Cover not available

In:Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Im/politeness
Edited by Marina Terkourafi
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 14] 2015
► pp. 213–238

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Using eye-tracking to examine the reading of texts containing taboo words

Published online: 28 May 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.14.11rai
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.
References (73)
References
Allan, K. & Burridge, K. 2006. Forbidden Words. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R.H., Davidson, D.J., & Bates, D.M. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 390–412. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beebe, L.M. 1995. Polite 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bousfield, D. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 167]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breheny, R., Katsos, N. & Williams, J. 2006. Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 100(3): 434–463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buchanan, T.W., Etzel, J.A., Adolphs, R. & Tranel, D. 2006. The influence of autonomic arousal and semantic relatedness on memory for emotional words. International Journal of Psychophysiology 61: 26–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crites, S.L., Fabrigar, L.R., & Petty, R.E. 1994. Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6: 619–634. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 42(12): 3232–3245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offense. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. (Im)politeness: Three issues. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1128–1133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dhooge, E. & Hartsuiker, R.J. 2011. How do speakers resist distraction? Evidence from a taboo picture-word interference task. Psychological Science 22: 855–859. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eelen, G. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eilola, T.M. & Havelka, J. 2010. Behavioural 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, D.F. & Shebilske, W.L. 1985. There 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. 1986. On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology 115(1): 3–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1967. Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosser, G.S. & Walsh, A.A. 1966. Sex differences in the differential recall of taboo and neutral words. The Journal of Psychology 63: 219–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guillet, R. & Arndt, J. 2009. Taboo words: the effect of emotion on memory for peripheral information. Memory & Cognition 37: 866–867. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hadley, C.B. & Mackay, D.G. 2006. Does emotion help or hinder immediate memory? Arousal versus priority-binding mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32: 79–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, S. 2001. Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society 12(4): 451–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T. 1986. Language 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inhoff, A.W. & Rayner, K. 1986. Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & Psychophysics 40: 431–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jay, T. 1992. Cursing in America. Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Do offensive words harm people? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 15: 81–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Why We Curse. Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jay, T., Caldwell-Harris, C., & King, K. 2008. Recalling taboo and nontaboo words. American Journal of Psychology 121: 83–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jay, T. & Janschewitz, K. 2008. The pragmatics of swearing. Journal of Politeness Research 4: 267–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaplan, R.B. (ed.). 2002. The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasper, G. 1990. Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 193–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. & Grefenstette, G. 2003. Introduction to the special issue on the web as corpus. Computational Linguistics 29: 333–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lachenicht, L.G. 1980. Aggravating language: A study of abusive and insulting language. International Journal of Human Communication 13: 607–688. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1989. The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua 8: 101–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. How 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. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 9–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levy, R. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106: 1126–1177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacKay, D.G., Hadley, C.B. & Schwartz, J.H. 2005. Relations between emotion, illusory word perception, and orthographic repetition blindness: Tests of binding theory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 58(A): 1514–1533. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacKay, D.G., Shafto, M., Taylor, J.K., Marian, D.E., Abrams, L. & Dyer, J.R. 2004. Relations between emotion, memory, and attention: evidence from taboo Stroop, lexical decision, and immediate memory tasks. Memory & Cognition 32: 474–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mathewson, K.J., Arnell, K.M. & Mansfield, C.A. 2008. Capturing and holding attention: The impact of emotional words in rapid serial visual presentation. Memory & Cognition 36: 182–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGinnies, E. 1949. Emotionality and perceptual defense. Psychological Review 56: 244–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. 1953. Is there a mechanism of perceptual defense? Journal of Abnormal Psychology 48: 215–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayner, K. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124: 372–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. The 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayner, K. & Duffy, S.A. 1986. Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition 14: 734–747. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J. & Clifton, C.E. 2012. The Psychology of Reading. New York NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Regel, S., Coulson, S. & Gunter, T.C. 2010. The communicative style of a speaker can affect language comprehension? ERP evidence from the comprehension of irony. Brain Research 1311: 121–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reichle, E.D., Pollatsek, A. & Rayner, K. 2006. E–Z Reader: A cognitive-control, serial-attention model of eye-movement behavior during reading. Cognitive Systems Research 7: 4–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rudanko, J. 2006. Aggravated impoliteness and two types of speaker intention in an episode of Shakespeare’s. Timon of Athens. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 829–841. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sales, B.D. & Haber, R.N. 1968. A different look at perceptual defense for taboo words. Perception & Psychophysics 3: 156–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sha, G. 2010. Using Google as a super corpus to drive written language learning: a comparison with the British National Corpus. Computer Assisted Language Learning 23: 377–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siegrist, M. 1995. Effects of taboo words on color-naming performance on a Stroop test. Perceptual and Motor Skills 81: 1119–1122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stites, M.C., Luke, S.G. & Christianson, K. 2013. The psychologist said quickly, “Dialogue descriptions modulate reading speed!” Memory & Cognition 41: 137–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stroop, J.R. 1935. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 18: 643–662. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, L. & LaBar, K. 2005. Emotional arousal enhances word repetition priming. Cognition & Emotion 19: 1027–1047. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Berkum, J.J.A., Hagoort, P. & Brown, C.M. 1999. Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 11(6): 657–671. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Berkum, J.J.A., Van den Brink, D., Tesink, C.M.J.Y., Kos, M. & Hagoort, P. 2008. The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(4): 580–591. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watts, R. 1989. Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8(2–3): 131–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weaver, M.D., Lauwereyns, J. & Theeuwes, J. 2011. The effect of semantic information on saccade trajectory deviations. Vision Research 51: 1124–1128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Werkhofer, K. 1992. Traditional 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yao, B., Belin, P. & Scheepers, C. 2011. Silent reading of direct versus indirect speech activates voice-selective areas in the auditory cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23(10): 3146–3152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yao, B. & Scheepers, C. 2011. Contextual modulation of reading rate for direct versus indirect quotations. Cognition 121: 447–453. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeelenberg, R., Bocanegra, B.R. & Pecher, D. 2011. Emotion-induced impairments in speeded word recognition tasks. Experimental Psychology 58: 400–411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, R.A., Langston, M.C. & Graesser, A.C. 1995. The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science 6: 292–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Olmen, Daniel Van, Jonathan Culpeper, Riccardo Giomi & Marta Andersson
2025. 31 The grammar of impoliteness. In The Grammar of Impoliteness, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bromberek-Dyzman, Katarzyna
2024. Rethinking (Assumptions About) Irony: The Bilingual Factor. In Studying Verbal Irony and Sarcasm, ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas, Jens Allaert & Marie-Anne Vanderhasselt
2024. Psychophysiological effects of evaluative language use on Twitter complaints and compliments. Internet Pragmatics 7:2 ► pp. 193 ff. DOI logo
Vergis, Nikos
2023. How affect modulates conversational meanings: a review of experimental research: invited review. Cognition and Emotion ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Tomić, Aleksandra & Jorge Valdés Kroff
2021. Code-switching. In Prediction in Second Language Processing and Learning [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 12], ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Holtgraves, Thomas & Jean-François Bonnefon
2017. Experimental Approaches to Linguistic (Im)politeness. In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ► pp. 381 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 march 2026. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue