Inappropriate inspectors:Impoliteness and overpoliteness in Ian Rankin's and Andrea Camilleri's crime series by Annick Paternoster

8/12/2019 Inappropriate inspectors:Impoliteness and overpoliteness in Ian Rankin's and Andrea Camilleri's crime series by An

1/15

http://lal.sagepub.com/Language and Literature

http://lal.sagepub.com/content/21/3/311Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0963947012444221

2012 21: 311Language and LiteratureAnnick Paternoster

and Andrea Camilleri's crime seriesInappropriate inspectors: Impoliteness and overpoliteness in Ian Rankin's

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Poetics and Linguistics Association

can be found at:Language and LiteratureAdditional services and information for

http://lal.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://lal.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://lal.sagepub.com/content/21/3/311.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 24, 2012Version of Record>>

by guest on January 27, 2013lal.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://lal.sagepub.com/http://lal.sagepub.com/http://lal.sagepub.com/http://lal.sagepub.com/content/21/3/311http://lal.sagepub.com/content/21/3/311http://lal.sagepub.com/content/21/3/311http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.pala.ac.uk/http://lal.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://lal.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://lal.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://lal.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://lal.sagepub.com/content/21/3/311.refs.htmlhttp://lal.sagepub.com/content/21/3/311.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://lal.sagepub.com/content/21/3/311.full.pdfhttp://lal.sagepub.com/http://lal.sagepub.com/http://lal.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://lal.sagepub.com/content/21/3/311.full.pdfhttp://lal.sagepub.com/content/21/3/311.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://lal.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://lal.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.pala.ac.uk/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://lal.sagepub.com/content/21/3/311http://lal.sagepub.com/


2/15

Language and Literature

21(3) 311324 The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0963947012444221

lal.sagepub.com

Inappropriate inspectors:Impoliteness and over-politeness in Ian Rankins andAndrea Camilleris crime series

Annick PaternosterUniversit della Svizzera italiana, Switzerland and University of Leeds, UK

AbstractThis article explores evaluations of impoliteness and over-politeness in crime novel dialogues, in

reference to the Pragmatics of Politeness and the Discursive Model (Locher and Watts, 2005;

Watts, 2003, 2005, 2010). Metapragmatic comments, in which dialogue participants evaluate

the ongoing communicative behaviour, offer important insights into the values and social norms

that make up interaction. Literary dialogues, as opposed to naturally occurring conversations,

have the advantage of offering numerous metapragmatic comments. This study examines police

investigator dialogues that contain metapragmatic comments of impoliteness and over-politeness,

concentrating on two maverick figures, Ian Rankins Edinburgh-based John Rebus and Andrea

Camilleris Sicilian Salvo Montalbano, both of whose fractiousness in regards to procedural rules

extends to social norms as well. The first part of the analysis looks at impoliteness, confirming

the image of the maverick for whom impoliteness is fairly stereotypical. The determining factor

is police rank: I find frequent institutional, that is, legitimized, and unchallenged impoliteness by

those who are higher in rank. Secondly, I look at instances of over-politeness. The inspector, who

readily uses insincere politeness in order to manipulate a suspect or a witness, is sceptical when

evaluating politeness in others. By not commenting on impoliteness and through extensive negative

evaluations of politeness, the narrator creates a protagonist who has become disenchanted with

politeness and uses impoliteness as if it were normal, appropriate behaviour.

KeywordsAppropriateness, dialogue, impoliteness, inappropriateness, insincerity, metapragmatic

comment, over-politeness, politeness, rudeness

Corresponding author:

Annick Paternoster, Istituto di studi italiani, Universit della Svizzera italiana, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland.

Email: [email protected]

LAL21310.1177/0963947012444221PaternosterLanguageand Literature2012

Article

http://lal.sagepub.com/http://lal.sagepub.com/http://lal.sagepub.com/http://lal.sagepub.com/


3/15

312 Language and Literature 21(3)

1 Introduction

My aim is to explore the way im-/politeness is evaluated in crime novels, in reference to

the Discursive Model (Locher and Watts, 2005; Watts, 2003, 2005, 2010) which, in the

last decade, has come to dominate the field of Linguistic Politeness Research. Whereasfor Brown and Levinson (1987 [1978]) politeness is inherently present in specific

linguistic structures, Watts (2003: 1) has promoted a more discursive approach, mainly

because, in everyday life, people struggle to define politeness: evaluations of the same

exchange can easily range from positive (such as kind and considerate) to downright

negative (standoffish, haughty, insincere). Politeness is surrounded by a discursive

struggle over its values and meanings (Watts, 2003: 13) and therefore a theory of

politeness should focus on the ways in which lay persons evaluate politeness.

Watts calls attention to the existence of negative evaluations for politeness: politeness

can be described as fake, manipulative, sarcastic, or even offensive. Obviously,these evaluative comments on politeness (be it negative or positive) are not the norm.

