Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-06T12:15:18.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Pragmatics

Pragmatics, (Im)Politeness, and Intergroup Communication

A Multilayered, Discursive Analysis of Cancel Culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2024

Pilar G. Blitvich
Pilar G. Blitvich
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Charlotte

Summary

This Element shows the basis for pragmatics/(im)politeness to become intergroup-oriented to be able to consider interactions in which social identities are salient or are essentially collective in nature, such as Cancel Culture (CC). CC is a form of ostracism involving the collective withdrawal of support and concomitant group exclusion of individuals perceived as having behaved in ways construed as immoral and thus displaying disdain for group normativity. To analyze this type of collective phenomenon, a three-layered model that tackles CC manifestations at the macro, meso, and micro levels is used. At the meso/micro levels, problematize extant conceptualizations of CC -mostly focused on the macro level and describe it as a Big C Conversation, whose meso-level practices need to be understood as genre-ecology, and where identity reduction, im/politeness, and moral emotions synergies are key to understand group entitativity and agency.
Get access

Keywords

Im/politenesscancel cultureintergroup communicationmoral emotionsgenres
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Pragmatics
Online ISBN: 9781009184373
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 15 February 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addeo, F., Delli Paoli, A., Esposito, M. & Bolcato, M. (2019). Doing social research on online communities: The benefits of netnography. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 9–38.Google Scholar
Al-Gharbi, M. (2022).No, America is not on the brink of a civil war. The Guardian, 27. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/27/no-america-is-not-on-the-cusp-of-a-civil-war.Google Scholar
Allen, J. & Anderson, C. (2017). Aggression and violence: Definitions and distinctions. In Sturmey, P., ed., The Wiley Handbook of Violence and Aggression. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Andrews, G. & Chen, S. (2006). The production of tyrannical space. Children’s Geographies, 4(2), 239–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J. (2021). Polymedia in interaction. Pragmatics and Society, 12(5), 707–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J. & Tereick, J. (2015). YouTube: Language and discourse practices in participatory culture. In Georgakopoulou, A. & Spilioti, T., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. Routledge, pp. 354–370.Google Scholar
Angouri, J. (2015). Online communities and communities of practice. In Georgakopoulou, A. & Spilioti, T., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. Routledge, pp. 323–338.Google Scholar
Angouri, J. & Locher, M. A. (2012). Theorising disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1549–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Ariff, Z. (2012). Ethnographic discourse analysis: Conversion to Islam ceremony. Discourse & Communication, 6(3), 295–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119–153.Google Scholar
Au, A. (2017). Collective identity, organization, and public reaction in protests: A qualitative case study of Hong Kong and Taiwan. Social Sciences, 6(4), 150, 1–17.Google Scholar
Bannister, J. & O’Sullivan, A. (2013). Civility, community cohesion and antisocial behaviour: Policy and social harmony. Journal of Social Policy, 42(1), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, C. & Galasinski, D. (2001). Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis: A Dialogue on Language and Identity. Sage.Google Scholar
Barnhizer, D. (2021).“Un-Canceling” America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron, A. & Schneider, K. P. (2014). Discourse pragmatics: Signposting a vast field. In Barron, A. & Schneider, K. P., eds., Pragmatics of Discourse. Walter de Gruyter, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genre and the enactment of social intentions. In Freedman, A. & Medway, P., eds., Genre and the New Rhetoric. Taylor & Francis, pp. 79–99.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (1997). The life of genre, the life in the classroom. In Bishop, W., Ostrom, H., eds., Genre and Writing: Issues, Arguments, Alternatives. Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH, pp. 19–26.Google Scholar
Bella, S. (2009). Invitations and politeness in Greek: The age variable. Journal of Politeness Research, 5, 243–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, P. (2017). The Discourse of YouTube: Multimodal Text in a Global Context. Routledge.Google Scholar
Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written Communication, 10(4), 475–509.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (2015). Critical genre analysis: Theoretical preliminaries. HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 27(54), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (2002). Applied genre analysis: Analytical advances and pedagogical procedures. In Johns, A. M., ed., Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 279–283.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2008). Artefactual ideologies and the textual production of African languages. Language & Communication, 28(4), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2013). Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of Complexity. Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2017a). Durkheim and the internet: On sociolinguistics and the sociological imagination. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 173, 1–90.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2017b). Ludic membership and orthopractic mobilization: On slacktivism and all that. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 193, 1–7.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2017c). Online-offline modes of identity and community: Elliot Rodger’s twisted world of masculine victimhood. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 200, 1–10.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2019). Political discourse in post-digital societies. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 236, 1–10.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J., Smits, L. & Yacoubi, N. (2018). Context and its complications. Tilburg Papers in Cultural Studies, 208, 1–20.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. & Varis, P. (2015). Conviviality and collectives on social media: Virality, memes, and new social structures. Multilingual Margins, 2(1), 31–45.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex.Google Scholar
Bonilla, Y. & Rosa, J. (2015). # Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the United States. American Ethnologist, 42(1), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2014). Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouvier, G. (2020). Racist call-outs and cancel culture on Twitter: The limitations of the platform’s ability to define issues of social justice. Discourse, Context & Media, 38, 100431, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. (1980). How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R. and Furman, N., eds., Women and Language in Literature and Society. Praeger, pp. 111–136.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A socio-cultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4/5), 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, P. & Stets, J. (2009). Identity Theory. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.Google Scholar
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society, the Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chen, C. W. (2020). Analyzing online comments: A language-awareness approach to cultivating digital literacies. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(4), 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are Data. New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citron, D. K. (2014). Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. (2020). DRAG THEM: A brief etymology of so-called “cancel culture.” Communication and the Public, 5(3/4), 88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, C. L., Patel, A., Guisihan, M. & Wohn, D. Y. (2021). Whose agenda is it anyway: An exploration of cancel culture and political affiliation in the United States . SN Social Sciences, 1(9), 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costea, A. (2017). The online resources of contemporary social revolutions: The case of the Romanian #Rezist revolution. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 190, 1–70.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2010). Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2016). Impoliteness strategies. In Capone, A. & Mey, J. L., eds., Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Springer, pp. 421–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2021). Sociopragmatics: Roots and definitions. In Haugh, M., Kádár, D. Z. & Terkourafi, M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. & Haugh, M. (2021). (Im) politeness and sociopragmatics. In Haugh, M., Kádár, D. & Terkourafi, M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crockett, M. J. (2017). Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11), 769–771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, J., Bondi, L. & Smith, M. (eds.). (2005). Emotional Geographies. Ashgate.Google Scholar
Davidson, J., Smith, M. & Bondi, L. (eds.). (2012). Emotional Geographies. Ashgate.Google Scholar
Davies, B. L., Merrison, A. J., & Haugh, M. (2011). Situated Politeness. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, Robert (2011). Text linguistics. In Zienkowski., J. Verschueren, J., and Östman, J., eds., Discursive Pragmatics. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 286–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. (2007). Theory, evidence, and the tasks of deliberation. In Rosenberg, S., ed., Deliberation, Participation, and Democracy: Can the People Govern? Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchi, F. (2021). The “call-out culture” controversy: An identity-based cultural conflict. file:///C:/Users/tblit/Downloads/The_call_out_culture_controversy_An_iden%20(1).pdf.Google Scholar
Fahey, J., Roberts, J. & Utych, S. (2023). Principled or partisan? The effect of cancel culture framings on support for free speech. American Politics Research, 51(1), 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2004). Semiotic aspects of social transformation and learning. In A. Rogers, ed., An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 225–235.Google Scholar
Fereday, J. & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, G. (2012). Group culture and the interaction order: Local sociology on the meso-level. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, G. & Hallett, T. (2014). Group cultures and the everyday life of organizations: Interaction orders and meso-analysis. Organization Studies, 35(12), 1773–1792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1996). Madness only exists in society. In S. Lotringer, ed., Foucault Live: Interviews, 1961–84, 2nd ed. Semiotext(e) Foreign Agents Series, pp. 7–9.Google Scholar
