Rudeness by being polite












12















When talking to learners of my mother tongue, Swedish, I've sometimes had to explain how using too polite language can be taken as rude or insulting, as it creates a certain distance between the speakers.
I guess this is a mechanism in many languages/cultures. Is there a linguistic term for this phenomena?










share|improve this question


















  • 4





    You could probably capture this through the concept of register. Standard, polite, and formal registers are destined for increasingly non-intimate, typically more performative interactions. By using one of them you imply (perhaps invoking something like Gricean implicature) that you don't consider the interaction sufficiently intimate. Like retiring a pet name when you break up with someone. I'm not sure if there's a specific term for this pragmatic move, or I'd write a full answer.

    – Luke Sawczak
    Feb 20 at 11:45






  • 2





    Wasn't it obsequiousness?

    – Jean-Baptiste Yunès
    Feb 20 at 12:52






  • 1





    @Jean-BaptisteYunès: I learned a new word today, but I don't think obsequiousness is the term the OP is searching here.

    – jknappen
    Feb 20 at 15:58











  • Coincidentally, that's Mariam Webster's word of the day today merriam-webster.com/word-of-the-day

    – 3ocene
    Feb 21 at 1:10











  • The answer might be different depending on whether the overpoliteness is deliberate or accidental.

    – chrylis
    Feb 21 at 3:26
















12















When talking to learners of my mother tongue, Swedish, I've sometimes had to explain how using too polite language can be taken as rude or insulting, as it creates a certain distance between the speakers.
I guess this is a mechanism in many languages/cultures. Is there a linguistic term for this phenomena?










share|improve this question


















  • 4





    You could probably capture this through the concept of register. Standard, polite, and formal registers are destined for increasingly non-intimate, typically more performative interactions. By using one of them you imply (perhaps invoking something like Gricean implicature) that you don't consider the interaction sufficiently intimate. Like retiring a pet name when you break up with someone. I'm not sure if there's a specific term for this pragmatic move, or I'd write a full answer.

    – Luke Sawczak
    Feb 20 at 11:45






  • 2





    Wasn't it obsequiousness?

    – Jean-Baptiste Yunès
    Feb 20 at 12:52






  • 1





    @Jean-BaptisteYunès: I learned a new word today, but I don't think obsequiousness is the term the OP is searching here.

    – jknappen
    Feb 20 at 15:58











  • Coincidentally, that's Mariam Webster's word of the day today merriam-webster.com/word-of-the-day

    – 3ocene
    Feb 21 at 1:10











  • The answer might be different depending on whether the overpoliteness is deliberate or accidental.

    – chrylis
    Feb 21 at 3:26














12












12








12


2






When talking to learners of my mother tongue, Swedish, I've sometimes had to explain how using too polite language can be taken as rude or insulting, as it creates a certain distance between the speakers.
I guess this is a mechanism in many languages/cultures. Is there a linguistic term for this phenomena?










share|improve this question














When talking to learners of my mother tongue, Swedish, I've sometimes had to explain how using too polite language can be taken as rude or insulting, as it creates a certain distance between the speakers.
I guess this is a mechanism in many languages/cultures. Is there a linguistic term for this phenomena?







terminology






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Feb 20 at 10:13









leoleo

16316




16316








  • 4





    You could probably capture this through the concept of register. Standard, polite, and formal registers are destined for increasingly non-intimate, typically more performative interactions. By using one of them you imply (perhaps invoking something like Gricean implicature) that you don't consider the interaction sufficiently intimate. Like retiring a pet name when you break up with someone. I'm not sure if there's a specific term for this pragmatic move, or I'd write a full answer.

    – Luke Sawczak
    Feb 20 at 11:45






  • 2





    Wasn't it obsequiousness?

    – Jean-Baptiste Yunès
    Feb 20 at 12:52






  • 1





    @Jean-BaptisteYunès: I learned a new word today, but I don't think obsequiousness is the term the OP is searching here.

    – jknappen
    Feb 20 at 15:58











  • Coincidentally, that's Mariam Webster's word of the day today merriam-webster.com/word-of-the-day

    – 3ocene
    Feb 21 at 1:10











  • The answer might be different depending on whether the overpoliteness is deliberate or accidental.

