1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Internet Pragmatics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Humorous but hateful
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The paper explores the interplay of impoliteness, ethnic/religious humor and multimodality in online contexts. The argument advanced in the paper is that anti-Muslim memes are instantiations of ethno-religious humor that creatively incorporate linguistic impoliteness and visual dysphemism in manners that potentially propagate Islamophobia online. The analysis of a specialized corpus of memes suggests that multimodal impoliteness in these memes is mainly triggered by marked implicitness, reinforced by visual reference to targets. The humor-generating incongruity in these memes is often based on the anomalous juxtaposition of verbal and visual cues expressing ethnic and religious stereotypes, in ways that make the values expressed in these stereotypes easily acceptable. Such multimodal impoliteness creatively incorporates entertainment with emotional coercion, aiming at like-minded participants in the potential presence of targets. This constitutes a form of plausibly deniable incitement, meant to instigate attitude change and intimidate the victims, which consequently blurs the conceptual distinction between jocular abuse, impoliteness and hate speech.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00106.alt
2024-02-06
2024-10-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ip.00106.alt
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed
    2020 “Mental model theory as a model for analysing visual and multimodal discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.09.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.09.012 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2021 “Multimodal metaphor and (im) politeness in political cartoons: A sociocognitive approach.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.08.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2022 “Metaphorical creativity contributing to multimodal impoliteness in political cartoons.” Intercultural Pragmatics(): –. 10.1515/ip‑2022‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2022-0002 [Google Scholar]
  4. Agha, Asif
    2007 Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Allan, Keith, and Kait Burridge
    2006 Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511617881
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617881 [Google Scholar]
  6. Allan, Keith
    2019 “Taboo words and language: An overview.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language, ed. byKeith Allan, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Al Zidjaly, Najma
    2017 “Memes as reasonably hostile laments: A discourse analysis of political dissent in Oman.” Discourse & Society(): –. 10.1177/0957926517721083
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517721083 [Google Scholar]
  8. Anderson, Luvell
    2015 “Racist humor.” Philosophy Compass(): –. 10.1111/phc3.12240
     https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12240 [Google Scholar]
  9. Barthes, Ronald
    1977 Image – Music – Text. London: Fontana.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bazzanella, Carla
    2011 “Indeterminacy in dialogue.” Language and Dialogue: –. 10.1075/ld.1.1.04baz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.1.1.04baz [Google Scholar]
  11. Benatar, David
    1999 “Prejudice in jest: When racial and gender humor harms.” Public Affairs Quarterly(): –.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bergmann, Merrie
    1986 “How many feminists does it take to make a joke? Sexist humor and what’s wrong with it.” Hypatia(): –. 10.1111/j.1527‑2001.1986.tb00522.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1986.tb00522.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Bousfield, Derek
    2008 Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.167
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167 [Google Scholar]
  14. Boxman-Shabtai, Lillian, and Limor Shifman
    2015 “When ethnic humor goes digital.” New Media & Society(): –. 10.1177/1461444813506972
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813506972 [Google Scholar]
  15. Carter, Ronald
    2004 Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Channell, Joanna
    1994 Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chiaro, Delia
    2017 “Humor and translation.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, ed. bySalvatore Attardo, –. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315731162‑29
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731162-29 [Google Scholar]
  18. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2005 “Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link.” Journal of Politeness Research: –. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2013 “Impoliteness: Questions and answers.” InAspects of Impoliteness, ed. byDenis Jamet, and Manuel Jobert, –. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 2016 “Impoliteness strategies.” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. byAlessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, –. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_16
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_16 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2021 “Impoliteness and hate speech: Compare and contrast.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.019 [Google Scholar]
  23. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Michael Haugh
    2014 Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑39391‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-39391-3 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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():–.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Dancygier, Barbara, and Lieven Vandelanott
    2017 “Internet memes as multimodal constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics(): –. 10.1515/cog‑2017‑0074
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0074 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dawkins, Richard
    1976 The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Dynel, Marta
    2011 “Pragmatics and linguistic research into humor.” InThe Pragmatics of Humor across Discourse Domains, ed. byMarta Dynel, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.210.01dyn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.210.01dyn [Google Scholar]
  28. 2016 “‘I has seen Image Macros!’: Advice Animals memes as visual-verbal jokes.” International Journal of Communication: –.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 2021a “COVID-19 memes going viral: On the multiple multimodal voices behind face masks.” Discourse & Society(): –. 10.1177/0957926520970385
