tjllc.2026.v05i02.015.

VERBAL AGGRESSION AS IDENTITY: A STUDY OF IMPOLITENESS IN ONLINE MUSIC DISCOURSE

Lawal Khadijat Temitope
Department of Linguistics and African Languages,
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria
Email Address: lawal.khadijatt@gmail.com
Phone Number: +2348032801411

Abstract

In the digital communities that encompass Nigerian music, verbal aggression has become more prevalent in online music discourse. This study investigates how impoliteness is used for identity performance and social positioning in virtual environments using Culpeper's Impoliteness Theory (1996, 2011). Its aim is to understand how impoliteness, particularly when used deliberately and strategically, impacts conversation in the context of online reactions to Nigerian Pidgin music. Using a qualitative research method, data were gathered from YouTube user-generated comments on Nigerian Pidgin music videos. A purposive sample of 20 comment threads focusing on artists known for impolite lyrics and public controversies (Portable, Zlatan, Naira Marley, and Burna Boy) were selected based on the presence of overt impoliteness markers, Pidgin expressions, and aggressive linguistic forms. Detailed ethnographic observation was conducted over three months (October-December 2024), during which the researcher adopted a non-participant observer position. The first 100 top-level comments from each selected video were extracted, screened for criteria indicating face-threatening acts, Nigerian Pidgin usage, and fan rivalry, yielding a final corpus of 200 comments. Each comment was coded inductively for impoliteness markers and then mapped onto Culpeper's (1996) five super-strategies: bald on-record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, sarcasm/mock impoliteness, and withholding politeness. The findings revealed that sarcasm/mock impoliteness (27.8%) predominates, followed by bald on-record impoliteness (22.2%) and positive politeness (16.7%). Impoliteness is socially oriented and culturally significant. Users frequently employ particular impoliteness techniques to demonstrate fan allegiance, create a sense of in-group identity, and discredit competing fan groups or opposing viewpoints. The study concluded that impoliteness in online music discourse in Nigeria is a complex behaviour that combines identity, culture, and language. As such, verbal aggressiveness should be viewed as a language and cultural resource that controls digital relationships. The importance of local languages, like Nigerian Pidgin, in influencing online discourse should be further explored via media literacy programs and sociolinguistic studies.

Keywords: Digital Communication, Impoliteness, Nigerian Pidgin Music, Verbal Aggression

1. Introduction

In the dynamic landscape of digital communication, social media platforms have become vital spaces for expressing identity, emotion, and cultural belonging. Within Nigeria's vibrant online music communities, particularly those surrounding Nigerian Pidgin music, verbal aggression and impoliteness have emerged as distinctive linguistic practices. These discourses, often characterised by witty insults, sarcasm, and humour, are not mere outbursts of rudeness but are socially meaningful and culturally embedded.

The phenomenon of verbal aggression in Nigerian Pidgin online music discourse warrants critical attention within the field of pragmatics, particularly under the framework of impoliteness theory. Pragmatics, as a branch of linguistics, examines how meaning is shaped by context, intention, and social interaction rather than by grammatical structure alone. It explores how speakers negotiate meaning through language choices that reflect attitudes, relationships, and social expectations.

According to Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory, communication involves strategies to maintain face, an individual's public self-image and desire for social approval. Speakers typically use politeness strategies to reduce conflict and preserve social harmony.

However, as Culpeper (1996, 2011) argues, not all interactions are oriented toward politeness. His impoliteness theory emphasises how language can intentionally threaten face to achieve communicative effects such as provocation, entertainment, or dominance. Culpeper categorises impoliteness strategies into forms such as bald-on-record attacks, sarcasm, ridicule, and mock impoliteness, noting that these strategies often perform meaningful social and cultural functions rather than merely expressing hostility. Similarly, Bousfield (2008) asserts that impoliteness can be a deliberate and strategic act that contributes to humour, control, and identity performance.

