Being impolite while pretending to be polite. The rupture of politeness conventions in electoral debates

This paper is a part of a larger research that pursues a global understanding of impoliteness in face-to-face electoral debates. That research distinguishes three essential axes, three complementary analytical perspectives: functional strategies of impoliteness, linguistic-discursive mechanisms to implement them and social impacts of impolite acts. In this frame, the present work develops an in-depth analysis of a special category of mechanisms, namely the rupture of politeness conventions, a subgroup within postliteral implicit mechanisms. This subgroup acquires its identity by the fact of carrying out a linguistic action that is conventionally associated with a polite attitude, but doing it in a rhetorically insincere way: the consequence is that apparent politeness becomes impoliteness. Relevant aspects in the characterization of ruptures are isolated and, on this basis, it is developed a detailed analysis of three specific kinds of mechanisms in which ruptures take shape: using ironic statements, developing different forms of overpoliteness and adopting a falsely collaborative attitude toward the interlocutor. The analysis of that group of mechanisms takes into account, simultaneously, the other two axes of the main research, strategies and social impacts.

Co-evaluation as a strategy to improve working group dynamics: an experience in Sport Sciences

The aim of this study was to analyze if the perceptions of students before and after carrying out the work, that is, their perception of different aspects of the functioning of the group, the working skills acquired as well as those they think that need to be improved, varied depending on whether the contribution of the different members of the group was being co-evaluated or not. 144 students of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences participated in this study. In order to analyze the students' perception of group work the adapted questionnaire by Bourne et al. (2001) was used. Results showed that groups which implemented co-evaluation assessed more negatively the experience in general than those which did not. However, co-evaluation groups perceived their competence to work as a team had improved to a greater extent than the groups without co-evaluation, evaluating more positively both the performance and the result of work and increasing their knowledge of the other team members. Using a co-evaluation system seems to generate both a better assessment of the running of the team and the result of its work.