Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 21:3 (2022) ► pp.391–412

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

Strategic functions of linguistic impoliteness in US primary election debates

 | University of Vechta
Published online: 7 July 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.20041.sch
Abstract
Since presidential primary debates in US election campaigns serve the function of identifying the most promising nominee for the subsequent presidency, they constitute a highly adversarial multilogue. Debaters do not only exchange factual arguments but also use diverse forms of impoliteness geared towards damaging the public image of political opponents and persuading audiences to vote accordingly. Combining political discourse analysis with pragmatic approaches to impoliteness, this paper examines the ways in which verbal aggression in debates inflicts damage on the addressee’s positive and negative face. On the basis of five Democratic and five Republican debates from 2016, it is shown that impolite utterances fulfil the four central strategic functions of (a) delegitimization, (b) coercion, (c) entertainment, and (d) (self-)defence, all of which support the macro-function of political persuasion through the construction of personal preferability.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Impolite politics
  • 2.Approaches to linguistic impoliteness
  • 3.The discourse situation in primary election debates
  • 4.Datset and method
  • 5.Strategic functions of impoliteness in debates
    • 5.1Delegitimizing impoliteness
      • (a)Deauthorization
      • (b)Moral devaluation
    • 5.2Coercive impoliteness
      • (a)Local conversation management
      • (b)Discursive non-cooperation
    • 5.3Entertaining impoliteness
      • (a)Conversational behaviour
      • (b)Professional competence
    • 5.4(Self-)defensive impoliteness
      • (a)Quality face
      • (b)Social identity face
  • 6.Conclusions
  • References
References (31)
References
Attardo, Salvatore. 2008. “A Primer for the Linguistics of Humor.” In The Primer of Humor Research, ed. by Victor Raskin, 101–155. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beebe, Leslie M. 1995. “Polite Fictions: Instrumental Rudeness as Pragmatic Competence.” In Linguistics and the Education of Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguistics and Sociolinguistic Aspects, ed. by James E. Alatis, Carolyn A. Straehle, Brent Gallenberger, and Maggie Ronkin, 154–168. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benoit, William L. 2014. Political Election Debates: Informing Voters about Policy and Character. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bousfield, Derek, and Miriam A. Locher (eds). 2008. Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schäffner. 2011. “Discourse and Politics.” In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 303–330. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 251: 349–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show ‘The Weakest Link’.” Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 35–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Impoliteness Strategies.” In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, 421–445. Switzerland: Springer International. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Claire Hardaker. 2017. “Impoliteness.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. by Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 199–225. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár (eds). 2017. The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dailey, William O., Edward A. Hinck, and Shelly S. Hinck. 2008. Politeness in Presidential Debates: Shaping Political Face in Campaign Debates from 1960 to 2004. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2011. “‘Here is the Difference, Here is the Passion, Here is the Chance to be Part of Great Change:’ Strategic Context Importation in Political Discourse.” In Context and Contexts: Parts meet Whole?, ed. by Anita Fetzer, and Etsuko Oishi, 115–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García-Pastor, María Dolores. 2008. “Political Campaign Debates as Zero-sum Games: Impoliteness and Power in Candidates’ Exchanges.” In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 101–126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 2001. “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 12 (4): 451–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2015. Im/Politeness Implicatures. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, Jean G., and Herbert W. Simons. 2017. Persuasion in Society. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2013. “Politeness, Impoliteness, Non-Politeness, ‘Polirudeness’: The Case of Political TV Debates.” In Aspects of Linguistic Impoliteness, ed. by Denis Jamet, and Manuel Jobert, 16–45. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kienpointner, Manfred. 1997. “Varieties of Rudeness: Types and Functions of Impolite Utterances.” Functions of Language 4 (2): 251–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, Jim. 2017. “Face and (Im)politeness.” The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. by Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Kádár, 89–118. London: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schroeder, Alan. 2016. Presidential Debates: Risky Business on the Campaign Trail. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2002. “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 529–545. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen. 2017. “Facework and (Im)politeness in Political Exchanges.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. by Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Kádár, 739–758. London: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2018. “Legitimation and Multimodality.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Bernhard Forchtner, 218–232. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woolley, John, and Gerhard Peters. 1999–. “The American Presidency Project (APP).” UC Santa Barbara. Accessed 10 October 2019. [URL]
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Schubert, Christoph
2025. Laughter in the White House: The rhetoric of humor in US-American state dinner speeches. Discourse Studies DOI logo
Schubert, Christoph
2025. Performing positive politeness: political rhetoric in state dinner speeches by US-American presidents. Journal of Politeness Research 21:2 ► pp. 343 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Cun, Guiling Liu & Shuang Zhang
2025. Chinese perceptions and refutations of face-threatening impoliteness regarding diplomatic press conferences. Journal of Politeness Research 21:2 ► pp. 369 ff. DOI logo
Hansson, Sten
2024. Coercive impoliteness and blame avoidance in government communication. Discourse, Context & Media 58 ► pp. 100770 ff. DOI logo
Saz-Rubio, Ma Milagros del
2023. Assessing impoliteness-related language in response to a season's greeting posted by the Spanish and English Prime Ministers on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics 206 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Mensah, Eyo, Samson Nzuanke & Theophilus Adejumo
2022. Giving a Dog a Bad Name: The Strategic Use of Labelling in Contemporary Nigerian Political Discourse. Communicatio 48:2 ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. 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