IMPOLITENESS STRATEGIES USED BY MALAYSIAN NETIZENS IN RESPONSE TO THE MUSIC VIDEOS OF DRAG QUEENS
Research in politeness studies concerning the use of verbal language or strategies for negative orientation has received less attention compared to the opposite orientation. In view of this, the present study aims at examining impoliteness strategies used by Malaysian netizens in computer-medicated communication (CMC) and explore the way the strategies were employed in discussing the topic of drag queens’ performance. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse 254 impolite comments gathered in the form of words, phrases, and sentences based on Model of Culpeper’s (2011) impoliteness strategies. The data were drawn from two music videos posted in YouTube.com and Instagram which depicts impoliteness in interaction amongst the users. The videos were chosen because the performance of drag queens or transvestite is amongst the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) issues that is persistently discussed by the netizens which often resulting in impolite comments. Findings showed that negative impoliteness was the most dominant type of impoliteness strategy used in their comments towards the issues. The second dominant type of impoliteness strategies used was sarcasm or mock politeness, followed by bald-on record strategy. Withhold politeness was not found to be used in the comments due to the nature the research context that is conducted in written discourse. The study revealed that impoliteness in CMC is veritably on the rise in Malaysia.
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Chakorn, O.O., Chew, G. C. L., Jung, Y. K., Kong, K. C. C., Nair-Venugopal, S., & Tanaka, H. (2007). Eastern voices: Enriching research on commu- nication in business: A forum. Discourse & Communication, 1, 131–152.
Bawang, M. (2018, November 21). Sajat berjoget gegar gegar.... kecewa dengan Coach Yin ke tu? Retrieved from https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=ncptHEf0VTQ
Bousfield, D., and Locher, M. A. (2008). Impoliteness in language: studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978, 1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croom, A. M. (2013). How to do things with slurs: Studies in the way of derogatory words. Language and Communication, 33, 177-204.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166 (95)00014-3
Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: ‘The Weakest Link’. Journal of Politeness Research Language Behavior Culture, 1(1), 35–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 1(2), 257-266.
Eckert, P. (2003). The Meaning of Style. Paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Symposium about Language and Society, Stanford University.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219-236
Gee, R., & Murata, Y. (2014). Comparing Malaysian apologies and responses to accusations with those of Japanese , British and Canadians : what is Malaysian pragmatic style ?, (June 2014), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2013.877217
Gilbert, P. (2003). Evolution, social roles, and the differences in shame and guilt. Social Research, 70(4), 1205-1230. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971967
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor Books
Grice, H. P., Cole, P., & Morgan, J. (1975). Logic and conversation. New York: Academic Press, 41-58
Herring, S. (1996). Linguistic and critical analysis of computer-mediated communication: Some ethical and scholarly considerations. The Information Society, 12(2), 153-168
Herring, S.C. (2001) ‘Computer-mediated Discourse’, in D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. Hamilton (eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 612–34.
Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65-95.
Malhotra, N. K., Oly-Ndubisi, N., & Agarwal, J. (2008). Public versus private complaint behavior and customer defection in Malaysia: Appraising the role of moderating factors. EsicMarket, 131, 27–59.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Simmons, T. L. (1994). Politeness Theory in Computer Mediated Communication: Face Threatening Acts in a “Faceless” Medium. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED381005
Thayalan, J. X. (2017). Impoliteness strategies in the social media comments on the Low Yat Plaza incident. (Master's thesis). Retrieved from http: //studentsrepo.um.edu.my/8532/1/Low_Yat_Complete_paper.pdf