Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict - Online First

While many studies have recently addressed and deconstructed rightwing online language aggression and strategies of Othering, it is seldom considered how such bellicose messages are rendered culturally plausible and, as such, “recognizable” to mainstream publics. This article addresses the issue by comparing how the Norwegian extreme-right media outlet the Human Rights Service (HRS) discursively constructs Muslim and so-called non-Western immigrant identities in relation to Self/Other distinctions frequently encountered in Hollywood war cinema. Identifying three shared framing patterns — (a) differential allocation of (de)humanizing characteristics, (b) regulation of facial recognition, and (c) restricted perspective-taking — it argues that a structurally similar framework for Manichean conflict perception extends from popular war culture into public political discourse. Attention is directed to how the HRS’s representations play into, and draw tacit plausibility from, broader interpretive frames and how political rhetoric about incomprehensible, evil “Others” may assert their discursive effects by resonating with hegemonic backgrounds of meaning.

Insults are a well-recognized form of conventionalized impoliteness, yet little research explores their proliferation and conventionalization. This study analyzes Trump’s initial use of fake news as an insult during and after a 2017 press conference, followed by a diachronic examination of his usage of it on X (then Twitter) through January 2021. Through these two case studies, fake news is shown to have rapidly evolved into a conventionalized insult that can be used as a personalized negative assertion (e.g., “You are fake news!”) and as third-person negative references either as a stand-alone insult (e.g., “He is fake news!”) or as part of pejorative nicknames (e.g., “Fake News CNN”). Its spread was driven not only by Trump’s notoriety but also by the media’s amplification of it that inadvertently reinforced its use among Trump, his supporters, and others.

This study explores the effectiveness of verbal de-escalation strategies in reducing social media outrage, particularly focusing on bystanders’ roles in mitigating aggression from hostile posters. Based on the Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT), four response styles — two divergent, one convergent, and one maintaining — were evaluated. This theory suggests that an adapting communication style (convergence) should reduce hostility differently from diverging or maintaining styles. Eighty-four participants read scenarios involving verbal aggression and responded to a questionnaire on tone, bystander response, and expected outcomes. The results showed that divergent communication, using modality markers (e.g., “maybe,” “could”), was most effective in calming aggressors. Downgraders (e.g., “a little bit”) also reduced aggression, though to a lesser degree. A qualitative analysis of the open-ended question confirmed that modality markers were more successful than other strategies. The study emphasizes the importance of rhetorical choices in managing online conflict.

Despite the growing visibility of transgender individuals globally, Nigeria remains a context marked by conservative social norms and legal restrictions against gender non-conformity. Previous studies on the linguistic construction of sexual minorities in the Nigerian context have mainly focused on gay men and lesbian women, without adequate attention being paid to how trans people are represented. This study, however, considers the discourse surrounding trans identities via a specific case study: a Nigerian social media influencer and trans woman, Bobrisky, whose win as the best-dressed female at a movie premiere in March 2024 led to widespread media discourse. Through the analysis of Facebook posts, this study employs van Dijk’s social cognition approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to examine public opinion about Bobrisky’s award, shedding light on the ideologies of Nigerians towards gender identity, social perceptions, and cultural attitudes. The analysis found that linguistic and discursive strategies are employed in public discourses on Bobrisky to reinforce prevailing stereotypes and stigmas surrounding transgender identity. The discourses on Bobrisky typically reproduce cisnormative assumptions about binary sex, and that implicitly and explicitly transphobic language is often used to frame trans identities as unacceptable. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of the social construction of gender and the challenges faced by transgender individuals in Nigeria.

