the manufacturer, the sales platform, the retailer, the courier, and so on. Who the addresses are in this case depends on the exact content of the published review.

180

W. Ren

In either case, the writer knows that the review will be published publicly. Similar to the mass media like radio (Jautz, 2014), there is no intention for the reviewer to limit the access of his/her review to the reader. Therefore, the boundaries of ratified and unratified (Dynel, 2012a) and even the recipient and the meta-recipient (Haugh, 2013; Kádár & Haugh, 2013) are blurred or “melted.” Some reviews may be simple and target an addressee easily to be identified, whereas others may be a complex assemblage of a few different comments focusing on different aspects. In the latter case, the recipients could be considered as the collective (meta)recipients, which may include potential customers, e-commerce platforms, sellers, manufacturers, couriers, or even analysts and researchers. The collective (meta)recipients thus can all be considered ratified, but unidentified, and can only be identified according to the specific content of utterances in the review. The study contributes to the existing literature by examining (im)politeness strategies in online consumer reviews, particularly in a non-English target language (Chinese in this case). However, we have to bear in mind that the corpus examined in the present study is rather small, which does not validate a quantitative generalization. More studies are needed in the future using a larger data sample to further explore the issues of (im)politeness practice and the participation framework in the genre of online consumer reviews. In addition, the present study examined (im)politeness strategies in online reviews from a researcher’s etic perspective. Future studies may include retrospective interviews (Czerwionka, 2014) or verbal reports (Ren, 2014) to collect customers’ emic views on (im)politeness practices to shed light on their rationales of employing such devices and their considerations of (im)politeness, face and identity construction in such settings.

8 Conclusions The present study analyzed the (im)politeness strategies used in Chinese online consumer reviews. Three types of politeness strategies were observed, including using CMC cues to represent emotion, euphemisms, and negation preceding a negative or positive expression. Two types of impoliteness strategies were observed, that is, sarcasm and expletive/taboo words. The findings revealed that impoliteness did not occur frequently in online consumer reviews. In addition, review valence (positive vs. negative) was found to have an effect on the employment of euphemism, sarcasm, and expletive/taboo words. We have to bear in mind that findings in the present study may not be able to generalize to other contexts or even to the same context in the future. On the one hand, websites’ affordances and constraints are related to (im)politeness practices that appear on different sites. On the other hand, as is true of all digital genres, the conventions of and trends in online consumer reviews are continuously changing (Ren, 2018b). The increment or loss of popularity of certain internet expressions will influence the reviewer’s employment of them in their comments. Additionally, increasingly prior reviews and the seller’s management responses (Feng & Ren, 2019; Zhang & Vásquez, 2014) available for new writers

(Im)politeness in Online Consumer Reviews

181

to draw upon may also change the actual language use in the latter’s commentaries (Vásquez, 2014). It makes sense that the characteristics of (im)politeness practices in Chinese online reviews will change in the future. As previously stated, little research has been conducted to explore (im)politeness in online consumer reviews. Findings from the present research have contributed to the existing (im)politeness literature by adding one more examined CMC genre. With more investigations into various CMC genres available, researchers can then compare and contrast (im)politeness practices among different CMC genres (Graham & Hardaker, 2017). In addition, the present study has demonstrated the necessity to expand the framework of recipient participation status in newly emergent CMC genres such as online consumer reviews. However, the study only investigated Chinese online reviews of one product in a single platform. Future studies are warranted to explore online consumer reviews in other domains, in more platforms, and in other languages. Only by systematic examinations across different languages and different platforms can we provide more insights into the issues of particularity and universality on the linguistic and pragmatic practices observed in digital communication (Ren, 2018a).

References Barron, A. (2017). Variational pragmatics. In A. Barron, Y. Gu, & G. Steen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics, 91–104. Routledge. Barron, A., & Schneider, K. P. (2009). Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 425–442. Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Sage. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex. Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. John Benjamins. Bousfield, D. (2010). Researching impoliteness and rudeness: Issues and definitions. In M. Locher, & S. L. Graham (Eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (pp. 102–134). Mouton de Gruyter. Bousfield, D., & Jonathan, C. (2008). Impoliteness: Eclecticism and diaspora. An introduction to the special edition. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2),161–168. Britton, C. (2016). Should you delete negative social media comments in your crisis response? https://www.rockdovesolutions.com/blog/should-you-delete-negative-social-mediacomments-in-your-crisis-response (accessed 8 July 2019). Brown, P. (2017). Politeness and impoliteness. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 383–399). Oxford University Press. Caffi, C. (2007). Mitigation. Elsevier. Cenni, I., & Goethals, P. (2017). Negative hotel reviews on TripAdvisor: A cross-linguistic analysis. Discourse, Context & Media, 16, 22–30. Chen, S. Y. (2014). From OMG to TMD – Internet and Pinyin acronyms in Mandarin Chinese. Language@Internet, 11, article 3. Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation. Continuum. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.

182

W. Ren

Culpeper, J. (2016). Impoliteness strategies. In A. Capone, & J. L. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (421–445). Springer. Culpeper, J., Marti, L., Mei, M., Nevala, M., & Schauer, G. (2010). Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness: A study of impoliteness events reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany, and Turkey. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 597–624. Czerwionka, L. (2014). Participant perspectives on mitigated interactions: The impact of imposition and uncertainty. Journal of Pragmatics, 67, 112–130. Davies, A. (2004). The native speaker in applied linguistics. In A. Davies, & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 431–450). Blackwell. Dynel, M. (2012a). Setting our House in order: The workings of impoliteness in multi-party film discourse. Journal of Politeness Research, 8, 161–194. Dynel, M. (2012b). Swearing methodologically: The (im)politeness of expletives in anonymous commentaries on Youtube. Journal of English Studies, 10, 25–50. Dynel, M. (2014). Participation framework underlying YouTube interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 37–52. Dynel, M. (2015). The landscape of impoliteness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 329–354. Eelen, Gino. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. St. Jerome. Feng, W., & Ren, W. (2019). “This is the destiny, darling”: Relational acts in Chinese management responses to online consumer reviews. Discourse, Context & Media, 28, 52–59. Ferenˇcík, M. (2017). I’m not Charlie: (Im)politeness evaluations of the Charlie Hebdo attack in an internet discussion forum. Journal of Pragmatics, 111, 54–71. Gerhardt, C., Eisenlauer, V., & Frobenius, M. (2014). Participation framework revisited: (New) media and their audiences/users. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 1–4. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press. Graham, S. L., & Hardaker, C. (2017). (Im)politeness in digital communication. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 785–814). Palgrave Macmillan. Grainger, K., & Mills, S. (2016). Directness and indirectness across cultures. Palgrave Macmillan. Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in ayschronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to theoretical concepts. Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 215–242. Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72. Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612–634). Balckwell. Ho, V. (2017). Giving offense and making amends: How hotel management attempts to manage rapport with dissatisfied customers. Journal of Pragmatics, 109, 1–11. House, J. (2014). English as a global lingua franca: A threat to multilingual communication and translation? Language Teaching, 47(3), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000043 Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456. Jautz, S. (2014). Who speaks and who is addressed in radio phone-ins? Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 18–30. Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press. Kamoen, N., Mos, M. B. J., & Dekker, W. F. S. (2015). A hotel that is not bad isn’t good: The effects of valence framing and expectation in online reviews on text, reviewer and product appreciation. Journal of Pragmatics, 75, 28–43. Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford University Press. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All Frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of Framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 148–188. Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of a language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. Lin, C.-Y., Woodfield, H., & Ren, W. (2012). Compliments in Taiwan and Mainland Chinese: The influence of region and compliment topic. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1486–1502.

(Im)politeness in Online Consumer Reviews

183

Locher, M. A. (2004) Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, M. A., Bolander, B., & Höhn, N. (2015). Introducing relational work in Facebook and discussion boards. Pragmatics, 25(1), 1–21. Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33. Lorenzo-Dus, N., Blitivich, P.-C., & Bou-Franch, P. (2011). On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2578–2593. Mackiewicz, Jo. (2010). Assertions of expertise in online product reviews. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 24 (1):3–28. Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AOIR Ethics Committee (Version 2.0). Mauranen, A. (2006). Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as a Lingua Franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, 123–150. Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge University Press. Murphy, J. (2019). I’m sorry you are such an arsehole: (Non-)canonical apologies and their implications for (im)politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 223–232. Orthaber, S. (2019). Aggressive humour as a means of voicing customer dissatisfaction and creating in-group identity. Journal of Pragmatics, 152, 160–171. Park, D.-H., & Kim, S. (2008). The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of electronic word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7, 399–410. Ren, W. (2014). A longitudinal investigation into L2 learners’ cognitive processes during study abroad. Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 575–594. Ren, W. (2016). Strategies used in Chinese university students’ ELF emails to remedy or prevent problems in understanding. In Y.-S. Chen, D.-H. V. Rau, & G. Rau (Eds.), Email discourse among Chinese using English as a lingua franca (163–181). Springer. Ren, W. (2018a). Exploring Chinese digital communication. Discourse, Context & Media, 26, 1–4. Ren, W. (2018b). Mitigation in Chinese online consumer reviews. Discourse, Context & Media, 26, 5–12. Ren, W. (2018c). Pragmatic strategies to solve and preempt understanding problems in Chinese professionals’ emails when using English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(8), 968–981. Ren, W. (2018d). 汉语请求言语行为的变异语用学研究 [Variational pragmatics in Chinese requests]. 外国语 [Journal of Foreign Languages], 41(4), 66–75. Ren, W. (2019). Intensification in online consumer reviews: insights from Chinese. In P. GarcésConejos Blitvich, L. Fernández-Amaya, & M. Hernández-López (Eds.), Mediated service encounters (201–223). John Benjamins. Ren, W., Lin, C.-Y., & Woodfield, H. (2013). Variational Pragmatics in Chinese: Some insights from an empirical study. In I. Kecskes, & J. Romero-Trillo (Eds.), Research trends in intercultural pragmatics (pp. 283–314). Mouton de Gruyter. Ren, W., & Woodfield, H. (2016). Chinese females’ date refusals in reality TV shows: Expressing involvement or independence? Discourse, Context & Media, 13, 89–97. Sbisà, M. (2001). Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1791–1814. Schneider, K. P., & Barron, A. (Eds.). (2008). Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages. John Benjamins. Schuckert, M., Liu, X., & Law, R. (2015). Hospitality and tourism online reviews: Recent trends and future directions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(5), 608–621. Stapleton, K. (2010). Swearing. In M. A. Locher, & S. L. Graham (Eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (pp. 289–305). Mouton de Gruyter.

184

W. Ren

Tian, Y. (2013). Engagement in online hotel reviews: A comparative study. Discourse, Context & Media, 2, 184–191. Vásquez, C. (2011). Complaints online: The case of TripAdvisor. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1707– 1717. Vásquez, C. (2014). The discourse of online consumer reviews. Bloomsbury. Vásquez, C. (2015a). Intertextuality and interdiscursivity in online consumer reviews. In R. H. Jones, A. Chik, & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), Discourse and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age (pp. 66–80). Routledge. Vásquez, C. (2015b). Right now versus back then: Recency and remoteness as discursive resources in online reviews. Discourse, Context & Media, 9, 5–13. Vásquez, C. (2016). Intertextuality and authorized transgression in parodies of online consumer reviews. Language@Internet, 13, 1–18. Virtanen, T. (2017). Adaptability in online consumer reviews: Exploring genre dynamics and interactional choices. Journal of Pragmatics, 116, 77–90. Vladimirou, D., & House, J. (2018). Ludic impoliteness and globalisation on Twitter: ‘I speak England very best’ #agglika_Tsipra, #Tsipras #Clinton. Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 149–162. Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press. Watts, R. (2005). Linguistic politeness research: Quo vadis? In R. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. xi–xlvii). Mouton de Gruyter. Willemsen, L. M., Neijens, P. C., Bronner, F., & de Ridder, J. A. (2011). “Highly recommended!”: The content characteristics and perceived usefulness of online consumer reviews. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 19–38. Zare, J. (2016). Self-mockery: A study of Persian multi-party interactions. Text & Talk, 36(6), 789–812. Zhang, Y., & Vásquez, C. (2014). Hotels’ responses to online reviews: Managing consumer dissatisfaction. Discourse, Context & Media, 6, 54–64.

Impoliteness and Negative Comments on Google Reviews: Nursing Homes in Spain and the United States Rosa M. Pacheco-Baldó

Abstract This paper explores the use of impoliteness found in the negative comments on nursing homes that users of these centres post on Google reviews. This paper argues that these comments should be interpreted as impoliteness (Culpeper, 1996), regardless of their veracity and correspondence with reality, since they attack the public image of the centre and criticise it publicly and, in some cases, devastatingly. Besides, this study also analyses the differences found in the negative remarks of Spanish and American users. These differences are explained by the different cultural values that the two groups possess (Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1991; Hofstede et al., 2010) and that are reflected in the discourse. Thus, this paper shows how cultural dimensions such as individualism, masculinity, or high/low context influence speakers’ communicative style, reflecting the different cultural values that these two groups have. Keywords Impoliteness · Negative reviews · Individualism · High/low context · Nursing homes

1 Introduction Cultural differences between Spain and the United States are undeniable. Globalisation has brought together a society in many aspects, but the cultural bases of each country are harder to change than gastronomic trends, economic patterns, or leisure options, just to mention but a few examples that globalisation has brought. Edward Hall expressed this idea very clearly, using the metaphor of the iceberg (Hall, 1976). According to the author, the visible part of the behaviours of cultural groups, as in an iceberg, represents only a small part of their entire cultural heritage, and the vast majority of their features remain hidden even for the very participants of the culture. It is the duty of anthropologists and linguists to unmask and highlight these cultural differences so that they are understood, and the clash between cultures is avoided. R. M. Pacheco-Baldó (B) Department of English Philology, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Xie (ed.), Advancing (Im)politeness Studies, Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37064-9_10

185

186

R. M. Pacheco-Baldó

Hofstede (1991) also used the onion model to explain that the cultural traits of a group are like the layers of an onion -some traits are more superficial and, therefore, in a process of globalisation may be acquired or modified easily. However, other aspects are more hidden and rooted and are not easily changeable. Communication in virtual media is a very good instance of everything mentioned so far. Different countries may share the same channels of communication or the same media, however, the cultural differences of the users will be reflected in their messages, in their communication style, and in the values which emerge in discourse. The specific context that this paper analyses -negative comments on Google reviews- fall into one of those areas where anonymity can empower the user very negatively. Kaul de Marlangeon and Cordisco (2014) say that the virtual nature of these environments favours rude behaviours. The fact of not having to deal face to face with the receiver provides a sense of security that allows the user to unleash opinions, discredit or even insult the addressee with no sign of remorse. They are, as Herring (2001: 613) called them, “faceless and bodiless” ways of communication. For this reason, impoliteness in virtual media should be considered differently from impoliteness in personal interaction, where the risks that are taken are different. Although distance among speakers, anonymity, and lack of personal interaction reduces the immediacy of communication, they also give the users the opportunity to express themselves freely. This is because they do not assume the inherent risks and adverse effects that a negative or rude comment may have in a conversation face to face. As Díaz Pérez notes (2012), anonymity on the web favours verbal offence because of the hidden character that the aggressor can play. Two of the cultural dimensions where we can see the differences between Spain and the United States are the dimension of identity (Hofstede, 1980, 1991, 2001), with its continuum of individualism/collectivism, and also the dimension of high/ low context (Hall, 1976). Regarding individualism, the United States is clearly a benchmark for this cultural trait, and research usually places this cultural group at the top of the rankings. As for Spain, it could be referred to as a tribal culture (Leaptrott, 1996), which indicates that it is a cultural group halfway between individualism and collectivism. In tribal groups, it is highly valued to belong to small groups, family groups, labour groups, etc., but at the same time, individuals uphold their identity and their need for freedom of opinion and action. We could say that in a tribal society, the individual is not so tightly corseted and dominated by the group as in a collectivist society. Concerning the dimension of high/low context (Hall, 1976), the United States would be in the group of countries with low contextual dependence, as the message tends to be clear and explicit, not leaving any elements to be interpreted by the receiver. Conversely, Spain is usually located in the group of countries with a tendency to high dependence on the context. In these cultures, the message is not always clear and explicit, so, in order to interpret it, the receiver must make use of other external elements such as the context, the relationship between the participants, their movements, etc. In the present context, this feature becomes very important since, as we will see, the sender does not attack the addressee clearly and overwhelmingly,

Impoliteness and Negative Comments on Google Reviews: Nursing …

187

thus avoiding a conflict which is also one of the features of tribal cultures (Leaptrott, 1996).

2 Studies on Impoliteness and Cultural Differences in Virtual Media As Locher and Bousfield (2008) pointed out, it is difficult to define what impoliteness is since it can refer to very different acts. Culpeper (2010) supports this idea and cites, as an example, some definitions of impoliteness as provided by a dictionary: bad manners, boldness, boorishness, brusqueness, coarseness, contempt, contumely, discourtesy, discourteousness, dishonour, disrespect, flippancy, hardihood, impertinence, impiety, impudence, incivility, inurbanity, inconsideration, insolence, insolency, insolentness, irreverence, lack of respect, profanation, rudeness, sacrilege, unmannerliness (http://thesaurus. reference.com/) (Culpeper, 2010: 3233)

In the present study, following Locher and Watts (2008), we have considered impoliteness as any comment that may evoke a negative assessment about someone. In the reviews analysed, the users of the centres want to make public their dissatisfaction with a particular service, and they also want to do so with the clear intention that this negative review reaches as many people as possible. If that were not the intention, the interaction would occur privately, face to face. Therefore, the definition provided by Culpeper on impoliteness is applicable to this study because the author considers: Impoliteness is a negative attitude towards specific behaviours occurring in specific contexts. It is sustained by expectations, desires and/or beliefs about social organisation, including, in particular, how one person’s or group’s identities are mediated by others in interaction (Culpeper, 2010: 3233).

