LINGUISTIC IMPOLITENESS RESEARCH 1995-2023: BIBLIOMETRIC AND PAGER SCOPING REVIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26740/elitejournal.v6n4.p22-38Keywords:
Linguistic Impoliteness, Bibliometric Analysis, Research Trends, Bibliomagika, VosviewerAbstract
The rapid expansion of digital communication and increasingly polarized social interactions have heightened the occurrence and complexity of linguistic impoliteness, necessitating a systematic evaluation of its scholarly evolution. This study presents a comprehensive scoping review and bibliometric analysis of global linguistic impoliteness research published between 1995 and 2023. Using the Scopus database as the primary source, a total of 278 peer-reviewed publications were retrieved and systematically analyzed. To ensure metadata accuracy, bibliographic data were cleaned and standardized using OpenRefine, while performance metrics and science mapping visualizations were generated using BiblioMagika and VOSviewer software. The performance results indicate a steady upward trend in scholarly publications, accumulating 7,148 total citations with an average of 25.71 citations per paper and an h-index of 42. Keyword co-occurrence network analysis successfully mapped the intellectual structure of the field into five distinct thematic clusters: (1) normative and interactional impoliteness represented by red nodes, (2) digital, aggressive, and identity-oriented impoliteness represented by green nodes, (3) pragmatic, face, and discourse foundations represented by blue nodes, (4) social media, conflict, and political impoliteness represented by yellow nodes, and (5) humorous, intercultural, and metapragmatic impoliteness represented by purple nodes. In conclusion, research in this domain has undergone a major epistemological shift from micro-level form-based analysis to context-dependent, socially situated, and metapragmatically negotiated evaluations, heavily driven by the affordances of digital communication. It is recommended that future studies investigate recipient-oriented evaluations, moral-ideological positioning, and multimodal expressions across diverse digital platforms to address existing research gaps.
References
Abdel-Raheem, A. (2022). Metaphorical creativity contributing to multimodal impoliteness in political cartoons. Intercultural Pragmatics, 19(1), 35–70. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2022-0002
Ahmi, A. (2023a). OpenRefine: An Approachable Tool for Cleaning and Harmonizing Bibliographical Data. AIP Conference Proceedings, 11, 030006-1–030006. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0164724
Ahmi, A. (2023b). biblioMagika (Version 2.1) [Microsoft Excel]. https://aidi-ahmi.com/index.php/bibliomagika
Al-Yasin, N. F., & Rabab’ah, G. A. (2018). Impoliteness Strategies in ‘The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air’: A Gender-based Study. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 18(1), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.33806/ijaes2000.18.1.8
Aminah, A., Adnan, A., Qomariyah, N., Krisnan, R., Anggraini, L., Supatmi, S., Danu, D., Suita, E., Cahyono, D. D. N., Lukman, A. H., Syamsuwida, D., & Djam’an, D. (2025). Unlocking the potential of pongamia pinnata: A scoping review and bibliometric analysis (ScoRBA) guided by the PAGER framework. Forest Science and Technology, 21(3), 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2025.2512209
Angouri, J., & Tseliga, T. (2010). “You Have No Idea What You Are Talking About!” from E-Disagreement to E-Impoliteness in Two Online Fora. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.004
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a Curated, High-Quality Bibliometric Data Source for Academic Research in Quantitative Science Studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
Beschieru, M. (2021). Changes in the Classroom Discourse: Negative Politeness and Impoliteness. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 13(2), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.2478/ausp-2021-0012
Blitvich, P. G.-C. (2018). Globalization, transnational identities, and conflict talk: The superdiversity and complexity of the latino identity. Journal of Pragmatics, 134, 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.02.001
Bou-Franch, P. (2021). “Maleducados/Ill-mannered” during the #A28 political campaign on Twitter: A metapragmatic study of impoliteness labels and comments in Spanish. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 9(2), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00048.bou
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction (Vol. 167). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167
Bousfield, D., & Culpeper, J. (2008). Impoliteness: Eclecticism and diaspora an introduction to the special edition. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2008.008
Bousfield, D., & Locher, M. A. (Eds.). (2008). Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter.
