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



Online participatory environments have become saturated spaces in terms of the opportunities that they offer for the display of different viewpoints and ideologies. , as a popular video-sharing and networking site, constitutes a new media space that invites both individual and collaborative stance-taking by participants who gather, virtually, to address a particular topic, issue or event depicted visually and discussed textually through the comments that are posted on the site. This interactional dynamics triggers a dialogic sequence of follow-ups through which stances are formulated following up on previous stances or counterstances. Against this background, this paper reports on a case study of individual and collaborative, and interdiscursive and intradiscursive stance-taking in participants’ comments to an online review focusing on the strategic use of direct (tactile) and indirect (inferential) references to evidentiality and their co-occurrence with argumentative markers. In this multilayered context stance-taking does not only contribute to evaluation but also to the construction of collective identities.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, Benedict
    2006Imagined Communities. New York: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Androutsopoulos, Jannis
    2011 “From variation to heteroglossia in the study of computer-mediated discourse.” InDigital Discourse, ed. byCrispin Thurlow, and Kristine Mroczek, 277–298. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2013 “Participatory culture and metalinguistic discourse: Performing and negotiating German dialects on YouTube.” InDiscourse 2.0: Language and New Media, ed. byDeborah Tanner, and Anna Marie Trester, 47–71. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot
    1983L’Argumentation dans la Langue [Argumentation in Language]. Brussels: Mardaga.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Austin, John L.
    1975How to do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bassett, Elizabeth H., and Kate O’Riordan
    2002 “Ethics of internet research: Contesting the human subjects research model.” Ethics and Information Technology4: 233–247. 10.1023/A:1021319125207
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021319125207 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bijker, Wiebe E.
    1987 “The social construction of Bakelite: Toward a theory of invention.” InThe Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, ed. byWiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch, 159–187. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Burgess, Jean E., and Joshua B. Green
    2009YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chun, Elaine, and Keith Walters
    2011 “Orienting to Arab orientalisms: Language, race and humor in a YouTube video.” InDigital Discourse: Language in the New Media, ed. byCrispin Thurlow, and Kristine Mroczek, 251–273, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199795437.003.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199795437.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cornillie, Bert
    2009 “Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories.” Functions of Language16 (1): 44–62. 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor [Google Scholar]
  11. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 “The stance triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse, ed. byRobert Englebreton, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  12. Ducrot, Oswald
    1984Le dire et le dit [What is Meant and What is Said]. Paris: Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fetzer, Anita
    2014 “Foregrounding evidentiality in (English) academic discourse: Patterned co-occurrences of the sensory perception verbs seem and appear.” Intercultural Pragmatics11(3): 333–355. 10.1515/ip‑2014‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0016 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fetzer, Anita, and Etsuko Oishi
    2014 “Evidentiality in discourse.” Intercultural Pragmatics11(3): 321–332. 10.1515/ip‑2014‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0015 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fetzer, Anita, Elda Weizman, and Laurence N. Berlin
    (eds.) 2015The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.259
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.259 [Google Scholar]
  16. Grice, Herbert Paul
    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]
  17. Ivković, Dejan
    2013 “The Eurovision Song Contest on YouTube: A corpus-based analysis of language attitudes.” Language@Internet10, Article 1. www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2013/Ivkovic (accessed10 December 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jaffe, Alexandra
    2009Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kozinets, Robert V.
    2010Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Landert, Daniela, and Andreas H. Jucker
    2011 “Private and public in mass media communication: From letters to the editor to online commentaries.” Journal of Pragmatics43: 1422–1434. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.016 [Google Scholar]
  21. Linell, Per
    1998Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Context in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2009Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Livingstone, Sonia, and Peter Lunt
    1994Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Talk. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203310243
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203310243 [Google Scholar]
  24. Livnat, Zohar
    2012 “Follow-ups in a loose argumentative context: The pragmatic effectiveness of figurative analogy.” InProceedings 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, ed. byAnita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Elisabeth Reber, 165–177. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg. opus.bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/6116
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mudambi, Susan, and David Schuff
    2010 “What makes a helpful online review? A study of consumer reviews on Amazon.com.” MIS Quarterly34(1): 185–200. 10.2307/20721420
    https://doi.org/10.2307/20721420 [Google Scholar]
  26. Parini, Alejandro
    2014 “La problematización del contexto en la comunicación en línea [The problematisation of context in online communication].” InLenguaje, discurso e interacción en los espacios virtuales [Language, Discourse and Interaction in Virtual Spaces], ed. byAlejandro Parini, and Mabel Giammatteo, 145–166. Mendoza, Argentina: Editorial Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Parini, Alejandro, and Mabel Giammatteo
    2017El Lenguaje en la Comunicación Digital. Aspectos interaccionales y discursivos [Language in Digital Communication: Interactional and Discursive Aspects]. Mauritius: Editorial Académica Española.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Parini, Alejandro, and Luisa Granato
    2016 “Discourse functions and resources in the co-construction of YouTube technology product reviews.” Paper presented at the3rd International Pragmatics Conference of the American Pragmatics Association. Indiana University, Bloomington, 4–6 November 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Pihlaja, Stephen
    2011 “Cops, popes, and garbage collectors: Metaphor and antagonism in an atheist/Christian YouTube video thread.” Language@Internet8, Article 1. http//www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2011/Pihlaja (accessed11December 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Reicher, Stephen
    1982 “The determination of collective behavior.” InSocial Identity and Intergroup Relations, ed. byHenri Tajfel, 41–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  32. Sinclair, John, and Malcolm Coulthard
    1975Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Tajfel, Henri
    1972 “La catégorisation sociale [Social categorisation].” InIntroduction à la psychologie sociale [An Introduction to Social Psychology], ed. bySerge Moscovici, 272–302. Paris: Larousse.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Tracy, Karen, and Jessica Robles
    2013Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. New York: The Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. van Eemeren, Frans, and Rob Grootendorst
    1995 “Argumentation theory.” InHandbook of Pragmatics, ed. byJef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jan Blommaert, 55–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Vásquez, Camila
    2014The Discourse of Online Consumer Reviews. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Warner, Michael
    2002Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books. 10.1215/08992363‑14‑1‑49
    https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-14-1-49 [Google Scholar]
  38. Weizman, Elda, and Anita Fetzer
    (eds.) 2015Follow-ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across Contexts Discourse Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.60
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60 [Google Scholar]
  39. Zourou, Katerina, and Marie-Noëlle Lamy
    2013 “Introduction.” InSocial Networking for Language Education, ed. byMarie-Noëlle Lamy, and Katerina Zourou, 1–7. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137023384_1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137023384_1 [Google Scholar]

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