In the digital age, platforms like YouTube provide a fertile context for the expression and performance of impoliteness. Through features such as comment threads, likes, and replies, users engage in highly interactive and performative communication. In Nigerian music spaces, these transform comment sections into discursive arenas where fans, critics, and artists use language to negotiate identity, assert social status, and perform belonging. Verbal aggression in these contexts often functions as a form of digital performance, aligning with Graham's (2007) notion of "performative antagonism," where conflict becomes spectacle and entertainment.

Within Nigerian Pidgin discourse, practices such as yabbing (playful insult) and clapback (verbal retort) serve as culturally sanctioned ways of expressing humour, critique, and solidarity. Thus, what might be perceived as impolite or aggressive in Western settings is often interpreted within Nigerian contexts as expressive, entertaining, or socially engaging.

Despite the prevalence of such interactions, scholarly attention has largely overlooked music-based digital communities in Nigeria, focusing instead on political or religious discourse (e.g., Taiwo et al., 2016; Ajayi & Bamgbose, 2019). This leaves a notable gap in understanding how Nigerian Pidgin functions as a pragmatic resource for identity construction and social negotiation in digital entertainment spaces.

This study, therefore, investigates impoliteness strategies in Nigerian Pidgin YouTube comments as a reflection of digital communication norms and sociolinguistic identity. By situating the analysis within Culpeper's impoliteness framework, the research explores how language, culture, and technology intersect to shape meaning-making practices in Nigerian online communities. Ultimately, the study contributes to the growing body of scholarship on African digital discourse and the pragmatics of online interaction.

Nigerian Pidgin and Music

Nigerian Pidgin occupies a central position in the nation's linguistic and cultural landscape. Emerging from historical contact between English and indigenous Nigerian languages during the colonial era, it has evolved from a trade lingua franca into a dynamic medium of everyday communication, creativity, and popular expression. Its flexibility, humour, and accessibility have made it the most widely spoken contact language in Nigeria, transcending ethnic and regional boundaries (Faraclas, 2013; Elugbe & Omamor, 1991). Once considered a low-prestige contact variety, it has evolved into a national lingua franca that cuts across ethnic, social, and class boundaries. Its adaptability, humour, and expressiveness make it a central tool for digital communication, especially among young people. Online spaces, particularly YouTube comment sections associated with music videos, have become fertile grounds for the performance of linguistic creativity, social commentary, and playful antagonism in Pidgin. These interactions reflect a vibrant communicative culture that blends entertainment with social evaluation.

In the Nigerian music industry, Pidgin has become an indispensable tool for artistic expression and audience connection. Musicians deploy it not only for its communicative ease but also for its symbolic power as it represents authenticity, urban identity, and cultural solidarity. The integration of Pidgin in music lyrics enables artists to engage diverse audiences and reflect lived social realities, from street culture to political commentary.

Genres such as Afrobeats, hip-hop, and street pop (e.g., those of Portable, Naira Marley, Burna Boy, and Zlatan) rely heavily on Pidgin to project an image of linguistic innovation. Furthermore, Nigerian Pidgin functions as a sociocultural index, signalling inclusion within a shared community of listeners who understand its nuances, idioms, and humour. Through music, Pidgin transcends its earlier stigmatisation as "non-standard" and becomes a marker of creativity and social resistance. Its playful and adaptive nature allows artists to embed humour, irony, and impoliteness into their lyrics, creating layered meanings that resonate with fans both locally and internationally.

In digital spaces, especially on YouTube, this linguistic vitality extends beyond the lyrics to the comment sections, where fans and critics employ Pidgin to negotiate belonging, assert opinions, and perform identities. Thus, Nigerian Pidgin serves not only as the language of music but also as the language of music discourse, an evolving digital vernacular that reinforces cultural identity and community through shared verbal artistry.

Digital Communication and Online Interaction

Digital communication, as discussed by Herring (2004) and Barton and Lee (2013), is not merely a channel for message exchange but a form of social action shaped by technology. Online discourse communities are governed by norms that differ from traditional face-to-face interactions, often privileging immediacy, humour, and expressive intensity. The semi-anonymous nature of these platforms encourages directness and spontaneity, creating conditions where impoliteness as theorised by Culpeper (1996, 2011) is both a communicative strategy and a marker of authenticity. Within such settings, face-threatening acts can signal wit, confidence, and belonging rather than hostility.

In African digital cultures, these dynamics are especially pronounced. Scholars such as Agyekum (2002) and Adegbite (2019) have observed that verbal aggression and mockery often function as socially acceptable forms of engagement within African pragmatics. Online, these cultural norms are re-contextualised: insults, teasing, and sarcasm become resources for solidarity, social critique, and self-presentation. Thus, impoliteness is not merely deviant behaviour but an important means of negotiating interpersonal relationships and group identity.

YouTube as a Sociolinguistic Space

YouTube, founded in 2005 and acquired by Google in 2006, has evolved from a simple video-sharing platform into one of the world's largest digital ecosystems for entertainment, education, and social interaction. Initially designed to enable users to upload and share personal videos, YouTube has become a central hub for global communication and cultural exchange. In the Nigerian context, YouTube has revolutionised how music is produced, distributed, and consumed. Before the digital era, the Nigerian music industry relied heavily on radio, television, and compact discs for circulation. However, YouTube has dismantled these traditional gate-keeping systems, allowing artists to directly reach global audiences while providing fans with spaces for engagement and commentary. As a result, the platform has become an archive of Nigerian musical expression and a forum for spontaneous linguistic and cultural interaction.

Within this study, YouTube is conceptualised as both a technological medium and a discursive site that shapes sociolinguistic behaviour. The comment sections of Nigerian Pidgin music videos operate as virtual performance arenas, where fans and critics negotiate social meanings through language. Viewers use Nigerian Pidgin and other localised linguistic forms not only to express opinions about songs but also to perform identity work, aligning themselves with certain artists, communities, or ideologies. The interactive environment promotes the use of impoliteness strategies, including sarcasm, ridicule, name-calling, and mock aggression, which often function as socially meaningful practices rather than mere verbal hostility.

Its global reach makes it an ideal site for examining how verbal aggression and impoliteness in Nigerian Pidgin discourse operate not as antisocial acts but as communicative strategies that sustain community, performance, and cultural authenticity in the digital age.

Theoretical Framework

Politeness, as a pragmatic concept, has gained linguists' scholarly attention within the last thirty years (Babatunde & Adedimeji, 2006). It was initially theorised by Goffman (1967) before Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) gave it a full-blown relevance in universal language. Brown and Levinson (1987) centralised and revolved around the concept of face, which refers to "the public self-image of a person" and the "emotional and social feeling of self which an individual has and expects others to recognise" (Odebunmi, 2002, p. 48). There are positive and negative faces. Adegbija (1989) explains that the positive face satisfies a speaker's need for approval and belonging, while the negative face serves to minimise the imposition of face threatening act.

Based on Brown and Levinson's (1987) "theory of politeness", impoliteness could be detected in the form of such acts as reproaching, threatening, insulting, belittling, etc. The assessment of an utterance as polite/impolite is subject to the norms of a sociocultural community. Sometimes, an utterance is viewed as impolite due to the addresser's ignorance of the social politeness values, which may differ from one sociocultural community to another, e.g., direct request, omitting words, such as 'please', 'sorry', formal greeting, 'thanks', or misuse of the appropriate level of formality.

Framework of Impoliteness

Culpeper's work includes a framework of impoliteness which is based on the theory of Brown & Levinson (1987). Culpeper (1996, p. 8) defines five impoliteness super-strategies, which are opposites of Brown & Levinson's politeness super-strategies. He says: "Instead of enhancing or supporting face, impoliteness super strategies are a means of attacking face." Culpeper describes the five super strategies by which impoliteness can be created and received. They are:

Bald On Record Impoliteness: The face-threatening act (FTA), a threat to a person's face, is performed in a direct, clear, unambiguous and concise way in circumstances where face is not irrelevant or minimised (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p. 69). It is the most obvious and straightforward impoliteness. Culpeper uses the concept of face-attack-act (FAA), in opposition to FTA, in order to identify the face attack where there is a deliberate intention on the part of the speaker.

