Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

With the rapid development of the social media, cyberbullying has become an invisible aggressive fist worldwide, leading to many tragedies. Compared with abundant findings on the description, detection and prevention of cyberbullying targeted at teenagers from the perspectives of sociology, psychology and computer science, little has been done to analyze how adults are linguistically bullied on the social media. This paper, based on the data collected from a high-profile case in China, aims to analyze the features of cyberbullying language that is targeted at adults on the social media. Data analysis shows that online users tend to choose particular forms of address to identify the victim and employ lexical and grammatical evaluative resources to negate the victim and conduct trial by social media. Through interactions among participants online and offline, the negative effects of cyberbullying may be achieved, realizing, ironically, the function of language, “to do things with words”. This study may hopefully enrich the linguistic findings on cyberbullying and provide tentative linguistic parameters for future empirical studies on automatic detection of cyberbullying.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Al-Garadi, Mohammed Ali, Kasturi Dewi Varathan, and Sri Devi Ravana. 2016. Cybercrime detection in online communications: The experimental case of cyberbullying detection in the Twitter network. Computers in Human Behavior 63C: 433–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baldry, Anna Costanza, David P. Farrington, and Anna Sorrentino. 2015. “Am I at risk of cyberbullying”? A narrative review and conceptual framework for research on risk of cyberbullying and cybervictimization: The risk and needs assessment approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior 23: 36–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13(2): 145–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berne, Sophia, et al. 2013. Cyberbullying assessment instruments: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 18(2): 320–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berry, Keith. 2016. Bullied: Tales of torment, identity, and youth. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Birner, Betty J. 2013. Introduction to pragmatics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwel.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Camassar, Scott D. 2012. Cyberbullying and the law: An overview of civil remedies. Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology 22: 567–645.

    Google Scholar 

  9. China Internet Network Information Center. 2019. The 44th statistical report on Internet development in China. http://www.cac.gov.cn/2019zt/44/index.htm. Accessed 12 September 2019.

  10. Dadvar, Maral, Rudolf Berend. Trieschnigg, Roeland J.F. Ordelman, and Franciska M.G. de Jong. 2013. Improving cyberbullying detection with user context. In Proceedings of the European conference on information retrieval, 693–696. Berlin: Springer.

  11. Dinakar, Karthik, Birago Jones, Catherin Havasi, Henry Lieberman, and Rosalind Picard. 2012. Common sense reasoning for detection, prevention, and mitigation of cyberbullying. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 2(3): 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dinakar, Karthik, Roi Reichart, and Henry Lieberman. 2011. Modeling the detection of textual cyberbullying. In Fifth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media. Barcelona, Spain: Social Mobile Web Workshop.

  13. Domonkosi, Ágnes. 2019. Address forms in conversations on social media. Eruditio-Educatio 14(3): 77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Görzig, Anke, and Kjartan Ólafsson. 2012. What makes a bully a cyberbully? Unravelling the characteristics of cyberbullies across twenty-five European countries. Journal of Children and Media 7(1): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gu, Yueguo. 1993. The impasse of perlocution. Journal of Pragmatics 20(5): 405–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hinduja, Sameer, and Justin W. Patchin. 2008. Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior 29(2): 129–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hinduja, Sameer, and Justin W. Patchin. 2010. Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research 14(3): 206–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hinduja, Sameer, and Justin W. Patchin. 2015. Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hinduja, Sameer, and Justin W. Patchin. 2018. Cyberbullying: Identification, prevention, & response. Cyberbullying Research Center. http://cyberbullying.org/Cyberbullying-Identification-Prevention-Response-2018.pdf. Accessed 20 October 2019.

