Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement
Edited by Jennifer Schumann and Steve Oswald
[Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 12:1] 2024
► pp. 17–40

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Justifying the accusation

A descriptive comparative analysis of ordinary speakers’ accusations of trolling and bad faith

ORCiD logo with link | Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Published online: 7 June 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00095.lib
Abstract
Accusations of trolling (deceiving participants about one’s communicative intention, conducted for amusement, Dynel, Marta. 2016. “‘Trolling Is Not Stupid’: Internet Trolling as the Art of Deception Serving Entertainment.” Intercultural Pragmatics 13 (3): 353–381. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; . 2013. “‘Uh… Not to Be Nitpicky,,,,,but…the Past Tense of Drag Is Dragged, Not Drug.’ An Overview of Trolling Strategies.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 1 (1): 58–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and bad faith (dishonestly denying a speaker’s committing meaning, de Saussure, Louis, and Steve Oswald. 2009. “Argumentation et engagement du locuteur : Pour un point de vue subjectiviste.” Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française 291: 215–243.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Oswald, Steve. 2022. “Insinuation is Committing.” Journal of Pragmatics 1981: 158–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) abound in digitally mediated communication. The labels chosen by posters significantly impact the outcome of discussions, as accusations of trolling tend to result in more abrupt settlements of disputes compared to accusations of bad faith. However, proving these deceptive activities can be challenging for posters. As a result, they often substantiate the “bad faith” label by mentioning in their accusations what they perceive as strategies indicating their interlocutors’ bad faith.
In this paper, I examine 161 accusations of trolling and bad faith gathered from a forum. The analysis draws on Hardaker’s (Hardaker, Claire. 2010. “Trolling in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication: From User Discussions to Academic Definitions.” Journal of Politeness Research 6 (2): 215–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, . 2013. “‘Uh… Not to Be Nitpicky,,,,,but…the Past Tense of Drag Is Dragged, Not Drug.’ An Overview of Trolling Strategies.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 1 (1): 58–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) research and proposes a comparison of the strategies mentioned in these accusations. The aim is to describe the ways in which posters justify the label they opt for when confronted with deceptive activities.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: How do ordinary speakers justify their accusation of deceptive activities?
    • 1.1Trolling and bad faith: Definitions
    • 1.2How do posters justify the label of their accusation?
    • 1.3Aiming at a descriptive analysis of the arguments mentioned in the accusations
  • 2.Dataset: Strategies mentioned in accusations of trolling and bad faith
    • 2.1The forum: Forum sceptique
    • 2.2The strategies and their constraints
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Dividing accusations into settled and relaunched disputes
    • 3.2Establishing the categories
    • 3.3Two additional categories
    • 3.4Bad faith as a trolling strategy
  • 4.Analysis and results
    • 4.1Settling or relaunching the dispute
    • 4.2Comparison – similarities
    • 4.3Comparison – differences
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (28)
References
Benveniste, Émile. 1966. “La nature des pronoms.” Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Binns, Amy. 2012. “DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!: Managing Troublemakers in Magazines’ Online Communities.” Journalism Practice 6 (4): 547–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bishop, Jonathan. 2012. “The Psychology of Trolling and Lurking: The Role of Defriending and Gamification for Increasing Participation in Online Communities Using Seductive Narratives.” In Virtual Community Participation and Motivation: Cross-Disciplinary Theories, ed. by Honglei Li, 160–176. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bourcier, Danièle, and Oswald Ducrot. 1980. Les mots du discours. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coles, Bryn Alexander, and Melanie West. 2016. “Trolling the Trolls: Online Forum Users Constructions of the Nature and Properties of Trolling.” Computers in Human Behavior 601: 233–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doury, Marianne. 2003. “L’évaluation des arguments dans les discours ordinaires: Le cas de l’accusation d’amalgame.” In Langage et société 105 (3): 9–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. “‘Ce n’est pas un argument !’ Sur quelques aspects des théorisations spontanées de l’argumentation.” In Pratiques 139–1401: 111–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta. 2016. “‘Trolling Is Not Stupid’: Internet Trolling as the Art of Deception Serving Entertainment.” Intercultural Pragmatics 13 (3): 353–381. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans Hendrik van, Bart Garssen, Erik. C. W. Krabbe, Arnolda Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, and Jean Hubert Martin Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer Reference. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. [1973] 1996. Les relations en public. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hardaker, Claire. 2010. “Trolling in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication: From User Discussions to Academic Definitions.” Journal of Politeness Research 6 (2): 215–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herring, Susan, Kirk Job-Sluder, Rebecca Scheckler, and Sasha Barab. 2002. “Searching for Safety Online: Managing ‘Trolling’ in a Feminist Forum.” The Information Society 181: 371–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana. 2015. “Pragmatics and Epistemic Vigilance: The Employment of Sophisticated Interpretative Strategies.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy XV (44): 183–199.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Misha-Laura. 2016. Plausible Deniability: From Gricean Pragmatics to the Insights of Relevance Theory. Master thesis. Neuchatel University.
Oswald, Steve. 2022. “Insinuation is Committing.” Journal of Pragmatics 1981: 158–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, Martin A. Nowak, and James J. Lee. 2008. “The Logic of Indirect Speech.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (3): 833–838. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plantin, Christian. 1996. L’argumentation. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “Argumentation Studies and Discourse Analysis: The French Situation and Global Perspectives.” In Discourse Studies 4 (3): 343–368. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Preece, Jennifer. 2000. Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Saussure, Louis, and Steve Oswald. 2009. “Argumentation et engagement du locuteur : Pour un point de vue subjectiviste.” Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française 291: 215–243.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spears, Russell, and Martin Lea. 1992. “Social Influence and the Influence of the ‘Social’ in Computer-Mediated Communication.” In Contexts of Computermediated Communication, ed. by Martin Lea, 30–65. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. ([1986] 1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic Vigilance.” In Mind & Language 25 (4): 359–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wason, Peter Cathcart. 1965. “The Contexts of Plausible Denial.” In Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4 (1): 7–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer (eds.). 2001. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis: Introducing Qualitative Methods. London, Thousand Oaks [Calif.]: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue