1887
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper explores linguistic egocentrism in English through the lens of virtual performatives, i.e. self-referential stand-alone predications in the third person singular present tense through which users perform virtual action or emotion. The focus is on microblogging for apparently recreational purposes, where visibility, rather than reciprocity, must be a primary concern. Findings show that the common or garden virtual performative consistently relying on an externalized self occasionally turns into a variant where the self is subsequently reassumed, and then again possibly re-externalized within the same construction. The syntactic and discursive systematicity manifest in these constructions forbids treating them as erroneous. The paper discusses the benefits of this way of externalizing and optionally reassuming self, through fluctuation between third-person and first-person references, and touches upon metapragmatic awareness and logophoricity. In creating digital culture, virtual performatives point to users’ pragmatic adaptation of their public, social self to environments manifesting a high degree of context collapse.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00009.vir
2018-06-28
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Banks, J.
    (2017) Multimodal, multiplex, multispatial: A network model of the self. New Media & Society, 19(3), 419–438.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cherny, L.
    (1995) The modal complexity of speech events in a social mud. Electronic Journal of Communication, 5. www.cios.org
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Coesemans, R. , & De Cock, B.
    (2017) Self-reference by politicians on Twitter: Strategies to adapt to 140 characters. Journal of Pragmatics, 116, 37–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cooper, W. E. , & Ross, J. R.
    (1975) World order. In R. E. Grossman , L. J. San & T. J. Vance (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism (pp.63–111). Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Danet, B.
    (2001) [email protected]: Communicating online. Oxford: Berg.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dayter, D.
    (2014) Self-praise in microblogging. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 91–102.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.021 [Google Scholar]
  7. Deleuze, G. , & Guattari, F.
    (1980) Mille plateaux. Paris: Éditions de minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. van Dijck, J.
    (2013) ‘You have one identity’: Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society, 35(2), 199–215.10.1177/0163443712468605
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443712468605 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ertel, S.
    (1977) Where do the subjects of sentences come from?In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Sentence production (pp.141–167). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Georgakopoulou, A.
    (2013) Narrative analysis and computer-mediated communication. In S. C. Herring , D. Stein & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp.695–715). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110214468.695
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468.695 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gill, M.
    (2011) Authenticity. In J-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Pragmatics in practice: Handbook of pragmatics highlights, Vol.9 (pp.46–65). Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/hoph.9.03gill
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.9.03gill [Google Scholar]
  12. Goffman, E.
    (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hagège, C.
    (1974) Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 69, 287–310.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hancock, J. , & Gonzalez, A.
    (2013) Deception in computer-mediated communication. In S. C. Herring , D. Stein & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp.363–383). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110214468.363
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468.363 [Google Scholar]
  15. Herring, S. C.
    (2001) Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin , D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp.612–634). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2007) A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. [email protected], 4, article 1, www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/761
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2012) Grammar and electronic communication. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0466
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0466 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2013) Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent. In D. Tannen & A. M. Trester (Eds.), Discourse 2.0: Language and new media (pp.1–25). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Herring, S. C. , & Kapidzic, S.
    (2015) Teens, gender, and self-presentation in social media. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. (pp. 146–152). Oxford: Elsevier.10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑097086‑8.64108‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.64108-9 [Google Scholar]
  20. Herring, S. C. , Stein, D. , & Virtanen, T.
    (Eds.) (2013) Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110214468
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468 [Google Scholar]
  21. Honeycutt, C. , & Herring, S. C.
    (2009) Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. Proceedings of the forty-second Hawai’i international conference on system sciences (HICSS-42). Los Alamitos: IEEE Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jespersen, O.
    (1949) A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part VII: Syntax. Copenhagen: Jørgensen.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kolko, B.
    (1995) Building a world with words: The narrative reality of virtual communities. Works and Days25/26, 13 (1/2), 105–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kuno, S. , & Kaburaki, E.
    (1977) Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(4), 627–272.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Labov, W.
    (1972) Language in the inner city: Studies in Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee, C.
