Article published in:
Discourses of aggression in Greek digitally-mediated communication
Edited by Ourania Hatzidaki and Ioannis E. Saridakis
[Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 8:2] 2020
► pp. 156–187

“An equal right to comment”

Metapragmatic negotiation of (im)politeness norms in a confrontational Greek YouTube polylogue discussing online public female nudity

| Hellenic Air Force Academy
This paper analyses a snapshot of a conflictive Greek YouTube polylogue dealing with the issue of public online female nudity and the norms pertaining to both the act itself and its verbal critique. The said polylogue contains a markedly high proportion of lay (im)politeness/(in)appropriateness evaluations (Locher and Watts 2005). By quantifying and critically analyzing key lexical impoliteness (Culpeper 2011) and metapragmatic markers contained in the evaluations, I identify the ways in which the norms of online verbal behaviour are discursively negotiated amongst the polylogue participants, focusing especially on the arguments and justifications underlying the suggested norms. It is found that, firstly, the notions of (im)politeness/(in)appropriateness emerge as open to fierce, yet heavily argument-supported discursive dispute; secondly, sexualized slang functions both as an object of critique and as an extremely versatile rhetorical instrument serving metapragmatic argumentation; and, thirdly, online (im)politeness/(in)appropriateness is construed not as a superficial matter of netiquette, but as a deeply ethical and political-ideological controversy, especially regarding speech liberty and political correctness.
Keywords: relational work, lay (im)politeness evaluations, metapragmatics of (im)politeness, Greek CMC, online female nudity, online politeness norms, digilantism, politeness and morality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Relational work and the metapragmatics of (im)politeness/(in)appropriateness
    • 2.2First-order (im)politeness evaluations in online communication
  • 3.The video and the accompanying polylogue: An initial description
  • 4.Verbal reactions to the video protagonists’ act of nudity
    • 4.1Greek male participants addressing or referring to the female video protagonist
      • 4.1.1Terms referring to the woman as a whole person
      • 4.1.2Terms denoting the woman’s body or body parts
    • 4.2General remarks
  • 5.Metapragmatic commentary in the C&R polylogue
    • 5.1Negotiating the general (medium-independent) norms of addressing a woman baring herself in public
    • 5.2Negotiating the medium-specific norms of addressing a woman baring herself in public
  • 6.Summary and conclusion
    • 6.1Summary of metapragmatic argumentation in the C&R polylogue
    • 6.2Concluding remarks: Lay definitions of politeness
  • 7.Epilogue
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00037.hat
References
Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge
2006 Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anastasiadi-Simeonidi, Anna
2008 “Το Mόρφημα θεο- στην Eλληνική [The Morpheme theo- in Greek].” In Γλώσσης Χάριν – Τόμος αφιερωμένος από τον Τομέα Γλωσσολογίας στον καθηγητή Γεώργιο Μπαμπινιώτη [For Language’s Sake: A Volume Dedicated by the Department of Linguistics to Professor Georgios Babiniotis], ed. by Amalia Mozer, Ekaterini Bakakou-Orfanou, Christoforos Charalambakis, and Despina Chila-Markopoulou, 99–113. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.Google Scholar
Angouri, Jo, and Tseliga, Theodora
2010 “ ‘you HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!’: From E-disagreement to E-impoliteness in Two Online Fora.” Journal of Politeness Research 61: 57–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arendholz, Jenny
2013 (In)appropriate Online Behavior: A Pragmatic Analysis of Message Board Relations. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
2005 “The Metapragmatics of Politeness in Israeli Society.” In Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 2nd edition, ed. by Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich, 225–280. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bou-Franch, Patricia, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
2014 “Conflict Management in Massive Polylogues: A Case Study from YouTube.” Journal of Pragmatics 731: 19–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 “Gender Ideology and Social Identity Processes in Online Language Aggression Against Women.” In Exploring Language Aggression Against Women, ed. by Patricia Bou-Franch, 59–81. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre
1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.Google Scholar
Chovanec, Jan
2015 “Participant Roles and Embedded Interactions in Online Sports Broadcasts.” In Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions, ed. by Marta Dynel, and Jan Chovanec, 67–95. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Christopoulou, Katerina
2016 Μια λεξικολογική προσέγγιση στο περιθωριακό λεξιλόγιο της Νέας Ελληνικής. [A lexicological approach to the slang vocabulary of Modern Greek]. PhD Thesis, University of Patras.Google Scholar
Christopoulou, Κaterina, and Giorgos J. Xydopoulos
2014 “Issues d’équivalence en Grec et en Anglais Argotique: les cas de ‘malákas’, ‘ghamó’ et ‘fuck’. [Issues of Equivalence in Greek and English Slang: The Case of ‘malákas’, ‘ghamó’ and ‘fuck’.]” Argotica 1 (3): 45–56.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eelen, Gino
2001 A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK & Northampton, MA: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, Nuria Lorenzo-Dus, and Patricia Bou-Franch
2010 “A Genre Approach to Impoliteness in a Spanish Television Talk Show: Evidence from Corpus Analysis, Questionnaires and Focus Groups.” Intercultural Pragmatics 7 (4): 689–723. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gavriilidou, Zoe
2014 “Intensifying Prefixes in Greek.” In Selected Papers of the 11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Rhodes, 26–29 September 2013, ed. by G. Kotzoglou, K. Nikolou, E. Karantzola, K. Frantzi, I. Galantomos, M. Georgalidou, V. Kourti-Kazoullis, C. Papadopoulou, and E. Vlachou, 468–478. Rhodes: University of the Aegean.Google Scholar
Gherardi, Silvia
1995 Gender, Symbolism and Organizational Cultures. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Judith
2005 Representing Agrippina: Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, Sage L.
