DOI: 10.55804/jtsuSPEKALI-16-15

As it is commonly accepted, humans are social beings. They live in the company of other people and therefore, have to learn how to live with them. A person is also a rational and emotional creature, one of whose basic needs is to be recognized and valued by others. In order to achieve this goal, they choose one of the two main strategies – polite or impolite behavior ­– or apply a combination of them. First, they treat other people politely, consider, respect their opinions, views, positions, feelings, personality/identity, i.e., treat them as they themselves would like to be treated. This kind of conduct forms a foundation for harmonious communication [Lakoff, 1973; Leech, 1983; Brown… 1978, 1987; Ide, 1989; Kasper, 1990; Brown, 2015]. Second, a person seeks to establish themselves by demonstrating their own superiority, diminishing other people’s opinions, views, positions, identity, abilities, skills, etc. In this case, an individual exhibits impolite behavior and, using direct and indirect methods, emphasizes any of their advantages in relation to the addressee, such as: power, socioeconomic status, level of education, gender role, personal life experience, etc. A given person demands that their personality and position be respected, recognized and obeyed, although they themselves do not express the same attitude towards others. Other people's feelings and needs are insignificant to them. This type of conduct is the basis of disharmonious interactions and generally results in conflict, confrontation, resentment, anger and other similar negative outcomes [Kienpointner, 2008; Locher… 2008; Holmes… 2008].  Consequently, a question arises: how does a person choose a way for establishing themselves in society, for gaining respect and recognition from others? They display different types of behavior when interacting with different people, modify their speech register and communication strategy depending on who their interlocutor is and what social environment they are in [Lakoff, 1977; Hudson, 1980].

A person's behavior (verbal or non-verbal) is governed by a number of different factors. In the process of forming one's attitudes and behavior models, a significant role is played by the environments in which a person's socialization primarily took place and is constantly ongoing (as socialization is a continuous process), that is, one’s personal life experience; social and stereotypical knowledge and a person’s uniquely individual pattern of thinking and perception; also, the way an individual perceives themselves, as well as other participants of a specific interaction. It should be noted that a person does not always act in a fully thought-out and planned manner. One’s actions are often spontaneous, emotional and, in some cases, instinctive. In these types of conduct, the worldview of a given person is well revealed. Depending on a person’s performance, other participants of the interaction make judgements about them (their identity). A person tries to solidify their position by using certain communication strategies and a specific style of behavior. In this process, they need the support of other participants of the interaction in order for them to recognize and confirm a person’s desired local identity – the one that the person puts forward or self-asserts (“self-asserted subject position”) [see Anton… 2003]. It is within social interactions where the role of politeness and impoliteness is emphasized.

The phenomenon of politeness has been studied in many ways. However, the interest towards impoliteness as an independent phenomenon emerged only in the last years of the twentieth century. Since instances of impoliteness are evident in a variety of discourses [Culpeper… 2003; Locher… 2008] – in real life (everyday, face-to-face interactions), as well as in social networks, media, and fiction – it cannot be viewed as merely the opposite phenomenon to politeness. Researchers [Eelen, 2001; Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2010b] claim that impoliteness needs to be conceptualized and studied independently.

In the field of pragmatics, the formula proposed by P. Brown and S. Levinson (1987) is widely recognized, in which they put forward three main factors that determine the seriousness of a threat the speaker's behavior can pose to the face of the hearer/addressee. These variables are: the speaker's relative power in relation to the hearer; social distance between the speaker and the hearer; and the rank of imposition, i.e., the degree of influence on the hearer – imposed by an expression used by the speaker (Perceived degree of imposition involved in the utterance). The authors present this view in the form of the following formula:

W x = D (S, H) + P (H, S) + R x 

W stands for – Weight of a face-threatening act, D – Social Distance, S – Speaker, H – Hearer (Addressee), P – Power difference, and R – Rank of imposition. Accordingly, the greater the social distance between the speaker and the hearer and the speaker's power relative to the hearer, the more the speaker is able to damage the hearer's face with their behavior, that is, prevent them from forming their desired identity.

As impoliteness is found everywhere, including interactions between family members and friends, the factor of social closeness/intimacy needs to be taken into consideration. Generally, in a healthy situation, the closer the relationship between individuals, the more important it is for each of them to recognize, affirm each other's claimed identities, to show respect and care. Therefore, practicing impoliteness towards each other can significantly damage their respective identities. In other words, the closer the relationship, and the more relative power, the greater damage the speaker is able to cause to the addressee's face, or identity – by using appropriate impoliteness strategies.

