Abstract
In Culpeper’s (2009) extensive study of how impoliteness-related terms are used, especially in relation to people’s expectations in public-service contexts, the term “french” occurs twice, along with “doorman,” “bouncer,” “bartender,” “waitress,” “waiter,” “yorker,” “staff.” Based on this, could one suppose that, in daily interactions in French, the principles of cooperation (Grice, 1975) and politeness come into conflict, leading to the characterization of speakers as impolite? If this is the case, why? How does it occur? Is this characterization specific to public-service contexts, or does it extend to other domains of social life? Aiming to provide answers to these questions, this study draws on the framework of conversation analysis using a socio-pragmatic approach (from Austin, 1962, to Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 2010, and Culpeper, 2021). Guided by socio-cultural and historical factors (Bourdieu, 1984; La Bruyère, 1688), it explores the concept of linguistic im/politeness (Culpeper, 2009, 2021; Curtin, 1995; Meier, 1995) in its interaction with Grice’s (1975) principles of cooperation. To this end, we examine the ritual of greeting, in particular the exchange of “bonjour” in daily social interactions in a French-speaking context, using an authentic data corpus (Reddit, 2014). The results of our analysis show that, in certain situations, when the symmetry of this ritual is broken and the act fails, French speakers attribute to what is understood as politeness a rating higher than they do to cooperation, giving rise to the opposite phenomenon, impoliteness.
Highlights
Abstract in relation to people’s expectations in public-service contexts, the term “french” occurs twice, along with “doorman,” “bouncer,” “bartender,” “waitress,” “waiter,” “yorker,” “staff.” Based on this, could one suppose that, in daily interactions in French, the principles of cooperation (Grice, 1975) and politeness come into conflict, leading to the characterization of speakers as impolite? If this is the case, why? How does it occur? Is this characterization specific to public-service contexts, or does it extend to other domains of social life? Aiming to provide answers to these questions, this study draws on the framework of conversation analysis using a socio-pragmatic approach
It has been described as the King’s language and as a mirror of French culture. It is the language of the troubadours’ courtly literature, and the one that supplanted Latin in national and international relations, as celebrated in Rivarol’s renowned speech on its universality. These descriptions are intrinsically correlated with linguistic politeness, a concept fundamentally understood as positive social behaviour, in Culpeper’s (2009) extensive study of how impoliteness-related terms are used and in his questionnaires asking people about their own use thereof, the term “french” appears twice – alongside “doorman,” “bouncer,” “bartender,” “waitress,” “waiter,” “yorker,” and “staff” – and this in two different categories: one being “subjects regularly described as impolite” and the other suggesting that people evaluate national or studies about languages / kalbų studijos place-based stereotypes as impolite
Most of the terms listed relate to public-service contexts, contexts in which people’s expectations of cooperation in relation to service entitlements are not always fulfilled or are disputed. From these facts relating to impoliteness and a lack of cooperation, could one suppose that, in daily interactions in French, the principles of cooperation (Grice, 1975) and politeness come into conflict, leading to the characterization of speakers as impolite? If this is the case, why? How does this occur? Is this characterization specific to public-service contexts or does it extend to other domains of social life?
Summary
Examining as it does various judgments of im/politeness in French society, La Bruyère’s (1688) approach to politeness in Characters[12] is of great historical and contemporary socio-cultural interest. We show that despite the constraints experienced during the socialization process, having reached adulthood, French speakers themselves adhere to the transmission of the “bonjour” ritual by valuing the act of greeting not, or no longer, as an imposed behavioural rule but as a savoir-vivre à la française, a trademark In this sense, we can refer to its performativity, as defined by Butler, that is, as “that reiterative power of discourse to produce the phenomena that it regulates and constrains” We may summarize the issue by stating that when interlocutors do not agree on a matter, they mostly threaten each other’s face; this being the case, there is a good possibility of their being impolite in order to convince each other
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
