This paper is the final draft of a piece that appeared in Emagazine: The Magazine for Advanced Level

English, published by the English and Media Centre, a non-profit making organisation (pp.20-22).
Culpeper 2008

Linguistic impoliteness: Using English to cause offence
Jonathan Culpeper, Lancaster University, U.K.


Why bother to study impoliteness?
Linguistic impoliteness is salient in the consciousness of the general public. In the guise
of verbal abuse, threats, bullying and so on, it is referred to and prohibited in
public signs, charters, laws and policies documents relating to public places and
institutions. It is often reported in the media, particularly when it occurs in contexts
where it seems strikingly abnormal (e.g. verbal abuse directed at the elderly). At one
point in 2006, the three best-selling books all involved rudeness, including the best-
selling author Lynne Trusss Talk to the Hand: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of Everyday
Life.
All this talk about impoliteness gives the impression of a massive explosion in the
use of impolite language. However, if we go back over 1,000 years to the Old English
text Beowulf, we will find jaw-dropping from our modern perspective brusqueness.
Similarly, I study I made (with Dawn Archer) of over 1,000 requests in the period 1640-
1760 discovered that approximately half were produced with an imperative (e.g. Give
me water, Get thee to bed) and no other device to soften the request or signal
politeness. In contrast, studies of present-day imperative requests suggest that they are
rather rare fewer than 10%. Still, the point is that impoliteness is perceived to a big deal
today.
But why should a linguist be involved in the study of impoliteness you dont
need one of them to work out what a two-fingered gesture and effing and blinding is all
about! Well, contrary to the old saying sticks and stones may break my bones, but words
can never hurt me, research in sociology has a found that verbal behaviours are
sometimes considered potentially more hurtful and damaging than physical violence.
However, sociologists do not investigate in any detail what that verbal violence consists
of or how it works. Enter the linguist! Indeed, linguistic impoliteness is not simplistic
(e.g. a mere reflex of anger), as we shall see.


When is impoliteness not impoliteness?
Some years ago, a former vice-chancellor of my university was sitting next to a friend of
mine at a concert. Making polite conversation, he said to her: when is it due? The
problem was that she was not pregnant. Thus, the vice-chancellor inadvertently implied
that that her visual appearance (somewhat overweight) gave the impression that she
might be. Examples such as this are best described as involving failed politeness rather
than impoliteness. Indeed my friend was not greatly offended because she assumed that
the impoliteness was not intended. Consider another example. A colleague of mine told
me about the following advertising slogan used by an Australian butcher: eat beef you
bastards. Superficially, one might assume that someone addressing someone else with
the formula you bastard is impolite. However, it is highly improbable that potential
customers thought that the retailer really intended to offend them not a very good
strategy to drum up sales! This seems to be an example of mock impoliteness, whereby
This paper is the final draft of a piece that appeared in Emagazine: The Magazine for Advanced Level
English, published by the English and Media Centre, a non-profit making organisation (pp.20-22).
Culpeper 2008
the impoliteness is understood to be insincere. Mock impoliteness or banter is fairly
widespread, and is often used by friends as a way of being matey. In fact, being matey
is presumably what the Australian butchers strategy is.


So what is impoliteness?
You will have noted above that I indicated whether people were offended or not. One
way of understanding offence is in terms of face (think of the English expression to
loose face). The concept of face has a long history, some say, emanating from ancient
China. The modern scholars understanding of face is often derived from Erving
Goffman, a sociologist. In a nutshell, it is the image of you that others have, and, as you
can imagine, we generally wish that image to be positive. So, if I am marking a students
essay and write this is pathetic rubbish (not that I really would!), and, furthermore,
dont explain why I think this, my words are likely to communicate the fact that I have a
negative image of them. On the other hand, if I write I was rather disappointed: there
were some areas which could have done with improvement, my words are likely to
communicate that, despite finding problems with the essay, I have a positive image of
them. The former scenario can be linked to impoliteness, whereas the latter scenario may
be linked to politeness.
As we saw in earlier examples, what people intend to do with the language is
important in assessing whether we are dealing with genuine impoliteness. What matters
here is how a speakers intention is perceived; what their real intentions are is not the
issue. So, putting the bits together, I would define impoliteness as occurring when: (1) the
speaker communicates face-attack intentionally, or (2) the hearer perceives behaviour as
intentionally face-attacking, or a combination of (1) and (2).


What language do we use for impoliteness in English?
Any communicative resource words, grammatical structures, voice intonation, gaze
direction, and so on can be recruited in the pursuit of impoliteness. However, whether
any particular communicative signal is actually perceived by the target to be impolite
will, crucially, depend on the context. For example, sit down said to guests
approaching the dinner table, may be interpreted as a polite invitation; conversely, the
same utterance said by a defendant to a judge, may be interpreted as an impolite
intrusion. Nevertheless, there are some relatively regular, conventional ways in which
speakers attempt to achieve impoliteness.

Examples of common (semi-)conventional impoliteness expressions
(Square brackets reveal common structures, and slashes alternatives)

Vocatives
moron / plonker / dickhead / etc.
[you] [[fucking / rotten/ dirty / fat / etc.] [burk / pig / shit / bastard/ loser / etc.]]
Personal negative evaluations
youre [nuts / nuttier than a fruit cake / hopeless / pathetic etc.]
you cant do anything right
Dismissals
get [lost / out]
This paper is the final draft of a piece that appeared in Emagazine: The Magazine for Advanced Level
English, published by the English and Media Centre, a non-profit making organisation (pp.20-22).
Culpeper 2008
[fuck / piss] off
Silencers
shut [it / your mouth, face / etc.]
shut [the fuck] up
Threats
[Ill / Im /were] [gonna] [smash your face in / beat the shit out of you / box your ears / bust
your fucking head off / etc.]
Condescensions
thats [being babyish / stupid / etc.]
little [mouth / act / ass / body / etc.]
Challenges (usually rhetorical questions)
what are you fucking doing?
why do you make my life impossible?


