A Socio-Pragmatic Analysis of Responses to Impoliteness in some Selected English and Arabic Literary Texts

A great number of studies have dealt with impoliteness within the area of pragmatics, but it seems the responses to impoliteness as a socio-pragmatic phenomenon have been somehow neglected. Therefore, by employing a model of impoliteness strategies proposed by Culpeper (2005), this paper aims at investigating of the responses to impoliteness from socio-pragmatic view in English and Arabic literary texts to examine the types of responses to impoliteness, and the ways in which the characters make use of their social power to perform impolite behaviors or utterances to respond to others so as to achieve certain social goals. It worth mentioning that this paper has tackled the responses qualitatively and quantitatively because it explains a specific socio-pragmatic phenomenon which is Impoliteness. The results of the study show that the responses to impoliteness are various in English and Arabic plays which hearers make use of context or their social power to respond to attackers.


model of impoliteness
It is essential to mention that the most recognizable model to tackle the impoliteness phenomenon is introduced by Culpeper in 1996. For him, impoliteness is the reason of causing social disharmony between members of a community in interaction (Walaszewska & Piskorska, 2012: 246). Culpeper (2001, p. 246) explains that politeness is different from impoliteness when he points out "It should be noted that the key difference between politeness and impoliteness is a matter of intention: whether it is the speaker's intention to support face (politely) or to attack it (impolitely)" Culpeper relays on the data of media in general and the data of television shows in particular in order to measure how his model of impoliteness works. Culpeper's films, documentaries and quiz programs are his favorite sources of data because there is a continual conflict between participants, and impoliteness is embodied in different manners, so it is possible to interpret the impolite behaviors from various angles (Mullany and Stockwell, 2010p. 72). Furthermore, when comparing Culpeper's model with others', his model has a real advantage because it is built on the basis of real-life data. It deals with various types of discourses such as the impolite acts in a training discourse held by an American Army and in children's discourse within Spanish/English bilingual environment. Hence, Bousfield (2008, p. 90) states that Culpeper's various types discourse gives a significant reliability to his model.
It is important to mention that Lachenicht (1980) and Culpeper (1996) have three aspects in common: first and foremost, both of them depend on Brown and Levinson's Politeness Theory because they consider it a cornerstone for building their own models (Bousfield, 2008: 83). Also, Lachenicht and Culpeper's primary attention is on the speaker's role, unlike Austin (1990) who concentrates on the hearer's. To elaborate, Austin deals with how the listener interprets the utterances as being impolite, and she disregards the speaker's role (Jucker, 2009, p.164). Lastly, for Lachenicht and Culpeper, impoliteness is viewed as the employment of an intentional linguistic behavior for the purpose of attacking the hearer's face and creating social disharmony (ibid). Culpeper modifies his (1996) (1996, p.91). Culpeper's (1996Culpeper's ( -2005 model of impoliteness consists of five strategies that are explained below.

Bald on record impoliteness
Gus: "He doesn't seem to bother much about our comfort these days." Ben: "When you are going to stop jabbering?" (I, ii, p.135). An example of bald on record impoliteness is shown through Ben's directly performed attack to Gus.

Positive impoliteness
Aston: "What happened when you got there, then?" Davies: "You know what that bastard monk said to me?" (I, ii, p.62) Davies does not seem to accept an offensive behavior towards him, so he performs a positive impoliteness strategy by using "calling the other names" sub-strategy "bastard monk" to attack that person.

Negative impoliteness
Davies: "You ain't got no right to" Mick: "You're stinking the place out. You're an old robber. You're an old skate. You don't belong in a nice place like this" (II, iii, p.109) Mick employs negative impoliteness strategy when he verbally attacks Davies by implementing negative aspects, telling him that "you're old rouge, stink, an old skate".

Sarcasm
Max: "It's funny you never got married, isn't it? A man with all your gifts. Isn't it? A man like you?" Sam: "There's still time" (I, ii, p.61) This is an example of sarcasm because Max's impolite acts towards Sam are sarcastic to make him a source of laughter.

