Fragile men and fishy arguments: Attributing and disputing offence in online interaction

Baxter-Webb, Ibi, Elder, Chi-Hé and Kapogianni, Eleni (2025) Fragile men and fishy arguments: Attributing and disputing offence in online interaction. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict. ISSN 2213-1272 (In Press)

Microsoft Word (Manuscript_FishyArgumentR1-clean) - Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (386kB)

Abstract

What happens when someone tells you that you are offended, even though you do not feel offended yourself? Contested attributions of offence provide an interesting testing ground for how one’s feelings of offence can diverge from how offence is displayed in interaction. In this paper, we consider the phenomenon of attributions of offence to ask on what grounds a speaker can be labelled as offended, even when the speaker does not claim any feelings of offence, as well as to what extent a speaker can deny being offended, when appearing to, indeed, be offended. We present a case study of an interaction from Twitter (X) stemming from an instance of failed humour, exploring the linguistic cues that people rely on when judging others to be offended. We find that disputes regarding offence are not actually necessarily to do with one’s feelings at all but instead relate to whether someone's emotional involvement is perceived to be a barrier to their objectivity and argumentative strength.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	offence attribution,offence-taking,moral transgressions,plausible deniability,online interaction
Faculty \ School:	Faculty of Arts and Humanities > School of Media, Language and Communication Studies
Depositing User:	LivePure Connector
Date Deposited:	09 Jan 2026 13:30
Last Modified:	09 Jan 2026 13:30
URI:	https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/101576
DOI:	issn:2213-1272

Downloads

Actions (login required)

View Item