Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 29:4 (2019) ► pp.521–544

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

Impolite viewer responses in Arabic political TV talk shows on YouTube

 | Sohag University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 27 August 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18025.has
Abstract
The article deals with the features of impolite responses of YouTube Arab viewers of political TV talk shows. YouTube comments are written discourse of live commentary, a new genre of computer-mediated communication. Based on data from comments of Arabic viewers of political TV talk shows on YouTube, the article argues that impolite responses appear to be a common feature in Arabic comments in political talk shows on YouTube. Identity and power are reconsidered in this paper as variables that trigger impoliteness in Arabic online responses in political talk shows on YouTube. It argues that obscuring identity online incites the use of conventionalized impoliteness to exercise power on the TV presenter or the TV episode’s guest. The article also shows how communication variables such as context, commentator’s identity and models of communication influence the realization of impolite responses in those online interactions. The study draws on Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2007. “Theories of Identity and the Analysis of Face”. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (4): 639–656. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar to correlate identity, power, and impoliteness. It also utilized Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar bottom-up model of impoliteness triggers.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Background
    • 1.2Research questions
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Data
    • 3.1Live text commentary as a new genre
    • 3.2Moderation
  • 4.Method of analysis
  • 5.Results and data discussion
    • 5.1Insults
    • 5.2Pointed criticisms/complaints
    • 5.3Unpalatable questions and/or presuppositions
    • 5.4Condescensions
    • 5.5Message enforcers
    • 5.6Dismissals
    • 5.7Silencers
    • 5.8Threats
    • 5.9Negative expressives
    • 5.10Implicational impoliteness
  • 6.Functions of YouTube impolite responses
  • 7.Participants’ identity
  • 8.Impoliteness in live commentary as a strategic tool
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Data
  • References
References (60)
Data
Adeeb, Amr. [ON TV]. (2018, April 30). Every day. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
. [ON TV]. (2017, December 19). Every day. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
. [ON TV]. (2017, December 17). Every day. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
. [ON TV]. (2017, November 25). Every day. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
Aldakhil, Turki. [Al Arabiya TV]. (2018, March 7). With Turki Aldakhil. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
Aldakhil, Turki. [Al Arabiya TV]. (2018, March 5). With Turki Aldakhil. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
. [Al Arabiya TV]. (2017, April 23). With Turki Aldakhil. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
. [Al Arabiya TV]. (2018, January 29). With Turki Aldakhil. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
Alhadidi, Lamis. [CBC TV]. (2015, October 9). Egypt to Where. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
Al Muslimani, Ahmad. [Dream TV]. (2017, December 16). First Edition. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
. [Dream TV]. (2018, June 23). First Edition. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
. [Dream TV]. (2016, December 13). First Edition. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
Krishan, Muhammad. [Al Jazeera TV]. (2018, February 25). Behind the news. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
. [Al Jazeera TV]. (2017, November 7). Behind the news. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
. [Al Jazeera TV]. (2018, June 11). Behind the news. [Video file]. Retrieved from [URL]
References
Anderson, Ashley, Dominique Bossard, Dietram Scheufele, Michael Xenos, and Peter Ladwig. 2014. “The ‘Nasty Effect’: Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 191: 373–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 2001. “The Many Faces of With Meni: The History and Stories of One Israeli Talk Show.” In Television Talk shows. Discourse, Performance, Spectacle, ed. by Andrew Tolson, 89–115. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1978/1987. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bryant, Raymond L. 1998. “Power, Knowledge and Political Ecology in the Third World: A Review”. Progress in Physical Geography 22 (1): 79–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cashman, Holly. 2006. “Impoliteness in Children’s Interactions in a Spanish/English Bilingual Community of Practice.” Journal of Politeness Research, Language, Behaviour, Culture 2 (2): 217–246.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Craig, Robert T., Karen Tracy, and Frances Spisak. 1986. “The Discourse of Requests: Assessment of a Politeness Approach”, Human Communication Research, 12, (4), 437–468. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”. Journal of Pragmatics 25 (3): 349–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Impoliteness Strategies”. In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey, 421–445. Basel: Springer international. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dori-Hacohen, Gonen, and Nimrod Shavit. 2013. “The Cultural Meanings of Israeli Tokbek (Talk-Back Online Commenting) and their Relevance to the Online Democratic Public Sphere.” Int. J. Electronic Governance 6 (4): 361–379. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Döring, Nicola. 2003. Sozialpsychologie des Internet. Die Bedeutung des Internet für Kommunikationsprozesse, Identitäten, soziale Beziehungen und Gruppen. [Social psychology of the internet: the importance of the internet for communication processes, identity, social relations and groups] 2nd edn. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R., and Ann Mc Clintock. 1990. You Take My Meaning: Theory into Practice in Human Communication. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation”. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2010. “When is an Email Really Offensive? Argumentativity and Variability in Evaluations of Impoliteness”. Journal of Politeness Research 61: 7–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 2001. “Computer-mediated Discourse”. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Tannen, Deborah Schiffrin and Heidi Hamilton, 612–634. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hu, Hsien Chin. 1944. “The Chinese Concept of ‘Face’”. American Anthropologist 46 (1): 45–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1955. “On Facework: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction”. Psychiatry: Journal of Interpersonal Relations 18 (3): 213–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graham, Paul. 2008. “How to Disagree” [URL] (last retrieved 16/4/2018).
