DATOS DE IDENTIFICACIÓN.

Since the work has explained what impoliteness is, it is also pertinent to explain what impoliteness is not. Culpeper proposes four things which impoliteness is not. First, he holds that impoliteness is not incidental face threat (‘Impoliteness and Entertainment’36). In other words, it does not happen by chance. Similarly, Goffman agrees that there are incidental offences which arise as an unplanned, but, sometimes anticipated by product of the action which the offender performs. (14). Obviously, such an action is not done to spite or undermine the hearer. For example, lecturers regularly give critical comments to students which may have potentially offensive consequences, but is done as a way of helping students to improve. Such should not be labelled impoliteness.

Second, he maintains that impoliteness is not unintentional (‘Impoliteness and Entertainment’37). This is also in line with Goffman’s position that the offending person may appear to have acted innocently and his offence seems to be unintended and unwitting (14) For example, a master of ceremony who addresses a guest as Mr Obi instead of Prof Obi may not be

considered as being impolite since he acted innocently by not using the designated and appropriate title as may be desired by Prof Obi.

Third, he maintains that impoliteness is not banter (‘Impoliteness and Entertainment’37). He goes further to distinguish between ‘mock impolitenesses’ from ‘genuine impoliteness’.

According to him, banter or mock impoliteness remains on the surface because it is understood in particular contexts not to be true. For example, a colleague who calls a slender colleague fatty or says: things such as: here comes trouble when another colleague walks in, especially in a joking or friendly manner cannot be said to be impolite. Leech expresses that such banter is used in order to show solidarity with hearer, by saying something which is obviously untrue and obviously impolite to hearer (Principles 144).

Finally, he holds that impoliteness is not bald on record politeness (37). According to Brown and Levinson, bald on record politeness occurs in specific contexts such as emergency situations when the face threat is very small (69). For example, a secretary who addresses his boss in a direct, clear, concise and unambiguous manner as in: Sir, run! would not be seen as giving a command to his boss or being impolite because he did that probably to prevent his boss from missing his flight.

Conversely, Mills however, argues that impoliteness should not be measured in relation to politeness but should be considered in its own terms. She states categorically:

Rather than assuming that there is something intrinsically impolite about certain utterances or exchanges, I argue that impoliteness is attributed to a speaker on the basis of assessments of their intension and motivations. I examine impoliteness in its own terms, rather than in terms of its relation to politeness, considering what factors contribute to the

assessment of an act as impolite, and what consequences the judgment of impoliteness has on individuals and communities of practice. (122)

From this, it goes to suggest that sometimes, when an act is viewed as impolite that it is based on the assessment of the hearer’s intentions and motivation. The argument may sound true to an extent, but, there are overt cases of impoliteness in every culture and organisation. Outright attack or deliberate refusal to be courteous is viewed as strict impoliteness. Most scholars following Brown and Levinson’s idea of face believe that behaviour such as reproaching, threatening, and insulting have intrinsic purpose of undermining the hearer’s face.

Conversely, Mills quoting Culpeper questions Leech’s notion that there are some speech acts which are inherently impolite, and suggest that although there may be a few, they are in minority (122). She goes further to say that only those acts which are offensive in themselves should be seen as inherently impolite (122).

For the purpose of this research, impolite behaviour and utterances are taken to mean all behaviour and utterances which contravene conversational and politeness maxims as well as threaten the face of the hearer. In other words, impoliteness is conceived in this work as an outright rudeness in discourse through verbal or a non-verbal means which causes an offence to the hearer. This however, does not include minor insults as used by close friends. It should be noted that such friends only use them to signal camaraderie. Notice that such friends do not take offence; rather, it fosters social intimacy among them.

Apart from outright verbal attack to threaten the face of a hearer, intrusion or interruption in discussions can also be viewed as an act of impoliteness. Leech states unequivocally that another

politeness violation that relates to the management of dialogue is the interruption of someone else’s turn (Pragmatics 228). The following conversation will exemplify:

(Mr. Agwu and Mr. Okeke are in a conversation.)

Mr. Agwu: I don’t like this issue of same sex marriage that the president is trying to consider.

Mr. Okeke: (tries to intervene) Emmh! but I think…

Mr. Agwu: No! let me finish.

This can be interpreted as an outright rejection of Mr.Okeke’s intervention. The expression: No!

followed by let me finish implies that Mr. Agwu interprets Mr.Okeke’s intervention as not wanting him to complete his turn as he has been granted by the conversational floor.

In addition, Holmes affirms that when we describe someone as polite or impolite, there are many possible aspects of their use of language that we might be referring to (Women 115-116).

According to her, such behaviour include arriving late without an apology, giving peremptory orders, failing to thank someone for a gift - these are all examples of behaviour which may be considered rude in certain contexts. She further opines that polite people tend to apologise for their offences, request assistance in indirect way, express appreciation for gifts, and pay appropriate compliments. According to her, expressions of gratitude and sympathy, invitations, jokes, greetings and other phatic or social utterance as well as the use of friendly address forms are all ways of expressing politeness in appropriate contexts (115-116). In sum, Watts is of the opinion that impoliteness is clearly a salient form of social behaviour, in the sense that it appears to go against the cannons of acceptance and appropriate behaviour operative in social interactions (18).