Power can be considered in the following general sense: the speaker, who attacks the addressee's local identity by using a specific impoliteness strategy, sharply restricts the latter's response options, i.e., “action-environment”, and thus demonstrates or seeks to gain power in relation to the addressee [see Wartenberg, 1990; Locher… 2008]. Furthermore, we can claim that the speaker's power can be determined by their authority from the addressee's perspective. In the case of close social/intimate relationships, the addressee's emotional attitude towards the speaker is also an important factor, i.e., the more authoritative, respectable and, on an emotional level, the more important the speaker is to the addressee, the more the latter’s action environment is restricted. The question is whether the addressee is able to successfully demonstrate their power and protect their identity in the given restricted action-environment.

The view of social closeness/intimacy presented in this paper can be demonstrated by making a slight change to the formula developed by P. Brown and S. Levinson [1987] – by adding a minus sign (-):

W x = - D (S, H) + P (H, S) + Rx

Where the minus sign (-) indicates a negative effect of social distance. That is, the less the social distance between the speaker and the addressee (the greater the social closeness, intimacy), the heavier the potential weight of damage to the addressee's face, i.e., identity through impolite behavior. It is important to note that the given study of impoliteness and identity phenomena in the family discourse genre has highlighted the need for such modification of the formula.

However paradoxical it may sound, the two opposing views presented above do not contradict each other. In different situations, given the context of specific discourses, both, big social distance, as well as close social relationship can be seen as one of the most influential factors determining the severity of damage to the addressee's face/identity. Consequently, in the case of these two extremes, relative power and degree of imposition, or context, the interpretation of impolite behavior by the hearer/addressee are crucial in defining the potential weight of a face-threatening i.e., impolite act.

Present paper studies verbal and interpersonal manifestations of impoliteness, and its role in the construction of individual identities – on the example of Georgian family discourse, as a genre. As it is generally accepted, the main basis of a family union and, consequently, the ultimate goal of this community of practice is exchanging love, showing mutual respect, providing moral or financial support to its members. Studying family discourse is significant, as it constitutes a primary environment for identity co-construction and human socialization, and is characterized by close social relationships. Studying the daily interactions between family members over a long period of time allows the analyst to identify cases of repeated use of impoliteness by specific individuals and, therefore, to talk more deeply and argumentatively about the interconnections between impoliteness and identity. This kind of research on the example of family discourse has not been conducted before, which determines the novelty and relevance of the topic.

Empirical basis of this research is the twenty-first century Georgian satirical TV series –"My Wife's Girlfriends", which is highly rated throughout the country. It describes a group of friends and the daily lives of them and their families. Interesting life issues are presented in the episodes. "My Wife's Girlfriends" reflects real, contemporary social problems and other current issues in Georgia. This paper presents and analyzes the interactions in which impoliteness has been detected, in particular, the instances of repeated use of impoliteness by a certain person i.e., impolite identity. Among the many instances of impoliteness used by a specific character within the studied 15 seasons (Season 1 – Season 15), two examples are presented in this article. Verbal interactions have been transcribed and examined using a qualitative, discourse-analytic method, as both identity and (im)politeness are constructed in interaction/discourse [Joseph, 2004].

Theoretical framework for the research combines: 1. the Social-constructivist approach to identity construction [Anton… 2003; Joseph, 2004; Bucholtz… 2005; De Fina… 2006], which views identity as a discursive practice, socially constructed, not product, but a process. Person’s identity, in a broader sense, is a combination of many different local i.e., context-specific identities. Identities are built, maintained, changed constantly, throughout a person's life, and in this process multiple parties are involved – the person themselves, and the people with whom they have a relationship during their life; and 2. Postmodern, Discursive, i.e., Genre approach to the study of (im)politeness [Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2010a]. The latter is based on the definitions of the concept of genre provided by J. Swales and N. Fairclough.

According to J. Swales, the concept of genre combines those communicative acts^[1] whose participants have a common goal of communication. This goal is known to the participants of a given community of practice, is the basis for the existence of the genre, and also affects the discourse structure, while also imposing restrictions on content and style... [Swales, 1990]. According to N. Fairclough, people establish communication within specific discourses, which are always characterized by the use of particular forms of expression and interaction, that is, these discourses are always regulated by genres and people use different styles for self-expression. The concept of style refers to the role of language and non-verbal communication in the process of constructing certain social or individual identities. A person’s style, in this case, refers to the use of language as a means of self-identification [Fairclough, 2003].