Withhold politeness
Molly introduces, Jim, her boyfriend to Sherlock. However, Sherlock's response is passive because he does not say anything, so this is an example of a withhold politeness strategy.
Jim: "So you're Sherlock Holmes. Molly's told me all about you. You on one of your cases?" Sherlock: Silent (Lucky,2005, p.52)

Responses to Impoliteness
The options open to a recipient to respond to the impolite behaviors are three which are explained thoroughly below.

1) Accepting the face attack
This example is from Boiling Point, and it shows how the artichokes have been overcooked and another dish has been held up for another table by Henry (H), a Chef. Therefore, Ramsay G. (RG) who is an owner of restaurant and a chef is having a conversation with him about this issue.

15
RG: "If you send me six fucking main courses like that again, I'll, I'll grab you by the fucking scruff of the neck and throw you on the street. Do you understand?" H: "Yes, Gordon."(Bousfield, 2008, p. 166) In excerpt above, Henry knows well that he is the one who initiates Gordon's anger in the first place, so he has chosen to show his acceptance to Gordon's attacking attitude.

2) Countering the face attack a) Offensive Strategy
An example of offensive strategy can be seen in the following dialogue between Ben and Gus from The Dumb Waiter (1959) Ben. Lenny: "Why don't you shut up, you daft prat?" Max: "Don't talk to me like that, I'm warning you." (Act1, Sence1,8-11, p.7)

3) Non-Verbal Response
A conversation between John and Raz is taken from the T.V series Sherlock. When John interrupts Raz to Sherlock about a clue to solve a case. John has to go to the Magistrate Court because of a crime Raz has committed, thus when he tries to talk to Raz, he remains silent.

Methodology
This study is dealt with qualitatively and quantitatively because a qualitative analysis offers studies that reflect the concern of sociolinguistic variationists whereas the quantitative one presents the outcomes that concern those who work with sociopragmatics. (Ilie and Norrick, 2018, p.15). In order to define the impolite instance(s) inside the chosen excerpt, certain techniques are followed such as the adaptation of models of analysis to investigate the impolite acts within literary texts so as to reach comprehensible results.
This research paper explains the impoliteness phenomenon from a sociopragmatic view. Therefore, it is sufficient to use invsitgate the selected plays qualitatively and quantitatively. The plays The Birthday Party and Qadhiatu Ahlil-Rabie are analyzed to Address the questions that this paper raises, such as what are the most common answers to the techniques of impoliteness in the chosen English and Arabic plays, if the practices of impolite acts in English and Arabic plays are similarly used and whether a speaker's social power has an effect on his / her impolite actions.

Data Selection
Plays are said to be the most suitable literary works because they a number of exchanges. The details of selected plays are stated below. The English play is The Birthday Party (BP) (1968) by Pinter and the Arabic one is Qadhiatu Ahlil-Rabie (QAR) [The Folks of Neighborhood's case] (1990) by Ali A. Baktheer.

Play
Characters The Birthday Party (BP) STA NLEY: (ignoring hand). "Perhaps you're deaf". GOLDBERG: "Your skin's crabby, you need a shave, your eyes are full of muck, your mouth is like a boghouse, the palms of your hands are full of sweat…]"(I, p.22) While Goldberg and Stanley are dialoging, Goldberg performs a negative impoliteness strategy because he is trying to invade Stanley's space and criticize his routine of getting up late in the morning. In other words, Goldberg insults Stanley verbally by ridiculing him, and explicitly associating him with negative aspects.

2) Defensive Strategy Excerpt (3)
STA NLEY: "You're a bad wife." MEG: "I'm not. Who said I am?"(I, p.12) This example of a defensive strategy occurs through a conversation between Stanley and Meg. Stanley performs a bold on record impoliteness strategy when he tells Meg that she is a bad wife because she has not made a cup of tea to her husband before he leaves. However, Meg reacts by saying "I'm not" to defend her own face.