Frobenius, M. & Gerhardt, C. (2017). Discourse and organization. In Hoffmann, C. R. and Bublitz, W., eds., Pragmatics of Social Media. De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2009). Impoliteness and identity in the American news media: The culture wars. Journal of Politeness Research, 5, 273–304.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010a). The YouTubification of politics, impoliteness and polarization. In Taiwo, R., ed., Handbook of Research on Discourse Behavior and Digital Communication: Language Structures and Social Interaction. IGI Global, pp. 540–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010b). Introduction: The status quo and quo vadis of impoliteness research. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 535–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010c). A genre approach to the study of im-politeness. International Review of Pragmatics, 2(1), 46–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2013). Introduction: Face, identity and (im)politeness. Looking backward, moving forward: From Goffman to practice theory. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2021). Getting into the mob: A netnographic, case-study approach to online public shaming. In Johansson, M., Tanskanen, S. & Chovanec, J., eds., Analysing Digital Discourse: Between Convergence and Controversy. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 247–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2022a). Karen: Stigmatized social identity and face-threat in the on/offline nexus. Journal of Pragmatics, 188, 14–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2022b). Moral emotions, good moral panics, social regulation, and online public shaming. Language & Communication, 84, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. & Fernández-Amaya, L. (2023). The offline/online nexus and public spaces: Morality, civility, and aggression in the attribution and ratification of the Karen social identity. In Parini, A. & Yus, F., eds., The Discursive Construction of Place in the Digital Age. Routledge, pp. 121–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. & Georgakopoulou, A. (2021). Analyzing identity. In Haugh, M., Kádár, D. & Terkourafi, M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. & Kádár, D. (2021). Morality in sociopragmatics. In Haugh, M., Kádár, D. & Terkourafi, M., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. & Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2022). “Go ahead and ‘debunk’ truth by calling it a conspiracy theory”: The discourse construction of conspiracy theory theoryness in online affinity spaces. In Demata, M., Zorzi, V. & Zottola, A., eds.,Conspiracy Theory Discourses. John Benjamins, pp. 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. & Sifianou, M. (2017). Im/politeness and identity. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., & Kádár, D., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 227–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. & Sifianou, M. (2019). (Im)politeness and discursive pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1956). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61(5), 420–424.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. 2nd ed. Routledge.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2014). How to Do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit. 2nd ed. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic books.Google Scholar
Gençer, H. (2019). Group dynamics and behaviour. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(1), 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, M. (1989). On Social Facts. Routledge.Google Scholar
Giles, H. (ed.). (2012). The Handbook of Intergroup Communication. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Ravenio Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963a). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963b). Behavior in Public Places. The Free Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1955/1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Goldman, L. M. (2015). Trending now: The use of social media websites in public shaming punishments. American Criminal Law Review, 52, 415–451.Google Scholar
Guillory, J., Spiegel, J., Drislane, M. et al. (2011). “Upset now?” Emotion contagion in distributed groups. In Grinter, R. Rodden, Aoki, T., Cutrell, P., Jeffries, E., R. & Olson, G., eds., Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 745–748.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In Davidson, R., ed., Handbook of Affective Sciences. Oxford University Press, pp. 852–870.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Vintage.Google Scholar
Hatfield, H. & Hahn, J. W. (2014). The face of others: Triadic and dyadic interactions in Korea and the United States. Journal of Politeness Research, 10(2), 221–245.Google Scholar
Harrington, B., & Fine, G. A. (2000). Opening the “Black Box”: Small groups and twenty-first-century sociology. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, S. (2001). Being politically impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discourse. Discourse & Society, 12(4), 451–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmon, A. H. & Metaxas, P. T. (2010). How to create a smart mob: Understanding a social network capital. In IADIS Int. Conf. e-Democracy, Equity and Social Justice. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/21fb/133c04822d96812613febfdc9198d737e5ff.pdf.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3(2), 95–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008a). Intention in pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008b). The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In Kecskés, I. and Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-hearer. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. (2022). (Online) public denunciation, public incivilities and offence. Language & Communication, 87, 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. & Jaszczolt, K. (2012). Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M., Kádár, D. & Mills, S. (2013). Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, D. & Lave, J. (eds.). (2001). History in Person. School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2013). Women, Men and Politeness. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, J. & Milner, C. (1998). Rituals of humiliation and exclusion. Reaching Today’s Youth: The Community Circle of Caring Journal, 3(1), 28–32.Google Scholar
Hutcherson, C. & Gross, J. (2011). The moral emotions: A social–functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 719–737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8(2/3), 223–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankovic, M. & Ludwig, K. (eds.). (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Collective intentionality. RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasper, J. M. (2012). Choice points, emotional batteries, and other ways to find strategic agency at the micro-level. Strategies for Social Change. University of Minnesota Press, 23–42.Google Scholar
Jones, R. (2017). Spoken Discourse. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Jones, R. & Themistocleous, C. (2022). Introducing Language and Society. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joos, M. (1967). The Five Clocks. Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. E. (2013). Identity work and face work across linguistic and cultural boundaries. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juliano, S. (2012). Superheroes, bandits, and cyber-nerds: Exploring the history and contemporary development of the vigilante. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, 7, 44–64.Google Scholar
Jurgenson, N. (2011). Digital dualism versus augmented reality. The Society Pages, 24, 1–2.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, E. (2022). The new culture wars: Why critical race theory matters more than cancel culture. Social Science Quarterly, 103(4), 773–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keltner, D. & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition & Emotion, 13(5), 505–521.Google Scholar
Kemmis, S. (2009). Action research as a practice‐based practice. Educational Action Research, 17(3), 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langlotz, A. & Locher, M. (2017). (Im)politeness and emotion. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. & Kádár, D., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 287–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. Harper & Row Publishers.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1989). The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua, 8(2/3), 101–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawler, E. J. (1992). Affective attachments to nested groups: A choice-process theory. American Sociological Review, 57(3), 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarus, S. (2017). Cyber mobs: A model for improving protections for Internet users. Master’s Thesis, Utica College.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Longman.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. L. (2002). Travels in hypermodality. Visual Communication, 1(3), 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, R. & Christin, A. (2022). Platform drama: “Cancel culture,” celebrity, and the struggle for accountability on YouTube. New Media & Society, 24(7), 1632–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H., & Jung, S. (2018). Networked audiences and cultural globalization. Sociology Compass, 12(4), e12570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. & Pettit, P. (2011). Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. (2008). Relational work, politeness and identity construction. In Antos, G. & Ventola, E., eds., Handbooks of Applied Linguistics. Issue 2: Interpersonal Communication. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 509–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. & Graham, S. (eds.). (2010). Interpersonal Pragmatics. Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. & Schnurr, S. (2017). (Im) politeness in health settings. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. & Kádár, D., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 689–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locher, M. & Watts, R. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N., Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. & Bou-Franch, P. (2011). On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. Journal of pragmatics, 43(10), 2578–2593.Google Scholar
Marlow, M. L. (2017). Public discourse and intergroup communication. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. https://oxfordre.com/communication/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-420.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. (2021). Stay woke. The right can be iliberal too. www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/opinion/woke-free-speech.html.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. & Bou-Franch, P. (2017). (Im) politeness in service encounters. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. & Kádár, D., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 661–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Márquez-Reiter, R. M. & Placencia, M. E. (2005). Spanish Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwick, A. & boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. R. (2015). Genre as social action (1984) revisited 30 years later (2014). Letras & Letras, 31(3), 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E. R. (2013). Positioning selves, doing relational work and constructing identities in interview talk. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(1), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, S. (2003). Class, Gender and Politeness. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, A. & Ashby Plant, E. (2019). The dark side of morality: Prioritizing sanctity over care motivates denial of mind and prejudice toward sexual outgroups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(2), 342–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, M. (2010). The presentation of indirectness and power in everyday life. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(2), 283–291.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. S. (2021). Blame, then shame? Psychological predictors in cancel culture behavior. The Social Science Journal, 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/03623319.2021.1949552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng, E. (2020). No grand pronouncements here … : Reflections on cancel culture and digital media participation. Television & New Media, 21(6), 621–627.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (2023). Cancel culture: Myth or reality? Political Studies, 71, 145–174.Google Scholar
