2. Morrisey Trolling

8/3/2019 2. Morrisey Trolling

1/8

LochlanMorissey:Towardsaschematicclassificationofintentionininternettrolling 75

Trollingisaart:Towardsaschematicclassificationofintention

ininternettrollingLOCHLANMORRISSEY*

Abstract

The anonymity inherent within internet communication changes the communicative

behavioursofusersbyallowingthemtoregulatetheamountofidentityrevealedonline.A

widespread

phenomenon

that

occurs

within

internet

communication

is

the

act

of

trolling,

whereanuttererproducesanutterancethat is intentionallyfalseor incorrect inorderto

elicitagenerallynegative orviolent responsefrom the recipients, causing them to seem

foolishintheviewoftheonlineaudience.Thisarticleexaminesthepragmaticactoftrolling

andseekstoprovideaschemaforclassificationof intentionalitywithin thepractice.This

analysiswillconsiderSperber&Wilsonsostensivereferentialmodelofintentionlooking

at the archetypal trolling act specifically at recipients incorrect identification and

understandingof the informativeand communicative intentionsof the trollfoundonan

internetarchive.

1. IntroductionA lack of identity in computermediated communication (hereafter, CMC)

throughout its various genres has led to the codification of communication

behavioursthatarenotsubscribedinfacetofacecommunication.Anexampleof

suchbehaviouristrolling,anactthathasbecomeincreasinglyprevalentinonline

communication.Trollsareoftenseenasdestructivemischiefmakersandtheterm

carries with it negative connotations (Donath, 1999). Though there exist

discussionsontrollingwithinacademic literature,theyarescarceandlookatit

as an online sociologicalbehaviour rather thandocumenting the complex and

coerciveconstituentsthatformpartofitspragmaticact.

Usingan

analytic

framework

based

on

Sperber

&

Wilsons

(1993,

1995)

ostensivereferentialmodelofcommunication toanalyse thearchetypal trolling

act,thispaperwillexaminewaysinwhichidentityplaysapartintrolling,.The

analysiswillfurtherputforthtrollingasapragmaticactoftheuttererratherthan

asociologicalphenomenon.

Griffith

Working

Papers

in

Pragmatics

and

Intercultural

Communication

3,

2

(2010),

75

82


2/8


2. LiteratureReviewUponitsemergence,CMCpresentedresearcherswithaproblemofclassification:

whethertotreatCMCasa(i)writtenform(ii)aformofwrittenspeechor(iii)anintermediateformwithconstraintsuniquetothemedium.Herring(2007:23)

suggeststhattheseearlyattemptsatclassificationpigeonholedallformsofCMC

into a singlegenre,when in reality, each genre of CMC (email, forums, chat

rooms,etc.)generates itsowncommunicativenormswhicharedependantona

varietyoffactors.

Another aspect inherent inCMC, specifically in online communication, is

identity. Contrary to facetoface communication, online communication is

epistemicandbasedon information, rather thanmatter. In thephysicalworld,

thebody provides compelling and convenient definition of identity,whilst in

online environment, identity is palpable and entirely constructed (Donath,1999:2931).Even inenvironments,suchasonlineforums,whereregistrationof

some aspects of the identity (e.g. name, age, location) is required, a user can

easily gain access to more than a single account and use different kinds of

identities.

Does thisanonymity lead toachange in thecommunicativebehavioursof

online users? King (1996:126) proposes that this anonymity allows users to

converse about issues that would otherwise be too sensitive for facetoface

interaction. However, this breakingdown of inhibitions can also result to

negativeconsequencessuchasinrejectionofthenormsofcivilsocietythatcould

leadtoharassment,flamingandhatespeech(Ess,1996).Grice (1967, 1989) identifies that intention within human interaction is

communicated, based on the recognition of the utterers intention by the

audience. The utterer,by meaning an utterance, necessarily has to attempt to

cause theaudience to takeacertain response to thisutterance. Is the intention

behindanygivenutterance,therefore,merelythedecoding,correctorincorrect,

ofapurelylinguistictoken?Sperber&Wilson(1993;citedinArundale,2005:53)

posit that thisencoding/decodingmodel is incomplete,arguing that thismodel

cannot fill thegap that existsbetween semantic representationsand cognition,

rather,thatinference,onthebasisofoptimalrelevancetothestimulus,fillsthis

gap.Theyarguethattheintentionwithinhumaninteractioncanbeviewedasanostensiveinferentialphenomenon;thatthecommunicatoraimstomakeasetof

assumptionsmanifest toboth thecommunicatorand theiraudiencebyusinga

certain stimulus such as a linguisticutterance (Arundale, 2008:238).Therefore,

ostensiveinferential communication may be achieved without the

communicatorsproviding anydirect evidence for the intended conclusion.All

theyhavetodoisprovideevidenceofthefactthattheyintendtheaddresseeto

cometothisconclusion(Sperber&Wilson,2002:15)