2007 “Disagreeing to Agree: Conflict, (Im)politeness and Identity in a Computer-mediated Community.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 742–759. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 “Interaction and Conflict in Digital Communication.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, ed. by Matthew Evans, Leslie Jeffries, and Jim O’Driscoll, 310–328. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2007 “The Discursive Challenge to Politeness Research: An Interactional Alternative.” Journal of Politeness Research 31: 295–317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “When is an Email Really Offensive?: Argumentativity and Variability in Evaluations of Impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research 61: 7–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan C., Dieter Stein, and Tuija Virtanen
2013 “Introduction to the Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication.” In Pragmatics of Computer Mediated Communication, ed. by Susan C. Herring, Dieter Stein, and Tuija Virtanen, 3–32. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian
2001 “ ‘Oh’, Irony and Sequential Ambiguity in Arguments.” Discourse and Society 121: 123–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jane, Emma A.
2014 “ ‘Back to the Kitchen, Cunt’: Speaking the Unspeakable about Online Misogyny.” Journal of Media and Cultural Studies 28 (4): 558–570. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 Misogyny Online: A Short (and Brutish) History. London: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Elizabeth
2017 “‘Let them Know that Men Did this’: Medusa, Rape and Female Rivalry in Contemporary Film and Women’s Writing.” In Bad Girls and Transgressive Women in Popular Television, Fiction, and Film, ed. by Julie A. Chappell, and Mallory Young, 183–208. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel
2017 Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel, and Rosina Márquez-Reiter
2015 “(Im)politeness and (Im)morality: Insights from Intervention.” Journal of Politeness Research 11 (2): 239–260.Google Scholar
Kakridis, Ioannis Th.
1986 Ελληνική Μυθολογία: Οι Θεοί. [Greek Mythology: Gods]. Athens: Ekdotiki Athinon.Google Scholar
Karaian, Lara
2013 “Policing ‘Sexting’: Responsibilization, Respectability and Sexual Subjectivity in Child Protection/Crime Prevention Responses to Teenagers’ Digital Sexual Expression.” Theoretical Criminology 18 (3): 282–299. CrossrefGoogle 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
Levine, Étan
2009 Marital Relations in Ancient Judaism. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A.
2004 Power and Politeness in Action. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Power and Politeness in Action. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2015 “Interpersonal Pragmatics and its Link to (Im)politeness Research.” Journal of Pragmatics 861: 5–10. CrossrefGoogle 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, 1–13. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., and Richard J. Watts
2005 “Politeness Theory and Relational Work.” Journal of Politeness Research 11: 9–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating Norms of Linguistic Behaviour.” In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 77–99. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, and Patricia Bou-Franch
2011 “On-line Polylogues and Impoliteness: The Case of Postings Sent in Response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube Video.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 2578–2593. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara
2017 English Politeness and Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nishimura, Yukiko
2010 Impoliteness in Japanese BBS Interactions: Observations from Message Exchanges in two Online Communities. Journal of Politeness Research 61: 33–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Sharon
2004 ““Tough Enough”: Female Friendship and Heroism in Xena and Buffy .” In Action Chicks: New Images of Tough Women in Popular Culture, ed. by Sherrie A. Inness, 231–256. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand
1930 The Conquest of Happiness. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Savvidou, Paraskevi
2012 “Μετριασμός και Επίταση με τη Χρήση των Μορφημάτων ψιλο- και θεο-: Ανάλυση σε Σώματα Κειμένων. [Mitigation and Intensification via the Use of the Morphemes psilo- and theo-: A Corpus-Based Analysis.]” In Selected Papers of the 10th International Conference of Greek Linguistics, 1–4 September 2011, Komotini, ed. by Zoe Gavriilidou, Angeliki Efthymiou, Evangelia Thomadaki, and Penelope Kambakis-Vougiouklis, 1092–1099. Komotini: Democritus University of Thrace.Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria
1992 Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015 “Conceptualizing Politeness in Greek: Evidence from Twitter.” Journal of Pragmatics 861: 25–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 “Conflict, Disagreement and (Im)politeness.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, ed. by Matthew Evans, Leslie Jeffries, and Jim O’Driscoll, 176–195. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sifianou, Maria, and Spiridoula Bella
2019 “Twitter, Politeness, Self-Presentation.” In Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions, ed. by Patricia Bou-Franch, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 341–365. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, Kate
2003 “From Jailbird to Jailbait: Age of Consent Laws and the Construction of Teenage Sexualities.” William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law 9 (3): 131–349.Google Scholar
Turner, Graeme
2010 Ordinary People and the Media: The Demotic Turn. London: Sage.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, Theo.
2008 Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, Diana
2000 Sisters and Rivals in British Women’s Fiction, 1914–39. Hampshire: Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard J.
2003 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Linguistic Politeness Research: Quo Vadis?.” In Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 2nd edition, ed. by Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich, xi-xlvii. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard J., Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich
2005 Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 2nd edition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Werkhofer, Konrad T.
2005 “Traditional and Modern Views: The Social Constitution and Power of Politeness.” In Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 2nd edition, ed. by Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich, 155–199. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Krikela, Sofia
2022. Disagreements in a feminist digital safe space. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 10:1 ► pp. 111 ff. Crossref logo
Sagredos, Christos & Evelin Nikolova
2022. ‘Slut I hate you’. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 10:1 ► pp. 169 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.