Particularly, in the context of nursing homes, impoliteness arises when the user’s expectations are opposite to the treatment received, and therefore, the client attacks the centre’s image by posting negative reviews on Google. The study of impoliteness in virtual media has received much attention over the past years. A point in common between impoliteness in mediated-computer communication and impoliteness that occurs in face-to-face communication is that both have a clear target, which is to attack the public image of the receiver. Here, we must consider the public image as Goffman defined it: “…the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (Goffman, 1959: 5). Research has mostly focussed on the discourse of interactions in social networks. Mancera Rueda (2015) gives an account of works carried out in this field, citing studies about politeness and impoliteness on Twitter and Facebook. Of particular interest for this paper is the study of Fondevila Gascón et al. (2012) that discusses the importance that large companies give to the comments that are poured over them on social networks. The study concludes that these companies do not pay proper attention to these negative comments, which

188

R. M. Pacheco-Baldó

ultimately damages the relationship between the brand and the user and can have a negative impact on the company’s earnings. As will be seen below, this is also what the analysed centres usually do. Their degree of concern about the criticism received, and the attempts to recover the unhappy customer are minimal, and in most cases, the centres do not even answer the negative comment. Also, Kim Strandberg (2013) carried out an analysis of readers’ comments in online newspapers, questioning if such comments respond to Habermas’ principles of communicative action (1989). Some scholars have talked about the new democracy in the virtual media (Coleman & Moss, 2012; Ruiz et al., 2011; Wright & Street, 2007) to refer to the freedom that citizens have in these public fora, expressing their opinions as if they were voting at the polls. However, the truth is that sometimes, as in this analysis, we cannot talk about democracy 2.0 since there is not a real public debate but rather a monologue meant to attack and slander. Regarding contrastive analysis between different cultural groups in the context of virtual media, it is quite difficult to find studies that link these differences with cultural features. To cite some examples, we can find an analysis of the use of social networks such as Twitter (Adnan, 2014; Tur et al., 2017), or about the cultural identities that emerge on YouTube (Garcés-Conejos et al., 2013). Therefore, I would like to highlight the value of this study because, as we can see, contrastive analysis between languages does not tend to mention cultural differences and, as this study argues, these differences can be reflected in the speakers’ discourse.

3 Individualism/Collectivism (and Tribalism) and High/Low Context The cultural dimensions chosen for this study are representative of the cultural differences that these two cultural groups have. It goes without saying that we must always consider that the values described by authors such as Hall (1976), Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1998, 2000, 2001, 2004), Hofstede (1980, 1991, 2001), Hofstede et al. (2010) or Leaptrott (1996) refer to trends at a national level and not at an individual one. If differences appear in so many studies, it is because there must be a reason underlying at an anthropological level, although not at a psychological or individual one. Therefore, it must be understood that not all members of a group are equal among each other and that in the same group, there will be as many differences as individuals. As Bennett (2004) noted, these authors’ measurements are very useful for studying cultural differences at the national level, among countries, and should never be taken as stereotypes or caricatures. In addition, it has also been shown that even in the same culture, different contexts can bring out cultural values that in principle are opposite (Correa et al., 2002; Triandis et al., 1988). In the first place, we should point out that the cultural dimension of identity and its continuum of individualism/collectivism refers to the strength of the ties, relationships, and links that an individual has with the rest of society. Also, it could be

Impoliteness and Negative Comments on Google Reviews: Nursing …

189

defined as the degree of interdependence that the members of a group maintain among each other. This cultural dimension has been studied by many authors, although in this study we have considered the contributions made by Hofstede (1980, 1991, 2001), Hofstede et al. (2010), Leaptrott (1996), and Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1998, 2000, 2001, 2004). Thus, on the one hand, the United States, as well as other Anglo-Saxon countries is a representative of individualist traits and values. In this study, the typical cultural traits of individualism that have been analysed are the following: Firstly, privacy and independence are highly valued. Individuals should take care of themselves and their nuclear family and therefore, they should not rely much on institutions. The ideal of this society is the so-called American dream, i.e. anyone can and should be able to perform well, achieve their goals, and even stand out in life because, supposedly, everyone has the same opportunities to do so. Since the success and personal achievement are very important in this culture, competition is admitted and even favoured. Secondly, it is highly valued that individuals express their views and feelings in a clear and direct manner, which also favours the debate and discussion, both regarded as something positive for relationships. Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1998) refer to this feature as specific versus diffuse, and they place the United States as a cultural group with high specificity since instructions and processes are expressed in a very detailed and clear manner and, in general, the communication style is direct and explicit. On the other hand, Spain is considered a cultural group halfway between individualism and collectivism. Leaptrott (1996) uses the term tribal to refer to these cultural groups in which there is some degree of emotional dependence on the group. Thus, family relations or small groups in the workplace and among friends are favoured. However, individuals also consider it vital to maintain some independence, and therefore, people are not so dependent on the group as in collectivist societies. In this sense, one could say that Spain also shows some degree of individualism (Kooyers, 2015). Since the relationship among group members is important, they generally tend to avoid conflict, and a way of doing so is by choosing one’s words. This means people may not express negative feelings in a direct way for fear of breaking the harmony of the relationship, especially if this negative feedback must be done in public. Thus, for example, conflict is preferably handled privately and as soon as possible (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1998). In the second place, the dimension of high/low context has also been considered in this study. Hall introduced this concept in 1976, and since then, many authors have dealt with it in their studies about cultural values. In general, we can say that, in a low context culture, or in other words, in a culture where messages depend little on the context, individuals express themselves in a clear and direct manner. The information that they want to transmit is explicit in the message and therefore, the receiver does not need to make use of other elements, such as the context, mainly, to understand it. The United States has this kind of communication style because, as mentioned above, people express their ideas and opinions clearly and directly, even if this could lead them to a clash with their interlocutor. In general, individualist cultures tend to be low context cultures since they are societies where interpersonal ties are weak,

190

R. M. Pacheco-Baldó

and therefore, there are fewer common elements among the actors that can help them understand the message if it is not clear. On the contrary, in a high context culture, that is to say, highly dependent on the context, information is not always clearly transmitted in the message and the receiver makes use of other elements of communication, such as the context, tone of voice, the proxemics or even the silences, in order to decipher the full meaning of the message. Spain is included among medium–high context countries. As already discussed, there is a correlation with the dimension of identity, since, the more collectivist a group is, the higher context it is too. In a tribal society like the Spanish one, the dependence on the context is moderate to high, and therefore, for a person from outside the group or culture, it could be difficult to understand the message. As stated before, the concepts of high and low context must be understood as something open and not as rigid and unyielding stereotypes. The situation, and above all, the participants in the communicative act will guide the style that they use. For example, in a family or friendship context, American people can adopt a higher context style, since there are many items that can be omitted in the message, owing to the familiarity of the interlocutors and the common knowledge they share.

4 Types of Impoliteness Found in the Negative Reviews There are various reference models for describing types of impoliteness. In this study, I thought it appropriate to take Culpeper et al. (2003) and also Kaul de Marlangeon’s (2008) because of the clarity of concepts that these authors offer. As will be discussed later, there are two prevailing impoliteness strategies in the analysis. On the one hand, we find what Culpeper et al. (2003) called direct impoliteness, as there is clearly an intention on the part of the issuer of attacking the receiver’s face -in this case the nursing home centre- although in fact the message is received by thousands of users. On the other hand, we can also find what they call negative impoliteness since the attack is addressed to the receiver’s negative face. We take negative face here as first thought of by Brown and Levinson (1987), i.e., every individual’s desire for their territory and their rights to be respected. Thus, the speakers, in this case, the users dissatisfied with the centre’s performance have the clear intention of making their attack public and that is the reason why they use cyberspace. As Xie and Yus (2017) argue, the act of sharing undesirable and disgusting information or complaints has become a sign of the times. Here, the purpose is to attack the management of the company, in order to ridicule them, frighten customers away, and if possible, break the continuity and profitability of the business. Regarding Kaul de Marlangeon’s (2008) model, we have found in the analysis what she calls descortesía de fustigación-attacking impoliteness. They are voluntary and intentional behaviours aimed at damaging the interlocutor’s image. In addition, we have also found the type of impoliteness that the author calls silencio—abrumador overwhelming silence—since, as we will see, sometimes silence can transmit more

Impoliteness and Negative Comments on Google Reviews: Nursing …

191

than words. When the user does not add any comment to the low rating in the centre, it could be interpreted as an act of contempt and disdain. In any case, what we have found in the analysis is intentional impoliteness (Bousfield, 2008; Culpeper, 2005). On the one hand, the fact that the user rates the centre with one or two stars leaves no doubt that they are not satisfied with the treatment received from the centre, and for this reason, there is no doubt that the purpose of the message is a direct attack. On the other hand, the messages discredit and attack the centre so directly that the issuer’s intentionality is clear and explicit. From my point of view, a definition of impoliteness should not only include the premise of the speaker’s intentionality when delivering the message, but also the listener’s perception should be considered, irrespective of the sender’s intentionality. Therefore, from my perspective, linguistic impoliteness may appear in the following situations: (a) the speaker performs, intentionally or not, an act that threatens someone’s image or rights; (b) someone perceives that his or her image or rights have been threatened, whether the speaker has done so intentionally or not. This concept of impoliteness is closer to the one provided by other authors such as Culpeper (2010), Cordisco (2005), Kaul de Marlangeon (1995, 2005, 2008) or Schnurr and Holmes (2005), who consider that intentionality should not be a condition of impoliteness, as it can happen, for instance, when the damage to the public image is made owing to the speaker’s ignorance of the social and cultural rules required by the context.

5 Methodology A total of forty nursing home websites were analysed for this study. In order for the sample to be as homogeneous as possible, as recommended by Moreno (2008), centres were sought in areas that were geographically and socially similar. In Spain, centres were searched in the area of Alicante, a coastal city with a semi-arid climate, with a population of about 330,000 inhabitants and a per capita income of around e20,000 (INE 2018). In the United States, centres were sought in the area of Sacramento, a city with a Mediterranean climate, with less than 500,000 inhabitants and a per capita income of around $28,000/e24,000 (United States Census Bureau, 2018). The Global AgeWatch Index issued by the NGO HelpAge International was also consulted.1 This organisation, which works in favour of the elderly, published a report with a ranking of ninety-six countries classified according to four variables that facilitate older people’s well-being: income, health, capabilities, and enabling environment. The United States has an overall index of 79.3, being ninth on the list, 1

See https://www.helpage.org/global-agewatch/population-ageing-data/global-rankings-table/ (accessed 14 January 2019).

192

R. M. Pacheco-Baldó

and Spain is in the twenty-fifth position with an overall index of 61.7. The difference in score is mostly given by the lower purchasing power of pensions in Spain. However, this country appears as one of the best in the world regarding the healthcare system, as well as life expectancy. Therefore, nothing may indicate a priori that nursing homes in the United States are worse than in Spain. The analysed centres were privately owned, as it usually occurs both in Spain (72.9%, according to the CSIC), and in the United States (69.3%, according to data from the CDC). However, in both countries, some centres offer the service of linking the client with the available public resources, to help the user file for public aids that he or she may be entitled to. Unfortunately, none of the centres marketed the prices of their services, so this fact could not be considered in the analysis. However, the author of this research does not consider this issue relevant, since the cultural values studied here are considered at a national and anthropological level and not with respect to other variables, such as economic or educational records, social substrate, etc. The study focussed on analysing the negative reviews that these centres receive on Google. Reviews that obtained only one or two stars out of five possible stars were considered as negative because in these cases, the user does not give his or her approval, since the assessment does not even reach half of the marks -at least 2.5 points. These forty centres, twenty in each country, yielded a total of 479 reviews, 189 of which were negative reviews. Then, the negative reviews were analysed and recorded in a table with the following variables: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Review with a reply from the owner Review without a comment Review with explanation and details Review with discrediting remarks Review with insults or swear words

Then, these variables were related to cultural traits (mainly the individualism/ collectivism dimension and the high/low context dimension). For example, the fact of giving a detailed explanation in the review relates to a low context communicative style, as the message provides explicit information. Then, the relative frequencies that each variable had obtained in each country were recorded in the table. Thus, for instance, from the total of 117 American negative reviews, 65 of them were reviews with explanations and details. Finally, in order to gain a better understanding of the results, we obtained the percentages from the relative frequencies. In the analysis that follows, the results recorded in the table have been presented in sections, to facilitate reading and review of data.

Impoliteness and Negative Comments on Google Reviews: Nursing …

193

6 Results and Discussion In this section, I will comment on the results obtained in the analysis. Each of the above-mentioned variables was correlated to the cultural traits that characterise each group. Table 6.1 shows the total number of reviews in each group compared with the number of negative reviews that were found in the forty centres listed on Google. We can also learn about the average rating that the two groups received. As shown in Table 6.1, in the group of American centres, there was a total of 234 reviews, 117 of which were negative, that is to say, 50% of the reviews were negative. Let us remember that we considered negative reviews those that obtained only one or two stars. In the Spanish centres, a total of 245 reviews were found, 72 of which were negative. In other words, in the group of Spanish centres, 29.4% of the reviews were negative. These data correlate with the average rating that each group obtained, which was 2.68 in the American group and 3.19 in the Spanish group. A clear reading of these figures tells us that users of American nursing homes are more critical when it comes to commenting on the centres. Not only did American centres obtain a lower average rating than Spanish centres, by more than half a point, but also, half of the American users rated negatively, as opposed to only 29.4% of Spanish users. An explanation of these data could be found in the individualist trait of preference for expressing opinions openly and directly, to the point that confrontation can be considered something positive. In addition, we can also add the fact that in tribal societies, people tend to avoid conflict to a greater extent than in individualist societies. Similarly, in a group with cultural traits of femininity (Hofstede, 1991) as in the case of Spain, the cultural trait of avoidance of conflict or breakdown of consensus and harmony is also pursued. The reason is that discussions can escalate up to a personal level very easily (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1998; Hofstede, 1991; Leaptrott, 1996), so, they should be avoided. The following set of data in Table 6.2 shows how many of these negative reviews received a reply from the owner and the cultural features related here: As we can read in Table 6.2, only 4.1% of the Spanish negative reviews received a response, whereas, in the American group, 33.3% of the negative reviews were answered. Once again, in the Spanish group, confrontation was avoided and the way Table 6.1 Number of negative reviews, total reviews, and average ratings of the centres The United States

Spain

Number of negative reviews/total reviews

117/234 = 50%

72/245 = 29.4%

Average rating of the centre

2,68/5

3,19/5

Table 6.2 Negative reviews that received a reply from the owner Review with a reply from the owner

Cultural traits

The United States

Spain

– Individualism – Femininity

39/117 = 33.3%

3/72 = 4.1%

194

R. M. Pacheco-Baldó

to do so was by not entering into a public debate. Conversely, in the American group, the centres responded to reviews, though, truth be told, without offering a plausible explanation of what had happened, but simply encouraging the client to contact the centre to clarify the incidence and discuss it in private. Some examples can be seen in these replies: (a) Ms Wytkind, we appreciate you taking the time to post this review and are very sorry for your experience. We would appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about it but, unfortunately, due to HIPPA privacy restrictions, a public Google forum is not the appropriate place for this discussion. We encourage you to please contact the Regional Director of Operations at your building at [email protected]. Windsor Care Center of Sacramento’s reply (b) Thank you, Crystal, for reaching out to us. Your opinion plays an integral part in the care we provide our residents. If you’d be willing, Susan Sundell would like to speak with you at [email protected] Greenhaven Estates’ reply (c) Thanks for bringing your concerns to our attention, Ivan. While we cannot discuss patient care in a public forum, could you please contact us on our Care Line by calling 800.366.1232 or emailing [email protected]? Manor Care Health Services’ reply

The fact that they do not give any explanation could be interpreted as not caring much about the issue, being unaware that if the number of negative reviews exceeds the positive ones, the centre’s image could eventually deteriorate (Fondevila Gascón et al., 2012). Table 6.3 shows the differences found in the two groups concerning the number of negative reviewers that did not add any comments to the rating. In these reviews, the user just rated the centre with one or two stars, but they did not give any reason why they were not satisfied with the centre. As can be seen, half of the Spanish users who rated the centre negatively did not add any explanation to their score, whereas this circumstance only happened in 20.5% of the reviews in the American group. We could correlate these data with the cultural dimension of high/low context (Hall, 1976). As aforementioned, in a high context society, such as the Spanish one, the message is not always expressed in a clear and direct way, but its final interpretation is left up to other elements of the context (Würt, 2006). In this case, it is quite complicated to know what the causes of the negative rating are, and we could guess that they are the same reasons given by the American users, namely, deficiency of facilities, poor value for money, unqualified personnel, etcetera. However, the users of the Spanish centres do not add Table 6.3 Negative reviews that did not add any comment Reviews without comment

Cultural trait

The United States

Spain

– High/low context

24/117 = 20.5%

36/72 = 50%

Impoliteness and Negative Comments on Google Reviews: Nursing …

195

any additional comments, and they only leave an overwhelming silence (Kaul de Marlangeon, 2008), although they know that other users will understand that they do not recommend the centre because they did not like it at all. Let us move on to Table 6.4, which shows the percentage of the reviews that provided a detailed explanation: These figures confirm once again that users in the American group, as much as 55.5% of the total, showed a low dependence on the context discursive style. In other words, these clients stated the message openly and sharply, expressing their feelings with the largest possible number of details (Hall, 1976), to state clearly that the performance of the centre deserved a negative rating. More than half of these users were explicit and direct in their discourse, which is also related to the individualist trait of expressing opinions openly. However, only 16.6% of Spanish users who had added a comment to their negative review said the reason for their rating. The rest either did not add anything or simply discredited the centre with a disparaging comment. As additional data, we must say that all the negative reviews were collected in a Word document containing forty-six pages, thirty-nine of which corresponded to comments and explanations from the American users, while only seven of them were from the Spanish reviews. Some of the comments that the American users posted contained explanations occupying several pages with detailed reasons, listing objects, and even reproducing conversations, as a clear example of what Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1998) called a specific communication style. Just to cite some examples, let us look at the following reviews: (d) This place is ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING. DON’T send your loved ones here: 1. They gave my dad medication he was allergic to then started laughing at me on the phone when I ask them to go into his room and remove them. 2. When my dad arrived, he was put into a room that hadn’t been cleaned AT ALL after the last person. The nightstand was covered in something sticky; the floors were not clean. There was a shaver left in the bathroom and soiled clothes in the closet. 3. They did make sure my father was taking his medication (he has Dementia). I ended up finding over 135 pills in his nightstand. Then they could tell when he had taken them last because they were entering it on the computer as taken. AFTER A FORMAL MEETING WITH THE MANAGER SSI WORKER AND STAFF and them promising us they would properly watch my dad take his meds...I came back to still find 2 days later to find more pills in his room. 4. I had to go out of town for a week I visited my dad and when I came back on the 8th day my dad WAS IN THE SAME clothing. They were soiled with dried POOP and he

Table 6.4 Reviews that gave a detailed explanation Reviews with detailed explanations

Cultural traits

The United States

Spain

– High/low context – Individualism – Specific/diffuse

65/117 = 55.5%

12/72 = 16.6%

196

R. M. Pacheco-Baldó had smelled so bad that when I hugged him the smell transferred to my clothing. They didn’t bathe or change his clothes for A WEEK.

