SUMMARY

The current study aimed to investigate the realization of impoliteness in reply

articles published in academic journals in the field of applied linguistics as an
instance of academic conflict.

INTRODUCTION:
The nature of social interaction allows the speakers to “promote, maintain, or
attack an addressee’s face”. Sue to some purpose, a speaker may use a
communicative strategies to interact or to create a good image on the addressee.
These strategies had been raised for a long time but, it was then simply
considered as a failure to observe other’s principles. In the introduction of first
theory of politeness, a large body of research has shown the relationship between
the concept of impoliteness and the exercise of power. It showed that there is no
interaction without power and impoliteness is the realization of exercise of
power. Indeed, the users of both polite and impolite explains “struggle of power”.
On the other hand, a theory explained that each community has its own ways of
doing (im)politeness. A large number of studies have been done so far but no
study has explained briefly where and how to use these type of terms. Most of
the research on (im)politeness has been forced on informal settings and ordinary
conversations. And they are doing a great research in order to find impoliteness
patterns and defensive strategies.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE:

Impoliteness is a negative attitude towards specific behaviours according in
specific contents. Situated behaviours are viewed negatively when they conflict
with how one expects them to be, how one wants them to be and/or how one
thinks they ought to be. Such behaviours always have or are presumed to have
emotional consequences for at least one participant. To explain further, there are
two types of models of impoliteness i.e on record politeness and off record
politeness.

“On record politeness is the use of strategies designed to attack the face of an
interactant.”

“Off record politeness is the use of strategies where the threat or damage to an
interactant’s face is conveyed indirectly.”

METHOD:
A list of professional journals was collected from the following valid and reliable
sources. First Modern Language Journal were given the chance to examine and
make the list, the three PhD holders were asked to give their views about that list.
The final list included everything i.e impolite behaviours were selected.

FRAMEWORK:
For the purpose of investigating how (im)politeness was represented, Bousfield’s
model was used. As there are various politeness and Journal of Applied Linguistics
and Language Research, impoliteness models but Bousfield’s model was much
better to analyzing (im)politeness.

PROCEDURE:
Each article was analyzed first in order to know the cases of off record and on
record impoliteness. After the analysis, 10 percent of the data was coded by the
second coder and inter-coder of 0.88 was obtained. Then, the frequencies were
determined for both cases of impoliteness, on-record and off-record. Then, the
percentage values were determined.

RESULTS:
The results of the analysis of reply articles in terms of (im)politeness revealed that
applied linguists used more on-record (im)politeness in responding to the
comments of their counterparts.