1887
Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper analyses a snapshot of a conflictive Greek YouTube polylogue dealing with the issue of public online female nudity and the norms pertaining to both the act itself and its verbal critique. The said polylogue contains a markedly high proportion of lay (im)politeness/(in)appropriateness evaluations (Locher and Watts 2005). By quantifying and critically analyzing key lexical impoliteness (Culpeper 2011) and metapragmatic markers contained in the evaluations, I identify the ways in which the norms of online verbal behaviour are discursively negotiated amongst the polylogue participants, focusing especially on the arguments and justifications underlying the suggested norms. It is found that, firstly, the notions of (im)politeness/(in)appropriateness emerge as open to fierce, yet heavily argument-supported discursive dispute; secondly, sexualized slang functions both as an object of critique and as an extremely versatile rhetorical instrument serving metapragmatic argumentation; and, thirdly, online (im)politeness/(in)appropriateness is construed not as a superficial matter of netiquette, but as a deeply ethical and political-ideological controversy, especially regarding speech liberty and political correctness.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00037.hat
2020-06-11
2020-12-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge
    2006Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511617881
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617881 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anastasiadi-Simeonidi, Anna
    2008 “Το Mόρφημα θεο- στην Eλληνική [The Morpheme theo- in Greek].” InΓλώσσης Χάριν – Τόμος αφιερωμένος από τον Τομέα Γλωσσολογίας στον καθηγητή Γεώργιο Μπαμπινιώτη [For Language’s Sake: A Volume Dedicated by the Department of Linguistics to Professor Georgios Babiniotis], ed. byAmalia Mozer, Ekaterini Bakakou-Orfanou, Christoforos Charalambakis, and Despina Chila-Markopoulou, 99–113. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Angouri, Jo, and Tseliga, Theodora
    2010 “‘you HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!’: From E-disagreement to E-impoliteness in Two Online Fora.” Journal of Politeness Research6: 57–82. 10.1515/jplr.2010.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.004 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arendholz, Jenny
    2013(In)appropriate Online Behavior: A Pragmatic Analysis of Message Board Relations. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.229
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.229 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    2005 “The Metapragmatics of Politeness in Israeli Society.” InPoliteness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 2nd edition, ed. byRichard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich, 225–280. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110199819.2.255
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199819.2.255 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bou-Franch, Patricia, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    2014 “Conflict Management in Massive Polylogues: A Case Study from YouTube.” Journal of Pragmatics73: 19–36. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2016 “Gender Ideology and Social Identity Processes in Online Language Aggression Against Women.” InExploring Language Aggression Against Women, ed. byPatricia Bou-Franch, 59–81. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.86.03bou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.86.03bou [Google Scholar]
  8. Bourdieu, Pierre
    1984Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chovanec, Jan
    2015 “Participant Roles and Embedded Interactions in Online Sports Broadcasts.” InParticipation in Public and Social Media Interactions, ed. byMarta Dynel, and Jan Chovanec, 67–95. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Christopoulou, Katerina
    2016 Μια λεξικολογική προσέγγιση στο περιθωριακό λεξιλόγιο της Νέας Ελληνικής. [A lexicological approach to the slang vocabulary of Modern Greek]. PhD Thesis, University of Patras.
  11. Christopoulou, Κaterina, and Giorgos J. Xydopoulos
    2014 “Issues d’équivalence en Grec et en Anglais Argotique: les cas de ‘malákas’, ‘ghamó’ et ‘fuck’. [Issues of Equivalence in Greek and English Slang: The Case of ‘malákas’, ‘ghamó’ and ‘fuck’.]” Argotica1 (3): 45–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  13. Eelen, Gino
    2001A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK & Northampton, MA: St. Jerome Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, Nuria Lorenzo-Dus, and Patricia Bou-Franch
    2010 “A Genre Approach to Impoliteness in a Spanish Television Talk Show: Evidence from Corpus Analysis, Questionnaires and Focus Groups.” Intercultural Pragmatics7 (4): 689–723. 10.1515/iprg.2010.030
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.030 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gavriilidou, Zoe
    2014 “Intensifying Prefixes in Greek.” InSelected Papers of the 11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Rhodes, 26–29 September 2013, ed. byG. Kotzoglou, K. Nikolou, E. Karantzola, K. Frantzi, I. Galantomos, M. Georgalidou, V. Kourti-Kazoullis, C. Papadopoulou, and E. Vlachou, 468–478. Rhodes: University of the Aegean.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gherardi, Silvia
    1995Gender, Symbolism and Organizational Cultures. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ginsburg, Judith
    2005Representing Agrippina: Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Graham, Sage L.
    2007 “Disagreeing to Agree: Conflict, (Im)politeness and Identity in a Computer-mediated Community.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 742–759. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2019 “Interaction and Conflict in Digital Communication.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, ed. byMatthew Evans, Leslie Jeffries, and Jim O’Driscoll, 310–328. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429058011‑17
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058011-17 [Google Scholar]
  20. Haugh, Michael
    2007 “The Discursive Challenge to Politeness Research: An Interactional Alternative.” Journal of Politeness Research3: 295–317. 10.1515/PR.2007.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.013 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2010 “When is an Email Really Offensive?: Argumentativity and Variability in Evaluations of Impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research6: 7–31. 10.1515/jplr.2010.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.002 [Google Scholar]
  22. Herring, Susan C., Dieter Stein, and Tuija Virtanen
    2013 “Introduction to the Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication.” InPragmatics of Computer Mediated Communication, ed. bySusan C. Herring, Dieter Stein, and Tuija Virtanen, 3–32. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214468.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468.3 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hutchby, Ian
    2001 “‘Oh’, Irony and Sequential Ambiguity in Arguments.” Discourse and Society12: 123–141. 10.1177/0957926501012002001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012002001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jane, Emma A.
