بررسی بی‌ادبی کلامی در نظرات کاربران سایت بورس سهامیاب بر اساس نظریه کالپپر

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه زبانشناسی، دانشگاه سمنان، سمنان، ایران (نویسنده مسئول)

2 دانشیار گروه زبانشناسی، دانشگاه سمنان، سمنان، ایران

3 دانشجوی دکتری زبانشناسی، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران، ایران.

10.22075/jlrs.2024.33250.2429

چکیده

پدیده بی ادبی کلامی همواره یکی از مسائلی بوده که توجه محققان مختلف را جلب کرده است. این موضوع به نحوی بایستهکه باید در زبان فارسی مورد توجه قرار نگرفته است. بنابراین، پژوهشگران نویسندگان جستار حاضر تصمیم گرفتند این موضوع را بر روی یک وب‌سایت بازار بورس مطالعه کنند و آن را از یک دیدگاه دیگر بررسی کنند. این مطالعه بر روی برخی از نمادهای بورس چالش‌برانگیز با بیشترین تعداد معاملات در وب‌سایت سهامیاب انجام شد. در این تحقیق، با تحلیل حدود 3600 نظر معادل حدود 100,000 کلمه، این سوالات درباره اینکه چگونه و به چه اندازه مدل‌های بی‌ادبی کالپپر (1996، 2011) در توییت‌های کاربران وب‌سایت سهامیاب استفاده شده است، پاسخ داده شد. نتایج نشان داد که تقریبا هر نوع استراتژی بی‌ادبی کالپپر باعث شده است که بیشترین نظرات با حدود 34٪ به عنوان بی‌ادبی صریح ثبت شود، که نشان می‌دهد افراد تمایل دارند استراتژی توهین آشکارتر را برای خراب کردن چهره مخاطبان خود ببرند. ادب ساختگی با تقریباً 26.4 درصد در رتبه دوم قرار گرفت، به شکل طعنه، کنایه، استعاره و به اصطلاح ادب غیرصادقانه که نشان می دهد حفظ چهره خود در هنگام توهین به دیگران برای تعداد زیادی از مردم اولویت دارد. در نهایت، بی ادبی منفی همراه با عدم رعایت ادب هر دو به عنوان کم‌تکرارترین راهبردها به 12.6 درصد رسید. می توان این گونه تفسیر کرد که دلیل اصلی حجم زیاد بی ادبی و عامل اصلی توهین به چهره افراد، ارتباط سایبری بین کاربران است که به آنها اجازه می دهد هویت خود را پنهان کنند، چهره خود را حفظ کنند و چهره مخاطب را با استفاده از آن تخریب کنند. آنها در مقایسه با ارتباط رو در رو کمتر احساس نگرانی می کنند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Study of Verbal Impoliteness in the Users’ Comments of Sahamyab Stock Market Website According to Culpeper’s Theory

نویسندگان [English]

  • Shahram Naghshbandi 1
  • Hossein Razavian 2
  • Hossein Ariyaeefar 3
1 Assistant Professor of Department of Linguistics, University of Semnan, Semnan, Iran: Correspondence author
2 Associate Professor of Department of Linguistics, University of Semnan, Semnan, Iran.
3 PhD student, of Linguistics, Research Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