Most relational work, that is, the work individuals invest in negotiating relationships

with others (Locher and Watts, 2005: 9), does not elicit explicit comments: in most

interactions, we do what is expected, we say what is appropriate, because we approach

situations with prior knowledge: we know what to expect and how to behave because of

past experiences of similar contexts. Watts (2005: xlii) refers to Tannens (1993: 53)

definition of frame structures of expectation based on past experience and to

Bourdieus core notion of habitus a set of predispositions to act in certain ways,

which generates cognitive and bodily practices in the individual (Watts, 2003: 149). If

relational work fits the frame, then it is likely to go unnoticed: it is, as Watts (2003: 20)

calls it, politic behaviour, that behaviour, linguistic and non-linguistic, which

participants construct as being appropriate to the ongoing social interaction. Similarly,

Culpeper (2011: 14) studies impoliteness through schema theory, since impoliteness

often involves a clash with expectations: founded in social cognition, a schema is a

structured cluster of concepts containing relatively generic information derived from

experience, and is stored in semantic long-term memory.

Appropriacy (fitting the frame, or schema) is unmarked and passes without comment.

Politeness, then, is that part of politic behaviour that is open to a potential interpretation

as positively marked behaviour. Because it is perceived as going beyond expectations, itis marked. Nevertheless, as it attracts a positive evaluation (such as kind and

considerate), it is still appropriate. It might seem contradictory that polite behaviour

is at the same time marked andappropriate. Various scholars (amongst others, Culpeper,

2008: 23) have suggested that the difference between politic linguistic behaviour and

politeness should be thought of as scalar, capturing degrees of difference between

relatively normal behaviours and situations ... and those which are more creative.

Inappropriate, non-politic, behaviour on the other hand, is likely to provoke negative

metapragmatic comments, in which dialogue participants judge the ongoing

communicative behaviour with a negative evaluative stance. Inappropriateness is of atwofold nature. If you use less relational work than is required, violating expectations in

a particular context, you will most likely provoke an evaluation of impoliteness. If the

speaker uses more relational work than is required, the hearer can interpret this positively,

http://lal.sagepub.com/http://lal.sagepub.com/http://lal.sagepub.com/


4/15

Paternoster 313

but the opposite might easily occur (Watts, 2003: 161): for these cases, Watts uses the

term over-polite. Being over-polite, then, comes close to impolite: Certain speakers

consistently evaluate polite behaviour as unnecessary and offensive ... in situations in

which the communicative effects of over-polite behaviour may seem remarkably similar

to those of downright rude behaviour. (Watts, 2005: xliv). To draw an example frompersonal experience, a friend keeps making very polite requests asking me to collect her

son from school, her persistent politeness making me feel somewhat uncomfortable,

keeping up a certain formality, I find out of keeping with our friendship.

Hence, impoliteness and over-politeness are both inappropriate behaviours, likely to

provoke a metapragmatic, evaluative comment. The Discursive Model offers considerable

benefits to literary stylistics, as it provides a theoretical frame with which to investigate

the evaluative comments (by characters or narrators) that surround dialogues in novels.

In fact, one of the criticisms against the Discursive Model is that explicit metapragmatic

comments are rare in naturally occurring data, and that in the absence of a comment, theresearcher still has to go with his/her own feel for the situation pointing to implicit

evidence (Culpeper, 2008: 21). Literary data have the definite advantage of offering

numerousmetapragmatic comments, and are a domain in which a discursive approach

can yield very promising results. A discursive approach could shed light on the following

important questions: Where, in a novel, do characters/narrators insert a metapragmatic

comment? Could these comments be linked to a particular type of narrator and to types

of discourse representation (reported speech, thought representation)? Finally, within the

limits of the present study, I specifically aim to investigate if evaluations of im-/politeness

within the more hardboiled police procedurals are in any way consistent.This study concentrates on two fictional police investigators, Edinburgh-based John

Rebus, and Sicilian Salvo Montalbano. Their creators, Ian Rankin and Andrea Camilleri,

both enjoy immense publishing success. Started in 1994, as of 2011, the Montalbano

series totals 18 novels and eight volumes of short stories. Andrea Camilleri has steadily

risen on the Italian bestseller list, with 13 million books sold to date (Stoppini, 2011).

The series has been translated into 30 languages, while an adaptation for the Italian

national TV hit record viewing figures (also in Stoppini, 2011). The Rebus book series

started back in 1987 and was concluded in 2007 withExit Music, the last novel out of 17,

in which Rebus retires from police work at the age of 60. The Rebus series has toppedthe Sunday Timesbestseller lists and been adapted into a major TV series (Ian Rankins

official website, 2011).

Part of the attraction of these police procedurals is related to the main characters

fractiousness. Montalbano tends to solve problems on his own, sharing only a minimum

amount of information with his team, and working outside the police procedures, clashing

frequently with his superiors. He is, in fact, a bit of a loner, who has a distant girlfriend

in the north of Italy and no real friends outside the force. Douthwaite (2004: 31, 53)

repeatedly makes reference to Montalbanos loneliness. The Rebus series is slightly

more hardboiled, as the author makes a point of contrasting the bleak picture of Scotlands

crime scene with its romantic perception. Rebus is an uncompromising figure, who, like

Montalbano, tends to break rules of correct policing. Rebus has a drinking problem, and

his obsession with work keeps interfering with his love life. Both protagonists typify

social deviance (Gregoriou, 2009a [2007]: 91), a generic convention of the maverick



5/15


hero, who struggles to be a team player. Using the Discursive Model, I shall investigate

two forms of inappropriate behaviour: impoliteness and over-politeness, which seem

typical for the mavericks dialogue stylistics.

