Im/polite reader responses on British online news sites

Journal of Politeness Research

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 187-214

  Neurauter Kessels, Manuela ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

activity type; computer mediated communication; Impoliteness; influence of medium; mass media; reader responses

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959625449     PISSN: 16125681     EISSN: 16134877     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/JPLR.2011.010     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Austin, Paddy. 1990. Politeness revisited - the dark side. In Allan Bell and Janet Holmes (eds.), New Zealand Ways of speaking English, 277-293. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
2. Baron, Naomi S. 2008. Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Bauer, David. 2008. Der anonyme Mob. Leser pöbeln und beleidigen und zwingen Online Medien zum Umdenken. SonntagsZeitung. 31 December.
4. Beebe, Leslie. M. 1995. Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In James E. Alatis, Carolyn A. Straehle, Brent Gallenberger & Maggie Ronkin (eds.), Linguistics and the education of language teachers: Ethnolinguistic, psycholinguistics and sociolinguistic aspects (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics), 154-168. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
5. Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in interaction. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
6. th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Bruns, Axel. 2005. Gatewatching: Collaborative online news production. New York: Peter Lang.
8. rd edn. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
9. Cotter, Colleen. 2010. News talk: Investigating the language of journalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Culnan, Mary J. & M. Lynne Markus. 1987. Information technologies. In Frederic M. Jablin, Linda L. Putnam, Karlene H. Roberts & Lyman W. Porter (eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary approach, 420-443. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11. Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25 (3). 349-367.
12. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1). 35-72.
13. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2008. Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Derek Bousfield & Mriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Language, Power and Social Process 21), 17-44. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
14. Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield & Anne Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (10/11). 1545-1579.
15. nd edn. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
16. Dürscheid, Christa. 2005. Medien, Kommunikationsformen, kommunikative Gat-tungen. Linguistik Online 22 (1). http://www.lingustik-online. de/22-05/duerscheid.html (accessed 4 March 2009).
17. Dürscheid, Christa. 2007. Private, nicht-öffentliche und öffentliche Kommunikation im Internet. Beiträge zur Germanistik 6 (4). 104-117.
18. nd edn. Harlow: Longman.
19. Günthner, Susanne. 2000. Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagsinteraktion. Grammati-sche, prosodische, rhetorisch-stilistische und interaktive Verfahren bei der Konsti-tution kommunikativer Muster und Gattungen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
20. Gurak, Laura J. 2001. Cyberliteracy: Navigating the internet with awareness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21. Harris, Sandra. 2001. Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse and Society 12 (4). 451-472.
22. Herring, Susan C. 1996. Linguistic and critical research on computer-mediated communication: Some ethical and scholarly considerations. The Information Society 12 (2). 153-168.
23. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/tis.1996.pdf (accessed 6 June 2009).
24. Herring, Susan C. 2001. Computer-mediated discourse. In Deborah Tannen, Deborah Schiffrin & Heidi Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 612-634. Oxford: Blackwell.
25. Herring, Susan C. 2007. A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. language@internet 4. http://www.languageatinternet. de/articles/2007/761 (accessed 4 January 2009).
26. Jucker, Andreas H. 2000. Adressatenbezug und Formen der interaktiven Kommunika-tion in den Massenmedien. In Gert Richter, Jörg Rieke & Britt-Marie Schuster (eds.), Raum, Zeit, Medium-Sprache und ihre Determinanten. Festschrift für Hans Ramge zum 60. Geburtstag, 637-660. Darmstadt: Hessischen Historischen Kom-mission.
27. Jucker, Andreas H. 2003. Mass media communication at the beginning of the twenty-first century: Dimensions of change. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4 (1). 129-148.
28. Jucker, Andreas H. 2005. Mass media. In Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics 2003-2005, 1-18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29. Kienpointner, Manfred. 1997. Varieties of rudeness: Types and functions of impolite utterances. Functions of Language 4 (2). 251-287.
30. Kienpointner, Manfred 2003. Unhöfliche Partikeln? Kompetitive Verwendungen von Partikeln in der Alltagskonversation. In Gudrun Held (ed.), Partikeln und Höflich-keit, 73-94. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
31. Kienpointner, Manfred. 2008. Impoliteness and emotional arguments. Journal of Politeness Research 4 (2). 243-265.
32. Kiesler, Sara, Jane Siegel & Timothy W. McGuire. 1984. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist 39 (10). 1123-34.
33. Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 2007. Schriftlichkeit und kommunikative Distanz. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 35. 346-375.
34. Lachenicht, Lance G. 1980. Aggravating language: A study of abusive and insulting language. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal in Human Communication 13 (4). 607-687.
35. Lakoff, Robin. 1989. The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua8. 101-129.
36. Lea, Martin, Tim O'Shea, Pat Fung & Russell Spears. 1992. "Flaming" in computer-mediated communication: Observations, explanations, implications. In Martin Lea (ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication, 89-112. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
37. 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 Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Early modern English news discourse: Newspapers, pamphlets and scientific news discourse, 159-185. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
38. Locher, Mriam A. 2010. Introduction: Politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Politeness Research 6 (1). 1-5.
39. Locher, Mriam A. and Derek Bousfield. 2008. Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language. In Derek Bousfield and Mriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Language, Power and Social Process 21), 1-13. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
40. Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2008. Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Language, Power and Social Process 21), 77-99. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
41. Manouchehr, Moshtagh Khorasani. 2009. The development of controversies: From the early modern period to online discussion forums. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
42. Mills, Sara. 2005. Gender and impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (2). 263-280.
43. O'Sullivan, Patrick B. & Andrew J. Flanagin. 2003. Reconceptualizing 'flaming' and other problematic messages. New Media Society 5 (1). 69-94.
44. Perelman, Chaim & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1971. The new rhetoric: Treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
45. Perelman, Chaim. 1980. Das Reich der Rhetorik: Rhetorik und Argumentation. München: Beck.
46. Postmes, Tom R., Russell Spears & Martin Lea. 1998. Breaching or building social boundaries: SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 25 (6). 689-715.
47. Schlobinski, Peter & Thorsten Siever. 2005. Sprachliche und textuelle Aspekte in deutschen Weblogs. In Peter Schlobinski & Thorsten Siever (eds.), Sprachliche und textuelle Merkmale in Weblogs: Ein internationales Project. (Networx 46), 52-85. http://www.mediensprache.net/networx/networx-46. pdf (accessed 4 January 2009).
48. Siegel, Jane, Vitaly Dubrovsky, Sara Kiesler & Timothy W. McGuire. 1986. Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37 (2). 157-87.
49. Spears, Russell & Martin Lea.1994. Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 21 (4). 427-59.
50. Sproull, Lee & Sara Kiesler. 1991. Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Suler, John. 2004. The psychology of cyberspace. http://www-usr.rider. edu/~suler/psy cyber/disinhibit.html (accessed 6 December 2008).
52. Tannen, Deborah. 1998. The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Random House.
53. The Editors' Code of Practice. 2009. The Code. http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/ practice. html (accessed 28 April 2009).
54. The Guardian Online. 2009. Community standards and participation guidelines. The Guardian Online. http://www.guardian.co.uk/community-standards (last accessed 15 May 2009).
55. The Guardian's Editorial Code. 2007. Guidelines on The Guardian's editorial code. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2007/ 06/14/ EditorialCode2007.pdf (accessed 7 April 2009).
56. Walther, Joseph B. 1992. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research 19 (1). 52-90.
57. Walther, Joseph B. 1994. Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research 20 (4). 473-501.