Impoliteness in English and Chinese online diners’ reviews
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12860201 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Xiaoyu Lai (0009-0007-7219-8641, Guangdong University of Technology, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 293-322 |
| Publication date | 2019-05-25 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Politeness Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1612-5681 • E-ISSN: 1613-4877 |
| Publisher | De Gruyter Mouton (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1515/pr-2017-0031 |
| OpenAlex | W2947042809 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 9 |
| References cited | 37 |
Linguistic impoliteness appears to be an important feature of online reviews. This paper examines how impoliteness is realized in English and Chinese negative reviews, and how these reviews are responded to. The data sets are composed of 32 English and 32 Chinese negative reviews with responses respectively from the websites TripAdvisor and Dazhongdianping . Building on the work of Culpeper (1996; 2011), English reviewers are found to adopt more of a mixture of approval and criticism, and “stuff-oriented” pointed complaints, while Chinese reviewers employ more indignant exclamations and “staff-oriented” pointed complaints. This suggests that the latter are more concerned about their own face needs, and thus have the potential to be perceived as more impolite and aggravating than the former. However, it is also found that Chinese respondents are potentially more polite and indirect than English respondents. Chinese respondents pay more attention to reviewers’ face wants rather than that of their own, while English respondents attach greater importance to maintaining a positive image for a restaurant, and hence attending to their own face needs. This paper reveals a sharp contrast in the use of impoliteness and its link to the concept of face in English and Chinese negative reviews and responses
Criticism · Face (sociological concept · Linguistics · Politeness · Political science · Discourse Analysis in Language Studies · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Law · Psychology · Swearing, Euphemism, Multilingualism
Rapport management in Chinese and English responses to online negative reviews
“Such large appetites, such shallow pockets……!!!!!!!!!”
Aggravated impoliteness in Chinese online negative restaurant reviews
Grand strategy of politeness in new social networks
Realizations of oppositional speech acts in English
Shameless normalisation of impoliteness
Hong Kong Cantonese TV talk shows
Opinion sharing in online travel communities
Inherent linguistic impoliteness
Chapter 10. “Stop hassling me!” Impoliteness, power and gender identity in the professional workplace
If nearly all Airbnb reviews are positive, does that make them meaningless?
Chapter 4. Relational work and impoliteness
Conflict management in massive polylogues
Aggravating language a study of abusive and insulting language
Identity in Modern Society
Indirectness, inexplicitness and vagueness made clearer
Hotels׳ responses to online reviews
I wouldn’t say that if I were you
Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses
When is an email really offensive
Im/polite reader responses on British online news sites
Introduction
Impoliteness in Japanese BBS interactions
Face as relational and interactional
A comparative multimodal analysis of restaurant reviews from two geographical contexts
Tried and tested
Politeness
Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show
Re-conceptualizing the Chinese concept of face from a face-sensitive perspective
Complaints online
Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions
Politeness and impoliteness in ethnic varieties of New Zealand English
Impoliteness in a cultural context
Towards an anatomy of impoliteness
The limits of questioning
Theories of identity and the analysis of face
Giving offense and making amends
On Complainability
Rudeness at 911 Reconceptualizing Face and Face Attack
The Discourse of Requests
| Unique citing works | 9 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,5 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2026 (7) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 9 |