2 Impoliteness

The terms impoliteness and rudeness are currently hotly debated. A 2008 volume by

Bousfield and Locher displayed opposing views about the terminology: for Culpeper (2008)

and Bousfield (2008b), impoliteness is intentionally face aggravating behaviour, with

rudeness referring to an unintentionally mismanaged level of politeness; Terkourafi (2008)

uses these labels conversely. In his most recent work, however, Culpeper (2011: 7980)

convincingly argues that intentionality seems less important in evaluating impoliteness, thus

eliminating the theoretical need for two terms. He chooses to use impoliteness, as it is the

more academic of the two terms, having a lot less general currency in British English thanrudeness. This is the view I shall take here, as it is also in line with Watts, who uses the

term impoliteness more frequently than rudeness (Culpeper, 2008: 31).

It is probably safe to say that fictional maverick investigators do not tend to pay much

attention to civilities, and therefore investigator impoliteness would be fairly stereotypical

for the more hardboiled novels of the genre. More specifically, I would like to examine

the connection impoliteness has with police rank, because rank seems to be the decisive

contextual factor through which face-threats can become appropriate behaviour. In the

Rebus series, the evaluation of impoliteness is strictly linked to the rank of the potential

transgressor. The higher in rank has institutional power to use impoliteness freely, incontrast to the inferior, who would be incurring a serious risk of retaliation if he/she did

so him/herself. These are cases of institutional impoliteness: impoliteness by the more

powerful in rank is legitimated and (typically) unchallenged (Culpeper, 2011: 245).

Similarly, Watts (2003: 260) has discussed sanctioned aggressive facework: depending

on the context, face-threatening can be appropriate behaviour.

InHide and Seek(2000 [1990]), rank figures prominently at the centre of the following

two scenes. In this conversation between Detective Inspector Rebus and Chief Superintendent

Watson, the former tries to sneak in a swearword in spite of his inferior rank:

Its a bloody set-up, with all due respect, sir.

Remember the golden rule, John, Rebus thought to himself: never swear at a superior

without adding that with all due respect. It was something hed learned in the Army. As long

as you added that coda, the brass couldnt have you for insubordination. (R, 2000 [1990]: 334)1

Rebus is trying to make the taboo word pass as politic swearing, but the sheer

laboriousness of his comment partly through direct thought (for the speech and thought

presentation framework see Leech and Short, 2007 [1981]: 270281; see also Gregoriou,

2009b: 7475) raises a suspicion of inappropriateness. Unfortunately for him, this is

exactly the way the brass evaluates it: Oh, and John? Yes, sir? Dont swear at me.Ever. With respect or otherwise. Okay? Rebus felt his cheeks reddening, not in anger, but

in shame. (R, 2000 [1990]: 336). Watsons reprimand is one of very few evaluative



6/15

Paternoster 315

comments in direct speech. The Chief can afford to accuse Rebus on the conversational

record because of the power difference. The dressing down is, in fact, legitimized

institutional impoliteness. However legitimate, Rebuss shame still shows loss of face.

This is in line with Culpepers (2011: 217) findings that, although legitimized, institutional

impoliteness is often not fully neutralised: people can and do still take offence in suchsituations, even if there are theoretical reasons why they should not. In Bousfield (2008a),

a considerable portion of the impoliteness data comes from so-called dressing-down

episodes between army recruits and their seasoned trainers. Although dressing-downs

seem institutionalized in this context, Bousfield (2008a: 40) takes the view that the face

threat/damage suffered by recruits ... is still keenly felt, as it is by Rebus.

Immediately after the previous scene, Rebus is talking to his assistant, Detective

Sergeant Holmes. Holmes cautiously disagrees with his senior officer, who has just been

taken off the case: But with respect, shouldnt you be keeping out of things? With

respect, Brian, thats none of your bloody business. (R, 2000 [1990]: 337). Rebus is notfooled by Holmess strategy (trying to voice criticism through the use of with respect);

in return he criticizes Holmes on the record, using the same swearword for which he

himself has just been reprimanded. In contrast to the first scene, Rebuss use of bloody

seems fully appropriate because, in this conversation, he is the superior officer. At any

rate, neither Holmes, nor the narrator comment, construing Rebuss criticism as politic

behaviour.

