Cite this article as: Waziri, Z. Y. (2025). Impoliteness and hostility: A Culpeperian study of Nairaland online discourse (2017–2023). Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 1(1), 97–107. www.doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2025.v01i01.013
IMPOLITENESS AND HOSTILITY: A CULPEPERIAN STUDY OF
NAIRALAND ONLINE DISCOURSE (2017-2023)
By
Zulfaa Yushau Waziri
Department of English and Literary Studies, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria
Abstract
This paper investigates impoliteness and hostility in
Nigerian online discourse, using Nairaland, the country’s most active digital
forum, from 2017 to 2023as a primary case study of Computer-Mediated
Communication (CMC) to interrogate how linguistic choices, platform norms, and
interactional cues construct hostile exchanges. The study aims to explore how
impoliteness strategies operate as resources for expressing hostility, shaping
identity, andmediating conflict dynamicsindigital interaction. It is anchored
in Culpeper’s impoliteness framework, which sees impoliteness as communicative
behaviour intended to offend, enacted through strategies such as bald on-record
impoliteness, sarcasm, and withholding politeness. The research adopts a
qualitative design. Using purposive sampling,30 excerpts were selected, as they
were sufficient to achieve analytical saturation in identifying recurrent
patterns of impoliteness and hostility in discussion threads on politics,
ethnicity, and religion, domains often marked by antagonism. Data were analysed
through pragmatic coding with attention to context, participant roles, and the
linguistic forms used to project hostility. Findings indicate that impoliteness
in Nairaland discourse is expressed through both direct and indirect
strategies. Direct insults, name-calling, and threats coexist with sarcasm,
metaphors, mock politeness, and ad hominem attacks. These strategies function
expressively by venting anger and instrumentally by reinforcing group
solidarity and undermining opponents. The study shows that the impoliteness
observed in Nairaland online forums is not random but deeply tied to the
Nigerian’s broader socio-political climate. In examining these patterns through
Culpeper’s impoliteness theory, the research demonstrates that the framework
remains useful beyond the Western settings in which it was developed. Applying
it to a Nigerian, digitally mediated context not only broadens its empirical
reach but also reveals how cultural and political specificities shape hostile
communication online. In this way, the study offers a meaningful extension of
Culpeper’s model and provides evidence of its relevance in cross-cultural
digital discourse.
Keywords: Impoliteness, Hostility, Culpeperian Theory,
Nairaland
1. Introduction
Language serves as the primary medium through which
humans construct social relationships, exercise power, and negotiate
identities. It functions not only as a channel for transmitting propositional
information but also as a resource for shaping how individuals are perceived
and treated in interaction. As Brown and Levinson (1987:65) explain, any
communicative act can become “an act which challenges the face wants of an
interlocutor”, thereby affecting social standing, entitlement, or identity
positioning.Beyond information transfer, language indexes affiliation or
antagonism through lexical choice, stance, and address forms. Such evaluations
are deeply social and discursively constructed. Locher and Watts (2005:10)
contend that “politeness is a discursive concept”, meaning that judgments of
politeness or impoliteness are not fixed but are co-constructed in situated
interactions, shaped by socio-cultural expectations.
In pragmatics, impoliteness is regarded as a
communicative resource deliberately or interpretively designed to threaten
face. Culpeper (2011: 23) defines it as “communicative behaviour intending to
cause offence” or behaviour that “is perceived by the hearer as offensive”.
Such behaviour extends beyond accidental rudeness, foregrounding strategic and
evaluative dimensions of interaction. Bousfield (2008:27) stresses the dynamic,
interactional aspect of impolite exchanges, observing that impoliteness is “a negative
attitude towards specific behaviours occurring in specific contexts”, which are
judged offensive within cultural frames. In this sense, impoliteness, like
politeness, is context-dependent and reflects the socio-cultural realities of
interlocutors. It can be resisted, re-interpreted, or institutionalised
depending on the power dynamics and discourse type at play.
The rapid growth of digital platforms has transformed
communicative practices, particularly in societies marked by diversity and
contestation. Online forums, unlike face-to-face interaction, are characterised
by anonymity, reduced accountability, and increased polarisation. These
conditions make them fertile ground for hostile discourse. In Nigeria,
Nairaland, established in 2005, has become the most prominent indigenous online
discussion platform. With its millions of users spanning ethnic, political, and
religious divides, it functions as a digital microcosm of Nigerian society
(Olatunji, 2020).Despite the centrality of Nairaland as a digital public sphere
in Nigeria, little empirical attention has been paid to how impoliteness
manifests in its discourse.