    – chrylis
    Feb 21 at 3:26














  • 4





    You could probably capture this through the concept of register. Standard, polite, and formal registers are destined for increasingly non-intimate, typically more performative interactions. By using one of them you imply (perhaps invoking something like Gricean implicature) that you don't consider the interaction sufficiently intimate. Like retiring a pet name when you break up with someone. I'm not sure if there's a specific term for this pragmatic move, or I'd write a full answer.

    – Luke Sawczak
    Feb 20 at 11:45






  • 2





    Wasn't it obsequiousness?

    – Jean-Baptiste Yunès
    Feb 20 at 12:52






  • 1





    @Jean-BaptisteYunès: I learned a new word today, but I don't think obsequiousness is the term the OP is searching here.

    – jknappen
    Feb 20 at 15:58











  • Coincidentally, that's Mariam Webster's word of the day today merriam-webster.com/word-of-the-day

    – 3ocene
    Feb 21 at 1:10











  • The answer might be different depending on whether the overpoliteness is deliberate or accidental.

    – chrylis
    Feb 21 at 3:26








4




4





You could probably capture this through the concept of register. Standard, polite, and formal registers are destined for increasingly non-intimate, typically more performative interactions. By using one of them you imply (perhaps invoking something like Gricean implicature) that you don't consider the interaction sufficiently intimate. Like retiring a pet name when you break up with someone. I'm not sure if there's a specific term for this pragmatic move, or I'd write a full answer.

– Luke Sawczak
Feb 20 at 11:45





You could probably capture this through the concept of register. Standard, polite, and formal registers are destined for increasingly non-intimate, typically more performative interactions. By using one of them you imply (perhaps invoking something like Gricean implicature) that you don't consider the interaction sufficiently intimate. Like retiring a pet name when you break up with someone. I'm not sure if there's a specific term for this pragmatic move, or I'd write a full answer.

– Luke Sawczak
Feb 20 at 11:45




2




2





Wasn't it obsequiousness?

– Jean-Baptiste Yunès
Feb 20 at 12:52





Wasn't it obsequiousness?

– Jean-Baptiste Yunès
Feb 20 at 12:52




1




1





@Jean-BaptisteYunès: I learned a new word today, but I don't think obsequiousness is the term the OP is searching here.

– jknappen
Feb 20 at 15:58





@Jean-BaptisteYunès: I learned a new word today, but I don't think obsequiousness is the term the OP is searching here.

– jknappen
Feb 20 at 15:58













Coincidentally, that's Mariam Webster's word of the day today merriam-webster.com/word-of-the-day

– 3ocene
Feb 21 at 1:10





Coincidentally, that's Mariam Webster's word of the day today merriam-webster.com/word-of-the-day

– 3ocene
Feb 21 at 1:10













The answer might be different depending on whether the overpoliteness is deliberate or accidental.

– chrylis
Feb 21 at 3:26





The answer might be different depending on whether the overpoliteness is deliberate or accidental.

– chrylis
Feb 21 at 3:26










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















13














It depends on the exact theoretical framework used and the exact nature of the language's politeness / rudeness system, but following Brown and Levinson's 1987 framework, Culpeper's 1996 Towards an anatomy of impoliteness provides a few answers. I think what you are referring to is (unintentional) mock politeness / sarcastic rudeness.



However, depending on the usage, it can be perceived as positive impoliteness or as a positive face-threatening act. This is paralleled in the use of inappropriate vouvoiement in most French-speaking communities, but especially salient in African French. This study on Cameroonian French breaks this down into the vouvoiement de distanciation and the vouvoiement de discrimination, where one makes the hearer feel "distant", and the other makes the hearer feel "discriminated against".



The other categories as categorised by function are negative impoliteness/face-threatening acts and withholding politeness. However, all these categories can be very fuzzy, and one feature can have components of than one category.



A different way of looking at these impoliteness "strategies" is via form, as per Bousfield (1998). These would split them down into on-record and off-record impoliteness, which correspond to explicit vs implied impoliteness. Even so, categorising a form of address into explicit or implied can be trickier than it first appears, especially when the impoliteness is accidental.






share|improve this answer

































    10














    In English, overly polite language could be perceived as patronizing, or characterized by condescension via insincere kindness.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      This does not answer the question. The OP's request was for a technical term in linguistics.