A similar scene takes place in The Black Book(2001 [1993]), published three years

after Hide and Seek. Holmes is, this time very cautiously, disagreeing with Rebuss

course of action: What are you saying? Rebus asked. Im saying I think we shoulddrop it, Sir, with all respect. With all respect, Brian? Thats what people say when

they mean you fucking idiot. Rebus still wasnt looking at Holmes, but he could feel

the young man blushing. (R, 2001 [1993]: 235236). Rebuss on the record evaluation

of impoliteness, that is, in direct speech, perfectly echoes Watsons and highlights that (a)

criticism by the inferior is likely to provoke an evaluation of impoliteness, and that (b)

this on the record negative evaluation (which is criticism in its own right) is not evaluated

as impolite, but as the sanctioned prerogative of higher rank.

In the Montalbano series, examples of impoliteness within a professional environment

are omnipresent. The Inspector of Vigta is prone to swearing, patronizing criticism andthreats, not to mention physical violence. Rank still seems to be an important factor: he

is never impolite towards superior magistrates. With his closest collaborators, Deputy

Domenico (Mim) Augello and Detective Fazio, Montalbano is very frequently impolite.

However, although Mim and Fazio are inferior in rank, they will easily make on the

record comments about Montalbanos impoliteness; the rank difference is small and the

characters are close friends. Also, their comments consistently link Montalbanos

impoliteness to his bad temper, hence sparking a discourse about intentionality: he is not

(fully) intentionally offensive; he is just frustrated with minor obstacles at work. The

comments evaluate Montalbanos impoliteness, not so much in the institutional frame, as

in a more personal sphere. However, the two spheres are linked: he canvent frustration

because he is the one higher in rank.

InLa luna di carta(2005), Montalbano accuses Mim of being a kiss-ass with the

Commissioner:



7/15


E a mia che ne me futti delle tue telefonate amorose? Oram tu e Bonetti-Alderighi siete culo

e camicia, solo che ancora non si capisce chi il culo e chi la camicia.

Ti sei fogato? Posso parlare? S? Il Questore mi ha detto che domani mattina, verso le

undici, viene qua da noi il commissario Liguori.

So? [Do I care about your romantic phone calls?] Nowadays you and Bonetti-Alderighi are

hand-in-glove [literally, like an ass and a shirt] with each other except its not clear whos the

hand [= the ass] and whos the glove [= the shirt]. Have you finished [letting off steam]? Can

I talk now? Yes? The commissioner told me that tomorrow morning, around eleven, Inspector

Liguoris coming here to the station.(C, 2005: 7273; 68)

Mim explicitly links Montalbanos derogatory accusations to bad temper. The Deputy

seems confident that his counteraccusations will put a stop to his bosss impoliteness, as

effectively happens in this conversation. In an earlier novel,Lodore della notte(2001),

Fazio, who has just covered his boss with paperwork, asks if Montalbano wants to knowwhat he thinks about their current case. Montalbano, frustrated with the paperwork, gives

him an unexpected answer:

No, ma se non puoi farne a meno, parla.

Maria, che grevianza che ha oggi! Che fece, gli and di traverso il mangiare?

No, but if you really must, go ahead.Jesus, have you got a chip on your shoulder today!

Whatd you do, have some food go down the wrong way?(C, 2001: 84; 85)

Montalbanos indifference is immediately met by his Detectives counteraccusations of

bad temper. For both Mim and Fazio, Montalbanos closest colleagues, openly challeng-

ing their boss is not problematic.

Often though, the recipients of Montalbanos impoliteness withhold explicit negative

evaluations, probably because they are used to his temper. Elsewhere in the same novel,

Mim misinterprets one of Montalbanos questions:

Montalbano diede una gran manata sul tavolo.

Ma Catarella diventato contagioso? Ti stai rincretinendo macari tu? Io ti stavo domandando

con che mezzo sarebbe partito per la Sicilia. In aereo? In treno? A piedi?

Limpiegata non sapeva. Ma ogni volta chera qua a Vigta girava con unAlfa 166

attrezzatissima, di quelle col computer sul cruscotto.

Montalbano slammed his hand against the table. Has Catarella become contagious or

something? Are you becoming a cretin too? I was asking you with what means of transport he

[= a missing person] would be coming to Sicily? Plane? Train? On foot? The woman didnt

know. But every time he came to Vigta, he would drive around in a fully equipped Alfa 166, the

kind with a computer on the dashboard.(C, 2001: 32; 28)

Catarella is the switchboard operator, forever mangling the language. Montalbano is

clearly patronizing his Deputy, but Mim simply ignores his bosss anger. Neither Mim

nor the narrator comment on Montalbanos angry rant: in the absence of comments,

Montalbanos outburst is presented as politic, routine behaviour.



8/15

Paternoster 317

Further down the hierarchical ladder, I find more unilateral, that is unchallenged,

verbal abuse, which passes without comment, this time probably because the rank

difference is too big. Montalbanos driver is enquiring if he needs to put the siren on the

roof, and all he gets is: S, nel culo (Put it in your arse, C, 1997: 11; 6). In the

same novel, when switchboard operator Catarella tries to give him a piece of papercontaining a list of people who want their calls returned, he answers: Puliscitici il

culo (Wipe your arse with it, C, 1997: 82; 96). In absence of any comment, the

derogatory replies are treated as appropriate, expected behaviour.