    (2011) Texts and practices of micro-blogging: Status updates on Facebook. In C. Thurlow & K. Mroczek (Eds.), Digital discourse: Language in the new media (pp. 110–128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199795437.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199795437.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2013) ‘My English is so poor…so I take photos’: Metalinguistic discourses about English on FlickR. In D. Tannen & A. M. Trester (Eds.), Discourse 2.0: Language and new media (pp.73–83). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2014) Language choice and self-presentation in social media: the case of university students in Hong Kong. In P. Seargeant & C. Tagg (Eds.), The language of social media: Identity and community on the Internet (pp.91–111). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137029317.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317.0009 [Google Scholar]
  29. Levinson, S. C.
    (2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lindholm, L.
    (2010) ‘A little story for food for thought…’: Narratives in advice discourse. In S-K. Tanskanen , M. L. Helasvuo , M. Johansson & M. Raitaniemi (Eds.), Discourses in interaction (pp.223–236). Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.203.16lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.203.16lin [Google Scholar]
  31. Litt, E.
    (2012) “Knock, knock, who’s there?” The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 330–345.10.1080/08838151.2012.705195
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.705195 [Google Scholar]
  32. Longacre, R. E.
    (1983) The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Marwick, A. E. , & boyd, d.
    (2010) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 3, 4–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mühlhäusler, P. , & Harré, R.
    (1990) Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Osgood, C. E. , & Bock, J. K.
    (1977) Salience and sentencing: Some production principles. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Sentence production (pp.89–140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Page, R. E.
    (2012a) Stories and social media: Identities and interaction. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Page, R.
    (2012b) The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 181–201.10.1177/1750481312437441
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481312437441 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rettberg, J. W.
    (2014) Seeing ourselves through technology: How we use selfies, blogs and wearable devices to see and shape ourselves. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Robinson, L.
    (2007) The cyberself: The self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the digital era. New Media & Society, 9(1), 93–110.10.1177/1461444807072216
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807072216 [Google Scholar]
  40. Searle, J. R.
    (2001) How performatives work. In D. Vanderveken & S. Kubo (Eds.), Essays in speech act theory (pp.85–107). Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.77.05sea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.77.05sea [Google Scholar]
  41. Siewierska, A.
    (1988) Word order rules. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Simpson, J.
    (2013) Conversational floor in computer-mediated discourse. In S. C. Herring , D. Stein & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 515–538). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110214468.515
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468.515 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sorlin, S.
    (2014) La stylistique anglaise: Théories et pratiques. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Vásquez, C.
    (2014) The discourse of online consumer reviews. London: Bloomberg.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Verschueren, J.
    (1995) The conceptual basis of performativity. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds), Essays in semantics and pragmatics (pp.299–321). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (1999) Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Virtanen, T.
    (2013a) Performativity in computer-mediated communication. In S. C. Herring , D. Stein & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 269–290). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110214468.269
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468.269 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2013b) Mock performatives in online discussion boards: Toward a discourse-pragmatic model of computer-mediated communication. In D. Tannen & A. M. Trester (Eds.), Discourse 2.0: Language and new media (pp.155–166). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (2015) Referring to oneself in the third person: A novel construction in text-based computer-mediated communication. In L. Gardelle & S. Sorlin (Eds.), The pragmatics of personal pronouns (pp.215–238). Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.171.11vir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.171.11vir [Google Scholar]
  50. (2017) Adaptability in online consumer reviews: Exploring genre dynamics and interactional choices. Journal of Pragmatics, 116, 77–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wårvik, B.
    (2013) Peak-marking strategies in Old English narrative prose. Style, 47(2), 168–184.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Werry, C. C.
    (1996) Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.47–63). Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.39.06wer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.39.06wer [Google Scholar]
  53. Wesch, M.
    (2009) YouTube and you: Experiences of self-awareness in the context collapse of the recording webcam. Explorations in Media Ecology, 8(2), 99–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Zappavigna, M.
    (2011) Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media & Society, 13(5), 788–806.10.1177/1461444810385097
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385097 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00009.vir
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): externalized self , microblogging , pronouns , reassumed self and virtual performative
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