Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > “I refuse to respond to this obvious troll"

Electronic data

  • finalproof_hardaker

    Accepted author manuscript, 196 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

“I refuse to respond to this obvious troll": an overview of responses to (perceived) trolling

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

“I refuse to respond to this obvious troll" : an overview of responses to (perceived) trolling. / Hardaker, Claire.

In: Corpora, Vol. 10, No. 2, 01.08.2015, p. 201-229.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{cf04de23c15e4d05a377b5f0236da4dc,
title = "“I refuse to respond to this obvious troll{"}: an overview of responses to (perceived) trolling",
abstract = "Computer-mediated communication (CMC) provides many benefits, including quick, efficient communication over time and space. At the same time, however, the anonymity it offers can give a sense of impunity, an illusion that behaviour is less hurtful than it really is, and a suppression of empathy. In short, CMC can be a fertile ground for conflict, and one particular manifestation of this is trolling. Trolling involves deliberately attacking others online, typically for amusement's sake. In some cases, it can be taken to such an extreme that it clearly violates UK legislation on hate-speech, abuse and menace. Whilst forensic linguistic research into threatening and abusive language is, however, gradually growing (Carney, 2014; Chakraborti, 2010: 99–123; and Fraser, 1998), there is a shortage of research into linguistic aggression online, and particularly research into trolling (see, however, Binns, 2011; Herring et al., 2002; and Shin, 2008). In endeavouring to contribute to this under-researched area, this paper seeks to address the question, {\textquoteleft}How do users respond to (perceived) trolling?{\textquoteright} The answer to this is elaborated through the creation of a working taxonomy of response types, drawn from 3,727 examples of user discussions and accusations of trolling which were extracted from an eighty-six million word Usenet corpus. I conclude this paper by discussing the limitations and applications of this research.",
keywords = "Aggression, computer-mediated communication, conflict, deception, impoliteness, Internet, manipulation, troll, trolling",
author = "Claire Hardaker",
year = "2015",
month = aug,
day = "1",
doi = "10.3366/cor.2015.0074",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "201--229",
journal = "Corpora",
issn = "1749-5032",
publisher = "Edinburgh University Press",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - “I refuse to respond to this obvious troll"

T2 - an overview of responses to (perceived) trolling

AU - Hardaker, Claire

PY - 2015/8/1

Y1 - 2015/8/1

N2 - Computer-mediated communication (CMC) provides many benefits, including quick, efficient communication over time and space. At the same time, however, the anonymity it offers can give a sense of impunity, an illusion that behaviour is less hurtful than it really is, and a suppression of empathy. In short, CMC can be a fertile ground for conflict, and one particular manifestation of this is trolling. Trolling involves deliberately attacking others online, typically for amusement's sake. In some cases, it can be taken to such an extreme that it clearly violates UK legislation on hate-speech, abuse and menace. Whilst forensic linguistic research into threatening and abusive language is, however, gradually growing (Carney, 2014; Chakraborti, 2010: 99–123; and Fraser, 1998), there is a shortage of research into linguistic aggression online, and particularly research into trolling (see, however, Binns, 2011; Herring et al., 2002; and Shin, 2008). In endeavouring to contribute to this under-researched area, this paper seeks to address the question, ‘How do users respond to (perceived) trolling?’ The answer to this is elaborated through the creation of a working taxonomy of response types, drawn from 3,727 examples of user discussions and accusations of trolling which were extracted from an eighty-six million word Usenet corpus. I conclude this paper by discussing the limitations and applications of this research.

AB - Computer-mediated communication (CMC) provides many benefits, including quick, efficient communication over time and space. At the same time, however, the anonymity it offers can give a sense of impunity, an illusion that behaviour is less hurtful than it really is, and a suppression of empathy. In short, CMC can be a fertile ground for conflict, and one particular manifestation of this is trolling. Trolling involves deliberately attacking others online, typically for amusement's sake. In some cases, it can be taken to such an extreme that it clearly violates UK legislation on hate-speech, abuse and menace. Whilst forensic linguistic research into threatening and abusive language is, however, gradually growing (Carney, 2014; Chakraborti, 2010: 99–123; and Fraser, 1998), there is a shortage of research into linguistic aggression online, and particularly research into trolling (see, however, Binns, 2011; Herring et al., 2002; and Shin, 2008). In endeavouring to contribute to this under-researched area, this paper seeks to address the question, ‘How do users respond to (perceived) trolling?’ The answer to this is elaborated through the creation of a working taxonomy of response types, drawn from 3,727 examples of user discussions and accusations of trolling which were extracted from an eighty-six million word Usenet corpus. I conclude this paper by discussing the limitations and applications of this research.

KW - Aggression

KW - computer-mediated communication

KW - conflict

KW - deception

KW - impoliteness

KW - Internet

KW - manipulation

KW - troll

KW - trolling

U2 - 10.3366/cor.2015.0074

DO - 10.3366/cor.2015.0074

M3 - Journal article

VL - 10

SP - 201

EP - 229

JO - Corpora

JF - Corpora

SN - 1749-5032

IS - 2

ER -