The evolution of the theories of impoliteness in modern sociolinguistics paradigm
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31812/filstd.8430Keywords:
sociolinguistic, impoliteness, pragmatic, language etiquette, conflict discourse, strategic impoliteness, discursive turn, linguistic identityAbstract
The article provides a comprehensive sociolinguistic analysis of the evolution of theories of impoliteness within the modern pragmatic and discursive paradigm. The relevance of the study stems from the need to revise the classical models of politeness, developed within the framework of a stable social environment, which are insufficient to explain conflict communication in conditions of profound social, political, and military transformations. The focus is on the transition from treating impoliteness as a communicative deviation to understanding it as a strategic, socially legitimised resource of interaction. The article aims to theoretically substantiate the stages of development of the concepts of impoliteness - from the classical model of P. Brown and S. Levinson through the strategic approach of J. Culpeper to the discursive and relational concepts of the "second" and integrative models of the "third wave". As well as identifying the national-linguistic specificity of the functioning of impoliteness in the Ukrainian socio-cultural space. The work uses methods of critical analysis, theoretical synthesis, discursive modelling, and definitional revision, which enable it to compare Western theoretical approaches with domestic sociolinguistic developments. As a result of the study, it is proven that impoliteness in modern discourse does not appear as the antipode of politeness, but as an independent mechanism of social positioning, identity construction and symbolic resistance. Attention is paid to the Ukrainian communicative experience of wartime, within which strategic impoliteness is legitimised as a means of protecting dignity, consolidating, and decolonising linguistic consciousness. The scientific novelty of the article lies in integrating theories of impoliteness into the analysis of the discourse of social breakdown and in justifying impoliteness as a factor in the formation of a new linguistic and social norm that goes beyond traditional etiquette forms.
Downloads
References
[1] Batsevych, F.S., 2004. Osnovy komunikatyvnoi linhvistyky: pidruchnyk [Fundamentals of communicative linguistics]. Akademiia, Kyiv. URL: https://document.kdu.edu.ua/info_zab/061_123.pdf.
[2] Bilokonenko, L.A., 2017. Linhvokulturne pole konfliktu [Linguistic-cultural field of conflict]. Zapysky z ukrainskoho movoznavstva [Opera in Linguistica Ukrainiana] 24, 156–164. doi:10.31812/0564/1818. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18524/2414-0627.2017.24.131418
[3] Bilokonenko, L.A., 2019. Ukrainskomovnyi mizhosobystisnyi konflikt [Ukrainian-speaking interpersonal conflict]. 2 ed., Kryvyi Rih. URL: https://elibrary.kdpu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/4144/1/%D0%91%D1%96%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%20%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D1%96%D1%8F.pdf.
[4] Bousfield, D., 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. volume 167 of Pragmatics & Beyond New Series. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Philadelphia. doi:10.1075/pbns.167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167
[5] Brown, P., Levinson, S., 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena, in: Goody, E.N. (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. volume 8 of Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology, pp. 56–311.
[6] Brown, P., Levinson, S., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. volume 4 of Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511813085. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
[7] Cheberiak, A.M., 2025. Movlennieva ahresiia v instytutsionalnomu dyskursi [Speech aggression in institutional discourse]. Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu. Ser.: Filolohiia [International Humanitarian University Herald. Philology] 74, 184–187. URL: http://www.vestnik-philology.mgu.od.ua/archive/v74/part_1/42.pdf. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2409-1154.2025.74.1.40
[8] Culpeper, J., 1996. Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25, 349–367. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3
[9] Culpeper, J., 2005. Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research 1, 35–72. doi:10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
[10] Culpeper, J., 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. volume 28 of Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752
[11] Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., Wichmann, A., 2003. Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1545–1579. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2
[12] Eelen, G., 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. volume 1 of Encounters. Routledge.
[13] Kondratenko, N.V., 2007. Ukrainskyi politychnyi dyskurs: Tekstualizatsiia realnosti [Ukrainian political discourse: textualization of reality]. Chornomoria, Odesa.