Positive Impoliteness: The use of strategies designed to damage the addressee's positive face wants, e.g., ignore, snub the other, fail to acknowledge the other's presence. Exclude the other from an activity. Disassociate from the other - for example, deny association or common ground with the other; avoid sitting together. Be disinterested, unconcerned, and unsympathetic. Use inappropriate identity markers - for example, use title and surname when a close relationship pertains, or a nickname when a distant relationship pertains. Use obscure or secretive language, seek disagreement - select a sensitive topic. Make the other feel uncomfortable - for example, do not avoid silence, joke, or use small talk. Use taboo words - swear, or use abusive or profane language. Call the other names - use derogatory nominations.

Negative Impoliteness: The use of strategies designed to damage the addressee's negative face wants, e.g., Frighten - instil a belief that an action detrimental to the other will occur. Condescension, scorn or ridicule - emphasise your relative power. Be contemptuous. Do not treat the other seriously. Belittle the other (e.g., use diminutives). Invade the other's space - literally (e.g. position yourself closer to the other than the relationship permits) or metaphorically (e.g. ask for or speak about information which is too intimate given the relationship). Explicitly associate the other with a negative aspect - personalise, use the pronouns 'I' and 'you'. Put the other's indebtedness on record. Violate the structure of conversation -- interrupt.

Sarcasm or Mock politeness: Here, the FTA is performed with the use of politeness strategies that are obviously insincere, and thus remain surface realisations. Both strategies are the same, performing impolite utterances because of a clearly insincere intention. It is heavily related to the context, and it is a surface politeness which can be interpreted in an impolite way because of certain contextual clues and the intention of not causing offense but rather to show social intimacy. Often, one has to know the person well to understand that he is being sarcastic, mocking you, or that he is joking.

Withhold Politeness Strategy: Meaning politeness that is expected in a certain situation but is left out for some reasons, some instances of withholding impoliteness involved the absence of manners that are expected from anyone in a normal interaction (greeting, saying goodbye). Culpeper (1996, p. 357) notes that impoliteness may be realised through, "...the absence of politeness work where it would be expected." Then, Culpeper (2005, p. 42) gives the example that "failing to thank someone for a present may be taken as deliberate impoliteness".

Application of Culpeper's Framework in This Study

This study applies Culpeper's (1996, 2011) impoliteness framework through the following systematic procedure:

Step 1: Identification of face-threatening acts in YouTube comments through linguistic markers such as insults, sarcasm, ridicule, and aggressive language.

Step 2: Classification of each identified instance according to Culpeper's five super-strategies (bald on-record, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, sarcasm/mock impoliteness, withholding politeness).

Step 3: Analysis of the pragmatic function of each impoliteness strategy within its interactional context: whether it serves humour, group solidarity, identity performance, or genuine hostility.

Step 4: Integration of African pragmatic perspectives (Agyekum, 2002; Adegbite, 2019) to interpret how culturally specific practices such as yabbing (playful insult) and clapback (verbal retort) operate within the framework.

Step 5: Contextual triangulation using sociolinguistic markers (code-mixing, emojis, Nigerian Pidgin idioms) to validate interpretations and ensure cultural appropriateness of analysis.

This framework, situated within an African sociolinguistic context, demonstrates that impoliteness in online spaces contributes not only to communication but also to digital identity-making and community cohesion.

Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative descriptive research design to investigate the manifestation of impoliteness and verbal aggression in Nigerian Pidgin music discourse on YouTube. The qualitative approach was selected because it allows for in-depth examination of linguistic strategies, cultural meanings, and social functions embedded in online discourse. Unlike quantitative methods that prioritise numerical frequencies, qualitative research captures the nuanced, context-dependent nature of impoliteness as a socially situated practice.