Mission Carmichael HealthCare Center’s user (e) If you love your parents, PLEASE DO NOT SEND them to this place. The staff are unprofessional, negative, and hopeless! Food was left in my mom’s hair for several days. She was left lying flat for days possibly weeks without anyone turning her. Not sure if she was ever bathed because if she had a regular shower the staff would have seen a bedsore forming before it reached stage 3. Also, my mom was left to suffer in pain from the bedsore without medication. She was only given medicine when she asked. My mom had a stroke and speech impairment that enable her to talk properly. At times when visiting her, I was unable to wake her up from sleep. We had chosen this place due to its five-star reviews, apparently, we were wrong. Before choosing a place for your mom of course read the reviews but also talk to staff and take time walking up and down the hallways. ACC Care Center’s user (f) Needs new management, a health inspection, and more staff, there are 5 aids and 3 nurses for 103 patients in total (confirmed by an employee) and the furniture is old, the building is rotting, there are stains everywhere, floors are dirty, bathroom policy is very bad for the circumstances, one small bathroom is to be shared by 6 people in total, medical facilities should provide private bathrooms for each patient as most do for sanitation purposes, this is an abomination, there needs to be something done about this facility… Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center’s user

Next, let us comment on a set of data that has to do with the content and the form of the negative comments. In Table 6.5, we can observe the percentage of reviews where users attacked the centre directly by using negative adjectives and also insults, and swear words. The results show again important differences between the two groups. On the one hand, in the American group, up to 61.5% of them attacked the centre clearly, either the institution as a whole or the staff that works there, including the management, the care assistants, etc. It is what Culpeper et al. (2003) called negative impoliteness, as the clear intention of damaging the public image of the centre prevails and the preferred way of doing so is by using derogatory adjectives that discredit the centre or the people who work there, casting doubt on their professionalism and also on their personal values. It is evident that the purpose of these reviews is to hurt the centre as if it were an act of revenge for the treatment received. We can find some examples in the comments such as the following ones: Table 6.5 Reviews with discrediting remarks and reviews with insults and swear words Cultural traits

The United States Spain

– Individualism – High/low context

72/117 = 61.5%

22/72 = 30%

Reviews with insults or swear words – Individualism – High/low context

13/117 = 11.1%

2/72 = 2.7%

Reviews with discrediting remarks

Impoliteness and Negative Comments on Google Reviews: Nursing …

197

(g) “The staff are unprofessional.” ACC Care Center’s user. (h) “The worst nursing home in the state!” Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center’s user. (i) “These people that work there are hideous.” Windsor Care Center of Sacramento’s user. (j) “Horrible place! Staff is rude and very inattentive to the residents.” McKinley Park Care Center’s user. (k) “Ms Hathaway, the Executive Director is extremely rude and unprofessional.” Greenhaven Estates’ user.

On the other hand, in the Spanish group we can also find this situation, but to a lesser extent, since it occurred only in 30% of the reviews, compared to 61.5% in the other group. Some examples would be comments like these ones: (l) “Trato horroroso, ancianos descuidados, olor a poca higiene.” [Horrible treatment, neglected seniors, poor hygiene odour] [My translation] Residencia Gerusia’s user. (m) “Lamentable la Dirección.” [Lamentable Management] Grupo Ballesol’s user. (n) “Fatal.” [Dreadful] Residencia Mediterráneo’s user (o) “La directora del centro es una maleducada y malhablada.” [The centre’s manager is impolite and she speaks rudely.] Residencia Tercera Edad Mar Bella’s user

The difference between these data can be attributed once again to the dimensions of individualism and context. As mentioned above, in the American group, we always find an explicit display of opinions, expressed in a direct way, even if this could lead to direct confrontation. As we can see in one of the examples, we are even given the name of the person who is fiercely attacked. It is a clear example of attacking impoliteness (Kaul de Marlangeon, 2008) as it frontally attacks the addressee. It could be said that this is a consequence of the individualist discursive style, which correlates with the characteristics of this low context culture (Würt, 2006), as the message is clear and without ambiguities. However, in cultural groups with a high context discursive style, as in Spain, the message tends to be more ambiguous and less cutting, in order to preserve harmony and avoid conflict (Gudykunst et al., 1996). Within this set of data, it should be noted the use of insults and swear words. As we can observe, the American group also made greater use of them, with 11.1%, compared to only 2.7% collected in the Spanish group. Some examples would be: (p) “Some of the nurses and CNAs are bullies.” El Camino Care Center’s user.

198

R. M. Pacheco-Baldó

(q) “The staff is horrible the ED Dena Haden is such a fat lard all she does is lie…” Brookdale Greenhaven’s user. (r) “Joer.” [Fuck] Residencia Inmaculada Concepción’s user.

These data are noteworthy because Spanish is one of the languages with a greater number of insults, as stated in some studies (Rius, 2012; Santos Carretero, 2011). However, the clients did not use them in this context. The reason, as we have seen before, is that the large majority of the comments are brief and do not provide any explanatory information. On the contrary, in the American reviews, we can find more insults, and this could be due to the greater number of answers and the vast variety of opinions found in the group.

7 Conclusions After the presentation of the collected data and further analysis, we can conclude that there are clear differences in the discursive styles of American and Spanish users of nursing homes when they leave their comments on Google. These differences in discourse can be related to the cultural dimensions of high/low context and individualism/collectivism. First, as has been noted, the American group shows a discursive style influenced by individualist traits and by low dependence on the context (Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1991). This statement is supported by the following data: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Higher number of negative reviews from the total (50%) Higher number of reviews with a reply from the owner (33.3%) Smaller number of reviews without comment (20.5%) Higher number of reviews with an explanation and details (55.5%) Higher number of reviews with discrediting remarks (61.5%) Greater use of insults and swear words (11.1%)

All of these indicate that, due to their cultural features, the American users expressed themselves directly and explicitly, claiming their rights with firmness, using a clear and explanatory discourse, without fear of facing the receiver, and without leaving the message open to interpretation, but displaying it in a clear and direct manner. Secondly, and because of the tribal traits and high dependence on the context that characterises the Spanish group (Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1991; Leaptrott, 1996), reviews collected here showed the following data: (a) Smaller number of negative reviews from the total (29.4%) (b) Smaller number of reviews with a reply from the owner (4.1%) (c) Higher number of reviews without comments (50%)

Impoliteness and Negative Comments on Google Reviews: Nursing …

199

(d) Smaller number of reviews with an explanation and details (16.6%) (e) Smaller number of reviews with discrediting remarks (30%) (f) Less use of insults and swear words (2.7%) Thus, influenced by the cultural features aforementioned, in this context, Spanish users showed a discursive style that averted a direct confrontation with the interlocutor, and therefore, the users either avoided an explicit attack, or it was short and brief, without going into the details of what had happened. Finally, and as mentioned above, we must always consider the context and not generalise the data of a study or try to apply them in all communicative situations. As Culpeper claims, “One cannot find any mainstream politeness theorist explicitly arguing that either politeness or impoliteness is wholly inherent in linguistic expressions” (Culpeper, 2010: 3234). As Bousfield (2010) or Schiffrin (1991) also indicate, language always depends on the characteristics of the context and therefore, it must be taken into consideration when analysing the discourse. In other words, we should adopt a discursive or postmodern approach (Bousfield, 2010; Culpeper, 2010; Locher, 2006; Mills, 2003) and consider context as a crucial criterion, which implies abandoning the idea of building a universal theory about impoliteness. This also means that different contexts could make a cultural group adopt different cultural traits (Correa et al., 2002; Triandis et al., 1988). In a nutshell, the conclusions drawn from this study may apply to other situations, but they should never be taken as cultural axioms applicable to all contexts.

References Adnan, M., Leak, A., & Longleya, P. (2014). A Geocomputational analysis of Twitter activity around different world cities. Geo-Spatial Information Science, 17(3), 145–152. Bennett, J. M. (2004). Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative approach to global and domestic diversity. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 147–175). Sage. Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. John Benjamins. Bousfield, D. (2010). Researching impoliteness and rudeness: Issues and definitions. In M. A. Locher, & S. L. Graham (Eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (pp. 101–134). De Gruyter Mouton. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. CDC Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. (2018). Long-term care providers and services users in the United States, 2015–2016. https://www.cdc. gov/nchs/fastats/nursing-home-care.htm (accessed 10 February 2019). Coleman, S., & Moss, G. (2012). Under construction: The field of online deliberation research. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9, 1–15. Cordisco, A. (2005). Subjetividad y conformación de interacciones descorteses [Subjectivity and shaping impolite interactions]. In J. Murillo (Ed.), Actos de habla y cortesía en distintas variedades del español: Perspectivas teóricas y metodológicas. II Coloquio Internacional del Programa EDICE [Speech acts and courtesy in different varieties of Spanish: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. II International Colloquium of the EDICE Program] (pp. 181–208). EDICE.

200

R. M. Pacheco-Baldó

Correa, F., Contreras, C., Ramírez, A., & López, E. (2002). Dimensiones del individualismocolectivismo en México: Un estudio exploratorio [Dimensions of individualism-collectivism in Mexico: An exploratory study]. La Psicología Social En México, 9, 553–559. Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–367. CSIC Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. (2018). Envejecimiento en red. Estadísticas sobre residencias. Distribución de centros y plazas residenciales por provincia. Datos de julio de 2017 [Network Aging. Statistics on residences. Distribution of centers and residential places by province. Data from July 2017]. http://enveje cimiento.csic.es/documentos/documentos/enredestadisticasresidencias2017.pdf (accessed 10 February 2019). Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 35–72. Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3232– 3245. Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545–1579. Díaz Pérez, J. C. (2012). Pragmalingüística del disfemismo y la descortesía. Los actos de habla hostiles en los medios de comunicación virtual [Pragmalinguistics of dysphemism and impoliteness: Hostile speech acts in online media]. Doctoral Dissertation, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. https://e-archivo.uc3m.es/handle-/10016/15682 (accessed 31 January 2019). Fondevila Gascón, J. F., Olmo Arriaga, J. D., & Bravo Nieto, V. (2012). Presencia y reputación digital en social media: Comparativa en el sector de la moda [Digital presence and reputation in social media: Comparison in the fashion sector]. Journal of Communication, 5, 90–113. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Bou Franch, P., & Lorenzo, N. (2013). Despierten, Latinos (‘wake up, Latinos’): Latino identity, US politics and YouTube. Journal of Language and Politics, 12, 558–582. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.12.4.04bli Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books. Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22(4), 510–543. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Polity Press. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Doubleday. Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (1998). Riding the waves of culture. McGraw-Hill. Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (2000). Building cross-cultural competence. Wiley. Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (2001). 21 Leaders for the 21st century: How innovative leaders manage in the digital age. McGraw-Hill. Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (2004). Managing people across cultures. Capstone. Herring, S. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 127–151). Blackwell. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill. INE Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (2018). Renta per cápita municipios [Per capita income in municipalities]. https://www.ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/es/operacion.htm?c=Estadistica_C&cid= 1254736167628&menu=resultados&idp=1254735576581 (accessed 10 February 2019). Kaul de Marlangeon, S. (1995). La fuerza de cortesía-descortesía y sus estrategias en el discurso tanguero de la década del 20 [The force of politeness-impoliteness and its strategies in the tango discourse of the 20s]. Revista De La Sociedad Argentina De Lingüística, 3, 7–38.

Impoliteness and Negative Comments on Google Reviews: Nursing …

201

Kaul de Marlangeon, S. (2005). Descortesía intragrupal-crónica en la interacción coloquial de clase media baja del español rioplatense [Intra-group-chronic impoliteness in the colloquial interaction of lower-middle-class Spanish from Rio de la Plata]. In J. Murillo (Ed.), Actos de habla y cortesía en distintas variedades del español: Perspectivas teóricas y metodológicas. II Coloquio Internacional del Programa EDICE [Speech acts and courtesy in different varieties of Spanish: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. II International Colloquium of the EDICE Program] (pp. 165–180). EDICE. Kaul de Marlangeon, S. (2008). Tipología del comportamiento verbal descortés en español [Typology of impolite verbal behavior in Spanish]. In A. Briz, A. Hidalgo, M. Albelda, J. Contreras, & N. Hernández Flores (Eds.), Cortesía y conversación: de lo escrito a lo oral. III Coloquio Internacional del Programa EDICE [Courtesy and conversation: From the written to the oral. III International Colloquium of the EDICE Program] (pp. 254–266). Programa EDICE. Kaul de Marlangeon, S., & Cordisco, A. (2014). La descortesía verbal en el contexto políticoideológico de las redes sociales [Verbal impoliteness in the political-ideological context of social networks]. Revista De Filología De La Universidad De La Laguna, 32, 145–161. Kim Strandberg, J. (2013). Online newspapers’ readers’ comments—Democratic conversation platforms or virtual soapboxes? Comunicaçâo e Sociedade, 23, 132–152. Kooyers, J. (2015). The United States and Spain: A comparison of cultural values and behaviors and their implications for the multi-cultural workplace. Honors Projects, 399. http://scholarwo rks.gvsu.edu/honorsprojects/399 (accessed 31 January 2019). Leaptrott, N. (1996). Rules of the game: Global business protocol. Thomson Executive Press. Locher, M. A. (2006). Polite behaviour within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua, 25(1), 249–267. Locher, M. A., & Bousfield, D. (2008). Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language. In D. Bousfield, & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 1–13). Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In D. Bousfield, & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 77–99). Mouton de Gruyter. Mancera Rueda, A. (2015). Los estudios sobre (des)cortesía y actividades de imagen en las redes sociales: Notas para un estado de la cuestión [Studies on (im)politeness and image activities on social networks: Notes for a state of the art]. Textos En Proceso, 1, 50–70. Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge University Press. Moreno, A. I. (2008). The importance of comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 25–41). John Benjamins. Rius, M. (2012). ¿Somos malhablados? Fundeu: Fundación para el Español Urgente [Are we foul-mouthed? Fundeu: Foundation for urgent Spanish]. http://www.fundeu.es/noticias-articu los-somos-malhablados-6865.html (31 January 2019). Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Mico, J., Diaz Noci, J., Meso, K., & Masip, P. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. International Journal of Press/ Politics, 16(4), 463–487. Santos Carretero, C. (2011). Insultos y expresiones malsonantes en la clase de ELE [Insults and rude expressions in the ELE class]. Revista Electrónica de Didáctica del Español Lengua Extranjera: redELE, 23. http://www.educacion.gob.es/dctm/redele/Material-RedEle/Revista/2011_ 23/2011_redELE_23_26Carlos%20Santos.pdf?documentId=0901e72b8101ef34 (accessed 14 January 2019). Schiffrin, D. (1991). El análisis de la conversación [The analysis of conversation]. In Panorama de la Lingüística moderna de la Universidad de Cambridge. El lenguaje: contexto sociocultural [Overview of modern linguistics from the University of Cambridge. Language: Sociocultural context] 4, 299–323. Visor. Schnurr, S., & Holmes, J. (2005). Politeness, humour and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 121–149.

202

R. M. Pacheco-Baldó

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Crosscultural perspectives on self-in-group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338. Tur, G., Marín, V., & Carpenter, J. (2017). Uso de Twitter en Educación Superior en España y Estados Unidos [Use of Twitter in higher education in Spain and the United States]. Comunicar, 51, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.3916/C51-2017-02 United States Census Bureau. (2018). Quick facts: Sacramento City, California, United States. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sacramentocitycalifornia , US/PST045218 (accessed 10 February 2019). Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media and Society, 9(5), 849–869. Würt, E. (2006). Intercultural communication on web sites: A cross-cultural analysis of web sites from high-context cultures and low-context cultures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 274–299. Xie, C., & Yus, F. (2017). An internet dialogue on internet pragmatics. Foreign Language and Literature Studies, 34(2), 75–92.

