Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness pp 323–355Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

(Im)politeness and Mixed Messages

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter maps out the space occupied by phenomena that do not belong to either politeness or impoliteness, but in some sense fit both. It focuses on mixed or mismatching interpersonal messages that are incongruous on at least one level of interpretation or generate a sense of interpretive or evaluative dissonance. They encompass phenomena that typically attract labels such as sarcasm, banter and teasing. The authors discuss the pragmatic background of such mixed messages, especially drawing on approaches to irony, how they figure in classic politeness theories, and, in particular, how they work. This part of the chapter considers their metapragmatics, the constituents of the ‘mix’ of messages, how particular ‘mixes’ become conventionalised, their functions and also how they are perceived.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The literature (e.g. Gibbs 1986; Kreuz and Glucksberg 1989; Pexman and Olineck 2002) uses the terms ‘ironic compliments’ and ‘ironic insults’, where the head nouns, compliment or insult, denote the ironic message. To the uninitiated, they can easily be erroneously understood in the opposite way: an ironic compliment has the literal message of a compliment but the implied message of an insult (e.g. Grice’s ‘What a fine friend you are!’); an ironic insult, on the other hand, has the reverse, the literal message of an insult but the implied message of a compliment. In an attempt to make the meaning of the literature more transparent, we will adopt the terms ‘complimentary insults’ and ‘insulting compliments’. These terms make transparent the interpersonal mix of messages.

  2. 2.

    For more on ritual and interaction, see Kádár (2013), and on ritual and (im)politeness, see Terkourafi and Kádár (Chap. 8), this volume.

  3. 3.

    Examples (1) and (8) are transcribed using standard CA conventions (Jefferson 2004). Examples (9) to (11) are transcribed using conventions outlined in Gumperz and Berenz (1993).

  4. 4.

    A second-order principle is thus not to be confused with the use of that term elsewhere in the (im)politeness and pragmatics literature; with Leech, it denotes a second level of interpretation in which the first level of interpretation is embedded.

  5. 5.

    For a more comprehensive list, see Verschueren (2000, p. 44) or Culpeper and Haugh (2014, p. 241).

  6. 6.

    Interestingly, Plester and Sayers’s (2007) study of the functions of banter shows that ‘the higher the status the less banter that was used and instigated’ (p. 182).

  7. 7.

    Cf. Goffman (1959); for more details on the frontstage/backstage distinction in reality television, see Sinkeviciute (2017).

  8. 8.

    Later on the same day Luke said: ‘I believe in having an argument or a confrontation in private.’

