The individual construction of meaning through the perception of

impoliteness the aspects of face most frequently endangered in

Serbia

Ivan Stamenkovi

DEFINITION
[The role of the Politeness Principle is] "to maintain
the social equilibrium and the friendly relations
which enable us to assume that our interlocutors are
being cooperative in the first place." (Leech, 1983:
82)
"... politeness, like formal diplomatic protocol (for
which it must surely be the model), presupposes that
potential for aggression as it seeks to disarm it, and
makes possible communication between potentially
aggressive parties." (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 1)
impoliteness, the use of strategies that are designed
to have the opposite effect - that of social disruption.
These strategies are oriented towards attacking face,
an emotionally sensitive concept of the self
(Culpeper 1996).

GOAL
How the meaning of impolite utterances is
constructed by individuals through the perception of
face attack
The aim of this paper is to ascertain how individuals
attribute meaning to an impolite utterance by
exploring which of the five aspects of face defined by
Spencer-Oatey (2000) is primarily targeted by
impoliteness in Serbia.
Analytical framework used is Spencer-Oateys
rapport management (e.g. 2000), which postulates
various aspects of face (Quality face, Social identity
face, Relational face, Equity rights and Association
rights)
A corpus of 100 entries containing impoliteness
situations gathered via an online survey was analyzed

FACE
[] 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 that 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)
Positive face:
desiretogaintheapprovalofothersorthepositivec
onsistentself-imageor personality . . . claimed by
interactants
Negative face: desire to be unimpeded by others in
ones actions, the basic claim to territories, personal
preserves, rights to non-distraction . . . freedom of
action and freedom from imposition

Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness:

A study of impoliteness events reported by students in England, China, Finland, Germany and
Turkey
Culpeper et al.

Cross-cultural variation in the perception of impoliteness

based on 500 impoliteness events reported by students in
England, China, Finland, Germany and Turkey
Quantitative analysis suggests that three of the five
categories of Spencer-Oatey's framework are key ones,
namely, quality face, equity rights and association rights
England-based data has a preponderance of impoliteness
events in which quality face is violated, whereas the Chinabased data has a preponderance where equity rights are
violated
complementary distribution for the English and Turkish
datasets, such that when quality face is high, sociality
rights are low, and for the Chinese and German datasets,
such that when sociality rights are high, quality face is low

Results
Quality
face

Social
identity Relation Equity
face
al face
rights

Associati
on rights

China

33

34

24

England

54

11

14

16

Finland

40

24

22

Germany

37

23

33

Turkey

58

16

12

Results
70
60
50
Quality face
Social identity face
Relational face
Equity rights
Association rights

40
30
20
10
0

China England Finland Germany Turkey

Results
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

China
England
Finland
Germany
Turkey

The Questionnaire
Please describe a situation in which somebody said something to
you that made you feel bad (e.g. hurt, offended, embarrassed,
humiliated, threatened, put upon, obstructed, or ostracized).
Narrate in your own words; perhaps write it as a play dialogue: we
are not looking for a technical description.
(1a) what was actually said, implied or done?
(1b) how was it said, implied or done (e.g. was it something about
the pronunciation?)?
(2a) where was it said, implied or done (e.g. in class, on the bus)?
(2b) by whom was it said, implied or done (e.g. what was your
relationship with them?)?
(2c) were there were others who heard it too?
(3) what were your reactions (e.g. what did you say, imply or do)?
(1) We know you felt "bad", but describe your feelings
(2) Why did this particular behaviour make you feel bad?" Boxes
allowing for a few lines of text were supplied for responses.
How would you describe the behaviour of the person who made
you feel bad (how would you label this kind of behaviour?)?

Respondents age
Under
18
2

China
Englan
d
Finland
Germa
ny

1829

3059

80

Over 60

16

Under
18

1829

3059

Over
60

0
0

100
98

0
2

0
0

0
0

99
99

1
1

0
0

Respondents gender
England
China
Finland
Germany
Turkey
Serbia

Female
79
67
89
73
64
60

Male
21
33
11
27
36
40

Quality face
We have a fundamental desire for people to evaluate
us positively in terms of our personal qualities; e.g.
our competence, abilities, appearance etc. Quality
face is concerned with the value that we effectively
claim for ourselves in terms of such personal
qualities as these, and so is closely associated with
our sense of personal self-esteem.
The values pertain to the constellation of personal
attributes that distinguish a person as a unique
individual in their social world
Does the interaction evoke an understanding that
something counters positive values which a
participant claims not only to have as a specific
individual but to be assumed by other participant(s)
as having?

Quality face
In high school, when my teacher told me in front of the
whole class that I was stupid and that I was emptyheaded. He wanted to make fun of me in front of
everyone so as to inspire me to study, but his sentence
had a completely opposite effect.His tone was quite
serious, but he was smiling to the other students.I did
not dare say anything, he was my teacher.I was hurt
and angry, tears came rolling down my cheeks, but I
managed to control my emotions so he would not
notice. I was aggravated because he said that in front
of everyone and because it's not nice to talk to
students in this manner.

Social identity face

We have a fundamental desire for people to
acknowledge and uphold our social identities or roles,
e.g. as group leader, valued customer, close friend.
Social identity face is concerned with the value that
we effectively claim for ourselves in terms of social or
group roles, and is closely associated with our sense of
public worth
Shift towards the perception of self as an
interchangeable exemplar of some social category and
away from the perception of self as a unique person
Does the interaction evoke an understanding that
something counters positive values which a
participant claims not only to have in common with all
other members in a particular group, but to be
assumed by other participant(s) as having?