Jucker, Andreas H. 2006. “Live text commentaries. Read about it while it happens”. In Androutsopoulos, Jannis K., Jens Runkehl, Peter Schlobinski und Torsten Siever (eds.) Neuere Entwicklungen in der linguistischen Internetforschung. Zweites internationals Symposium zur gegenwärtigen linguistischen Forschung über computervermittelte Kommunikation. Universität Hannover. 4.–6. Oktober 2004.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kienpointner, Manfred. 1997. “Varieties of Rudeness: Types and Functions of Impolite Utterances”. Functions of Language 4 (2): 251–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, Jens. 2018. Rhetorical Audience Studies and Reception of Rhetoric. Palgrave: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. “The Logic of Politeness or, Minding your P’s and Q’s”. In Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by C. Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark, and A. Weiser, 292–305. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. “The Limits of Politeness: Therapeutic and Courtroom Discourse”. Multilingua 8 (2–3): 101–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levorato, Alessandra. 2009. “From You, my Lord, Professions Are but Words – They Are so Much Bait for Fools to Catch at”, Impoliteness strategies in the 1797–1800 Act of Union pamphlet debate. In Early modern English news discourse: Newspapers, pamphlets and scientific news discourse, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker, 159–185. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Livingstone, Sonia, and Peter Lunt. 1993. Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Debate. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Pilar Garces-Conejos Blitvich, and Patricia Bou-Franch. 2011. “Online Polylogues and impoliteness: The Case of Postings Sent in Response to the Obama Reggaeton You Tube Video”. Journal of Pragmatics 431: 2578–2593. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maricic, Ibolya. 2005. Face in Cyberspace: Facework, (Im)politeness and Conflict in English Discussion Groups (PhD thesis). Vaxjo: Vaxjo University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neurauter-Kessels, Manuela. 2011. “Im/polite Reader Responses on British Online News Sites”. Journal of Politeness Research 7(2): 187–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Impoliteness in Cyberspace: Personally Abusive Reader Responses in Online News Media (PhD thesis). Department of English, University of Zurich.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, Patrick, and Andrew Flanigan. 2003. “Reconceptualizing ‘Flaming’ and other Problematic Communication”. New Media and Society 51: 67–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Penman, Robyn. 1990. “Facework and Politeness: Multiple Goals in Courtroom Discourse”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 91: 15–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, Alison. 1998. The Language of Humor. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlobinski, Peter, and Thorsten Siever. 2005. “Sprachliche und textuelle Aspekte in deutschen Weblogs” [Linguistic and textual aspects in German Weblogs]. In Sprachliche und textuelle Merkmale in Weblogs [Linguistic and textual features in weblogs]: Ein internationales Projekt, ed. by Peter Schlobinski and Thorsten Siever. (Networx 46), 52851. [URL]
Schramm, Wilbur. 1997. The Beginnings of Communication Study in America: A Personal Memoir. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1975. “Indirect Speech Acts”. In Syntax and Semantics, ed. by Cole, Peter and Jerry L. Morgan, Vol. 31: Speech Act, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shum, Winnie, and Cynthia Lee. 2013. “(Im)politeness and Disagreement in Two Hong Kong Internet Discussion Forums”. Journal of Pragmatics 50 (1): 52–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2007. “Theories of Identity and the Analysis of Face”. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (4): 639–656. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Squire, Corinne. 1997. “Who’s White? Television Talk Shows and Representations of Whiteness”. In Off White: Readings on Race, Power, and Society, ed. by Michelle Fine, Lois Weis, Linda C. Powell and L. Mun Wong, 242–250. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suler, John. 2004. “The Psychology of Cyberspace”. [URL] (accessed 6 December 2008).
Tracy, Karen. 1990. “The Many Faces of Facework”. In Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, ed. by Howard Giles and W. Peter Robinson, 209–226. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weizman, Elda, and Gonen Dori-Hacohen. 2017. “On-line Commenting on Opinion Editorials: A Cross-cultural Examination of Face Work in the Washington Post (USA) and NRG (Israel)”. Discourse Context and Media, 191: 39–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Ran, Yongping & Jiabei Hu
2025. How public discourse functions to restore moral orders. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) DOI logo
Agbaglo, Ebenezer
2024. Solidarity Building in Antagonistic Political Discourse on GhanaWeb. Emerging Media 2:4 ► pp. 724 ff. DOI logo
Robles, Jessica S. & Bingjuan Xiong
2024. How quotation marks do mockery in online politicized discourse. Journal of Language and Politics DOI logo
Bataineh, Rula Fahmi , Ruba F. Bataineh & Lara K. Andraws
2023. How Polite can Impoliteness be? A Jordanian Gendered Perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
Abanoz, Enes
2022. The Reactions to Muslim Identity Building through Social Media: User Comments on YouTube Street Interview Videos. Religions 13:6 ► pp. 498 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue