Verbalisation of impoliteness in comments of German politicians in Instagram news posts

Arkhipova Dar'ya Igorevna Assistant of Department of German Studies and Linguodidactics at Moscow City University 129226, Russia, g. Moscow, pr-d 2-I sel'skokhozyaistvennyi, 4 arkhipova-774@mgpu.ru

Sobyanina Valentina Aleksandrovna Doctor of Philology Professor of Department of German Studies and Linguodidactics at Moscow City University 129226, Russia, g. Moscow, pr-d 2-I sel'skokhozyaistvennyi, 4 sobyaninava@mgpu.ru

The Internet is one of the most important inventions of the twentieth century. He not only expanded the technical capabilities of a person, but also had a huge impact on his social life. Such a successful development of the Internet is also explained by the fact that it has actually become a replacement for all classical tools for obtaining information, communication and communication. Thanks to the Internet, communication between users located in different parts of the world has become possible. Facebook Instagrammers have also been given the opportunity to create their own websites, join social networks such as Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, and share thoughts and news with readers from all over the world.

The social network Instagram (banned in the Russian Federation) is becoming increasingly popular not only for ordinary users, but also for political figures who popularize their ideas and the ideas of the party. At the moment, about 29.5 million German residents have an account on this social network ^[1]. That is why many German politicians, political parties, as well as the former and current Federal Chancellor of Germany have their accounts there. The press services of such political parties as the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) and the Union 90/Greens (Die Gr?nen) confirm that more young people can contact party representatives using Instagram than through other networks, which serves to actively promote these parties.

Access to the Instagram social network is unlimited, so all users have the opportunity to speak out or leave a comment on any topic. In addition, there are a number of external factors and important events (mandatory vaccination, price increases, environmental protection, unemployment, etc.) that are "irritants" for many people. These and other relevant topics are actively discussed within social networks, including Instagram. Thus, any user of this social network who has a closed account (guaranteeing anonymity) can leave a negative comment under the publication, without observing ethical and moral norms and without fear of "losing face" when communicating in computer-mediated communication.

  The above facts indicate an increasing level of impoliteness in the computer environment, which has increased in recent decades due to its certain specifics (anonymity, distance communication, etc.). Since impoliteness is an integral component of not only interpersonal communication, but also computer communication, many scientists address this problem in their works (J. Leach, J. Culpeper, H. Spencer-Ooty, V. I. Zelvis, M. Terkurafi, etc.), which demonstrates the relevance of the above-mentioned problem. In addition, the active and continuous introduction of the language of Internet communications into our lives requires an analysis of the linguistic means of its representation, which also determines the relevance of the study of the problem of impoliteness in linguistics.

In this article, impoliteness is interpreted as follows: "impoliteness takes place if the expression used is not conventional for this context. This expression threatens the addressee's face, and thus the addressee's face, but the addressee (the listener) does not attribute to the addressee any intention to damage his face" ^{[2, p. 70]}. In this regard, it can be argued that impoliteness is due to the expectations, interpretation and experience of the addressee. In addition, it should be borne in mind that impoliteness is not always a product of conscious behavior of the speaker, it is sometimes associated with a lack of knowledge about the norms and values of a particular culture, which entails a violation of the norms of communication. While impoliteness is often an unconscious product of the speaker's activity and determines whether a statement fits into generally accepted cultural norms, there is intentional impoliteness – verbal aggression.

As for speech aggression, "in a broad sense, this term refers to any manifestation of hostility in speech" ^[3]. In a narrower sense, the term "speech aggression" means "violation of established speech communicative etiquette norms, in particular, the use of inappropriate expressions, which is an intrusion into the personal sphere of the addressee, misuse or non-use of expected speech formulas" ^{[4, p. 68]}. Thus, in this article, impoliteness is considered as an unintentional desire of the speaker to cause damage to the recipient, while speech aggression is understood as "the use of linguistic means to express dislike, hostility, a manner of speech that offends someone's self-esteem, dignity" ^{[5, p. 340]}. These categories are closely related. It seems that verbal aggression is one of the types of impoliteness, since impoliteness can include not only verbal, but also non-verbal means, which abound on the Internet.

The relevance of the problem of speech aggression research also demonstrates the interest of a large number of scientists who have devoted their work to this topic (V. Yu. Apresyan, K. F. Sedov, T. I. Steksova, etc.). The objectives of this study include the identification of the most commonly used language means for the implementation of speech aggression, established on the material of comments under the publications of German politicians and parties: @olafscholz, @bundeskanzler, @spdde, @abaerbock, @armin_laschet, @cdu, @csu. At the same time, it should be emphasized that in order to more accurately convey emotions and authenticity of comments, the spelling and punctuation of the authors in the analyzed material have been preserved.

Speech aggression can be both implicit and explicit. Explicit speech aggression implies an explicit (not hidden) manifestation of aggression. The analysis of the practical material allowed us to conclude that the ratio of explicit and implicit speech aggression in comments on the social network Instagram looks like this: in 60% of comments, an explicit type of speech aggression was used, and in 40% – implicit. The fact that there is no moderation in the comments under the publications of politicians and political parties determines the above statistics, since users can express their dissatisfaction openly, and it acquires explicit forms of expression. The ways of expressing explicit speech aggression are, as a rule, lexical units, namely "stylistically marked linguistic means (expressive-colored vocabulary, invective, roughly colloquial words and phrases, slang vocabulary, etc.), as well as statements demonstrating the speaker's open hostility to the recipient: threat, insult, rude demand, censure, malice, etc." ^{[6, p. 180]}. "Insults are often pronouns that can be omitted and used in combination with a variety of emotional-evaluative words with negative semantics" ^{[7, p. 83]}. As for the grammatical means of expressing explicit speech aggression, they were not found in the studied examples of comments. Thus, the use of lexical means is the main way of verbalization of explicit speech aggression in the social network Instagram, and the most frequent language means is invective vocabulary, which accounts for 44% of all language means. This fact is confirmed by comments under the publications of Olaf Scholz, the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) party and the Christian Social Union (CSU) party. In the analyzed comments, one can find a large number of examples of the use of invective vocabulary containing a negative and expressive assessment of the activities and behavior of politicians (Schw?tzer, Alzheimer erkrankter Lobbyist), as well as expressions denoting aggressive or illegal actions, negative personality and/or character traits of political figures (L?gebaron, L?gner), antisocial activities (M?rder, Krimineller), some of them have an occasional character (Armilein).

 In addition, German-language comments are characterized by lexical repetitions, "used to strengthen the statement and create tension" (Ein Schw?tzer ist er. Nicht als ein arroganter Schw?tzer! Punkt) ^{[8, p. 81]}:

Gaslighter ^[9]

Verbrecher [In the same place]

Ein Schw?tzer ist er. Nicht als ein arroganter Schw?tzer! Punkt [Ibid.]

Der Impfpflicht-Fanatiker, der mit der Impfpflicht die nicht-geimpften Menschen bestrafen will [Ibid.]

Du Luzifer ^[10]

Sie L?gner. Eckelhaft. [Ibid.]

M?rder [In the same place]

Scholz ist kein Kanzler, sondern ein krimineller, ein Alzheimer erkrankter Lobbyist, dem Menschenrechte und Umweltschutz egal sind, wie man an seinen illegalen Gesch?ften mit den Coronaboys bisher sehen konnte... [Ibid]

Der L?gebaron aus NRW spricht von Wachtum f?r wen? ^[11]

ARMILEIN SCHAFFT ES NICHT ALLEIN [Ibid.]

Under the publication of Olaf Scholz, in which it was stated about the desire to vaccinate 30 million German residents against coronavirus infection by the end of 2022, such means of explicit speech aggression as invective (Schei?), roughly colloquial words and phrases were identified (Der blanke Hohn, an die Wand fahren, wegducken), as well as an isolated case of the use of malice (auch Sie werden eines Tages die gerechte Strafe erhalten):

Die Ampel Partei fahren Deutschland sowas an die wand ^[12]

Scheiss auf die ampel [Ibid.]

Das interessiert die Menschen grad einen Schei?. Es ist traurig, mehr schon eine Schande, wie sehr sich Ihr Chef und zuk?nftige Kanzler in der Corona Debatte wegduckt [In the same place]

Der blanke Hohn [In the same place]

Auch Sie werden eines Tages die gerechte Strafe erhalten [Ibid.]

Another way to express explicit verbal aggression is to use the names of professions that figuratively acquire a negative assessment (clown, actor):

Wir erinnern uns auch. z. B. an dein lachen, du Clown ^[13]

Verl?ssliche Politik, soll ich mal lachen ihr Clowns euch nimmt doch keiner mehr ernst ^[14]

Ein verdammt schlechter Schauspieler #cduwegbassen ^[9]

The next means of expressing explicit speech aggression are zoosemantic metaphors and comparisons that contain a negative assessment and express contempt (comparison with a rat, pig):

Dieser verr?terische Rattenblick ^[15]

Schweinegesicht [Ibid.]

