YENI PURTIKA S.

8113612087
B4-LTBI

FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO WRITING
FORMATIVE II

Instruction: 1) Get one thesis on a topic of your interest. 2) Work individually. 3) Choose relevant statements to put in every
structure of the genre. 4) Discuss with your partner to make sure that the statements are correct. 5) Type your work and print.

GENRE 1(REPORT)
No Generic Structure Quotation References
Position
(Chapter, Page
and Paragraph)
1. General Classification Not found.
2. Description of Parts Kienpointner (1997) distinguishes between
motivated and unmotivated in motivated
impoliteness, the speaker is assumed to have
intended to be rude, whereas unmotivated
impoliteness is the result of insufficient
knowledge of some kind.


Kienpointner, Manfred (1997).
Varieties of rudeness: Types and
functions of impolite
utterances. Functions of Language 4
(2): 251_287. In Mills, Sara. (2005)
Gender and impoliteness. Journal of
Politeness Research 1, 263-280.
Page 267;
paragraph 2
3. Description of
Qualities
The analysis of impoliteness is therefore
concerned with a reconstruction of what the
speakers intentions are supposed to have been.
Mills, Sara. (2005) Gender and
impoliteness. Journal of Politeness
Research 1, 263-280.
Page 265;
paragraph 2
4. Description of Uses impoliteness displaying to others an
assessment of ones social standing and
relation to others, and, among other things,
ones assessment of what constitutes gender-
appropriate behaviour.
Mills, Sara. (2005) Gender and
impoliteness. Journal of Politeness
Research 1, 263-280.
Page 268;
paragraph 3




YENI PURTIKA S.
8113612087
B4-LTBI

FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO WRITING
GENRE 2 (ANALYTICAL EXPOSITION)
No Generic Structure Quotation Reference
Position
(Chapter, Page
and Paragraph)
1. Thesis Politeness and impoliteness cannot be
considered to be simply polar opposites.
Mills, Sara. (2005) Gender and
impoliteness. Journal of Politeness
Research 1, 263-280.
Page 270;
paragraph 2
2. Argument 1 Beebe (1995:161) has shown that this
assumption that impoliteness is the opposite
of politeness cannot hold; terms of pushy
politeness, where seemingly polite
utterances are taken to be impolite and face-
threatening.

Beebe, Leslie M. (1995). Polite fictions:
Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic
competence.
In Linguistics and the Education of
Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic,
Psycholinguistics
and Sociolinguistic Aspects. Georgetown
University Round Table on
Languages and Linguistics, James E.
Alatis, Carolyn A. Straehle, Brent
Gallenberger,
and Maggie Ronkin (eds.), 154_168.
Georgetown: Georgetown University
Press.
Page 266;
paragraph 2
3. Argument 2 Kienpointner (1997) also draws attention to
the fact that some forms of politeness, such
as manipulative or insincere politeness,
should be seen as less than optimally
cooperative or rational, and hence impolite.
Kienpointner, Manfred (1997). Varieties of
rudeness: Types and functions of impolite
utterances. Functions of Language 4 (2):
251_287. In Mills, Sara. (2005) Gender and
impoliteness. Journal of Politeness
Research 1, 263-280.
Page 266;
paragraph 3
4. Argument 3 Jary argues that impoliteness and politeness
are therefore to be considered fundamentally
different in kind rather than simple polar
Jary, Mark (1998). Relevance theory and
the communication of politeness. Journal of
Pragmatics, 30: 1_19. In Mills, Sara.
Page 268;
paragraph 2
YENI PURTIKA S.
8113612087
B4-LTBI

FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO WRITING
opposites, since, instead of the Brown and
Levinson view that whenever the so-called
polite forms/strategies are used then an
additional layer of meaning is necessarily
communicated our experiences as
conversationalists tells us that polite forms
often go unnoticed by participants.
(2005) Gender and impoliteness. Journal of
Politeness Research 1, 263-280.
5. Reiteration Politeness and impoliteness cannot be taken
to be polar opposites, since impoliteness
functions in very different and context-
specific ways.
Mills, Sara. (2005) Gender and
impoliteness. Journal of Politeness
Research 1, 263-280.
Page 270;
paragraph 2



















YENI PURTIKA S.
8113612087
B4-LTBI

FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO WRITING
GENRE 3 (PROCEDURE)
No Generic Structure Quotation References
Position (Chapter, Page
and Paragraph)
1. Goal To give an illustration of the way that context
determines whether we consider something to be
impolite or not...




