1887
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-3851
  • E-ISSN: 2542-386X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The main argument put forward in this paper is that traditional linguistic genre theories neglect the importance of media and their modal affordances in the formation of new genres. It argues that media cannot be viewed as (passive) configurations of technical, semiotic, and cultural features which are chosen by actors/ rhetors in order to serve their communicative needs, but rather as mediators whose modal affordances actively influence communicators’ meaning making choices. In order to support this argument, it will be shown how forms of discourse representation gradually developed from a stylistic device in oral communication to a genre constitutive practice (e.g., in printed academic communication), and eventually became a genre of its own (as the practice of “sharing” content) in social media communication. In the analyses, the focus is on the interplay between modal affordances of the different media in which discourse representation formats are used, their formal properties, and pragmatic factors (like audience expectations in different communicative genres and situations). It is shown how innovative aspects of a medium influence formal features of discourse representation which in turn serve different communicative purposes in different genres.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00023.gru
2019-05-20
2019-10-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bakhtin, Michail
    1986Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Edited byCaryl Emerson, and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bateman, John A.
    2017 “Triangulating transmediality: A multimodal semiotic framework relating media, modes and genres.” Discourse, Context & Media20: 160–174. doi:  10.1016/j.dcm.2017.06.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bateman, John, Janina Wildfeuer, and Tuomo Hiippala
    2017Multimodality, Foundations, Research and Analysis: A Problem-Oriented Introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110479898
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110479898 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bawden, David, and Lyn Robinson
    2000 “A distant mirror?; the Internet and the printing press.” Aslib Proceedings52(2): 51–57. 10.1108/EUM0000000007000
    https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007000 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bazerman, Charles
    1988Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison, Wisc.: The University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bhatia, Vijay K.
    2004Worlds of Written Discourse. London: continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bourdieu, Pierre
    2009Entwurf einer Theorie der Praxis: Auf der ethnologischen Grundlage der kabylischen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. boyd, Dana, Scott Golder, and Gilad Lotan
    2010 “Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter.” InProceedings of the 43nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-43), 1–10. CD-ROM, IEEE Computer Society. doi:  10.1109/HICSS.2010.412
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2010.412 [Google Scholar]
  9. Davies, Bronwyn, and Rom Harre
    1990 “Positioning: The discursive production of selves.” Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior201(1): 43–68. 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.1990.tb00174.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Draucker, Fawn, and Lauren Collister
    2015 “Managing participation through modal affordances on Twitter.” Open Library of Humanities1(1): 1–36. doi:  10.16995/olh.21
    https://doi.org/10.16995/olh.21 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dürscheid, Christa
    2005 “Medien, Kommunikationsformen, kommunikative Gattungen.” Linguistik Online22(1): 3–16. doi:  10.13092/lo.22.752
    https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.22.752 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dynel, Marta
    2014 “On the part of ratified participants: Ratified listeners in multi-party interactions.” Brno Studies in English40(1): 27–44. doi:  10.5817/BSE2014‑1‑2
    https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2014-1-2 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ehlich, Konrad
    1983 “Text und sprachliches Handeln.” InSchrift und Gedächtnis, ed. byAleida Assmann, Jan Assmann, and Christof Hardmeier, 24–43. München: Fink.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ehlich, Konrad, and Jochen Rehbein
    1986Muster und Institution. Untersuchungen zur schulischen Kommunikation. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Eisenlauer, Volker
    2014 “Facebook as a third author – (Semi-)automated participation framework in Social Network Sites.” Journal of Pragmatics72: 73–85. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  16. Eisenstein, Elizabeth L.
    2012The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139197038
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139197038 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fuchs, Christian
    2017Social Media: A Critical Introduction (2nd edn.). London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gruber, Helmut
    1998 “Computer-mediated communication and scholarly discourse: Forms of topic-initiation and thematic development.” Pragmatics8: 21–46. 10.1075/prag.8.1.02gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.8.1.02gru [Google Scholar]
  20. 2008 “Specific genre features of new mass media.” InHandbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, ed. byRuth Wodak, and Veronika Koller, 363–383. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2017 “Quoting and retweeting as communicative practices in computer mediated discourse.” Discourse, Context & Media20: 1–9. 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.06.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  22. to appear “Doing ordinariness on Twitter: An analysis of tweets of the 2016 Austrian presidential campaign candidates.” InConstruction of Ordinariness across Media Genres, ed. byAnita Fetzer, and Elda Weizman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Günthner, Susanne, and Hubert Knoblauch
    1994 “‘Forms are the food of faith’: Gattungen als Muster kommunikativen Handelns.” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie4: 693–723.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1995 “Culturally patterned speaking practices – the analysis of communicative genres.” Pragmatics5(1): 1–32. 10.1075/prag.5.1.03gun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.5.1.03gun [Google Scholar]
  25. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1994An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Herring, Susan C.
