“Ding ding ding we have a hypocrite!”

Abstract This study approaches verbal hypocrisy from a metapragmatic perspective, arguing that our understanding of hypocrisy as a pragmatic phenomenon benefits from an analysis of how language users negotiate hypocrisy in actual interaction. The goal is to uncover what kinds of statements participants in online discussions perceive as verbal hypocrisy, how they react to it and how they discuss it. Participants’ claims of hypocrisy are regarded as evaluative metapragmatic acts, with which they make visible their assessment of language use as hypocritical. The analysis of the claims in their context reveals that claims are made in situations of perceived double standards or misalignment. Reactions to claims of hypocrisy range from resistance and negotiation to silence. Furthermore, the negotiation of hypocrisy involves considerations of intention and accountability.