Montalbano has bouts of bad temper and his colleagues have learnt to live with it,

interpreting his impoliteness as expected, and thus appropriate, behaviour. Rebus uses

and evaluates impoliteness within the institutional norm. In the rare event that Rebus is

aggressive outside work, he will have been provoked by someone elses impoliteness.

3 Over-politeness

Whereas impoliteness has been well studied in recent years, over-politeness has received

far less attention. Watts has coined the term to account for negative evaluations of

politeness (see earlier), but does not give any substantial examples, leaving Culpeper

(2008: 24) to conclude that this is relatively unexplored territory. Culpeper (2008: 28)

does offer data from lay peoples usage of the metapragmatic labels over-polite and too

polite, but he points out that most cases have to do with failed politeness, resulting

from relational mismanagement between differing interactional goals. Only in a

minority of examples is over-politeness evaluated as insincere and oily, but thenegative evaluation stems from an association with overuse: through overuse, polite

expressions can be perceived as merely politic, a situational norm, and not a sincere

personal experience (Culpeper, 2008: 27). Therefore, Culpeper (2008: 28) concludes

that it is difficult to construe any of the examples in his data as intentionally produced

to create a negative effect. Of course, Culpeper was looking at very specific labels

(over-polite/too polite) and Wattss concept of over-politeness is much broader,

covering all negative evaluations of politeness, so it is not a surprise that my findings

differ. Firstly, my fictional material contains frequent evaluations of insincerity, not

necessarily with an element of overuse. Secondly, I have one significant example in theMontalbano series, where politeness is evaluated as deliberately offensive. Since, even

with politeness, evaluation is so obviously connected with the attribution of intentions, I

shall set out discussing the investigators intentionality. If they themselves use politeness

with a negative intention, then they might have a similar interpretation when evaluating

politeness in others. Indeed, the two authors under examination seem to create a consistent

frame, or schema, of experiences that predispose the protagonists for negative evaluations.

3.1 Speaker intentions

In the following examples, it is the narrator who labels the speakers behaviour as

insincere. Pinto (2011: 229) points out that the sincerity involved in politeness can be

evaluated with two criteria: truth or rapport-based. Although politeness can hide true

feelings (saying what a lovely jumper! when you do not really appreciate it), the speaker



9/15


could still be expressing sincere concern for supporting interpersonal relationships

(Pinto, 2011: 230). Politeness seems linked to a procedural sincerity where people mean

well (Pinto, 2011: 231). In the following cases, there is obvious truth-based insincerity,

but there are indications that point towards procedural insincerity as well. Polite routines

are being abused for purposes which are far removed from sincere concern for theaddressees face. They have an inadmissible interactional goal that would seriously

alienate interlocutors, if known to them.

In the following example, the narrator makes it explicit that Montalbanos colleague

is faking politeness in order to manipulate a suspect: the comment characterizes the

policeman as a shrewd manipulator who feigns politeness as an interrogation technique,

while his interlocutor falls for the flattery. In Il ladro di merendine(1996), a top civil

servant has been summoned to the police station and he complains about wasting his

valuable time. Valente answers:

Mi perdoni, commendatore fece Valente con umilt ributtante. Ha perfettamente ragione. Ma

rimediamo subito, non la tratterr pi di cinque minuti. Una semplice precisione.

Please forgive me, Commendatore said Valente with abject humility. Youre absolutely right.

But well make up for that at once; I wont keep you more than five minutes. I just need a simple

clarification.(C, 1996: 194; 230)

Valente is profusely apologetic and deferential. The narrator describes Valente as an

innocent saint (unaureola veleggi sulla sua testa, a halo hovering over his head, C,

1996: 194; 230), who is simulating all the while, with abject humility. His deference is

negatively evaluated as abject. Valente is therefore over-deferent, over-polite.

Rebus is frequently evaluated as an insincere speaker. In The Black Book (2001

[1993]), Rebuss thoughts poignantly reveal his use of politeness to be a mere ritual.

Rebus has interrupted a witness in the middle of a family meal: Sorry if its a bad time,

Rebus began. There was a ritual to be followed, after all. (R, 2001 [1993]: 451). [A]fter

all seems to imply that the apology is only a concession to politic formality. The

narrator makes it clear that Rebus is hiding his true feelings. But, on the level of

procedural sincerity, he also seems to lack concern for the addressees face: Rebus is

using the apology as an interrogation technique: if he can put the witness in a good mood,he will improve collaboration. Elsewhere in the same novel, an elderly woman is offering

tea and cake:

This is a lovely Madiera [sic] by the way.

Ach, its a few days since I made it, its probably a bit dry now.

Rebus shook his head and gulped at the tea, hoping to wash the crumbs down his throat. But

they merely formed into a huge solid lump which he had to force down by degrees, and without

a public show of gagging. (R, 2001 [1993]: 275)

Rebus puts the compliment as a casual remark (by the way), but then he goes to great

lengths to hide the insincerity of his compliment, probably because he is trying to manip-

ulate her. She is the landlady of a man, who, unknown to her, is a convicted paedophile:



10/15

Paternoster 319

He left his card with Mrs MacKenzie, telling her to pass it on to Mr McPhail when she saw him.