Previous scholarship on Nigerian digital communication
tends to focus on issues such as language use in political campaigns (Taiwo,
2010) or politeness in interpersonal interaction (Odebunmi, 2019). This gap is
significant because impoliteness in Nigerian online discourse often reflects
and reinforces real-world tensions. Ethnic rivalries, partisan politics, and
religious divides are regularly played out in Nairaland discussions, with users
employing insults, sarcasm, and mock politeness to construct “us versus them”
boundaries. Nairaland discourse reflects Nigeria’s socio-political climate.
Sensitive topics such as ethnicity, politics, and religion generate heated
exchanges, often expressed through impoliteness. This neglect is striking,
given that impolite strategies not only disrupt interpersonal relations but
also reinforce stereotypes, legitimise exclusionary ideologies, and perpetuate
social divisions.
In this regard, Culpeper’s (2011) impoliteness model
is used to examine how hostility is linguistically enacted within Nigerian
digital communication. The present study is guided by the following research
questions: What impoliteness strategies are employed by Nairaland users in
online discourse? How do these
strategies function as vehicles for expressing hostility and antagonism? To what extent does Culpeper’s impoliteness
framework adequately account for the patterns of hostility evident in Nairaland
discourse?
This study aims to examine the forms and functions of
impoliteness and hostility in Nigerian online discourse, using Nairaland as a
study. The specific objectives are to identify the impoliteness strategies
employed by Nairaland users in online discourse; examine how these impoliteness
strategies function as linguistic resources for expressing hostility and
antagonism in digital interaction; and evaluate the extent to which Culpeper’s
impoliteness framework accounts for the patterns of hostility manifested in
Nairaland communication.
This study contributes to the scholarship on
pragmatics discourse and computer-mediated communication in three ways. First,
it adds to the empirical research on Nigerian online interaction by focusing on
impoliteness, a relatively neglected area in African contexts. Second, it tests
the robustness of Culpeper’s (2011) framework outside Western contexts,
extending its theoretical relevance to multilingual and multicultural digital
spaces. Third, it provides insights into how language use in online forums mirrors
and reinforces broader socio-political tensions in Nigeria.
2. Literature Review
2.1 The concept of Pragmatics
Pragmatics is a vital branch of linguistics that
explores how meaning is created and interpreted within specific contexts. It
focuses on the dynamic relationship between language users and the expressions
they employ, emphasising how people rely on shared knowledge, social norms, and
situational cues to make sense of communication (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1995).
Unlike semantics, which examines meaning as a fixed property of words and
sentences, pragmatics deals with meaning as it is constructed and understood
through interaction. In this sense, pragmatics explains how language operates
as a tool for performing actions, negotiating intentions, and maintaining
social relationships, rather than merely as a structural system (Cutting, 2002;
Mey, 2001).
A central concern of pragmatics is how speakers’
intentions and the context of interaction shape interpretation. What people
mean often goes beyond what they say and understanding this requires
sensitivity to contextual relevance and inference. Pragmatics, therefore,
studies the processes through which interlocutors derive implied meanings and
navigate communicative goals. It also examines how social variables such as
power, distance, and solidarity influence how people use and interpret language
(Brown & Levinson, 1987). Pragmatic competence involves not only
understanding intended meanings but also applying appropriate linguistic
strategies to manage social relationships. This competence forms the foundation
of both politeness and impoliteness, two aspects of communication that
determine how individuals preserve or threaten one another’s face during
interaction (Culpeper, 1996; Bousfield, 2008).
In online spaces such as Nairaland, pragmatics plays a
crucial role in explaining how meaning is negotiated in text-based
communication. Without physical cues like tone, gesture, or facial expression,
users rely on contextual knowledge, shared norms, and inference to interpret
each other’s messages. When these pragmatic cues are misread, communication can
easily break down, leading to misunderstanding, conflict, or perceived
hostility. Sarcasm, irony, and humour, common features of Nairaland discourse, are
often interpreted differently depending on users’ pragmatic awareness and
social orientation. As Culpeper (2011) and Haugh (2015) note, such interactions
reveal how digital environments magnify both cooperative and antagonistic uses
of language.
2.2 The Concept ofImpoliteness
Pragmatics, the study of language in use and context,
provides the theoretical basis for analysing impoliteness and hostility in
online discourse.Early pragmatic scholarship was primarily concerned with the
principles governing cooperative and polite communication, as outlined in
Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle (CP) and Brown and Levinson’s (1987)
Politeness Theory (PT). Grice’s CP proposes the maxims of quality, quantity,
relation, and manner, postulating that interlocutors generally aim to be informative,
truthful, relevant, and clear to achieve mutual understanding. This model
assumes rationality, cooperation, and shared intentionality as the bedrock of
human communication. Brown and Levinson's (1987) frameworkextends Grice’s
insights to the interpersonal level by introducing the concept of face, the
public self-image individuals strive to maintain in interaction. They argue
that speakers use politeness strategies to mitigate Face-Threatening Acts
(FTAs) when employing either positive politeness or negative politeness. Within
this paradigm, politeness was conceived as a universal, strategic mechanism
that ensures social harmony by allowing interlocutors to navigate potential
conflicts and maintain mutual respect.
However, despite its influence, this tradition has
been critiqued for its overemphasis on cooperation and harmony at the expense
of conflictual and antagonistic dimensions of communication. Scholars such as
Eelen (2001), Watts (2003), and Mills (2003) argue that classical politeness
theories are overly idealised and ethnocentric, reflecting Western cultural
biases about civility and interactional rationality. For instance, Eelen (2001)
contends that Brown and Levinson’s model neglect the variability of politeness
across cultural and situational contexts, while Watts (2003) maintains that
politeness is not a fixed universal but a discursively negotiated phenomenon
whose meaning depends on participants’ evaluations within specific contexts.
Furthermore, the theory’s reliance on individual speaker intention has been
criticized for overlooking the social and relational construction of meaning
(Locher & Watts, 2005). These critiques revealthe limitations of early
pragmatic models in accounting for communicative behaviours that deviate from
cooperation, such as rudeness, sarcasm, mockery, or open aggression, behaviours
that are equally salient in everyday and digital interactions.
In response to these limitations, the late 1990s and
early 2000s witnessed what Culpeper (2011:1) describes as a “paradigmatic
shift”, the emergence of impoliteness studies. This shift marked a
reorientation in pragmatic inquiry from mitigating FTAs to aggravating them,
thereby expanding the scope of interpersonal pragmatics. Early impoliteness
theorists, including Culpeper (1996), Bousfield (2008), and Locher and
Bousfield (2008), argue that impoliteness should not be understood as the mere
absence of politeness but as a complex, strategic, and context-dependent
communicative phenomenon in its own right. Culpeper (1996) pioneered the first
systematic model of impoliteness, proposing strategies such as bald on-record
impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, and sarcasm/mock
impoliteness. These were designed to deliberately attack an interlocutor’s face
rather than protect it. Later, Culpeper (2011) refines the theory by
incorporating the roles of intention, evaluation, and social norms in the
co-construction of impoliteness, acknowledging that offence is not only
produced but also perceived and negotiated between interlocutors.
In addition, communication is not always geared toward
cooperation but may instead function as a site of power, resistance, and
identity construction,marking an important expansion of pragmatic theory.
Impoliteness thus became a valuable tool for examining discourse where conflict
and aggression are socially functional. As Bousfield (2008) notes, impoliteness
can serve to assert dominance, challenge authority, enforce hierarchies, or
express an ideological stance. Similarly, Kaul de Marlangeon and Grandío-Pérez
(2017) demonstrated that impoliteness strategies in political debates are
contextually motivated and serve rhetorical as well as relational functions.
These insights are especially pertinent in
Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC), where features such as anonymity,
deindividuation, and lack of nonverbal cues heighten the potential for
hostility (Hardaker, 2010; Suler, 2004). The online disinhibition effect
(Suler, 2004) explains why individuals in digital environments feel less
constrained by social norms, leading to more frequent displays of aggression,
trolling, and verbal hostility. Graham and Hardaker (2017) further note that
online impoliteness is not merely random rudeness but often ideologically
motivated, reflecting users’ attempts to negotiate power and identity in
virtual communities.
In the Nigerian context, these theoretical
perspectives are crucial for understanding discursive behaviour on platforms
such as Nairaland, a popular online forum that hosts politically and culturally
charged discussions. The forum’s structure, characterized by anonymity, group
polarization, and ethnic or religious tensions, creates fertile ground for
linguistic aggression and ideological confrontation (Adegbite & Ayoola,
2020; Akinwotu & Akinlotan, 2021; Odebunmi, 2019). Therefore, analysing such
discourse through Culpeper’s impoliteness framework allows for an understanding
of how users deploy language to insult, provoke, or resist in digital spaces,
transforming impoliteness into a performative and identity-affirming act.
3. Theoretical Framework
This study is anchored in Culpeper’s (2011)
impoliteness model, which provides a systematic framework for analysing how
hostility is linguistically constructed in discourse. Culpeper extends the
politeness theories of Brown and Levinson (1987) by shifting attention from how
speakers maintain face to how they deliberately attack it. Culpeper identifies
several strategies through which impoliteness is enacted:
1. Bald on-record impoliteness – Direct, unambiguous
face-threatening acts.
2. Positive impoliteness – Damaging the addressee’s
positive face.
3. Negative impoliteness – Damaging the addressee’s
negative face.
4. Sarcasm/mock politeness – Insincere politeness used to
ridicule or deride
5. Withholding politeness – Deliberately failing to show
expected courtesy.
Culpeper's (2011) Impoliteness Model
4. Methodology
4.1 Research Design
This study adopts a qualitative discourse-analytic
design informed by pragmatics, with selective use of quantitative frequency
counts. Since the focus is on understanding how impoliteness strategies are
used in Nigerian digital communication, discourse analysis provides the tools
for examining meaning-making processes in naturally occurring data.
Specifically, the study applies Culpeper’s (2011) impoliteness model as the
theoretical and analytical framework to identify and interpret hostile
utterances in Nairaland interactions.
4.2 Corpus and Data Selection
The corpus comprises 30 posts drawn from Nairaland
Forum. Threads were sampled from three major categories that frequently
generate antagonistic interactions: political discourse, ethnic discourse,
religious discourse. The threads were chosen based on purposive sampling
(Paltridge, 2012), focusing on those with high interactional density (≥50
replies) and observable instances of antagonism. Posts collected span the
period 2017–2023, a timeframe that captures heated online debates during
Nigeria’s general elections, as well as major ethnic and religious
controversies.
4.3 Data Collection Procedure
Data were collected by manually browsing and archiving
relevant Nairaland threads. Posts containing explicit or implicit hostility
were extracted and anonymised. Only publicly available content was used, and no
private messages were accessed. Each post was coded with the following
metadata: thread title, date, Post ID (where visible), User alias (anonymised
as User A, B, etc.). This ensured contextual tracking while maintaining ethical
standards of privacy.
Analytical Procedure
The data were analysed using Culpeper’s (2011)
taxonomy of impoliteness strategies, namely:
1. Bald on-record impoliteness
2. Positive impoliteness
3. Negative impoliteness
4. Sarcasm/mock politeness
5. Withholding politeness
Each hostile post was coded into one or more of these
categories. Coding was done manually but supported by keyword searches (e.g.,
“idiot,” “fool,” “parasite,” “liar”) to ensure consistency. Representative
examples were then selected to illustrate each strategy. Frequency counts were
calculated to determine the most prevalent strategies across the three
discourse categories (politics, ethnicity, religion).
Data Analysis
Nairaland
Excerpts
Post: RELIGIOUS TENSION: We Don't Want Christian
Workers Again In Our University. Thread ID 3839733,
10:59 am, Jun 04, 2017, bymalton:
Excerpt 1: “A majority of Katsina Muslims are
self-styled Jihadists, crude, intolerant supremacist, and the most violent you
will find anywhere in Nigeria.”
Strategy: Negative impoliteness (direct group insult;
dehumanising).
Analysis: The excerpt targets a religious/ethnic
group, framed as a dangerous outgroup, classic face-aggravation and
delegitimisation.
Post: ILE-IFE MASSACRE: Northern Leaders, Speak Now Or
... Thread ID 3681009Mar 14, 2017(poster unnamed
in snippet):
Excerpt 2: “...Fulani blood suckers... the most
violent…”
Strategy: Negative / Positive impoliteness (slur aimed
at ethnic group).
Analysis: This is an ethnic dehumanising term used to
mobilise anger and justify hostility.
Post: Thank You Northerners Thread ID 7588523Feb 27, 2023,
fiizznation (and replies):
Excerpt 3 (reply): “No need for the thanks... we
should be paid with kindness and development.” (context shows partisan
entitlement rhetoric)
Strategy: Withholding politeness / Negative
impoliteness (exclusionary, entitlement rhetoric).
