On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video

Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria; Blitvich, Pilar Garcés-Conejos; Bou‐Franch, Patricia

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.005

Cited by 137 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Part of the problem for the researchers is, of course, establishing the extent to which digitally-mediated interactions can be analysed as interpersonal, intergroup or intercultural in nature, as in many such interactions the background of participants is not readily accessible (either to the other participants or the researcher). Yet intergroup conflicts mediated through various forms of digital communication are clearly on the rise (Kádár, Haugh & Chang, 2013;Lorenzo-Dus, Blitvich & Bou-Franch, 2011;Perelmutter, 2013). It thus appears to be an area ripe for further analysis and theorisation that will enrich our understanding of intercultural (im)politeness more generally.…”

Section: Approaches In Intercultural (Im)politeness Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intercultural (Im)politeness

Haugh

Kádár

2017

The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Approaches In Intercultural (Im)politeness Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intercultural (Im)politeness

Haugh

Kádár

2017

The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Kádár, Haugh and Chang [4] also claim that "face should be analysed not only at the level of interpersonal interaction but also at the intergroup level" (p. 343). The notions of group face and the social identity face are especially important when investigating impoliteness in online polylogues [1], [8], as in many situations, the key issue "is not about individual face so much as it is about the enactment of belonging to a specific social group, which is constituted in opposition to another social group" [8] (p. 174). These provide the current study with useful tools to answer the research questions, by identifying what exactly motivates people to behave differently in terms of im/politeness when posting comments on Japanese online news sites.…”

Section: Xiangdong Liumentioning

confidence: 99%

Impoliteness in Reader Comments on Japanese Online News Sites

Liu¹

2017

IJLLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) has become an important part of human communication nowadays. When communicating using computers or digital media, people seem to behave differently when compared to face-to-face communication, especially in anonymous settings. When expressing their opinions in such an environment, people tend to write more directly and sometimes emotionally, without taking into consideration other people's face. Some may even be deliberately impolite or offensive on some occasions. Although impoliteness in CMC has started to attract researchers' attention, little is known in regard to factors triggering impoliteness or making people emotional in CMC. Drawing upon data collected from readers' comments on Japanese online news articles, this study has observed some clear differences in terms of impoliteness of the language used across threads of comments on different topics. Although on the surface, it seems that the topic of discussion has an influence upon the participants, this study claims that social identity, group face and gender are among the most important factors triggering impoliteness in Japanese CMC.

show abstract

“…As for the analysis of impoliteness, it is based on an adaptation of the impoliteness strategies taxonomies put forth by Culpeper (1996), Culpeper et al (2003), and Culpeper (2005). Modifications include analysis of the individual strategy "Associate with a Negative Aspect" as a manifestation of positive rather than negative impoliteness (Lorenzo-Dus et al 2011), and the addition of implicated impoliteness within off-record strategies (Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2010a). Bousfield's (2007) reformulation of Culpeper's (1996Culpeper's ( , 2005 model argues against maintenance of the separation between positive/negative face and thus positive/ negative impoliteness, reducing face to two tactics, within which different strategies may be deployed.…”

Section: Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cf Arundale, 2010;Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2010c;Haugh, 2006;Lorenzo-Dus et al 2011;O'Driscoll, 1996;Scollon and Scollon, 2001…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%