He didnt doubt that she would. It had been unfair of him to introduce himself as a policeman

to the landlady. She would probably become suspicious, and might even give McPhail a weeks

notice on those suspicions. That would be a terrible shame. (R, 2001 [1993]: 275)

Rebus simply wants McPhail to move to a place outside his jurisdiction, which is the

inadmissable goal of his apparent courtesy visit: the insincere compliment is meant to

secretly increase the chance that the landlady will carry out his plan.

Whilst the inspectors hide the insincerity to guarantee a politic uptake in the hearer,

the narrator, in contrast, is underlining it, probably for reasons of characterization: it

needs to be clear that the inspector is a true professional who knows how to manipulate

polite conventions. On the other hand, without the narrators disambiguating comment,

the politeness would seem totally out of character for protagonists that have been framed

as hardboiled, fractious and unconventional in obeying social norms. Only here are theygiving in to social conventions, to achieve an overarching, professional goal.

3.2 Hearer evaluations

InBlack and Blue(2003 [1997]), Rebus has been invited to what looks like a boardroom

meeting and he is welcomed by the company CEO: Good of you to come, he told

Rebus, with what some people would have taken for sincerity. Good of you to ask me,

Rebus said, playing the game. (R, 2003 [1997]: 202). Rebus, unlike some people, is

not fooled. He sees through the insincerity of the smooth CEO and decides to play ... thegame, mirroring the CEOs behaviour because Rebus has his own hidden agenda.

In the preceding scene, the symmetry in the behaviour seems closely linked to a

symmetry of frames. In what follows, the symmetry is taken to absolute perfection:

speaker and hearer are colleagues who share an almost identical socio-cognitive

background for a particular activity type linked to their profession. The activity type is

interrogation, but the interrogated happens to be a seasoned interrogator. Still inBlack

and Blue, Rebus is under investigation for a procedure error he would have made at the

beginning of his career. Ancram, who is leading the internal investigation, has just smiled

at a joke by Rebus: Here we go, thought Rebus, the sympathy routine (R, 2003 [1997]:

408). That same day, Ancram gives Rebus a lift and he tries sympathizing with Rebus,

saying he too has had complaints against him in the past: Ancram smiled. The old pals

routine was just that a routine. Rebus trusted Ancram the way hed trust a paedophile

in a play park (R, 2003 [1997]: 416). Rebus knows all the tricks of the trade himself, and

any potential politeness towards him is explained as an insidious strategy, a routine to

weaken his defences.

In Let del dubbio(2008), Montalbano is as unimpressed. He suspects this female

witness of faking politeness:

Commissario, mi scusi se la disturbo.Ma la prego, signora, saccomodi.

Laltra mattina ero un po frastornata e mi sono dimenticata di farle una domanda. Gliela

posso fare ora?



11/15


Era di na gintilizza che manco na cinisa. Stava facendo tiatro, era chiaro.

Ma certamente!

Inspector, I am sorry to interrupt. Not at all, please, Madam, take a seat. The other morning

I was slightly confused and I forgot to ask you a question. Is it OK to ask it now? Even aChinese woman couldnt have been as polite. She was pretending, that was clear. But of

course!(C, 2008: 64; my translation)

Montalbano detects the pretence, but, exactly like Rebus in front of the CEO, he too

starts pretending, mirroring the witness excessive politeness. This passage, again, high-

lights the link between our inspectors mistrust and their own tendency towards pretence.

Probably they evaluate politeness negatively, not only because they themselves are used

to pretending, but also because so often they see politeness being abused by the people

they deal with. However, Montalbanos suspicions are not limited to suspects: as forRebus, they include colleagues and superiors as well.

Montalbano strongly mistrusts his Commissioner, the judge Bonetti-Alderighi, a

northerner who does not understand Sicilians. Normally the Commissioner is abrupt

with Montalbano, but in La pista di sabbia (2007), he is polite. Therefore, given

personal expectations, the judges behaviour is excessive, menacing, even literally

frightening:

Stavolta invece si comport diverso. Un attimo prima che Montalbano sassittasse, addirittura

si sus e gli pru la mano. Il commissario accomenz letteralmente a scantasi. Che potiva essiri

successo se il questore lo trattava con gentilizza, come a na pirsona normale? Da l a cinqueminuti gli avrebbi liggiuto latto della s cunnanna a morti?

This time, however, the Commissioner behaved differently. Indeed, just as Montalbano was

about to sit down, his boss actually stood up and held out his hand. The Inspector was literally

scared. What could have happened for the Commissioner to treat him so politely, like a normal

person? Was he about to read him his death sentence?(C, 2007: 219; 227)

The judge is after an interpretation of politeness, but he cannot avoid an inference of

over-polite, scary, in Montalbanos thoughts.

