Claire Hardaker

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

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.

Im)politeness in Digital Communication

This chapter examines (Im)politeness in digital contexts, exploring the dynamics of mediated communication, and the ways that (Im)politeness is understood and (re)negotiated within digital environments. Beginning with an overview of (Im)politeness research, it examines aspects of mediated communication (e.g. degree of a/synchronicity, degree of anonymity, etc.) and how these affect interactional strategies. It discusses (Im)politeness in specific digital platforms (e.g. email, discussion boards, etc.), the ethics of studying computer-mediated communication (CMC), and practical matters concerning data collection and analysis. The case study uses online gaming interactions to assess how we understand digital impoliteness and attempt to control it through robot moderators versus human moderators. The chapter concludes with questions about differences between face-to-face and digital interaction, and the effects of increasing multimodality on the ways we perceive and negotiate (Im)politeness.

Metaphor, impoliteness, and offence in online communication

What role might figurative language play in utterances that are designed to threaten or cause offence? In this chapter we tackle this question, against the backdrop of social practices around computer-mediated communication (CMC), by combining evidence in metaphor and impoliteness research. This combination is necessary because of the relative absence of studies investigating the role of metaphor in offence more broadly.

Comprehensive policy review of anti-trafficking projects funded by the EU

This report addresses four objectives: 1. To conduct a comprehensive review of European Commission (EC) funded anti-trafficking projects so as to enhance coordination, avoid duplication and provide a solid basis for coherent, cost-effective and strategic planning, including potentially for the further development of anti-trafficking policies at EU level, thereby supporting the dual aims of enhanced coordination and cooperation among key actors and policy coherence. 2. To map and analyse the distribution of EC-funded anti-trafficking projects according to their scope of intervention, geographic areas of intervention, fields, actors, target beneficiaries, funding level, types of output, policy recommendations and other relevant aspects. 3. To identify and assess the common, unique or complementary contribution of the impact and results of these funded projects to the objectives of the EU anti-trafficking strategy, including whether their contribution has yet been taken into account. 4. To identify trends, emerging research and policy questions