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520970385 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2021b “Humour and (mock) aggression: Distinguishing cyberbullying from roasting.” Language & Communication: –. 10.1016/j.langcom.2021.08.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2021c “Desperately seeking intentions: Genuine and jocular insults on social media.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.017 [Google Scholar]
  32. El Refaie, Elisabeth
    2011 “The pragmatics of humor reception: Young people’s responses to a newspaper cartoon.“ Humor (): –. 10.1515/humr.2011.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2011.005 [Google Scholar]
  33. Evnine, Simon
    2018 “The anonymity of a murmur: Internet (and other) memes.” The British Journal of Aesthetics(): –. 10.1093/aesthj/ayy021
     https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayy021 [Google Scholar]
  34. Forceville, Charles
    2020 Visual and Multimodal Communication: Applying the Relevance Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190845230.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190845230.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Forceville, Charles, and Billy Clark
    2014 “Can pictures have explicatures?” Linguagem em (Dis)curso: –. 10.1590/1982‑4017‑140301‑0114
     https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-140301-0114 [Google Scholar]
  36. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar
    2010 “The YouTubification of politics, impoliteness and polarization.” InHandbook of Research on Discourse Behavior and Digital Communication: Language Structures and Social Interaction, ed. byRotimi Taiwo, –. Hershey: IGI Global. 10.4018/978‑1‑61520‑773‑2.ch035
     https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-773-2.ch035 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2022 “Moral emotions, good moral panics, social regulation, and online public shaming.” Language & Communication: –. 10.1016/j.langcom.2022.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2022.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  38. Habermas, Jürgen
    1989 The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Haugh, Michael
    2015 Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110240078
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240078 [Google Scholar]
  40. Haugh, Michael, and Derek Bousfield
    2012 “Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English.” Journal of Pragmatics(): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  41. Haugh, Michael, and Daniel Z. Kádár
    2013 Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Haugh, Michael, and Valeria Sinkeviciute
    2019 “Offence and conflict talk.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, ed. byMathew Evans, Lesley Jeffries, and Jim O’Driscoll, –. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429058011‑12
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058011-12 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hickey, Leo
    1992 “Politeness apart: Why choose indirect speech acts?” Lingua e Stile(): –.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Ifantidou, Elly, and Anna Piata
    2021 “Metaphor and mental shortcuts: The role of non-propositional effects.” Pragmatics & Cognition(): –. 10.1075/pc.21009.ifa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21009.ifa [Google Scholar]
  45. Jeffries, Lesley
    2010 Critical Stylistics: The Power of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑04516‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-04516-4 [Google Scholar]
  46. Jewitt, Carey
    2016 “Multimodal analysis.” InHandbook of Language and Digital Communication, ed. byAlexandra Georgakopoulou, and Tereza Spilioti, –. Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Jewitt, Carey, Jeff Bezemer, and Kay O’Halloran
    2016 Introducing Multimodality. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315638027
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315638027 [Google Scholar]
  48. Knobel, Michele, and Colin Lankshear
    2006 “Online memes, affinities and cultural production.” InA New Literacy Sampler, ed. byMichele Knobel, and Colin Lankshear, –. New York: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Kress, Gunther
    2010 Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen
    2006 Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd edn.). Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203619728
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203619728 [Google Scholar]
  51. Larkin-Galinanes, Christina
    2017 “An overview of humor theory.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, ed. bySalvatore Attardo, –. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315731162‑2
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731162-2 [Google Scholar]
  52. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 2014 The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Locher, Miriam A., and Derek Bousfield
    2008 “Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language.” InImpoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. byDerek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208344.0.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344.0.1 [Google Scholar]
  55. Locher, Miriam A., and Sage L. Graham
    2010 “Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics.“ InInterpersonal Pragmatics, ed. byMiriam A. Locher, and Sage L. Graham, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110214338.0.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214338.0.1 [Google Scholar]
  56. Marlow, Mikaela
    2017 “Public discourse and intergroup communication.” InOxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, ed. byJon Nussbaum. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.420
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.420 [Google Scholar]
  57. Martinec, Radan, and Andrew Salway
    2005 “A system for image-text relations in new (and old) media.” Visual Communication(): –. 10.1177/1470357205055928
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357205055928 [Google Scholar]
  58. Martinez Lirola, Maria
    2014 “Exploring visual dysphemisms in pieces of news related to immigrant minors in a Spanish newspaper.” Visual Communication(): –. 10.1177/1470357214541741
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357214541741 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mazzone, Marco
    2011 “Schemata and associative processes in pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics(): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  60. Mills, Sara
    2003 Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615238
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238 [Google Scholar]
  61. Milner, Ryan
    2013 “Pop polyvocality: Internet memes, public participation, and the Occupy Wall Street movement.” International Journal of Communication: –.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Moeschler, Jacques
