Criticizing for the public interest and aligning with others
How Jordanians constructed their online criticisms of lockdown breaches during the COVID-19 pandemic
This study examines the speech act of criticizing in online comments on the COVID-19 lockdown breaches in Jordan
in 2020. Drawing on speech act theory and the face-saving perspective of politeness, the study investigates the strategies used to
criticize these breaches. The analysis of 356 online comments revealed that Jordanians used ten strategies to criticize these
lockdown breaches: Insulting, Appealing to the divine, Intertextuality, Rhetorical questions, Stylized threats, Framing criticism
as request, Framing criticism as advice-giving, Framing criticism as warning, Invoking legal authority, and Invoking religious
‘haram’. These criticisms were driven by safeguarding the collective interests of community members rather than merely expressing
personal condemnation of the breaches. The breaches were constructed in these criticisms as communally reproachable, legally
answerable, and religiously proscribed. Given their public nature, these criticisms appear to be motivated not by politeness but
by expressing strong emotions, showing in-group solidarity, and aligning with other community members.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical background
- 3.Data and methodology
- 4.Analysis
- 4.1Insulting
- 4.2Appealing to the divine
- 4.3Criticizing through intertextuality
- 4.4Asking rhetorical questions
- 4.5Stylized threats
- 4.6Framing criticism as request
- 4.7Framing criticism as advice-giving
- 4.8Framing criticism as warning
- 4.9Criticizing through invoking legal authority
- 4.10Invoking religious ‘haram’
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
-
References