1887

Metacommunicative follow-ups in British, German and Russian political webchats

image of Metacommunicative follow-ups in British, German and Russian political webchats

The present study explores discursive functions and cross-cultural peculiarities of follow-ups containing metacommunicative utterances derived from political live webchats. It seeks to identify some typical patterns of online dialogue/polylogue organisation by filtering out discursive functions of metacommunicative follow-ups. It is concluded that politicians and their audiences attempt to shape political interaction by inserting evaluative follow-up moves in question-answer or other types of sequences. Besides, non-evaluative follow-ups are also found to play a role in online political discussion. Both politicians and their audiences sometimes resort to metacommunicative justification, explanation and reasoning to defend their views, redress misunderstanding and otherwise ensure impression management. As for cross-cultural similarities and differences, negative interdiscursive follow-ups that contain complaining sequences and requests to punish underperformance in other genres of political discourse occur most frequently in the British subset of webchat data. Russian politicians criticise the questioners approximately 2.5 times as often as their British counterparts and almost six times as often as German politicians. Neither German users nor German politicians complain about the complexities and challenges of political webchats, whereas both Russian and British users, as well as Russian politicians express doubts in the efficiency of this genre of political multi-party interaction.

References

  1. Bull, Peter , Anita Fetzer and Marjut Johansson
    2008 “Prologue: Analyzing the Fine Details of Political Commitment.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology27 (4): 324–332. doi: 10.1177/0261927X08322474
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X08322474 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bull, Peter and Kate Mayer
    1993 “How Not to Answer Questions in Political Interviews.”Political Psychology14: 651–666. doi: 10.2307/3791379
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3791379 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bull, Peter
    2003The Microanalysis of Political Communication. Claptrap and Ambiguity. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Coulthard, Malcolm and David Brazil
    1992 “Exchange structure.” InAdvances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard , 50–78. London, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cullen, Richard
    2002 “Supportive Teacher Talk: The Importance of the F-Move.” ELT Journal, 56 (2):117–127. doi: 10.1093/elt/56.2.117
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.2.117 [Google Scholar]
  6. Döpke, Susanne
    1992One Parent, One Language: An Interactional Approach. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fetzer, Anita , Elda Weizman and Elisabeth Reber
    (eds) 2012Proceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-ups Across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May – 2 June 2012. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg 2012 – [online]. URL: opus.bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/volltexte/2012/7165/;URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-71656.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fetzer, Anita and Elda Weizman
    . “Following Up across Contexts and Discourse Domains: Introduction.” This volume.
  9. Francis, Gill , and Susan Hunston
    1992 “Analysing Everyday Conversation.” InAdvances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard , 123–61. London, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hatter, Jeffrey Mark
    2002The Application of Exchange Theory to Internet Relay Chat. MA dissertation, supervisor: Dr. Susan Hunston. Birmingham: Centre for English Language Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kneser, C. , R. Pilkington and T. Treasure-Jones
    2001 “The Tutor’s Role: An Investigation of the Power of the Exchange Structure Analysis to Identify Different Roles in CMC Seminars.” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education12: 63–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ling, Lim Hwee
    2006 Constructing Learning Conversations: A Study of the Discourse and Learner Experiences of Online Synchronous Discussions. PhD thesis, Murdoch University.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. McCarthy, Michael
    1991Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Sinclair, John , and Malcolm Coulthard
    1975Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Stubbs, Michael
    1983Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Bull, Peter , Anita Fetzer and Marjut Johansson
    2008 “Prologue: Analyzing the Fine Details of Political Commitment.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology27 (4): 324–332. doi: 10.1177/0261927X08322474
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X08322474 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bull, Peter and Kate Mayer
    1993 “How Not to Answer Questions in Political Interviews.”Political Psychology14: 651–666. doi: 10.2307/3791379
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3791379 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bull, Peter
    2003The Microanalysis of Political Communication. Claptrap and Ambiguity. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Coulthard, Malcolm and David Brazil
    1992 “Exchange structure.” InAdvances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard , 50–78. London, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cullen, Richard
    2002 “Supportive Teacher Talk: The Importance of the F-Move.” ELT Journal, 56 (2):117–127. doi: 10.1093/elt/56.2.117
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.2.117 [Google Scholar]
  6. Döpke, Susanne
    1992One Parent, One Language: An Interactional Approach. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fetzer, Anita , Elda Weizman and Elisabeth Reber
    (eds) 2012Proceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-ups Across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May – 2 June 2012. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg 2012 – [online]. URL: opus.bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/volltexte/2012/7165/;URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-71656.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fetzer, Anita and Elda Weizman
    . “Following Up across Contexts and Discourse Domains: Introduction.” This volume.
  9. Francis, Gill , and Susan Hunston
    1992 “Analysing Everyday Conversation.” InAdvances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard , 123–61. London, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hatter, Jeffrey Mark
    2002The Application of Exchange Theory to Internet Relay Chat. MA dissertation, supervisor: Dr. Susan Hunston. Birmingham: Centre for English Language Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kneser, C. , R. Pilkington and T. Treasure-Jones
    2001 “The Tutor’s Role: An Investigation of the Power of the Exchange Structure Analysis to Identify Different Roles in CMC Seminars.” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education12: 63–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ling, Lim Hwee
    2006 Constructing Learning Conversations: A Study of the Discourse and Learner Experiences of Online Synchronous Discussions. PhD thesis, Murdoch University.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. McCarthy, Michael
    1991Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Sinclair, John , and Malcolm Coulthard
    1975Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Stubbs, Michael
    1983Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/books/9789027268341-dapsac.60.05siv
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027268341
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error