Within the genre approach, P. Blitvich defines impoliteness as follows: “the use of lexico-grammatical strategies or realizations of prosodic features not typically associated, i.e., not recurrent, with a specific (pre)genre and/or a disregard for the established, (pre)genre-sanctioned, norms and interactional parameters regulating the rights and obligations associated therein with a given individual/social identity which can thus be interpreted as face threatening“. Also, certain behavior can be considered impolite “when there is a mismatch between the social, generic, norms of the interaction and the participants’ background and expectations, i.e., experiential norms; when the face-threatening behaviour goes beyond the genre-established limits of what is acceptable as the normal course of events“. According to the author,“ Genre constraints are always co-constructed and negotiated at the level of style” [Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2010a: 63].

For data analysis, a mixed model has been applied, which combines a top-down, theory-based predictive view, on the basis of which the analyst can make assessments of (im)politeness, i.e., evaluate a certain linguistic expression, praxis as (im)polite; and a bottom-up, discursive approach, according to which the formation of (im)politeness, i.e., the implementation and interpretation of (im)polite behavior takes place within an interaction, and therefore, the analyst has the opportunity to identify instances of (im)politeness in practice by observing individual interactions, based on the evaluations and interpretations made by the participants themselves.

Consider specific interactions^[2].

(1)  (1) Example

Participants: Zaza (Z.) and Keti (K.) – young husband and wife. The presented scene is taking place in the kitchen - Zaza is eating, Keti is putting dishes on the table.

In the given example, we see that Keti is jealous of Zaza because of what her cousin has told her (It should also be noted that during their relationship, Zaza repeatedly gave Keti a reason to be jealous). In response, Zaza expresses aggression towards Keti's cousin and calls her a gossip – with marked stress on this word: „What is it? (.) Is this the first time your gossipy cousin has seen me at the restaurant? (?)“ (lines 12-13). This is followed by aggression from Keti, in particular, she uses impolite formulation for expressing her idea: „Sure, she has seen you there before, but this time you were not sitting, eating and drinking there and you were dragging the dishes somewhere, this is what she saw. (.) She said she called you three times, but you could not hear her, or just pretended you did not notice her. (.)“ (lines 14-19). Note the marked stress on the word­ – you were dragging the dishes somewhere. Zaza is still being rude: „I did not see her at all and did not hear anything. (.) Why would I pretend? is she delusional? (?) (2.0)“ (lines 20-21). By looking at Keti’s facial expression, it is clear that she is suspicious of her husband, but prefers to avoid the argument. In particular, in response to Zaza’s question – „And what was there to be told? (2.0)“ (line 22) – she says: „Okay, nothing. (2.0)“ (line 30). However, when Zaza asks her – „And what do you think about all of that? (.)” (line 31) – Keti cannot help herself and she loudly, in an annoyed manner tells Zaza her version of what happened: “I THINK THAT YOU VISITED SOME WOMAN (.) WITH ALL THOSE DISHES (.) AND ENJOYED A ROMANTIC SUPPER WITH HER AT HOME (.)” (lines 32-34). In response, Zaza shows aggression again, drops the fork noisily and replies shouting: “I JUST HATE THESE TYPES OF KATO’S SPEECHES! (.)”  (line 35). Note the marked stress on – KATO’S SPEECHES. This way, he emphasizes that Keti does not have her own opinions and just repeats the thoughts of her cousin or her friends. Keti tries to defend her position and replies to Zaza fighting, in a loud voice: “OH (.) KATO’S SPEECHES, (.) TINA’S OPINIONS... (.) YOU THINK THAT I DO NOT HAVE MY OWN OPINIONS, RIGHT? (?)” (lines 36-38). In this case, Zaza further insults and diminishes Keti's opinion, using aggressive, impolite, scabrous vocabulary with regard to her judgement, and raises his voice: “EVEN WORSE, IF YOU HAVE THOUGHT OF ALL THAT BULLSHIT YOURSELF! (.)”  (lines 39-40). Note the marked stress on the word – BULLSHIT. Keti continues trying to defuse the tension, but her voice is still loud: “WHAT ARE YOU YELLING? (.) I JUST ASKED (.) IS IT NOT ALLOWED? (?) I WAS SURPRISED BY THE FACT THAT NINO KESHELADZE CALLED ME. (.) (lines 41-44). Zaza ends the conversation with aggression and shouting, using insulting words in reference to Keti's cousin: “SO, WHEN NINO KESHELADZE CALLS YOU AGAIN, TELL HER TO GO FUCK HERSELF! (.) TELL HER THOSE ARE MY WORDS.” (lines 45-47). Note the marked stress on the scabrous phrase – TELL HER TO GO FUCK HERSELF. Zaza leaves the room and Keti stays – looking worried and thoughtful.