Analysis: This is a political in-group/out-group framing; tone contains veiled
grievance and expectation.
Post: My Freedom And Your Feelings. Thread ID 4738630Sep
17, 2018,bold (reply snippet shows dispute):
Excerpt 4: “People also have the right to react if
they find your behaviour offensive... you should know, from experience...”
Strategy: Bald on-record / negative impoliteness
(dismissive rebuttal).
Analysis: The speaker asserts the right to offend;
frames the opposing side as oversensitive, face-attack through dismissal.
Post: Photos Of Hundreds Of Fulani Men Killed In
Taraba Thread ID 4287299 Jan 13, 2018 — dannytoe(m):
Excerpt 5: “...enough of this senseless killing by
fulani blood suckers. (sic)”
Strategy: Negative impoliteness (collective
attribution of violence).
Analysis: This positions the entire group as
perpetrators whofuel ethnic hostility and justifies revenge narratives.
Post: By The Time Northerners Realize Their Mistake,
It Will Be ... Thread ID 7829041Sep
5, 2023 (poster snippet):
Excerpt 6: “You want the North to protest the outcome
... to incite them to hate Yoruba and President Tinubu.”
Strategy: Negative impoliteness/accusation.
Analysis: The use of an accusatory tone that paints
political opponents as provocateurs,delegitimising tactics.
Post: My cousin who got married this year, July, is
actually ... Thread ID 5415142Sep
14, 2019Midas01:
Excerpt 7: “Oh please shut up..... Google it and cure
your ignorance.”
Strategy: Bald on-record impoliteness (direct insult +
dismissal).
Analysis: This is a personal insult used to
silence/discount the interlocutor, a direct face attack.
Post: Owo Killings- A Lesson To NigeriansThread ID 7163071Jun 5, 2022, Lumidee007:
Excerpt 8: “The kidnapped catholic man last two weeks
who said the fulani blood suckers (sic) said they are targeting the west (sic)
soon.”
Strategy: Negative impoliteness (group slur + threat
framing).
Analysis: This excerpt uses a hostile label to frame
perceived threat; it intensifies fear of the outgroup.
Post: 90% Of Northerners Are Not OnSOCIAL Media-peter
Obi ... Thread ID 7497300Dec
26, 2022Obalacam:
Excerpt 9: “Expect ipob pigs to make a sharp
U-turn...”
Strategy: Positive impoliteness/name-calling (in-group
insult of opposing political faction).
Analysis: Here, name-calling is used to delegitimise and evoke disgust;
polarising rhetoric.
Post: Guys Have No Right To Be So Choosy Thread ID 1463544, (2017) (poster snippet):
Excerpt 10: “...the quest to look artificial has
pushed so many Nigerian girls to anextremistlifestyle...” (disparaging remark)
Strategy: Bald on-record / negative impoliteness
(generalisation & moralising insult).
Analysis: This except moralising insult targets a demographic group (women), a
status-degrading move.
Post: Nnamdi Kanu: A Prophet..?, Thread ID 3599728, (date not shown in snippet)
Excerpt 11: “...so-called hausa (sic) natives has
(sic) allowed the Fulani (sic) blood suckers dominate (sic) them and make them
look murderous...”
Strategy: Negative impoliteness (ethnic slur + blame).
Analysis: This positions one group as complicit with
the violent outgroup, incites inter-ethnic blame.
Post: Open Letter ToThe Northerners Thread ID 6190242Oct 19, 2020 (poster
snippet):
Excerpt 12: “...Why are you northerners trying to
break southern ranks?... you lots have rolled outyour propaganda to cause
division...”
Strategy: Negative impoliteness/accusation.
Analysis: This presents northern actors as
manipulative, intended to delegitimise political dissent.
Post: Tinubu's Records: Chicago State University Locks
X Account Thread ID 7820867Aug 29, 2023, luluman:
Excerpt 13: “They're bent on shoving their
lying-machine messiah down our throats.”
Strategy: Bald on-record impoliteness/sarcasm.
Analysis: the use of a strong derogatory metaphor for
a political opponent; mocks and delegitimises.
Post: Fulani Herdsmen Battle Otukpa, In Benue Thread ID 3978768Aug 10, 2017 paBuhari:
Excerpt 14: “...join Nnamdi Kanu and liberate your
communities from fulani (sic) blood suckers.”
Strategy: Negative impoliteness / incitatory.
Analysis: This calls for mobilisation against the
labelled outgroup; it mixes impoliteness with mobilisation rhetoric.