Ihr Ratten g?nnt euch also 6 Monate, Respekt wieder ein Schritt in Richtung 33 [Ibid.]

Du hast dein erstes Versprechen an das deutsche Volk gebrochen. Direkt am Anfang deiner Amtzeit. Du bist Unfug in meinen Augen, eine Ratte sehe ich h?her und n?tzlicher an als dich [In the same place]

Implicit speech aggression implies a hidden (implicit) manifestation of aggression. The ways of implementing this type of aggression can be divided into two groups: grammatical and lexical. Based on the results of the analysis, it can be argued that both types of funds are found approximately equally – 51% and 49%, respectively.

 Grammatical means of expressing explicit speech aggression include imperative, you-nomination and the use of interrogative sentences, whose function is to put the recipient in an uncomfortable position, questioning his competence, to offend or express his dissatisfaction with him. It is interrogative sentences that are the most frequent grammatical means of expressing implicit speech aggression (50%).

The examples below use the already mentioned grammatical means of expressing implicit speech aggression, namely interrogative sentences (Dein grtes Problem, ja? Was bringt die Impfpflicht? Wer hat dich gew?hlt Alter? Der Flug war hoffentlich klimaneutral Musste das sein?...telefonisch w?re es nicht m?glich gewesen?), imperatives (mach, halt, schau) and you are the nomination used to demonstrate disrespect (dein, wer hat dich gew?hlt, deine bl?de Fresse):

Mach mal eine Impfpflicht gegen die Dummheit ^[12]

Dein grtes Problem, ja Wer hat dich gew?hlt Alter Leute...musste das sein [In the same place]

Halt deine bl?de Fresse Herr Scholz [Ibid.]

 As for lexical means, "they include hints (defamation), distortion of facts, unlawful generalization, ironic remarks and hidden threats" ^{[16, pp. 214-218]}. "Language means such as irony and sarcasm, which are not fixed in the language by lexicalization or grammaticalization, can also be attributed to implicit manifestations of aggression" ^{[17, p. 14]}.

During the analysis, it was proved that the above-mentioned trope of sarcasm is the most used means of verbalization of implicit verbal aggression, which was revealed under the publications of German Foreign Minister and co-chair of the Union 90/Green Party Annalena Berbock (55%). Business trips and meetings with foreign colleagues are often ridiculed, since Annalena Berbok, as a representative of the Green Party, actively advocates for reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Despite the fact that the German Foreign Minister refused to use the government board and travels on regular airlines, commentators believe that she needs to travel by train, and do not miss the opportunity to express her dissatisfaction with this path. In the following comments, in addition to sarcasm, a large amount of colloquial vocabulary (geradelt, Impfquatsch, beklatschen, nix) was also revealed, used to give the comment ease, expression and negative coloring, the use of parcelling (Mit dem Fahrrad vor Ort?) aimed at strengthening the expression of discontent, the use of evaluative adjectives (klimaneutral), employees to draw attention to the fact that, as a representative of the party advocating for climate protection, Annalena Burbok uses non-ecological aircraft:

Aha mal eben nach Moskau fliegen...der Flug war hoffentlich klimaneutral Sie zahlen ja aber nicht f?r den Treibstoff. Nur der dumme deutsche Autofahrer dem ziehen wir das Beil aus der Tasche…genau! ^[18]

BAERBOCK ist bestimmt mit ihrem klimaneutralen Lastenfahrrad nach Rom geradelt, um die Welt zu retten. In Rom pregte sie dann mMn «solidarische Asylpolitik», um dann den Impfquatsch zu beklatschen (also jener Impf-Mumpitz der nix bringt) ^[19]

Tonnen Kerosin f?r ein paar Stunden...telefonisch w?re es nicht m?glich gewesen? [Ibid.]

Mit dem Fahrrad vor Ort? [Ibid.]