Nevertheless, in the next example, I do think politeness is construed as deliberately

offensive. InLe ali della sfinge(2006) Montalbano and Fazio are travelling by car, but

they have been stopped by the carabinieri, the Italian police forces enemiespar excellence.

The carabinieri want to issue a fine, until one of them recognizes Montalbano and

magnanimously waivers the fine. At this point, Montalbano cannot but show gratitude:

Grrrgrrrazie disse Montalbano.

Si tiniva a malappena dal mittirsi a ruggire per la raggia.

Ripartero. Doppo un silenzio longo, Fazio fici lunico commento possibile:

Ci hanno cummigliato di merda.

Ththanks, said Montalbano. He could barely refrain from exploding with rage. They

drove off. After a long silence, Fazio made the only comment possible: They just covered us in

shit.(C, 2006: 169170; 174175)



12/15

Paternoster 321

Safely out of earshot, Fazio makes a comment in direct speech: the carabinieri made them

deliberately lose face through their excessive politeness. The carabinieris condescending

generosity has put Montalbano and Fazio in the humiliating position of indebtedness.

They feel they have been forced to show gratitude. The evaluation is very decidedly

offensive and therefore over-polite as in downright rude. At any rate, only an interpre-tation of impoliteness can explain Montalbanos profound anger at the carabinieri.

4 Conclusions

In the Montalbano and Rebus series, evaluations of impoliteness come in two formats:

comments in reported speech and in thought representation. The distinction is useful,

because on the record comments (You are so rude!) are criticisms in their own right

and could start a new cycle of impoliteness. Therefore, metapragmatic comments of

impoliteness in direct speech tend to be rare.I illustrated four on the record examples of hearer evaluations: two were asymmetrical

evaluations of impoliteness, and two others were symmetrical evaluations of

impoliteness linked to temper. The first set of comments was made possible by superior

rank, the second set by personal experience overruling (minor) rank difference. The first

set is Scottish, the second one Sicilian: in the Sicilian context, police officers seem less

concerned with (minor) rank differences. On the other hand, from the speakers

perspective, most impoliteness happens in a top-down structure where it passes as

appropriate without provoking comments. These findings, of appropriate, unmarked

impoliteness tie in with my initial assumption that impolite inspectors are fairlystereotypical for hardboiled crime novels.

Over-politeness, however, is a major source of narrator comments and thought

representation. All evaluations of politeness I find are negative, in the meaning of

insincere. I found no real differences between my Scottish and Sicilian novels, but

there is an interesting consistency in investigators intentions as speakers and their

evaluations as hearers, which appears motivated by characterization needs. As a speaker,

the inspector is a master of manipulation, acting out politic behaviour for the sole

purpose of his job. As a hearer, he is a master at detecting cases of misjudged, failed

politeness: his interlocutor cannot prevent the astute inspector from making an inferenceof fake, opportunist, or scary intentions. In one case, politeness was even interpreted as

deliberately offensive.

There is consistency, and coherence in the characterization: if impoliteness is normal

(appropriate), then politeness becomes excessive (inappropriate). In sum, the metapragmatic

comments (or their absence) clarify the norm by which these inspectors behave and

evaluate relational work, specifically because their norm represents a shift from the

mainstream. One could imagine evaluations of face work as a continuum ranging between

too little, just right and too much, starting on one side with impoliteness, going to politic

behaviour and politeness and ending with over-politeness: mainstream appropriacy would

roughly cover politic behaviour together with positive evaluations of politeness. For these

inspectors, appropriacy would appear to be shifted towards the pole of impoliteness,

leaving politeness completely out of the appropriate area. Through frequent negative



13/15


comments on politeness, the narrators give salience to its inappropriateness, its abnormality

for the investigator. The narrator hereby creates a protagonist who is sceptical about

genuine politeness. As these mavericks, through their profession, have been exposed to

a lot of insincerity, they have become disenchanted with politeness and interpret the

latter within a socio-cognitive frame/schema that predisposes them towards negativeevaluations. In their interactions, but especially during interrogations, the inspectors

become as insincere and manipulative as the criminals: often they end up mirroring an

essentially criminal, deviant mindset, as Gregoriou (2009a [2007]) points out. Gregoriou

illustrates the carnivalesque deviance of the criminal mindset, specifying that social

trangression is part and parcel not only of the criminal, but also of the detective, who

often has been described as the criminals double (2009a [2007]: 9293, 103). One

convention of the genre is that the protagonist is socially unconventional.

Rebus has the last word. Watson asks: John, have you ever thought you might be

paranoid? All the time, sir. Show me two men shaking hands and Ill show you aMasonic conspiracy (R, 2001 [1993]: 339). If we are to believe Rebus, negative

evaluative language for social interaction might be specific for the crime novel and its

needs for an over-suspicious, sceptical protagonist.

Note

1. For Rankin (R), I have quoted from the more recent omnibus editions. When quoting

Camilleri (C) the first set of pages refers to the original text, the second set, separated by a

semicolon, refers to the English translations, by Stephen Sartarelli, unless specified otherwise.

Occasionally, I have made the translations more literal, putting any alterations between square

brackets.

