1887
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The paper investigates how (de)legitimization and impoliteness are interconnected in the ethno-sectarian conflicts that take place in online news response threads. (De)legitimization is conceptualized as a micro argumentative practice that can index the interlocutors’ sociopolitical stances and position them in relation to each other in inter-group contestations. Using multi-tiered positioning analysis, a distinction was made between exogenous and endogenous impoliteness assessments each of which occurred at a different spatiotemporal level of the interactions. This distinction elucidates how impoliteness assessments can trigger and be triggered by (de)legitimization. To understand how (de)legitimization might trigger impoliteness assessments, I differentiate between face-related and identity-related impoliteness, which were both used strategically to deepen the ethno-sectarian divisions in this online context. In the online conflicts in question, collective impoliteness was sometimes motivated by legitimization, rather than delegitimization, even though legitimization involves no violation of the genre-sanctioned interactional norms or the moral order. That was because legitimization functioned in binary oppositions, and, as such, was perceived by out-group members as provocative impingement on their ethno-sectarian communities’ sociopolitical rights.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.4.2.07alt
2016-12-16
2019-08-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Tahmazi, Thulfiqar
    2015 “The Pursuit of Power in Iraqi Political Discourse: Unpacking the Construction of Sociopolitical Communities on Facebook.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses10 (2): 47–265. doi: 10.1080/17447143.2015.1042383
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2015.1042383 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bamberg, Michael
    1997 “Positioning between Structure and Performance.” Journal of Narrative and Life History7: 335–342. doi: 10.1075/jnlh.7.42pos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.42pos [Google Scholar]
  3. Bou-Franch, Patricia , and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar
    2014 “Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube”. Journal of Pragmatics, 73:19–36. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cap, Piotr
    2010Legitimisation in Political Discourse: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chilton, Paul
    2004Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chovanec, Jan
    2010 “Legitimation through Differentiation: Discursive Construction of Jacques Le Worm Chirac as an Opponent to Military Action.” InPerspective in Politics and Discourse, ed. by Urszula Okulska and Piotr Cap , 60–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.36.07cho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.36.07cho [Google Scholar]
  7. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  8. Culpeper, Jonathan , Gila Shauer , Leyla Marti , Meilian Mei , and Minna Nevala
    2014 “Impoliteness and Emotions in a Crosscultural Perspective.” SPELL: Swiss Papers in English Language and Literature30: 67–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dahlberg, Lincoln
    2007 “Rethinking the Fragmentation of the Cyberpublic: From Consensus to Contestation.” Journal of New Media and Society9 (5): 827–847. doi: 10.1177/1461444807081228
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807081228 [Google Scholar]
  10. Davies, Bronwyn , and Harré, Rom
    1990 “Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour20 (1): 43–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.1990.tb00174.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Diamond, Julie
    1996Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.40
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.40 [Google Scholar]
  12. Eelen, Gino
    2001A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fuller, Graham , and Rend Rahim Francke
    2001The Arab Shi’a: The Forgotten Muslims. New York: St. Martin’s Press. doi: 10.1057/9780230108202
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230108202 [Google Scholar]
  14. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar
    2010 “The YouTubification of Politics, Impoliteness and Polarization.” Inthe Handbook of Research on Discourse Behavior and Digital Communication: Language Structures and Social Interaction, ed. by Rotimi Taiwo , 540–563. New York: Information Science Reference. doi: 10.4018/978‑1‑61520‑773‑2.ch035
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-773-2.ch035 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2013 “Introduction: Face, Identity and Im/politeness. Looking Backward, Moving Forward.” Journal of Politeness Research9 (1): 1–33. doi: 10.1515/pr‑2013‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2013-0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar , Patricia Bou-Franch , and Nuria Lorenzo-Dus
    2013 “Identity and Impoliteness: The Expert in the Talent Show Idol .” Journal of Politeness Research9 (1): 97–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Habermas, Jurgen
    1984The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1989The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge and Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hall, Gary
    2008Digitize this Book: The Politics of New Media, or Why We Need Open Access Now. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Haugh, Michael
    2013 “Im/politeness, Social Practice and the Participation Order.” Journal of Pragmatics58: 52–72. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2015Im/Politeness Implicature. Berlin, Munich and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110240078
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240078 [Google Scholar]
  22. Herring, Susan C
    2007 “A Faceted Classification Scheme for Computer-mediated Discourse.” [email protected] internet4 (1): 1–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kádár, Dániel, Z. , and Michael Haugh