In the discussed example, we can see that Keti expresses her opinion in a sincere and emotional manner, by raising her voice. In particular, she suspects that Zaza is cheating on her. As a response, she only receives aggression, insulting words and an attack on her identity. Specifically, Zaza does not take Keti's feelings and emotions into account, responds by shouting, uses rude, scabrous words and phrases, aggressive body language (facial expressions, gestures) and also tries to discredit her thoughts – questions their value and authenticity, emphasizing that all of this is not Keti's, but her gossipy cousin’s and her friend Kato’s opinions. This way, Zaza is trying to get out of the situation. This kind of impolite behavior obviously threatens Keti’s face. At first, Keti tries to defend her identity in a bold manner, by raising her voice: “YOU THINK THAT I DO NOT HAVE MY OWN OPINIONS, RIGHT? (?)” (lines 37-38). But then, in the face of Zaza's aggression in response, she prefers to try to defuse the tension. However, Zaza ends the conversation with swearing and leaves the room, while Keti stays – looking worried and thoughtful. Thus, her attempt to defend herself is unsuccessful. Zaza other-asserts her an image of an unintelligent, stupid person who cannot make her own judgements and only echoes the opinions of others – in this case, her cousin and friend (“other-asserted subject position”) [see Anton… 2003].

In the given example, Zaza manages to get out of the situation by using different impoliteness strategies, through the image of a rude husband. During the interaction he actively uses a number of verbal and non-verbal strategies such as: rude, insulting, scabrous words and phrases, aggressive body language (facial expressions, gestures), loud voice, not recognizing and attacking others’, in this case, Keti’s identity. Consequently, we can conclude that by means of impoliteness strategies, Zaza tries to gain and demonstrate his relative power in relation to Keti, to self-assert and maintain the identity of a rude husband. Most importantly, in this process he threatens Keti's face, that is, her identity, does not consider her opinions and emotions, but quite the contrary, insults and tries to degrade her.

(2)  (2) Example

Participants: Keti (K.) and Zaza (Z.). In the given scene the couple is in their bedroom – Zaza is lying, watching a video in his mobile phone, while Keti is sitting, looking in the mirror. Zaza intends to get up…

For clarity, it should be noted that some time before the given interaction, Zaza hit a stranger girl with his car. After the accident, they became friends, secretly from Keti. When the girl asked him for help to get rid of the maniac, Zaza agreed. In the end, the maniac hit Zaza in his head with a brick and, as a result, according to the doctor's advice, he has to stay in bed for several days.

In the given example, it is obvious that Keti is concerned about Zaza's health. In particular, she asks him to follow the doctor’s advice and stay in bed. However, it is clear that the current situation makes her jealous: “that girl does not want other boys to defend her. (.) She wants you to protect her. (2.0)”  (lines 14-15). Zaza's response demonstrates his indifferent, disrespectful attitude towards his wife. We can clearly see that Keti's jealousy is annoying to him and he does not take her feelings into consideration: “You started again, right?! (?) (2.0)“ (line 16). When Keti repeats her words – “She is not making anything up. She just wants you to protect her. (2.0)” (lines 19-20) – Zaza replies sarcastically: “Oh! (.) That must be Kato Kirvalidze’s analysis! (.)“ (lines 21-22). This way, he attacks Keti's identity, speaks with a mocking, sarcastic tone and facial expression, questions Keti's ability to reason and analyze. It is notable that according to Zaza’s claims the reason for Keti's jealousy lies not in his own behavior or in the given situation, but in the analysis of Keti's friend, Kato Kirvalidze, which, based on his words, Keti believes and simply repeats, as she does not have the ability to draw her own conclusions. As a result of Zaza’s comment, Keti gets annoyed. She raises her voice and tries to defend her identity: “WHY DO YOU KEEP REPEATING THAT MY OPINIONS ARE ACTUALLY SOMEONE ELSE’S ANALYSIS? (.) CAN I NOT HAVE MY OWN OPINION? (?)” (lines 23-25). Note the marked stress on the personal pronoun – I. Zaza replies calmly: “Well, it is a fact that you did not use to be a jealous person (.) and now you are being jealous of some poor girl I hit with a car.” (lines 26-28). Then, we can see that Zaza gets overcome with emotion, he raises his voice and uses aggressive, scabrous vocabulary: “AND YES, I WILL BE FUCKING OBLIGATED TO HER ALL MY LIFE. (.) IS IT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? (?)” (lines 29-31). Note the marked stress on the words – FUCKING OBLIGATED, ALL MY LIFE. And for Keti this is obviously difficult to understand. She also replies yelling: “WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY OBLIGED? EXPLAIN TO ME. (.) IF SHE TELLS YOU TO MOVE IN WITH HER, SHOULD YOU TELL ME THAT YOU ARE OBLIGATED AND HAVE TO LEAVE? (?) (2.0)” (lines 32-36). Zaza again answers loudly, in an indifferent manner, half-joking: “SMOKING A CIGARRETTE IS NOT ALLOWED BUT FUCKING MY BRAIN IS, RIGHT?! (?)“ (lines 37-38). Note the marked stress on an impolite, insulting formulation – FUCKING MY BRAIN – which he uses in reference to Keti’s jealousy and the given conversation. At the end of the interaction, Zaza questions the validity and seriousness of Keti's opinions again: “You have no idea of life! (.) You do not even know who to be jealous of. (.)” (lines 48-49). Note the marked stress on the phrase – You have no idea – which obviously cannot calm Keti. She replies annoyedly: “I have quite an idea! (.)” (line 50). As a response, she gets a disrespectful, insulting, scabrous phrase again: “THEN GO FUCK YOURSELF! (2.0)” (line 51). At the same time, Zaza turns over and starts watching football in his phone. This way, Zaza clearly expresses his attitude towards his wife. We can see how uninteresting it is for him to talk to Keti and how insignificant her feelings and emotions are to him. In Keti’s look surprise, resentment, disgust is displayed.

