Cover not available
Part of
(Im)politeness and Moral Order in Online Interactions
Edited by Chaoqun Xie
[Benjamins Current Topics 107] 2020
► pp. 125–147

Impoliteness online

Hate speech in online interactions

This study provides an overview of the strategies and techniques of hate speech in online discourse (on online discourse or computer-mediated communication in general cf. e.g., Schwarzhaupt-Scholz 2004; Schmidt 2013; Dittler and Hoyer 2014; Seargeant and Tagg 2014). Based on a collection of online texts belonging to different genres (discussion forums, blogs, social media, tweets, homepages), this study will provide a qualitative analysis of destructively impolite utterances in online interactions. This analysis will make use of the standard typologies of impoliteness and their recent extensions (such as Culpeper 1996, 2005, 2011; Kienpointner 1997, 2008; Kleinke and Bös 2015), but some modifications and elaborations of these typologies will also be taken into account. Moreover, social, cultural and political reasons for the recent dramatic increase in hate speech in online interactions will be explored. Finally, the problem of how to deal with this destructive use of language will be briefly discussed and some possible solutions will be suggested (cf. Banks 2010).
Keywords: hate, hate speech, online impoliteness, intergroup rudeness, racism, moral order
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Analysis of examples
  • 3.Reasons for and strategies against hate speech
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.107.ip.00015.kie
References (52)
References
Aristotle. 2002a. Rhetorik [Rhetoric] (trans. and comm. by Christoph Rapp). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002b. Nikomachische Ethik [Nicomachean Ethics] (trans. and comm. by Ursula Wolf). Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Banks, James. 2010. “Regulating hate speech online.” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 24(3): 233–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosch, Nikolaus. 2016. “Hassbotschaften und Hetze im Internet als Aufforderung zu Straftaten?” [Hate messages and rabble-rousing in the internet as incitement to criminal offences?]. Juristische Ausbildung 4: 381–389.Google Scholar
Brodnig, Ingrid. 2016. Hass im Netz [Hate on the Net]. Wien: Brandstätter.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. “Towards an anatomy of impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 25(3): 349–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link .” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 35–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield, and Anne Wichmann. 2003. “Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics 35(10–11): 1545–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deumert, Ana. 2014. “The performance of a ludic self on social network(ing) sites.” In The Language of Social Media, ed. by Philip Seargeant, and Caroline Tagg, 23–45. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dittler, Ullrich, and Michael Hoyer (eds.). 2014. Social Network – Die Revolution der Kommunikation [Social Network: The Revolution of Communication]. München: Kopaed.Google Scholar
Duggan, Maeve. 2014. Online Harassment. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. [URL] (accessed 11 July 2017).
Gordon, Robert W. 2001. “Legalizing outrage.” In Aftermath. The Clinton Impeachment and the Presidency in the Age of Political Spectacle, ed. by Leonard V. Kaplan, and Beverly I. Moran, 97–112. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, Sage L. 2008. “A manual for (im)politeness?: The impact of the FAQ in an electronic community of Practice.” In Impoliteness in Language, ed. by Derek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 281–304. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Graham, Sage L., and Claire Hardaker. 2017. “(Im)politeness in digital communication.” In Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. by Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 785–814. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groarke, Leo, Catherine H. Palczewski, and David Godden. 2016. “Navigating the visual turn in argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy 52(4): 217–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan, and Selin Kesebir. 2010. “Morality.” In Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. by Susan T. Fiske, Daniel T. Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey, 797–852. Hoboken, N. J.: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael, Wei-Lin Melody Chang, and Dániel Z. Kádár. 2015. “‘Doing deference’: Identities and relational practices in Chinese online discussion boards.” Pragmatics 25(1): 73–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ihnatko, Andy. 1997. Cyberspeak: An Online Dictionary. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. 2017. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kienpointner, Manfred. 1992. Alltagslogik [Everyday Logic]. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Structural semantics and Latin linguistics.” In Aspects of Latin, ed. by Hannah Rosén, 603–617. Innsbruck: Verlag des Instituts für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Varieties of rudeness: Types and functions of impolite utterances.” Functions of Language 4(2): 251–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. “Zum Wortfeld ‘Liebe-Haß’ im Altgriechischen.” [On the lexical field ‘love-hate’ in Ancient Greek]. In Studia Celtica et Indogermanica[Celtic and Indo-European Studies], ed. by Peter Anreiter, and Erzsébet Jerem, 163–177. Budapest: Archäolingua.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Metaphern für Emotionen: Universalien oder Kulturspezifika?” [Metaphor for emotion: Universality or cultural specificity?]. In Translation in der globalen Welt und neue Wege in the Sprach- und Übersetzungsausbildung [Translation in the Global world and New ways in Language and Translation Training], ed. by Lew N. Zybatow, 61–91. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Impoliteness and emotional arguments.” Journal of Politeness Research 4(2): 243–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kienpointner, Manfred, and Maria Stopfner. 2017. “Ideologies of politeness.” In Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. by Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 61–87. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleineberg, Christoph. 2014. “Shitstorm-Attacken: Digitaler Orkan oder Sturm im Wasserglas.” [Shitstorm attacks: Digital hurricane or storm in a teacup]. In Social Network – Die Revolution der Kommunikation [Social Network: The Revolution of Communication], ed. by Ullrich Dittler, and Michael Hoyer, 61–70. München: Kopaed.Google Scholar
Kleinke, Sonja, and Birte Bös. 2015. “Intergroup rudeness and the metapragmatics of its negotiation in online discussion fora.” Pragmatics 25(1): 47–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langlotz, Andreas, and Miriam A. Locher. 2017. “(Im)politeness and emotion.” In Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. by Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 287–322. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. 2015. “Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research.” Journal of Pragmatics 86: 5–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neurauter-Kessels, Manuela. 2011. “Im/polite reader responses on British online news sites.” Journal of Politeness Research 7(2): 187–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2014. “Das Merkel – Das Neutrum bei weiblichen Familiennamen als derogatives Genus?” [DET-Neuter Merkel – The neuter of female family names as a derogative gender?]. In Linguistik der Familiennamen [Linguistics of Family Names], ed. by Friedhelm Debus, Rita Heuser, and Damaris Nübling, 205–232. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
Page, Ruth. 2014. “Hoaxes, hacking and humour: Analysing impersonated identity on social network sites.” In The Language of Social Media, ed. by Philip Seargeant, and Caroline Tagg, 46–64. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1983. Traité de l’argumentation [Treatise on Argumentation]. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Perelmutter, Renee. 2013. “ Klassika zhanra: The flamewar as a genre in the Russian bloggosphere.” Journal of Pragmatics 45(1): 74–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1984. “Jewish argument as sociability.” Language in Society 13(3): 311–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Jan-Hinrik. 2013. Social Media. Wiesbaden: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzhaupt-Scholz, Dorothea. 2004. Impeachment im digitalen Zeitalter [Impeachment in the Digital Age]. München: Fischer.Google Scholar
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 1(1): 73–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 2012. The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. 1992. Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Webster. 1993. Webster’s New Encyclopaedic Dictionary. New York: Black Dog & Leventhal.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2015. Politics of Fear. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Xie, Chaoqun. 2007. “Controversies about politeness.” In Traditions of Controversy, ed. by Marcelo Dascal, and Han-liang Chang, 249–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zara. 2016. Rassismus Report [Racism Report]. Wien: Verein Zara.Google Scholar