    2013Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kaul de Marlangeon, Silvia
    2008 “Impoliteness in Institutional and Non-institutional Contexts.” Pragmatics18 (4): 729–749. doi: 10.1075/prag.18.4.08kau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18.4.08kau [Google Scholar]
  25. KhosraviNik, Majid
    2010 “Macro and Micro Legitimation in Discourse on Iran’s Nuclear Programme: The Case of Iranian National Newspaper Kayhan.” Discourse and Society7 (1): 55–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2014 “Critical Discourse Analysis, Power and New Media: Issues and Debates.” InWhy Discourse Matters: Negotiating Identity in the Mediatized World, ed. by Monika Weronika Kopytowska and Yusuf Kalyango , 287–306. New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2015 “Actor Descriptions, Action Attributions, and Argumentation: Towards a Systematization of CDA Analytical Categories in the Representation of Social Groups.” Critical Discourse Studies7 (1): 55–72. doi: 10.1080/17405900903453948
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900903453948 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kleinke, Sonja , and Brite Bös
    2008 “Intergroup Rudeness and the Metapragmatics of its Negotiation in Online Discussion Fora.” Pragmatics25 (1): 47–71. doi: 10.1075/prag.25.1.03kle
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.25.1.03kle [Google Scholar]
  29. Lange, Patricia G
    2014 “Commenting on YouTube Rants: Perceptions of Inappropriateness or Civic Engagement?” Journal of Pragmatics73: 53–65. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  30. Langlotz, Andreas , and Miriam Locher
    2012 “Ways of Communicating Emotional Stance in online Disagreements.” Journal of Pragmatics44: 1591–1606. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  31. Linell, Per
    1998 “Discourse Across Boundaries: On Recontextualizations and the Blending of Voices in Professional Discourse.” Text and Talk18 (2): 43–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Locher, Miriam , and Derek Bousfield
    2008 “Introduction: Impoliteness and Power in Language.” InImpoliteness in Language, ed. by Derek Bousfield and Miriam Locher , 1–13. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110208344
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344 [Google Scholar]
  33. Markham, Annette , and the AoIR ethics Working Committee
    2012Ethical Decision-making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Approved by AoIR, 12/2012. RetrievedSeptember 13, 2013, fromaoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Martín Rojo, Luisa , and Teun van Dijk
    1997 “‘There was a Problem and it was Solved!’ Legitimation the Expulsion of ‘Illegal’ Immigrants in Spanish Parliamentary Discourse.” Discourse and Society8 (4): 523–567. doi: 10.1177/0957926597008004005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008004005 [Google Scholar]
  35. Marwick, Alice , and danah boyd
    2011 “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience”. New Media and Society13 (1): 114–133. doi: 10.1177/1461444810365313
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mitchell, Nathaniel , and Michael Haugh
    2015 “Agency, Accountability and Evaluations of Impoliteness.” Journal of Politeness Research11 (2): 207–238. doi: 10.1515/pr‑2015‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0009 [Google Scholar]
  37. Reisigl, Martin , and Ruth Wodak
    2001Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Reyes, Antonio
    2011 “Strategies of Legitimization in Political Discourse: From Words to Actions.” Discourse and Society22 (6): 781–807. doi: 10.1177/0957926511419927
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419927 [Google Scholar]
  39. Ruhi, Şükriye , and Hale Işık-Güler
    2007 “Conceptualizing Face and Relational Work in (Im)politeness: Revelations from Politeness Lexemes and Idioms in Turkish.” Journal of Pragmatics39 (4): 681–711. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.013 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sellers, Mortimer
    2004 “Ideals of Public Discourse.” InCivility and its Discontents, ed. by Christine Sistare , 15–24. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sowińska, Agnieszka , and Tatiana Dubrovskaya
    2012 “Discursive Construction and Transformation of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ Categories in the Newspaper Coverage on the US Anti-ballistic Missile system: Polish versus Russian View.” Discourse and Society6 (4): 449–468.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    2005 “(Im)politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport : Unpackaging their Bases and Interrelationships.” Journal of Politeness Research1 (1): 95–119. doi: 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2008 “Face, (Im)Politeness and Rapport”. InCulturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, 2nd ed., ed. by Helen Spencer-Oatey , 11–47. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Svensson, Jakob
    2008 “Expressive Rationality: A Different Approach for Understanding Participation in Municipal Deliberative Practices.” Communication and Culture Critique1: 203–221. doi: 10.1111/j.1753‑9137.2008.00019.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-9137.2008.00019.x [Google Scholar]
  45. Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa
    2007 “Metapragmatic utterances in computer-mediated interaction.”InMetapragmatics in Use, eds. by Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler , 87–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.07tan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.07tan [Google Scholar]
  46. Van Dijk, Teun
    1998Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Van Leeuwen, Theo
    2007 “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse and Communication1 (1): 91–112. doi: 10.1177/1750481307071986
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2008Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.4.2.07alt
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