The data for this study comprise twenty selected YouTube comment threads drawn from Nigerian Pidgin music videos by artists such as Portable, Zlatan, Naira Marley, and Burna Boy. These artists were selected due to their prominence in Nigeria's contemporary digital music culture and their audiences' frequent engagement in expressive and confrontational exchanges. The inclusion criteria for the data selection were: (i) presence of explicit or implied impoliteness markers (such as insults, sarcasm, ridicule, or banter); (ii) use of Nigerian Pidgin or code-mixed expressions; and (iii) evidence of fan rivalry, humour, or identity performance.

Data Collection Procedure

The data were collected through detailed ethnographic observation conducted over three months (October–December 2024). The researcher adopted a non-participant observer position, systematically documenting comments without direct engagement in the discourse. The following step-by-step procedure was employed:

Step 1: Videos from artists Portable, Zlatan, Naira Marley, and Burna Boy were identified based on their high view counts, active comment sections, and relevance to Nigerian Pidgin music culture.

Step 2: The first 100 top-level comments from each selected video (posted within the first month of video release) were extracted using YouTube's comment sorting feature.

Step 3: Comments were screened for the following criteria:

· Presence of overt impoliteness markers (insults, sarcasm, mockery)

· Use of Nigerian Pidgin or code-mixed Yoruba-English-Pidgin expressions

· Evidence of fan rivalry, identity performance, or humour

This screening process yielded a final corpus of 200 comments considered relevant for analysis.

Step 4: Each comment was coded inductively for impoliteness markers, examining linguistic forms, tone, emoji usage, and contextual meaning.

Step 5: Comments were then mapped onto Culpeper's (1996) five impoliteness super-strategies: bald on-record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, sarcasm/mock impoliteness, and withholding politeness.

Data Analysis

Data were analysed using Culpeper's (1996, 2011) model of impoliteness, which provides a framework for identifying and categorising impoliteness strategies. Each instance of impoliteness was interpreted in relation to its interactional function—whether to express humour, assert dominance, challenge others, or reinforce in-group identity. The analysis also integrated African pragmatic perspectives (Agyekum, 2002; Adegbite, 2019), which recognise verbal aggression as a socially meaningful and culturally situated communicative act.

The study employed contextual triangulation, cross-checking interpretations of impoliteness strategies with sociolinguistic markers such as code-mixing, use of emojis, and indigenous idiomatic expressions. This approach enabled a nuanced understanding of how Nigerian Pidgin users perform identity, solidarity, and power relations through verbal aggression in online music discourse.

Data Analysis and Presentation

Table 1: Analysis of Selected YouTube Comments

Comment	Category	Impoliteness/Politeness Strategy	Function in Discourse	Notes (Linguistic Features/Tone)
This boy is not normal	Mock Impoliteness	Banter/Playful Aggression	Expresses amusement and admiration in a joking form	Nigerian Pidgin; mockery as endearment
Nonsense	Affective Impoliteness	Direct Face-Attack	Dismisses song quality; expresses disapproval	Very blunt; negative evaluation
Portable de33 patapaaa upgradement oo lol	Mock Impoliteness	Teasing Comparison	Playful insult mixed with praise	Pidgin + code-mixing; laughter softens the insult
U try portable ❤	Positive Politeness	Solidarity/Approval	Offers praise and encouragement	Emoji reinforces sincerity
Stop drinking odogwu bitters so you can be cute like me ni ❤❤ all luv nice song.	Banter/Mock Impoliteness	Humorous Tease	Creates social connection through humour	Code-mixed Yoruba-English; mitigated with "luv"
Portable omo weerey ❤	Mock Impoliteness	Reclaimed Insult/Familiar Banter	Affectionate address using a local insult	"Weerey" (crazy) as an identity marker
This man do make you retrid 😂😂	Genuine Impoliteness	Ridicule	Negative judgment masked by laughter	Emojis reduce perceived harshness
I expected more	Negative Evaluation	Constructive Criticism	Expresses disappointment	Neutral but evaluative tone
Who dey underrate my guy e super talented	Positive Politeness	Defense/Group Solidarity	Counters criticism; aligns with fan base	In-group marker "my guy"
This one na still music	Mock Impoliteness	Irony/Sarcasm	Implies low song quality	Sarcastic Nigerian Pidgin tone
This video na free e sure for me	Sarcastic Impoliteness	Economic Mockery	Suggests a cheap production value	Understatement as ridicule
This one is total trash song	Affective Impoliteness	Direct Insult	Rejects artistic value outright	Unmitigated impoliteness
Na jam be this	Positive Politeness	Approval	Expresses a strong liking	"Jam" = hit song
Cheapest music video of 2025	Mock Impoliteness	Ridicule/Irony	Critiques the video quality	Humour mitigates insult
Mumu man	Affective Impoliteness	Name-Calling	Direct insult	Common Nigerian insult
Portable sand the same rubbish	Affective Impoliteness	Negative Judgment	Accuses the artist of repetition	Strong disapproval
Him song na gwo gwo gwo until e finish. One love don't play	Playful/Mixed Evaluation	Humor + Acceptance	Gentle mockery with solidarity	Hybrid tone
I guess the song is a freestyle	Neutral Comment	Informative/Mild Evaluation	Analytical interpretation	Non-aggressive stance

