Experimental pragmatics research on (im)politeness generally employs “off-line” methodologies, meaning that data reflect ratings or understanding of given texts or interactions after they have been processed. “On-line” methods allow for moment-by-moment data collection as input is processed. We discuss advantages of using one on-line method, eye-tracking, in experimental pragmatics research. We also consider experimental design difficulties inherent in creating stimuli. We take as a specific example a recent study of how readers process English taboo words portrayed as being uttered by more or less typical speakers in more or less appropriate situations. We demonstrate early influences of pragmatic information, essentially concurrent with lexical access. The timing of these influences in the ongoing language processing cannot be captured using off-line methods. Further, our on-line data suggest that part of impoliteness judgments may be formed before they reach the threshold of conscious understanding.
1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Baayen, R.H., Davidson, D.J., & Bates, D.M
2008Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 390–412.
Beebe, L.M
1995Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In Georgetown University Round Table on Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguistic, and Sociolinguistic Aspects, J.E. Alatis, C.A. Straehle, B. Gallenberger & M. Ronkin (eds), 154–168. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
2006Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 100(3): 434–463.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C
1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP.
Buchanan, T.W., Etzel, J.A., Adolphs, R. & Tranel, D
2006The influence of autonomic arousal and semantic relatedness on memory for emotional words. International Journal of Psychophysiology 61: 26–33.
Crites, S.L., Fabrigar, L.R., & Petty, R.E
1994Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6: 619–634.
Culpeper, J
1996Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349–367.
Culpeper, J
2010Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 42(12): 3232–3245.
Culpeper, J
2011Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offense. Cambridge: CUP.
Culpeper, J
2012(Im)politeness: Three issues. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1128–1133.
Dhooge, E. & Hartsuiker, R.J
2011How do speakers resist distraction? Evidence from a taboo picture-word interference task. Psychological Science 22: 855–859.
Eelen, G
2001A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome.
Eilola, T.M. & Havelka, J
2010Behavioural and physiological responses to the emotional and taboo Stroop tasks in native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism 15: 353–369.
Fisher, D.F. & Shebilske, W.L
1985There is more that meets the eye than the eyemind assumption. In Eye Movements and Human Information Processing. R. Groner, G.W. McConkie & C. Menz (eds), 149–158. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Fraser, B
1990Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219–236.
Gibbs, R.W
1986On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology 115(1): 3–15.
Goffman, E
1967Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City NY: Anchor Books.
Grice, H.P
1989Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Grosser, G.S. & Walsh, A.A
1966Sex differences in the differential recall of taboo and neutral words. The Journal of Psychology 63: 219–227.
Guillet, R. & Arndt, J
2009Taboo words: the effect of emotion on memory for peripheral information. Memory & Cognition 37: 866–867.
Hadley, C.B. & Mackay, D.G
2006Does emotion help or hinder immediate memory? Arousal versus priority-binding mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32: 79–88.
Harris, S
2001Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society 12(4): 451–472.
Holtgraves, T
1986Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(2): 305–314.
Inhoff, A.W. & Rayner, K
1986Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & Psychophysics 40: 431–439.
2003Introduction to the special issue on the web as corpus. Computational Linguistics 29: 333–347.
Kintsch, W
1998Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.
Lachenicht, L.G
1980Aggravating language: A study of abusive and insulting language. International Journal of Human Communication 13: 607–688.
Lakoff, R
1989The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua 8: 101–129.
Leech, G
1983Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G
2009How far can a theory of politeness be a theory of impoliteness? Illustrated from Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf. Paper given at the Linguistic Impoliteness And Rudeness II (LIAR II) Conference. Lancaster University, UK, June 30–July 2, 2009.
Locher, M.A. & Watts, R.J
2005Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 9–33.
2005Relations between emotion, illusory word perception, and orthographic repetition blindness: Tests of binding theory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 58(A): 1514–1533.
MacKay, D.G., Shafto, M., Taylor, J.K., Marian, D.E., Abrams, L. & Dyer, J.R
2004Relations between emotion, memory, and attention: evidence from taboo Stroop, lexical decision, and immediate memory tasks. Memory & Cognition 32: 474–88.
Mathewson, K.J., Arnell, K.M. & Mansfield, C.A
2008Capturing and holding attention: The impact of emotional words in rapid serial visual presentation. Memory & Cognition 36: 182–200.
McGinnies, E
1949Emotionality and perceptual defense. Psychological Review 56: 244–251.
Palmer, C., Raizen, A. & Christianson, K
Under review. Effects of context and individual differences on the processing of taboo words.
Postman, L., Bronson, W.C., & Gropper, G.L
1953Is there a mechanism of perceptual defense?Journal of Abnormal Psychology 48: 215–224.
Rayner, K
1998Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124: 372–422.
Rayner, K
2009The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62: 1457–1506.
Rayner, K. & Duffy, S.A
1986Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition 14: 734–747.
Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J. & Clifton, C.E
2012The Psychology of Reading. New York NY: Psychology Press.
Regel, S., Coulson, S. & Gunter, T.C
2010The communicative style of a speaker can affect language comprehension? ERP evidence from the comprehension of irony. Brain Research 1311: 121–135.
Reichle, E.D., Pollatsek, A. & Rayner, K
2006E–Z Reader: A cognitive-control, serial-attention model of eye-movement behavior during reading. Cognitive Systems Research 7: 4–22.
Rudanko, J
2006Aggravated impoliteness and two types of speaker intention in an episode of Shakespeare’s. Timon of Athens. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 829–841.
Sales, B.D. & Haber, R.N
1968A different look at perceptual defense for taboo words. Perception & Psychophysics 3: 156–160.
Sha, G
2010Using Google as a super corpus to drive written language learning: a comparison with the British National Corpus. Computer Assisted Language Learning 23: 377–393.
Siegrist, M
1995Effects of taboo words on color-naming performance on a Stroop test. Perceptual and Motor Skills 81: 1119–1122.
Spencer-Oatey, H
(2008) ‘Face, (im) politeness and rapport’. In Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.) 11–47. London: Continuum.
1999Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 11(6): 657–671.
Van Berkum, J.J.A., Van den Brink, D., Tesink, C.M.J.Y., Kos, M. & Hagoort
P 2008The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(4): 580–591.
Watts, R
1989Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8(2–3): 131–166.
Watts, R
2003Politeness. Cambridge: CUP.
Weaver, M.D., Lauwereyns, J. & Theeuwes, J
2011The effect of semantic information on saccade trajectory deviations. Vision Research 51: 1124–1128.
Werkhofer, K
1992Traditional and modern views: The social constitution and the power of politeness. In Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, R.J. Watts, S. Ide & K. Ehlich (eds),155–199. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yao, B., Belin, P. & Scheepers, C
2011Silent reading of direct versus indirect speech activates voice-selective areas in the auditory cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23(10): 3146–3152.
Yao, B. & Scheepers, C
2011Contextual modulation of reading rate for direct versus indirect quotations. Cognition 121: 447–453.
Zeelenberg, R., Bocanegra, B.R. & Pecher, D
2011Emotion-induced impairments in speeded word recognition tasks. Experimental Psychology 58: 400–411.
Zwaan, R.A., Langston, M.C. & Graesser, A.C
1995The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science 6: 292–297.
Cited by
Cited by 4 other publications
Holtgraves, Thomas & Jean-François Bonnefon
2017. Experimental Approaches to Linguistic (Im)politeness. In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ► pp. 381 ff.
2023. How affect modulates conversational meanings: a review of experimental research: invited review. Cognition and Emotion► pp. 1 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.