Article published In:
Internet Pragmatics: Online-First Articles

Humorous but hateful

Linguistic impoliteness and visual dysphemism in anti-Muslim memes

| Mustansiriyah University

The paper explores the interplay of impoliteness, ethnic/religious humor and multimodality in online contexts. The argument advanced in the paper is that anti-Muslim memes are instantiations of ethno-religious humor that creatively incorporate linguistic impoliteness and visual dysphemism in manners that potentially propagate Islamophobia online. The analysis of a specialized corpus of memes suggests that multimodal impoliteness in these memes is mainly triggered by marked implicitness, reinforced by visual reference to targets. The humor-generating incongruity in these memes is often based on the anomalous juxtaposition of verbal and visual cues expressing ethnic and religious stereotypes, in ways that make the values expressed in these stereotypes easily acceptable. Such multimodal impoliteness creatively incorporates entertainment with emotional coercion, aiming at like-minded participants in the potential presence of targets. This constitutes a form of plausibly deniable incitement, meant to instigate attitude change and intimidate the victims, which consequently blurs the conceptual distinction between jocular abuse, impoliteness and hate speech.

Keywords: anti-Muslim memes, humor, linguistic impoliteness, multimodality, visual dysphemism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Internet memes, humor and discrimination
  • 3.Linguistic impoliteness
  • 4.Visual dysphemism
  • 5.Methodology
  • 6.Analysis
    • 6.1Triggering impoliteness across semiotic modes
    • 6.2Triggering ethno-religious humor across semiotic modes
    • 6.3Multimodal impoliteness, creativity and hate
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 6 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00106.alt
References
Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed
2020 “Mental model theory as a model for analysing visual and multimodal discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 1551: 303–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 “Multimodal metaphor and (im) politeness in political cartoons: A sociocognitive approach.” Journal of Pragmatics 1851: 54–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022 “Metaphorical creativity contributing to multimodal impoliteness in political cartoons.” Intercultural Pragmatics 19(1): 35–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Agha, Asif
2007 Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allan, Keith, and Kait Burridge
2006 Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allan, Keith
2019 “Taboo words and language: An overview.” In The Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language, ed. by Keith Allan, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Al Zidjaly, Najma
2017 “Memes as reasonably hostile laments: A discourse analysis of political dissent in Oman.” Discourse & Society 28(6): 573–594. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Luvell
2015 “Racist humor.” Philosophy Compass 10(8): 501–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barthes, Ronald
1977 Image – Music – Text. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla
2011 “Indeterminacy in dialogue.” Language and Dialogue 11: 21–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benatar, David
1999 “Prejudice in jest: When racial and gender humor harms.” Public Affairs Quarterly 13(2): 191–203.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Merrie
1986 “How many feminists does it take to make a joke? Sexist humor and what’s wrong with it.” Hypatia 1(1): 63–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, Derek
2008 Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boxman-Shabtai, Lillian, and Limor Shifman
2015 “When ethnic humor goes digital.” New Media & Society 17(4): 520–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald
2004 Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Channell, Joanna
1994 Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chiaro, Delia
2017 “Humor and translation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, ed. by Salvatore Attardo, 414–429. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
2005 “Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link .” Journal of Politeness Research 11: 35–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Impoliteness: Questions and answers.” In Aspects of Impoliteness, ed. by Denis Jamet, and Manuel Jobert, 2–15. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2016 “Impoliteness strategies.” In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, 421–446. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 “Impoliteness and hate speech: Compare and contrast.” Journal of Pragmatics 1791: 4–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Michael Haugh
2014 Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Paul Iganski, and Abe Sweiry
2017 “Linguistic impoliteness and religiously aggravated hate crime in England and Wales.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 5(1):1–29.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara, and Lieven Vandelanott
2017 “Internet memes as multimodal constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics 28(3): 565–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Richard
1976 The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta
2011 “Pragmatics and linguistic research into humor.” In The Pragmatics of Humor across Discourse Domains, ed. by Marta Dynel, 1–15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “ ‘I has seen Image Macros!’: Advice Animals memes as visual-verbal jokes.” International Journal of Communication 101: 660–688.Google Scholar
2021a “COVID-19 memes going viral: On the multiple multimodal voices behind face masks.” Discourse & Society 32(2): 175–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021b “Humour and (mock) aggression: Distinguishing cyberbullying from roasting.” Language & Communication 811: 17–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021c “Desperately seeking intentions: Genuine and jocular insults on social media.” Journal of Pragmatics 1791: 26–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
El Refaie, Elisabeth
2011 “The pragmatics of humor reception: Young people’s responses to a newspaper cartoon.“ Humor 24 (1): 87–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evnine, Simon
2018 “The anonymity of a murmur: Internet (and other) memes.” The British Journal of Aesthetics 58(3): 303–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Charles
2020 Visual and Multimodal Communication: Applying the Relevance Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Charles, and Billy Clark
2014 “Can pictures have explicatures?” Linguagem em (Dis)curso 141: 451–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar
2010 “The YouTubification of politics, impoliteness and polarization.” In Handbook of Research on Discourse Behavior and Digital Communication: Language Structures and Social Interaction, ed. by Rotimi Taiwo, 540–563. Hershey: IGI Global. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022 “Moral emotions, good moral panics, social regulation, and online public shaming.” Language & Communication 841: 61–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen
1989 The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2015 Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael, and Derek Bousfield
2012 “Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English.” Journal of Pragmatics 44(9): 1099–1114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael, and Daniel Z. Kádár
2013 Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael, and Valeria Sinkeviciute
2019 “Offence and conflict talk.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, ed. by Mathew Evans, Lesley Jeffries, and Jim O’Driscoll, 199–123. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Leo
1992 “Politeness apart: Why choose indirect speech acts?” Lingua e Stile 27(1): 77–87.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly, and Anna Piata
2021 “Metaphor and mental shortcuts: The role of non-propositional effects.” Pragmatics & Cognition 28(2): 299–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeffries, Lesley
2010 Critical Stylistics: The Power of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jewitt, Carey
2016 “Multimodal analysis.” In Handbook of Language and Digital Communication, ed. by Alexandra Georgakopoulou, and Tereza Spilioti, 69–84. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jewitt, Carey, Jeff Bezemer, and Kay O’Halloran
2016 Introducing Multimodality. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knobel, Michele, and Colin Lankshear
2006 “Online memes, affinities and cultural production.” In A New Literacy Sampler, ed. by Michele Knobel, and Colin Lankshear, 199–227. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther
2010 Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen
2006 Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd edn.). Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larkin-Galinanes, Christina
2017 “An overview of humor theory.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, ed. by Salvatore Attardo, 4–16. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N.
1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2014 The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., and Derek Bousfield
2008 “Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language.” In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 1–16. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., and Sage L. Graham
2010 “Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics.“ In Interpersonal Pragmatics, ed. by Miriam A. Locher, and Sage L. Graham, 1–13. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marlow, Mikaela
2017 “Public discourse and intergroup communication.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, ed. by Jon Nussbaum. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martinec, Radan, and Andrew Salway
2005 “A system for image-text relations in new (and old) media.” Visual Communication 4(3): 337–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martinez Lirola, Maria
2014 “Exploring visual dysphemisms in pieces of news related to immigrant minors in a Spanish newspaper.” Visual Communication 13(4): 405–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzone, Marco
2011 “Schemata and associative processes in pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(8): 2148–2159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara
2003 Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milner, Ryan
2013 “Pop polyvocality: Internet memes, public participation, and the Occupy Wall Street movement.” International Journal of Communication 71: 2357–2390.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques
2009 “Pragmatics, propositional and non-propositional effects: Can a theory of utterance interpretation account for emotions in verbal communication?” Social Science Information 48(3): 447–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nemesi, Attila
2013 “Implicature phenomena in classical rhetoric.” Journal of Pragmatics 501: 129–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswald, Steve, and Didier Maillat
2018 “Deceptive puns: The pragmatics of humour in puns.” In Perspectivas sobre el significado: Desde lo biológico a lo social [Perspectives on Meaning: From the Biological to the Social], ed. by Cristián N. Padilla, 145–171. La Serena: Editorial Universidad de la Serena.Google Scholar
Page, Ruth, David Barton, Johann W. Unger, and Michele Zappavigna
2014 Researching Language and Social Media: A Student Guide. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richardson, John, and Ruth Wodak
2009 “The impact of visual racism: Visual arguments in political leaflets of Austrian and British far-right parties.” Controversia 6(2): 45–77.Google Scholar
Scott, Kate
2020 Referring Expressions, Pragmatics, and Style: Reference and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2021 “Memes as multimodal metaphors: A relevance theory analysis.” Pragmatics & Cognition 28(2): 277–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shifman, Limor
2014 Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria
2019 “Im/politeness and in/civility: A neglected relationship?” Journal of Pragmatics 1471: 49–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stöckl, Hartmut
2020 “Multimodality and mediality in an image-centric semiosphere – A rationale.” In Visualizing Digital Discourse: Interactional, Institutional and Ideological Perspectives, ed. by Crispin Thurlow, Christa Dürscheid, and Federica Diémoz, 189–202. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svensson, Jakob
2011 “The expressive turn of citizenship in digital late modernity.” JeDEM – eJournal of eDemocracy & Open Government 3(1): 42–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taecharungroj, Viriya, and Pitchanut Nueangjamnong
2015 “Humour.2.0: Styles and types of humour and virality of memes on Facebook.” Journal of Creative Communications 10(3): 288–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terry, Adeline
2020 “Euphemistic dysphemisms and dysphemistic euphemisms as means to convey irony and banter.” Language and Literature 29(1): 57–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A.
1998 Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo
2000 “Visual racism.” In The Semiotics of Racism: Approaches in Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by Martin Reisigl, and Ruth Wodak, 333–350. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.Google Scholar
2008 Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vásquez, Camilla
2019 Language, Creativity and Humour Online. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walther, Joseph
2011 “Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations.” In The SAGE Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (4th edn.), ed. by Mark Knapp, and John Dally, 443–479. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Weaver, Simon
2011 “Jokes, rhetoric and embodied racism: A rhetorical discourse analysis of the logics of racist jokes on the Internet.” Ethnicities 11(4): 413–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 The Rhetoric of Racist Humour: US, UK and Global Race Joking. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weitz, Eric
2017 “Online and internet humor.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, ed. By Salvatore Attardo, 504–518. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Tim
2009 Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
2018 “Relevance theory and literary interpretation.” In Reading Beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory, ed. By Terence Cave, and Deirdre Wilson, 185–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, Jonathan Culpeper, and Elena Semino
2021 “Shameless normalisation of impoliteness: Berlusconi’s and Trump’s press conferences.” Discourse & Society 32(3): 369–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoon, InJeong
2016 “Why is it not just a joke? Analysis of Internet memes associated with racism and hidden ideology of colorblindness.” Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education 33(1): 92–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco
2019 “Multimodality in memes: A cyberpragmatic approach. In Analyzing Digital Discourse New Insights and Future Directions, ed. by Patricia Bou-Franch, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 105–132. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021a “Incongruity-resolution humorous strategies in image macro memes.” Internet Pragmatics 4(1): 131–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021b “Pragmatics of humour in memes in Spanish.” Spanish in Context 18(1): 113–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele
2012 Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London: Continuum.Google Scholar