Table 2: Summary of Discourse Patterns

Dimension	Observation
Dominant Tone	Mixed impoliteness combining mock (humorous) and affective (genuine criticism).
Cultural Markers	Frequent Nigerian Pidgin, humour, slang, and Yoruba-English code-mixing.
Identity Construction	Fans perform belonging through shared insults, humour, and in-group expressions (e.g., "my guy," "weerey").
Discourse Function	Impoliteness functions as engagement, authenticity, and emotional expression rather than hostility.
Contrast with Ayra Starr Data	Unlike admiration-driven fandoms (e.g., Ayra Starr, Burna Boy), Portable's fan community relies on mock and affective impoliteness to construct identity.

Table 3: Frequency of Impoliteness Strategies in Nigerian YouTube Music Discourse (Culpeper's Model)

Impoliteness Strategy (Culpeper)	Frequency	Percentage (%)	Illustrative Examples	Pragmatic Function
Bald on Record Impoliteness	4	22.2%	"Mumu man"; "This one is total trash song"; "Nonsense"	Direct face attack; explicit rejection
Positive Impoliteness	3	16.7%	"Portable sand the same rubbish"; "This one na still music"	Devalues social approval
Negative Impoliteness	2	11.1%	"I expected more"	Undermines competence and autonomy
Sarcasm/Mock Impoliteness	5	27.8%	"Cheapest music video of 2025"; "Portable de33 patapaaa upgradement oo lol"	Humour-driven mockery
Withholding Politeness	1	5.6%	Absence of praise	Failure to meet politeness expectations
Positive Politeness	3	16.7%	"U try portable ❤"; "Who dey underrate my guy"	Solidarity and in-group identity
Total	18	100%	---	---

Discussion

The findings from this study reveal several important patterns regarding the use of impoliteness in Nigerian Pidgin online music discourse:

1. Predominance of Mock Impoliteness

Sarcasm/Mock Impoliteness (27.8%) is the most frequent strategy, highlighting how humour and irony dominate Nigerian digital communication, especially in music fandoms. This aligns with Graham's (2007) notion of "performative antagonism," where conflict becomes spectacle and entertainment. Comments like "Cheapest music video of 2025" and "Portable de33 patapaaa upgradement oo lol" demonstrate how users employ sarcasm not necessarily to cause genuine offense but to entertain, bond with others, and display wit.

2. Coexistence of Direct and Creative Aggression

Bald on Record Impoliteness (22.2%) and Positive Impoliteness (16.7%) show that direct verbal attacks coexist with creative verbal play, reflecting a culture where verbal expressiveness and wit are socially valued. Nigerian Pidgin's flexibility allows users to move fluidly between genuine criticism ("Nonsense," "Mumu man") and playful banter, often within the same discourse community.

