THE OFFICE DİZİSİNİN KURUMSAL BAĞLAMINDA KABALIK OLGUSU: EDİMBİLİMSEL BİR İNCELEME

Abstract

Bu araştırma, kara mizah unsurlarıyla tanınan Amerikan yapımı bir sahte belgesel olan The Office dizisinin seçilmiş bölümlerinde geçen sözlü etkileşimlerde yararlanılan kabalık stratejilerini incelemektedir. Ayrıca bu stratejilerin dizinin mizah inşasını nasıl etkileyebileceği tartışılmaktadır. Araştırmanın verileri, IMDb'de yüksek puan almış ve aynı zamanda kabalık stratejilerini içerme potansiyeli yüksek olan bölümlerden oluşmaktadır. Örneğin bu bölümler arasında, patronuna açıkça kaba davranan itaatsiz bir ofis çalışanının patron tarafından kontrol altına alınamaması ya da müdür ve çalışanlar arasında geçen bir “alay etme yarışması” gibi sahneler yer almaktadır. Veriler, Culpeper’in (1996) kabalık stratejilerinin 2005 yılında revize edilmiş versiyonu ve ilgili literatür (Bousfield, 2008; Culpeper, 1996, 2005, 2010; Lachenicht, 1980) kullanılarak MAXQDA yazılımında kodlanmıştır. Bulgular, karakterlerin birbirlerinin olumlu yüzlerini zedelediği durumlarda kabalığın en çok ortaya çıktığını ve olumlu kabalık stratejilerinin en sık kullanılan tür olduğunu göstermektedir. İzleyiciler, karakterlerin olumlu yüzlerinin zarar görmesinden içsel bir haz duymakta ve kendilerini güvende hissetmektedir. Verilerden “uygunsuz taklit”, “uygunsuz tanımlayıcı özellik kullanma”, “hataları işaret etme” ve “ben merkezci yeniden çerçeveleme” gibi yeni kabalık kategorileri ortaya çıkmış ve olumlu kabalık kategorisine dâhil edilmiştir. İstifham (“Sağır mısın?”) ve uygunsuz şakalar da yeni unsurlar olarak belirlenmiş ve “örtük” kategori altında eklenmiştir. Bu çalışma, karmaşık bir olgu olan kabalığın bir ofis ortamı gibi kurumsal bir bağlamda nasıl ortaya çıktığını ve bunun nasıl mizaha yol açabileceğini inceleyerek kabalık ve kibarlık araştırmalarına katkıda bulunmayı hedeflemektedir.

Keywords

• mizah
• edimbilim
• kabalık olgusu
• The Office dizisi
• kurumsal etkileşim

IMPOLITENESS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF THE OFFICE: A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS

Abstract

The present research examines impoliteness strategies employed in spoken interactions in selected episodes of The Office, an American mockumentary largely known for its dark humor elements. It further discusses how these strategies could affect the show’s comedic appeal. Episodes that were rated high on IMDb and simultaneously had the most potential to include impoliteness strategies comprise the data. The episodes include, for instance, an insubordinate office worker who acts explicitly rude to his boss and how the boss, the main character of the series, cannot bring him into line, or a roasting session between the manager and the workers. Data were coded in MAXQDA software by using Culpeper’s (2005) revised version of his earlier framework (Culpeper, 1996) of impoliteness strategies, as well as related literature (i.e., Bousfield, 2008; Culpeper, 1996, 2005, 2010; Lachenicht, 1980). The findings show that impoliteness was mostly achieved when the characters damaged the positive faces of each other, making the positive impoliteness strategies the most frequent type (54%). The audience had an “intrinsic” pleasure from the positive faces of the characters getting damaged, and the audience is “safe.” New categories of impoliteness emerged from the data, such as “inappropriate imitation”, “using an inappropriate defining feature”, “pointing out mistakes”, and “self-centered reframing”, put under the category of positive impoliteness. Rhetorical questions (“Did I stutter?”) and inappropriate jokes were also new and added under the “off-record” category. The study aimed to contribute to (im)politeness research by examining how this complex phenomenon comes to life in the institutional context of an office and how this can lead to humor.

Keywords

• impoliteness
• humor
• pragmatics
• the office
• institutional interaction

Ethical Statement

This research has been conducted in accordance with research and publication ethics. This study does not require ethics committee approval.

References

1. Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Mouton de Gruyter. Bergson, H. (1911). An essay on the meaning of the comic. The Macmillan Company.
2. Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. John Benjamins. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
3. Cronin, M. E. (2018). ‘Feck off!’ Exploring the relationship between impoliteness, laughter, and humour in the British-Irish sitcoms Father Ted, Black Books, and The IT Crowd (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham). University of Birmingham.
4. 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
5. Culpeper, J. (1998). (Im)politeness in drama. In J. Culpeper, M. Short, & P. Verdonk (Eds.), Studying drama: From text to context (pp. 83–95). Routledge.
6. Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1545–1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2
7. 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
8. Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work, and power. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 17–44). Walter de Gruyter.

9. Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3232–3245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007
10. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.
11. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3–65). Cambridge University Press.
12. Dynel, M. (2012). Setting our House in order: The workings of impoliteness in multi-party film discourse. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(2), 161–194. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2012-0010
13. Dynel, M. (2013). Impoliteness as disaffiliative humour in film talk. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp. 105–144). John Benjamins Publishing.
14. Gervais, M., & Wilson, D. S. (2005). The evolution and functions of laughter and humor: A synthetic approach. Quarterly Review of Biology, 80(4), 395–430. https://doi.org/10.1086/498281
15. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Aldine Publishing.
16. Jay, T. (2000). Why we curse. John Benjamins.
17. Kantara, A. (2010). Impoliteness strategies in House MD. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 6(2), 305–339. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-010-0015-9
18. Kapoor, S. (2022). “Don’t act like a Sati Savitri!”: Impoliteness in Indian YouTube comments. Journal of Pragmatics, 189, 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.12.009
19. Lachenicht, L. G. (1980). Aggravating language: A study of abusive and insulting language. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 13(4), 607–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818009370513
20. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
21. Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press.
22. 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. 1–14). Walter de Gruyter.
23. Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
24. Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2009). “You’re barking mad, I’m out”: Impoliteness and broadcast talk. Journal of Politeness Research, 5, 159–187. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2009.010
25. Lorenzo-Dus, N., Bou-Franch, P., & Blitvich, P. G. C. (2013). Impoliteness in US/UK talent shows: A diachronic study of the evolution of a genre. In A. Tolson & M. D. Ekström (Eds.), Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action (pp. 199–217). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
26. McGraw, A. P., & Warren, C. (2010). Benign violations: Making immoral behavior funny. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1141–1149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610376073
27. Morreall, J. (2009). Comic relief: A comprehensive philosophy of humor. Wiley-Blackwell.
28. Myers, G. (2001). “I’m out of it; you guys argue”: Making an issue of it on The Jerry Springer Show. In A. Tolson (Ed.), Television talk shows: Discourse, performance, spectacle (pp. 173–191). Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Nasirli, A. (2021). An analysis of linguistic impoliteness in the selected American movies. Journal of Academic Studies in World Languages, Literatures and Translation (WOLLT), 2(1), 11–31.
30. Pilliere, L. (2013). Dr. House and the language of offence. In D. Jamet & M. Jobert (Eds.), Aspects of linguistic impoliteness (pp. 60–75). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
31. Simpson, P., & Bousfield, D. (2017). Humor and stylistics. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 158–173). Routledge.
32. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport-management: A framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 11–46). Continuum.
33. Uçar, A., & Yıldız, İ. (2015). Humor and impoliteness in Turkish: A corpus-based analysis of the television show Komedi Dükkânı ‘Comedy Shop’. In Ş. Ruhi & Y. Aksan (Eds.), Exploring (im)politeness in specialized and general corpora: Converging methodologies and analytic procedures (pp. 40–81). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
34. Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press.