Griffith

Working

Papers

in

Pragmatics

and

Intercultural

Communication

3,

2

(2010),

75

82


3/8


Withineachutterance,Sperber&Wilson(1995:29)argue,therearetwokey

intentions:theinformativeandcommunicative.Asdemonstratedintheprevious

discussion, the informative intention is theintentiontomakemanifest...tothe

audience a set of assumptions whilst the communicative intention is anintentiontomakeitmutuallymanifesttoaudienceandcommunicatorthatthe

communicator has a particular informative intention (Carston, 2002:3767).

Taillard (2002:191) expands on thismodel of communication,by applying the

notionofa plan (originallyattested toBratman (1987)),ahighorder intention

thatisthedrivingforcebehindourinteractiveandcommunicativeactions.He

explainsthatbothcommunicativeandinformativeintentionsaresubordinateto

theplan,whichisusedtocoordinateonesactionswithothersitistheagents

commitmenttothathigherlevelintentionwhichnecessitatesthefulfilmentofthe

lowerlevelcommunicativeandinformativeintentions(Taillard,2002:199).

Scholarlyliteratureonthetopicoftrollingisscarce;theexistingliteratureonfocuses on trolling within the online community and its affects on the

community, rather than seeing it as a pragmatic act. The literature defines

trollingasdivertingthetopicofadiscussion,causingittodescendintoaheated

argument. Donath (1999:45) suggests that trolling is a game about identity

deception... [t]he troll attempts topass as a legitimateparticipant, sharing the

groups common interests and concerns.Herring et al (2002:373) expand this

further, defining trolling as luring others into pointless and timeconsuming

[offtopic] discussions and say that by [starting] with a message that is

intentionallyincorrectbutnotoverlycontroversial...thegoalofatrollistodraw

in particularly nave or vulnerable readers. Both definitions emphasise thedestructivenatureof trolling to an online communitys trust.Subsequently, as

usersbecomemorecognisantof trolling, theywillbecome suspiciousofnave,

thoughlegitimate,posts.

3. ClassificationofintentionintrollingThe definitions provided above by Donath and Herring give a functional

descriptionoftrollingwithinanonlinecommunity.Forthepurposeofpragmatic

classification,Iwillpositanextensiontothedefinition:thattrollingisanutterer

producinganintentionallyfalseorincorrectutterancewithhighorderintention(the plan) to elicit from recipient a particular response, generally negative or

violent (with some exceptions which we will see further in the discussion).

Consideringtheextendeddefinition,letustakethefollowinghypotheticalonline

forumposts(examples(1)(4))withnoparticularaim,topicorspecialinterests:

(1) Trollingisaart.

Griffith

Working

Papers

in

Pragmatics

and

Intercultural

Communication

3,

2

(2010),

75

82


4/8


At first glance, the above utterancewould seem to include an innocuous

spellingerror.Whether intending tobehelpfulorcondescending,ausermight

respondwithapost:

(2) Dontyoumeananart?Thisisaverysimpleexampleofatrollingpractice.Thetrollhasutteredan

intentional fallacy with the highorder intention of causing the recipient to

correcttheapparentmistakethatisachievedthroughtheuseofastimulus.The

form of the trolling practice, in this example, a spelling error, attracts the

recipientsattention.

Anotherhypothetical example is apost containing an image of a recently

deceasedpublic figure (anactor,musician,politician,etc.)withsome formofarest in peacemessage, using the name of someonewho looks similar, or is

otherwiseassociatedwiththepublicfigure.Forexample:

(3) (NexttoapictureofBrittanyMurphy):BrittanySpears,19772009

Goodnightsweetprincess.

Theintendedresponsetothisstimulusistoelicitcorrectiontotheidentityof

thedeceased;informingthetrollthattheimagewasofMurphyandnotSpears,

andpossibly,amorenegative,insultingorretaliatingresponse.Within thepractice, there isgenerally a third actor, the audience (usually

constituted of a number of users).While not always directly involved in the

practice,theaudienceareusuallymoreawareoftrollingtechniques,thus,avoid

beingtrappedbytrolls.Thisawarenessoftrollingtechniquesisgenerallyaresult

oftheaudiencespreviousexperienceswithtrolls,allowingrecognitionofcertain

patters, norms, and standard trolling stimuli (examples (1) and (3) are

commonly used simple trolling acts) or the audience themselves being

experienced trolls. They often provide a metapragmatic account for the

precedingpractice,by alerting the recipient that they havebeen trolled (this

metapragmaticaccount isoftengiven inan impoliteway).Using theexamplesin(1)and(2):

(4) T:Trollingisaart.R:Dontyoumeananart?

