Language in conflict debates: Impoliteness strategies in the open to debate youtube channel ‘were Israel’s actions in the Gaza war justified?’
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58881/jlps.v4i3.136Keywords:
Conflict Discourse, Coercive Function, Impoliteness Strategies, Political Debate, Positive Impoliteness, Negative Impoliteness, Sarcasm / Mock PolitenessAbstract
This study analyzes the strategies of impoliteness in the debate ‘Were Israel’s Actions in the Gaza War Justified?’ on the Open to Debate YouTube channel. Using Jonathan Culpeper’s theory of impoliteness, this research aims to identify and analyze the impoliteness strategies employed by speakers and their functions in the context of conflict debates. This qualitative study utilizes documentation techniques and data cards to collect and analyze data. The results show that there are 4 instances of bald on record, 2 instances of sarcasm or mock politeness, and 1 instance of negative impoliteness, and 1 instance of positive impoliteness. Further analysis reveals that these impoliteness strategies can be categorized into two primary functions: coercive impoliteness (pressuring the opponent) and affective impoliteness (expressing strong emotions). This study also demonstrates that impoliteness in debates about conflict does not only carry negative connotations, but also can serve as a form of strong concern for defending humanity and as an effort to voice concerns for the conflict resolution. In conclusion, this study shows that the three speakers (Eylon Levy and Mehdi Hasan) employ impoliteness strategies with different objectives: Eylon Levy tends to prioritize Israel’s security, while Mehdi Hasan uses impoliteness to defend all victims, both in Palestine and Israel, and to support conflict resolution.
References
Akmal, H., Syahriyani, A., & Handayani, T. (2022). “Request speech act of Indonesian English
learners and Australian English speakers through cross-cultural pragmatic perspectives”. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network.
(2), 498-520.
Azizah, D. N., & Mahmud, M. (2024). “Language Style Reflecting Impoliteness in the Comment
Section of Kim Kardashian’s Instagram.” Journal of English Linguistics and Literature Studies.
Bousfield, D., & Locher, M.A. (Eds.). (2008). Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344
with Power in Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. (5th ed., p. 257). SAGE Publications.
Culpeper, J. (1996). “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349– 367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). “Impoliteness Revisited: With Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2
Culpeper, J. (2005). “Impoliteness and Entertainment: In the Television Quiz Show”. De DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
Gruyter Mouton. Journal of Pragmatics.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Politeness and Impoliteness. Lancaster University. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752
Evans, M., Jeffries, L., & O’Driscoll, J. (2019). The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058011
Routledge.
Faisol, Y., & Rahmat, W. (2021). “Negative Impoliteness and Reconstruction of Identity: Cyberpragmatics Analysis of Palestinian Conflict News Comments on Arab YouTube DOI: https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.8.2.168-179.2021
Channel.” Jurnal Arbitrer, 8(2), 168–179.
Farkhan, M. (2007). Proposal Penelitian Bahasa dan Sastra. Cella Jakarta.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Mahsun, M. (2017). Metode Penelitian Bahasa: Tahapan, Strategi, Metode dan Tekniknya. Rajawali Pers.
Muhamad, S. V. (2023). “Konflik Palestina (Hamas) – Israel.” Jurnal Info Singkat.
(20/II/Pusaka/Oktober).
Sinaga, A. R., Saragi, C. N., & Silitonga, H. (2024). “Analysis of Impoliteness Comments of
Netizen on Najwa Shihab YouTube channel.” Dharmas Education Journal, 5(1), 96–103.
Subroto, E. (2007). Pengantar Metode Penelitian Linguistik Struktural. UNS Press.
Sugiyono. (2013). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R & D. Alfabeta.
Suleiman, Y. (2004). A War of Words: Language and Conflict in the Middle East. Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819926
Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Suriadi, M. A. (2017). ”The Politeness Strategy and Its Scale of Ahok’s Statements as DOI: https://doi.org/10.15408/insaniyat.v2i1.6590
a Governor of Jakarta”. Journal of Islam and Humanities. 2(1).
Supardi, M., & Sayogie, F. (2022). “The Logical Pattern of Argument: A Case Study of National DOI: https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466
University Debating Championship”. Elsya: Journal of English Language Studies. 4(1), 65-76.
Wajdi, M. et al. (2013). Code-crossing: Hierarchical politeness in Javanese. e-Journal of Linguistics, Volume 7, Issue 1
Wajdi, M., & Subiyanto, P. (2018). Equality marker in the language of Bali. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 953(1), 012065. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/953/1/012065 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/953/1/012065
Wajdi, M. (2021). Pola Komunikasi Masyarakat Hierarkis. Yogyakarta: CV. Diandra Primamitra Media
Wasito, H. (1993). Pengantar Metodologi Penelitian. PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Intan Nur'aini, Hilmi Akmal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
