1887
image of Multimodal strategies for balancing formality and informality
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates multimodal strategies for balancing formality and informality online. The analysis of 300 comment-reply interactions on a recipe sharing site in Japan demonstrates that writers tend to avoid being overly formal or informal in their messages. For example, most comments and replies are written in polite forms but many incorporate some plain forms and colloquial expressions. Linguistic features, however, are not the only way through which the writers manage an appropriate level of formality and informality. The study examines the role of or Japanese-style emoticons for socio-relational work online. Some function locally as cues for interpreting the sentences featuring . All , including those with local functions, work to enhance the social presence of the writers on the screen via pictographic gaze and gestures, which increases the perception of intimate rapport. The findings underscore the importance of a multimodal perspective in examining how people handle social relationships online.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00071.kan
2021-03-17
2021-05-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al Rashdi, Fathiya
    2018 “Functions of emojis in WhatsApp interaction among Omanis.” Discourse, Context & Media26: 117–126. 10.1016/j.dcm.2018.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersen, Peter A., Laura K. Guerrero, and Susanne M. Jones
    2006 “Nonverbal behavior in intimate interactions and intimate relationships.” InThe SAGE Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, ed. byValerie Manusov, and Miles Patterson, 259–278. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781412976152.n14
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976152.n14 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baym, Nancy K.
    1998 “The emergence of on-line community.” InCybersociety 2: Revisiting Computer-Mediated Communication and Community, ed. bySteve Jones, 35–68. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, Lucien, and Bodo Winter
    2018 “Multimodal indexicality in Korean: ‘Doing deference’ and ‘performing intimacy’ through nonverbal behavior.” Journal of Politeness Research15(1): 25–54. 10.1515/pr‑2016‑0042
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2016-0042 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cook, Haruko M.
    2008Socializing Identities through Speech Style: Learners of Japanese as a Foreign Language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847691026
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691026 [Google Scholar]
  7. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fouser, Robert, Narahiko Inoue, and Chungmin Lee
    2000 “The pragmatics of orality in English, Japanese and Korean computer-mediated communication.” InWords on the Web, ed. byLynne Pemberton, and Simon Shurville, 52–62. Wiltshire: Cromwell Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Geenan, Jarret, Sigrid Norris, and Boonyalakha Makboon
    2015 “Multimodal discourse analysis.” InThe International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, 1037–1053. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi095
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi095 [Google Scholar]
  10. Geyer, Naomi
    2013 “Discernment and variation: The action-oriented use of Japanese addressee honorifics.” Multilingua32(2): 155–176. 10.1515/multi‑2013‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2013-0008 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gumperz, John J.
    1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  12. 1992 “Contextualization and understanding.” InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. byAlessandro Duranti, and Charles Goodwin, 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Halvorsen, Andy
    2012 “Patterns of emoticon usage in ESL students’ discussion forum writing.” CALICO Journal29(4): 694–717. 10.11139/cj.29.4.694‑717
    https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.4.694-717 [Google Scholar]
  14. High, Andrew C., and Scott E. Caplan
    2009 “Social anxiety and computer-mediated communication during initial interactions: Implications for the hyperpersonal perspective.” Computers in Human Behavior25: 475–482. 10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.011 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hijirida, Kyoko, and Ho-min Sohn
    1986 “Cross-cultural patterns of honorifics and sociolinguistic sensitivity to honorific variables: Evidence from English, Japanese, and Korean.” Papers in Linguistics19(3): 365–401. 10.1080/08351818609389264
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818609389264 [Google Scholar]
