Chaos in a Pro-Life Event: An Analysis of Negative Impoliteness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37296/esci.v4i2.92Keywords:
negative impoliteness, sociolinguistic, pro-life.Abstract
A Pro-life event held by Student for Life turned chaotic. This phenomenon can be attributed to the occurrence of negative impoliteness strategies, which attack one’s negative face-wants. This research is aimed to analyze the strategies and the functions of negative impoliteness in the event. This research is descriptive-qualitative, using observational and non-participatory techniques for the data collection. The collected data were analyzed according to the theory of Culpeper (1996, 2011) for the strategies of negative impoliteness and their functions. The results showed that there were negative impoliteness strategies done by the pro-choice audience to frighten, condescend, ridicule, scorn, invade, explicitly associate with negative aspects, and hinder the pro-life speakers and members, which were functioning as coercive and affective impoliteness, consequently turned the event chaotic. They knew and were able to act polite, but decided not to. Arguments aside, both parties should have engaged in a professional and mature attitude.
References
Acheampong, D. O., Kwarteng, M., & others. (2021). A pragmatic analysis of impoliteness in selected Ghanaian social interactions. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3(3), 32–40.
Ardila, J. A. G. (2019). Impoliteness as a rhetorical strategy in Spain’s politics. Journal of Pragmatics, 140, 160–170.
Betzig, L., & Lombardo, L. H. (1992). Who’s pro-choice and why. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13(1), 49–71.
Borris, D., & Zecho, C. (2018). The linguistic politeness having seen on the current study issue. Linguistics and Culture Review, 2(1), 32–44.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–367.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence (Vol. 28). Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J. (2016). Impoliteness strategies. Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, 421–445.
Culpeper, J. (2021). Impoliteness and hate speech: Compare and contrast. Journal of Pragmatics, 179, 4–11.
Culpeper, J., & Tantucci, V. (2021). The principle of (im) politeness reciprocity. Journal of Pragmatics, 175, 146–164.
Graham, S. L. (2007). Disagreeing to agree: Conflict,(im) politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 742–759.
Harris, L. H. (2008). Second trimester abortion provision: breaking the silence and changing the discourse. Reproductive Health Matters, 16(31), 74–81.
Hendricks, P. (2019). Even if the fetus is not a person, abortion is Immoral: the impairment argument. Bioethics, 33(2), 245–253.
Hendricks, P. (2023). The Pregnancy Rescue Case: why abortion is immoral. Journal of Medical Ethics.
Kadhum, M. F., & Abbas, N. F. (2021). How Impoliteness Is Portrayed in a School Context:" The Marva Collins" as a Case Study. Arab World English Journal, 12(3), 144–158.
Khazraie, M., & Talebzadeh, H. (2020). “Wikipedia does NOT tolerate your babbling!”: Impoliteness-induced conflict (resolution) in a polylogal collaborative online community of practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 163, 46–65.
Kienpointner, M. (2008). Impoliteness and emotional arguments.
Lawler, E. J., & Thye, S. R. (1999). Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 217–244.
Lawler, E. J., & Thye, S. R. (2006). Social exchange theory of emotions. Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions, 295–320.
Lee, P. (2004). The pro-life argument from substantial identity: A defence. Bioethics, 18(3), 249–263.
Locher, M. A., & Bousfield, D. (2008). Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language (Issue 21). Mouton de Gruyter.
Lopez, R. (2012). Perspectives on Abortion: Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, and What Lies in between. European Journal of Social Sciences, 27(4), 511–517.
Maha, L. (2014). Cross-cultural perspectives on linguistic politeness. Cross-Cultural Communication, 10(1), 56–60.
Minoo, A., & Ashkan, L. (2019). The Realization of Impoliteness in Arguments between the Democrats and Republicans over the Government Shutdown Issue in the US. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23(1), 83–97.
Nasirli, A. (2021). An analysis of linguistic impoliteness in the selected American movies. Dünya Dilleri, Edebiyatlar{i} ve Çeviri Çal{i}{c{s}}malar{i} Dergisi, 2(1), 11–31.
Parvaresh, V., & Tayebi, T. (2018). Impoliteness, aggression and the moral order. Journal of Pragmatics, 132, 91–107.
Sahib, R., Zulihi, Z., Maloga, A., Zulfadli, Z., Nasrulloh, L., & Junaiddin, J. (2023). Politeness strategies used by Papuan students in virtual communication practices at university. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 10(2).
Sari, I. P., Emmiyati, N., & Asnur, S. M. (2019). Impoliteness strategies in Peter Rabbit movie. Elite: English and Literature Journal, 6(2), 222–237.
Sifianou, M. (2012). Disagreements, face and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1554–1564.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im) Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: unpackaging their bases and interrelationships.
Sudaryanto, S. (2015). Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa : Pengantar Penelitian Wahana Kebudayaan secara Linguistis. Sanata Dharma University Press.
