Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) state that although interaction is co-operative, a person’s face can be unintentionally attacked through face-threatening acts (FTAs). Culpeper (1996) disagrees,...Show moreBrown and Levinson (1978, 1987) state that although interaction is co-operative, a person’s face can be unintentionally attacked through face-threatening acts (FTAs). Culpeper (1996) disagrees, stating that people can also intentionally attack someone’s face, and devised “impoliteness superstrategies” (pp. 356-357) that are used for this purpose. However, little research has been done on intentional impoliteness, and even less on gender and intentional impoliteness. Therefore, the research question is: do men and women use different face-threatening acts, and do they respond to these FTAs differently? I aimed to analyse adult men and women’s language, behaviour and paralinguistic features on FTAs and their responses to FTAs, focusing on the differences. This was done through analysis of a total of ten forty-minute episodes from three different reality television series: Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away! (n.a., 2014-2018), Supernanny (Frost, 2004-2008) and Jo Frost: Extreme Parental Guidance (Frost, 2010-2012), using a schedule based on the FTAs and impoliteness superstrategies by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987), Culpeper (1996) and Bousfield (2008), respectively. The responses to FTAs were also recorded. Men and women seemed to use similar FTAs. However, the context in which the FTAs were spoken seemed to affect who was expressing which FTAs. A total of twelve different response types were recorded. These results can be used in different contexts (i.e. language teaching) to predict what kind of FTAs might be present in which contexts. They may also be used to add to both politeness and impoliteness theory.Show less