Strategic Impoliteness in E-commerce Communication: How Online Shops Challenge Negative Customer Reviews Jingli Chen and Dezheng Feng

Abstract (Im)politeness research has focused on how communicative strategies are employed in face-to-face communication, and scant attention has been paid to digital communication or computer-mediated communication (CMC), particularly with regard to impoliteness and rapport-building failure in CMC. This study addresses this gap by investigating e-shop representatives’ asynchronous responses to customers’ critical reviews on the Internet-based Taobao, one of the biggest ecommerce platforms in China. A total of 102 responses which challenge the critical reviews on the 14 most popular e-shops are annotated drawing on impoliteness theories and impression management theories. The analysis shows that the e-retailers battle against the negative reviews through three strategies: (1) challenging the critical reviews, (2) blaming the reviewers, and (3) defending the e-shops. It is found that defending the e-shops is the most prevalent, which can be further realized through (1) expressing self-compassion, (2) defending the e-shop representatives, and (3) promoting the goods and services. The study concludes that the strategic use of impoliteness in this particular e-commerce platform renders e-shop representatives an opportunity to (re)negotiate the impression and (re)construct the customer-business relations. Keywords Impoliteness · Impression management · Customer-business relations · E-commerce review response · Computer-mediated communication

J. Chen (B) School of English Studies, Zhejiang International Studies University, Hangzhou, China e-mail: [email protected] D. Feng Department of English and Communication, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Xie (ed.), Advancing (Im)politeness Studies, Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37064-9_11

203

204

J. Chen and D. Feng

1 Introduction With the advent of Web 2.0 technologies, consumer-generated media (CGM), mainly in the form of online reviews, offer a platform where consumers can spread and exchange their electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) statements, very often negative comments, to millions of potential customers asynchronously (Litvin & Hoffman, 2012). Negative comments, in particular, may directly or indirectly reshape future consumers’ purchase decisions (Park et al., 2007) and ultimately affect a company’s reputation and financial viability (Sparks & Bradley, 2017). Consequently, companies should maximize the benefits and minimize the negative impacts of online reviews with appropriate responses so as to restore the damaged reputation caused by the negative comments (Litvin & Hoffman, 2012). In this context, studies of how to remedy the relationship and manage rapport have become an important topic in business and corporate communication research. In business communication research, previous literature on online review responses has focused on how to remedy the relationship and manage the rapport between the respondents and reviewers by identifying and investigating various types of responses and their impact on consumer attitudes and behaviors. Most studies are concerned with the hospitality and tourism industries (e.g., Kniesel et al., 2015; Litvin & Hoffman, 2012; Sparks et al., 2016), and few have investigated the ecommerce shopping platforms (e.g., Van Noort & Willemsen, 2012). In addition, whereas the existing literature investigates the positive side of politeness strategies, in particular, strategies to achieve service recovery and manage rapport with dissatisfied customers (e.g., Ho, 2017a, 2017b), this study focuses on a rarely-touched field of review responses which deliberately challenge customers’ negative reviews and seemingly damage rapport with reviewers by using impoliteness strategies. Recent studies on impoliteness have emphasized that what counts as impolite is not only contained within language itself but is enacted in context—in other words, “the situational and discourse context determines the interpretation of utterances” (Angouri & Tseliga, 2010: 58). Therefore, it is crucial to align the current study with a socially situated approach to the study of (im)politeness in general and impoliteness in e-commerce platforms in particular. It addresses this issue by looking at e-shop representatives’ impolite responses to negative comments based on the data collected from Taobao, the biggest e-commerce platform operated by Alibaba Group. In what follows, we will first introduce the theoretical background. After that, we will develop a coding scheme and analyze review responding strategies. Finally, we conclude how the theoretical integration of different research strands can offer a thorough understanding of the linguistic choices in the review response genre as well as why certain choices are made in the specific socio-cultural context.

Strategic Impoliteness in E-commerce Communication: How Online …

205

2 Theoretical Background 2.1 Impoliteness in General The conceptualization of (im)politeness in discourse has attracted considerable attention in pragmatics during the past decade. On the one hand, speakers resort to various linguistic strategies to protect and maintain an addressee’s face (Brown & Levinson, 1987), while, on the other hand, they may also deliberately employ a communicative strategy to create social conflict with the addressee and cause disharmony (Limberg, 2009). Our study focuses on how impoliteness is represented in conflict talks. Conflict talks, or conflictive illocutions as termed by Leech (1983), though not frequently happen in daily situations, play a central role in scenarios like army training discourse, courtroom discourse, and so on (Culpeper et al., 2003). In these cases, a speaker may deliberately employ offensive communicative strategies, or rudeness (Kasper, 1990), to create social conflicts with the listener and cause disharmony between the interlocutors (Limberg, 2009: 1376). Culpeper (2008) notes that the use of rudeness to gain power is related to Brown and Levison’s (1987) negative face and Spencer-Oatey’s (2008) concept of equity rights. Culpeper (2005: 38) suggests that “impoliteness comes about when: (1) the speaker communicates face attack intentionally, or (2) the hearer perceives and constructs behavior as intentionally face-attack, or a combination of (1) and (2).” From this definition, we can see that impoliteness is constructed through the interaction between the speaker and the hearer (Culpeper, 2005). In a similar vein, Holmes et al., (2008: 196) define impoliteness as “linguistic behavior assessed by the hearer as threatening her or his face or social identity, and infringing the norms of appropriate behavior that prevail in particular contexts and among particular interlocutors, whether intentionally or not.” Concerning the specific strategies to realize impoliteness, Lachenicht (1980) proposes four aggravation superstrategies including off record, bald on record, positive aggravation, and negative aggravation. Contrary to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) five superstrategies for performing a particular face-threatening act (hereafter FTA), Culpeper (1996: 356–357) presents a framework of impoliteness superstrategies including “bald-on-record impoliteness,” “positive impoliteness,” “negative impoliteness,” “sarcasm or mock politeness,” and “withhold politeness.” Bousfield (2007: 2187) suggests that “for impoliteness to be considered successful impoliteness, the intention of the speaker (or ‘author’) to ‘offend’ (threaten/damage face) must be understood by those in a receiver role.” Bousfield (2008) further looks into two overarching tactics of on record impoliteness and off record impoliteness. However, most of the studies mentioned above were based on face-to-face communication (e.g., Bousfield, 2007), instead of online personal communication or corporate communication.

206

J. Chen and D. Feng

2.2 Impoliteness in CMC and Review Response Genre There has been growing research on how impoliteness is received and how conflicts emerge in online settings (Graham & Hardaker, 2017). Most of the previous research on digital impoliteness focuses on examining “the context-bound nature of communicative strategies adopted by the interactants in order to deliberately do impoliteness” and analyzing “how impoliteness is lexicalized in relation to the inherent characteristics of the CMC context” (Angouri & Tseliga, 2010: 57). Some of them aim to explore the computer-mediated identity construction (e.g., Baker, 2001; Graham, 2015) and some others on netiquette (e.g., Shea, 1994), which cover digital platforms such as email, blogs, SMS, and social media. What makes online communication unique is that non-verbal cues, which can be regularly used in face-to-face contexts to “clarify meaning and negotiate (im)politeness” are unavailable. There is an urgent need to examine digital impoliteness separately (Graham & Hardaker, 2017: 794) and to focus on the text-based linguistic features in computer-mediated communication. One area that catches considerable attention and is related to our study is the review response genre. Existing research into this genre mainly investigates two aspects (Ho, 2017b): the components of the genre by using move analysis (e.g., Sparks & Bradley, 2017), and its communicative effectiveness in achieving service recovery (e.g., Levy et al., 2013). For instance, Sparks and Bradley (2017: 5) categorize the moves of the genre into three patterns named as “Triple A” typology: (1) Acknowledgement: thank, appreciate, apologize, recognize, admit, accept, dismiss; (2) Account: excuse, justify, reframe, penitential, denial, and (3) Action: investigate, referral, rectify, policy, training, direct contact, compensate. An example for evaluating the effectiveness of the genre is Levy et al. (2013), which analyzes the hotel review response genre in the US and finds that “the use of appreciation and apology would result in a hotel being rated highly by online reviewers” (Ho, 2017a: 35). Ho (2017a) identifies three obligatory moves (acknowledging the problem, expressing feeling, and thanking reviewer) of travelers’ review responses posted on various travel websites and draws upon the rapport management theory (Spencer-Oatey, 2008) to argue that the moves can achieve service recovery by enhancing the rapport between the hotel management and the dissatisfied reviewers. A gap is that previous literature focuses mainly on rapport management but not on giving offenses, which will be explored in this study.

2.3 Identity, Impression Management, and Relationships in CMC In human interaction, whether online or offline, the purposes of what people do may include creating an identity for themselves and developing a relationship with their assumed audience (Graham & Hardaker, 2017). “Identity in many respects is shaped by language, and conversely, language choice may relate to identity” (Ige,

Strategic Impoliteness in E-commerce Communication: How Online …

207

2010: 3047). The anonymity and physical separation of cyberspace enable the users to control their virtual identities in different ways from face-to-face communication (Androutsopoulos, 2006; Graham & Hardaker, 2017). One notion closely related to identity construction is impression management, which was initially presented in Goffman’s (1959) classic book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. According to Goffman (1959), the self is constructed through verbal and non-verbal cues given off with a specific purpose of designing an intended impression. Many studies on impression management target at individual levels (e.g., Barsness et al., 2005), mainly in the contexts of “job interview and performance appraisal” (Bolino et al., 2008: 1089). Other studies focus on how organizational representatives intentionally employ impression management strategies to construct their organizational identity and influence others’ perception of the organization as a whole (e.g., Elsbach, 1994; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006). The organizations may also adopt various impression management strategies to prevent controversial issues or complaints from happening (e.g., Arndt & Bigelow, 2000), and to accomplish a wide range of organizational objectives (e.g., Bansal & Kistruck, 2006). For instance, Jones and Pittman (1982) identify five theoretical classifications of impression management strategies based on specific individual behaviors, which include self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication. More recent studies of impression management have shifted their research focus from face-to-face communication to online discourses (e.g., Zhao et al., 2008). For example, some scholars such as Krämer and Winter (2008) explore the factors that influence individual users’ self-presentation and self-disclosure on the German social media site, StudiVZ.net, and find that selfefficacy about impression management is strongly connected with the number of virtual friends, the level of profile detail, and the style of the personal photo. Lillqvist and Louhiala-Salminen’s (2014: 3) study reveals the complexity of corporate impression management through examining “interaction between corporate representatives and critical consumers” on the corporate Facebook pages. They identify three types of impression management strategies that corporate representatives employed to uphold social acceptability: “(1) conventional politeness, (2) moral discourses, and (3) diversion” as well as three more strategies to promote credibility, including “(a) category entitlement and stake, (b) varying footings, and (c) ridicule” (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014: 12–15). To sum up, although there has been growing research on (im)politeness or impression management separately, there has been less research that integrates the two systemically (e.g., Graham, 2007, 2015). Therefore, taking online (im)politeness as the point of departure, this paper addresses this gap by drawing on existing (im)politeness theories and impression management theories to identify the linguistic features of impoliteness in the data and explain the communicative purpose of impression management. It focuses on responses that are perceived as impolite and conflictual as suggested by the uptake of the interactants in the data. The analysis can provide insights for identifying and analyzing (im)politeness to serve the purpose of impression management and business-customer relationship building.

208

J. Chen and D. Feng

3 Data and Analytical Method This study collected data from Taobao.com, the largest and most popular online shopping platform in China. Among the 12 general product categories on Taobao, 6 of them are randomly selected based on an online Random Choice Generator.1 In each category, one or two shops are chosen according to their sales volume on the specific date of 6 July 2017. In total, 102 instances of responses disagreeing with the reviewers’ evaluation are identified from 14 shops, consisting of 15,684 Chinese characters. To avoid subjective interpretations and guarantee the accuracy of analysis, the two authors co-coded 30% of all the 102 instances of responses, accounting for 30 instances for inter-rater checking. The inter-coder agreement was above 90% and differences were resolved through discussion. In addition, as the websites are open to the public, we consider it ethically acceptable to use the data for research purpose (Buchanan, 2003). Furthermore, in order to protect the privacy of each e-shop, the actual names and specific information that could identify the e-shops are avoided. In this study, impoliteness research (Culpeper, 2005), Impression Management Taxonomy (Jones & Pittman, 1982), and the Appraisal system (Martin & White, 2005) are used as theoretical basis for analyzing the critical attitudes in the data. The specific attitudes in each category are then realized through various semiotic discursive strategies. To identify the specific linguistic features in the data, two levels of coding were conducted (cf. Ho, 2017a). Level 1 was aimed at “reducing or simplifying the data” (Dörnyei, 2007: 250) by identifying the “initial, usually descriptive and low-inference codes” such as the sub-strategies of denying, ridiculing, and recounting in the data. Then those Level 1 codes are categorized and replaced by ‘higher-order pattern codes’ of Level 2 (Dörnyei, 2007: 251). In this case, three broad Level 2 categories were found to be significant in examining e-shop representatives’ responses concerning multiple aspects of the contents and targets of the reviews: (1) challenging the critical reviews; (2) blaming the reviewer; and (3) defending themselves. The definitions of each category are elucidated as follows. First, in the category of challenging the critical reviews, e-shop representatives refute the reviewers’ claims by challenging the validity and logic of the reviews, including (1) denying, which means disagreeing explicitly with the reviewers’ evaluation of the product/the services, or their report of a certain issue (Ho, 2017a, 2017b); (2) ridiculing or “sarcasm (mock politeness for social disharmony)” (Culpeper, 1996: 357), implicitly challenging the internal logic of the reviews so as to undermine others’ credibility as well as to promote their credibility (Lillqvist & LouhialaSalminen, 2014); and (3) reiterating or recounting the issues mentioned in the negative reviews by implicitly restating the facts. Second, in the category of blaming the reviewer, e-shop representatives respond overtly or covertly to the (negative) comments by challenging the credibility of the reviewers, which can be coded into (1) swearing: using taboo words or negative judgment to convey anger towards the reviewers (Dynel, 2012); (2) recounting the reviewers’ past behaviors: describing what the reviewers have done as an implicit 1

Available at https://www.textfixer.com/tools/random-choice.php.

Strategic Impoliteness in E-commerce Communication: How Online …

209

Table 1 Coding scheme for e-shop representatives’ response strategies Impoliteness strategies

Definitions

Sub-strategies

Challenging the critical reviews

E-shop representatives’ responses that provide (negative) comments on the sources and contents of the reviews

Denying

E-shop representatives’ responses that provide (negative) comments on the credibility of the reviewers

Swearing

E-shop representatives’ responses that provide (positive) comments on the credibility of themselves and the e-shops to make justification

Expressing self-compassion or supplication

Blaming the reviewer

Defending e-shops

Ridiculing Reiterating or recounting the events

Recounting the reviewers’ past behaviors Intimidating

Exemplification Self-promotion

denial; (3) intimidating: threatening not to do business with them and jeopardizing the relationships as a resultant action motivated by the attitude (Jones & Pittman, 1982). The third category of defending e-shops refers to e-shop representatives’ responses that provide (positive) comments on the credibility of themselves and the e-shops to make justification, which includes: (1) self-compassion or supplication (Jones & Pittman, 1982): expressing their difficulty, weakness, or vulnerability such as their shop operates in low profits; (2) exemplification (Jones & Pittman, 1982): expressing their honesty by saying the shop owners are of high credit and willing to solve the problem, which set up a role model in the industry; and (3) self-promotion (Jones & Pittman, 1982): justifying their goods and services by saying they are of high-quality and popular. The categories are summarized in Table 1.

4 Findings 4.1 Overview An overview of the general responsive and sub-strategies is shown in Fig. 1. In terms of the general responsive strategies, the most frequent response is defending the eshops (N03 = 73), the second is criticizing the reviewers (N02 = 59), and the last one is challenging the questionable reviews (N01 = 28).

210

J. Chen and D. Feng Negative Comments (N0=102)

Challenge the critical reviews

Blame the reviewer

Defend the e-shops

(N01=28)

(N02=59)

(N03=73)

Deny

Ridicule Reiterate the

(N11=6) (N12=7)

issues (N13=15)

Express negative Exemplification Recount the Self-promoting Intimidate Supplication judgments action behaviors (N31=5) (N33=43) (N23=12) (N22=36) (N32=25) (N21=11)

Fig. 1 An overview of e-shop representatives’ responsive strategies

4.2 Defending the E-shops To “counter face attack by defending one’s own face” is regarded as a defensive strategy (Culpeper et al., 2003: 1562), which is the most frequent Level 2 pattern, appearing in 73 responses (N03 = 73). Different types of attitudes towards defending the e-shops or shop representatives are realized through the following specific substrategies: (1) expressing self-compassion in 5 out of the 73 responses (N31 = 5, 7%); (2) expressing their honesty by saying the shop owners are of high credit and willing to solve the problem (N32 = 25, 34%); (3) justifying their goods and services by saying they are of high-quality and popular (N33 = 43, 59%), which can be seen in Table 2. First, 59% of the responses in this category are related to promoting the products and the shops as a whole, which are strategically designed to legitimize the social status and reputation of the e-shops. In order to defend the reputation of the shops, the majority of the responses claim explicitly that the shop has a long history, as in “ 十多年老店 (a shop with more than ten years’ history)”, is officially accredited, as in “这款产品有防伪认证 (This product has anti-counterfeiting authentication)”, and has a huge number of positive reviews, as in “累计数量好评都5万了 (The accumulated number of good reviews has already reached 50,000).” They would also highlight their remarkable sales volumes as in “一个月销量6万多, 淘宝排行前4 (The monthly sales volume is more than 60,000, ranking top 4 on Taobao.com).” Some shop representatives would promote their products in an implicit way by emphasizing the authenticity of the product quality, such as 植物萃取,没有人工香精香料 (extracted from plants, without artificial flavors and fragrances),” giving scientific explanations, as in “因为里面有一种成份是丁二醇, 是化妆品普遍添加的一种柔 肤成分 (There is an ingredient called butanediol, which is a skin softening ingredient commonly added to cosmetics),” or offering instructions for use, as in “正确

Strategic Impoliteness in E-commerce Communication: How Online …

211

Table 2 Defending the e-shops Sub-strategy

Description

Frequency (N03 = 73, 100%)

Examples of lexical features

Expressing self-compassion and supplication

Expressing in a humble way to show their difficulty and helplessness

5 (7%)

Xiao Dian meaning small-scale shop We are in deficit by offering high-quality goods at low prices … Customers are God …

Exemplification

Showing the shop owners’ honesty and good attitude towards customers

25 (34%)

We will try our best to … We guarantee that …

Self-promotion

Justifying the 43 (59%) reputation of the shops

Our goods are imported from overseas factories directly and under serious quality check … 100% authentic materials … Please be confident in our products

使用眼药水 1、先洗手… 2、躺着滴… (Use eye drops correctly by first washing the hands and then lying down …)”. Especially when concerning fake products or poor services, which are issues that bother a lot of potential customers in online shopping, e-shop owners’ attitudes are explicitly expressed, and follow-up measures are immediately offered as shown in “支持验货假一赔三…可以直接到国家质检 局官网上去查真伪 (We offer triple compensation for one fake product … you can check the authenticity directly on the official website of the AQSIQ),” which guarantees the after-sale service and quality inspection so as to eliminate the doubts of future buyers. The second most frequent sub-strategy in this category is defending the staff of the e-shops, be it shop owners or representatives. This is realized mainly through overtly and positively emphasizing that they are responsible as in “我们客服都是很负责任 的 (our customer services are all very responsible),” hardworking as in “我们一直 很努力在做品质服务 (We are always working hard in offering services with highquality),” and offer satisfactory services as in “我们将一如既往的为您提供优质、 时尚、高性价比的服务 (We will always provide you with high-quality, fashionable, and cost-effective services),” all of which show the goodwill and determination of the e-shops to achieve service recovery and restore the confidence of future purchase. There are five responses related to the Level 1 pattern of self-deprecating expressions by calling the e-shops “Xiao Dian” or “small business.” Such a kind of selfdenigration is a typical example of politeness in historical and contemporary Chinese (Gu, 1990; Pan & Kadar, 2011). But in this context, the shop owners wanted to make a sharp contrast between the power of the reviewer and themselves in order to express that the reviewer is so mean that the negative review would threaten their vulnerable

212

J. Chen and D. Feng

slim-profit SMALL shops to go bankrupt, which is like adding salt to the wound as in “我们小店铺中差评这样的威胁, 我们承受不起 (Our small business cannot afford the threat of bad reviews).” Therefore, the seeming politeness indicates the shop owner’s criticism towards the reviewer, which became impolite in this sense.