References

  • Abrahams, R.D. 1962. Playing the Dozens. Journal of American Folklore 75: 209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, B.P. 1983. Form and Function in Children’s Understanding of Ironic Utterances. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 35 (3): 487–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberts, J.K. 1990. The Use of Humour in Managing Couples’ Conflict Interactions. In Intimates in Conflict: A Communication Perspective, ed. D.D. Cahn. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attardo, S., J. Eisterhold, J. Hay, and I. Poggi. 2003. Multimodal Markers of Irony and Sarcasm. Humor 16 (2): 243–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbe, K. 1995. Irony in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. 1955. A Theory of Play and Fantasy Approaches to the Study of Human Personality, 39–51. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bavelas, J., A. Black, N. Chovil, and J. Mullett. 1990. Equivocal Communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bax, M. 1981. Rules for Ritual Challenges: A Speech Convention Among Medieval Knights. Journal of Pragmatics 5: 423–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, N. 2009. Responses to Failed Humour. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1825–1836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Responses to Incomprehensive Humour. Journal of Pragmatics 57: 176–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernal, M. 2008. Do Insults Always Insult? Genuine Politeness Versus Non-Genuine politeness in Colloquial Spanish [¿Insultan los insultos? Descortesía auténtica vs. descortesía no auténtica en el español coloquial]. Pragmatics 18 (4): 775–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bober, J. 1991. Begehen und Unterlassen. Eine experimentelle Ueberpruefung der Beurteilung ihres aggressiven Gealts [Action and Inaction: An Experimental Study of Perceived Aggression]. Münster: Lit-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bousfield, D. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bowes, A., and A. Katz. 2011. When Sarcasm Stings. Discourse Processes 48 (4): 215–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxer, D., and F. Cortés-Conde. 1997. From Bonding to Biting: Conversational Joking and Identity Display. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 275–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., and S.C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. 2013. Mind Your Esteemed Business: Sarcastic Honorifics Use and Impoliteness in Korean TV Dramas. Journal of Politeness Research 9 (2): 159–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, G.A., and Jean E. Fox Tree. 2005. Is there an Ironic Tone of Voice? Language and Speech. 48: 257–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cann, A., L. Calhoun, and J. Banks. 1997. On the Role of Humor Appreciation in Interpersonal Attraction: It’s No Joking Matter. Humor 10 (1): 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheang, H.S., and M.D. Pell. 2008. The Sound of Sarcasm. Speech communication 50 (5): 366–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colston, H.L. 2002. Contrast and Assimilation in Verbal Irony. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2): 111–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colston, H.L. 1997. “I’ve Never Seen Anything Like It”: Overstatement, Understatement, and Irony. Metaphor and Symbol 12 (1): 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley, T. 2007. When Saturday Comes: The Boundaries of Football Rudeness. In Rude Britannia, ed. M. Gorji, 115–126. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J. 2005. Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 35–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. (Im)politeness: Three Issues. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1128–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J., and M. Haugh. 2014. Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Decapua, A., and D. Boxer. 1999. Bragging, Boasting and Bravado: Male Banter in a Brokerage House. Women and Language 22 (1): 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dews, S., and E. Winner. 1995. Muting the Meaning: A Social Function of Irony. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10: 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dews, S., J. Kaplan, and E. Winner. 1995. Why Not Say it Directly? The Social Functions of Irony. Discourse Processes 19: 347–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiCioccio, R.L. 2010. The Interactionist Model of Teasing Communication. In Arguments, Aggression and Conflict. New Directions in Theory and Research, ed. T.A. Avtgis and A.S. Rancder, 340–355. New York/London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, P. 1987. Po-faced Receipts of Teases. Linguistics 25: 219–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, G. 1984. Humorous Interaction and the Social Construction of Meaning; Making Sense in a Jocular Vein. Studies in Symbolic Interaction 5: 83–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fónagy, I., and K. Magdics. 1963. Emotional Patterns in Intonation and Music. Zeitschrift für Phonetik 16: 293–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, K. 2004. Watching the English. The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour. London: Hodder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukushima, S., and M. Haugh. 2014. The Role of Emic Understandings in Theorizing Im/politeness: The Metapragmatics of Attentiveness, Empathy and Anticipatory Inference in Japanese and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 74: 165–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furman, M. 2013. Impoliteness and Mock-Impoliteness. A Descriptive Analysis. In Approaches to Slavic Interaction, ed. N. Thielemann and P. Kosta, 237–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R.W. 1986. Comprehension and Memory for Nonliteral Utterances: The Problem of Sarcastic Indirect Requests. Acta Psychologica 62 (1): 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, R. 2003. On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gumperz, J.J., and N. Berenz. 