Search

Our contribution addresses the notions of politeness, impoliteness and rising tensions in verbal violence during various human interactions: including those between teachers and students, on social networks, in the training of young migrants or during interactions involving people suffering from what is now called “mental illness” (Foucault 1972). We propose a joint work aimed at answering the following questions: is impoliteness systematically antithetical to interactional cooperation and therefore a factor in the crystallization of verbal tension? And is it always the same according to the interactional contexts? We will redefine what is meant by politeness and impoliteness in order to position ourselves within the field of interactional studies, ranging from politeness to impoliteness in a context of (potentially) increasing verbal tension (Eelen 2001; Watts 2003; Mills 2009; Locher and Watts 2005; Locher 2006; Bousfield 2008; Bousfield and Locher 2008; Archer 2017). Through the analysis of different corpora, we wish to explore interactional impoliteness according to its specific forms and according to the various issues it can invoke. This will lead us to question the role of impoliteness in the continuum: does it necessarily generate the crystallization of a tension or does it also, depending on the context, contribute to the de-escalation of verbal tension?Drawing on Goffman’s theory on “face-work” or the figurative processes (1973ab, 1974) aimed at sparing the individual blushes in a verbal interaction, Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) distinguished between positive politeness (protecting and sparing subjective representations, assuaging the narcissistic dimension of the personality) and negative politeness (protecting and sparing one’s territorial integrity from a bodily, material, spatial, temporal, cognitive or affective perspective). Alongside these notions and their potential threats (by resorting to Face Threatening Acts theory), we shall refer to the non-threatening Face Flattering Acts theory which consist in reporting acts that flatter or enhance faces (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1992). A nuance is brought to this field of analysis by Leech (1983) who distinguishes between positive politeness which is essentially productionist (“maximizing the politeness of polite illocution”) and negative politeness which is compensatory or abstentionist (minimizing or avoiding face threat using certain strategies). Finally, whatever the choice made, in most interactional situations, linguistic politeness (Lakoff 1973; Brown and Levinson 1978, 1987; Culpeper et al. 2003; Culpeper 2008; Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1992; Bousfield 2008) appears to be the key to social bond (Guéguen, 2008). It then becomes a linguistic tool (linguistic and/or discursive) that furthers interactional cooperation and participates in easing tension (Howard 1990), hence sparing face and de-escalating verbal tension. Impoliteness is, on the contrary, usually described as stirring up tension by being perceived as potentially face threatening even face-attacking. However, authors such as Fracchiolla and Romain (2015, 2016, 2020) distinguish two forms of impoliteness, with positive impoliteness being favorable to cooperation, while negative impoliteness is not. Likewise, Bousfield (2008) showed how some interactions follow a principle of non-cooperation; Watts (2003) showed how a statement can be neither polite nor impolite. To go further, we may consider the distinctions made by Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2010, 2005) between apoliteness, hyperpoliteness, polirudeness, impoliteness and politeness. Research from 2000 onwards reflects an increasing interest in the description of impoliteness, alongside politeness, foremost among them, the works of Culpeper (1996, 2005) and Bousfield (2008). The description conducted by these authors departs from the ones based on the theory of speech Acts (Austin 1962, Searle 1969) and from those more focused on politeness (Lakoff 1973; Brown and Levinson 1978, 1987; Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1992, 2005). It makes use of the notion of context and undertakes discourse analysis, including a pragmatic approach (Culpeper et al. 2003; Culpeper 2008; Bousfield 2008). Therefore, politeness and impoliteness are both studied as dynamic factors in increasing verbal tension. This tension was first described in the context of synchronous verbal interactions responding to different forms of verbal tension which are not mutually exclusive (Moïse and al. 2008; Fracchiolla and al. 2013): either a meteoric rise in tension, or a rise in polemical or diverted tension. Then, research carried out in didactic interactions that drew up a specific classification through different forms of verbal tension in class (Romain and Rey, 2014, 2016, 2017). Five forms were described and were grouped into two sets: one promoting a positive outcome to the tension and the other promoting a negative outcome or even an interactional rupture. In order to answer this question, we adopt a globalizing point of view taking into account the multimodality of the interaction through the following contexts. They will each give rise to a study of different forms of politeness and impoliteness in contexts of increasing verbal tension: - didactic interactions in elementary and secondary schools’ classrooms from which an analysis of the different possible forms of politeness and impoliteness in the regulation of the rise in verbal tension will be conducted. - online interactions where the figures of troll and trolling will be studied through the analysis of discussion threads, illustrating a rise in verbal tension (on Facebook for example), thus questioning the place of politeness and impoliteness on social networks. - language training for adult migrants will allow the opportunity to question the complexity of the phenomenon of verbal violence and to combine it with complementary phenomena favoring the search for solutions. From the analysis of interactions observed between learners and trainers, as well as from interviews and meetings with language training professionals, the complexity of the phenomenon of verbal violence will be questioned. This approach will consist of thinking about how to make professionals aware of the diversity of forms of verbal violence and of these manifestations. - everyday interactions involving people suffering from what is nowadays called “mental illness” (Foucault 1972). The analysis of those interactions will allow us to reflect on the role of politeness (and impoliteness) in the construction of ”stigmatizing discourses” (Toutée 2018). This will allow the study of different forms of politeness and impoliteness as factors in epistemic and testimonial injustices (Fricker 2007).