      – Nardog
      Feb 21 at 2:18



















    4














    The source of the perceived rudeness might very well be that overly polite language often seems subservient, and unless there is a good reason (e.g. the speaker is apologising for sth), the excessive submissiveness conveys a context of passive-aggressiveness and concealed hostility.



    Example: "Wouldn't You, Good Sir, agree that this might be the reason?"



    (Even though I wrote that sentence as an example only, and even though it is outwardly very polite in form, I think I'd better apologise for my language in advance; that's how rude it sounds to my ear, at least.)






    share|improve this answer
























    • That particular phrasing to me suggests rather other-ness, as though something got mistranslated by book translation.

      – Joshua
      Feb 20 at 17:39



















    1














    If the person feel as though you're politeness is to create distance instead of being friendly the person you're talking to might take it as sarcastic.






    share|improve this answer
























    • Although this might not speak to the intent of what you're saying it could be the message received by the person you're speaking with.

      – john smith
      Feb 20 at 11:00



















    0














    There's a Swedish saying/quote, "du är inte Ni med mig", or translated: "you are not You(formalized) with me". It's basically saying that you think they are trying to be too formal for your taste.
    I think this mostly comes down to the law of Jante that most Swedes live by, which states that noone should think they are more special than anyone else. Everyone should be equal. And it can be considered rude if someone is being very posh towards you, when you're not in that mindset yourself.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 4





      This post contains one example that confirms the OP's observation, but it does not actually answer the original question about the classification of this phenomenon and its name.

      – bytebuster
      Feb 20 at 15:19











    • You are probably correct that it fits better as a comment than an answer, but in the context of the question the "Law of Jante" ("Jantelagen" in Swedish) could be seen as the reason for the phenomena even though it's not the linguistic term for it. That's why I, probably by fault, added it as an answer.

      – Daniel Nordh
      Feb 21 at 10:41













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "312"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30603%2frudeness-by-being-polite%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    13














    It depends on the exact theoretical framework used and the exact nature of the language's politeness / rudeness system, but following Brown and Levinson's 1987 framework, Culpeper's 1996 Towards an anatomy of impoliteness provides a few answers. I think what you are referring to is (unintentional) mock politeness / sarcastic rudeness.



    However, depending on the usage, it can be perceived as positive impoliteness or as a positive face-threatening act. This is paralleled in the use of inappropriate vouvoiement in most French-speaking communities, but especially salient in African French. This study on Cameroonian French breaks this down into the vouvoiement de distanciation and the vouvoiement de discrimination, where one makes the hearer feel "distant", and the other makes the hearer feel "discriminated against".



    The other categories as categorised by function are negative impoliteness/face-threatening acts and withholding politeness. However, all these categories can be very fuzzy, and one feature can have components of than one category.



    A different way of looking at these impoliteness "strategies" is via form, as per Bousfield (1998). These would split them down into on-record and off-record impoliteness, which correspond to explicit vs implied impoliteness. Even so, categorising a form of address into explicit or implied can be trickier than it first appears, especially when the impoliteness is accidental.






    share|improve this answer






























      13














      It depends on the exact theoretical framework used and the exact nature of the language's politeness / rudeness system, but following Brown and Levinson's 1987 framework, Culpeper's 1996 Towards an anatomy of impoliteness provides a few answers. I think what you are referring to is (unintentional) mock politeness / sarcastic rudeness.



      However, depending on the usage, it can be perceived as positive impoliteness or as a positive face-threatening act. This is paralleled in the use of inappropriate vouvoiement in most French-speaking communities, but especially salient in African French. This study on Cameroonian French breaks this down into the vouvoiement de distanciation and the vouvoiement de discrimination, where one makes the hearer feel "distant", and the other makes the hearer feel "discriminated against".



      The other categories as categorised by function are negative impoliteness/face-threatening acts and withholding politeness. However, all these categories can be very fuzzy, and one feature can have components of than one category.



      A different way of looking at these impoliteness "strategies" is via form, as per Bousfield (1998). These would split them down into on-record and off-record impoliteness, which correspond to explicit vs implied impoliteness. Even so, categorising a form of address into explicit or implied can be trickier than it first appears, especially when the impoliteness is accidental.






      share|improve this answer




























        13












        13








        13







        It depends on the exact theoretical framework used and the exact nature of the language's politeness / rudeness system, but following Brown and Levinson's 1987 framework, Culpeper's 1996 Towards an anatomy of impoliteness provides a few answers. I think what you are referring to is (unintentional) mock politeness / sarcastic rudeness.



        However, depending on the usage, it can be perceived as positive impoliteness or as a positive face-threatening act. This is paralleled in the use of inappropriate vouvoiement in most French-speaking communities, but especially salient in African French. This study on Cameroonian French breaks this down into the vouvoiement de distanciation and the vouvoiement de discrimination, where one makes the hearer feel "distant", and the other makes the hearer feel "discriminated against".



        The other categories as categorised by function are negative impoliteness/face-threatening acts and withholding politeness. However, all these categories can be very fuzzy, and one feature can have components of than one category.



        A different way of looking at these impoliteness "strategies" is via form, as per Bousfield (1998). These would split them down into on-record and off-record impoliteness, which correspond to explicit vs implied impoliteness. Even so, categorising a form of address into explicit or implied can be trickier than it first appears, especially when the impoliteness is accidental.






        share|improve this answer















        It depends on the exact theoretical framework used and the exact nature of the language's politeness / rudeness system, but following Brown and Levinson's 1987 framework, Culpeper's 1996 Towards an anatomy of impoliteness provides a few answers. I think what you are referring to is (unintentional) mock politeness / sarcastic rudeness.



        However, depending on the usage, it can be perceived as positive impoliteness or as a positive face-threatening act. This is paralleled in the use of inappropriate vouvoiement in most French-speaking communities, but especially salient in African French. This study on Cameroonian French breaks this down into the vouvoiement de distanciation and the vouvoiement de discrimination, where one makes the hearer feel "distant", and the other makes the hearer feel "discriminated against".



        The other categories as categorised by function are negative impoliteness/face-threatening acts and withholding politeness. However, all these categories can be very fuzzy, and one feature can have components of than one category.



        A different way of looking at these impoliteness "strategies" is via form, as per Bousfield (1998). These would split them down into on-record and off-record impoliteness, which correspond to explicit vs implied impoliteness. Even so, categorising a form of address into explicit or implied can be trickier than it first appears, especially when the impoliteness is accidental.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Feb 20 at 12:27

























        answered Feb 20 at 12:22









        MichaelyusMichaelyus

        2,017916




        2,017916























            10














            In English, overly polite language could be perceived as patronizing, or characterized by condescension via insincere kindness.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1





              This does not answer the question. The OP's request was for a technical term in linguistics.

              – Nardog
              Feb 21 at 2:18
















            10














            In English, overly polite language could be perceived as patronizing, or characterized by condescension via insincere kindness.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1





              This does not answer the question. The OP's request was for a technical term in linguistics.

              – Nardog
              Feb 21 at 2:18














            10












            10








            10







            In English, overly polite language could be perceived as patronizing, or characterized by condescension via insincere kindness.






            share|improve this answer













            In English, overly polite language could be perceived as patronizing, or characterized by condescension via insincere kindness.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Feb 20 at 15:43









            CxomCxom

            1012




            1012








            • 1





              This does not answer the question. The OP's request was for a technical term in linguistics.

              – Nardog
              Feb 21 at 2:18














            • 1





              This does not answer the question. The OP's request was for a technical term in linguistics.

              – Nardog
              Feb 21 at 2:18








            1




            1





            This does not answer the question. The OP's request was for a technical term in linguistics.

            – Nardog
            Feb 21 at 2:18





            This does not answer the question. The OP's request was for a technical term in linguistics.

            – Nardog
            Feb 21 at 2:18











            4














            The source of the perceived rudeness might very well be that overly polite language often seems subservient, and unless there is a good reason (e.g. the speaker is apologising for sth), the excessive submissiveness conveys a context of passive-aggressiveness and concealed hostility.



            Example: "Wouldn't You, Good Sir, agree that this might be the reason?"



            (Even though I wrote that sentence as an example only, and even though it is outwardly very polite in form, I think I'd better apologise for my language in advance; that's how rude it sounds to my ear, at least.)






            share|improve this answer
























            • That particular phrasing to me suggests rather other-ness, as though something got mistranslated by book translation.

