Impolite Communication Practices as a Community-Building Tool in Sports News Comments
https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2023-25-4-481-490
Abstract
Addendum
Conflict discourse studies provide a valuable insight into linguistic and sociocultural ideologies of online communities. They also may offer effective approaches to linguistic detoxification. This research featured online communication of sport fans. Their discourse is interdiscursive, possesses a certain netiquette, and reflects the social and ideological diversity within the community. The authors explored common speech strategies aimed at threatening the social identity of outsiders or at the acquisition of power. The material involved an array of comments posted on Sports.ru: each example was tested for speech aggression, and the conflict-marked comments were described from the strategy perspective. The sampling relied on the general intention and expressive vocabulary aimed at the addressee. The frequency distribution of impoliteness strategies revealed that users often tended to assert power through personal characterization of their opponents, e.g., agism, sarcasm, hypercorrect speech behavior, identity attacks via derogatory team nominations, etc. The analysis identified various conflict strategies employed to form derogatory nominations, as well as defined the socio-cultural characteristics that marked the addressee as a target of conflictladen speech behavior.
Keywords
politeness,
impoliteness,
communication strategies,
community of practice,
social face,
social networks
Supporting agencies: The research was supported by the Russian Research Foundation, Project No. 23-18-00238: Linguistic mechanisms of social interaction: the category of politeness in the dictionary and discourse. https://rscf.ru/en/project/ 23-18-00238/
About the Authors
Valery A. Shulginov
HSE University – Moscow; Pushkin State Russian Language Institute
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Moscow
Scopus Author ID: 57215049020
Competing Interests:
The authors declared no potential conflict of interests regarding the research, authorship, and / or publication of this article.
Kirill A. Alyansky
HSE University – Moscow
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests:
The authors declared no potential conflict of interests regarding the research, authorship, and / or publication of this article.
References
1. Goroshko E. I., Zemlyakova E. A. Virtual genre studies: formation of the theoretical paradigm. Uchenye zapiski Tavricheskogo natsionalnogo universiteta im. V. I. Vernadskogo. Seriia: Filologiia. Sotsial'nye kommunikatsii, 2011, 24(1-1): 225–237. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/vhuxiz
2. Goffman E. Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Moscow: Smysl, 2009, 319. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/qxzunr
3. Zhelvis V. I. Is it true that everyone swears? The Role of Swearing in the History of World Civilization. Moscow: AST, 2022, 220. (In Russ.)
4. Zilbert A. B. Sports discourse: points of intersection with other discourses: intertextuality issues. Language, consciousness, communication, eds. Krasnykh V. V., Izotov A. I. Moscow: MAKS Press, 2001, iss. 19, 103–112. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/ubldrr
5. Lutovinova O. V. Shaming as a speech genre. Zanry Reci, 2022, 17(3): 212–219. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18500/2311-0740-2022-17-3-35-212-219
6. Panteeva K. V. Interdiscursivity and its peculiarities in sports discourse. Issues in Journalism, Educational, Linguistics, 2020, 39(2): 289–298. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18413/2712-7451-2020-39-2-289-298
7. Speech aggression as a property of information space, ed. Zagidullina M. V. Chelyabinsk: ChelSU, 2011, 211. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qyduub
8. Tillabaeva A. A., Shulginov V. A. Speech behavior of Internet users in conflict communication. Slovo.ru: Baltic Accent, 2020, 11(4): 45–57. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.5922/2225-5346-2020-4-4
9. Arundale R. B. Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2006, 2(2): 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2006.011
10. Brown P., Levinson S. C. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, 345.
11. Culpeper J. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 1996, 25(3): 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3
12. Culpeper J., Bousfield D., Wichmann A. Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 2003, 35(10–11): 1545–1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2
13. D’Sa A. G., Illina I., Fohr D. Towards non-toxic landscapes: Automatic toxic comment detection using DNN. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Trolling, Aggression and Cyberbullying. 2020, 21–25. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1911.08395
14. Dementieva D., Moskovskiy D., Logacheva V., Dale D., Kozlova O., Semenov N., Panchenko A. Methods for detoxification of texts for the Russian language. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2021, 5(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5090054
15. Eelen G. A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing, 2001, vol. 1, 281. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760179
16. Eckert P. Communities of practice. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006, 683–685.
17. Graham S. L. Disagreeing to agree: conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 2007, 39(4): 742–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017
18. Haugh M. Discourse and politeness. The Bloomsbury handbook of discourse analysis, eds. Hyland K., Paltridge B., Wong L. 2nd ed. Bloomsbury Academic, 2021, 219–232.
19. Jary M. Relevance theory and the communication of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 1998, 30(1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)80005-2
20. Lakoff R. T. Talking power: The politics of language in our lives. NY: Basic Books, 1990, XII+324.
21. Locher M. A., Watts R. J. Relational work and impoliteness: negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008, 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344.2.77
22. Mills S. Gender and impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2005, 1(2): 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.263
23. Milroy L. Language and social networks. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987, 218.
24. Milroy L. Social networks. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, ed. Chambers J. K., Trudgill P., Schilling-Estes N. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002, 549–572.
25. Nwoye O. G. Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 1992, 18(4): 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90092-P
26. Spencer-Oatey H. Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 2007, 39(4): 639–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004
27. Terkourafi M. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 2005, 1(2): 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237
28. Watts R. J. Linguistic politeness research: Quo vadis? Politeness in Language: Studies in History, Theory and Practice, eds. Watts R., Ide S., Ehlich K. 2nd ed. NY: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005, 11–47.
29. Watts R. J. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, 304. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184
Review
For citations:
Shulginov V.A., Alyansky K.A. Impolite Communication Practices as a Community-Building Tool in Sports News Comments. SibScript. 2023;25(4):481-490. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2023-25-4-481-490
Views:
590
Email this article 