4.3 Blaming the Reviewers The second most frequent Level 2 pattern of responses targets the reviewers (N02 = 59), which is regarded as offensive strategies to counter face attack with face attack as proposed by Culpeper et al. (2003). The blame can be further divided into three sub-strategies: swearing at the reviewers (N21 = 11), recounting the reviewers’ past behaviors (N22 = 36), and taking resultant actions (N23 = 12), as shown in Table 3. In this category, the most frequent strategy observed in the data is recounting reviewers’ behavior, accounting for 61%. Compared to the explicit criticism by swearing, this implicit accounting can moderate its face-threatening effects. Most of the respondents would reflect on the reviewers’ mistaken purchase behaviors as in “亲是尺码拍错 (You ordered the wrong size),” their irresponsible and groundless rating performance as in “能不能用完, 用心体会再评论呢? (Can you review it carefully after you use it up),” and their improper behaviors in handling the products as in “你产品全部盒子扔了, 还用了一周了 (All the boxes of your products have been thrown away and the products have been used for a week).” Based on those accounts, the reviewers are depicted as irresponsible, arrogant, and bad-tempered, which helps to delegitimize their reviews. Second, the strategy of explicit swearing, accounting for 20% in this category, is adopted to challenge the reviewers’ morality and trustworthiness in order to decrease Table 3 Blaming the reviewers Sub-strategy

Description

Swearing

Explicitly doubting the 12 (20%) reviewers’ credibility and trustworthiness

You are a liar. You must be hired by our competitors to ruin our reputation on purpose … You are talking nonsense …

Recounting the reviewers’ past behaviors

Implicitly describing what the reviewers have done in the past

36 (61%)

You deliberately rejected our phone calls … It is you that wrote the wrong address and failed to receive the package …

Intimidating as a resultant action

Threatening not to do business with the reviewers again

11 (19%)

We will not do business with you anymore… Don’t show up again!

Frequency (N02 = 59, 100%)

Examples of lexical features

Strategic Impoliteness in E-commerce Communication: How Online …

213

the reliability of their accounts. Attitudinal words such as the use of “贼 (thief )” in “贼喊抓贼倒打一耙之人 (You are the thief who is pretending to catch the thief ),” “傻 ( foolish)” in “你是傻子吗 (Are you a fool?),” and “喷子 (troll)” in “十足的 网络喷子 (a complete internet troll)” usually appear at the very beginning of the response to set the tone for the whole response and is accompanied by recounting the reviewers’ past deeds. In some cases, the respondent would overtly point out that the reviewer must be their competitor who wrote the negative reviews deliberately to damage their reputation such as “同行恶意差评 (a bad review from a malicious competitor).” Another interesting strategy as frequent as swearing is that sometimes the e-shop representatives are too angry to make a defense, so they will threaten not to do business with these reviewers anymore in a humorous or sarcastic way by using (1) network buzzwords such as those underlined expressions in “我们服了U, 欢迎你远 离 (We give up on you. Feel free to stay away),” “键盘侠慢走 (Keyboard warrior, hit the road)” and “哥只是传说, 慢走不送 (Brother, you are just a myth. Take your leave and no need for a farewell),” or (2) overpolite words which are used in a sarcastic way, such as the use of “恭送 (send sb away with great respect)” in “我们恭送你 离开 (We send you away with great respect)” to explicitly show their aversion to those irresponsible or immoral reviewers and hope they will not show up again in their shops. Meanwhile, it also represents the e-shop representatives’ determination to prove that those reviewers are lying, so they would rather lose the business than surrendering to their bully.

4.4 Challenging the Critical Reviews Another counter-attack strategy is to challenge the critical reviews, which are the least frequently used compared with the previous two categories. One thing worth mentioning is that this strategy never appears alone; instead, it is integrated into the other two. It can be further realized through explicit denying (n11 = 6), ridiculing (n12 = 7), and reiterating (n13 = 15) as shown in Table 4. As the most frequent strategy for criticizing negative responses, reiterating (accounting for 64% in this category) is adopted by e-shop representatives to justify their own behaviors or products questioned in the negative reviews. In an attempt to “avoid further attention to the issues that could cause consumers to have a negative impression of the company by undermining its social acceptability” (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014: 14), only issues mentioned in the previous negative reviews were raised again as shown in “大家都看下他自己也上图了 (Look at the picture that he has uploaded).” Another typical strategy of making accounts is to directly refer to the previous chat record between the customer service and the reviewers, as shown in Extract 1, which shows a chat record between a customer named ZJ and an e-shop customer service called MAX. The record was posted by MAX as a response to ZJ’s negative review. It reconstructed the past events in their original state with the exact time and dates that they chatted, which echoes the

214

J. Chen and D. Feng

Table 4 Challenging the critical reviews Sub-strategy

Description

Frequency (N01 = 28)

Examples of lexical features

Denying

Refusal to admit the problems pointed out in the customer reviews

6 (21%)

What you commented is totally a lie … You have completely distorted the fact that … The negative review was written irresponsibly …

Ridiculing

Expressions of laughter, teasing, or sarcasm

7 (25%)

What you said is ridiculous and irrational … It is insane to say that …

Reiterating

Recounting the information and clarifying facts

15 (54%)

The fact is that … What actually happened is that

warranting principle that information becomes more credible in online contexts if that information cannot be easily manipulated by the one in question and in this way, the response tries to maintain a sense of objectivity and fights back through facts. Extract 1 (Offensive—Reiterate) ZJ (2016–11-12 15:35:23):这个谁注意啊, 应该一个礼拜之内吧。MAX:亲爱的, 那不会是产品问题。如果是产品问题的话, 使用第一次后十几分钟内肯定就会 有反映的哦… ZJ (2016-11-12 15:53:02):那怎么刚好用你这产品出现这问题呢? MAX (2016-11-12 15:53:14):怎么会刚好呢… ZJ (2016-11-12 15:53:28):你这是 什么态度呢…MAX(2016-11-12 15:53:41):忧伤我们只是在实事求是说话呢… Translation: ZJ (2016-11-12 15:35:23): Who knows! It should be within a week. Max (2016-11-12 15:36:00): Dear, it shouldn’t be the problem of our product. If it were, there should have been rashes immediately after several minutes the first time you used it … ZJ (2016-11-12 15:53:02): Then why it happened to be your product? MAX (2016-11-12 15:53:14): How can it be just my product? … ZJ (2016-11-12 15:53:28): What is your attitude? … MAX: (2016-11-12 15:53:41): SAD! We are only telling the truth … The second most frequent strategy is ridiculing, by which e-shop representatives responded to the negative remarks ironically and allow the reviewers who wrote the negative reviews to “arrive at the offensive point of the remark indirectly, by way of an implicature” (Leech, 1983: 82). This is realized mostly through claiming the irrelevance and absurdity in the negative reviews as in “真的是笑了, 这是别家的照 片 (It is really ridiculous. This is another shop’s photo).” Another notable example is the use of Chinese network buzzwords, in particular, the phrase “呵呵 (hehe),” which is originally a mimetic word for a chuckle but obtains its new meaning of sarcastic laugh, implying embarrassment or speechlessness in online communication. This

Strategic Impoliteness in E-commerce Communication: How Online …

215

word is considered the most hurtful word in online chat, which appeared five times in the sampled texts. Denying, though only appears six times in the data, is presented at the very beginning and as the initial response to controversial reviews (Elsbach, 1994). It is realized through attitudinal lexis, in particular, adjectives (i.e., derogatory words such as deceitful and devious) as in “无稽之谈 (groundless statement)” and explicit emotional display in terms of multiple exclamations as in “莫名其妙!!!!! (Nonsense!!!!!).” It aims to criticize the absence of rationality as in “如此没理的 差评 (What an irrational negative review),” to disclose its malicious intention as in “恶意的差评 (malicious negative review),” and to question the authenticity of the review’s contents as in “纯属扯淡 (bullshit).” Denying can give potential customers and viewers a direct and immediate impression that what the negative reviews stated is wrong and misleading.

4.5 Concurrence of Different Strategies Denying is usually mixed with the other two strategies and functions as an elicitation of further arguments towards the reviewers and the e-shops. For example, in Extract 2, the strategy of denying “莫名其妙!!!!! (Nonsense!!!!!)” shows up at the beginning of the review and is combined with the strategy of recounting the reviewer’s previous behaviors as in “至今电话不接旺旺不应 (Up till now, he has not answered the phone and replied in Wangwang)” and the e-shop representatives’ responsive attitude as in “我们有售后随时恭候 (We have customer service waiting all the time).” Extract 2 (Offensive: Denying) 莫名其妙!!!!!具体什么一塌糊涂, 至今电话不接旺旺不应…若有什么问题可以 来联系, 我们有售后随时恭候。 Translation: Nonsense!!!!! What a mess! Up till now, he has not answered the phone or replied in Wangwang … If there is any problem, we have customer service waiting all the time. As demonstrated in Extract 2, a respondent seldom uses a single strategy in response. Instead, it is usually a combination of multiple strategies to form what Culpeper et al. (2003: 1561) defined as “a parallelism (a perceptually prominent pattern where some features are held constant and others may vary).” As a result, the sum of the reviews adopting each strategy (N(01, 02, 03) = 160) is much larger than that of the total reviews (N0 = 102). To take a closer look, the most typical combination is criticizing the reviewer’s irresponsible behavior and defending the credibility of e-shops at the same time, which accounts for 30% of the total responses (see Table 5). That is, often when the e-shop representatives pointed out the wrong deeds of the reviewers, they would also emphasize their own reliability and newsworthiness, which left a sharp contrast between the two parties as in “假货你会留着用么, 我们请你退货都 不退, 这是对我们正品的最好证明, 也是你自掌自个大嘴巴哟 (If our product is

216

J. Chen and D. Feng

fake, why would you refuse to return the product as required by us? This is the best proof that our product is of authenticity and you are a big liar).” In this example, the reviewer refused to return the product as required by the e-shop when he claimed that the product was fake. Thus, the e-shop responder refuted that this was the best proof of the quality of their products. The second most frequent combination covers the review, the reviewer, and the e-shops (11% of all the responses). The reviewer is always the first one to be blamed for his malicious intention as in “你如果不作贼, 你 心虚什么? (If you are not a thief, why do you feel guilty?),” groundless criticism as in “那你完全不调查, 直接论断真假 (you made judgment directly without thorough investigation),” and deliberate avoidance of problem negotiation as in “想回访下 你的使用情况, 你直接说不是本人就挂了电话 (We wanted to make a follow-up phone call, but you hung up the phone the moment you picked it up saying you were not the user of the product).” Immediately after this strategy is the quality guarantee from the e-shop and resolution to combat fake products as in “产品保 证正品, 假货证明开来假一赔三 (Products are guaranteed to be genuine. If you can prove the product is fake, we will compensate triple for one).” After presenting arguments with these two defensive strategies combined, it is natural to arrive at the conclusion that the content of the negative review is unreliable and misleading. However, the least frequent strategy combination to be found is the combination of criticizing the reviewers and challenging the authenticity of the review contents at the same time. Only six examples are found. For example, in Extract 3, the underlined parts illustrate the reviewer’s behaviors with bad-intentions, and then the second part without underlines concluded that the negative review was malicious. There are also six instances of combining the strategy of denying the review contents as well as the strategy of defending the e-shops as shown in Extract 4. In the underlined parts of Extract 4, it accounts for the reviewer’s uncooperative response to the eshop customer service investigation which leads to the suspect that the reviewer is a competitor, or the review is malicious. Extract 3 货都还没收到就直接差评…这个淘宝号本人完全不知道怎么回事, 说是别人 拿他淘宝号买的, 然后发这个截图叫他这样评论的…这是一条有心恶意的差 评。 Translation: you wrote the negative review even before you received the product … The person who had this Taobao ID had no idea what was going on. He said that Table 5 Combination of different responding targets

Strategies

No. (Total: 102)

Frequency (%)

P+R+S

11

11

P+R

6

6

P+S

31

30

R+S

6

6

Note P refers to reviewers; R refers to reviews; S refers to e-shops

Strategic Impoliteness in E-commerce Communication: How Online …

217

someone bought the product with his ID and then sent him a screenshot asking him to comment like this … This is a malicious negative review. Extract 4 打你电话想问清原因不接, 发短信不回, 发旺旺问你什么原因也不回。真让人怀 疑你是同行, 或是恶意评价。 Translation: We called you to ask about the reasons of negative review, but you refused to answer the call. You also refused to reply our text message and Wangwang message. It makes us suspect that you are a competitor, or the review is intentionally malicious.

5 Discussion To fully understand one’s motivation of articulation, we not only focus on the decontextualized knowledge of linguistic features such as “speech intonation, phonology, syntax, and semantics” but “also need to recognize the implications embedded in the context of every speech discourse” (Tang, 2016: 113). On the general contextual level, the computer-mediated and asynchronous features of e-commerce platforms play a part in making diverse types of impolite responses possible. The time delays between the reviews and the responses also reduce normative social pressure (Bordia, 1997), so that the e-shop representatives’ impolite strategies are “easier to implement and more acceptable” (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014: 22). This section will go beyond the surface structure of the linguistic performance and examine the context-bound nature of communicative strategies adopted by the e-shop representatives in order to deliberately do impoliteness. It explains why the e-shop representatives strategically appropriate linguistic impoliteness to verbally create their virtual impression and maintain/damage customer relations.

5.1 The Impression of E-shop Representatives: Personal or Corporate? First, in most cases of identity construction and impression management, the eshop representatives use personal verbal accounts or explanations such as expressing personal emotions as in “我也是醉了 (I am so speechless)” and regarding the product as personal belongings as in “我这个货没问题 (My product has no problem).” The use of personal or possessive pronouns such as “I” or “my” isolates the issue as an individual incident and distracts the public attention from the e-shop as a whole to the individual e-shop representative. Second, some other e-shop representatives referred to corporate norms such as “本店支持验货假一赔三 (Our store supports triple

218

J. Chen and D. Feng

compensation for every fake product inspected),” third-party supervision such as “授权经销商的渠道都有严格受品牌方监管 (The channels of authorized dealers are strictly supervised by the brand side),” or organizational announcements such as “我们在店铺首页购买须知有专门的公告说明(We have a special notice on the front page of our store website)” to improve the shop’s credibility and support their claims in a more formal way. The former strategies of using personal verbal accounts are regarded as a conversational human voice which “mimic [s] one-to-one communication and humaniz[es] the corporate voice,” while the latter of referring to cooperate norms are referred to as a professional voice by representing a more standard corporate response, “but limited in affective content” (Sparks et al., 2016: 77). In addition, the participative roles the e-shops take may influence whether people perceive them as reliable, for speakers take different roles to “vary their relationship to what they are saying (closer or more distant), thus varying their degree of accountability” (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014: 11–12). For instance, the use of the plural first-person pronoun “we” or the possessive pronoun “our” as “redressive devices of point-of-view distancing” (Tang, 2016: 117) project a formal corporate identity while the “I” or “me” responses represent an individual relationship (Ige, 2010). However, in most of our examples, the two perspectives are by no means entirely separate. Instead, they are more often intertwined as personalized corporate or corporatized personal identities. In fact, sometimes it is even impossible to interpret whether the representatives are voicing their own view or that of the company, “which undoubtedly gives them room to maneuver in case of differing opinions” (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014: 13). To sum up, linguistic impoliteness is strategically selected and designed by the respondents to construct certain types of impressions targeting at the complaining customers as well as future customers who read the online complaints. As suggested by Van Dijk (2006: 365), discursive power is exercised through “manipulating the minds of others, such as the knowledge, opinions and ideologies which in turn control their actions.” To the existing negative reviewers, the e-shop representatives responded in a manner, neither humble nor pert, to exercise the discursive power of impoliteness in order to disclose the malicious intention of these reviewers who might be fierce competitors in disguise, and to defend the reputation of their shops which is vulnerable to “defamatory information instantaneously across the world via social media, often under the guise of anonymity” (Dennis, 2013: 15). Most importantly, they intend to construct an image that cannot be easily threatened by those groundless negative reviews. Meanwhile, to the prospective customers, the e-shop representatives intended to legitimize their impolite behaviors and design a trustworthy image through rationalization of review contents, moralization of reviewers, and authorization of e-shops in an attempt to influence the purchase intention and decision making of those potential customers. Based on the analysis here, Table 6 provides a qualitative summary of potential impression designs pertaining to each category of impolite strategies discussed in the previous sections.