1993. Transcribing Conversational Exchanges. In Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, ed. J.A. Edwards and M.D. Lampert, 91–121. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, S. 2001. Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse. Discourse and Society 12 (4): 451–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. 2010. Jocular Mockery, (Dis)affiliation and Face. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8): 2106–2119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Im/politeness, Social Practice and the Participation Order. Journal of Pragmatics 58: 52–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Jocular Mockery as Interactional Practice in Everyday Anglo-Australian Conversation. Australian Journal of Linguistics 34 (1): 76–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. “Just Kidding”: Teasing and Claims to Non-serious Intent. Journal of Pragmatics 95: 120–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. Teasing. In Routledge Handbook of Language and Humour, ed. S. Attardo. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M., and D. Bousfield. 2012. Mock Impoliteness, Jocular Mockery and Jocular Abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (9): 1099–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M., and W. Chang. 2015. Understanding Im/politeness Across Cultures: An Interactional Approach to Raising Sociopragmatic Awareness. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics 53 (4): 389–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M., and D. Pillet-Shore 2014. Barbs and Teases in Initial Interactions. Paper presented at the Second Conference of the American Pragmatics Association (AMPRA2014), UCLA, 17–19 October.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heisterkamp, B.L., and J.K. Alberts. 2000. Control and Desire: Identity Formation Through Teasing Among Gay Men and Lesbians. Communication Studies 51 (4): 388–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. 2000. Politeness, Power and Provocation: How Humour Functions in the Workplace. Discourse Studies 2 (2): 159–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchby, I., and R. Woofitt. 2008. Conversation Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inagaki, N. 2011. Unpacking the Hearer’s Interpretation of Situated Politeness. In Situated Politeness, ed. B. Davies, M. Haugh, and A. Merrison, 147–164. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, G. 2004. Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. G. Lerner, 13–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, J. 1996. The Functions of Sarcastic Irony in Speech. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 613–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kádár, D.Z. 2013. Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., R.C. Young, E.A. Heerey, C. Oemig, and N.D. Monarch. 1998. Teasing in Hierarchical and Intimate Relations. Journal of personality and social psychology 75 (5): 1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., L. Capps, A. Kring, R. Young, and E. Heerey. 2001. Just Teasing: A Conceptual Analysis and Empirical Review. Psychological Bulletin 127 (2): 229–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochman, T. 1983. The Boundary Between Play and Nonplay in Black Verbal Duelling. Language in Society 12: 329–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotthoff, H. 1996. Impoliteness and Conversational Joking: On Relational Politics. Folia Linguistica 30 (3–4): 299–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski, R.M. 2007. Teasing and Bullying. In The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication, ed. B.H. Spitzberg and W.R. Cupach, 169–197. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski, R.M., E. Howerton, and M. McKenzie. 2007. Permitted Disrespect: Teasing in Interpersonal Interactions. In Behaving Badly: Averse Behaviours in Interpersonal Relationships, ed. R.M. Kowalski, 177–202. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuz, R.J., and S. Glucksberg. 1989. How to be Sarcastic: The Echoic Reminder Theory of Verbal Irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118 (4): 374–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labov, W. 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C.J., and A.N. Katz. 1998. The Differential Role of Ridicule in Sarcasm and Irony. Metaphor and Symbol 13 (1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maíz-Arévalo, C. 2015. Jocular Mockery in Computer-Mediated Communication: A Contrastive Study of a Spanish and English Facebook Community. Journal of Politeness Research 11 (2): 289–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, S., and P. Prieto. 2014. The Role of Prosody and Gesture in the Perception of Mock Impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 10 (2): 185–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C.B., and A.S. Babrow. 2003. Teasing as a Means of Social Influence. Southern Communication Journal 68 (4): 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, I.R., and J.L. Arnott. 1993. Toward the Simulation of Emotion in Synthetic Speech: A Review of the Literature on Human Vocal Emotion. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 93 (2): 1097–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norrick, N. 1993. Conversational Joking. Humour in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okamoto, S. 2007. An Analysis of the Usage of Japanese hiniku: Based on the Communicative Insincerity Theory of Irony. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1143–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olivieri, K. 2003. A Semantic Analysis of Teasing-Related Speech Act Verbs in Australian English. Unpublished BA(Hons) Thesis, University of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partington, A. 2008. Teasing at the White House: A Corpus-Assisted Study of Face Work in Performing and Responding to Teases. Text & Talk 28 (6): 771–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pexman, P.M., and K.M. Olineck. 2002. Does Sarcasm Always Sting? Investigating the Impact of Ironic Insults and Ironic Compliments. Discourse Processes 33 (3): 199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plester, B.A., and J. Sayers. 