Rudeness by being polite
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
|
show 1 more comment
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
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
|
show 1 more comment
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
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
terminology
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
|
show 1 more comment
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
|
show 1 more comment
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
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.
add a comment |
In English, overly polite language could be perceived as patronizing, or characterized by condescension via insincere kindness.
1
This does not answer the question. The OP's request was for a technical term in linguistics.
– Nardog
Feb 21 at 2:18
add a comment |
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.)
That particular phrasing to me suggests rather other-ness, as though something got mistranslated by book translation.
– Joshua
Feb 20 at 17:39
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited Feb 20 at 12:27
answered Feb 20 at 12:22
MichaelyusMichaelyus
2,017916
2,017916
add a comment |
add a comment |
In English, overly polite language could be perceived as patronizing, or characterized by condescension via insincere kindness.
1
This does not answer the question. The OP's request was for a technical term in linguistics.
– Nardog
Feb 21 at 2:18
add a comment |
In English, overly polite language could be perceived as patronizing, or characterized by condescension via insincere kindness.
1
This does not answer the question. The OP's request was for a technical term in linguistics.
– Nardog
Feb 21 at 2:18
add a comment |
In English, overly polite language could be perceived as patronizing, or characterized by condescension via insincere kindness.
In English, overly polite language could be perceived as patronizing, or characterized by condescension via insincere kindness.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.)
That particular phrasing to me suggests rather other-ness, as though something got mistranslated by book translation.
– Joshua
Feb 20 at 17:39
add a comment |
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.)
That particular phrasing to me suggests rather other-ness, as though something got mistranslated by book translation.
– Joshua
Feb 20 at 17:39
add a comment |
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.)
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.)
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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