Strategic Impoliteness in E-commerce Communication: How Online …

219

Table 6 A summary of impression designs concerning different (im)politeness strategies Impression designs

Impoliteness strategies Challenging the critical reviews (Appreciation)

Blaming the reviewer (Judgement)

Defending e-shops (Affect)

Denying

To explicitly ensure that their products are worth purchasing and they are consistent in providing high-quality products and after-sale services

Ridiculing

To promote their own credibility by undermining the credibility of others (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014: 17)

Reiterating or recounting the events

To present his own view as factual and self-evident (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014: 18)

Swearing

To show that they are reasonable to be angry at those irresponsible or bad-intention reviewers

Recounting the reviewers’ past behaviors

To undermine the social acceptability of a consumer who disagrees with him (or the company) (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014: 13)

Intimidating

Invulnerable and not afraid of threats from competitors

Expressing self-compassion or supplication

Innocent, vulnerable, and facing fierce competition from counterparts so as to elicit an attribution of being needy from observers (Jones & Pittman, 1982)

Exemplification

Reliable and sincere to solve problems so as to gain the attribution of dedication from observers (Jones & Pittman, 1982)

Self-promotion

Eager to establish and maintain a good and close relationship with its customers (Ho, 2017a: 45)

5.2 Customer Relationships: Friends or Foes? To explain why e-shop representatives or owners responded to negative reviews in an impolite way, the notion of business-customer relationship should also be considered. Relational work, as defined in Locher and Watts (2005: 10), refers to “the ‘work’ individuals invest in negotiating relationships with others.” In the context of online reviews, appropriate responses are the “relational work” invested by the companies “to foster good public relations by assuring customers that their voices are

220

J. Chen and D. Feng

being heard, their complaints are taken seriously, and problems are being addressed” (Dekay, 2012: 290). On the one hand, “maintaining a dialogue—a conversation—with stakeholders is one way for companies to promote (although not guarantee) good relations” (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014: 5). The e-commerce platforms provide the customer and the shop representatives with dialogue and transactions in an interactive manner, “which leads to a more personalized communication style than that in traditional corporate communication” (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014: 22). The closer business-consumer relationship can add value to their degree of accountability (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014). “This shift toward a more conversational communication style moves corporate communication closer to interpersonal communication and makes way for warranting effects” (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014: 22). As shown in the data, the e-shop representatives adopt the second personal pronoun “你 (you)” or a very popular buzzword “亲 (dear)” to address the review, which creates an environment as if it is face-to-face communication and effectively shortens the distance in between. On the other hand, despite facing the continuous challenge of enhancing customer trust and building relationships with consumers, the e-shop representatives observed in the current study breached the golden principle that Customer is God and intentionally challenged the negative reviews which directly or indirectly threatened the reviewers’ face. This would ruin the relationships with the existing customers. However, “a successful counter-attack is one effective way of nullifying the imputed negative identity by showing one’s strength, competence, and courage” (Felson, 1978: 207). Drawing on impression management theories related to defensive tactics, it is reasonable to argue that e-shop representatives may attempt to distance themselves or blur their relationships with those unfavorable reviewers, who are regarded as unethical competitors or buyers (Andrews & Kacmar, 2001). The real targets are the “external audiences” or future customers (Felson, 1978: 205), who “may be absent yet [indirectly] associated with the impression manager” (Andrews & Kacmar, 2001: 143).

6 Conclusion To conclude, this study examines digital impoliteness in the context of Taobao, an online shopping platform in China. The analysis reveals salient impolite strategies that are specific to e-commerce review responses, which provide us with a better understanding of the nature of e-commerce communication. The results show that, unlike the usual way of replying politely, shop owners or representatives make critical remarks on the negative reviews by challenging the critical reviews (i.e., reiterating review contents), blaming the reviewers (i.e., recounting reviewers’ past purchase behaviors), and defending themselves (i.e., promoting products or e-shops

Strategic Impoliteness in E-commerce Communication: How Online …

221

as a whole). The online environment is different from the real world, where information asymmetry exists, and communication mainly relies on written words. Consequently, the shop owners have the inclination to adopt a strategically impolite way to challenge negative reviews and show their side of the story to readers of these reviews and potential customers, which sheds light on customer communication in e-commerce. Despite the value of the potential contribution of the current study to the computermediated communication of impoliteness, there are issues which can be addressed in future research. One suggestion for future research can be to extend the size and representativeness of the data. The current study only collected 102 negative responses based on a random selection from top-sale lists. Future research can analyze a larger number of responses from shops of different ratings based on various product categories.

References Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2001). Impression management by association: Construction and validation of a scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(1), 142–161. https://doi.org/10. 1006/jvbe.2000.1756 Androutsopoulos, J. (2006). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00286.x Angouri, J., & Tseliga, T. (2010). “You have no idea what you are talking about!”: From edisagreement to e-impoliteness in two online fora. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1), 57–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.004 Arndt, M., & Bigelow, B. (2000). Presenting structural innovation in an institutional environment: Hospitals’ use of impression management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 494–522. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667107 Baker, P. (2001). Moral panic and alternative identity construction in Usenet. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00136.x Bansal, P., & Kistruck, G. (2006). Seeing is (not) believing: Managing the impressions of the firm’s commitment to the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 165–180. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9021-9 Barsness, Z. I., Diekmann, K. A., & Seidel, M. D. L. (2005). Motivation and opportunity: The role of remote work, demographic dissimilarity, and social network centrality in impression management. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ. 2005.17407906 Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324325 Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the experimental literature. International Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 99–118. https://doi. org/10.1177/002194369703400106 Bousfield, D. (2007). Beginnings, middles and ends: A biopsy of the dynamics of impolite exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(12), 2185–2216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006. 11.005 Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. John Benjamins. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

222

J. Chen and D. Feng

Buchanan, E. (2003). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. In E. Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 27–44). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-152-0. ch002 Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 35–72. Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In D. Bousfield, & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 17-44). Mouton de Gruyter. Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10), 1545–1579. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2 Dekay, S. H. (2012). How large companies react to negative Facebook comments. Corporate Communications, 17(3), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281211253539 Dennis, C. M. (2013). Social media defamation and reputation management in the online agreement in the age. Journal of Internet Law, 17(6), 1–20. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press. Dynel, M. (2012). Swearing methodologically: The (im)politeness of expletives in anonymous commentaries on YouTube. Journal of English Studies, 10, 25–50. Elsbach, K. D. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 57–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393494 Felson, R. B. (1978). Aggression as impression management. Social Psychology, 41(3), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033557 Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books. Graham, S. L. (2007). Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computermediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 742–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma. 2006.11.017 Graham, S. L. (2015). Relationality, friendship, and identity in digital communication. In A. Georgakopoulou, & T. Spilioti (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication (pp. 305–320). Routledge. Graham, S. L., & Hardaker, C. (2017). (Im)politeness in digital communication. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 785–814). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_30 Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O Ho, V. (2017a). Achieving service recovery through responding to negative online reviews. Discourse & Communication, 11(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481316683292 Ho, V. (2017b). Giving offense and making amends: How hotel management attempts to manage rapport with dissatisfied customers. Journal of Pragmatics, 109, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.pragma.2016.12.001 Holmes, J., Marra, M., & Schnurr, S. (2008). Impoliteness and ethnicity: M¯aori and P¯akeh¯a discourse in New Zealand workplaces. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 193–219. https://doi.org/10. 1515/JPLR.2008.010 Ige, B. (2010). Identity and language choice: ‘We equals I’. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 3047– 3054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.018 Jones, E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. Psychological Perspectives on the Self, 1(1), 231–261. Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90080-W

Strategic Impoliteness in E-commerce Communication: How Online …

223

Kniesel, H., Waiguny, M. K. J., & Diehl, S. (2015). Effects of online review response strategies on attitudes toward the hotel. In P. Verlegh, H. Voorveld, & M. Eisend (Eds.), Advances in advertising research (Vol. VI, pp. 85–98). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-105 58-7_8 Krämer, N. C., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression management 2.0: The relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(3), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105.20.3.106 Lachenicht, L. G. (1980). Aggravating language: A study of abusive and insulting language. Papers in Linguistics, 13(4), 607–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818009370513 Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman. Levy, S. E., Duan, W., & Boo, S. (2013). An analysis of one-star online reviews and responses in the Washington, D.C., lodging market. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(1), 49–63. https://doi. org/10.1177/1938965512464513 Lillqvist, E., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2014). Facing Facebook: Impression management strategies in company-consumer interactions. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 28(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651913502359 Limberg, H. (2009). Impoliteness and threat responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1376–1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.003 Litvin, S., & Hoffman, L. M. (2012). Responses to consumer-generated media in the hospitality marketplace. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 18(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/135676 6712443467 Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9 Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. Pan, Y., & Kádár, D. Z. (2011). Historical vs. contemporary Chinese linguistic politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1525–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.018 Park, D., Lee, J., & Han, I. (2007). The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415110405 Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 433–458. https://doi.org/10. 5465/AMJ.2006.21794663 Shea, V. (1994). Netiquette. Albion Books. Sparks, B. A., & Bradley, G. L. (2017). A “Triple A” typology of responding to negative consumergenerated online reviews. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 41(6), 719–745. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1096348014538052 Sparks, B. A., So, K. K. F., & Bradley, G. L. (2016). Responding to negative online reviews: The effects of hotel responses on customer inferences of trust and concern. Tourism Management, 53, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.09.011 Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2008). Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (2nd ed.). Continuum. Tang, C. (2016). Managing criticisms in US-based and Taiwan-based reality talent contests. Pragmatics, 26(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.1.06tan Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17, 359-383. Van Noort, G., & Willemsen, L. M. (2012). Online damage control: The effects of proactive versus reactive webcare interventions in consumer-generated and brand-generated platforms. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(3), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2011.07.001 Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816–1836. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012

Teasing in Identity Work on Chinese Social Media: Forms and Functions Ying Tong and Chaoqun Xie

Abstract Research related to transgender identity in psychology usually involves interviews which are designed to find out how these marginalized people manage their engagement with families, friends, peers, and the community at large (cf. Budge et al. , 2015; Garrison, 2018). Based on real-world data, our study intends to explore at the microlevel how trans identity work is realized through storytelling on social media. Our analysis shows that intentionally manifested story sequences afforded by Sina Weibo and various meta-pragmatic labels embedded in the stories both enact and shape the social action of teasing. They work for the construction and destruction of gender identity and aim at establishing the authenticity and legitimacy of transgender people, as well as amusing the readers at large. What spins off from this study is the revelation of folk ideology implicated in such controversial issues (especially in China) as transgender. Given the limited research in this aspect of naturally occurring data in the Chinese context in general, and in internet-mediated communication and trans narrative in particular, our findings may further the exploration of the dynamics of teasing in interaction and sustain the scholarly community of care toward marginalized people Keywords Teasing · Storytelling · Identity · Trans identity · Social media · Weibo

1 Introduction The umbrella term “trans” denotes “an individual whose gender identity is not congruent with the sex assigned at birth” (Budge et al., 2015: 405). Previous research related to gender identity and emotions of trans people mostly concerns interviews designed to find out how these marginalized people maintain communication with Y. Tong School of Foreign Languages, Nanjing Xiaozhuang University, Nanjing, China e-mail: [email protected] C. Xie (B) Institute of Discourse Pragmatics, Zhejiang International Studies University, Hangzhou, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 C. Xie (ed.), Advancing (Im)politeness Studies, Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37064-9_12

225

226

Y. Tong and C. Xie

families, friends, peers, and their communities at large (cf. Budge et al., 2015; Garrison, 2018). Empirical research into linguistic practices concerning transgender people has somehow drawn little attention from scholars in interpersonal pragmatics (but see Thieme & Saunders, 2018), probably due to issues of data accessibility. Social media has enabled people to deal with identity work in ways they prefer. Despite the fact that heterosexuality is a ‘naturalized’ category and a normative social order in everyday interaction (Kitzinger, 2005: 257), transgender people’s shared stories provide special access to their lives at various levels. “Interpersonal communication is the primary elicitor of most emotions” (Andersen & Guerrero, 1998: 57). This is especially true in the case of transgender people whose concerns over identity may cause dysphoria, anxiety, and even self-silencing when confronted with the social norms designated by cisgender people. Their norm-abiding behaviors, more often than not, lead to discursive aggression, be it intentional or not (Shuster, 2017). We choose to focus on one celebrity’s identity work as her online popularity, measured by the number of “likes,” “reposts” and “comments,” indicates, to some degree, her success in doing identity work in relation to transgender naturalization and normalization. Both the rhetorical situation and the exigencies have motivated the celebrity (see Sect. 3.1) to do her identity work through her storytelling performance, a communicative practice involving the juxtaposition of different times and spaces, the selected co-tellership, and the explicitly manifested narrative stance (Georgakopoulou, 2013a). The rhetorical situation can be a need to construct a mediated self on a regular basis to achieve a continual sense of self. The exigencies may involve one’s claim for authentic and legitimate identity, and a moral responsibility one takes up surrounding the ideology of such controversial issues as transgender. Our focused celebrity has selected the co-tellers in her digital storytelling for public consumption. And in these co-tellings, teasing constitutes a fitting response to and her signature move in fighting for her authentic identity and respectable social status. Despite the fact that teasing has been considered a bonding ritual among intimate friends and close acquaintances, our research focuses on the occurrence of teasing in collapsed contexts (Marwick & Boyd, 2010). We intend to show that jocular teasing can be adopted as a way of establishing the authenticity and legitimacy of one’s trans identity and of raising awareness of public prejudice against transgender people. At a time when many believe that only “big data” can offer solutions to the challenges posed by the sheer volume of digital communication, in-depth scrutiny is still needed to complement the insights in data mining and quantitative corpus analysis (Giles et al., 2017). A more sensitive analysis of the interaction between different modalities and contexts can offer a thorough understanding of interpersonal relations (Culpeper et al., 2017). Our case study is a conscious endeavor in this direction, aiming to sustain the scholarly community of care toward marginalized people. In what follows, we first provide a critical review of the existing literature related to our study in Sect. 2, before elaborating on the process of data collection and selection in Sect. 3. The categorized examples are analyzed in Sect. 4 and the findings are discussed in Sect. 5.

Teasing in Identity Work on Chinese Social Media: Forms and Functions

227

2 A Critical Literature Review Teasing is ubiquitous in kinship-based societies and has the potential of alleviating tension among participants who have converging and diverging interests (cf. Haugh, 2017). As a type of humor, teasing is quite difficult to define because of a wide range of forms and functions it covers. Yet this type of conversational humor offers a greater variety of evaluations. Teasing can have a variety of effects, ranging from fostering solidarity and entertaining participants to identity construction and moral transgressions (Culpeper et al., 2017), which largely result from the ways provocation and playfulness, two constitutive elements of teasing, go into play on different occasions (cf. Haugh, 2014). Linguistically, teasing has been extended to varied interpersonal acts that elicit “emotional or behavioristic responses against resistance” (Sperling, 1953: 458). As such, pragmatic studies on the emotional dimension of teasing mainly focus on its evaluative aspect and multimodal representations, examining how communicative cues are strategically used to “emotionalize a given message” (Langlotz & Locher, 2013: 95). Social psychology considers teasing as either pro-social or anti-social (e.g., Wright & Roloff, 2013), with the former being playful and affectionate while the latter being hostile and aggressive. Dynel (2008) argues, however, that teasing comes into being only when the addressee’s interpretation matches the speaker’s illocutionary intention of inducing humor. Teasing others is often in conjunction with self-directed teasing in real-life interaction (Haugh, 2010) and in social media stories, teasing may span over non-adjacent turns by multiple tellerships compressed into the same textual unit (Page, 2012). In this sense, interactive storytelling (see Sect. 3.2) helps to detect the forms and functions of teasing in identity work (see also Georgakopoulou, 2013b). Given its various effects, teasing may seek to confront or attack (Drew, 1987; Franzén & Aronsson, 2013; Geyer, 2010), to reproach or complain (Haugh, 2014), to make compliments or express gratitude (Mills & Babrow, 2003), and to exert influence over others (Shapiro et al., 1991). On the other hand, people usually tease to strengthen in-group solidarity while out-groups are formed when superiority is shared. A growing amount of empirical evidence suggests that jocular teasing among strangers can be regarded as a way of getting acquainted (Haugh & Pillet-Shore, 2017), or as a means to accomplishing sensitive social work (Haugh, 2014). Given specific features of context collapse in internet-mediated communication, identity work accomplished through teasing inevitably considers the rhetorical situation of voyeurism and exhibitionism (Miller & Shepherd, 2009) growing out of the tension between backstage freedom of expression and frontstage restriction for public consumption (Goffman, 1959). In the case of celebrities, projecting a backstage illusion of intimacy to the frontstage storytelling can be a strategy to manage their fan bases and shape the tellership of the co-told stories. When people want to justify their emotional behavior, they do so in a story-like fashion—emotion narrative (Fischer & Jansz, 1995: 65), the primary function of which is to restore one’s threatened identity also indicated in this study. Teasing

228

Y. Tong and C. Xie

in relation to transgender storytelling has been made possible through technology affordances and co-tellings. In our study, teasing has enabled the celebrity to fight against stereotypes about transgender people.

3 Data 3.1 The Celebrity Under Study Jin Xing (Jin hereafter), the celebrity under study, is a legendary figure in China. She was born a boy, graduated from People’s Liberation Army Art Academy in 1984, studied and taught dance abroad and eventually became a highly accomplished dancer. Apart from dancing, her versatility enables her to venture into new territories, as she is also a talk show host, actress, agony aunt of the nation (Hóngniáng), and founder and artistic director of a contemporary dance company in Shanghai. Jin’s popularity compares favorably with that of Oprah Winfrey. In her private life, she is a mother of three adopted children and wife of a German gentleman. She was once criticized for voicing a rather unpopular view of women’s roles in her talk show, but fought back as she told BBC News,1 I’m not showing my pretty face, perfect voice, no. I give you life experience. (25 January 2018)

She also wrestled, for a while, with the issue of identity crisis and eventually made up her mind about gender affirmation surgery. Back in 1995 when she underwent the risky surgery, a rather rare practice then, she was already a well-known dancer. She almost lost her left leg because of a little accident during the operation. Later she miraculously recovered from that medical accident and her dancing career has been a huge success since. She has a large number of followers on Sina Weibo mostly due to her outspokenness. She once commented, “The Weibo users are rather outspoken, about the government, society, legal issues, sexuality, stars, everything.”2 Having read through her Weibo posts, one may get the impression that she’s rather determined in her fight against social prejudice and for the authenticity of her identity as a woman.