Noyes, A. & Dunham, Y. (2017). Mutual intentions as a causal framework for social groups. Cognition, 162, 133–142.Google Scholar
Nwoye, O. (1992). Linguistics politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2017). Face and (im) politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. & Kádár, D., eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 541–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappacharissi, Z. (2011). A Networked Self. Routledge.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a Local Practice. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percy-Smith, B. & Matthews, H. (2001). Tyrannical spaces: Young people, bullying and urban neighbourhoods. Local Environment, 6(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, M. A. & Besley, T. A. (2014). Social exclusion/inclusion: Foucault’s analytics of exclusion, the political ecology of social inclusion and the legitimation of inclusive education. Open Review of Educational Research, 1(1), 99–115.Google Scholar
Pires, R. P. (2012). 0 problema da ordem [The problem of order]. Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas, 69, 31–45.Google Scholar
Polletta, F. & Jasper, J. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 283–305.Google Scholar
Rao, H. & Dutta, S. (2012). Free spaces as organizational weapons of the weak: Religious festivals and regimental mutinies in the 1857 Bengal Native Army. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(4), 625–668.Google Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (2005). Garfinkel’s conception of time. Time & Society, 14(2-3), 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichl, F. (2019). From vigilantism to digilantism? In Akhgar, B., Bayerl, P. & Leventakis, G., eds., Social Media Strategy in Policing. Springer, pp. 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rempala, K., Hornewer, M. & Samoska, S. (2020). The dark side of morality: Grayer than you think? AJOB Neuroscience, 11(4), 295–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reicher, S. D., Spears, R. & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6(1), 161–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romano, A. (2019). Why we can’t stop fighting about cancel culture:Is cancel culture a mob mentality, or a long overdue way of speaking truth to power?Vox. www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/30/20879720/what-is-cancel-culture-explained-history-debate.Google Scholar
Romano, A. (2021). The second wave of cancel culture. Vox. www.vox.com/22384308/cancel-culture-free-speech-accountability-debate.Google Scholar
Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2007). Politeness markers in Persian requestives. The Linguistics Journal, 2, 43–68.Google Scholar
Saint-Louis, H. (2021). Understanding cancel culture: Normative and unequal sanctioning. Firstmonday, 26(7). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10891/11211.Google Scholar
Schweikard, D. P. & Schmid, H. B. (2021). Collective intentionality. In E. N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/collective-intentionality/.Google Scholar
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (2010). Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serpa, S. & Ferreira, C. M. (2019). Micro, meso and macro-levels of social analysis. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 7(3), 120–124.Google Scholar
Shaw, F. (2012). The politics of blogs: Theories of discursive activism online. Media International Australia, 142(1), 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sifianou, M. (1999). Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-cultural Perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. (2011). On the concept of face and politeness. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. & Kádár, D., eds., Politeness across Cultures. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorell, T. (2019). Scambaiting on the spectrum of digilantism. Criminal Justice Ethics, 38(3), 153–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 95−119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 639−656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinuzzi, C. (2004). Describing assemblages: Genre sets, systems, repertoires, and ecologies. Computer Writing and Research Lab. www.dwrl.utexas.edu/old/content/describing-assemblages.html.Google Scholar
Spinuzzi, C. & Zachry, M. (2000). Genre ecologies: An open-system approach to understanding and constructing documentation. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stets, J. & Burke, P. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63,224–237.Google Scholar
Straka, B., Stanaland, A., Tomasello, T. & Gaither, S. (2021). Who can be in a group? 3-to 5-year-old children construe realistic social groups through mutual intentionality. Cognitive Development, 60, 101097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2021.101097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1979). Individuals and groups in social psychology. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18(2), 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H., Turner, J. (1979/2004). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Hatch, M.J. & Schultz, M., eds., Organizational Identity: A Reader. Oxford University Press, pp. 56–65.Google Scholar