  20. Horn, Laurence R. 1985. Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61: 121–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hunston, Susan, and Geoffrey Thompson (eds.). 2000. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hunston, Susan. 2011. Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hutson, Elizabeth. 2016. Cyberbullying in adolescence: A concept analysis. Advances in Nursing Science 39(1): 60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ira-Katharina, Peter, and Franz Petermann. 2018. Cyberbullying: A concept analysis of defining attributes and additional influencing factors. Computers in Human Behavior 86: 350–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Klomek, Anat Brunstein, Andre Sourander, and Madelyn Gould. 2010. The association of suicide and bullying in childhood to young adulthood: A review of cross-sectional and longitudinal research findings. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 55(5): 282–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kowalski, Robin M., Allison Toth, and Megan Morgan. 2018. Bullying and cyberbullying in adulthood and the workplace. The Journal of Social Psychology 158(1): 64–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Krishnan, S. 2018. Trial by media: Concept and phenomenon. International Journal of Advanced Research 6(3): 889–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kui, Yanzhang. 2018. Wang Fengya shijian: Yaoyan, wangluo baoli he wujikeshi de diceng jiating (The Wang Fengya incident: Rumors, cyber violence and a hopeless grass root family). China Newsweek 20: 62–65.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Martin, James R., and Peter R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Hampshire, NY: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Miller, Kimberly. 2017. Cyberbullying and its consequences: How cyberbullying is contorting the minds of victims and bullies alike, and the law’s limited available redress. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 26(2): 379–404.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Patchin, Justin W. 2010. Advice for adult victims of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying Research Center. http://cyberbullying.org/advice-for-adult-victims-of-cyberbullying/. Accessed 8 August 2019.

  33. Power, Aurelia, Anthony Keane, Brian Nolan, and Brian Oneill. 2017. A lexical database for public textual cyberbullying detection. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos 23(2): 157–186.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Privitera, Carmel, and Marilyn Anne Campbell. 2009. Cyberbullying: The new face of workplace bullying? CyberPsychology & Behavior 12(4): 395–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Reynolds, Kelly, April Kontostathis, and Lynne Edwards. 2011. Using machine learning to detect cyberbullying. In: 10th international conference on machine learning and applications and workshops, 2, 241–244. IEEE

  36. Rosa, Hugo, et al. 2019. Automatic cyberbullying detection: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior 93: 333–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sampasa-Kanyinga, Hugues, Paul Roumeliotis, and Xu Hao. 2014. Associations between cyberbullying and school bullying victimization and suicidal ideation, plans and attempts among Canadian schoolchildren. PloS One 9(7): e102145. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Searle, John R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5(1): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Sharoff, Serge. 2006. Creating general-purpose corpora using automated search engine queries. WaCky 63–98. http://wackybook.sslmit.unibo.it/pdfs/sharoff.pdf.

  42. Shi, Guoliang, and Xu Ziliang. 2010. Wangluo qiling de jieding ji qi tedian fenxi (The definition of cyberbullying and an analysis of its features). China Youth Study 12: 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Smith, Peter K., et al. 2008. Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49(4): 376–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Taavitsainen, Irma, and Andreas H. Jucker. 2010. Expressive speech acts and politeness in eighteenth century English. In Eighteenth century English: Ideology and change, ed. R. Hickey, 159–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Yang, Lixin. 2014. Civil law. Beijing: China Renmin University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Yin, Dawei, Zhenzhen Xue, and Liangjie Hong. 2009. Detection of harassment on web 2.0. Proceedings of the Content Analysis in the WEB 2: 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zhu, Yuhong, Qun Chen, and Huazhen Zhou. 2014. Guowai wangluo qiling yanjiu de huigu yu zuixin jinzhan (A review of overseas studies on cyberbullying and the latest developments). China Youth Study 11: 80–85.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is part of the research program sponsored by the Guangdong Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science (GD19CYY07) and the research program sponsored by the China Scholarship Council. I’m deeply indebted to Prof. Anne Wagner for her support in the writing of this paper. My sincere thanks also go to anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Youping Xu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, Y. The Invisible Aggressive Fist: Features of Cyberbullying Language in China. Int J Semiot Law 34, 1041–1064 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09746-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09746-1

Keywords

Navigation