In the presented example, it is evident that Zaza does not take Keti's feelings and emotions into account, responds to her jealousy with aggression, raises his voice, uses rude, insulting, scabrous words and phrases towards her. In addition, he does not recognize Keti's identity as an intelligent individual and other-asserts her an image of a stupid person, i.e., tries to make her look foolish, questions the value and authenticity of her views. For self-defense Zaza uses the method of counterattack (similar to Example 1). It should be noted that throughout their relationship Zaza repeatedly gave Keti a reason to be jealous. In the presented example, when, due to the given situation, Keti clearly feels jealous, Zaza accuses her of being unreasonable, believing and copying her friend, Kato’s, opinions, implying that Keti does not have her own, authentic views, that her positions are mainly expression of other people’s, in this case, Keti’s girlfriends’ thoughts and beliefs. Moreover, Zaza tries to make Keti believe that she "has no idea" of life, that her jealousy is completely baseless and does not deserve serious consideration. Thus, Zaza's goal is to make Keti question the value of her own thoughts, blindly trust and follow Zaza's views. All of this poses a threat to Keti's face, more specifically, prevents her from forming her desired identity. Keti shows a negative reaction to her husband’s attempt discussed above. She denies the identity of a stupid person other-asserted to her by Zaza, raises her voice and displays counter aggression towards him. Finally, in order to avoid further discussion, Zaza finds an easy way out and ends the conversation with Keti using rude, insulting scabrous phrase, swearing, turns over and starts watching football in his phone. With this kind of behavior, he once again clearly expresses how insignificant Keti, her thoughts, feelings, emotions are to him. As a result, Keti's feelings of surprise, resentment, disgust are communicated through her facial expression.

Based on a scientific, theoretical definition of impoliteness, as well as taking Keti’s interpretation, her reactions into account, in the given examples, Zaza's behavior can be evaluated as impolite, as he uses lexico-grammatical strategies and prosodic features that are not typically associated with the family discourse genre, disregard the established, genre-sanctioned norms and interactional parameters regulating the rights and obligations associated therein with a given individual/social identity. Thus, Zaza’s behavior can be interpreted as threatening to Keti’s face. Also, there is a mismatch between the social, generic, norms of the interaction and the participants’ background and expectations, i.e., experiential norms; the face-threatening behaviour goes beyond the genre-established limits of what is acceptable as the normal course of events [see Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2010a].

In the discussed examples, Zaza's style of behavior is evident. In particular, he repeatedly uses impolite, rude, insulting, scabrous words and phrases, aggressive body language (facial expressions, gestures), raises his voice, thus establishing his own identity as a rude husband. This way, he also tries to gain and demonstrate relative power and control over his wife. Keti’s feelings and emotions are insignificant to him. Zaza attacks his wife's identity by discrediting her thoughts, questioning their authenticity and value. In addition, he tries to other-assert Keti an image of a stupid person. With this kind of behavior, Zaza sharply violates the boundaries of the family discourse genre, which is confirmed by Keti's reactions, such as: counter aggression, resentment, annoyance.    

[1] A communication process, a situation in which information is exchanged

[2] at the end of the article, see Appendix – Transcription conventions

Appendix

Transcription conventions:

word marked stress

WORD increased volume

(.) short pause

(2.0) longer pause, in seconds

(laugh) paralinguistic features of communication

(?) rising intonation