Post: The North Is Angry With Tinubu's Government,
Regrets ... Thread ID 8293283Dec
15, 2024 (poster):
Excerpt 15: “The North is what's holding down the
south (sic), you Northerners only grumble when it's not benefiting you...”
Strategy:Positive/Negative impoliteness (stereotype +
blame).
Analysis: This is an in-group accusation of
selfishness; a polarising generalisation.
Post: RELIGIOUS TENSION: We Don't Want Christian
Workers ... (another reply) Thread ID 3839733
Jun 04, 2017(other reply):
Excerpt 16: “Not surprised. A majority of Katsina
Muslims are self-styled Jihadists...” (same thread, different poster)
Strategy: Negative impoliteness (repetition
strengthens the norm).
Analysis: The use of reinforcement through multiple
posters normalises the slur; demonstrates thread-level circulation.
Post: Killer Family Of Blood Suckers Uproar Thread ID 7936468Dec 10, 2023Topgists
(OP):
Excerpt 17: Title and post use the “blood suckers”
metaphor in the headline. (sic)
Strategy: Negative impoliteness (headline framing).
Analysis: The use of sensationalist language forcesa
dehumanising metaphor to provoke a reaction.
Post: Shut Up During Argument With Your Husbands Thread ID 8015641Feb 29,2024JessicaRabbit
(reply appears):
Excerpt 18: “WTF MAN!” in reply to a strong
exclamatory insult.
Strategy: Bald on-record impoliteness (explicit coarse
language).
Analysis: An abrupt, coarse expletive used to dismiss
or ridicule the prior poster.
Post: Five Brainless Job Interview Questions That Need
To Die!!! Thread ID 2938932Feb
21, 2016 asalimpo / Nobody replies:
Excerpt 19(reply): “ogbeni next (sic) time you want to
criticize, pls take a good look at yourself.”
Strategy: Bald on-record impoliteness / personal
attack.
Analysis: The counter-critique employs a personal
insult, a typical defensive face-attacking move.
Post: 3 Types Of People On Earth An Idiot A Tribesman
A Citizen. Thread ID 8364057Mar 09Antoeni
(OP):
Excerpt 20: “Studies show only 10% of Africans are
citizens. The remaining 90% are either tribesmen or idiots.”
Strategy: Bald on-record / derogatory generalisation.
Analysis: Here, awide sweeping insult that
delegitimises large segments of the population, demeaning rhetoric.
Post: Short Experience With Blood Suckers Thread ID 6483144Mar 30, 2021ayodestar:
Excerpt 21: Thread title uses “blood suckers”
(metaphor for exploiters).
Strategy: Negative impoliteness (metaphor + slur).
Analysis: The
use of metaphor to moralise/depict the oppressor as parasitic fuels moral
outrage.
Post: Learn To Shut Up. It Was About Love And Support. Thread ID 8518461Sep 13SpencerForbes:
Excerpt 22: Thread discusses telling someone to “shut
up” repeated imperative in the thread.
Strategy: Bald on-record impoliteness (command to silence).
Analysis: “Shut up” is used to silence dissent, a
face-threatening illocutionary act.
Post: Clueless Or Brainless..which Do You Prefer? Thread ID 2363487 (date varies)
(OP and
replies):
Excerpt 23: Repeated uses of “brainless” applied to
public figures.
Strategy: Bald on-record impoliteness (insulting
epithets).
Analysis: The political ridiculing of leaders via
epithets serves a delegitimising function.
Post: Idiot's Topics (user page)Thread ID (user idiot profile)Aug 27, 2013,idiot
(username):
Excerpt 24: Profile and topic titles adopt the “idiot”
label ironically; posts of confrontational tone.
Strategy: Self-label / mock politeness (ironic
identity work) but in context used aggressively.
Analysis: This shows the users may adopt insulting
terms as identity performance complicates recipient perception.
Post: Meet They (sic) Real-life Vampires Who Drink
Human Blood Thread ID 4909939
(date in snippet) koksy4all (reply):
Excerpt 25: “Vampires do exist... a community of blood
suckers...” (sensationalising language).
Strategy: Negative impoliteness (metaphorical
dehumanisation).
Analysis: Metaphor is used to dramatise and demonise a
target (literal or figurative).
Post: Should I Confront Her Or Shut Up And Keep
Bleeping Her Thread ID 2167719
(date in snippet) Nobody (reply):
Excerpt 26: “continue to mess her up after all you
have got nofin to loss!...” (sic) (advice encouraging sexual exploit).
