Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-3851
  • E-ISSN: 2542-386X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Internet communication has evolved a lot since it first became popular in the early nineties of the last century. Pragmatics has also evolved and has tried to come to terms with the non-stop changes that internet is constantly producing in our lives and especially in how we communicate and interact. We are probably now at a stage of internet development in which we can make some sound predictions regarding certain challenges that a pragmatics of internet communication will have to face in the next few years to deal with the radical changes that are taking place in today’s internet use. This article will be devoted to listing some of these research issues and to discussing what pragmatics can do to address them accurately, ranging from those issues centred upon the interpretation of online discourses to those involving interfaces and their options for contextualisation.


A commentary article has been published for this article:
Some food for thought on the theory and practice of internet pragmatics


A commentary article has been published for this article:
Internet pragmatics and the fuzziness of analytical categories

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adams, Tim
    2018 “How can I tell if I am talking to a real person online?” The Guardian, 18November, 12–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander, Brian, and Alexander Levine
    2008 “Storytelling: Emergence of a new genre.” Educause Review43(6): 40–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bondi, Marina
    2018 “Blogs as interwoven polylogues: The dialogic action game.” Language and Dialogue8(1): 43–65. 10.1075/ld.00004.bon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00004.bon [Google Scholar]
  4. Bou-Franch, Patricia, Nuria Lorenzo-Dus, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    2012 “Social interaction in YouTube text-based polylogues: A study of coherence.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17: 501–521. 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2012.01579.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01579.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Bou-Franch, Patricia, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    2014 “Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube.” Journal of Pragmatics73: 19–36. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Carr, Caleb T., D. Yvette Wohn, and Rebecca A. Hayes
    2016 “[Like] as social support: Relational closeness, automaticity, and interpreting social support from paralinguistic digital affordances in social media.” Computers in Human Behavior62: 385–393. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.087
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.087 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dayter, Daria
    2016Discursive Self in Microblogging: Speech Acts, Stories and Self-praise. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.260
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.260 [Google Scholar]
  8. Flores Salgado, Elizabeth, and Teresa A. Castineira-Benitez
    2018 “The use of politeness in WhatsApp discourse and move ‘requests’.” Journal of Pragmatics133: 79–92. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.06.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  9. Forceville, Charles, and Billy Clark
    2014 “Can pictures have explicatures?” Linguagem em (Dis)curso14(3): 451–472. 10.1590/1982‑4017‑140301‑0114
    https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-140301-0114 [Google Scholar]
  10. Frith, Jordan
    2015Smartphones as Locative Media. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Grice, Herbert P.
    1975 “Logic and conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Grundlingh, L.
    2018 “Memes as speech acts.” Social Semiotics28(2): 147–168. 10.1080/10350330.2017.1303020
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1303020 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hjorth, Larissa, Heather Horst, Anne Galloway, and Genevieve Bell
    (eds.) 2017The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315673974
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315673974 [Google Scholar]
  14. Jewitt, Carey
    2016 “Multimodal analysis.” InHandbook of Language and Digital Communication, ed. byAlexandra Georgakopoulou, and Tereza Spilioti, 69–84. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Langlotz, Andreas, and Miriam Locher
    2013 “The role of emotions in relational work.” Journal of Pragmatics58: 87–107. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.014 [Google Scholar]
  16. Licoppe, Christian
    2013 “Merging mobile communication studies and urban research: Mobile locative media, ‘onscreen encounters’ and the reshaping of the interaction order in public spaces.” Mobile Media and Communication1(1): 122–128. 10.1177/2050157912464488
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157912464488 [Google Scholar]
  17. Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, and Patricia Bou-Franch
    2011 “On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video.” Journal of Pragmatics43: 2578–2593. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lutzky, Ursula, and Matt Gee
    2018 “‘I just found your blog’. The pragmatics of initiating comments on blog posts.” Journal of Pragmatics129: 173–184. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.016 [Google Scholar]
  19. Marcoccia, Michel
    2004 “On-line polylogues: conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups.” Journal of Pragmatics36: 115–145. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00038‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  20. McKeown, Jamie, and Qilin Zhang
    2015 “Socio-pragmatic influence on opening salutation and closing valediction of British workplace email.” Journal of Pragmatics85: 92–107. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.012 [Google Scholar]
  21. Miller, Matthew K., John C. Tang, Gina Venolia, Gerard Wilkinson, and Kori Inkpen
    2017 “Conversational chat circles: Being all here without having to hear it all.” InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2017), 2394–2404. Denver, CO, USA. 10.1145/3025453.3025621
    https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025621 [Google Scholar]
  22. Miller, Vincent
    2008 “New media, networking and phatic culture.” Convergence14: 387–400. 10.1177/1354856508094659
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856508094659 [Google Scholar]
  23. Morrow, Philip R.
    2017 “Requesting and advice giving.” InPragmatics of Social Media, ed. byChristian R. Hoffmann, and Wolfram Bublitz, 661–689. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110431070‑024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431070-024 [Google Scholar]
  24. Pariser, Eli
    2011The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Paulus, Trena, Amber Warren, and Jessica Nina Lester
    2016 “Applying conversation analysis methods to online talk: A literature review.” Discourse, Context & Media12: 1–10. 10.1016/j.dcm.2016.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2016.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Pink, Sarah, Heather Horst, John Postill, Larissa Hjorth, Tania Lewis, and Jo Tacchi
    2016Digital Ethnography: Principles and Practice. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Placencia, María Elena, Amanda Lower, and Hebe Powell
    2016 “Complimenting behaviour on Facebook: Responding to compliments in American English.” Pragmatics & Society7(3): 339–365. 10.1075/ps.7.3.01pla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.3.01pla [Google Scholar]
  28. Sampietro, Agnese
    2016 “Exploring the punctuating effect of emoji in Spanish WhatsApp chats.” Lenguas Modernas47: 91–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Schubert, Christoph
    2017 “Discourse and cohesion.” Pragmatics of Social Media, ed. byChristian R. Hoffmann, and Wolfram Bublitz, 317–343. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110431070‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431070-012 [Google Scholar]
  30. Schwartz, Raz
    2015 “Online Place Attachment: Exploring Technological Ties to Physical Places.” InMobility and Locative Media: Mobile Communication in Hybrid Spaces, ed. byAdriana de Souza e Silva, and Mimi Sheller, 85–100. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Scott, Kate
    2018 “The pragmatics of hashtags: Inference and conversational style on Twitter.” Journal of Pragmatics81: 8–20. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.015 [Google Scholar]
  32. Sjöblom, Max, Maria Törhönen, Juho Hamari, and Joseph Macey
    2017 “Content structure is king: An empirical study on gratifications, game genres and content type on Twitch.” Computers in Human Behavior73: 161–171. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.036
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.036 [Google Scholar]
  33. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Stöckl, Hartmut
    2004 “In between modes: Language and image in printed media.” InPerspectives on Multimodality, ed. ByEija Ventola, Cassily Charles, and Martin Kaltenbacher, 9–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ddcs.6.03sto
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ddcs.6.03sto [Google Scholar]
  35. Storrer, Angelika
    2002 “Coherence in text and hypertext.” Document Design3(2): 156–168. 10.1075/dd.3.2.06sto
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dd.3.2.06sto [Google Scholar]
  36. Turkle, Sherry
    2015Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. New York: Penguin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. van Kleef, Gerben A.
    2016The Interpersonal Dynamics of Emotion: Toward an Integrative Theory of Emotions as Social Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107261396
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107261396 [Google Scholar]
  38. van Leeuwen, Theo
    2015 “Multimodality.” InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis (2nd edn.), ed. byDeborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin, 447–465. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Vetere, Frank, Jeremy Smith, and Martin Gibbs
    2009 “Phatic interactions: Being aware and feeling connected.” InAwareness Systems: Advances in Theory, Methodology, and Design, ed. byPanos Markopoulos, Boris de Ruyter, and Wendy Mackay, 173–186. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑84882‑477‑5_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-477-5_7 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, Victoria, John V. Tucker, and Tracey E. Rihll
    2011 “On phatic technologies for creating and maintaining human relationships.” Technology in Society33(1–2): 44–51. 10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.017 [Google Scholar]
  41. Wilson, Deirdre
    2017 “Communication, comprehension and ‘non-propositional’ effects.” Paper presented at theFirst International Conference on Beyond Meaning. National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 13–15 September 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Wiseman, R.
    2013 “What boys want.” Time, 2December, 24–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Yus, Francisco
    1998 “A decade of relevance theory.” Journal of Pragmatics30: 305–345. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00015‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00015-0 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2005 “Attitudes and emotions through written text: The case of textual deformation in Internet chat rooms.” Pragmalingüística13: 147–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2008 “Inferring from comics: A multi-stage account.” Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis de ComunicacióIII: 223–249.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2010 “Relevance theory.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, ed. byBernd Heine, and Heiko Narrog, 679–701. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 2011Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.213
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.213 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2104 ““Not all emoticons are created equal.” Linguagem em (Dis)curso (special issue on relevance theory) 14(3): 511–529. 10.1590/1982‑4017‑140304‑0414
    https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-140304-0414 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2015a “Discourse and identity.” In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd edn.). Volume6, ed. byJames D. Wright, 498–502. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑097086‑8.54004‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.54004-5 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2015b “The role of cognition and relevance in new digital narratives.” Prospettive multilingue e interdisciplinari nel discorso specialistico, ed. byElena Carpi, 81–107. Pisa: Pisa University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2016a “Discourse, contextualization and identity shaping. The case of social networking sites and virtual worlds.” InTechnology Implementation in Higher Education for Second Language Teaching and Translation Studies: New Tools, New Approaches, ed. byMaría Luisa Carrió-Pastor, 71–88. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑0572‑5_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0572-5_5 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2016bHumour and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/thr.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.4 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2016c “Online identity: A (non)propositional account.” Paper presented at theSeventh International Symposium on Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics (EPICS VII). Pablo de Olavide University (Seville), 4–6 May 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2017a “Contextual constraints and non-propositional effects in WhatsApp communication.” Journal of Pragmatics114: 66–86. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2017b “Putting relevance at centre stage in research on human activity on the Internet.” InApplications of Relevance Theory: From Discourse to Morphemes, ed. byAgnieszka Piskorska, and Ewa Walaszewska, 86–102. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2018a “The interface between pragmatics and Internet-mediated communication: Applications, extensions and adjustments. InPragmatics and its Interfaces, ed. byCornelia Ilie, and Neal Norrick, 267–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.294.12yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.294.12yus [Google Scholar]
  57. 2018b “Cyberpragmatics of interactions through locative media.” Paper presented at theInternational CoCoLaC-Conference. University of Helsinki, 22–23 March 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 2018c “Attaching feelings and emotions to propositions. Some insights on irony and internet communication.” Russian Journal of Linguistics22(1): 94–107. 10.22363/2312‑9182‑2018‑22‑1‑94‑107
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-1-94-107 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2018d “Relevance from and beyond propositions: The case of online identity. InRelevance and Irrelevance: Theories, Factors and Challenges, ed. byHisashi Nasu, and Jan Strassheim, 119–140. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110472509‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110472509-006 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2018e “The future of internet pragmatics.” Keynote speech presented at the First International Conference on Internet Pragmatics. Fuzhou (China), 21–23September 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 2019a “Multimodality in memes. A cyberpragmatic approach.” InAnalyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions, ed. byPatricia Bou-Franch, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 105–131. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑92663‑6_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92663-6_4 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2019b “A cognitive pragmatics of the phatic Internet.” InEmotion in Discourse, ed. byLaura Alba, and Lachlan Mackenzie, 161–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.302.07yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.302.07yus [Google Scholar]
  63. Žegarac, Vladimir
    1998 “What is ‘phatic communication’?” InCurrent Issues in Relevance Theory, ed. byVilly Rouchota, and Andreas H. Jucker, 327–362. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.58.14zeg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.58.14zeg [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhao, Shanyang, Sherri Grasmuck, and Jason Martin
    2008 “Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships.” Computers in Human Behavior24: 1816–1836. 10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Discussion
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