This article aims to provide an overview of current trends in vocabulary teaching, and to highlight several initiatives taken by the authors for teaching and/or improving French vocabulary for native learners (L1), and foreigners (French as second or foreign language, L2). After a cross disciplinary theoretical overview on the notions of ‘lexicon’ and ‘context’ we describe different activities having in common the necessity of considering the context in its broadest sense, that is, from a lexical, textual, discursive, and pragmatic perspective.1. Theoretical frameworkDifferent disciplines have been interested into the question of meaning, going from lexicology, semantics, to semiotics, and philosophy of language. Broadly speaking, the context is considered paramount, as Malinowski or Firth put it, for example through the famous quotation of the latter (arguing against structural linguistics) “you shall know a word by the company it keeps” (Firth, 1957). Taken to an extreme, Polguère (2015) calls it ‘lexical contextualism’, a conception that considers that words do not have meaning in the absolute (isolated): it would be their contexts that would bring it. Other less radical positions, such as the Generative Lexicon (Pustejovsky, 1995), suggest that all words have an original meaning. When polysemic, the different meanings derive by inference from an initial (original) meaning, depending on the usage of a word in a precise context. Contextualism, be it radical or moderated, is linked to the notion of ‘semantic potential’ proposed by Recanati (2004), notion that Polguère (ibid.) illustrates with the image of an unlit light bulb: “we should not argue against the fact that words do not ‘mean’ by themselves. They ‘have a meaning’, i.e. an inherent property that conditions their denotational effect in semiosis but considered by itself, a word is just like an unlit light bulb”. Last, but not least, Bakhtine considers the context in light of a dialogism inherent to the lexicon (kind of polyphony): the word “never refers to a single conscience, a single voice. (…) it is received through the voice of someone else” (Bakhtine, [1929] 2001, p. 235‑236).The notion of lexical meaning is at the heart of language learning and it can not be dissociated from the notion of context. As we can see, from contextualism to polyphony, the notion is complex and difficult to grasp. From there, how to facilitate access to meaning while teaching French L1 or L2?2. Pedagogical aspectsTo teach vocabulary (and to facilitate the access to word senses), language teachers can deploy explicit activities, that is specific and systematic exercises on vocabulary (Cellier, 2011). Implicit activities such as oral games, reading aloud, creating mind-maps, etc. to name a few, can also contribute to vocabulary learning. These implicit activities, which vary depending on the learners and on the level of language, have many advantages. A significant number of words are involved in effective classroom communication. In contextualizing them, the teacher can enhance their appropriation (Cellier, 2011). The role of the context is thus paramount. If quantitative approaches are important when learning vocabulary (increasing the lexical stock of the learner), qualitative approaches can not be ignored (Grossmann, 2011). While for a long time, pedagogical practices related to vocabulary have privileged quantitative aspects (word lists are still present in textbooks), a variety of activities are now implemented enabling to develop metalinguistic skills, i.e. getting access to word senses whilst working on contexts. Once again, the role of context is crucial.Recent studies in second language acquisition in general (Meara, 1996; Boulton, 1998) and specifically in French L2 (Cavalla, 2019) show the importance to teach/learn vocabulary in context as to dynamically build a diversified mental lexicon. The point is here to acquire skills and not lexical knowledge (Holec, 1994) to be able to cope with different situations, in comprehension and production.Besides, a variety of activities can be proposed in complement to textbook activities to handle heterogeneous classrooms: getting access to meaning may vary depending on the learner, his/her learning culture, his/her mother tongue (i.e. proximity with the languages already learnt), the languages learnt before, his/her motivation, etc. Insights on translation, cross-comprehension (Caddéo et Jamet, 2013), emotions (Cavalla, 2017), not to mention embodiment (Eshenauer et al., “Encorporer les langues vivantes” article in this issue), may also help memorizing new words and thus vocabulary appropriation. Finally, in communicative approaches for vocabulary teaching in L2, students are encouraged to use language as vehicle of communication and gradually develop their strategies in communication by using authentic texts. Vocabulary comprehension is linked to reflective activities on reading texts in the target language (Riquois, 2020) and on the role of context to infer meaning of unknown words.3. Contents of this articleIn this article, the authors propose different activities set up in French L1 or L2 classrooms, having in common a particular focus on the role of context in the processes of linguistic units’ learning. Following an overview of the domain as regards to its theoretical and educational aspects, we present innovative methods that go beyond more traditional approaches. Being complementary, those different activities are proposed as ‘food for thought’ on the complexity of contextualization for vocabulary appropriation and on the perspectives that contextualization offers on teaching/learning strategies. Considering the above, the authors raise the following question ‘is the process of accessing to meaning (word senses) really different in L1 and L2?’ and, consequently, they invite to rethink the artificial but persistent differentiation between L1 and L2 teaching approaches.