Strategy: Bald on-record impoliteness / offensive
encouragement.
Analysis: The use of offensive recommendations
supports abusive behaviour; ethical concerns for public posting.
Post: Gullible & Brainless Church Billboard Thread ID 2473346Jul 24, 2015 kestolove95
(reply):
Excerpt 27: “Not really brainless. Its (sic) a catch
for magic seekers...” followed by a mocking tone.
Strategy: Mock politeness / negative impoliteness.
Analysis: This is used to ridicule targeted at
religious practice; it mixes sarcasm with disparagement.
Post: Return Of The Village Idiot: What A British
Newspaper Called Trump Thread ID8324862Jan
24Goosethetruth / missjekyll (replies):
Excerpt 28: “Trump is rather stooped (sic) but has had
a tremendous amount of luck.”
Strategy: Bald on-record impoliteness (insulting a
public figure).
Analysis: Here, political ridicule of a foreign figure
shows cross-cultural use of impoliteness in a forum.
Post: Please Spare Me Of That Northern Domination
Rhetoric Thread ID 6641931Jul 9, 2021 (poster
snippet):
Excerpt 29: “It's actually funny when you Northerners
cherry-pick events in Nigeria...”
Strategy: Negative impoliteness / accusatory
generalisation.
Analysis: This again demonstrates regionally framed
accusations used to discredit political claims.
Post: Owo Killings Ondo Church Massacre threads
(related replies) Thread IDs 7163035/
7163071Jun 5, 2022 (multiple posters):
Excerpt 30: Use of “Fulani blood suckers” and other
hostile labels in replies.
Strategy: Negative impoliteness (repeated across
threads).
Analysis: Thepattern of repeated dehumanizing language
across several threads on violent events demonstrates the circulation and
normalisation of such impoliteness.
Frequency of Impoliteness Strategy in Nairaland Excerpts (2017- 2023)
|
Impoliteness Strategy |
Frequency |
Percentage(%) |
|
Ethnic Insults (Negative Identity Markers |
9 |
30 |
|
AD Hominen Attacks (Bald On-Record |
7 |
23.3 |
|
Religious Antagonism |
5 |
16.7 |
|
Sarcasm/ Mock Impoliteness |
4 |
13.3 |
|
Identity Construction |
5 |
16.7 |
|
Total |
30 |
100 |
Conceptual Distribution of Impoliteness Strategies in Nairaland
Discourse
5. Discussion
The analysis of thirty Nairaland excerpts reveals that
impoliteness is a dominant discursive resource in Nigerian digital
interactions, particularly on politically and ethnically charged topics.
Drawing on Culpeper’s (2011) framework, the data illustrate that users
deliberately deploy hostile linguistic strategies to attack the face of others,
construct in-group solidarity, and delegitimise rival groups. These strategies
include negative impoliteness, ethnic/religious slurs, dehumanising metaphors,
bald on-record impoliteness, direct insults such as “idiot,” “shut up,”
“brainless”, mock politeness sarcasm, ridicule, and, less frequently,
withholding politeness and ignoring norms of courtesy.
The most salient used impoliteness strategy is the
pervasiveness of negative impoliteness across threads, often realised through
ethnic and religious slurs. Expressions such as “Fulani blood suckers” or “IPOB
pigs” appear recurrently in discussions on violence, politics, and inter-ethnic
relations. This tacticis used to dismiss others’ identities, undermine their
social worth and exclude them. It is particularly effective in conflicts where
group identity is central. Such usage reflects what Bousfield (2008) describes
as “strategic aggression,” where interlocutors intentionally maximise offence
by undermining the positive value of an entire group. These attacks extend
beyond individuals to whole communities, thereby supporting ethnic stereotypes
and deepening Nigeria’s socio-political cleavages.
Furthermore, direct insults such as “shut up,”
“idiot,” and “brainless” are used frequently, particularly in personal
disagreements. Culpeper (2011) categorises such acts as bald on-record
impoliteness, where the attack is explicit and unmitigated. These expressions
function as escalatory moves in conversations, often shutting down reasoned
argument in favour of emotional confrontation. As Locher and Watts (2005)
argue,impoliteness is context-dependent; on Nairaland, directness is not
mitigated but instead legitimised as a marker of assertiveness or authenticity.