Excerpt (4)
STA NLEY: "How long has that tea been in the pot?" MEG: "It's good tea. Good strong tea."(I, p.12) This example is of a defensive strategy occurs through a conversation between Stanley and Meg. When Stanley performs a negative impoliteness strategy when he tells Meg the tea has been in the pot for a long time, Meg reacts by saying "it is good tea" to defend her own face.

(3) Accepting the face attack Excerpt (5)
MEG: (shyly). "Am I really succulent?" STA NLEY: "Oh, you are. I'd rather have you than a cold in the nose any day." MEG: "You're just saying that" (I, p.13) Stately uses a bold on record impoliteness to verbally offend Meg by describing her as 'succulent'. However, Meg seems to accept Stanley's attack although she does not accept his critique because she tells him 'You're just saying that'.

Excerpt (6)
STA NLEY: (to the table.) "Listen. Don't call me sir." MCCANN: "I won't, if you don't like it." (II, p.21) Stanley performs a positive impoliteness strategy and orders Maccann not to call him sir, showing him his social power as if he is the owner of the boarding house. As result, Maccann accepts Stanley's face attack and promises him that he will not say that again.

(4) Non-Verbal Response Excerpt (7)
MC CA NN (rising). "That's a dirty trick!" GOLDBERG (rising). "No! I have stood up." MCCANN. "Sit down again!" STANELY: Silence (II, p.23) When Maccann and Goldberg pretend to have more social power than Stanley, so they try to question him, and they start to provoke him and practice multiple impoliteness strategies, but Stanley shows no reaction and remains silent. Through a discussion which occurs between Abdul-Maola and his wife, Iqbal. When he tells her that ambiguous language is more formal and clearer than the direct one, she responds impolitely by saying that he is ' ‫'جباٌ‬ a coward because he can never speak openly, so this is an example of a bald on record Impoliteness strategy.

Excerpt (2)
‫عشُقك؟‬ ‫دقا‬ ‫كاٌ‬ ‫وهم‬ ‫انًىنً:‬ ‫عبذ‬ ‫أقبال:‬ ‫االٌ‬ ‫ألسَُك‬ ‫أًَ‬ ‫أشجع‬ ‫يُك،‬ ‫ادبه.‬ ‫وكُت‬ ‫َذبٍُ‬ ‫كاٌ‬ ‫أجم‬ (I, p.9) There is a conversation between Abdul-Maola and Iqbal. When Abdul-Maola asks her whether Mahmoud was her boyfriend, she verbally attacks him and she tells him that she can prove that he is more courageous than him. In this sense, she performs one of the output strategies of positive impoliteness which is 'not showing concern' and 'seeking disagreement' to offend him.

‫دُاتك.‬ ‫فٍ‬ ‫وادذة‬ ‫يشة‬ ‫ونى‬ ‫شجاعا‬ ‫تكىٌ‬ ‫ال‬ ‫نى‬ ‫أقبال:‬ ‫عبذ‬ ‫انًىنً:‬ ‫اعتقذ‬ ‫اَا‬ ‫شجاع‬ ‫عًشٌ‬ ‫طىل‬ ‫اٍَُ‬ (I, p. 7)
Abdul-Maola and his wife, Iqbal are having a conversation. When Iqbal performs a positive impoliteness strategy through telling him to be a brave man, he has not been offensive to her, and he has disagreed with her face attack and tells her that he is always brave.