Tardy, C. (2009). Building Genre Knowledge. Parlor Press LLC.Google Scholar
Thi Nguyen, C. & Strohl, M. (2019). Cultural appropriation and the intimacy of groups. Philosophical Studies, 176(4), 981–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiele, M. (2021). Political correctness and cancel culture–a question of power. Journalism Research, 4(1), 50–57.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L. & Reinhardt, J. (2008). “Bridging activities,” new media literacies, and advanced foreign language proficiency. Calico Journal, 25(3), 558–572.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. (2018). A critique of linguistic capitalism: Provocation/intervention. Geohumanities, 4(2), 417–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollefsen, D. (2002). Collective intentionality and the social sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 32(1), 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollefsen, D. P. (2015). Groups as Agents. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2018). How we learned to put our fate in one another’s hands: The origins of morality. Scientific American, 319(3), 70–75.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Melis, A. P., Tennie, C., Wyman, E. & Herrmann, E. (2012). Two key steps in the evolution of human cooperation: The interdependence hypothesis. Current Anthropology, 53(6), 673–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Rakoczy, H. (2003). What makes human cognition unique? From individual to shared to collective intentionality. Mind & Language, 18(2), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomela, R. (2004). Group knowledge analyzed. Episteme, 1(2), 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomela, R. (2007). The Philosophy of Sociality: The Shared Point of View. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomela, R. (2011). An account of group knowledge. Collective Epistemology, 75-117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomela, R. (2013). Social Ontology: Collective Intentionality and Group Agents. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomela, R. (2017). Non-reductive views of shared intention. In Jankovic, M. & Ludwig, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality. Routledge, pp. 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. & Stets, J. (2006). Moral emotions. In Stets, J. & Turner, J., eds.,Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions: Volume II. Springer, pp. 544–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vähämaa, M. (2013). Groups as epistemic communities: Social forces and affect as antecedents to knowledge. Social Epistemology, 27(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Power and the news media. Political Communication and Action, 6(1), 9–36.Google Scholar
Varis, P. & van Nuenen, T. (2017). The internet, language, and virtual interactions. In O. García, N. Flores & Spotti, M., eds.,The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society. Oxford University Press, pp. 473–488.Google Scholar
Vásquez, C. (2011). Complaints online: The case of TripAdvisor. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1707–1717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velasco, J. C. (2020). You are cancelled: Virtual collective consciousness and the emergence of cancel culture as ideological purging. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 12(5), 48–68.Google Scholar
Vogels, E. (2022). A growing share of Americans are familiar with “Cancel Culture.” Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/09/a-growing-share-of-americans-are-familiar-with-cancel-culture/.Google Scholar
Vogels, E., Anderson, M., Porteus, M. et al. (2021). Americans and “Cancel Culture”: Where some see calls for accountability, others see censorship, punishment. www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-where-some-see-calls-for-accountability-others-see-censorship-punishment/.Google Scholar
Wang, J. & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2015). The gains and losses of face in ongoing intercultural interaction: A case study of Chinese participant perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 89, 50–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson-Jones, R. E. & Legare, C. H. (2016). The social functions of group rituals. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 42–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, R. (2014). Social ontology: Collective intentionality and group agents by Raimo Tuomela. Studies in Social and Political Thought, 23, 78–81.Google Scholar
Wesselmann, E. D., Wirth, J. H., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D. & Williams, K. D. (2013). When do we ostracize? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(1), 108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Workman, C. I., Yoder, K. J. & Decety, J. (2020). The dark side of morality–Neural mechanisms underpinning moral convictions and support for violence. AJOB Neuroscience, 11(4), 269–284.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M. (2014). Enacting identity in microblogging through ambient affiliation. Discourse & Communication, 8(2), 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, K. B. (2001). Collective belief and acceptance. Synthese, 129(3), 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeng, J. & Abidin, C. (2021). “# OkBoomer, time to meet the Zoomers”: Studying the memefication of intergenerational politics on TikTok. Information, Communication & Society, 24(16), 2459–2481.Google Scholar