Again, some excerpts exhibit sarcasm or insincere
politeness, which Culpeper (2011) terms mock politeness. For example, users
ironically refer to political leaders as “messiahs” or deploy humour to
ridicule opponents’ arguments. Sarcasm simultaneously entertains in-group
members while delegitimising the opposition. This supports Dynel’s (2013) view
that online humour is a double-edged tool: it fosters solidarity among
sympathisers while marginalising dissenters.The data indicate that impoliteness
on Nairaland mirrors Nigeria’s volatile ethnic, political, and religious
tensions. For instance, threads on violent events, e.g., Owo killings, Fulani
herder conflicts, are rife with hostile slurs targeting Fulani Muslims, while
political debates around elections often feature ethnic blame games, e.g.,
Northerners vs Southerners. As Adegbija (1995) observes, Nigerian communication
often reflects underlying socio-political fault lines; online spaces add these
through anonymity and interactivity.
Lastly, Culpeper’s (2011) impoliteness model proves
useful for categorising and interpreting the linguistic aggression in Nairaland
discourse. The five strategies were all attested in the data. However, the
Nigerian context suggests that negative impoliteness occurs with unusual
frequency, often tied to group identity rather than individual face.
6. Findings
1.
Nairaland users employ negative impoliteness as a tool of ethnic and
religious othering, emphasising intergroup antagonism in online discourse.
2. Bald on-record insults are a dominant feature of
interpersonal disputes, functioning to escalate conflict and assert dominance.
3. Mock politeness functions as a delegitimisation
strategy, reinforcing in-group cohesion while discrediting opponents.
4.
Impoliteness in Nairaland discourse is not merely linguistic aggression
but an index of Nigeria’s broader ethno-political fractures.
7. Conclusion
In conclusion, the study examines the impoliteness and
hostility in Nairaland online discourse (2017–2023) using Culpeper’s (2011)
impoliteness model as its analytical framework. Thirty excerpts were analysed,
ranging from discussions spanning politics, ethnicity, and religion. The study
revealed that impoliteness on Nairaland is not incidental but a strategic
discursive practice. The ethnic insults,
ad hominem attacks, and religious antagonism emerged as the most frequent
strategies, reflecting Nigeria’s polarized socio-political landscape. Sarcasm
and mock impoliteness, which were less frequent, show how humour is often
deployed as a vehicle for expressing hostility. The findings establish the
reality that Nairaland, like many digital spaces, functions as a microcosm of
Nigerian society, where pre-existing ethnic, political, and religious tensions
are reproduced, clarified and weaponized through language. Impoliteness serves
not merely to offend but to construct in-groups and out-groups, reinforce ideological
divisions, and delegitimize political and religious opponents. Culpeper’s model
thus proves effective in capturing the pragmatic mechanisms through which
online hostility is enacted in Nigerian digital discourse.
References
Adegbite, W., & Ayoola, M. (2020).
Language, ideology, and power relations in Nigerian online discourses.
Journal of
Pragmatics, 168,
105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.018
Akinwotu, S. A., & Akinlotan, M.
(2021). Discursive strategies of cyberbullying in Nigerian social media.
Language Matters,
52(2),
199–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10228195.2021.1943034
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in
interaction. John Benjamins.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness:
Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of
impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–367.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness:
Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.
Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and
discourse: A resource book for students. Routledge.
Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of
politeness theories. St. Jerome.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and
power (2nd ed.). Longman.
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010). A
genre approach to the study of impoliteness. International Review of
Pragmatics, 2(1), 46–94.
Graham, S., & Hardaker, C. (2017).
(Im)politeness in digital communication. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D.
Kádár (Eds.), The
Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 785–814). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in
asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to
academic
definitions. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(2), 215–242.
Haugh, M. (2015). Impoliteness and taking
offence in interpersonal communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 86,
36–42.
Kaul de Marlangeon, S., &
Grandío-Pérez, D. (2017). Impoliteness strategies in political debates: A
cross-cultural
study. Pragmatics,
27(1), 1–29.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of
pragmatics. Longman.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An
introduction (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness.
Cambridge University Press.
Odebunmi, A. (2019). Language and identity
in Nigerian cyberspace. Journal of Language and Politics, 18(1), 1
20.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition
effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.
Taiwo, R. (2010). Discourse analysis: A
practical introduction. Centre for Black and African Arts and Civilization.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in
interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Longman.
van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and
power. Palgrave Macmillan.
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness.
Cambridge University Press.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford
University Press.
0 Comments