“Will you fuck off please”. The use of please by London teenagers

1 Introduction

The inspiration for this study comes from the observation that please was very frequent in a corpus of teenage speech but that it was used in unexpected ways, as in the following example:

Craig

Yes I’m gonna say that and something big.

Peter

Oh bollocks.

Craig

Right that’s what I’m gonna say I’m gonna say Ross can you fuck off please and I’m gonna say Jock you don’t mind do you?

Peter

1 I’ll just make sure I’m not in here, that’s what I’ll do.

(42001a-09-M-14-16-He-?)

Please is an expression of politeness. However, in the example above it is used together with the impolite ‘can you fuck off’ as a rude way of asking the other person to go away. Such examples are not unexpected in adolescent language. The question arises why the speakers use impolite language and why please is sometimes used with a negative or impolite meaning.

Young people seem to use rude language differently from adults. Andersen (2001) has studied how teenagers use pragmatic markers such as like in contexts which seem strange to speakers who are not in the peer group. He suggests that “more generally, it is of interest to investigate whether adolescence and adulthood are essentially different with respect to interactional and politeness principles” (Andersen, 2001, p. 307). Teenagers seem for instance to “pay less attention to politeness and phatic language than adults do.” Interruptions are frequent and they are often accompanied by “mock insults.”

The aim of the present study is to investigate how the politeness marker please is used by young people to distinguish themselves from adults and create an identity of their own. The analysis of please will be based on the Bergen Corpus of London Teenage Language (COLT),^1[1] a corpus of half a million words of conversations among young boys and girls, mainly between 13 and 16 years of age from different London boroughs. The young people know each other well and they speak on a large number of different topics (see further Stenström et al., 2002). The recordings can be listened to but the conversations have not been prosodically transcribed. The distribution and uses of please will be compared with “adult data” from the British component of the International Corpus of English (ICE-GB) (see Nelson, Wallis and Aarts, 2002).

The structure of the paper is as follows: The theoretical frame will be discussed in Section 2. Section 3 deals with please in previous work. Section 4 compares please in the COLT Corpus with its uses in other corpora. In Section 5, I discuss the teenagers’ strategic uses of please to create a certain image or identity of themselves. In Section 6, I draw some conclusions from the data about the functions of impoliteness in teenage language.

2 Theoretical perspectives

Brown and Levinson’s influential theory of politeness (1978, 1987) relied on the notion of face: “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself (sic)” (Brown and Levinson, 1978, p. 66). The focus is on how speakers use special strategies to save their own or the hearer’s face if threatened. For example, if the speaker asks somebody to do something, they may use a strategy mitigating the illocutionary force of the face-threatening action.

Brown and Levinson’s model of politeness has been criticized because “it focused on harmonious interactions, and, thus, quite understandably, ignored impoliteness” (Culpeper, 2011, p. 6). Human beings do not always behave in a polite way. They use rude language such as swearing and express their annoyance or irritation both verbally and non-verbally. Other types of impoliteness in conversation are irony and banter.

Conversational impoliteness has been studied from different perspectives in pragmatics and discourse analysis. Traditionally the emphasis in pragmatics has been on the Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975) and how it is used by the addressee to derive the speaker’s intended meaning by inferencing (“implicatures”). Leech gives the following illustration of how implicatures apply to the interpretation of an imperative (what Leech refers to as a “mand”):

For example, a primary step in pragmatically interpreting the mand “Just pay me the money you owe me” is to derive the implicature that S’s [the speaker’s] communicative goal is to get H [the hearer] to pay the money – that is, to interpret the mand (by default) as a directive. Only if H judges that this implicature is false, that is, if the Maxim of Quality is judged to be violated – will H access other interpretations, such as that S is indulging in playful banter.

Leech (2014, p. 71).

Researchers who have criticized the Gricean approach have suggested that Relevance Theory offers a better method of deriving the inferences that are necessary to evaluate the discourse as polite or impolite (as ironic, joking, etc.) (cf. Watts, 2003, p. 26).

In recent discussions of impoliteness, it has been claimed that impoliteness can be strategic and systematic and that it should be studied in its own right (Culpeper 2011). Some uses of impoliteness are, for example, conventionalised and do not depend on inferencing.

Both politeness and impoliteness can be expressed by specific conventionalised formulae and strategies which can also be used in novel ways (Culpeper, 2005, 2011). Interpretations involve “matching information encoded in the formal features of the utterance with the pragmatic context” (Culpeper, 2011, p. 166). The information encoded in the formula can however be at odds with the surrounding context, with the result that inferencing is more complex. The following example illustrates a mismatch between the context and impolite expressions:

As Francesca and John left the house, she came back to give Mum a kiss and they said goodbye in the way they often did. ‘Bye, you bitch.’ Francesca said. ‘Get out of here, go on, you bitch’, replied Mum. (From It’s in the blood: My life by Lawrence Dallaglio, former English Rugby captain. The example has been shortened.)

(Culpeper, 2011, p. 207).

In the mother’s direct speech we find an insulting vocative “you bitch” following what Culpeper (2011) refers to as a “dismissal” (get out of here). These expressions do not seem to match the situation in which they are uttered (a conversation between family members). However, in their context they signal “a strong family unit”. According to Culpeper (2011, p. 207), “[T]he recontextualisation of impoliteness in socially opposite contexts reinforces social opposite effects, namely, affectionate, intimate bonds among individuals and the identity of the group.”

In the example just given, the mismatch is external (mismatch between a lexical expression and the context). Other cases involve internal mismatches, i. e. mismatches created out of conventionalised politeness formulas in the context of an impoliteness expression (Culpeper’s 2011 paradigm example is Could you please fuck off) (See Culpeper, 2011, p. 166 and Section 5.1.)

Bernal’s study (2008) of “genuine versus non-genuine politeness” in colloquial Spanish is of interest because it deals with another language than English. Bernal (2008) observed that in Spanish society certain expressions which were used for mocking or insulting in certain contexts could have the effect of producing “an affiliative social effect, strengthening feelings of solidarity within a group and of closeness between interlocutors” (2008, p. 781). Bernal studied expressions in Peninsular Spanish which could have both impolite or negative effects (authentic impoliteness) and less conventionalized readings implying “apparent impoliteness only” (non-authentic impoliteness; Bernal, 2008, p. 782). Bernal also pointed out the importance of the interpretation a receiver makes of the situation, for example how “impoliteness can be entertaining”. The discussion is based mainly on negative expressions such as swearing. We can however assume that Spanish and other languages also use inherently polite expressions in impolite ways for mock impoliteness or banter.

Recently, we have witnessed the publications of many books and articles about impoliteness. However, we do not know enough about different types of impoliteness and how to describe them. The term banter is for example used broadly both about teasing or mocking a particular target and “to refer to insulting others in a ritualised manner” (Haugh and Bousfield, 2012, p. 4). It is therefore important to discuss the different functions of im / politeness in actual discourse in as many settings as possible (and in several different languages).

3 Previous work

Culpeper (2011, p. 130) describes please (and thanks) as “icons of English politeness” closely associated with social norms and habits in English society. You are for example supposed to say please when you ask for something at the dinner table in an English middle class family. Biber et al. (1999) mention please as an example of “primarily polite speech act formulae” occurring typically in exchanges such as “Can I have a-another two Diet Cokes please? Thank you” (Biber et al. 1999, p. 1093). The authors regard please as an “insert”, so called because it is only loosely associated with the sentence.

Wichmann’s articles on please (2004, 2005) are a contribution to the study of the association between intonation and attitudes. It is shown that please “is not always a neutral courtesy marker as suggested by Biber et al.’s analysis but, depending on its intonational realization, can convey meanings at the more emotional end of the interactional spectrum” (2005, p. 248). Perceived attitudes include interpersonal meanings such as being rude, humorous, ironic, etc. As shown by Wichmann, attitudinal meanings are not only carried by lexical and grammatical means but are also signalled non-verbally and prosodically.

Wichmann’s study is based on naturally spoken data from ICE-GB. In Section 4, I will compare the distribution and uses of please in the COLT Corpus with data from Wichmann’s analysis.

Leech (2014, p. 75) suggests that please as an isolate has a conventional meaning which can perhaps best be described performatively: “S (hereby) utters a somewhat polite directive.” It is assumed that it can be derived by pragmaticalization from the structure if it please you, if you please and that “it has reached a formulaic extremity on the scale of pragmaticalization, so that any supposition that the present-day speaker or addressee inferentially ‘works out’ its meaning from an antiquated expression such as ‘if it please you’ would be absurd” (Leech 2014, p. 76). The interpretation depends very much on the context:

At one end of the scale it is almost indispensable as a marker of routine politeness in nonsentential requests such as Tickets please or answers to offers: Would you like some more? Yes, please. At the other extreme, especially when please is pronounced with an emphatic falling intonation or is used as an isolate… it can be an insistent reinforcement of the directive

(Leech 2014, p. 162).

Sato (2008) focused on the functional equivalences of please in different positions within turn-constructional units in American English and New Zealand English. In turn-initial position, please expressed various emotions “such as the speaker’s wish, the sense of urgency, and enthusiasm” (Sato 2008, p. 1275). The medial position was closely associated with maintaining “an agreeable and cordial interaction with the participant(s)” (Sato 2008, p. 1275). The final position was shown to be “the locus in which the linkage between the speaker and the social situation is sought and acknowledged” (Sato 2008, p. 1276).^2[2]

Most attempts at defining the functions of please refer to its politeness use in connection with requests. An exception is De Felice and Murphy (2015, p. 87) who mention the possible rudeness of please (especially in American English): “However, some informal claims have been made (Trawick-Smith, 2012; Murphy, 2012) that the presence of please requests can seem less polite in American English than the equivalent request without it, emphasizing social power differences and expressing impatience.”

4 Types of utterances with please

The high frequency of please in the COLT Corpus is striking in comparison with its use in other corpora. In the London-Lund Corpus (LLC) (representing data from the 1960s and 1970s) there were 75 examples of please (Aijmer, 1996), and Wichmann (2004, p. 1529) found 84 examples of please in the more recent (spoken part of the) British Component of the International Corpus of English (ICE-GB). Table 1 compares the frequencies of please in the three corpora:

Please was used slightly more often by boys than by girls (boys 195 examples; girls 164 examples).^4[4]

The meaning of please depends on sentence type, the degree of directive force, and position in the utterance. Please can be inserted into many types of sentence (declarative sentences, interrogative sentences, imperatives). It can also be used alone without an explicit request.

All tokens of please co-occurred with a directive (cf. Wichmann, 2004). A basic distinction can be made between directives in the form of commands (expressing strong directive force in the form of an imperative) and (indirect) requests. Indirect requests include interrogative sentences, modal interrogatives (can you, could you), declaratives with modals (I can) and elliptical constructions. In addition, please can stand alone (including yes please and no please). See Table 2:

Indirect requests modified by please were more frequent than modified imperatives both in the COLT Corpus and in Wichmann’s data from the ICE-GB Corpus (2004, p. 1530).

In both corpora there were few syntactic constraints on please. Please was found in final, initial and medial position. Table 3 compares please in different utterance positions in indirect requests and commands:

In indirect requests, please was nearly always in final position (but less often in ICE-GB: 76 %, Wichmann, 2004, p. 1529). In commands, please was more frequent in final than in initial position (final 62.6 %; initial 37.5 %). In ICE-GB, commands showed a greater tendency to use please in initial than in final position (Initial 77 %).

Table 4 lists the patterns (including the imperative) mitigated by please in the COLT Corpus:

Imperatives modified by please were more frequent than interrogative structures or declarative sentences. Can was preferred as a modal auxiliary in modal interrogative structures. There were 113 examples of can / could to be compared with will / would, 2 examples, and may, 1 example. The subject of can was most frequently the first or the second person. Can I modified by please was the most frequent pattern after imperatives.

According to Wichmann (2005, p. 232)can you or can I are formulaic or “emotionally neutral”. Please is said to be socially appropriate and indexed to situations where the imposition is minimal or socially sanctioned (among friends sharing a known set of rights and obligations). It was typically used in requests where the imposition was low (Can I have a glass of water please? Could we have the first question please;Wichmann, 2004, p. 1531). In the COLT Corpus it was also used when more emphasis or annoyance is involved:

(1)

Craig

good! When you go don’t forget me. Send me a card.

Peter

I’m not going!… They just send it to me, I send it back.

Craig

Oh!

Peter

Can you get off please? Pop my microphone.

Craig

You never know <unclear>

Peter

Six other people. Thirty people all over London.

Craig

That’s good! That is really good. I’m

(32905a-01-F-14-16-Ha-3)^5[1]

Please in declarative sentences illustrates “please-requests with ‘attitude’” (Wichmann, 2005, p. 244). Please expresses an appeal or a plea:

(2)

Peter

He goes, he thinks you’re, he thinks you’re so funny <unclear> I can’t <unclear> I do it in music.

Josie

No, I wanna see, I’ve never seen you do it, please?

Peter

I don’t flirt! I just, [you’ve seen me flirt!]

Josie

[<unclear>]

(32901a-02-F-14-16-Ha-?)

The high number of examples of free-standing please reflects the fact that please is typically used to express emotion. When please occurs alone (“as an isolate” Wichmann, 2004, p. 1539), it has an exclamatory quality and “[t]here is no request which it might appear to modify or reinforce”. We therefore have to see them as “complex but elliptical requests in their own right” (Wichmann, 2004). The free-standing please is illustrated in (3):

(3)

Peter_ watch with me. I wanna watch [<unclear>]

Grace

[Well], just tell them what one you want, I mean

Peter

See I wanna see Accidental Hero.

Grace

Please!

Peter

That looks good.

Grace

I know, but I mean, come on!

Peter

Well what else is on actually?

Grace

There’s the Jungle

(32503a-01-M-14-16-Ha-2)

To summarize, the COLT speakers use please more frequently than the speakers in the ICE-GB. Both groups of speakers used please more frequently to modify requests than commands. Please could be placed almost anywhere in the sentence. However, its placement depends on utterance type. In the COLT Corpus (but not in ICE-GB), there was a tendency to use please finally in commands. In the COLT Corpus, please was frequently used for exclamation and attitude (besides politeness), especially when it occurred alone.

5 The uses of please by speakers in the COLT Corpus

Please has several functions in the COLT Corpus. It is used for bantering or for irony, it is found in mock disputes, and in emotional narratives. In order to analyse what please is doing we have to look at larger stretches of discourse where the impoliteness only becomes evident in the on-going interactions.

6 Conclusion

We can recognize several functions of the ‘impolite’ please in the COLT Corpus. To begin with, it is used strategically to establish or confirm harmonious relationships. According to Leech (2014, p. 239), “if two or more people find it possible to exchange insults and other impolite remarks, and at the same time to treat these as non-serious or even amusing, they share a powerful way of signalling their solidarity”. Young people do not feel threatened by the impoliteness of their peers and they do not think that impoliteness is bad (rapport-strengthening impoliteness).

Secondly, “mock impoliteness” may be understood in a positive way because it is amusing or entertaining. In young people’s circles, entertainment skills are for example highly valued (entertainment impoliteness). Please is appropriate because it lends itself to mock politeness and banter which are experienced as entertaining (as well as creating rapport). Speakers also engage in “emotional narratives” using please for more involvement and as a strategy, making the story come alive.

Finally, impoliteness is used creatively in interaction by the participants who use repetition, reformulation and escalation to construct ritualized sequences of apparent insults.

In this paper, I have drawn attention to how explicit politeness markers such as please can be used strategically for opposite effects. The study suggests that we need to study explicit politeness or impoliteness formulae in many different contexts and discourses to understand what they are doing and the norms for using them. We also need to study politeness and impoliteness markers in more languages in order to get a better understanding of how they are used and who uses them.