    2009 “Pragmatics, propositional and non-propositional effects: Can a theory of utterance interpretation account for emotions in verbal communication?” Social Science Information(): –. 10.1177/0539018409106200
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018409106200 [Google Scholar]
  63. Nemesi, Attila
    2013 “Implicature phenomena in classical rhetoric.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  64. Oswald, Steve, and Didier Maillat
    2018 “Deceptive puns: The pragmatics of humour in puns.” InPerspectivas sobre el significado: Desde lo biológico a lo social [Perspectives on Meaning: From the Biological to the Social], ed. byCristián N. Padilla, –. La Serena: Editorial Universidad de la Serena.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Page, Ruth, David Barton, Johann W. Unger, and Michele Zappavigna
    2014 Researching Language and Social Media: A Student Guide. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315771786
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771786 [Google Scholar]
  66. Richardson, John, and Ruth Wodak
    2009 “The impact of visual racism: Visual arguments in political leaflets of Austrian and British far-right parties.” Controversia(): –.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Scott, Kate
    2020 Referring Expressions, Pragmatics, and Style: Reference and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 2021 “Memes as multimodal metaphors: A relevance theory analysis.” Pragmatics & Cognition(): –. 10.1075/pc.21010.sco
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21010.sco [Google Scholar]
  69. Shifman, Limor
    2014 Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Sifianou, Maria
    2019 “Im/politeness and in/civility: A neglected relationship?” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.008 [Google Scholar]
  71. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Stöckl, Hartmut
    2020 “Multimodality and mediality in an image-centric semiosphere – A rationale.” InVisualizing Digital Discourse: Interactional, Institutional and Ideological Perspectives, ed. byCrispin Thurlow, Christa Dürscheid, and Federica Diémoz, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501510113‑010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501510113-010 [Google Scholar]
  73. Svensson, Jakob
    2011 “The expressive turn of citizenship in digital late modernity.” JeDEM – eJournal of eDemocracy & Open Government(): –. 10.29379/jedem.v3i1.48
     https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v3i1.48 [Google Scholar]
  74. Taecharungroj, Viriya, and Pitchanut Nueangjamnong
    2015 “Humour.2.0: Styles and types of humour and virality of memes on Facebook.” Journal of Creative Communications(): –. 10.1177/0973258615614420
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0973258615614420 [Google Scholar]
  75. Terry, Adeline
    2020 “Euphemistic dysphemisms and dysphemistic euphemisms as means to convey irony and banter.” Language and Literature(): –. 10.1177/0963947020910624
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947020910624 [Google Scholar]
  76. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    1998 Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Van Leeuwen, Theo
    2000 “Visual racism.” InThe Semiotics of Racism: Approaches in Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. byMartin Reisigl, and Ruth Wodak, –. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 2008 Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  79. Vásquez, Camilla
    2019 Language, Creativity and Humour Online. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315159027
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315159027 [Google Scholar]
  80. Walther, Joseph
    2011 “Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations.” InThe SAGE Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (4th edn.), ed. byMark Knapp, and John Dally, –. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Weaver, Simon
    2011 “Jokes, rhetoric and embodied racism: A rhetorical discourse analysis of the logics of racist jokes on the Internet.” Ethnicities(): –. 10.1177/1468796811407755
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796811407755 [Google Scholar]
  82. 2016 The Rhetoric of Racist Humour: US, UK and Global Race Joking. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315553504
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315553504 [Google Scholar]
  83. Weitz, Eric
    2017 “Online and internet humor.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, ed. BySalvatore Attardo, –. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315731162‑35
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731162-35 [Google Scholar]
  84. Wharton, Tim
    2009 Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635649
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635649 [Google Scholar]
  85. Wilson, Deirdre
    2018 “Relevance theory and literary interpretation.” InReading Beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory, ed. ByTerence Cave, and Deirdre Wilson, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Wodak, Ruth, Jonathan Culpeper, and Elena Semino
    2021 “Shameless normalisation of impoliteness: Berlusconi’s and Trump’s press conferences.” Discourse & Society(): –. 10.1177/0957926520977217
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520977217 [Google Scholar]
  87. Yoon, InJeong
    2016 “Why is it not just a joke? Analysis of Internet memes associated with racism and hidden ideology of colorblindness.” Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education(): –. 10.2458/jcrae.4898
     https://doi.org/10.2458/jcrae.4898 [Google Scholar]
  88. Yus, Francisco
    2019 “Multimodality in memes: A cyberpragmatic approach. InAnalyzing Digital Discourse New Insights and Future Directions, ed. byPatricia Bou-Franch, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, –. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑92663‑6_4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92663-6_4 [Google Scholar]
  89. 2021a “Incongruity-resolution humorous strategies in image macro memes.” Internet Pragmatics(): –. 10.1075/ip.00058.yus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00058.yus [Google Scholar]
  90. 2021b “Pragmatics of humour in memes in Spanish.” Spanish in Context(): –. 10.1075/sic.00070.yus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.00070.yus [Google Scholar]
  91. Zappavigna, Michele
    2012 Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00106.alt
Loading
Humorous but hateful
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00106.alt
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00106.alt
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00106.alt
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: anti-Muslim memes ; visual dysphemism ; linguistic impoliteness ; multimodality ; humor

Most Cited

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