In this transitional chapter, Chen proposes a model of Chinese politeness (MCP): “Politeness is the judgement of a behavior – both linguistic and otherwise – that it is appropriate in context for the purpose of harmony.” Appropriateness, further, is defined in terms of the position of the speaker and hearer; the maintaining of face, and the avoidance of friction between all parties involved. Chen then moves to the proposal of a general politeness theory based on Brown and Levinson’s theory but with the incorporation into it notions of self-politeness and impoliteness. The theory – Brown and Levinson extended (B&L-E) – is a set of causality relations: waht a speaker does (either benefitting or hurting) to face (either self-face or other-face) leads to a particular type of politeness or impoliteness. The benefitting of other-face, for instance, often leads to the evaluation of politeness. The benefitting of self-face, on the other hand, may (or may not) result in a judgement of impoliteness to other. Of the two models, Chen argues, MCP is a cultural specification of B&L-E. His view is therefore that there should be a universal theory of politeness such as B&L-E, which is capable of subsuming under it culture-specific models such as MCP.

In this chapter we turn our attention to the role that pragmatics plays in the study of social interaction. When we communicate, we do not simply exchange information. We also manage relationships. As speakers, we can choose to be more or less direct, more or less formal, and more or less attentive to our hearers. The decisions that speakers make are often motivated by concern for how their hearers will react to the utterance, and by the effect that this might then have on the relationship. Perhaps the most influential work in this area of pragmatics is Brown and Levinson’s model of politeness. The first half of this chapter provides an overview of their framework and the politeness strategies that they propose. In the second half of the chapter, we discuss some recent developments that have arisen in response to Brown and Levinson’s work. These include analyses of impoliteness, consideration of how cultural variation might be incorporated into the pragmatics of interaction, and a shift to focus less on politeness and more on a broader notion of the relational work that speakers perform.

This chapter focuses on the performance of impoliteness, through the lens of insults and other mocking language. Impoliteness has been documented as a tool men use to perform masculinity and bond with other men. Disney and Pixar films reflect this practice by portraying insults as associated naturally with masculinity, and often frame insults between men as silly and rapport-building. Female characters insulting others isn’t typically seen as “funny” in Disney, with some clear exceptions, including older characters (highlighting the “sassy old lady” trope). There is also some evidence that the more recent characters of color have more impolite utterances, suggesting that women of color are also an ideological exception to polite femininity. Discourses of masculinity in Disney and Pixar sanction insults as an expression of emotion, but portray more straightforward forms of affection as less common and/or less desirable. For femininity, the opposite discourse is upheld: polite forms are framed as natural, or desirable ways to express feeling, but insults have negative consequences.

This chapter investigates impoliteness in subliterary texts, namely in bilingual teaching material for learning languages. It takes the Colloquium Harleianum, one of the conversation manuals in the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana (second to third century CE) as a corpus. The chapter studies both impoliteness forms and their evaluations from culture-internal speakers. The impoliteness forms, the metalanguage and the metapragmatic comments on the quarrel represented in this corpus are compared with quarrels represented in literary texts, mainly Roman Comedy (second to third century BCE) and the novel (second cetury CE). It relies on metapragmatic comments as the main entry to the emic evaluations of impoliteness forms and of offences present in the corpus. In this way, the chapter provides a diachronic perspective on ancient impoliteness in Latin by taking into account both literary and subliterary evidence. By dealing with teaching manuals, it provides a unique contribution on pragmatic competence for non-native speakers, and it offers insights on the etiquette norms for the elite, which is the perspective that the evidences in the corpus reflect.

This conclusion reviews changing practices and habits of gambling in Britain in the long eighteenth century, among different groups in society, and among women and men. The rise in female gambling of different kinds was one of the most striking developments of this period, attracting significant comment from the contemporary press and writers, as well as anxiety from authors of the myriad conduct books of the period. The implications of these changes and of the prevalence of different forms of gambling for our understanding of Britain in this period is examined, in particular in relation to debates among historians about the impact and influence of polite values and culture. The final section of the conclusion looks briefly ahead to the new worlds of gambling as they began to develop in the opening decades of the nineteenth century.

Chapter 5 examines a key phenomenon in the field of cross-cultural pragmatics, namely, linguistic politeness and impoliteness. While politeness popularly describes ‘proper’ behaviour, as a technical term it encompasses all kinds of behaviour by means of which language users express that they take others’ feelings into account. Similarly, impoliteness not only refers to rude language but rather it covers all types of behaviour that are felt to cause offence. Politeness and impoliteness have been the most researched phenomena in the field, and in chapter 5 we provide a summary of those politeness- and impoliteness-related phenomena which are particularly relevant for cross-cultural pragmatic inquiries.

In this chapter, I adopt a sociolinguistic perspective to explore politenessand the other reasons explaining the use of indirect communication. I alsodiscuss how contextual variables, in particular interpersonal parameters,shape both the production of indirect utterances and theirinterpretation.

Pragmatics refers to the way we understand and use language in social situations. For example, language choices we make express social roles and distance, power status, age, gender, and identity. These language choices have an effect on our interlocutors as we communicate. They can also lead to pragmatic mishaps, which are actually responsible for the majority of L2/Lx miscommunication (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998). In order to set the stage for an interculturally oriented curriculum that emphasizes pragmatics, this chapter reviews research on L2 pragmatics, what it is, and how to teach it in the L2/Lx classroom. Speech acts, conventional expressions, Gricean maxims, politeness and impoliteness, as well as humor are included in the discussion. The chapter concludes with practical suggestions for teaching L2/Lx pragmatics with an intercultural communication orientation and sample language teaching activities.