Parliamentary debates are adversarial in nature (Ilie 2003). This paper focuses on interruptions, which have been described as a means by which to disturb the speech of an authorised speaker (Truan 2016a), and their subsequent reactions. Herein, we aim to examine the link between the use of address forms and the conflictual nature of parliamentary debates. Drawing on cross-cultural pragmatics, our study compares data from the Finnish Eduskunta, the French Assemblée nationale, and the German Bundestag. Cross-cultural differences were found in the frequency of address forms (31% in German, 20% in French, and 10% in Finnish), although pronominal and verbal address forms were more frequent than nominal forms of address (NFAs). Beyond the default V forms, T forms challenging institutional norms were also found. Pragmatically, NFAs served as markers of “courteous attacks” (Fracchiolla and Romain 2015), resulting in a contrast between the courteous forms used and the conflictual nature of the exchange. Overall, address forms were important means for identifying the person(s) targeted by confrontational interruptions and their reactions to them.

This article presents a study on the negotiation of word meaning in the context of semantic conflict. Focusing on online discussions about whether it is acceptable to deceive children about the existence of Santa Claus, we analyse the linguistic dynamics observed in an online Swedish discussion forum. We explore how participants negotiate the meaning and appropriateness of the word ljuga (‘lying’). Our findings reveal that positioning oneself in relation to the contested word is central to the negotiation process, as participants use meta-linguistic objections and comments for negotiating word meanings, employing strategies of contrasting, explicating, and implying. Key constructions used include “x-and-x” to disqualify associated meanings, and “x-is-x” to assert inherent meanings. This research provides insights into the mechanics of semantic negotiation, demonstrating how participants manage disagreement and conflict through language in online interactions. We also show how word meaning negotiations can be used to map out the meaning potential of the negotiated word, in this case ‘lying’.

The paper examines the ideological work accomplished by the use of conventionalized impoliteness formulae in third person reference, when the person being criticized or brought into disrepute is not present in the here-and-now of interaction. Drawing on Interactional Linguistics and data from audio-recorded informal face-to-face Greek conversations, the study shows that speakers mobilize conventionalized impoliteness formulae, along with other linguistic resources, in the course of third-party assessments to evaluate sociocultural experience, and establish interlocutors’ shared negative affective stance toward the third party picked on due to their national group membership. This practice reproduces everyday nationalism that unites offenders against national ‘others’. The study enhances our understanding of the recontextualization of conventionalized impoliteness formulae in talk-in-interaction, and the role of affective stance in the discursive formation of (national) identities.

Anti-genderism discourses emerge in response to new public policies resulting from the Fourth Feminist Wave. In the case of Spain, the radical right political party Vox not only articulates an anti-genderism discourse but has also proposed the so-called Parental Pin as an alternative to feminist education. In this light, this study aims to analyse the propagandistic messages of the aforementioned party on social networks, focusing on the Parental Pin as the main theme. Furthermore, it examines the favourable feedback received from its followers. The application of Critical Discourse Analysis revealed that polarisation constitutes a fundamental resource for understanding the communicative and political strategy of the party. Results also revealed that the party conveys an image of itself as guardians of parental freedom and national values, while strategically portraying the left and feminists as adversaries.

Given the diverse backgrounds of people living in modern societies as well as the international nature of cyber-terrorist threats, profiling the type of person behind cyber-mediated crimes has become a norm in terrorist profiling practice. This study contributes to timely efficient terrorist profiling and threat assessment by showcasing an automated content analysis of cyber-mediated terrorist texts, using natural language processing technology and AI-assisted analysis. To characterise the terrorist type of texts and provide clues to threats, the study employs a ‘psycholinguistic profiling’ approach to authorship analysis (Grant 2008). That is, it seeks to describe the likelihood of an author’s engagement in violent extremist activity, identify motives for violence, and provide clues vis-a-vis would-be and actual violent behaviours. The study takes twenty texts produced by international terrorists involved in jihadism and far-right violent extremism as a case study. The findings reveal the investigative value of automated psycholinguistic profiling for security and intelligence practitioners, with the semantic patterns yielding helpful information for an understanding of the criminal nature of terrorist language. Also revealed is the attentional pattern of extremists and their discourse together with clues-based conclusions about text type, as well as ‘warning’ behaviours and motives for aggression which vary according to the authors’ ideological differences.