Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-3851
  • E-ISSN: 2542-386X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper provides an overview of the strategies and techniques of hate speech in online discourse (on online discourse or computer-mediated communication in general cf. e.g., Schwarzhaupt-Scholz 2004Schmidt 2013Dittler and Hoyer 2014; Seargeant and Tagg 2014). Based on a collection of online texts belonging to different genres (discussion forums, blogs, social media, tweets, homepages), this paper will provide a qualitative analysis of destructively impolite utterances in online interactions. This analysis will make use of the standard typologies of impoliteness and their recent extensions (such as Culpeper 199620052011Kienpointner 19972008Kleinke and Bös 2015), but some modifications and elaborations of these typologies will also be taken into account. Moreover, social, cultural and political reasons for the recent dramatic increase in hate speech in online interactions will be explored. Finally, the problem of how to deal with this destructive use of language will be briefly discussed and some possible solutions will be suggested (cf. Banks 2010).


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aristotle
    Aristotle 2002aRhetorik (trans. and comm. byChristoph Rapp). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aristotle
    Aristotle 2002bNikomachische Ethik (trans. and comm. byUrsula Wolf). Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Banks, James
    2010 “Regulating hate speech online.” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology24(3): 233–239. 10.1080/13600869.2010.522323
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2010.522323 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bosch, Nikolaus
    2016 “Hassbotschaften und Hetze im Internet als Aufforderung zu Straftaten?” [Hate messages and rabble-rousing in the internet as incitement to criminal offences?] Juristische Ausbildung4: 381–389.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brodnig, Ingrid
    2016Hass im Netz. Wien: Brandstätter.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  7. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 “Towards an anatomy of impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics25(3): 349–367. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2005 “Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link.” Journal of Politeness Research1(1): 35–72. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  10. Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield, and Anne Wichmann
    2003 “Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics35(10–11): 1545–1579. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00118‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Deumert, Ana
    2014 “The performance of a ludic self on social network(ing) sites.” InThe Language of Social Media, ed. byPhilip Seargeant, and Caroline Tagg, 23–45. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137029317_2
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317_2 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dittler, Ullrich, and Michael Hoyer
    (eds.) 2014Social Network – Die Revolution der Kommunikation. München: Kopaed.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Duggan, Maeve
    2014Online Harassment. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/ (accessed11 July 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gordon, Robert W.
    2001 “Legalizing outrage.” InAftermath. The Clinton Impeachment and the Presidency in the Age of Political Spectacle, ed. byLeonard V. Kaplan, and Beverly I. Moran, 97–112. New York: New York University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Graham, Sage L.
    2008 “A manual for (im)politeness?: The impact of the FAQ in an electronic community of Practice.” InImpoliteness in Language, ed. byDerek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 281–304. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Graham, Sage L., and Claire Hardaker
    2017 “(Im)politeness in digital communication.” InPalgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. byJonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 785–814. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_30
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_30 [Google Scholar]
  17. Groarke, Leo, Catherine H. Palczewski, and David Godden
    2016 “Navigating the visual turn in argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy52(4): 217–235. 10.1080/00028533.2016.11821871
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2016.11821871 [Google Scholar]
  18. Haidt, Jonathan, and Selin Kesebir
    2010 “Morality.” InHandbook of Social Psychology, ed. bySusan T. Fiske, Daniel T. Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey, 797–852. Hoboken, N. J.: Wiley. 10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002022
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002022 [Google Scholar]
  19. Haugh, Michael, Wei-Lin Melody Chang, and Dániel Z. Kádár
    2015 “‘Doing deference’: Identities and relational practices in Chinese online discussion boards.” Pragmatics25(1): 73–98. 10.1075/prag.25.1.04hau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.25.1.04hau [Google Scholar]
  20. Ihnatko, Andy
    (1997) Cyberspeak. An Online Dictionary. New York: Random House.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kádár, Dániel Z.
