Article published in:
(Im)politeness and Moral Order in Online Interactions
Edited by Chaoqun Xie
[Internet Pragmatics 1:2] 2018
► pp. 329–351

Impoliteness online

Hate speech in online interactions

| University of Innsbruck
This paper provides an overview of the strategies and techniques of hate speech in online discourse (on online discourse or computer-mediated communication in general cf. e.g., Schwarzhaupt-Scholz 2004; Schmidt 2013; Dittler and Hoyer 2014; Seargeant and Tagg 2014). Based on a collection of online texts belonging to different genres (discussion forums, blogs, social media, tweets, homepages), this paper will provide a qualitative analysis of destructively impolite utterances in online interactions. This analysis will make use of the standard typologies of impoliteness and their recent extensions (such as Culpeper 1996, 2005, 2011; Kienpointner 1997, 2008; Kleinke and Bös 2015), but some modifications and elaborations of these typologies will also be taken into account. Moreover, social, cultural and political reasons for the recent dramatic increase in hate speech in online interactions will be explored. Finally, the problem of how to deal with this destructive use of language will be briefly discussed and some possible solutions will be suggested (cf. Banks 2010).
Keywords: hate, hate speech, online impoliteness, intergroup rudeness, racism, moral order
Published online: 10 January 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00015.kie
References

References

Aristotle
2002a Rhetorik (trans. and comm. by Christoph Rapp). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
2002b Nikomachische Ethik (trans. and comm. by Ursula Wolf). Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Banks, James
2010 “Regulating hate speech online.” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 24(3): 233–239. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bosch, Nikolaus
2016 “Hassbotschaften und Hetze im Internet als Aufforderung zu Straftaten?” [Hate messages and rabble-rousing in the internet as incitement to criminal offences?] Juristische Ausbildung 4: 381–389.Google Scholar
[ p. 347 ]
Brodnig, Ingrid
2016 Hass im Netz. Wien: Brandstätter.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
1996 “Towards an anatomy of impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 25(3): 349–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link .” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 35–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield, and Anne Wichmann
2003 “Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics 35(10–11): 1545–1579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deumert, Ana
2014 “The performance of a ludic self on social network(ing) sites.” In The Language of Social Media, ed. by Philip Seargeant, and Caroline Tagg, 23–45. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dittler, Ullrich, and Michael Hoyer
(eds.) 2014 Social Network – Die Revolution der Kommunikation. München: Kopaed.Google Scholar
Duggan, Maeve
2014 Online Harassment. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. http://​www​.pewinternet​.org​/2014​/10​/22​/online​-harassment/ (accessed 11 July 2017).
Gordon, Robert W.
2001 “Legalizing outrage.” In Aftermath. The Clinton Impeachment and the Presidency in the Age of Political Spectacle, ed. by Leonard V. Kaplan, and Beverly I. Moran, 97–112. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, Sage L.
2008 “A manual for (im)politeness?: The impact of the FAQ in an electronic community of Practice.” In Impoliteness in Language, ed. by Derek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 281–304. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Graham, Sage L., and Claire Hardaker
2017 “(Im)politeness in digital communication.” In Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. by Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 785–814. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Groarke, Leo, Catherine H. Palczewski, and David Godden
2016 “Navigating the visual turn in argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy 52(4): 217–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan, and Selin Kesebir
2010 “Morality.” In Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. by Susan T. Fiske, Daniel T. Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey, 797–852. Hoboken, N. J.: Wiley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael, Wei-Lin Melody Chang, and Dániel Z. Kádár
2015 “ ‘Doing deference’: Identities and relational practices in Chinese online discussion boards.” Pragmatics 25(1): 73–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ihnatko, Andy
(1997) Cyberspeak. An Online Dictionary. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z.
2017 Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Michael Haugh
2013 Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kienpointner, Manfred
1992 Alltagslogik. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
[ p. 348 ]
1996 “Structural semantics and Latin linguistics.” In Aspects of Latin, ed. by Hannah Rosén, 603–617. Innsbruck: Verlag des Instituts für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
1997 “Varieties of rudeness: Types and functions of impolite utterances.” Functions of Language 4 (2): 251–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 “Zum Wortfeld ‘Liebe-Haß’ im Altgriechischen.” In Studia Celtica et Indogermanica, ed. by Peter Anreiter, and Erzsébet Jerem, 163–177. Budapest: Archäolingua.Google Scholar
2004 “Metaphern für Emotionen: Universalien oder Kulturspezifika?” In Translation in der globalen Welt und neue Wege in the Sprach- und Übersetzungsausbildung, ed. by Lew N. Zybatow, 61–91. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2008 “Impoliteness and emotional arguments.” Journal of Politeness Research 4(2): 243–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kienpointner, Manfred, and Maria Stopfner
2017 “Ideologies of politeness.” In Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. by Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 61–87. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kleineberg, Christoph
2014 “Shitstorm-Attacken. Digitaler Orkan oder Sturm im Wasserglas.” In Social Network – Die Revolution der Kommunikation, ed. by Ullrich Dittler, and Michael Hoyer, 61–70. München: Kopaed.Google Scholar
Kleinke, Sonja, and Birte Bös
2015 “Intergroup rudeness and the metapragmatics of its negotiation in online discussion fora.” Pragmatics 25(1): 47–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langlotz, Andreas, and Miriam A. Locher
2017 “(Im)politeness and emotion.” In Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. by Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 287–322. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A.
2015 “Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research.” Journal of Pragmatics 86: 5–10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara
2003 Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neurauter-Kessels, Manuela
2011 “Im/polite reader responses on British online news sites.” Journal of Politeness Research 7(2): 187–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris
2014 “ Das Merkel – Das Neutrum bei weiblichen Familiennamen als derogatives Genus? “ In Linguistik der Familiennamen, ed. by Friedhelm Debus, Rita Heuser, and Damaris Nübling, 205–232. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
Page, Ruth
2014 “Hoaxes, hacking and humour: Analysing impersonated identity on social network sites.” In The Language of Social Media, ed. by Philip Seargeant, and Caroline Tagg, 46–64. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
1983 Traité de l’argumentation. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Perelmutter, Renee
2013 “ Klassika zhanra: The flamewar as a genre in the Russian bloggosphere.” Journal of Pragmatics 45(1): 74–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 349 ]
Schegloff, Emanuel
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1984 “Jewish argument as sociability.” Language in Society 13(3): 311–335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Jan-Hinrik
2013 Social Media. Wiesbaden: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzhaupt-Scholz, Dorothea
2004 Impeachment im digitalen Zeitalter. München: Fischer.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, and Dániel Z. Kádár
2016 “The bases of (im)politeness evaluations: Culture, the moral order and the East-West debate.” East Asian Pragmatics 1(1): 73–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy
2012 The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas N.
1992 Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J.
2003 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Webster
1993 Webster’s New Encyclopaedic Dictionary. New York: Black Dog & Leventhal.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth
2015 Politics of Fear. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Xie, Chaoqun
2007 “Controversies about politeness.” In Traditions of Controversy, ed. by Marcelo Dascal, and Han-liang Chang, 249–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zara
2016 Rassismus Report. Wien: Verein Zara.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

No author info given
2020. Soziolinguistische Bibliographie europäischer Länder für 2018Sociolinguistic Bibliography of European Countries for 2018Bibliographie sociolinguistique des pays européens pour 2018. Sociolinguistica 34:1 ► pp. 277 ff. Crossref logo
Andersson, Marta
2021. The climate of climate change: Impoliteness as a hallmark of homophily in YouTube comment threads on Greta Thunberg's environmental activism. Journal of Pragmatics 178 ► pp. 93 ff. Crossref logo
Badarneh, Muhammad A.
2020. ‘Like a donkey carrying books’. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 8:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Ran, Yongping, Linsen Zhao & Dániel Z. Kádár
2020. The rite of reintegrative shaming in Chinese public dispute mediation. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 30:1 ► pp. 40 ff. Crossref logo
Wang, Jiayi
2020. How and why people are impolite in danmu?. Internet Pragmatics Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.