Intergroup rudeness and the metapragmatics of its negotiation in online discussion fora

Sonja Kleinke and Birte Bös

Abstract

This study investigates the communicative practices in English and German online discussion fora as exemplified by two thematically related sample threads. Combining first- and second-order approaches to (im-)politeness, the paper focuses on the question of how participants use intergroup rudeness as a means of in- and outgroup construction and examines how intergroup rudeness is metapragmatically negotiated as the discussions unfold. The results show that intergroup rudeness as well as metapragmatic comments are handled very differently in the two communities explored. Suggesting cultural preferences, there is a much higher degree of interactivity and a clear preference for negotiation at an interpersonal level in the German discussion group; its English counterpart favours negotiation at an intergroup level. Both threads provide metapragmatic evidence that the frequent use of rudeness tokens does not automatically make rudeness an accepted norm.

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Angouri, Jo, and Theodora Tseliga
(2010) "You have no idea what you are talking about!" From e- disagreement to e-impoliteness in two online fora. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 6.1: 57–82.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, Derek
(2008) Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Burnett, Gary, and Laurie Bonnici
(2003) Beyond the FAQ. Explicit and implicit norms in Usenet newsgroups. Library & Information Science Research 25: 333–351. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia
(1998) Metapragmatics. In J.L. Mey (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 581–586.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
(1996) Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349–367. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2010) Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3232–3245. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2011) Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danet, Brenda
(2013) Flaming and linguistic impoliteness on a listserv. In S. Herring, D. Stein, and T. Virtanen (eds.), Pragmatics of Computer-mediated Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 639–664. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Der Papst in den USA – Retter in der Not?
(2008) Spiegel ONLINE. Forum. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://​forum​.spiegel​.de​/showthread​.php​?t​=3747.
Dresner, Eli, and Susan C. Herring
(2010) Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory 20: 249–268. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dubrovsky, Vitaly J., Sara Kiesler, and Beheruz N. Sethna
(1991) The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction 6: 119–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eysenbach, Gunther, and James E. Till
(2001) Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ 323: 1103–1105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Sage L
(2007) Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer- mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 742–759. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Haines, Russell, Jill Hough, Lan Cao, and Douglas Haines
(2012) Anonymity in computer-mediated communication: More contrarian ideas with less influence. Group Decision and Negotiation, CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan C
(2007) A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet 4: article 1. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from http://​www​.languageatinternet​.org​/articles​/2007​/761.Google Scholar
Hübler, Alex, and Wolfram Bublitz
(2007) Introducing metapragmatics in use. In W. Bublitz, and A. Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1–26. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mike
(2010) Anonymity in online discussion forums – does it promote connections? In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, and T. Ryberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010. Lancaster: University of Lancaster, pp. 198–206.Google Scholar
Kienpointner, Manfred
(1997) Varieties of rudeness. Functions of Language 4: 251–287. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2008) Impoliteness and emotional arguments. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 4: 243–256.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiesler, Sara, and Lee Sproull
(1992) Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52: 96–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kleinke, Sonja
(2007) Sprachliche Strategien verbaler Ablehnung in öffentlichen Diskussionsforen des Internets. In S.K. Herrmann, S. Krämer, and H. Kuch (eds.), Verletzende Worte. Die Grammatik sprachlicher Missachtung. Bielefeld: Peter Lang, pp. 311–336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Interactive aspects of computer-mediated communication – 'Disagreement' in an English-speaking and a German-speaking Public News Group. In S. Tanskanen, L. Helasvuo, M. Johannson, and M. Raitaniemi (eds.), Discourses in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 195–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Responses to rhetorical questions in English and German public news groups in the Internet. Functions of Language 19.2: 174–200. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Korenmatt, Joan, and Nancy Wyatt
(1996) Group dynamics in an e-mail forum. In S. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 225–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Largier, Céline
(2002) Aspekte der Debatte in argumentationsorientierten Internet-Foren: Die Abtreibungsdebatte in Frankreich und Deutschland. Deutsche Sprache 30: 287–306.Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., and Derek Bousfield
(2008) Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language. In D. Bousfield, and M.A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–13.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., and Richard J. Watts
(2008) Relational work and impoliteness. Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In D. Bousfield, and M.A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–99.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Marcoccia, Michel
(2004) Online polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 115–145. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Maricic, Ibolya
(2005) Face in Cyberspace: Facework, (Im)politeness and Conflict in English Discussion Groups. Växjö: Växjö University Press.Google Scholar
Postmes, Tom, Russell Spears, and Martin Lea
(1998) Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE- effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 25: 689–715. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) The formation of group norms in computer- mediated communication. Human Communication Research 26: 341–371. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rhea, Nancy, Alfred Rovai, Michael Ponton, Gail Derrick, and John Davis
(2007) The effect of computer-mediated communication on anonymous end-of-course teaching evaluations. International Journal on E-Learning 6.4: 581–592.Google Scholar
Schütte, Wilfried
(2000) Sprache und Kommunikationsformen in Newsgroups and Mailinglisten. In W. Kallmeyer (ed.), Sprache und neue Medien. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 142–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Should the US give the Pope such a presidential welcome?
(2008) BBC NEWS-Have Your Say. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from http://​www​.bbc​.co​.uk​/news​/have​_your​_say/
Severinson Eklundh, Kerstin
(2010) To quote or not to quote: Setting the context for computer-mediated dialogues. Language@Internet 7: article 5. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from http://​www​.languageatinternet​.org​/articles​/2010​/2665.Google Scholar
Smith, Christine B., Margaret L. McLaughlin, and Kerry K. Osborne
(1997) Conduct control on Usenet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2.4. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from http://​jcmc​.indiana​.edu​/vol2​/issue4​/smith​.html. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen
(2005) (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpacking their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1: 95–119.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suler, John
(2004) The online disinhibition effect. Cyber Psychology and Behavior 7: 321–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri
(1978) Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (ed.), Differentiation between Social Groups. Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 61–76.Google Scholar
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa
(2007) Metapragmatic utterances in computer-mediated interaction. In W. Bublitz, and A. Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 87–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walther, Joseph B., Jeffrey F. Anderson, and David W. Park
(1994) Interpersonal effects in computer- mediated interaction. A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication Research 21: 460–487. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard J
(2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2005) Linguistic politeness research: Quo vadis? In R.J. Watts, S. Ide, and K. Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. xi–xlvii. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard J., Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich
(eds.) (2005) Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weder, Mirjam
(2008) Form and function of metacommunication in CMC. In S. Kelsey, and K.S. Amant (eds.), Handbook of Research on Computer Mediated Communication. Hershey, New York: Idea Group Publishing, pp. 570–586. CrossrefGoogle Scholar