 Commentators do not ignore the official visits with which Annalena Berbock arrives to her colleagues, for example, to the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. In the context below, the commentator discredits both politicians, accusing them of unprofessionalism and corruption, using, along with other means, also an adjective that has an initially positive meaning (toll), but acquires a negative connotation in a certain context:

Da treffen sich ja zwei tolle Politikerinnen, eine hat von nix Ahnung, schreibt ab – die andere korrupt ohne Ende – v?llig deplatziert – alle beide ^[20]

 During the analysis, colloquialisms were also found that "appeared on the basis of medical terms that are used in German colloquial speech in a slightly different – non-terminological meaning, for example: Schwachsinn: (ugs. abwert.) unsinniges, t?rrichtes Reden, Handeln, Bl?dsinn (dementia; medical term and characteristic of inadequate human actions) or Idiot: (ugs. abwert.) jmds. ?ger oder Unverst?ndnis hervorrufender t?rrichter Mensch, Dummkopf (idiot, fool; colloquially characterizes a person and his actions)" ^{[21, p. 37]}. These colloquialisms (Idioten w?hlen Idioten, So ein Schwachsinn!) they carry a negative characteristic of a person and/or his actions and are aimed at insulting the recipient's self-esteem and dignity:

So ein Schwachsinn! Schau nach ?sterreich...was bringt die Impflicht? Ach ja, sie wird wohl wieder zur?ck genommen... ^[22]

Idioten w?hlen Idioten  [In the same place]

As for the stylistic techniques used to express implicit verbal aggression, it is necessary to highlight irony, which is verbalized through lexical means, namely, adjectives with a positive connotation(gro?, mit all diesen Einrichtungen), which received a negative contextual meaning, i.e. used in the opposite literal sense. So, in the following example, the commentator is ironic about the successful construction and development of infrastructure in Saxony and expresses doubts about it:

 Ich brauche eine Wohnung Herr Scholz. Gibt es in einer so gro?en mit all diesen Einrichtungen kein Wohnung f?r mich? (the author's spelling is preserved) ^[23].

It was mentioned above that defamation also refers to the means of expressing explicit speech aggression, which is the least used language means of verbalizing implicit speech aggression (10%), which was identified in a comment under the publication of Markus Zeder, the Prime Minister of Bavaria, in response to his statement about the ongoing reliable policy. In this case, the commentator modifies the expression "Klappern geh?rt zum Gesch?ft" (referring, as a rule, to advertising) by adding the verb "labern" (ugs. abwert. chatter, talk nonsense), hinting that this politician talks more than he does:

Labern geh?rt zum Gesch?ft… ^[14]

It was also found that commentators, criticizing politicians, use a whole range of linguistic means related to explicit and implicit speech aggression in one comment, namely interrogative sentences. (Was f?r ne Demokratie?), colloquial phrases (M?ll labern), you-nomination (du zerst?rst, du laberst, du entscheidest), imperative (mach) and sarcasm (ich sag ja auch nicht mach ne Haartransplantation so was nennt man Meinungsfreiheit mein lieber). Such tactics, of course, enhances the influencing effect of language means of impoliteness. This comment was left on Olaf Scholz's personal page in response to a call for revaccination from a coronavirus infection:

Was f?r ne Demokratie? Du laberst nur M?ll! Die Demokratie zerst?rst du doch grade und willst Menschen aufzwingen sich alle paar Monate was reinzuspritzen was nicht mal wirklich wirkt! Nein Danke ?ber mein K?rper entscheidest du ganz sicher nicht....ich sag ja auch nicht mach ne Haartransplantation so was nennt man Meinungsfreiheit mein lieber:) ^[12]

As some linguists note, in recent years, "the study of Internet discourse, virtual communication, its various forms and means has increasingly attracted the attention of linguists, since communication on the Internet has revealed a number of features that distinguish it from real communication in a certain way" ^{[24, p. 294]}. Unlike real communication, Instagram users can remain anonymous, they lack self-control, communication is indirect and mass, and this significantly increases the level of impoliteness of users.

 "Impoliteness" is an umbrella term for describing all types of communicative behavior (verbal and nonverbal) that violate established norms of communication. Thus, in our opinion, verbal aggression is one of the types of impoliteness.

Summing up the overall result of the study, we can conclude that in the mediated computer communication on the social network Instagram, both explicit and implicit types of speech aggression are almost equally found, which are realized through a variety of linguistic means, and sometimes the above-mentioned types occur in the same context. This conclusion is explained not only by the presence of diverse means for the realization of speech aggression (expressive-colored vocabulary, invective, roughly colloquial words and phrases, slang vocabulary, zoosemantic metaphors and comparisons, you-nomination, imperatives, etc.), but also by some serious problems in the modern world, as well as social tensions that cause negative moods in society increase the aggressiveness of people. All this eventually results in verbal aggression and impoliteness in Internet communication.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.