Does the expletive make it impolite? A comparative pragmatic analysis of Persian harumzade and American English nigger

Abstract

This study scrutinized the premise of the discursive approach (Locher & Watts, 2005; Watts, 2003) that claims that no utterance is inherently polite or impolite. This premise leads to the definition of (I'm) politeness as whatever is (in)appropriate relative to the social practices and norms of the conversation and the interlocuters( Locher & Watts, 2005; Watts, 2003). Two of the most offensive expletives in Persian (harumzade ‘bastard’) and American English nigger were analyzed according to their meaning and historical and cultural context to see whether we have good reason to claim that they would not be inherently impolite. Because, face is a crucial aspect of impoliteness it was first asked whether the expletives are inherently face-threatening. This was argued to be so provided that the speaker intends to address someone with their conventional meaning as both invariably lead to the inference that the addressee is respectively morally and racially inferior. The following analysis concerned the tenability of the premise. The premise was argued to be counterintuitive if we accept that the expletives are inherently face-threatening, since the discursive approach can mark any utterance as even polite provided that the interlocuters respond with approbation. Thus there is no good reason to think that no utterance is inherently (im)polite. Finally, the two languages were compared to see if impoliteness functions differently in each language and culture. Though the discursive approach and other politeness frameworks are adequate for Western cultures they focus too much on the attitudes of the interlocuters. In Persian society, grave insults such as harumzade threaten and involve the entire family and not just the addressee. The attitudes of the family and the community are in many ways more important to the uptake than that of the addressee.