  16. Irvine, Judith T.
    1979 “Formality and informality in communicative events.” American Anthropologist81: 773–790. 10.1525/aa.1979.81.4.02a00020
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1979.81.4.02a00020 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jewitt, Carey
    2014 “An introduction to multimodality.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis (2nd edn.), ed. byCarey Jewitt, 15–30. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jewitt, Carey, Jeff Bezemer, and Kay O’Halloran
    2016Introducing Multimodality. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315638027
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315638027 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kaneyasu, Michiko, and Minako Kuhara
    2020 “Regularity and variation in Japanese recipes: A comparative analysis of cookbook, online, and user-generated sub-registers.” Register Studies2(1): 37–71. 10.1075/rs.18014.kan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18014.kan [Google Scholar]
  20. Katsuno, Hirofumi, and Christine R. Yano
    2002 “Face to face: Online subjectivity in contemporary Japan.” Asian Studies Review26(2): 205–231. 10.1080/10357820208713341
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10357820208713341 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kavanagh, Barry
    2010 “A cross-cultural analysis of Japanese and English non-verbal online communication: The use of emoticons in weblogs.” Intercultural Communication Studies19(3): 65–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2012 “The use of unconventional means of communication in Japanese and American blog comments.” InTypological Studies on Languages in Thailand and Japan, ed. byTadao Miyamoto, Naoyuki Ono, Kingkarn Thepkanjana, and Satoshi Uehara, 173–195. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobou.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kress, Gunther R.
    1993 “Against arbitrariness: The social production of the sign as a foundational issue in critical discourse analysis.” Discourse & Society4: 169–191. 10.1177/0957926593004002003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002003 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2010Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2012 “Multimodal discourse analysis.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. byJames Paul Gee and Michael Handford, 35–50. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kress, Gunther R., and Theo van Leeuwen
    2001Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Martinec, Radan, and Andrew Salway
    2005 “A system for image-text relations in new (and old) media.” Visual Communication4(3): 337–371. 10.1177/1470357205055928
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357205055928 [Google Scholar]
  28. Marwick, Alice E., and danah boyd
    2010 “I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience.” New Media & Society13(1): 114–133. 10.1177/1461444810365313
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313 [Google Scholar]
  29. Matsuda, Paul K.
    2002 “Negotiation of identity and power in a Japanese online discourse community.” Computers and Composition19: 39–55. 10.1016/S8755‑4615(02)00079‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(02)00079-8 [Google Scholar]
  30. Maynard, Senko
    2008 “Playing with multiple voices: Emotivity and creativity in Japanese style mixture.” InStyle Shifting in Japanese, ed. byKimberly Jones, and Tsuyoshi Ono, 91–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.180.00pla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.180.00pla [Google Scholar]
  31. Nishimura, Yukiko
    2007 “Linguistic innovations and interactional features in Japanese BBS communication.” InThe Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture, and Communication Online, ed. byBrenda Danet, and Susan C. Herring, 163–183. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  32. Okamoto, Shigeko
    1999 “Situated politeness: Manipulating honorific and non-honorific expressions in Japanese conversations.” Pragmatics9(1): 51–74. 10.1075/prag.9.1.05oka
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.1.05oka [Google Scholar]
  33. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1987 “Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly50(2): 101–114. 10.2307/2786745
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2786745 [Google Scholar]
  34. Schnoebelen, Tyler J.
    2012 “Emotions are relational: Positioning and the use of affective linguistic resources.” Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Short, John S., Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie
    1976The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Spina, Stefania
    2019 “Role of emoticons as structural markers in Twitter interactions.” Discourse Processes56(4): 345–362. 10.1080/0163853X.2018.1510654
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1510654 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sugimoto, Taku, and James A. Levin
    2000 “Multiple literacies and multimedia: A comparison of Japanese and American uses of the Internet.” InGlobal Literacies and the World-Wide Web, ed. byGail E. Hawisher, and Cynthia L. Selfe, 133–153. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Unsworth, Len
    2006 “Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction.” English Teaching: Practice and Critique5(1): 55–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Yamada, Masanori, and Kanji Akahori
    2007 “Social presence in synchronous CMC-based language learning: How does it affect the productive performance and consciousness of learning objectives?” Computer Assisted Language Learning20(1): 37–65. 10.1080/09588220601118503
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220601118503 [Google Scholar]
  40. Yamazaki, Jane W.
    2002 “Global and local in computer-mediated communication: A Japanese newsgroup.” InExploring Japaneseness: On Japanese Enactments of Culture and Consciousness, ed. byRay T. Donahue, 425–442. Westport, CT: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00071.kan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00071.kan
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