Goading as a social action
-
Nathaniel Mitchell
Abstract
This paper addresses particular social actions present in a data set of short message emails where interactants use potentially impolite strategies frequently. The particular social action under analysis here is that of goading, a term coined to describe targeted banter (banter directed toward a ratified participant in interaction). However, evaluations of impoliteness are not always shared across participants in these goading sequences, as follow-up interviews show some disaffiliation between individual participants’ understanding of the prior turns. It is more common in this data set to find tokens of goading being evaluated as non-impolite rather than impolite, suggesting that participants perceive the humorous nature of goading. Yet, among a tiny community of practice of only four individuals, even these non-impolite evaluations are not always shared. This paper attempts to add to the empirical study of im/politeness to account for goading as a type of banter or jocular mockery and situate it in the ever-increasing set of actions which cannot be straightforwardly categorized as second-order politeness or as impoliteness.
Abstract
This paper addresses particular social actions present in a data set of short message emails where interactants use potentially impolite strategies frequently. The particular social action under analysis here is that of goading, a term coined to describe targeted banter (banter directed toward a ratified participant in interaction). However, evaluations of impoliteness are not always shared across participants in these goading sequences, as follow-up interviews show some disaffiliation between individual participants’ understanding of the prior turns. It is more common in this data set to find tokens of goading being evaluated as non-impolite rather than impolite, suggesting that participants perceive the humorous nature of goading. Yet, among a tiny community of practice of only four individuals, even these non-impolite evaluations are not always shared. This paper attempts to add to the empirical study of im/politeness to account for goading as a type of banter or jocular mockery and situate it in the ever-increasing set of actions which cannot be straightforwardly categorized as second-order politeness or as impoliteness.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
-
Introduction
- Introduction vii
-
Self-reporting Studies
- Introduction to Part I 3
- Social deixis in motion 7
- The M-word 41
- “There’s not a lot of negotiation” 71
-
Observational Studies
- Introduction to Part II 93
- Korean honorifics beyond politeness markers 97
- Goading as a social action 121
- Shaming, group face, and identity construction in a Russian virtual community for women 149
-
Experimental Studies
- Introduction to Part III 183
- Interactional competence and politeness 187
- Using eye-tracking to examine the reading of texts containing taboo words 213
- Impoliteness electrified 239
-
Epilogue
- Epilogue 267
- Index 277
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
-
Introduction
- Introduction vii
-
Self-reporting Studies
- Introduction to Part I 3
- Social deixis in motion 7
- The M-word 41
- “There’s not a lot of negotiation” 71
-
Observational Studies
- Introduction to Part II 93
- Korean honorifics beyond politeness markers 97
- Goading as a social action 121
- Shaming, group face, and identity construction in a Russian virtual community for women 149
-
Experimental Studies
- Introduction to Part III 183
- Interactional competence and politeness 187
- Using eye-tracking to examine the reading of texts containing taboo words 213
- Impoliteness electrified 239
-
Epilogue
- Epilogue 267
- Index 277