3.2 Data Collecting, Coding, and Categorizing Our data has been collected in two phases. In the first phase, all the posts (n = 2,829) from Jin’s Weibo pages covering the period from 4 March 2011, the very first 1

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-42813284/jin-xing-china-S-transgender-tv-star (accessed 8 May 2019). 2 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18887804 (accessed 8 May 2019).

Teasing in Identity Work on Chinese Social Media: Forms and Functions

229

day of her Weibo post, to 18 March 2019 when the research was conducted, were browsed and those related to her gender identity were archived. Basic functions of Weibo such as “repost” and “comments” make possible the tracking of conversationlike interactions not readily available in face-to-face interactions, which helps transfer Jin’s event experiences to readers who adopt the evaluative norms, consciously or unconsciously. Our data includes posts with characteristics as indicated below3 : (1) Explicit gender references such as 金姐 ‘Sister Jin’, 他 ‘he’, 它 ‘it’; (2) Explicit body references such as 手 ‘hands’, 脚 ‘feet’, 胸 ‘breast’; (3) Explicit references to transgender identity such as 男人还是女人? ‘man or woman?’, 人妖 ‘ladyboy’. Altogether 110 posts touching upon 79 stories were teased out and filed,4 from which we started the second phase of data annotation. We manually annotated various discursive features employed by Jin (each post was analyzed twice at a sufficiently large time interval). The theme of gender is usually conveyed through three forms of storytelling: independent single-turn (IST) stories, independent of the immediate co-text; independent multiple-turn (IMT) stories, involving multiple tellers but still independent of the immediate co-text; small stories (SS) where one post of either or both of the above two types share the same forwarded post. The aspects of historicity, circulation, regularity of semiotic choices, etc. that have been the foci of analysis in conversational storytelling (Georgakopoulou, 2013a) are represented as unraveled over several posts, stretching both temporally (one story5 being told over a day, sometimes over several days) and structurally (the linearity of the story might be interrupted by other unrelated posts).6 The act of reposting showcases the agency of the storyteller in controlling the development of the plot as it unfolds. As such, stories concerning gender issues fall under IMT and SS, with IMT featuring the largest share in terms of the number of stories (40/79) and SS taking up the lion’s share in terms of length (49.6%). The key features that signal teasing practice (Haugh, 2014) include (1) exaggerations; (2) allusions (e.g., by way of presuppositions); (3) formulaic expressions (e.g., idioms, or such extreme case formulations as all, always, every, never, none); (4) topic-shift markers (e.g., anyway-prefacing); (5) laughter (either turn-final or interpolated); (6) phonetic practices (e.g., vowel or fricative lengthening; pitch accents); and (7) facial cues (exaggerated facial expressions; iconic displays). Features 1–5 can be directly migrated to internet-mediated communication. Features 6–7 are often transformed into various semiotics: Feature 6 is represented by a non-standardized 3

We excluded the subsequent posts if the preceding post had been deleted, which unfortunately disrupted our reading co-text. This decision was made despite the explicit mention of gender issues in those posts. 4 To avoid repetition, those posts that form part of the independent multi-turns or Small Stories (see the elaboration below) are not included in the dataset. 5 At this stage, we collapse all the reposted comments tagged-along to the same post into one story at the top level. 6 In this case, to avoid the redundancy of repeatedly presenting the same initial post, we keep the first repost in its complete form and replace the rest with a meta-label.

230

Y. Tong and C. Xie

use of punctuation marks, and Feature 7 is manifested through various emojis and emoticons. In this light, we identified 57 posts in the data containing teasing which is spotted and annotated if it is (1) an exaggeration of a particular action (cf. analysis of Fig. 5); (2) a response to an “overdoing” (cf. analysis of Fig. 1); (3) an exploitation of certain ambiguity (cf. analysis of Fig. 2); and (4) an extreme case formulation (cf. analysis of Figs. 3 and 4). In a multiparty environment, teases may be designed as invitations to responses from other participants, who may become the target (tease elaboration in line with the teaser) or the teaser (counter tease in line with the target). Given these complexities, we code at a more abstract level the teasing interactions between story-co-tellers7 from Jin’s perspective as self-targeted, addressee-targeted, and third-party targeted. There are also cases in which Jin counters teasing with po-faced receipt (Drew, 1987), i.e., serious and defensive responses to teasing which stand apart from the aforementioned three types of teasing. The way the interlocutors position themselves when orchestrating the story is interlinked with moral attributes concerning the self and the other. What is often teased about seems to center on one’s appearance, competence, sexual orientations, ethnicity, race, and religion (cf. Haugh & Bousfield, 2012). Our data conveys similar findings despite the fact that it has been filtered for sensitive issues such as transgender identity. Flames, i.e., intentional negative violations of social norms (O’Sullivan & Flanagin, 2003: 84), often provoke teasing as will be discussed shortly.

4 Teasing at Work: Transidentity Work in Storytelling As a case study, though a quantitative argumentation is not the primary concern of this paper, we consider any displays of coded categories possible interpretative sources of social behaviors at issue, and space restriction only makes a detailed analysis of coded stories feasible.

4.1 “I am so Ordinary Like That”: Teases in IST Stories Our data indicate that posts of this category are rather few (with only 3 posts being yielded after a code query) and also the shortest, which have the following features: (1) explicit laughter (the onomatopoeia ‘haha’); (2) a snapshot of herself (sometimes photoshopped), always a zoom-in front profile; (3) a strong feminine identification such as striking female self-referent expressions; and (4) a self-directed tease as shown below. 7

Anonymization has been ensured.

Teasing in Identity Work on Chinese Social Media: Forms and Functions

231

Fig. 1 A screenshot of Jin’s post coded at ISP. Text translation8 : Sometimes women can be unreasonably sensitive. When someone remarks they look a bit haggard you snap a selfie right away…Alas, I am also so ordinary like that, haha

Teasing comments from anyone of a gender out-group on women’s irrationality may cause offense while Jin’s personal anecdote recontextualizes the above assumption and places herself as the principal (Goffman, 1959) of the statement, displaying a confirmation of her female identity. The teasing tone has been generated through the striking contrast between the vigorous selfie and the message conveying just the opposite—憔悴 ‘haggard’, as well as through a couple of visual cues inserted in her narrative. The use of emojis has been the norm in most online communities (Kavanagh, 2016), whose primary function is to convey emotion through humor (Graham, 2007). As such, the “i-beg-your-pardon” emotion conveyed through the emoji , which, inserted between what someone says and how she responds, lends a jocular tone to her self-evaluation. Using her polished selfie to counterattack someone’s act of teasing, her appearance is not the only pragmatic effect teasing has achieved. Jin teasingly calls attention to herself as a typical woman who cares a lot about her appearance, loves to hear people say she looks “great” or “amazing” and is therefore sensitive to those seemingly friendly but “negative” comments which remind her that she looks “a bit haggard.” Moreover, she hopes to create the impression that, like a typical woman, she cannot wait to prove that she looks alright by posting that selfie. The evaluative tone carried by the diction “ordinary” and the deployed emoji demonstrate her epistemic status towards this womanly convention. But she still wants to do it, as it is what women are supposed to do. The laugh particle “haha” nails her intentional performance at that. Altogether, these multiple semiotic resources display her strong

8

Weibo template includes the snapshot, the user’s name (金星 ‘Jin Xing’ in our case), post date and time (4 December 2012, 19:34 in this particular case), and post outlet (来自 iPhone 客户端 ‘from iPhone’ in this case). By the way, the Chinese characters in the template are not translated but factor into the analysis when necessary.

232

Y. Tong and C. Xie

Fig. 2 Screenshot of Jin’s repost coded at IMT. Text translation: That is just as true! Men better know how to behave when approaching us! Ha // @ F: Sis. Jin is fairly good-looking, just a little bit masculine somehow. Jin: shooting for Yue Ji in the afternoon.9

identification with her femininity, and the teasing tone highlights the ease and confidence she feels as a woman. Teasing in Jin’s IST trans stories, as this post makes clear, often takes an in-group stance and seeks to tease in the co-tellings to underline the feminine traits.

4.2 “That is just as True”: Teases in IMT Stories There are 23 teasing posts falling into this mode of storytelling, which are presented by Jin either through reposting others’ comments on her original posts, or through her tagging those she has been following on Weibo. Teasing in these cases can start anywhere in the co-telling of a story, and their interpersonal functions range from bonding to nipping to biting (Boxer & Cortés-Conde, 1997) even within a single textual unit. The explicit expression of laughter such as 哈哈 ‘ha ha’, a primary cue for teasing, sets some of the teasing interactions apart from other po-faced receipts as indicated below. There are three storylines in this textual unit contributed by two tellers: Jin and a Weibo user F. In the original post, Jin shares a cover photo in which she is elegantly dressed up. Such positive and sophisticated self-presentations are common practice for social media users, especially for women. Jin’s narrative briefly refers to the 9

Yue Ji, or Yue Ji SELF is a magazine launched in 2007, whose targeted readers are white-collar women in cosmopolitan areas.

Teasing in Identity Work on Chinese Social Media: Forms and Functions

233

Fig. 3 Screenshots of Jin’s posts coded at SS

photo shooting episode, perhaps an implicit act of seeking admiration or praise. Teasing under the circumstance is initiated by F who, apparently friendly and polite, addresses her “Sister Jin” and touches upon the “masculine” quality of her appearance. This seemingly harmless reminder can be offensive, considering Jin’s transgender identity, and it feels like damning with faint praise. Specifically, F seems to accept Jin’s femininity by addressing her 金姐 ‘Sis. Jin,’ a term Jin often adopts to refer to herself either on Weibo or on her TV shows. F further compliments Jin on her “good-looking” appearance. Nevertheless, what comes next just casts a negative light on all these seemingly positive acts. The seemingly light-hearted reference to her “masculinity” adds to the teasing tone a biting taste. Jin must have sensed the maliciousness, but she appears rather composed and launches a vengeful attack wrapped up in humor and wit. We have to be aware of the fact that speaking up for the transgender group, a socially marginalized community, needs more than courage.

4.3 Transgender Normalization: Teases in Small Stories 4.3.1

“So Are You, Right?”: Teases in Dialogic Updates

Abundant posts fall into this category in our data, spanning from the earliest period when Jin peaked in her storytelling on Weibo in 2012 to the relatively latest in 2019. These small stories are composed of ISTs or IMTs, or a combination of both. The following episode is a series of small stories taken from posts of the earliest period when Jin started openly discussing her trans identity on Weibo. Due to space constraints, we do not provide a full-text translation of all the related posts, but present instead a brief summary of each post in our analysis. The episode (see Fig. 3) started with the news that she was banned from showing up as a judge in a TV dance competition finals solely because of her transgender identity (a). The following day

234

Y. Tong and C. Xie

she offered a more detailed account of the event (b), followed by another clarifying some misinformation in a friend’s comment concerning her previous post (c). The next day she briefly mentioned the fact that her transgender identity had already been respected and protected by law for almost sixteen years, that she was then living with her German husband and three adopted children, and that she felt nothing but gratitude for the support of her Weibo followers. She went further by demanding a public apology. On the following day she urged the heads of ZRTG10 to apologize (e). She updated her last post three days later, when no apology was made, and announcing that she would pursue no further ZRTG for their “filthy” mistake ( f ). This series of updates demonstrate Jin’s urge to draw public attention to issues concerning gender discrimination. She took an interactive stance therein as if she were speaking face-to-face to an awaiting audience. The direct address (e.g., 博友 们 ‘blog-mates’ in a and b, 浙卫的领导 ‘heads of ZRTG’ in e), greetings (e.g., 回 见 ‘see you’ in a; 早上好 ‘good morning’ in b and e), second-person pronoun (你们 ‘youplural ’ in b and e), and exclamation mark (especially in post f where 8 out of 14 clauses end in “!”) ring a conversational tone, generating a sense of being involved and addressed. Together with the frequent updates, this themed series won her a large number of followers who enthusiastically participated in the discussions. Thousands of comments related to gender discrimination were contributed. Jin’s teasing starts at the end of b as she declares: 当我微博发出后, 浙广电立即迁怒于其工作人员, 不应泄密文件, 真是笑话!敢作敢当 吗! After I posted on Weibo, the ZRTG wasted no time in scapegoating their own employees, blaming them for the leaked documents. What a joke! Do they have the guts to own up to their actions?

The underlined word 立即 ‘waste no time’ is an obvious exaggeration, alluding to the power abuse behind the institution. The exclamation mark following the metapragmatic remark 笑话 ‘joke’ hardly renders it a real joke. The biting force in this explicitly addressed post, as indicated by the opening 早上好博友们 ‘Good morning blog-mates’, targeting ZRTG, is reinforced by the Chinese formulaic expression 敢 作敢当吗! ‘Do they have the guts to own up to their actions?’ at the end. We are not positive about the bonding rituals among all the ‘blog-mates’ this teasing has generated simply on account of the viral circulation. A sociopragmatic approach to interpersonal interaction shows that bonding rituals have the power of triggering participation (Kádár, 2017). Thus in c, we see the rare move in her early Weibo practice, i.e., reposting her friend’s comments. The purpose is more than just correcting the innocent mistake in her friend’s pep talk. She extended the interaction by explicitly making a jocular mockery, 哈哈 他们真是无聊到家了 ‘Haha. They are bored to the bone,’ and a metaphorical exaggeration, 我已练就了笑傲江湖的 本事 ‘I have honed my ability to laugh in the wind’. The whole story ends with 10

ZRTG stands for Zhejiang Radio & TV Group, a local media institution in Zhejiang Province, one of the most influential media groups in China. More information can be found from the website https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/浙江广播电视集团 (accessed 9 May 2019).

Teasing in Identity Work on Chinese Social Media: Forms and Functions

235

a mock gratitude, 感谢生活随时提高我的免疫力 ‘Thank you, life, for constantly strengthening my resilience’. Laughter in status updates often marks the co-presence of a non-serious reading of the text (Baron, 2009), which can set the teasing tone in the upcoming text. Her exaggerated poetic expressions doing self-promotion are but a self-directed jocular tease insinuating the normalized discriminations and the full embrace of her identity as these gender-biased acts no longer have any destructive spell on her. In post d Jin assumes a more serious tone, accusing ZRTG and ZJTV11 of gender discrimination and deeming it as an insult. Jin makes it clear that she has zero tolerance for the issue of gender discrimination which also inflicts pain upon her family. Jin’s concern for her family normalizes her trans identity (as a wife and mother) and further legitimatizes her public demand, which, on the other hand, runs the risk of provoking attacks on her negative face. As an individual, especially someone like Jin with her transgender identity drawing extensive attention from a large number of followers, demanding a public apology from an institutional entity such as a certain media corporation is never an easy case. But still, she dares to do it and sees it as an opportunity to normalize her transgender identity by revealing her social identity as a legal Chinese citizen and building a community through expressing gratitude for the followers’ support. Post d’s serious tone is carried over to e where the story takes the form of a public letter addressing specifically to ‘heads of ZJTV’ (浙卫的领导). While the apparent narrative stance is to seek alignment through the rhetorical question ‘So are you, right?’ (你们也是吧?), the biting force is just as apparent, because in so aligning, Jin normalizes her identity through finding the shared group identity. This move builds the momentum for the biting force of her second rhetorical question ‘Is there something wrong?’ (难道有错吗?’), which is strategically embedded in the political discourse, i.e., ‘people-oriented’ (以人为本) and ‘guided by the outlook of scientific development’ (以科学发展观). This move aiming at establishing her image as a good citizen living by the spirit of moral order insinuates that ZJTV’s act amounts to a slap in their own face. However, Jin repositions herself through the following dialectic expression ‘Stop messing around’ (别再瞎折腾了), which carries the tone often found between acquaintances or close relations. This move shifts the act of demanding an apology in post d into a persuasive act here as if making an apology is for their own good. The ‘condescending’ stance of offering a conditioned forgiveness ‘Show up immediately and apologize, and we can put this matter behind us’ (赶紧出来道个歉, 这事儿就过去了), while adding the jocular mockery, projects a dissolving ending. Post f marks an ending of Jin’s ongoing devoted engagement in week-long storytelling. Failing to get any official response in the eyes of the public can be regarded as a loss of Jin’s positive face, and in a sense, a negative one, too, as Jin has to be attentive to others’ reactions and acts accordingly. We can sense a stronger mocking stance

11

ZJTV is a satellite TV channel in Zhejiang Province, China, where the show that fired Jin is broadcasted.

236

Y. Tong and C. Xie

behind various devices Jin deploys at the end of the whole story: her blatant namecalling, defining the target with such a strong negative term as ‘filth’ (龌龊) through a third personal pronoun, is framed under an audience-designed tease: “Filth, your name is ZJTV!” (龌龊这个词也得有个单位呀, 专属浙卫!). This colloquialism is too casual for her serious accusation, and the utterance ending model particle ‘ya’ ( 呀) further mitigates her explicit accusation and gives it a jocular touch. In the next clause, her employment of the Chinese idiom, i.e., ‘The skeleton shall be kept in the closet’ (家丑不外扬), while apparently discouraging the act of leaking the local ugly affair to the foreign media, actually highlights the trump card in her hand. It works both for her intended image of being empathetic, and the escalation of the severity of the event. Her move of expressing her gratitude to her blog-mates’ support (谢博 友们的关心 ‘thank blog-mates’ concern’) is also an indirect self-promotion, for it sends the message that her justice is being served by representing the will of thousands of netizens, which in a sense is still a victory. Jin decently ends the whole event by explicitly reassuring in public that she is still generous and open-minded. As the story evolves, it is quite apparent that teasing is designed and developed as a means to accomplish sensitive social actions (Haugh, 2014). For a celebrity such as Jin Xing, it is still rather challenging to accuse an influential media corporation of gender discrimination and to demand a public apology on Weibo. By framing and closing this case within that of non-serious teasing, the emotive oscillation between the playfulness and poking fun on the one hand, and the seriousness in revealing the ugly truth about gender discrimination on the other help secure a positive ending: Jin gets desired outcome either way, i.e., though having failed to obtain an apology, she has managed to bring enough damage to the media corporation’s public image.

4.3.2

“For ‘World Peace’ and Social Stability”: Teases in Interaction Updates

Jin’s peak engagement in storytelling demonstrates a pattern of what can be termed the rhizomatic model (Georgakopoulou, 2016). That is, no co-tellers can decide the direction to which and the way by which the story unfolds. The following episode presents a typical outlook of such a story. Translation (in Chronological Order) Repost a: That is “Mount Everest,” OK? Few have reached the summit, bah. Haha // @ W: Amazing chest muscle[囧],12 like the gladiators in ancient Rome Repost b: reply @ Y: The fabric a bit thick, yet what’s inside is fairly soft. Haha //@ Y: haha, but given a closer look, surely …a bit…curvy… Repost c: reply @ K: For “world peace” and social stability. Haha //@ K: Sis Jin, you look fabulous! Such a pretty face, such a slender figure.. How could you have lurked in men’s world for over twenty years. What a huge waste! It’s a crime! [Thunderbolt].13

12 13

This is a cyber Chinese character signaling embarrassment. The original emoji is character-represented.

Teasing in Identity Work on Chinese Social Media: Forms and Functions

237

Fig. 4 Screenshot of Jin’s posts sharing one root story and coded at SS

Repost d: reply @ M: It’s definitely not for those in poor health. The air is really thin up there. It’s more challenging physically as you continue! //@ M: It’s hilarious! Who has the nerve to try that? // @ X: That is “Mount Everest,” ok? Few have reached the summit, bah. Haha // @ W: Amazing chest muscle[囧] like the gladiators in ancient Rome Repost e: reply @ H: Oh my goodness! Where’s this Joan of Arc coming from? The speaker’s intention is more often over-interpreted by the listener! // @ H: Were you a woman, would you bring this up? Disgusting! Repost f: reply @ P: Not a thing to worry! You’ve had the most satisfying experience! Those women have taught him well and now he is ready for you. It’s fantastic! Haha, have some confidence! // @ P: Sis Jin ~ He’s a man who used to have lots of women (as girlfriends). What can I do about him? I love him too much to let go of his past and now I’m simply exhausted. Those women are no commoners, either models or from rich families. Repost g: reply @ H: No worries, little bro, learn my way from now on. As a man, you should learn the art of humor when talking with women and then it’s likely that they will like you! // @ H: reply @ O: I already said I was wrong. I really love Sis Jin’s show. She’s speaking for us commoners I really love it. Please, everyone, no more attacks. Here I apologize to Sis Jin. I apologize to all your fans! Root story translation: Today falls in Shanghai Fashion week. Miss Jicheng, a designer, puts on a fashion show LaVie 2012 featuring the Art of Tea. This exhibition was also launched in London in September. This evening dress was designed specially for me by Jicheng. I love the color and it’s exquisitely made. It’s my style, haha thanks! My recent talk show costumes were also designed by her. #Weibopicsew# The above consecutive posts stem from the same root story (downright) and the publication dates indicate that they were all posted within a one-hour period on 24

238

Y. Tong and C. Xie

October 2012. The story begins with Jin’s intention to promote a local designer’s project. We collapse the same root story tagged along and adjust the chronological order from the oldest to the latest. The capital letters in color bricks stand for the seven anonymous story-co-tellers Jin selects from thousands of others to interact with. Altogether eight of them, including Jin herself, weave the story into being. Within the affordance of Weibo, Jin’s move of reposting her replies to those comments in a conversational way reveals her agency in influencing the development of the story. The first repost starts with W’s comparing Jin’s breast to that of a gladiator in ancient Rome, apparently hinting at her masculine features though the insulting tone is slightly tailored by an emoji tinged with humor. Jin, however, fights back by reframing the metaphor, comparing her breasts to Mount Everest which few would dream of reaching. The particles such as “Bah” and “Haha” convey both her defiance against W’s indiscretion and her grace and poise when dealing with unfriendly or offensive comments. They secure a jocular reading. Jin’s tease is picked up by Y and again one post away by M, whose comments stay in the same jocular frame as indicated by the laughter particle haha (in b) and the meta-pragmatic term ‘I’m tickled to death’ (逗死我了) in d. Yet the seriousness behind these non-serious tones is observable. In b, immediately after the laughter showing an appreciation of Jin’s tease, Y shows her alignment with M, albeit with great mediating efforts. They can be read from the deployment of concessive twist ‘yet’ (不过), a flood of periods indicating hesitation, speechlessness, or a mild disagreement. Thus Y is trying in many ways to mitigate the offensiveness in questioning the authenticity of the female body part while agreeing with M. Jin this time makes a po-faced receipt (Drew, 1987), explaining that such an effect might come from the hard texture of the cloth. The teasing is structured in parallel to Y’s allusion by adding one more twist: ‘Yet what’s inside is just as soft’ (不过内存还算软), displaying authenticity in an innuendo. This time Jin smartly smooths it over by calling one’s attention to a metaphor, “the thick fabric,” which could be understood in at least two ways: one refers to the fabric of her dress, and the other refers to the fabric of her artificial breasts. The non-seriousness of the tease is sealed with another ‘haha’ (哈哈) at the end of the turn. In post c K continues the tease, by sugarcoating the revelation of Jin’s trans identity in an exaggerated compliment on Jin’s outlook. K’s sorrow for Jin for not being born a female is a staged performance as the subsequent compliment is a bit over the top. Referring to Jin’s decades-long male identity under this particular situation is overinformative. The idiomatic curse ‘what a shame’ (作孽啊), which is very old-school, reflects K’s dramatic teasing stance. Jin teases back by quoting a politically-correct discourse “for ‘world peace,’ and social stability” (为了“世界和平”, 社会安定). The stance of being politically correct not only answers K in a teasing tone but also insinuates the bias that has been dominating the order for so long. Indeed, the issue of transgender identity seems to have haunted the imagination of not a small number of people online who behave like they just can’t get enough of it. K chooses not to give Jin a break by continuing to make fun of her transgender identity. K’s comment, seemingly to praise Jin’s pretty face, seeks instead to call public attention to her past as a man. K’s tone might be playful or even humorous as K mentions that “it is a crime” that Jin had to be a man for over two decades,

Teasing in Identity Work on Chinese Social Media: Forms and Functions

239

but bringing back one’s past memories, especially those one tries to put behind, is a hurtful and even hostile act. Confronted with such an unfriendly though not necessarily vicious comment, Jin’s response is usually teeming with wit, humor, and sarcasm as she declares that being a man for two decades is a gesture for the sake of “world peace and social stability.” This rhetoric not only lashes against the conservatism in mainstream culture but hints at the fact that a lot of things have changed over twenty years and that people like K should have learned to keep their pace with or they might be left behind by the fast-changing times. In post d what M chooses to target is Jin’s reformulated metaphor for her body part. Two potential readings can be reached in M’s comment “Who dare to go up there?”: M may literally refer to the virgin territory of Mountain Everest, or may sound sexually provocative by implicitly making fun of Jin’s transgender identity as he shamelessly remarks that no one has the nerve to try Jin’s “Mount Everest.” In fact, this lexical ambiguity is often a resource for interactional puns. Dynel (2008) propounds that teases should be witty and carry transparent humor-oriented messages, or entail hyperbolized offense so that they are not treated literally. They are constructed as an exaggerated version of some action and are expected to leave recipients in no doubt about their non-seriousness. M’s meta-pragmatic expression claiming that he is greatly tickled points to the second reading, thus constituting a teasing at Jin’s over-confidence in her transitioned body. Jin, on the other hand, is acutely aware of the sexually insulting comment. This time Jin’s response is po-faced, which is done by sticking to the literal meaning of climbing the Mount Everest. This stance is taken perhaps for the reason that she is bored of this kind of ill-intentioned comments. The issue of transgender identity will remain a controversial topic in the present socio-cultural context. H’s comment in post e on Jin’s previous interactions with others is harsh enough as he considers her way of speaking “disgusting” because he reckons that a real woman would not hint at the issue of sexuality. H’s statement is ignorant in the sense that his remark deepens the prejudice that only men can feel free to talk about sexuality and that it is improper for a woman such as Jin to touch upon that issue. For this conservative attitude toward women and sexuality, Jin’s piercing response certainly stings as she calls H a contemporary “Joan of Arc,” and her sarcasm is strongly felt as H is apparently a man instead of a woman. Jin aims to shatter the false image of women as saintly figures by publicly discussing issues concerning women’s sexuality, which is a daring act even in today’s context. H’s jarring comment must have caused an outburst of public indignation as he is pressured to make a public apology to Jin and her followers within less than an hour (10:52–11:30). He is begging for mercy asking Jin’s supporters to stop attacking him because he is aware that he made a terrible mistake. His apology is publicly accepted by Jin with good humor. But Jin addresses H as “little bro” and continues taking this opportunity to lecture him publicly on how to show respect for women and win their respect in return. Jin’s way of coping with hostile comments helps consolidate her female identity as she takes on the in-group perspective and speaks for her members’ interest.

240

Y. Tong and C. Xie

Fig. 5 A rhizomatic model of SS driven by teases

Figure 5, based on our data coding and analysis, indicates how teasing shapes SS development through different co-tellers and how Jin as the main storyteller, threads them together for her identity work and for her defiant stance against anti-transgender prejudice. As the diagram lays bare, the driving force behind the rhizomatic development of the SS is Jin’s teasing performance, triggered by the co-tellers’ more or less provocative comments on her posts. In the case studied, the story begins with Jin’s promotion of a local designer’s project and given her celebrity status, this kind of friendly promotion is common practice for celebrities. However, her transgender identity seems to cast a spell on this seemingly common practice and to have caused quite a stir in cyberspace: seven registered users on Weibo are singled out in particular by Jin to weave meta-teases into storytelling. Despite the selected co-tellers’ intentions, be it jocular teasing (as in post a,b,c,d), crude finger-pointing (as in post e), sincere consulting (as in post f ), or candid apologizing (as in post g), they seek either to question, to challenge or to understand or support Jin transgender identity. The stories are more often interconnected with one another (as in a, b, and d). As the most prominent modern dancer in contemporary China, Jin Xing is a pioneer in many ways, especially in terms of her transgender identity. Her high-profile online performance, more often tinged with teasing, wit, and humor, has not only helped eradicate, to a greater or lesser extent, public prejudice against gender discrimination in general and transgender discrimination in particular, but has helped arouse public awareness of a life in which more individual choices are tolerated, understood and respected.

Teasing in Identity Work on Chinese Social Media: Forms and Functions

241

5 Discussion and Conclusion Previous research has shown that teasing is often constructed to disclose social deviance (e.g., Keltner et al., 2001), and is not restricted to close acquaintances in informal talks (Haugh, 2010, 2014). Our case study lends further support to the above view. Jin’s stories on Weibo touch upon the issue of transgender identity and present multiple subgenres employed in identity work: some follow a more traditional narrative structure such as Figs. 1 and 2; some present a conversational interaction such as Figs. 3 and 4. These ongoing interactional practices form loops of teasing remarks that evolve in a rhizomatic way and form small stories such as Fig. 5. Under different context collapse circumstances, Jin’s teasing, directed at both herself and others, has managed to go beyond personal gains to have a more profound impact on media users especially when it comes to fighting against stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination against transgender people. Teasing constructed through stories either told by a single teller or co-told by multitellers on social media often serves both an informative function and a solidaritybuilding function. In our case, these two functions form a continuum with no clearcut division. In the age of social media, voyeurism and exhibitionism have been morally neutralized and are becoming ordinary ways of being (Miller & Shepherd, 2009). Jin’s willingness to expose her private life to public scrutiny continues the intricate relationship between mediated voyeurism and exhibitionism, but there is more. Self-disclosure also has a community-building function (Dayter, 2015). The act of reposting others’ comments may help build solidarity among media users, Jin, however, through adopting various forms of teasing, seeks to draw more public attention to the issue of transgender identity and further bring people to reflect on the stereotypes and prejudice against gender discrimination in general and transgender discrimination in particular. What spins off from our analysis includes the folk notion of gender stereotypes and the associated social norms. Stereotypes often serve as a ‘shortcut’ to do social categorization and a constant background against which interactional strategies are employed (cf. Queen, 2005). In this case, the male–female boundary, apart from the conventional handy attributions to women of being irrational and overly appearanceconscious, is reflected in the oversimplification of physical characteristics. Their orientation to the presumption of universal heterosexuality is indexed, alluded to, or relied on as a taken-for-granted commonplace in social actions. These positions turn out to be resources for Jin to construct and normalize her strongly identified identity. Jin appends her evaluative assessment to others’ comments and makes jocular counteractions toward their entrenched gender stereotypes. These practices are also a means of aligning with viewers in general. Like a verbal ping-pong game between interlocutors in a jocular mode (Dynel, 2008), Jin pokes fun at herself and others with an aim to call public attention to the controversial issue of transgender identity. Behind the playful persona, she has been undertaking serious moral work.

242

Y. Tong and C. Xie

Funding This research received support from a general project of Philosophy and Social Science of Jiangsu Province (grant number: 4832021SJA0483); a major project of Zhejiang Federation of Humanities and Social Sciences (grant number: 22YJRC11ZD); and the Major Humanities and Social Sciences Research Projects in Zhejiang higher education institutions (grant number: 2023GH069).

References Andersen, P. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts. Academic Press. Baron, N. (2009). The myth of impoverished signal: Dispelling the spoken language fallacy for emoticons in online communication. http://collablab.northwestern.edu/CollabolabDistro/ nucmc/Baron-TheMythOfImpoverishedSignal-EmotionAndICTs-InPress.pdf (accessed 19 June 2018). Bell, N. (2009). Responses to failed humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1825–1836. Boxer, D., & Cortés-Conde, F. (1997). From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 275–294. Budge, S. L., Orovecz, Joe J., & Thai, J. L. (2015). Trans men’s positive emotions: The interaction of gender identity and emotion. The Counseling Psychologist, 43(3), 404–434. Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., & Sinkeviciute, V. (2017). (Im)politeness and mixed messages. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 323–355). Palgrave Macmillan. Dayter, D. (2015). Small stories and extended narratives on twitter. Discourse, Context & Media, 10, 19–26. Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219–253. Dynel, M. (2008). No aggression, only teasing: The pragmatics of teasing and banter. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4(2), 241–261. Fischer, A. H., & Jansz, J. (1995). Reconciling emotions with western personhood. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 25(1), 59–80. Franzén, A. G., & Aronsson, K. (2013). Teasing, laughing and disciplinary humor: Staff-youth interaction in detention home treatment. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 167–183. Garrison, S. (2018). On the limits of “trans enough”: Authenticating trans identity narratives. Gender & Society, 32(5), 613–637. Georgakopoulou, A. (2013a). Small stories research as a framework for the study of social media practices: Narrative stance-taking and circulation in a Greek news story. SocioLinguistics, 27, 19–36. Georgakopoulou, A. (2013b). Small stories and identities analysis as a framework for the study of Im/politeness-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 55–74. Georgakopoulou, A. (2016). ‘Whose context collapse?’: Ethical clashes in the study of language and social media in context. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(2–3), 169–189. Geyer, N. (2010). Teasing and ambivalent face in Japanese multi-party discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2120–2130. Giles, D., Stommel, W., & Paulus, T. M. (2017). The microanalysis of online data: The next stage. Journal of Pragmatics, 115, 37–41. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books. Haugh, M. (2010). Jocular mockery, (dis) affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2106– 2119. Haugh, M. (2014). Jocular mockery as interactional practice in everyday Anglo-Australian conversation. The Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 76–99.

Teasing in Identity Work on Chinese Social Media: Forms and Functions

243

Haugh, M., & Bousfield, D. (2012). Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery, and jocular abuse. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1099–1114. Haugh, M. (2017). Teasing. In S. Attardo (Ed.), Handbook of language and humour (pp. 204–218). Routledge. Haugh, M., & Pillet-Shore, D. (2018). Getting to know you: Teasing as an invitation to intimacy in initial interactions. Discourse Studies, 20(2), 246–269. Kavanagh, B. (2016). Emoticons as a medium for channeling politeness within American and Japanese online blogging communities. Language & Communication, 48, 53–65. Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229–248. Kitzinger, C. (2005). ‘Speaking as a Heterosexual’: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-ininteraction? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 221–265. Langlotz, A., & Locher, M. A. (2013). The role of emotions in relational work. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 87–107. Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13, 96–113. Miller, C. R., & Shepherd, D. (2009). Questions for genre theory from the blogosphere. In J. Giltrow, & D. Stein (Eds.), Genres in the internet (pp. 263–290). John Benjamins. Mills, C. B., & Babrow, A. S. (2003). Teasing as a means of social influence. Southern Communication Journal, 68(4), 273–286. O’Sullivan, P. B., & Flanagin, A. J. (2003). Reconceptualizing ‘Flaming’ and other problematic messages. New Media & Society, 5(1), 69–94. Page, R. (2012). Stories and social media: Identities and interaction. Routledge. Queen, R. (2005). “How many lesbians does it take…”: Jokes, teasing, and the negotiation of stereotypes about lesbians. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(2), 239–257. Shapiro, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Kessler, J. W. (1991). A three-component model of children’s teasing: Aggression, humor, and ambiguity. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 459–472. Schnurr, S. (2009). Constructing leader identities through teasing at work. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1125–1138. Shuster, S. T. (2017). Punctuating accountability: How discursive aggression regulates transgender people. Gender & Society, 31(4), 481–502. Sperling, S. J. (1953). On the psychodynamics of teasing. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1(3), 458–483. Thieme, K., & Sunders, M. S. (2018). How do you wish to be cited? Citation practices and a scholarly community of care in trans studies research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 32, 80–90. Wright, C. N., & Roloff, M. E. (2013). The influence of type of teasing and outcome on the negative experience of teasers. Human Communication, 16(2), 95–107.