2007. “Taking the Piss”: Functions of Banter in the IT Industry. Humor 20 (2): 157–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1940. On Joking Relationships. Africa 13 (3): 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockwell, P. 2000. Lower, Slower, Louder: Vocal Cues of Sarcasm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29 (5): 483–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. The Sarcastive: A Linguistic and Paralinguistic Analysis. Language and Social Interaction Division, International Communication Association Annual Convention, May 2004, New Orleans.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Sarcasm and Other Mixed Messages: The Aambiguous Ways People Use Language. Queenston: Edwin Mellon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiefflin, B.B. 1986. Teasing and Shaming in Kaluli Children’s Interactions. In Language Socialization Across Cultures, ed. B.B. Schiefflin and E. Ochs, 165–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, P. 2011. “That’s Not Ironic, That’s Just Stupid”: Towards an Eclectic Account of the Discourse of Irony. In The Pragmatics of Humour Across Discourse Domains. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, ed. M. Dynel, 33–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sinkeviciute, V. 2013. Decoding Encoded (Im)politeness. “Cause on My Teasing You Can Depend”. In Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory, ed. M. Dynel, 263–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. “When a Joke’s a Joke and When It’s Too Much”: Mateship as a Key to Interpreting Jocular FTAs in Australian English. Journal of Pragmatics 60: 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. “Everything He Says to Me It’s Like He Stabs Me in the Face”: Frontstage and Backstage Reactions to Teasing. In Multiple Perspectives on Language Play, ed. N. Bell, 169–198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalicki, S., C. Berger, and N. Bell. 2015. The Functions of “Just Kidding” in American English. Journal of Pragmatics 85: 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slugoski, B.R., and W. Turnbull. 1988. Cruel to Be Kind and Kind to Be Cruel: Sarcasm, Banter and Social Relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7 (2): 101–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Oatey, H. 2011. Conceptualising ‘The Relational’ in Pragmatics: Insights from Metapragmatic Emotion and (Im)politeness Comments. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3565–3578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1981. Irony and the Use-Mention Distinction. In Radical Pragmatics, ed. P. Cole, 295–318. London/New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995 [1986]. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. 2011. Negative Politeness Forms and Impoliteness Functions in Institutional Discourse: A Corpus-Assisted Approach. In Situated Politeness, ed. B. Davies, M. Haugh, and A.J. Merrison. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015a. Mock Politeness in English and Italian: A Corpus-Assisted Study of the Metalanguage of Sarcasm and Irony. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Lancaster University.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015b. Beyond Sarcasm: The Metalanguage and Structures of Mock Politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 87: 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tedeschi, J.T., and R.B. Felson. 1994. Violence, Aggression, and Coercive Actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Terkourafi, M. 2001. Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A Frame-Based Approach. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toplak, M., and A.N. Katz. 2000. On the Uses of Sarcastic Irony. Journal of pragmatics 32 (10): 1467–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vergis, N., and M. Terkourafi. 2015. The Role of the Speaker’s Emotional State in Im/politeness Assessments. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 34 (3): 316–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Hodder Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. Notes on the Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language. Pragmatics 10 (4): 439–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, R.J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wichmann, A. 2000. Intonation in Text and Discourse: Beginnings, Middles and Ends. London: (Longman) Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. 2013. Irony Comprehension: A Developmental Perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 59: 40–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D., and D. Sperber. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Woodland, J., and D. Voyer. 2011. Context and Intonation in the Perception of Sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol 26 (3): 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yus, F. 2000. On Reaching the Intended Ironic Interpretation. International Journal of Communication 10 (1–2): 22–78.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

    Jonathan Culpeper

  2. School of Languages and Cultures, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Michael Haugh & Valeria Sinkeviciute

Authors
  1. Jonathan Culpeper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Haugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valeria Sinkeviciute
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Culpeper .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept of Linguistics & English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom

    Jonathan Culpeper

  2. School of Languages and Cultures, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Michael Haugh

  3. Dept of Linguistics and Modern Languages, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, United Kingdom

    Dániel Z. Kádár

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., Sinkeviciute, V. (2017). (Im)politeness and Mixed Messages. In: Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., Kádár, D. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-37507-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-37508-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation