Article published in:
Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict
Vol. 6:1 (2018) ► pp. 26–57

Uncivil Twitter

A sociopragmatic analysis

| Leiden University, The Netherlands
| City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
| University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, USA
| Salisbury University, USA
| University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, USA
| University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, USA
| University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, USA
| University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, USA
Using four tweets by Steven Salaita about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that resulted in the retraction of his academic job offer in September 2014 as our case study, we investigate the role of Twitter in the shaping and reception of the controversial messages. Our analysis combines Gricean pragmatics with im/politeness and hate-speech research to reveal a complex layering of potential meanings stemming from what is linguistically encoded in each tweet. Their construal as hate speech, in particular, depends on which of these potential meanings critics chose to focus upon. We account for this finding by considering the diversity of potential audiences of a tweet and suggest that the effects of context collapse on implicated meanings can be especially detrimental. Competition for attention among incoming tweets, Twitter’s central affiliative function and applicable length restrictions can, nevertheless, place a premium on communicating such meanings.
Keywords: freedom of speech, impoliteness, language aggression, hate speech, context collapse, implicatures
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A (brave, new) world of Twitter affordances
  • 3.Civility, im/politeness and hate speech
  • 4.A sociopragmatic analysis of Salaita’s tweets
    • 4.1“You may be too refined to say it”
      • 4.1.1The socio-political context
      • 4.1.2The co-text
      • 4.1.3Linguistic analysis
    • 4.2Jeffrey Goldberg’s story and the shiv
      • 4.2.1The socio-political context
      • 4.2.2The co-text
      • 4.2.3Linguistic analysis
    • 4.3“You are an awful human being”
      • 4.3.1The socio-political context: “right now”
      • 4.3.2The co-text and linguistic analysis
    • 4.4“Antisemitism” and anti-Semitism
      • 4.4.1The socio-political context
      • 4.4.2The co-text and linguistic analysis
  • 5.Conclusion: If you play with Twitter, you may get burned (and why)
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 02 July 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00002.ter
References

References

Ariel, Mira
2010 Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent
1994 “Conversational Implicature.” Mind & Language 9 (2):124–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bekafigo, Marina A., and Allan McBride
2013 “Who Tweets about Politics? Political Participation of Twitter Users during the 2011 Gubernatorial Elections.” Social Science Computer Review 31 (5): 625–643. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
boyd, danah, Scott Golder, and Gilad Lotan
2010 “Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter.” In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Kauai, HI, January 5–8, 1–10.Google Scholar
Brody, Samuel, and Nicholas Diakopoulos
2011 “Cooooooooooooooollllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: Using Word Lengthening to Detect Sentiment in Microblogs.” In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 562–570. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
(1978) 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2002 Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Celce-Murcia, Marianne, and Diane Larsen-Freeman
1999 The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course (2nd ed). Boston: Heinle Publishers.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter
1975 “The Synchronic and Diachronic Status of Conversational Implicature.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, edited by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 257–288. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Conover, Michael, Jacob Ratkiewicz, Matthew Francisco, Bruno Gonçalves, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini
2011 “Political Polarization on Twitter.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona, 89–96. Menlo Park, California: The AAAI Press.Google 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, James
2000 Threats and Promises: The Pursuit of International Influence. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, Jacob
2013 “What to Do about Bad Language on the Internet.” In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (HLT-NAACL), 359–369. Atlanta, GA: Association for Computational LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
Finin, Tim, Will Murnane, Anand Karandikar, Nicholas Keller, Justin Martineau, and Mark Dredze
2010 “Annotating Named Entities in Twitter Data with Crowdsourcing.” In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, 80–88. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Geis, Michael L., and Arnold M. Zwicky
1971 “On Invited Inferences.” Linguistic Inquiry 2(4): 561–566.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1981 Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
(1969) 1989 “Utterer’s Meaning and Intentions.” In Philosophical Review 78(2): 147–177. Reprinted in Grice, H. Paul, Studies in the way of words, 86–116. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1975) 1989 “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, edited by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 31: 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Grice, H. Paul, Studies in the Way of Words, 22–40. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Edward
1976 Beyond Culture. New York: Knopf Doubleday.Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra
2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse and Society 121: 451–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2014 Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hernández Ortiz, Hector, and Joseph S. Fulda
2012 “Strengthening the Antecedent, Concessive Conditionals, Conditional Rhetorical Questions, and the Theory of Conditional Elements.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (3): 328–331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himelboim, Itai, Stephen McCreery, and Marc Smith
2013 “Birds of a Feather Tweet Together: Integrating Network and Content Analyses to Examine Cross-ideology Exposure on Twitter.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18 (2): 154–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence
1984 “Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature.” In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, edited by Deborah Schiffrin, 421: 11–42. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
2000 “From if to iff: Conditional Perfection as Pragmatic Strengthening.” Journal of Pragmatics 32(3): 289–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Infante, Dominic A., and Charles J. Wigley III
1986 “Verbal Aggressiveness: An Interpersonal Model and Measure.” Communications Monographs 53 (1):61–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
1996 La Conversation. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1973 “The Logic of Politeness: Or, Minding Your P’s and Q’s.” In C. Corum, T. Smith-Stark & A. Weiser (eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, 292–305. Chicago, USA: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N.
1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2014 The Pragmatics of Politeness. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leets, Laura
2001 “Responses to Internet Hate Sites: Is Speech too Free in Cyberspace?” Communication Law and Policy 6(2): 287–317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “Disentangling Perceptions of Subtle Racist Speech: A Cultural Perspective.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22 (2):145–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leets, Laura, and Howard Giles
1997 “Words as Weapons – When do they Wound? Investigations of Harmful Speech.” Human Communication Research 24 (2): 260–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lipinski-Harten, Maciek, and Romin W. Tafarodi
2013 “Attitude Moderation: A Comparison of Online Chat and Face-to-Face Conversation.” Computers in Human Behavior 29(6): 2490–2493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Zhe, and Ingmar Weber
2014 “Is Twitter a Public Sphere for Online Conflicts? A Cross-ideological and Cross-hierarchical Look.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Social Informatics (SocInfo2014), 336–347. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Marwick, Alice, and danah boyd
2011 “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience.” New Media & Society 13(1):114–133 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara
2003 Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nehring, Holger
2011 “ ‘Civility’ in History: Some Observations on the History of the Concept.” European Review of History: Revue europeenne d’histoire 18 (03):313–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, John E., Ronald D. Rotunda, and Jesse N. Young
1986 Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure. St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
Papacharissi, Zizi
2004 “Democracy Online: Civility, Politeness, and the Democratic Potential of Online Political Discussion Groups.” New Media & Society 6 (2):259–283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sedler, Robert
1992 The unconstitutionality of campus bans on “racist speech”: The view from without and within. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 531, 631–683.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren
2016 “Twitter: Design, Discourse, and the Implications of Public Text.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication, edited by Alexandra Georgakopoulou and Tereza Spilioti, 239–255. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren, and Josh Iorio
2014 “Tweets in the News. Legitimizing Medium, Standardizing Form.” In Mediatization and Sociolinguistic Change, edited by Jannis Androutsopoulos, 331–360. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina
2011 “From Politeness1 to Politeness2: Tracking norms of Im/politeness across Time and Space.” Journal of Politeness Research 7 (2): 159–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard
2002 “From Polite Language to Educated Language: The Re-emergence of an Ideology.” In Alternative Histories of English, edited by Richard J. Watts and Peter Trudgill, 155–172. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth
2007 “Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis: A Cross-disciplinary Inquiry.” Pragmatics & Cognition 15 (1): 203–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele
2011 “Ambient Affiliation: A Linguistic Perspective on Twitter.” New Media & Society 13 (5): 788–806. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How we Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
2014 “Coffeetweets: Bonding around the Bean on Twitter.” In The Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet, edited by Peter Seargeant and Caroline Tagg, 139–160. London: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 14 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 13 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2021.  In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 247 ff. Crossref logo
Blitvich, Pilar Garcés-Conejos & Dániel Z. Kádár
2021.  In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 385 ff. Crossref logo
Boxer, Diana & Florencia Cortés-Conde
2021.  In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 227 ff. Crossref logo
Kirner-Ludwig, Monika
2020. Creation, dissemination and uptake of fake-quotes in lay political discourse on Facebook and Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics 157 ► pp. 101 ff. Crossref logo
Kirner-Ludwig, Monika
2020. Internet memes as multilayered re-contextualization vehicles in lay-political online discourse. Internet Pragmatics 3:2 ► pp. 283 ff. Crossref logo
Parvaresh, Vahid
2019. Moral impoliteness. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 7:1 ► pp. 79 ff. Crossref logo
Sifianou, Maria
2019. Im/politeness and in/civility: A neglected relationship?. Journal of Pragmatics 147 ► pp. 49 ff. Crossref logo
Sousa, Alcina Pereira de
2020. Fostering civility and politeness awareness in professional discourse: Critical genre analysis of course books in professional communication. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 16:2 ► pp. 305 ff. Crossref logo
Strani, Katerina & Anna Szczepaniak-Kozak
2022.  In Cyberhate in the Context of Migrations, ► pp. 21 ff. Crossref logo
Tian, Huixin, Xinyao Ma, Jeffrey Bardzell & Sameer Patil
2022. Non-literal Communication in Chinese Internet Spaces: A Case Study of Fishing. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6:CSCW1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Vásquez, Camilla
2021. “I appreciate u not being a total prick …”: Oppositional stancetaking, impoliteness and relational work in adversarial Twitter interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 185 ► pp. 40 ff. Crossref logo
Xie, Chaoqun
2020. The pragmatics of internet memes. Internet Pragmatics 3:2 ► pp. 139 ff. Crossref logo
Xie, Chaoqun & Francisco Yus
2021.  In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 454 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. 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.