Excerpt (4)
‫وانذَاثت‬ ‫انجبٍ‬ ‫تهًت‬ ‫يٍ‬ ‫نتتخهص‬ ‫هزا‬ ‫قهت‬ ‫أًَا‬ ‫أقبال:‬ ‫عبذ‬ ‫انًىنً:‬ ‫نتعشفٍ‬ ‫بم‬ ‫األيش‬ ‫رنك‬ ‫َهًك‬ ‫كاٌ‬ ‫أٌ‬ ‫دقُقته‬ ‫عهً‬ . (I, p.11) Although Iqbal seems to be verbally impolite towards her husband, telling him that he should not be a coward and cuckold. However, Abdul-Maola appears to be defensive and tells her that he wants too truthful to her. Abdul-Maola and Iqbal are attacking each other verbally. He performs negative impoliteness when he says that a man cannot be a cuckold unless his wife is a bitch. This leads Iqbal to be offensive in her response, and asserts that there can be a cuckold man, and yet he has a good wife.

Excerpt (8)
‫انىظُ‬ ‫يكاٌ‬ ‫َاتشي‬ ‫أٍَ‬ ‫أقبال:‬ ‫انجذَذة؟‬ ‫فت‬ ‫فتذُت:‬ ) ‫ال‬ ‫تجُب‬ ( (I, p.6) The other example of non-verbal response occurs when Iqbal asks Fathiyah about the place of her new job, but Fathiyah does not respond to her question.   (2) shows that the defensive response is the most frequently used strategy with 65 and 43.62 %. The non-verbal strategy is used less with 60 and 40.26%. The strategy that is not very frequent is the offensive strategy with only 19 and 12.75%. Acceptance is very rarely used with 05 and 3.35%.

Table (3): Impoliteness strategies employed by the characters in QAR
According to table (3), the defensive strategy is used more than any other strategy in the play with 63 and 59.43 %. Following this strategy, the offensive strategy is employed by the characters with 38 and 35.84%. The nonverbal strategy is not very frequent with only with 04 and 03.77%. The strategy that is very rarely used is the acceptance with only 01 and 01%.

Results and Discussions
The purpose of this section is to state how a socio-pragmatic investigation is followed to examine the responses to impoliteness strategies in the English play to show why the characters respond differently to impoliteness strategies and how they adopt their social power to respond to the impoliteness strategies. The Arabic play will be dealt with in the same way.

A Socio-Pragmatic Analysis of BP
It is clearly indicated various responses to impoliteness strategies are employed by the characters in the English play. They use defensive and nonverbal strategies more frequently than the any other strategies. Pinter tires to throw the light on the responses to impoliteness to show how the characters either try to defend their face to save their face or use nonverbal responses as a way of ignoring others' impoliteness acts so that they can avoid any face attack that may occur because the speaker enjoys more social power which makes him accelerate his/her face attack whenever he/she wants to.

A Scio-Pragmatic Analysis of QAR
A variety of responses to the impoliteness strategies are employed in the Arabic play. The defensive strategy is used most frequently, but Acceptance and nonverbal responses are rarely used in the play because of the tense atmosphere which makes the context somehow argumentative. Also, the interlocutors use a different type of responses according to the situations and social relationship between them. Therefore, responses are performed strategically by the characters to attack others and save their faces at the same time. In QAQ, the characters perform impolite acts to better their social image and as a reaction to silence those who accuse them of being shameful.

Conclusion
Impoliteness is considered to be a socio-pragmatic phenomenon because by analyzing responses to impoliteness behaviors, the addresser should be taken into account as well as other societal factors such as social power, language, and the degree of intimacy between the speech participants. Responses to impoliteness are seen as a sociopragmatic trend in which participants in their language exchange employ distinctive verbal and non-verbal responses. It is clear that the frequency of the responses to impoliteness strategies vary because there are entirely different languages and cultural ethnicities in the selected plays. However, the responses performed are similar in the English and Arabic plays. An integral part of Culpeper's model (2005), responses to impoliteness, can be applied to the two plays. The most prominent strategy in the English play is the defensive one and the same applies to the Arabic play. English characters employ a nonverbal response a lot while the Arabic characters tend to use very rarely. Therefore, regardless of the language being used, responses are complex behaviors and they are crucial part of the language interaction.