              – Joshua
              Feb 20 at 17:39
















            4














            The source of the perceived rudeness might very well be that overly polite language often seems subservient, and unless there is a good reason (e.g. the speaker is apologising for sth), the excessive submissiveness conveys a context of passive-aggressiveness and concealed hostility.



            Example: "Wouldn't You, Good Sir, agree that this might be the reason?"



            (Even though I wrote that sentence as an example only, and even though it is outwardly very polite in form, I think I'd better apologise for my language in advance; that's how rude it sounds to my ear, at least.)






            share|improve this answer
























            • That particular phrasing to me suggests rather other-ness, as though something got mistranslated by book translation.

              – Joshua
              Feb 20 at 17:39














            4












            4








            4







            The source of the perceived rudeness might very well be that overly polite language often seems subservient, and unless there is a good reason (e.g. the speaker is apologising for sth), the excessive submissiveness conveys a context of passive-aggressiveness and concealed hostility.



            Example: "Wouldn't You, Good Sir, agree that this might be the reason?"



            (Even though I wrote that sentence as an example only, and even though it is outwardly very polite in form, I think I'd better apologise for my language in advance; that's how rude it sounds to my ear, at least.)






            share|improve this answer













            The source of the perceived rudeness might very well be that overly polite language often seems subservient, and unless there is a good reason (e.g. the speaker is apologising for sth), the excessive submissiveness conveys a context of passive-aggressiveness and concealed hostility.



            Example: "Wouldn't You, Good Sir, agree that this might be the reason?"



            (Even though I wrote that sentence as an example only, and even though it is outwardly very polite in form, I think I'd better apologise for my language in advance; that's how rude it sounds to my ear, at least.)







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Feb 20 at 15:00









            BassBass

            1411




            1411













            • That particular phrasing to me suggests rather other-ness, as though something got mistranslated by book translation.

              – Joshua
              Feb 20 at 17:39



















            • That particular phrasing to me suggests rather other-ness, as though something got mistranslated by book translation.

              – Joshua
              Feb 20 at 17:39

















            That particular phrasing to me suggests rather other-ness, as though something got mistranslated by book translation.

            – Joshua
            Feb 20 at 17:39





            That particular phrasing to me suggests rather other-ness, as though something got mistranslated by book translation.

            – Joshua
            Feb 20 at 17:39











            1














            If the person feel as though you're politeness is to create distance instead of being friendly the person you're talking to might take it as sarcastic.






            share|improve this answer
























            • Although this might not speak to the intent of what you're saying it could be the message received by the person you're speaking with.

              – john smith
              Feb 20 at 11:00
















            1














            If the person feel as though you're politeness is to create distance instead of being friendly the person you're talking to might take it as sarcastic.






            share|improve this answer
























            • Although this might not speak to the intent of what you're saying it could be the message received by the person you're speaking with.

              – john smith
              Feb 20 at 11:00














            1












            1








            1







            If the person feel as though you're politeness is to create distance instead of being friendly the person you're talking to might take it as sarcastic.






            share|improve this answer













            If the person feel as though you're politeness is to create distance instead of being friendly the person you're talking to might take it as sarcastic.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Feb 20 at 10:58









            john smithjohn smith

            163




            163













            • Although this might not speak to the intent of what you're saying it could be the message received by the person you're speaking with.

              – john smith
              Feb 20 at 11:00



















            • Although this might not speak to the intent of what you're saying it could be the message received by the person you're speaking with.

              – john smith
              Feb 20 at 11:00

















            Although this might not speak to the intent of what you're saying it could be the message received by the person you're speaking with.

            – john smith
            Feb 20 at 11:00





            Although this might not speak to the intent of what you're saying it could be the message received by the person you're speaking with.

            – john smith
            Feb 20 at 11:00











            0














            There's a Swedish saying/quote, "du är inte Ni med mig", or translated: "you are not You(formalized) with me". It's basically saying that you think they are trying to be too formal for your taste.
            I think this mostly comes down to the law of Jante that most Swedes live by, which states that noone should think they are more special than anyone else. Everyone should be equal. And it can be considered rude if someone is being very posh towards you, when you're not in that mindset yourself.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 4





              This post contains one example that confirms the OP's observation, but it does not actually answer the original question about the classification of this phenomenon and its name.

              – bytebuster
              Feb 20 at 15:19











            • You are probably correct that it fits better as a comment than an answer, but in the context of the question the "Law of Jante" ("Jantelagen" in Swedish) could be seen as the reason for the phenomena even though it's not the linguistic term for it. That's why I, probably by fault, added it as an answer.

              – Daniel Nordh
              Feb 21 at 10:41


















            0














            There's a Swedish saying/quote, "du är inte Ni med mig", or translated: "you are not You(formalized) with me". It's basically saying that you think they are trying to be too formal for your taste.
            I think this mostly comes down to the law of Jante that most Swedes live by, which states that noone should think they are more special than anyone else. Everyone should be equal. And it can be considered rude if someone is being very posh towards you, when you're not in that mindset yourself.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 4





              This post contains one example that confirms the OP's observation, but it does not actually answer the original question about the classification of this phenomenon and its name.

              – bytebuster
              Feb 20 at 15:19











            • You are probably correct that it fits better as a comment than an answer, but in the context of the question the "Law of Jante" ("Jantelagen" in Swedish) could be seen as the reason for the phenomena even though it's not the linguistic term for it. That's why I, probably by fault, added it as an answer.

              – Daniel Nordh
              Feb 21 at 10:41
















            0












            0








            0







            There's a Swedish saying/quote, "du är inte Ni med mig", or translated: "you are not You(formalized) with me". It's basically saying that you think they are trying to be too formal for your taste.
            I think this mostly comes down to the law of Jante that most Swedes live by, which states that noone should think they are more special than anyone else. Everyone should be equal. And it can be considered rude if someone is being very posh towards you, when you're not in that mindset yourself.






            share|improve this answer















            There's a Swedish saying/quote, "du är inte Ni med mig", or translated: "you are not You(formalized) with me". It's basically saying that you think they are trying to be too formal for your taste.
            I think this mostly comes down to the law of Jante that most Swedes live by, which states that noone should think they are more special than anyone else. Everyone should be equal. And it can be considered rude if someone is being very posh towards you, when you're not in that mindset yourself.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Feb 20 at 15:06

























            answered Feb 20 at 14:59









            Daniel NordhDaniel Nordh

            172




            172








            • 4





              This post contains one example that confirms the OP's observation, but it does not actually answer the original question about the classification of this phenomenon and its name.

              – bytebuster
              Feb 20 at 15:19











            • You are probably correct that it fits better as a comment than an answer, but in the context of the question the "Law of Jante" ("Jantelagen" in Swedish) could be seen as the reason for the phenomena even though it's not the linguistic term for it. That's why I, probably by fault, added it as an answer.

              – Daniel Nordh
              Feb 21 at 10:41
















            • 4





              This post contains one example that confirms the OP's observation, but it does not actually answer the original question about the classification of this phenomenon and its name.

              – bytebuster
              Feb 20 at 15:19











            • You are probably correct that it fits better as a comment than an answer, but in the context of the question the "Law of Jante" ("Jantelagen" in Swedish) could be seen as the reason for the phenomena even though it's not the linguistic term for it. That's why I, probably by fault, added it as an answer.

              – Daniel Nordh
              Feb 21 at 10:41










            4




            4





            This post contains one example that confirms the OP's observation, but it does not actually answer the original question about the classification of this phenomenon and its name.

            – bytebuster
            Feb 20 at 15:19





            This post contains one example that confirms the OP's observation, but it does not actually answer the original question about the classification of this phenomenon and its name.

            – bytebuster
            Feb 20 at 15:19













            You are probably correct that it fits better as a comment than an answer, but in the context of the question the "Law of Jante" ("Jantelagen" in Swedish) could be seen as the reason for the phenomena even though it's not the linguistic term for it. That's why I, probably by fault, added it as an answer.

            – Daniel Nordh
            Feb 21 at 10:41







            You are probably correct that it fits better as a comment than an answer, but in the context of the question the "Law of Jante" ("Jantelagen" in Swedish) could be seen as the reason for the phenomena even though it's not the linguistic term for it. That's why I, probably by fault, added it as an answer.

            – Daniel Nordh
            Feb 21 at 10:41




















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Linguistics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30603%2frudeness-by-being-polite%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

            ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

            Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?