    2006 “Interactional coherence in CMC.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication4(4). doi:  10.1111/j.1083‑6101.1999.tb00106.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.x [Google Scholar]
  27. 2007 “A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse.” [email protected]4, article 1. www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/761
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2013 “Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent.” InDiscourse 2.0: Language and New Media, ed. byDeborah Tannen, and Anna Marie Tester, 1–25. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Holly, Werner
    1997 “Zur Rolle von Sprache in Medien: Semiotische und kommunikationsstrukturelle Grundlagen.” Muttersprache107: 64–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2011 “Medien, Kommunikationsformen, Textsortenfamilien.” InTextsorten, Handlungsmuster, Oberflächen. Linguistische Typologien der Kommunikation, ed. byStephan Habscheid, 144–164. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229301.144
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229301.144 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hutchby, Ian
    2001 “Technologies, texts and affordances.” Sociology35(2): 441–456. doi:  10.1177/S0038038501000219
    https://doi.org/10.1177/S0038038501000219 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hyland, Ken
    1999 “Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge.” Applied Linguistics20(3): 341–367. doi:  10.1093/applin/20.3.341
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.341 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jakobs, Eva-Maria
    1999Textvernetzung in den Wissenschaften. Zitat und Verweis als Ergebnis rezeptiven, reproduktiven und produktiven Handelns. Tübingen: Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783110945928
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110945928 [Google Scholar]
  34. John, Nicholas A.
    2013 “Sharing and Web 2.0: The emergence of a keyword.” New Media & Society15(2): 167–182. doi:  10.1177/1461444812450684
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812450684 [Google Scholar]
  35. Khamis, Susie, Lawrence Ang, and Raymond Welling
    2017 “Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of social media influencers.” Celebrity Studies8(2): 191–208. 10.1080/19392397.2016.1218292
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2016.1218292 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kress, Gunther
    2010Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Latour, Bruno
    2005Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Leeuwen, Theo van
    2008Discourse and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Livnat, Zohar
    2012Dialogue, Science and Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.13
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.13 [Google Scholar]
  40. Liu, Yabing, Chloe Kliman-Silver, and Alan Mislove
    2014 “The tweets they are A-changin’: Evolution of Twitter users and behaviour.” InProceedings of the Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 305–314. Palo Alto: The AAAI Press. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM14/paper/view/8043
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Martin, James R.
    1992English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  42. Martin, James R., and David Rose
    2008Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Marwick, Alice, and dana boyd
    2011 “To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies17(2): 139–158. doi:  10.1177/1354856510394539
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856510394539 [Google Scholar]
  44. Miller, Carolyne R.
    1994 “Genre as social action.” InGenre and the New Rhetoric, ed. byAviva Freedman, and Peter Medway, 23–43. London: Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Page, Ruth
    2012 “The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags.” Discourse & Communication6(2): 181–201. doi:  10.1177/1750481312437441
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481312437441 [Google Scholar]
  46. Papacharissi, Zizi
    2012 “Without you, I’m nothing: Performances of the self on Twitter.” International Journal of Communication6: 1989–2006.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Schneider, Jan-Georg
    2017 “Medien als Verfahren der Zeichenprozessierung: Grundsätzliche Überlegungen zum Medienbegriff und ihre Relevanz für die Gesprächsforschung.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion18: 34–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Severinson Eklundh, Kerstin
    2010 “To quote or not to quote: Setting the context for computer-mediated dialogues.” [email protected]7, article 5. www.language​at​internet.org/articles/2010/2665
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Spronck, Stef
    2012 “Minds divided: Speaker attitudes in quotatives.” InQuotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. byIsabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid van Alphen, 71–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.15.07spr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.07spr [Google Scholar]
  51. Squires, Helen
    2015 “Twitter: Design, discourse and the implications of public text.” InRoutledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication, ed. byAlexandra Georgakopoulo, and Teresa Spiloti, 239–255. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Suh, Bongwon, Lichan Hong, Peter Pirolli, and Ed H. Chi
    2010 “Want to be retweeted? Large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in Twitter network.” InProceedings of the 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom 2010), 177–184. doi:  10.1109/SocialCom.2010.33
    https://doi.org/10.1109/SocialCom.2010.33 [Google Scholar]
  53. Swales, John M.
    1990Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2004Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524827
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827 [Google Scholar]
  55. Taboada, Maite
    2006 “Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations.” Journal of Pragmatics38: 567–592. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  56. Tannen, Deborah
    1989Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Vitak, Jessica
    2012 “The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media56(4): 451–470. doi:  10.1080/08838151.2012.732140
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.732140 [Google Scholar]
  58. Weber, Max
    1988Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Tübingen: UTB/Mohr.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Wieser, Matthias J.
    2012Das Netzwerk von Bruno Latour: die Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie zwischen Science & Technology Studies und poststrukturalistischer Soziologie. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. 10.14361/transcript.9783839420546
    https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.9783839420546 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
    2006 “Relevance theory.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byLawrence R. Horn, and Geoffrey Ward, 606–632. Oxford: Blackwell. doi:  10.1002/9780470756959.ch27
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch27 [Google Scholar]
  61. Wittgenstein, Ludwig
    1971Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Zappavigna, Michele, and J. R. Martin
    2018 “#Communing affiliation: Social tagging as a resource for aligning around values in social media.” Discourse, Context & Media, 22: 4–12. 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.08.001 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00023.gru
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00023.gru
Loading

Data & Media 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