[14] Kukhar, N., 2025. The problem of verbal aggression in modern linguistic discourse. Scientific Notes of Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynskyi State Pedagogical University. Series: Philology (Linguistics) 39, 87–96. doi:10.31652/2521-1307-2024-39-08. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31652/2521-1307-2024-39-08
[15] Locher, M.A., 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, New York. doi:10.1515/9783110926552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110926552
[16] Locher, M.A., 2006. Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua 25, 249–267. doi:10.1515/MULTI.2006.015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/MULTI.2006.015
[17] Locher, M.A., Watts, R.J., 2005. Politeness Theory and Relational Work. Journal of Politeness Research 1, 9–33. doi:10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
[18] Matsiuk, H.P., 2008. Do vytokiv sotsiolinhvistyky: sotsiolohichnyi napriam u movoznavstvi [To the origins of sociolinguistics: a sociological direction in linguistics]. Vydavnychyi tsentr LNU imeni Ivana Franka, Lviv.
[19] Mills, S., 2003. Gender and Politeness. volume 17 of Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511615238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238
[20] Mykhalchuk, O., 2014. "Movna povedinka"yak katehoriia ukrainskoi sotsiolinhvistyky ["Language behavior"as a category of Ukrainian sociolinguistics]. Mova i suspilstvo [Language and Society] 5, 28–39. URL: https://publications.lnu.edu.ua/collections/index.php/ls/article/view/1754.
[21] Nahorna, L.P., 2005. Politychna mova i movna polityka: diapazon mozhlyvostei politychnoi linhvistyky [Political language and language policy: the range of possibilities of political linguistics]. Svitohliad, Kyiv. URL: https://ipiend.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/political_language_site.pdf.
[22] Pelivan, O.K., 2023. Linguo-prosodic means of politeness/ impoliteness realization in English informal conflict dialogical discourse. Writings in Romance-Germanic Philology 2(49), 93–108. doi:10.18524/2307-4604.2022.2(49).268202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18524/2307-4604.2022.2(49).268202
[23] Shymanska, V., 2023. Leksyko-semantychni novatsii ukrainskoi movy v umovakh suchasnoi viiny [Lexical-semantic innovations of Ukrainian language under the conditions of current war]. Naukovi zapysky Natsionalnoho universytetu "Ostrozka akademiia": seriia "Filolohiia"[Scientific Notes of Ostroh Academy National University, Philology Series] 17, 312–315. URL: https://journals.oa.edu.ua/Philology/article/view/3865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25264/2519-2558-2023-17(85)-312-315
[24] Volianiuk, I.O., 2022. Politychnyi dyskurs v umovakh rosiisko-ukrainskoi viiny: linhvistychnyi aspekt [Political discourse in conditions of Russian Ukrainian war: linguistic aspect]. Zakarpatski filolohichni studii [Transcarpathian Philological Studies] 1, 47–51. doi:10.32782/tps2663-4880/2022.23.1.8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/tps2663-4880/2022.23.1.8
[25] Vusyk, H.L., 2022. Vyrazhennia movlennievoi ahresii v ukrainskykh masmedia pid chas rosiisko-ukrainskoi viiny [Expressions of speech aggression in Ukrainian mass media during the Russian Ukrainian war]. Naukovyi visnyk DDPU imeni I. Franka. Seriia: Filolohichni nauky (movoznavstvo) [Research Journal of Drohobych Ivan Franko State Pedagogical University. Series: Philology (Linguistics)] 17, 23–27. doi:10.24919/2663-6042.17.2022.4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24919/2663-6042.17.2022.4
[26] Zhalko, T.Y., 2025. Transformatsiia komunikatyvnykh norm u molodizhnomu internet-dyskursi: linhvokulturnyi analiz [Transformation of communicative norms in youth internet discourse: a linguistic and cultural analysis]. Akademichni studii. Seriia “Humanitarni nauky” [Academic Studies. Series “Humanities”] , 104–109.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Liudmyla Bilokonenko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