A:[quote]Dontyoumeananart?[/quote]

Haha,yougottrolld.

Griffith

Working

Papers

in

Pragmatics

and

Intercultural

Communication

3,

2

(2010),

75

82


5/8


The practice, thus, can be broken into three basic constituents: (i) the

informative intention (ii) the highorder intention and (iii) the stimulus.How

does the troll use these three constituents to cause the recipient to follow the

trolling intentionandcomplywith the intendedresponse?Takingexample (1);the informative intention of the uttererwould seem tobepositing an idea in

order to instigate adiscussion on that idea.Whilst the ideamaybevalid, the

recipient would see the spelling error and correct it. The trolls highorder

intention,then,istocausetherecipienttocorrectthemistake.However,using

thestimulus(thespellingerror,in(1)),thetrollcoercestherecipientintorecognising

only the informative intention.The audience, on the contrary, recognise both the

informative intentionand thehighorder intention,and isable torecognise the

trollingact.Thisschemacanbeappliedtoalltrollingacts;forexamplein(2),the

informativeintentionisthepayrespectstothedeceasedindividual,thestimulus

istheincorrectidentificationofthepublicfigureintheimage,andthehighorderintentionistoelicitacorrectionresponse.

Towhatpurposedoes the trollperform this complexact?Themotive lies

withinthedesireofthetrolltomaketherecipientseemfoolish,generallyinthe

viewof theaudience, therebyembarrassing therecipient.Causing therecipient

to elicit an immediate, visceral (sometimes, violent) reaction to a seemingly

innocuous error makes the recipient seem unthoughtful and nave. The

audiencesmetapragmatic response highlights to the recipient that they have

beenfooled,increasingthetrollseffect.

4. AnalysisForthisanalysis,transcriptsfromawebsiteofaselfconfessedtrollareused.The

website is managed by a troll who responds to online advertisements with

repliesthatareoftenoutrageousorcontroversial.Whilstthisdoesnotconformto

thearchetypal trollingactas the trollresponds to therecipient,rather than the

troll luring therecipient into the trollingact (asdemonstrated inexamples (1)

and(2))theconstituentsofatrollingpracticearestillvisible.

(5) (a)Originalad:hi there i am a 22 year old femalebabysitter looking for ajob. i am

availableprettymuchallthetimesoifyouneedsomeoneto lookafteryour

kid,letmeknow!

(b)FromTimmyTucker[troll]to**********@***********.org[recipient]

Hey,

I saw your ad about babysitting and am very interested. My

grandmother is in the hospital and is probably going to die. She is never

awakewhen Iam there,and thedoctors say she isonlyawake forabout5

Griffith

Working

Papers

in

Pragmatics

and

Intercultural

Communication

3,

2

(2010),

75

82


6/8


minuteseverycoupleofdays.Theproblemis,Ineedhertosignaredrafted

willIwrotesoIcangetallofherstuffwhenshedies.Rightnowshehasallof

hermoneygoingtomybitchsisterandherfamily.Idonthavethetimetosit

thereand

watch

her

all

day

because

Ihave

better

things

to

do.

Ineed

you

to

sitatthehospitalandwatchherincaseshewakesup,andthenmakehersign

thewill.Iwillpayyou$10anhourforthisjob.

Thanks,

Tim

(c)From***********@gmail.comtoMe

nothanksthatissick!showsomesympathyyouprick!

Example(5)showsatrollingpracticesimilartoexamples(1)or(3).Thetroll

presents his informative intent hiring ababysitting service using his dying

grandmother as the stimulus. The recipient sees only this intent andwithoutrealising the presence of highorder intent, gives a reaction that the troll

anticipated.

(6) (a)Originalad:litterof6kittensupforadoption!theyareall3weeksoldandarelooking

foragoodhome.contactifinterested.

(b)FromMikeHunt[troll]to*********@***********.org[recipient]

Hi,

Iaminterestedintakingallsixkittensoffofyourhands.Howmuchdo

youwantforthem?

Mike

(c)FromShannon*******toMe

Mike,

Areyougoing to takecareofallof thesekittens? Iwant tomake sure

theyallfindagoodhome,andwasexpectingtosellthemoneatatime.Are

youabletohouseallsixofthem?

(d)FromMikeHunttoShannon*******

Shannon,

Tobehonest,IownapetBengalTigerandheisonastrictdietofcats.I

usuallyfeedhimonecateverycoupleofdays,sothislittershouldholdhim

overforawhile.Dontworrythough,IlltakegoodcareofthekittensuntilI

feedthemtohim.

Mike

(e)FromShannon*******toMe

That ishorrible!Youwillnotgetasinglekitten fromme. Ireallyhope

youarenotserious.

Griffith

Working

Papers

in

Pragmatics

and

Intercultural

Communication

3,

2

(2010),

75

82


7/8


Example(6)showsamuchlesssubtletrollingpract,althoughthetrollusesa

muchlongersetupthan inanyofthepreviousexamples.Interestingly, inboth

(5) and (6), the members of the audience are invisible and not part of theinteraction.Thetrollis,however,performingfortheaudience,asheknowsthat

therewillbeanaudienceinthefuture(i.e.whenthesetranscriptsarepostedon

thewebsite).

5. ConclusionIn thispaper, theobjective is to setout anostensiveinferential framework for

analysing the trolling practice. The anonymity inherentwithin CMC, such as

trolling,allowsuserstoengageinbehaviourstheywouldotherwisebereluctant

tocarryoutinfacetofaceinteractions.Literatureontrollinghasemphasisedthesociological implications of a trolls actions, rather than studying the complex

intention and planning embedded in the act. The troll achieves his desired

outcome,making the recipient seems foolish for reactingviscerally to such an

obvious or foolish troll,by projecting an informative intent using a stimulus

(whichisgenerallyafallacy,andisusedtoattractattention).Thisactcoercesthe

recipientintonotrecognisingthehighorderintentionofthetroll(thatis,toelicit

theintendedreaction).Athirdpartyintheformofanaudience,becauseofprior

experience orother situational factors, can recogniseboth the informative and

highorder intentionsof the trolland, therefore,doesnotproduce theresponse

thatthetrollhadintended.

*AuthornotesLochlanMorrisseyisanundergraduatestudentcurrentlyundertakingaBachelorofArts

inLanguagesandAppliedLinguistics,andacommittedamateurpoet.Hiscurrentstudy

interests includenatural languageprocessing,postMarxism,Hegelianphilosophy and

filmtheory.

Contactemail:[email protected]

ReferencesArundale, Robert B. 2005. Pragmatics, implicature and conversation. In Handbook of

Language and Social Interaction, eds. Kristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders.

Mahway:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Arundale,RobertB.2008.Against(Gricean)intentionsattheheartofhumaninteraction.

InterculturalPragmatics5:229258.

Bratman, Michael. 1987. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reasoning. Cambridge, MA:

HarvardUniversityPress.

Griffith

Working

Papers

in

Pragmatics

and

Intercultural

Communication

3,

2

(2010),

75

82
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


8/8

LochlanMorissey:Towardsaschematicclassificationofintentionininternettrolling

Griffith

Working

Papers

in

Pragmatics

and

Intercultural

Communication

3,

2

(2010),

75

82

82

Carston,Robyn.2002.ThoughtsandUtterances.Oxford;Berlin:BlackwellPublishing.

Donath,Judith.1999.Identityanddeceptioninthevirtualcommunity.InCommunitiesin

Cyberspace,eds.MarcSmithandPeterKollock.London;NewYork:Routledge.

Ess,Charles.

1996.

The

political

computer:

Democracy,

CMC,

and

Habermas.

In

Philosophical Perspectives on ComputerMediated Communication, ed. Charles Ess.

Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Grice,Paul.1989.StudiesintheWayofWords.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Herring,Susan,JobSluder,Kirk,Scheckler,Rebecca,andBarab,Sasha.2002.Searching

forsafetyonline:managingtrollinginafeministforum.TheInformationSociety

18:371384.

Herring,Susan.2007.A facetedclassificationscheme forcomputermediateddiscourse.

Language@Internet 4.

King,StormA.1996.Researching internetcommunities:proposedethicalguidelinesfor

thereportingofresults.TheInformationSociety12:119128.

Lindsay,John.

2009.

DontEvenReply.com:

E

mails

from

an

asshole.

Viewed

6June

2010

at

Sperber,Dan,andWilson,Deirdre.1993.Linguisticformandrelevance.Lingua 90:125.

Sperber,Dan,andWilson,Deirdre.1995.Relevance:communicationandcognition.Malden,

MA;Oxford:Blackwell.

Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading.

MindandLanguage17:323.

Taillard,MaritOdile. 2002. Beyond communicative intention. UCL Working Papers in

Linguistics14:189806.
http://www.dontevenreply.com/http://www.dontevenreply.com/

2. Morrisey Trolling

Documents

Transcript of 2. Morrisey Trolling