3. Competence-Based Criticism

Negative Impoliteness (11.1%) often targets the artist's competence, reinforcing hierarchies of taste and expertise within online audiences. Comments like "I expected more" position the commenter as knowledgeable critic, establishing social distance while maintaining politeness conventions.

4. Balancing Criticism with Solidarity

Politeness Strategies (16.7%) indicate that even within aggressive discourse, users balance criticism with solidarity to maintain community harmony. Expressions like "U try portable ❤" and "Who dey underrate my guy" demonstrate in-group loyalty and collective identity formation, even in spaces characterised by verbal aggression.

5. Cultural Practice

The interplay between mock impoliteness, Nigerian cultural practices such as yabbing (playful insult), and the affordances of digital platforms is crucial. The semi-anonymous nature of YouTube comment sections, combined with cultural traditions of verbal play, creates an environment where impoliteness becomes a legitimate mode of engagement. Emojis (❤, 😂) serve as contextual cues that mitigate potential offence, signalling playful intent.

6. Theoretical Implications

This study demonstrates the need to contextualise Western-derived concepts of "face" and "aggression" within African communicative norms. What Culpeper (1996) categorises as face-threatening acts may function differently in Nigerian contexts where verbal sparring is a culturally valued form of social bonding. The findings suggest that impoliteness theory must account for cultural variability in how face-work operates.

Conclusion

This study concludes that impoliteness in Nigerian Pidgin online music discourse serves multiple communicative and cultural purposes. It is an instrument of identity performance, group alignment, and humour. Far from being purely aggressive, it embodies the expressive dynamism of Nigeria's digital orality. The findings reveal that impoliteness is socially oriented and culturally significant, with users employing particular strategies to demonstrate fan allegiance, create in-group identity, and discredit competing viewpoints.

The predominance of mock impoliteness (27.8%) highlights the central role of humour and performative antagonism in Nigerian digital communication. However, the coexistence of genuine face-threatening acts (22.2% bald on-record impoliteness) demonstrates that online music discourse encompasses both playful and serious forms of verbal aggression. The study confirms that verbal aggression in Nigerian digital contexts should be understood not as deviant behaviour but as a legitimate sociolinguistic resource that constructs and maintains community boundaries, performs identity, and negotiates power relations.

References

Adegbija, E. (1989). A comparative study of politeness phenomena in Nigerian English, Yoruba and Ogori. Multilingua, 8(1), 57-80.

Adegbite, W. (2019). Language, culture, and politeness in Nigerian digital communication. Nigerian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 45-67.

Agyekum, K. (2002). The communicative role of insults in Akan discourse. Pragmatics, 12(3), 27-46.

Ajayi, T. M., & Bamgbose, G. A. (2019). Ideologies and impoliteness strategies in online ethno-religious conflicts among Nigerians. Ghana Journal of Linguistics, 8(1), 60-80. doi: 10.4314/gjl.v8i1.89

Babatunde, S. T., & Adedimeji, M. A. (2008). The theory and practice of politeness phenomena in a Nigerian university. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 2(1), 77-95.

Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013). Language online: Investigating digital texts and practices. London: Routledge.

Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349-367.

Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 35-72.

Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elugbe, B. O., & Omamor, A. P. (1991). Nigerian Pidgin: Background and prospects. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books (Nigeria).

Faraclas, N. (2013). Nigerian Pidgin. In S. M. Michaelis, P. Maurer, M. Haspelmath, & M. Huber (Eds.), The survey of pidgin and creole languages: English-based and Dutch-based languages (pp. 176-184). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. New York: Anchor Books.

Graham, S. (2007). Learner strategies and self-efficacy: Making the connection. Language Learning Journal, 35(1), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730701315832

Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behaviour. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338-376). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Odebunmi, A. (2002). The pragmatics of face acts in a Nigerian university administration. In B. Babatunde & O. Adeyanju (Eds.), Language, meaning and society (pp. 48-65). Ogbomoso: Department of Fine and Applied Arts, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology.

Taiwo, R., Oloruntoba-Oju, T., & Adetunji, A. (2016). Digital discourse in Nigeria: Language, media and society