Abstract
This study investigates impolite natural Ghanaian conversations using a pragmatic approach. It is aimed at describing the types of impoliteness strategies, how they are linguistically represented and identifying responses toward the impoliteness strategies. This research employed a qualitative collection. The data were ten natural Ghanaian conversations which portray a distinct Ghanaian society in terms of norms, relationship, status and power. The sources of the data were documented transcribed into English because some were in the local language (Twi). In this research, descriptive and investigative approach was used in analyzing the data. The results of this research are stated as follows. The five types of impoliteness strategies are used by interlocutors in the conversations. They are, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, sarcasm or mock politeness, withhold politeness and bald-on-record impoliteness. Negative impoliteness is the most dominant type of impoliteness strategy, while positive impoliteness is the least strategy to occur in this research. The impoliteness strategies were linguistically represented by the use of vocatives, dismissal, threats and silencers. Accepting impoliteness is the most frequently used response. The interlocutors choose to use this response because they tend to prevent any further face attack.
Highlights
1 Impoliteness is not just the opposite of politeness, but the manifestation of non-cooperation, disapproval, and mutual antipathy through certain communicative behaviors that signal disrespect (Thompson & Agyekum, 2016)
Panel 1 invests in a ponzy scheme and when the host asked if he will still have his money back, he threatens the president of what could happen to him if he does not get back his money “Yes, else Nana Addo won’t complete his term”. the second panelist accepted the impoliteness prompts him and counters it defensively immediately disassociate herself from the statement
The first objective of this study is to find out the types of impoliteness strategies used in selected natural Ghanaian social interactions
Summary
It had been either overlooked or considered as pragmatic failure to observe the politeness principles (Leech, 1983; Brown & Levinson, 1987; cited in Limberg, 2009). Compared to politeness that has been analyzed for almost five decades, impoliteness has only been explored quite recently. This could be because it has been ignored as it is considered an offensive linguistic behaviour, and is the ‘parasite of politeness’ (Culpeper, 1996). According to Limberg (2009), a speaker may intentionally employ a communicative strategy to cause a social conflict with the addressee. A speaker can make an utterance without taking into consideration the hearer’s face or social identity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
