1887
image of Impoliteness in social media
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This research examines impoliteness on Facebook as used by Syrian commenters on a video posted by YouTuber, Barhom M3arawi. The research, which adopts a qualitative approach, also investigates the moral foundations underlying commenters’ use and evaluation of impoliteness. The data, which comprise 200 comments, were analyzed following Culpeper (2005, 2011). The results reveal that commenters employed 270 on-record and off-record impoliteness strategies, with the majority opting for on-record impoliteness, specifically positive impoliteness. The most frequently used impoliteness strategies are belittling, insults, and rhetorical questions. The strategies also exhibit culture-specific features such as the use of God’s name and vocatives. Analysis of metapragmatic comments indicates that commenters evaluate the video as impolite, as reflected in their expression of negative emotions. This evaluation appears to be rooted in the perception that Barhom’s behavior violated the moral foundation of authority/respect. Additionally, the results suggest that fairness/reciprocity also underlies commenters’ evaluations of impoliteness. Thus, commenters seem to use impoliteness as a response to perceived moral transgressions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00142.hod
2026-03-17
2026-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abu-Farha, Ibrahim, and Walid Magdy
    2020 “From arabic sentiment analysis to sarcasm detection: The arsarcasm dataset.” InProceedings of The 4th Workshop on Open-Source Arabic Corpora and Processing Tools, ed. byHend Al-Khalifa, Walid Magdy, Kareem Darwish, Tamer Elsayed, Hamdy Mubarak, –. Marseille: European Language Resource Association. https://aclanthology.org/2020.osact-1.5.pdf (accessed23 March 2024).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arendholz, Jenny
    2013(In)Appropriate Online Behavior: A Pragmatic Analysis of Message Board Relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.229
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.229 [Google Scholar]
  3. Biezma, Maria, and Kyle Rawlins
    2017 “Rhetorical questions: Severing questioning from asking.” InProceedings of the 27th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, ed. byDan Burgdorf, Jacob Collard, Sireemas Maspong, and Brynhildur Stefánsdóttir, –. 10.3765/salt.v27i0.4155
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v27i0.4155 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bou-Franch, Patricia, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    2014 “Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bousfield, Derek
    2008Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.167
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167 [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 Pragmatics(): –. 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 Research: –. 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. 2016 “Impoliteness strategies.” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture, and Society, ed.Alessandro Capone, and Jacob Mey, –. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_16 [Google Scholar]
  11. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Vittorio Tantucci
    2021 “The principle of (im)politeness reciprocity.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  12. Danet, Brenda
    2013 “Flaming and linguistic impoliteness on Listserv.” InPragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication, ed. bySusan C. Herring, Dieter Stein, and Tuija Virtanen, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110214468.639
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468.639 [Google Scholar]
  13. del Saz-Rubio, Ma Milagros
    2023 “Assessing impoliteness-related language in response to a season’s greeting posted by the Spanish and English Prime Ministers on Twitter.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.01.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.01.010 [Google Scholar]
  14. Derks, Daantje, Arjan E. R. Bos, and Jasper von Grumbkow
    2007 “Emoticons and social interaction on the internet: The importance of social context.” Computers in Human Behavior: –. 10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.013 [Google Scholar]
  15. Derks, Daantje, Agneta H. Fischer and Arjan E. R. Bos
    2008 “The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: A review.” Computers in Human Behavior(): –. 10.1016/j.chb.2007.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Donath, Judith S.
    1999 “Identity and deception in the virtual community.” InCommunities in Cyberspace, ed. byPeter Kollock, and Marc Smith, –. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. DuBois, John W.
    2008 “The stance triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. byRobert Englebretson, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  18. Dynel, Marta
    2016 “Pejoration via sarcastic irony and sarcasm.” InPejoration, ed.Rita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer, and Heike Wiese, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.228.10dyn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.228.10dyn [Google Scholar]
  19. 2017 “Participation as audience design.” InPragmatics of Social Media, ed. byChristian R. Hoffmann, and Wolfram Bublitz, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110431070‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431070-003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Eelen, Gino
    2001A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Fukushima, Saeko, and Maria Sifianou
    2017 “Conceptualizing politeness in Japanese and Greek.” Intercultural Pragmatics(): –. 10.1515/ip‑2017‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0024 [Google Scholar]
  22. Garfinkel, Harold
    1964 “Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities.” Social Problems(): –. 10.2307/798722
    https://doi.org/10.2307/798722 [Google Scholar]
  23. Georgakopoulou, Alex, and Maria Vasilaki
    2018 “The personal and/as the political: Small storiesand impoliteness in online discussions of the Greek crisis.” Internet Pragmatics(): –. 10.1075/ip.00011.geo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00011.geo [Google Scholar]
  24. Graham, Sage Lambert
    2017 “Politeness and impoliteness.” InPragmatics of Social Media, ed. byChristian R. Hoffmann, and Wolfram Bublitz, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110431070‑017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431070-017 [Google Scholar]
  25. Graham, Sage Lambert, and Claire Hardaker
    2017 “(Im)politeness in digital communication.” InThe Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. byJonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, –. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_30
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_30 [Google Scholar]
  26. Haidt, Jonathan
    2003 “The moral emotion.” InHandbook of Affective Sciences, ed. byRichard J. Davidson, Klaus R. Scherer, and H. Hill Goldsmith, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2012The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hassan, Bahaa-eddin A.
    2019 “Impolite viewer responses in Arabic political TV talk shows on YouTube.” Pragmatics(): –. 10.1075/prag.18025.has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18025.has [Google Scholar]
  29. Haugh, Michael
    2010 “When is an email really offensive? Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research(): –. 10.1515/jplr.2010.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2013 “Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2015 “Impoliteness and taking offence in initial interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018 [Google Scholar]
  32. Herring, Susan C.
    1996 “Introduction.” InComputer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives, ed. bySusan C. Herring, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.39
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.39 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2007 “A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse.” Language@Internet. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/li/article/view/37562 (accessed20 March 2023).
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hodeib, Christina
    2019 “Apology strategies in Syrian Arabic.” Argumentum: –.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2024 “Conceptualizations and evaluations of (im)politeness in Syrian Arabic.” Journal of Politeness Research(): –. 10.1515/pr‑2020‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2020-0016 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kádár, Dániel Z., and Michael Haugh
    2013Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kapoor, Shrutika
    2022 “‘Don’t act like a Sati-Savitri!’: Hinglish and other impoliteness strategies in Indian YouTube comments.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.12.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.12.009 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kiesler, Sara, Jane Siegel, and Timothy W. McGuire
    1984 “Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication.” American Psychologist(): –. 10.1037/0003‑066X.39.10.1123
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lea, Martin, and Russell Spears
    1991 “Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making.” International Journal of Man-machine Studies(): –. 10.1016/0020‑7373(91)90045‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(91)90045-9 [Google Scholar]
  40. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    2014The Pragmatics of Politeness. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Locher, Miriam A.
    2010 “Introduction: Politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communication.” Journal of Politeness Research(): –. 10.1515/jplr.2010.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Locher, Miriam A., Brook Bolander, and Nicole Höhn
    2015 “Introducing relational work in Facebook and discussion boards.” Pragmatics(): –.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Locher, Miriam A., and Richard J. Watts
    2008 “Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour.” InImpoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. byMiriam A. Locher, and Derek Bousfield, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208344.2.77
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344.2.77 [Google Scholar]
  44. Moore, Michael J., Tadashi Nakano, Akihiro Enomoto, and Taysuya Suda
    2012 “Anonymity and roles associated with aggressive posts in an online forum.” Computers in Human Behavior(): –. 10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  45. Neuman, W. Lawrence
    2007Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Parvaresh, Vahid, and Dániel Z. Kádár
    2019 “Introduction.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict(): –. 10.1075/jlac.00016.par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00016.par [Google Scholar]
  47. Parvaresh, Vahid, and Tahmineh Tayebi
    2018 “Impoliteness, aggression and the moral order.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  48. Rabab’ah, Ghaleb, and Nusiebah Alali
    2020 “Impoliteness in reader comments on the Al-Jazeera channel news website.” Journal of Politeness Research(): –. 10.1515/pr‑2017‑0028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2017-0028 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schirmer, Werner, Linda Weidenstedt, and Wendelin Reich
    2012 “Respect and agency: An empirical exploration.” Current Sociology(): –. 10.1177/0011392111421531
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392111421531 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schubert, Christopher
    2017 “Discourse and cohesion.” InPragmatics of Social Media, ed.Christian R. Hoffmann, and Wolfram Bublitz, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110431070‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431070-012 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sinkeviciute, Valeria
    2018 ““Ya bloody drongo!!!” Impoliteness as situated moral judgement on Facebook.” Internet Pragmatics(): –. 10.1075/ip.00013.sin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00013.sin [Google Scholar]
  52. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    2008 “Face, (im)politeness and rapport.” InCulturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory (2nd edn.), ed. byHelen Spencer-Oatey, –. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 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 Pragmatics(): –. 10.1558/eap.v1i1.29084
    https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.v1i1.29084 [Google Scholar]
  54. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Stratton, Samuel J.
    2024 “Purposeful sampling: Advantages and pitfalls.” Prehospital and Disaster Medicine(): –. 10.1017/S1049023X24000281
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X24000281 [Google Scholar]
  56. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1995 “Ideological discourse analysis.” InInterdisciplinary Approaches to Discourse Analysis, ed. byEija Ventola, and Anna Solin, –. Department of English, University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Wilson, Robert E., Samuel D. Gosling, and Lindsay T. Graham
    2012 “A review of Facebook research in the social sciences.” Perspectives on Psychological Science(): –. 10.1177/1745691612442904
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612442904 [Google Scholar]
  58. Zaharna, R. S.
    1995 “Understanding cultural preferences of Arab communication patterns.” Public Relations Review(): –. 10.1016/0363‑8111(95)90024‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(95)90024-1 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00142.hod
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00142.hod
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Facebook ; Syrian Arabic ; moral order ; social media ; impoliteness
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