References

Bousfield D (2008a)Politeness in Interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Bousfield D (2008b) Impoliteness in the struggle for power. In: Bousfield D and Locher M (eds)

Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice.Berlin

and New York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 127153.

Bousfield D and Locher M (eds) (2008)Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with

Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Brown P and Levinson SC (1987 [1978]) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Camilleri A (1996)Il ladro di merendine. Palermo: Sellerio. Translated by S Sartarelli (2005)

The Snack Thief. London: Pan Macmillan.

Camilleri A (1997)La voce del violino. Palermo: Sellerio. Translated by S Sartarelli (2006) The

Voice of the Violin. London: Pan Macmillan.

Camilleri A (2001) Lodore della notte. Palermo: Sellerio. Translated by S Sartarelli (2007)

The Scent of the Night. London: Pan Macmillan.

Camilleri A (2005) La luna di carta. Palermo: Sellerio. Translated by S Sartarelli (2009) The

Paper Moon. London: Pan Macmillan.Camilleri A (2006) Le ali della sfinge. Palermo: Sellerio. Translated by S Sartarelli (2010)

The Wings of the Sphinx. London: Pan Macmillan.

Camilleri A (2007) La pista di sabbia. Palermo: Sellerio. Translated by S Sartarelli (2011) The

Track of Sand. London: Pan Macmillan.



14/15

Paternoster 323

Camilleri A (2008)Let del dubbio. Palermo: Sellerio.

Culpeper J (2008) Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Bousfield D and

Locher M (eds)Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and

Practice.Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 1744.

Culpeper J (2011) Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Douthwaite J (2004) Montalbano Type and prototype of the detective. In: Marci G (ed.)Lingua,

storia, gioco e moralit nel mondo di Andrea Camilleri: atti del Seminario, Cagliari, 9 marzo

2004. Cagliari: CUEC, pp. 1155.

Gregoriou C (2009a [2007]) Deviance in Contemporary Crime Fiction. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Gregoriou C (2009b)English Literary Stylistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ian Rankins official website (2011) Available at: www.ianrankin.net/books.asp (accessed 21

October 2011).

Leech G and Short M (2007 [1981]) Style in Fiction. Harlow: Pearson Education.Locher M and Watts RJ (2005) Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness

Research1(1): 933.

Pinto D (2011) Are Americans insincere? Interactional style and politeness in everyday America.

Journal of Politeness Research7(2): 215238.

Rankin I (2000 [1990]) Hide and Seek. In: Rankin I Rebus: The Early Years. London: Orion,

pp. 185390.

Rankin I (2001 [1993]) The Black Book. In: Rankin I Rebus: The St Leonards Years. London:

Orion, pp. 217458.

Rankin I (2003 [1997]) Black and Blue. In Rankin I Rebus: The Lost Years. London: Orion,

pp. 229557.Stoppini A (2011) Il gioco degli specchi. Camilleri primo in classifica(13 June). Available at:

www.ilrecensore.com/wp2/2011/06/il-gioco-degli-specchi-camilleri-primo-in-classifica/

(accessed 14 October 2011).

Tannen D (1993)Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Terkourafi M (2008) Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness and rudeness. In:

Bousfield D and Locher M (eds)Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power

in Theory and Practice.Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 4576.

Watts RJ (2003)Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Watts RJ (2005) Linguistic politeness research: Quo Vadis? In Watts RJ, Ide S and Ehlich K (eds)

Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin and New York:Mouton de Gruyter, pp. i-xlvii.

Watts RJ (2010) Theorising linguistic politeness phenomena(July). Available at: www.sympol.

unibas.ch/?Plenary_speakers (accessed 20 July 2011).

Author biography

After obtaining a PhD in Romance Linguistics and Literature at the University of Antwerp (1994),

with a thesis on 16th-century Italian theoretical dialogue, Annick Paternoster has taught Italian

Language and Translation. In 1999, she was appointed Visiting Research Fellow for the Department

of Italian (University of Leeds). She currently teaches Rhetorics and Stylistics for the masters degree

in Italian Language, Literature and Civilization, offered at the University of Lugano, Switzerland.Annick Paternosters research interests cover Italian behavioural treatises, theoretical dialogue and

theatre in the 16th century, alongside fictional dialogue in the 19th-century novel and in

contemporary crime novels. Her approach has become increasingly interdisciplinary, merging



15/15


prescriptive discourse (rhetorical and behavioural treatises) with the descriptive approach of the

pragmatics of (im)politeness and historical pragmatics. In 2011, she co-authored an article with

Claudia Caffi, Una certa sprezzatura. Forme della mitigazione nel Libro del Cortegiano di

Baldassar Castiglione (1528), G Held and U Helfrich (eds) Cortesia Politesse Cortesa. La

cortesia verbale nella prospettiva romanistica La politesse verbale dans une perspectiveromaniste La cortesa verbal desde la perspectiva romanstica(Bern: Peter Lang).

Documents

Inappropriate inspectors:Impoliteness and overpoliteness in Ian Rankin's and Andrea Camilleri's crime series by Annick Paternoster