Cited by 597Language, Discourse, Communication StrategiesDigital Communication and LanguageHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions

Hardaker, Claire·2010·Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture

Abstract

Whilst computer-mediated communication (CMC) can benefit users by providing quick and easy communication between those separated by time and space, it can also provide varying degrees of anonymity that may encourage a sense of impunity and freedom from being held accountable for inappropriate online behaviour. As such, CMC is a fertile ground for studying impoliteness, whether it occurs in response to perceived threat (flaming), or as an end in its own right (trolling). Currently, first and second-order definitions of terms such as im/politeness (Brown and Levinson, Politeness: Some universals in language use, Cambridge University Press, 1987; Bousfield, Impoliteness in interaction, John Benjamins, 2008; Culpeper, Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power, Mouton de Gruyter, 2008; Terkourafi, Towards a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness, Mouton de Gruyter, 2008), in-civility (Lakoff, Civility and its discontents: Or, getting in your face, John Benjamins, 2005), rudeness (Beebe, Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence, Georgetown University Press, 1995, Kienpointner, Functions of Language 4: 251–287, 1997, Kienpointner, Journal of Politeness Research 4: 243–265, 2008), and etiquette (Coulmas, Linguistic etiquette in Japanese society, Mouton de Gruyter, 1992), are subject to much discussion and debate, yet the CMC phenomenon of trolling is not adequately captured by any of these terms. Following Bousfield (in press), Culpeper (Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence, Cambridge University Press, 2010) and others, this paper suggests that a definition of trolling should be informed first and foremost by user discussions. Taking examples from a 172-million-word, asynchronous CMC corpus, four interrelated conditions of aggression, deception, disruption, and success are discussed. Finally, a working definition of trolling is presented.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/jplr.2010.011

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Anti-social behaviors like trolling, hate speech, inflammatory comments, and other undesirable acts can occur in social computing systems, making designs ineffective and causing harm to individuals and groups.

    “Anti-social behaviors such as trolling [26,38], hate speech [15], infammatory comments [12], and other”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Beebe, Leslie. M. 1995. Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In James E. Alatis, Carolyn A. Straehle, Brent Gallenberger and 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.
  2. Bousfield, Derek. In press. Researching impoliteness and rudeness: Issues and definitions. In Miriam A. Locher and Sage Lambert Graham (eds.), Interpersonal Pragmatics (Vol. 6, Handbook of Pragmatics). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  3. Coulmas, Florian. 1992. Linguistic etiquette in Japanese society. In Richard J.Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, 1 st edn., 283 -323. Berlin and New Y ork: Mouton de Gruyter.
  4. Goffman, Erving 1967. Interactional ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Allen Lane: The Penguin Press.
  5. Graham, Sage Lambert. 2008. A manual for (im)politeness?: The impact of the FAQ in electronic communities of practice. In Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice, 324 -352. Berlin and New Y ork: Mouton de Gruyter.
  6. Grimshaw, Allen D. (ed.) 1990. Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Herring, Susan C. and Carole G. Nix. 1997. Is 'serious chat' an oxymoron? Pedagogical vs. social uses of internet relay chat. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida. 11 March.
  8. Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Oxford: Blackwell.
  9. Lakoff, Robin T. 2005. Civility and its discontents: Or, getting in your face. In Robin T. Lakoff and Sachiko Ide (eds.), 23 -43. Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  10. Stivale, Charles J. 1997. Spam: Heteroglossia and harassment in cyberspace. In David Porter (ed.), Internet culture, 133 -144. New York: Hampton Press.
  11. Tepper, Michele. 1997. Usenet communities and the cultural politics of information. In David Porter (ed.), Internet culture , 39 -54. New York: Routledge.
  12. Terkourafi, Marina. 2008. Towards a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice , 45 -74. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  13. Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hardaker, C.
Affiliations
University of Lancashire (GB)
Corresponding author
Hardaker, Claire
Venue
Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture
Published
2010-01
Volume
6
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 1612-5681 (ISSN-L)
  • 1613-4877
OpenAlex
W2066649178
Cited by
597
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 61 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 6
FWCI
61.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Politeness Research (publishedVersion)
  • CLOK (University of Central Lancashire) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Digital Communication and Language
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
trolling, impoliteness, computer-mediated communication, asynchronous communication, incivility, civility, etiquette, flaming, online aggression, deception, disruption, online behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review