    2017Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781107280465
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107280465 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kádár, Dániel Z., and Michael Haugh
    2013Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kienpointner, Manfred
    1992Alltagslogik. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1996 “Structural semantics and Latin linguistics.” InAspects of Latin, ed. byHannah Rosén, 603–617. Innsbruck: Verlag des Instituts für Sprachwissenschaft.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1997 “Varieties of rudeness: Types and functions of impolite utterances.” Functions of Language4 (2): 251–287. 10.1075/fol.4.2.05kie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.4.2.05kie [Google Scholar]
  26. 1999 “Zum Wortfeld ‘Liebe-Haß’ im Altgriechischen.” InStudia Celtica et Indogermanica, ed. byPeter Anreiter, and Erzsébet Jerem, 163–177. Budapest: Archäolingua.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2004 “Metaphern für Emotionen: Universalien oder Kulturspezifika?” InTranslation in der globalen Welt und neue Wege in the Sprach- und Übersetzungsausbildung, ed. byLew N. Zybatow, 61–91. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2008 “Impoliteness and emotional arguments.” Journal of Politeness Research4(2): 243–265. 10.1515/JPLR.2008.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2008.012 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kienpointner, Manfred, and Maria Stopfner
    2017 “Ideologies of politeness.” InPalgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. byJonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 61–87. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_4 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kleineberg, Christoph
    2014 “Shitstorm-Attacken. Digitaler Orkan oder Sturm im Wasserglas.” InSocial Network – Die Revolution der Kommunikation, ed. byUllrich Dittler, and Michael Hoyer, 61–70. München: Kopaed.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kleinke, Sonja, and Birte Bös
    2015 “Intergroup rudeness and the metapragmatics of its negotiation in online discussion fora.” Pragmatics25(1): 47–71. 10.1075/prag.25.1.03kle
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.25.1.03kle [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Langlotz, Andreas, and Miriam A. Locher
    2017 “(Im)politeness and emotion.” InPalgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. byJonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 287–322. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_12
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_12 [Google Scholar]
  34. Locher, Miriam A.
    2015 “Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research.” Journal of Pragmatics86: 5–10. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mills, Sara
    2003Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615238
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238 [Google Scholar]
  36. Neurauter-Kessels, Manuela
    2011 “Im/polite reader responses on British online news sites.” Journal of Politeness Research7(2): 187–214. 10.1515/jplr.2011.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2011.010 [Google Scholar]
  37. Nübling, Damaris
    2014 “ Das Merkel – Das Neutrum bei weiblichen Familiennamen als derogatives Genus?“ InLinguistik der Familiennamen, ed. byFriedhelm Debus, Rita Heuser, and Damaris Nübling, 205–232. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Page, Ruth
    2014 “Hoaxes, hacking and humour: Analysing impersonated identity on social network sites.” InThe Language of Social Media, ed. byPhilip Seargeant, and Caroline Tagg, 46–64. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137029317_3
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317_3 [Google Scholar]
  39. Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1983Traité de l’argumentation. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Perelmutter, Renee
    2013 “ Klassika zhanra: The flamewar as a genre in the Russian bloggosphere.” Journal of Pragmatics45(1): 74–89. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schegloff, Emanuel
    2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  42. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1984 “Jewish argument as sociability.” Language in Society13(3): 311–335. 10.1017/S0047404500010526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010526 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schmidt, Jan-Hinrik
    2013Social Media. Wiesbaden: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑02096‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02096-5 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schwarzhaupt-Scholz, Dorothea
    2004Impeachment im digitalen Zeitalter. München: Fischer.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Spencer-Oatey, Helen, and Dániel Z. Kádár
    2016 “The bases of (im)politeness evaluations: Culture, the moral order and the East-West debate.” East Asian Pragmatics1(1): 73–106. 10.1558/eap.v1i1.29084
    https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.v1i1.29084 [Google Scholar]
  46. Waldron, Jeremy
    2012The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674065086
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674065086 [Google Scholar]
  47. Walton, Douglas N.
    1992Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Watts, Richard J.
    2003Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  49. Webster
    Webster 1993Webster’s New Encyclopaedic Dictionary. New York: Black Dog & Leventhal.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wodak, Ruth
    2015Politics of Fear. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Xie, Chaoqun
    2007 “Controversies about politeness.” InTraditions of Controversy, ed. byMarcelo Dascal, and Han-liang Chang, 249–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.4.17xie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.4.17xie [Google Scholar]
  52. Zara
    Zara 2016Rassismus Report. Wien: Verein Zara.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): hate; hate speech; intergroup rudeness; moral order; online impoliteness; racism
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error