: The phenomenon of impoliteness has always been one of the issues drawing different researchers’ attention, which hasn’t been considered as it ought to be in the Persian language. Therefore, the researchers decided to study it on a stock market website and investigate it from another perspective. This study was carried out on some of the most challenging stock market symbols having the biggest number of transactions on Sahamyab website. In this research, by analyzing about 3,600 comments equivalent to about 100,000 words, these questions were answered about how and to what extent Culpeper impoliteness models (1996, 2011) were used in the tweets of Sahamyab website users. The results indicated that almost every kind of Culpeper's impoliteness strategy was employed, with bald on-record impoliteness being the most frequent at about 34%, showing that people tend to adopt the most explicit offensive strategy to destroy the addressees' face. Mock politeness turned out second with almost 26.4%, in the form of sarcasm, irony, metaphor, and so-called dishonest politeness indicating that preserving own face when insulting others is a priority to a large number of people. Finally, negative impoliteness in conjunction with withhold politeness both amounted to 12.6% as the least frequent strategies. It could be interpreted that the main reason for the sheer volume of impoliteness and the major cause of offending individuals’ faces explicitly is the cyber relationship between the users, allowing them to hide their identity, preserve their own face, and destroy addressees’ faces with them feeling less concerned compared to face-to-face communication.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Culpeper’s theory
  • face threat
  • Sahamyab website
  • Verbal impoliteness
Bagshaw, D. M. (2004). Verbal abuse and adolescent identities: marking the boundaries of gender. Doctoral dissertation, Melbourne: University of Melbourne. School of Behavioral Science and School of Social Work.
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge university press.
Cashman, H. R. (2006). Impoliteness in children's interactions in a Spanish/English bilingual community of practice. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(2), 217-246. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/PR.2006.012
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of pragmatics, 25(3), 349-367. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3
Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 35-72. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
Culpeper, J. (2011). 13. Politeness and impoliteness. ed. Gisle Andersen; Karin Aijmer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pragmatics of society. p. 391-436 (Handbooks of Pragmatics; Vol. 5).
Dani, E. P. )2015(. The impoliteness strategies used by teacher and student in classroom interaction. Doctoral dissertation, UNIMED.
Derikvand, Z. (2019). A Linguistic Study Impoliteness in Iranian Cinematic Films. Case Study: Movies: we do not get used to and Forever and One day, Language Analysis, 6, 71-88.
Eliasson, M. A., Isaksson, K., & Laflamme, L. (2007). Verbal abuse in school. Constructions of gender among 14‐to 15‐year‐olds. Gender and Education, 19(5), 587-605. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09540250701535600
Forouqi, M., Majidi Qahroudi, N., Safari, M.D. (2015), Violence discourse in the shadow of speech, In The National Conference of Knowledge and Technology of Social, Psychological Studies of Educational Sciences in Iran, Tehran.
Geiger, B., & Fischer, M. (2006). Will words ever harm me? Escalation from verbal to physical abuse in sixth-grade classrooms. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(3), 337-357.  https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0886260505282886
Haji Mohammadi, S. (2010). The study of impolite language between Tehrani Persian men and women. MA dissertation, Allame Tabatabaee University, Tehran.  
Holmes, J., Marra, M. and Schnurr, S. (2008). Impoliteness and ethnicity:  Māori and Pākehā discourse in New Zealand workplaces. Journal of Politeness Research. 4 (2): 193-­219. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/JPLR.2008.010
Khatib, M., & Lotfi, K. (2015). Impoliteness and power: An interlanguage pragmatic approach to the use of impolite patterns in terms of power. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 7(15), 43-67.
Lakoff, R. (1989). The Limits of Politeness: Therapeutic and Courtroom Discourse. Multilingua Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8, 101-130. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.101
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics.  London:  Longman.
Locher, M. A., & Bousfield, D. (2008). Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. (pp. 1-13). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344
Majlesi, A. (2008). Verbal violence: A case study in Tehran high schools. MA dissertation, Tehran University, Tehran. 
Neurater-Kessels, M. (2011). Reader Responses on British Online News Sites. Journal of Politeness Research. 7. pp 187-214. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2011.010
Navah, A., Rezapour, D., & Koopaei, M. B. (2014). A Study of Individual and Social Factors Influencing Verbal Violence among Male High School Students in Bushehr City. International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2), 13-21.
Nikoobin, A., & Shahrokhi, M. (2017). Impoliteness in the Realization of Complaint Speech Acts: A Comparative Study of Iranian EFL Learners and Native English Speakers. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(2), 32-54.
 https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n2p32
Noor Mohammadi, Q. (2010). Ignoring violence from religion’s and intellect‘s perspective. Tehran: The center of family and women affairs of presidency entity. 
Saz-Rubio, M. (2023), Assessing impoliteness-related language in response to a season's greeting posted by the Spanish and English Prime Ministers on Twitte, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 206, No. 1, pp. 31-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.01.010
Serra-Negra, J. M., Paiva, S. M., Bendo, C. B., Fulgêncio, L. B., Lage, C. F., Corrêa-Faria, P., & Pordeus, I. A. (2015). Verbal school bullying and life satisfaction among Brazilian adolescents: Profiles of the aggressor and the victim. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 57, 132-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.11.004
Strasburger, V., Wilson, B. & Jordan, A. (2009). Children, Adolescent, And the Media. Second Edition. Sage.
Taherian, A., Razavian, H., Shahsani, A. M., & Esmaeili, E. (2021). Reflection of Verbal Violence in Farrokhi Yazdi's Poems: An Analysis Based on Malkin’s Approach. The Journal Of Linguistic and Rhetorical Studies12(25), 247-272. https://doi.org/ 10.22075/jlrs.2020.21305.1769
 Terkourafi, M. (2008). Towards a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. (pp. 45-74). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344.1.45
Upadhyay, R. (2010). Identity and Impoliteness in Computer-mediated Reader Responses. Journal of Politeness Research. 6,105-127. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2010.006
Yule, G. (2017). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yusri, Y.Mantasiah, R. and Anwar, M. (2024), Assessing language impoliteness of primary school teachers in Indonesia, Asian Education and Development Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-08-2023-0098