IMPOLITENESS AS A PERSUASIVE TOOL IN SOCIAL MEDIA POITICAL DISCUSSIONS
Mukhammadiyeva Munisa Bakhodir qizi
Denov Institute of Entrepreneurship and Pedagogy Master student of English language and literature department
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6920-6558
M.J.Isroilova
Acting associate professor (PhD), Scientific supervisor
Keywords: impoliteness, persuasion, political discourse, social media, pragmatics, online interaction, face-threatening acts.
Abstract
This article investigates impoliteness as a persuasive communicative strategy in political discussions on social media platforms. Drawing on pragmatic and discourse-analytical approaches, particularly the theories of impoliteness developed by Culpeper and Bousfield, the study examines how face-threatening and aggressive language is strategically employed to influence audiences, delegitimize political opponents, construct group identities, and mobilize political support. The article argues that impoliteness in online political discourse should not be interpreted merely as a violation of communicative norms, but rather as a purposeful rhetorical resource reinforced by the affordances of digital media. While impoliteness increases visibility, emotional engagement, and persuasive impact, it simultaneously contributes to polarization and the deterioration of deliberative democratic communication.
References
1. Baym N. K. Personal Connections in the Digital Age. - Polity Press, Cambridge - 2015. - 184 b.
2. Berry J., Sobieraj S. The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility. - Oxford University Press, Oxford - 2014. - 256 b.
3. Bousfield D. Impoliteness in Interaction. - John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam - 2008. - 320 b.
4. Boyd d. It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. - Yale University Press, New Haven - 2014. - 288 b.
5. Brown P., Levinson S. C. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. - Cambridge University Press, Cambridge - 1987. - 345 b.
6. Culpeper J. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness // Journal of Pragmatics. - 1996. - Vol. 25, № 3. - P. 349–367.
7. Culpeper J. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. - Cambridge University Press, Cambridge - 2011. - 292 b.
8. Dynel M. Impoliteness in computer-mediated communication // Journal of Politeness Research. - 2015. - Vol. 11, № 2. - P. 329–345.
9. Fairclough N. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. - Longman, London - 1995. - 265 b.
10. Graham S. L. Disagreeing to Agree: Conflict and Impoliteness in Online Political Discussions. - 2015. - 210 b.
11. Harris S. Being politically impolite // Discourse & Society. - 2001. - Vol. 12, № 4. - P. 451–472.
12. Hutchby I. Technologies, texts and affordances // Sociology. - 2001. - Vol. 35, № 2. - P. 441–456.
13. Kienpointner M. Impoliteness and emotional arguments // Journal of Politeness Research. - 2008. - Vol. 4, № 2. - P. 243–265.
14. Locher M. A. Power and politeness in action // Discourse & Society. - 2010. - Vol. 21, № 1. - P. 3–28.
15. Locher M. A., Watts R. J. Politeness theory and relational work // Journal of Politeness Research. - 2005. - Vol. 1, № 1. - P. 9–33.
16. Papacharissi Z. Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups // Political Communication. - 2004. - Vol. 21, № 2. - P. 259–271.
17. Wodak R. The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. - SAGE Publications, London - 2015. - 240 b.
