Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Accusations of trolling (deceiving participants about one’s communicative intention, conducted for amusement, Dynel 2016; Hardaker 2013) and bad faith (dishonestly denying a speaker’s committing meaning, de Saussure and Oswald 2009; Oswald 2022) abound in digitally mediated communication. The chosen by posters significantly impact the outcome of discussions, as accusations of trolling tend to result in more abrupt settlements of disputes compared to accusations of bad faith. However, proving these deceptive activities can be challenging for posters. As a result, they often substantiate the “bad faith” label by mentioning in their accusations what they perceive as strategies indicating their interlocutors’ bad faith.

In this paper, I examine 161 accusations of trolling and bad faith gathered from a forum. The analysis draws on Hardaker’s (2010, 2013) research and proposes a comparison of the strategies mentioned in these accusations. The aim is to describe the ways in which posters justify the label they opt for when confronted with deceptive activities.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Benveniste, Émile
    1966 “La nature des pronoms.” Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Binns, Amy
    2012 “DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!: Managing Troublemakers in Magazines’ Online Communities.” Journalism Practice6 (4): 547–562. 10.1080/17512786.2011.648988
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2011.648988 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bishop, Jonathan
    2012 “The Psychology of Trolling and Lurking: The Role of Defriending and Gamification for Increasing Participation in Online Communities Using Seductive Narratives.” InVirtual Community Participation and Motivation: Cross-Disciplinary Theories, ed. byHonglei Li, 160–176. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. 10.4018/978‑1‑4666‑0312‑7.ch010
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-0312-7.ch010 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bourcier, Danièle, and Oswald Ducrot
    1980Les mots du discours. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Coles, Bryn Alexander, and Melanie West
    2016 “Trolling the Trolls: Online Forum Users Constructions of the Nature and Properties of Trolling.” Computers in Human Behavior601: 233–244. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.070
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.070 [Google Scholar]
  6. Doury, Marianne
    2003 “L’évaluation des arguments dans les discours ordinaires: Le cas de l’accusation d’amalgame.” InLangage et société105 (3): 9–37. 10.3917/ls.105.0009
    https://doi.org/10.3917/ls.105.0009 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2008 “‘Ce n’est pas un argument !’ Sur quelques aspects des théorisations spontanées de l’argumentation.” InPratiques139–1401: 111–128. 10.4000/pratiques.1207
    https://doi.org/10.4000/pratiques.1207 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dynel, Marta
    2016 “‘Trolling Is Not Stupid’: Internet Trolling as the Art of Deception Serving Entertainment.” Intercultural Pragmatics13 (3): 353–381. 10.1515/ip‑2016‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0015 [Google Scholar]
  9. Eemeren, Frans Hendrik van, Bart Garssen, Erik. C. W. Krabbe, Arnolda Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, and Jean Hubert Martin Wagemans
    2014Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer Reference. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9473‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 [Google Scholar]
  10. Goffman, Erving
    [1973] 1996Les relations en public. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hardaker, Claire
    2010 “Trolling in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication: From User Discussions to Academic Definitions.” Journal of Politeness Research6 (2): 215–242. 10.1515/jplr.2010.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.011 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2013 “‘Uh… Not to Be Nitpicky,,,,,but…the Past Tense of Drag Is Dragged, Not Drug.’ An Overview of Trolling Strategies.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict1 (1): 58–86. 10.1075/jlac.1.1.04har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.1.1.04har [Google Scholar]
  13. Herring, Susan, Kirk Job-Sluder, Rebecca Scheckler, and Sasha Barab
    2002 “Searching for Safety Online: Managing ‘Trolling’ in a Feminist Forum.” The Information Society181: 371–384. 10.1080/01972240290108186
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240290108186 [Google Scholar]
  14. Mazzarella, Diana
    2015 “Pragmatics and Epistemic Vigilance: The Employment of Sophisticated Interpretative Strategies.” Croatian Journal of PhilosophyXV (44): 183–199.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Müller, Misha-Laura
    2016 Plausible Deniability: From Gricean Pragmatics to the Insights of Relevance Theory. Master thesis. Neuchatel University.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Oswald, Steve
    2022 “Insinuation is Committing.” Journal of Pragmatics1981: 158–170. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.07.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.07.006 [Google Scholar]
  17. Pinker, Steven, Martin A. Nowak, and James J. Lee
    2008 “The Logic of Indirect Speech.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105 (3): 833–838. 10.1073/pnas.0707192105
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707192105 [Google Scholar]
  18. Plantin, Christian
    1996L’argumentation. Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2002 “Argumentation Studies and Discourse Analysis: The French Situation and Global Perspectives.” InDiscourse Studies4 (3): 343–368. 10.1177/14614456020040030501
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040030501 [Google Scholar]
  20. Preece, Jennifer
    2000Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. Chichester: John Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Rheingold, Howard
    1993The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Richardson, John
    2004(Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.9 [Google Scholar]
  23. de Saussure, Louis, and Steve Oswald
    2009 “Argumentation et engagement du locuteur : Pour un point de vue subjectiviste.” Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française291 : 215–243.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Spears, Russell, and Martin Lea
    1992 “Social Influence and the Influence of the ‘Social’ in Computer-Mediated Communication.” InContexts of Computermediated Communication, ed. byMartin Lea, 30–65. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    ([1986] 1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson
    2010 “Epistemic Vigilance.” InMind & Language25 (4): 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  27. Wason, Peter Cathcart
    1965 “The Contexts of Plausible Denial.” InJournal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior4 (1): 7–11. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(65)80060‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(65)80060-3 [Google Scholar]
  28. Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer
    (eds.) 2001Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis: Introducing Qualitative Methods. London, Thousand Oaks [Calif.]: Sage. 10.4135/9780857028020
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accusations; bad faith; digitally mediated communication; strategies; trolling
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