Mills, Sara. (2005)
Gender and
impoliteness. Journal
of Politeness Research
1, 263-280.
Page 274; paragraph 3
2. Materials The use of anecdotal evidence







Mills, Sara. (2005)
Gender and
impoliteness. Journal
of Politeness Research
1, 263-280.
Page 274; paragraph 3
3. Steps Not found.












YENI PURTIKA S.
8113612087
B4-LTBI

FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO WRITING

GENRE 4 (DESCRIPTIVE)
No Generic Structure Quotation References
Position
(Chapter, Page
and Paragraph)
1. Identification impoliteness is necessarily an attack on the face
of the interlocutor/s, and that certain impolite
speech acts, such as reproaching,
threatening and insulting are performed by speakers
with the intrinsic purpose of attacking or
undermining the hearers face (Haverkate
1988:394).

Haverkate, Henk (1988).
Toward a typology of
politeness strategies. In Mills,
Sara. (2005) Gender and
impoliteness. Journal of
Politeness Research 1, 263-
280.
Page 265;
paragraph 2
2. Description of parts impoliteness as consisting of bald-on-record
impoliteness, positive and negative impoliteness and
sarcasm or mock politeness (Culpeper 1996).


Culpeper, Jonathan (1996).
Towards an anatomy of
impoliteness. Journal of
Pragmatics
25: 349_367.
Page 266;
paragraph 2
3. Description of qualities The analysis of impoliteness is therefore concerned
with a reconstruction of what the speakers
intentions are supposed to have been.


Mills, Sara. (2005) Gender and
impoliteness. Journal of
Politeness Research 1, 263-
280.
Page 265;
paragraph 2
4. Description of
characteristics
Impoliteness can be considered as any type of
linguistic behaviour which is assessed as intending to
threaten the hearers face or social identity,



Mills, Sara. (2005) Gender and
impoliteness. Journal of
Politeness Research 1, 263-
280.
Page 268;
paragraph 2

YENI PURTIKA S.
8113612087
B4-LTBI

FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO WRITING
GENRE 5 (HORTATORY EXPOSITION)
No Generic Structure Quotation References
Position
(Chapter,
Page and
Paragraph)
1. Thesis Politeness and impoliteness cannot be
considered to be simply polar opposites.
Mills, Sara. (2005) Gender and impoliteness.
Journal of Politeness Research 1, 263-280.
Page 270;
paragraph 2
2. Argument Beebe (1995) has shown that this
assumption that impoliteness is the
opposite of politeness cannot hold;
terms of pushy politeness, where
seemingly polite utterances are taken to
be impolite and face-threatening.

Beebe, Leslie M. (1995). Polite fictions:
Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence.
In Linguistics and the Education of Language
Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguistics
and Sociolinguistic Aspects. Georgetown
University Round Table on
Languages and Linguistics, James E. Alatis,
Carolyn A. Straehle, Brent Gallenberger,
and Maggie Ronkin (eds.), 154_168.
Georgetown: Georgetown University
Press.
Page 266;
paragraph 2
3. Argument Kienpointner (1997) also draws attention
to the fact that some forms of politeness,
such as manipulative or insincere
politeness, should be seen as less than
optimally cooperative or rational, and
hence impolite.
Kienpointner, Manfred (1997). Varieties of
rudeness: Types and functions of impolite
utterances. Functions of Language 4 (2):
251_287. In Mills, Sara. (2005) Gender and
impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 1,
263-280.
Page 266;
paragraph 3
4. Recommendation It is thus important not to analyze
impoliteness in a decontextualized way,
focusing only on what takes place in an
interaction.
Mills, Sara. (2005) Gender and impoliteness.
Journal of Politeness Research 1, 263-280.
Page 270;
paragraph 2


YENI PURTIKA S.
8113612087
B4-LTBI

FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO WRITING
GENRE 6 (EXPLANATION)
No Generic Structure Quotation References
Position (Chapter, Page
and Paragraph)
1. General Statement Not found.







2. Explanation Not found.







3. Explanation Not found.






4. Explanation Not found.







YENI PURTIKA S.
8113612087
B4-LTBI

FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO WRITING

GENRE 7 (DISCUSSION)
No. Generic Structure Quotation References
Position (Chapter, Page
and Paragraph)
1. Issue In past feminist research it was often assumed that
women use powerless speech, for example, using
tentative language features such as tag questions,
deference, modality, hesitation and so on (Lakoff
1975) (however) for many feminists, it is clear that
not all women use this type of language.

Mills, Sara. (2005)
Gender and
impoliteness. Journal
of Politeness Research
1, 263-280.
Page 277; paragraph 2
2. Arguments for For some women, particularly white middle class
women, these stereotypes of how women should
speak (using deference, hesitation and indirectness, in
short co-operative speech) are an important factor in
the construction of their self-identity, since they
consider that they signal to others their concern with
others well-being.
Mills, Sara. (2005)
Gender and
impoliteness. Journal
of Politeness Research
1, 263-280.
Page 277; paragraph 2
3. Arguments against For other women, particularly some feminists, these
stereotypes are to be resisted or at least actively
negotiated, since it is felt that these ways of speaking
signal powerlessness to others.



Mills, Sara. (2005)
Gender and
impoliteness. Journal
of Politeness Research
1, 263-280.
Page 277; paragraph 2
4. Conclusion indirectness although clearly indexing femininity
for many groups of women, does not have the same
value or function for them.
Mills, Sara. (2005)
Gender and
impoliteness. Journal
of Politeness Research
1, 263-280.
Page 277; paragraph 2
YENI PURTIKA S.
8113612087
B4-LTBI

FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO WRITING
GENRE 8 (REVIEW)
No. Generic Structure Quotation References
Position
(Chapter, Page
and Paragraph)
1. Orientation In feminist linguistics in recent years, third-
wave feminists have developed new models
of gender and particularly new models of the
way that gender identity is constructed in
language and interaction (Bergvall et al.
1996; Holmes and Meyerhoff 2003).
Bergvall et al. 1996; Holmes and
Meyerhoff 2003 in Mills, Sara. (2005)
Gender and impoliteness. Journal of
Politeness Research 1, 263-280.
Page 270;
paragraph 3
2. Interpretative
Recount
feminist linguistics is no longer concerned
with mapping out the differences between
mens and womens speech, and has thus
progressed from the search for correlations
between linguistic units and social categories
of speakers to analysis of the gendered
significance of ongoing discourse (Eckert
and McConnell-Ginet 2003:4).
Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-
Ginet (2003). Language and Gender.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press in Mills, Sara.
(2005) Gender and impoliteness. Journal
of Politeness Research 1, 263-280.
Page 271;
paragraph 3
3. Evaluation Third wave feminists, rather than seeing
gender identity as pre-existing interaction,
see it as constituted in each interaction and as
socially constructed (Mills, in progress;
Holmes and Meyerhoff 2003; Eckert and
McConnell-Ginet 2003).
Mills, Sara. (2005) Gender and
impoliteness. Journal of Politeness
Research 1, 263-280.
Page 277;
paragraph 7
4. Evaluative
Summation
Gender is now seen by feminist linguists as
something which one performs in interaction
rather than something which one has or
possesses; it is emergent rather than achieved
(Meyerhoff 2003).
Meyerhoff, M. and Holmes, J. (2003).The
Handbook of Language and Gender.
Oxford: Blackwell in Mills, Sara. (2005)
Gender and impoliteness. Journal of
Politeness Research 1, 263-280.
Page 271;
paragraph 3