    2014 “‘Back to the Kitchen, Cunt’: Speaking the Unspeakable about Online Misogyny.” Journal of Media and Cultural Studies28 (4): 558–570. 10.1080/10304312.2014.924479
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2014.924479 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2017Misogyny Online: A Short (and Brutish) History. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781473916029
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473916029 [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnston, Elizabeth
    2017 “‘Let them Know that Men Did this’: Medusa, Rape and Female Rivalry in Contemporary Film and Women’s Writing.”InBad Girls and Transgressive Women in Popular Television, Fiction, and Film, ed. byJulie A. Chappell, and Mallory Young, 183–208. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑47259‑1_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47259-1_10 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kádár, Dániel
    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]
  28. Kádár, Dániel, and Rosina Márquez-Reiter
    2015 “(Im)politeness and (Im)morality: Insights from Intervention.” Journal of Politeness Research11 (2): 239–260.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kakridis, Ioannis Th.
    1986Ελληνική Μυθολογία: Οι Θεοί. [Greek Mythology: Gods]. Athens: Ekdotiki Athinon.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Karaian, Lara
    2013 “Policing ‘Sexting’: Responsibilization, Respectability and Sexual Subjectivity in Child Protection/Crime Prevention Responses to Teenagers’ Digital Sexual Expression.” Theoretical Criminology18 (3): 282–299. 10.1177/1362480613504331
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480613504331 [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. Levine, Étan
    2009Marital Relations in Ancient Judaism. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Locher, Miriam A.
    2004Power and Politeness in Action. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110926552
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110926552 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2010Power and Politeness in Action. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 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]
  36. 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, 1–13. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208344
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344 [Google Scholar]
  37. Locher, Miriam A., and Richard J. Watts
    2005 “Politeness Theory and Relational Work.” Journal of Politeness Research1: 9–33. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2008 “Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating Norms of Linguistic Behaviour.” InImpoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. byDerek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 77–99. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208344
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, and Patricia Bou-Franch
    2011 “On-line Polylogues and Impoliteness: The Case of Postings Sent in Response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube Video.” Journal of Pragmatics43: 2578–2593. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mills, Sara
    2017English Politeness and Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316336922
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316336922 [Google Scholar]
  41. Nishimura, Yukiko
    2010 Impoliteness in Japanese BBS Interactions: Observations from Message Exchanges in two Online Communities. Journal of Politeness Research6: 33–55. 10.1515/jplr.2010.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.003 [Google Scholar]
  42. Ross, Sharon
    2004 ““Tough Enough”: Female Friendship and Heroism in Xena and Buffy.” InAction Chicks: New Images of Tough Women in Popular Culture, ed. bySherrie A. Inness, 231–256. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781403981240_10
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403981240_10 [Google Scholar]
  43. Russell, Bertrand
    1930The Conquest of Happiness. London: George Allen and Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Savvidou, Paraskevi
    2012 “Μετριασμός και Επίταση με τη Χρήση των Μορφημάτων ψιλο- και θεο-: Ανάλυση σε Σώματα Κειμένων. [Mitigation and Intensification via the Use of the Morphemes psilo- and theo-: A Corpus-Based Analysis.]” InSelected Papers of the 10th International Conference of Greek Linguistics, 1–4 September 2011, Komotini, ed. byZoe Gavriilidou, Angeliki Efthymiou, Evangelia Thomadaki, and Penelope Kambakis-Vougiouklis, 1092–1099. Komotini: Democritus University of Thrace.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sifianou, Maria
    1992Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2015 “Conceptualizing Politeness in Greek: Evidence from Twitter.” Journal of Pragmatics86: 25–30. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.019 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2019 “Conflict, Disagreement and (Im)politeness.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, ed. byMatthew Evans, Leslie Jeffries, and Jim O’Driscoll, 176–195. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429058011‑11
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058011-11 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sifianou, Maria, and Spiridoula Bella
    2019 “Twitter, Politeness, Self-Presentation.” InAnalyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions, ed. byPatricia Bou-Franch, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 341–365. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑92663‑6_12
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92663-6_12 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sutherland, Kate
    2003 “From Jailbird to Jailbait: Age of Consent Laws and the Construction of Teenage Sexualities.” William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law9 (3): 131–349.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Turner, Graeme
    2010Ordinary People and the Media: The Demotic Turn. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. van Leeuwen, Theo.
    2008Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Wallace, Diana
    2000Sisters and Rivals in British Women’s Fiction, 1914–39. Hampshire: Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230598805
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230598805 [Google Scholar]
  53. Watts, Richard J.
    2003Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2005 “Linguistic Politeness Research: Quo Vadis?.” InPoliteness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 2nd edition, ed. byRichard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich, xi-xlvii. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199819.1.131
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199819.1.131 [Google Scholar]
  55. Watts, Richard J., Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich
    2005Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 2nd edition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199819
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199819 [Google Scholar]
  56. Werkhofer, Konrad T.
    2005 “Traditional and Modern Views: The Social Constitution and Power of Politeness.” InPoliteness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 2nd edition, ed. byRichard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich, 155–199. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi  10.1515/9783110199819.1.155
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199819.1.155 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00037.hat
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00037.hat
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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