Bradbury-Jones, C., Aveyard, H., Herber, O. R., Isham, L., Taylor, J., & O’Malley, L. (2022). Scoping reviews: The PAGER framework for improving the quality of reporting. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 25(4), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1899596
Brown, L. (2013). “mind your own esteemed business”: Sarcastic honorifics use and impoliteness in korean TV dramas. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2013-0008
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3
Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 1(1), 35–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness Revisited: With Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1545–1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Graham, S. L. (2008). Chapter 12. A manual for (im)politeness?:the impact of the FAQ in an electronic community of practice. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language (pp. 281–304). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344.5.281
Groshek, J., & Cutino, C. (2016). Meaner on mobile: Incivility and impoliteness in communicating contentious politics on sociotechnical networks. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 2056305116677137. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116677137
Haugh, M. (2015). Impoliteness and Taking Offence in Initial Interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.018
Haugh, M., & Bousfield, D. (2012). Mock Impoliteness, Jocular Mockery and Jocular Abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, Im/Politeness across Englishes, 44(9), 1099–1114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003
Huynh, D. (2022). Open Refine (Version 3.5.2) [Java; Mac]. Google, Inc. https://openrefine.org
Limberg, H. (2009). Impoliteness and threat responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1376–1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.003
Liu, S. (2023). You’re so Mean but I Like It – Metapragmatic Evaluation of Mock Impoliteness in Danmaku Comments. Discourse, Context & Media, 53, 100700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2023.100700
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating Norms of Linguistic Behaviour. In Impoliteness in Language Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp. 77–99). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344.2.77
McKinnon, S., & Prieto, P. (2014). The Role of Prosody and Gesture in the Perception of Mock Impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 10(2), 185–219. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2014-0009
Mills, S. (2005). Gender and Impoliteness. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.263
Mills, S. (2009). Impoliteness in a Cultural Context. Journal of Pragmatics, Pragmatic Markers, 41(5), 1047–1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.014
Mills, S. (2011). Chapter 1 Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238679.19
Nishimura, Y. (2010). Impoliteness in japanese BBS interactions: Observations from message exchanges in two online communities. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.003
Oz, M., Zheng, P., & Chen, G. M. (2018). Twitter Versus Facebook: Comparing Incivility, Impoliteness, and Deliberative Attributes. New Media & Society, 20(9), 3400–3419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817749516
Öztürk, O., Kocaman, R., & Kanbach, D. K. (2024). How to design bibliometric research: An overview and a framework proposal. Review of Managerial Science, 18(11), 3333–3361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00738-0
Parvaresh, V., & Tayebi, T. (2018). Impoliteness, Aggression and the Moral Order. Journal of Pragmatics, 132, 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.010
Schubert, C. (2022). Strategic functions of linguistic impoliteness in US primary election debates. Journal of Language and Politics, 21(3), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.20041.sch
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Upadhyay, S. R. (2010). Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.006
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Wijaya, A., Setiawan, N. A., Ahmad, A. H., Zakaria, R., Othman, Z., Wijaya, A., Setiawan, N. A., Ahmad, A. H., Zakaria, R., & Othman, Z. (2023). Electroencephalography and mild cognitive impairment research: A scoping review and bibliometric analysis (ScoRBA). AIMS Neuroscience, 10(neurosci-11-2-12), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.3934/Neuroscience.2023012
Wijayanto, A., Prasetyarini, A., & Hikmat, M. H. (2017). Impoliteness in EFL: Foreign Language Learners’ Complaining Behaviors Across Social Distance and Status Levels. SAGE Open, 7(3), 215824401773281. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017732816
Zidjaly, N. A. (2019). Divine Impoliteness: How Arabs Negotiate Islamic Moral Order on Twitter. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23(4), 1039–1064. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-1039-1064
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Eric Kunto Aribowo, Bayu Indrayanto, Nanik Herawati
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abstract views: 19
,
PDF Downloads: 16
