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

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00025.par
2019-05-20
2019-10-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  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.” [email protected]10, 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.” [email protected]8, 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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00025.par
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00025.par
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