Sarcasm
Sarcasm is mock politeness, whereby the politeness is understood to be insincere.
Consider this example, which appeared in the Lancaster University staff email bulletin:

I would just like to say thank you to the person who backed into my car on the perimeter road
yesterday. It was a wonderful surprise when I'd finished work and made my way back to my car. I
now have a large whole in my bumper and several cracks and scrapes. What really annoys me is
that whoever it was just drove off, leaving the mess. Not even an anonymous note to
apologise! As a single parent and part-time member of staff on a clerical grade, I look forward
receiving an obscene quote from my local garage and then not eating for a week! Thank you SO
VERY MUCH.

Being impolite indirectly, as with sarcasm, can have the effect of exacerbating the
offence. Note also that there are regular ways of doing sarcasm, notably, using
unmistakable politeness markers such as thank you.


Using your voice to be impolite
When somebody has been offended, a frequent refrain is: its not what he said, its how
he said it. What you do with your voice is crucial in conveying impoliteness, and indeed
all social messages. I am sure you are familiar with the quiz show The Weakest Link.
Anne Robinson, the shows host, is described on the BBC website as the Rudest Woman
on television, famed for her contemptuous and dismissive catchphrase you are the
weakest link goodbye (you can hear this on the website). The negative personal
evaluation here is obviously impolite. But what about the word goodbye? This is more
like a polite farewell. Everything depends on how it is said. I ran this utterance through
voice analysis software (a package called Praat, freely available on the web), and you
can see the results.


This paper is the final draft of a piece that appeared in Emagazine: The Magazine for Advanced Level
English, published by the English and Media Centre, a non-profit making organisation (pp.20-22).
Culpeper 2008



The top line indicates volume, and the middle line intonation (i.e. the melody of the voice
as it varies in pitch). Note that the loudest word, and one with an intonation peak, is the
word are this word is stressed. Stress often falls on new information in an utterance.
For example, if you had been stressed, it would suggest that we had suspected
somebody else but it turns out that whoever you refers to is indeed the weakest link.
Stressing are suggests that we had always suspected that that person was the weakest
link, but now we are confirming it for sure. This helps reinforce the impolite evaluation.
The key point to note about the utterance of goodbye is that the intonation has the
highest starting point, followed by a rapid fall: it is said in a sharp, terse manner not the
stuff of politeness! In fact, the vocal characteristics give the clue that this is sarcastic
(mock politeness).


Creative impoliteness: a contradiction in terms?
Just because the language is achieving an unpleasant effect, does not mean that it cannot
be creative. Speakers sometimes do not use a conventionally impolite expression, but
creatively adapt it, or even ditch the conventional expression altogether. Note that
creative adaptation or indirectly conveying messages is the very stuff of typical literature.
Consider vocatives (expressions used to address people). As indicated in the examples
box, they rarely exceed three words (e.g. [you] [fat] [bastard]). But what about this bit
of graffiti that appeared on a Lancaster University library desk: [you] [bitter yorkshire
pie munching ale drinking sheep fucking] [poof]. The writer has creatively extended the
number of elements modifying the final noun. Similarly, Shakespeare was good at
creative impolite vocatives, such as: [Thou] [clay-brained] [guts], [thou] [knotty-pated]
[fool], [thou] [whoreson obscene greasy] [tallow-catch]! (Henry IV, Part I).
This paper is the final draft of a piece that appeared in Emagazine: The Magazine for Advanced Level
English, published by the English and Media Centre, a non-profit making organisation (pp.20-22).
Culpeper 2008
Another way of being creative is to avoid the conventional formula, and force the
target to work out the implied impolite message. Simon Cowell, a host of various singing
talent shows, including Pop Idol, is famed for cruel put-downs, such as:

You take singing lessons? Do you have a lawyer? Get a lawyer and sue her.
If you win this competition, we will have failed.

None of such utterances simply state that the candidate sings badly. Instead, for each
utterance the target must work out the impolite message, by deploying background
knowledge (about the functions of singing lessons and lawyers, about who is supposed to
win competitions, and so on). And Shakespeare uses similar strategies:

You are as a candle, the better part burnt out (Henry IV Part 2)
You are now sailed into the north of my ladies opinion, where you will hang like an
icicle on a Dutchman's beard (Twelfth Night)

The functions of creativity in relation to impoliteness are complex and little
understood. Creativity can be amusing; it is no surprise that it is a feature of TV
entertainment shows. It is a characteristic of friendly banter, where it seems to
anaesthetise the impolite effects. But it can also exacerbate the offence. For example, one
impolite utterance delivered by a sergeant to a recruit in an army training centre was: do
me a favour dont have any children. On the surface, do me a favour is a conventional
formula for doing politeness. However, this formula appears to be adopted for creative
sarcasm, as what is requested cannot possibly be considered within the scope of a polite
request. The request implies but does not actually say that the target is so loathsome
that she should not have children who might inherit that quality.


[The research that underpins this publication is funded by the U.K.s Economic and
Social Research Council (ESRC) (RES-063-27-0015)]