Social identity face

I was traveling with my colleagues to school when I started a
conversation with a colleague about the characteristics of our
colleagues. The colleague teaches a subject related to economy. In
the middle of the conversation, she called me cranky. She did not
even make it sound like a joke. Then he began to generalize about
all the people that share my profession (I teach mathematics) and
said that we were all the same. It went so far that she finally asked
me what has to be wrong with a person in order for him/her to
decide to study mathematics, since she saw no point in that.
She wanted to glorify her profession and to debase mine in order
to hurt me indirectly.
I tried to answer, but I was not in the mood for a lengthy
discussion.
All the other colleagues were silent and smiling because they
found the debate interesting, so nobody stood up for me. The
generalization was very insulting, how can one make such a
conclusion based on your profession?

Relational face
Sometimes there can also be a relational application; for
example, being a talented leader and/or a kind-hearted
teacher entails a relational component that is intrinsic to
the evaluation reflects who a person is in relation to his
or her significant others
Like relational selves, then, collective selves entail some
degree of connection with others. However, whereas
relational selves involve a connection with known,
identifiable significant other or group of significant others,
collective selves designate connections with individuals
whose identities may not be known
Does the interaction evoke an understanding that
something counters positive values about the relations
which a participant claims not only to have with a
significant other or others but to be assumed by that/
those significant other(s) and/ or other participant(s) as
having?

Relational face
The mother of a student of mine said that I was not able
to cope with a group of children which included her son.
Everybody had problems with this group of students
due to their (lack of) discipline.She implicitly wanted to
say that I was not capable. I said that I did not agree
with her attitude because everybody had problems with
this group, and everybody was complaining about them
and their behavior. I was the only one trying to solve
this problem. I did not agree with her attitude and I do
not want to be talked about as an incapable teacher
while the mother herself did not see her own fault in
raising her child which caused him to have a lot of
problems in school.

Equity rights
People have a fundamental belief that they are entitled
to personal consideration from others and to be treated
fairly; in other words, that they are not unduly imposed
upon, that they are not unfairly ordered about, and that
they are not taken advantage of or exploited. This
principle [] seems to have three components: costbenefit considerations (the principle that people should
not be exploited or disadvantaged), fairness and
reciprocity (the belief that costs and benefits should be
"fair" and kept roughly in balance), and autonomycontrol (the belief that people should not be unduly
controlled or imposed upon)
Does the interaction evoke an understanding that
something counters a state of affairs in which a
participant considers that they are not unduly exploited,
disadvantaged, unfairly dealt with, controlled or
imposed upon?

Equity rights
I was paying for the goods I purchased in a store.I was paying
with my debit card and I gave it to the cashier.
Her: Tell me your PIN code.
Me: What do you mean?I can not tell you that.I'll type it myself.
Her: (impertinently) Well, we have a short cable.
Me: I'll stretch my arm, then.
I stretch out my hand and I type in the PIN.
She: (sarcastically) Ha!I can see the PIN all the same.
I really do not know what she wanted.She was probably hoping
to look smart and make it seem she's right, and she turned out
to be rude.
It was very insolent, arrogant and spiteful.
The problem wasthat I did not respond.I was speechless.I was
so stunned by her rude behaviour and vulgarity that I couldn't
speak a word.If I had said something, it probably you wouldn't
have affected me so much :) If I'd told her that she was rude
because she was looking, I probably would not have
remembered this event for so long.

Association rights
People have a fundamental belief that they are entitled
to an association with others that is in keeping with the
type of relationship that they have with them. This
principle [...] seems to have three components:
involvement (the principle that people should have
appropriate amount and types of "activity" involvement
with others), empathy (the belief that people should
share appropriate concerns,feelings and interests with
others), and respect (the belief that people should show
appropriate amounts of respectfulness for others)
Does the interaction evoke an understanding that
something counters a state of affairs in which a
participant considers that they have an appropriate
level of behavioural involvement and sharing of
concerns, feelings and interests with others, and are
accorded an appropriate level of respect?

Association rights
I was in the hospital for some examinations during my
pregnancy because there was a risk of diabetes.I spent
the whole night and an entire day in the hospital, and a
friend, who had not called for months and who I
considered to be one of my best buddies, contacted me
asking if I would soon be going on a shopping tour that
we mentioned ages ago.When I told him that I had a
problem and that I was in the hospital, he just told me
that it's probably not a big deal and continued to talk
about the trip.He did not care about my health
condition.He spoke to me in an indifferent tone, as if he
did not care how I feel.I think my health is more
important than he that stupid trip, I was under a lot of
stress about these views examinations and I needed the
support of friends, which was lacking.I thought that
friends should take care of each other.

Survey results
Quality face

36

Social identity Relational

face
face

10

14

Association
Equity rights rights

28

12

Survey results
40
35
30
Quality face
Social identity face
Relational face
Equity rights
Association rights

25
20
15
10
5
0

Serbia

Comparative results
Quality
face

Social
identity Relational
face
face

Equity
rights

Associati
on rights

China

33

34

24

England

54

11

14

16

Finland

40

24

22

Germany

37

23

33

Turkey

58

16

12

Serbia

36

10

14

28

12

Comparative results
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Quality Face
Identity Face
Relational Face
Equity Rights
Association Rights

Comparative results
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

China
England
Finland
Germany
Turkey
Serbia

Conclusions
Western vs. Eastern
Serbia diverges from the pattern
Social roles are very important in
Serbia
Many informal associations of a
friendly character vs. Germany, where
activities are limited to a small group
of long-standing friends
Reciprocity is important, just like
China

References

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: 529545. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005) (Im)politeness, face and perceptions
of
rapport
:
unpackaging
their
bases
and
interrelationships.Journal of Politeness Research1(1): 95
119. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals
in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal
of Pragmatics 25: 349367. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Culpeper, J., Marti, L., Mei, M., Nevala, M. and 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): 597624. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.