1887
image of “Completely incapable of logical thought”

Abstract

Abstract

While the MeToo Movement has generally been accepted as a legitimate response to what was considered endemic sexual harassment and discrimination in Hollywood, its goals and values have nonetheless been questioned and undermined. This study examines the comment sections of two YouTube videos produced by major broadcasting corporations in which the MeToo Movement in Europe is discussed. The comment sections are analysed in terms of expressions of attitude and evaluation, using the Appraisal framework. Through this analysis it is revealed that attitudes expressed in the comments legitimate and normalise anti-feminist ideologies through discursive construction of social norms. Conversely, feminism, as well as immigration, are delegitimated. Commenters delegitimate the MeToo Movement by construing its goals and values as misdirected or insincere. These attitudes are furthermore expressed through dialogically contractive comments, thus constructing them as accepted and matter-of-fact, rather than ideological.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00082.far
2022-08-02
2022-08-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/ip.00082.far/ip.00082.far.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00082.far&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bednarek, Monika
    2008Emotion Talk Across Corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230285712
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230285712 [Google Scholar]
  2. Cameron, Deborah
    1985Feminist Linguistic Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑17727‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17727-1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Clark, Rosemary
    2016 “‘Hope in a hashtag’: The discursive activism of #WhyIStayed.” Feminist Media Studies16(5): 788–804. 10.1080/14680777.2016.1138235
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2016.1138235 [Google Scholar]
  4. Dynel, Marta
    2014 “Participation framework underlying YouTube interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics73: 37–52. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2020 “Vigilante disparaging humour at r/IncelTears: Humour as critique of incel ideology.” Language & Communication74: 1–14. 10.1016/j.langcom.2020.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet
    2003Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791147
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791147 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fairclough, Norman
    1989Language and Power. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hardaker, Claire, and Mark McGlashan
    2016 “‘Real men don’t hate women’: Twitter rape threats and group identity.” Journal of Pragmatics91: 80–93, 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ho, Sin Yan Eureka, and Peter Crosthwaite
    2018 “Exploring stance in the manifestos of 3 candidates for the Hong Kong Chief Executive election 2017: Combining CDA and corpus-like insights.” Discourse & Society29(6): 629–654. 10.1177/0957926518802934
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518802934 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hoffmann, Christian R.
    2018 “Crooked Hillary and Dumb Trump: The strategic use and effect of negative evaluations in us election campaign tweets.” Internet Pragmatics1(1): 55–87. 10.1075/ip.00004.hof
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00004.hof [Google Scholar]
  11. Irvine, Judith T.
    2009 “Stance in a colonial encounter: How Mr. Taylor lost his footing.” InStance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed. byAlexandra Jaffe, 53–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Jane, Emma. A.
    2017 “Systemic misogyny exposed: Translating Rapeglish from the manosphere with a random rape threat generator.” International Journal of Cultural Studies21(6): 661–680. 10.1177/1367877917734042
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877917734042 [Google Scholar]
  13. Jaworska, Sylvia, and Ramesh Krishnamurthy
    2012 “On the F word: A corpus-based analysis of the media representation of feminism in british and german press discourse, 1990–2009.” Discourse & Society23(4): 401–431. 10.1177/0957926512441113
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926512441113 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kipnis, Laura
    2018 “Has #MeToo gone too far, or not far enough? The answer is both.” The Guardian, 13January. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/13/has-me-too-catherine-deneuve-laura-kipnis
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Krendel, Alexandra
    2020 “The men and women, guys and girls of the ‘manosphere’: A corpus-assisted discourse approach.” Discourse & Society31(6): 607–630. 10.1177/0957926520939690
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520939690 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kruschek, Gina
    2019 “Stigma in the comments section: Feminist and anti-Feminist discussions online.” Computers and Composition54, 102515. 10.1016/j.compcom.2019.102515
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.102515 [Google Scholar]
  17. Lazar, Michelle M.
    (ed.) 2005Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power and Ideology in Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230599901
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230599901 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lee, Wan-Hsin, and Hsi-Yao Su
    2019 “‘You are in Taiwan, speak Chinese’: Identity, language ideology, and sociolinguistic scales in online interaction.” Discourse, Context & Media32, 100339. 10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100339
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100339 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lewis, Rebecca, and Alice Marwick
  20. Lim, Jun Jie, Spencer C. Chen, and Mie Hiramoto
    2021 “‘You don’t ask me to speak Mandarin, okay?’: Ideologies of language and race among Chinese Singaporeans.” Language & Communication76: 100–110. 10.1016/j.langcom.2020.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  21. Madden, Deborah
    2019 “Spanish election: Right-wing parties want to restrict abortion and ban feminist groups.” The Conversation, 25April. https://theconversation.com/spanish-election-right-wing-parties-want-to-restrict-abortion-and-ban-feminist-groups-115935
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Martin, James R.
    2018 “Interpersonal meaning: Systemic Functional Linguistics perspectives.” Functions of Language25(1): 2–19. 10.1075/fol.17018.mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.17018.mar [Google Scholar]
  23. Martin, James R., and Peter R. R. White
    2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  24. Martín-Rojo, Luisa, and Teun A. van Dijk
    1997 “‘There was a problem, and it was solved!’: Legitimating the expulsion of ‘illegal’ migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse.” Discourse & Society8(4): 523–566. 10.1177/0957926597008004005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008004005 [Google Scholar]
  25. Marwick, Alice E., and Robyn Caplan
    2018 “Drinking male tears: Language, the manosphere, and networked harassment.” Feminist Media Studies18(4): 543–559. 10.1080/14680777.2018.1450568
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1450568 [Google Scholar]
  26. Meadows, Bryan, and Peter Sayer
    2013 “The Mexican sports car controversy: An appraisal analysis of BBC’s top gear and the reproduction of nationalism and racism through humor.” Discourse, Context & Media2(2): 103–110. 10.1016/j.dcm.2013.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2013.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  27. Merkin, Daphne
    2018 “Publicly, we say #MeToo. privately, we have misgivings.” The New York Times, 5January. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/opinion/golden-globes-metoo.html
    [Google Scholar]
  28. QSR International
    QSR International 2017 “Nvivo qualitative analysis software (version 11.4.1.1064).” https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home
  29. Ross, Andrew S., and David Caldwell
    2020 “‘Going negative’: An APPRAISAL analysis of the rhetoric of Donald Trump on Twitter.” Language & Communication70: 13–27. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  30. Rüdiger, Sofia, and Daria Dayter
    2020 “Manbragging online: Self-praise on pick-up artists’ forums.” Journal of Pragmatics161: 16–27. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.012 [Google Scholar]
  31. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 “Shifters, linguistic categories and cultural description.” InMeaning in Anthropology, ed. byKeith H. Basso, and Henry A. Selby, 11–55. New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Sunderland, Jane
    2004Gendered Discourses. Basingstokee: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230505582
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505582 [Google Scholar]
  33. Tarnarutckaia, Elizaveta, and Astrid Ensslin
    2020 “The myth of the ‘clarté française’: Language ideologies and metalinguistic discourse of videogame speech accents on Reddit.” Discourse, Context & Media33, 100352. 10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100352
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100352 [Google Scholar]
  34. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1998Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2008Discourse and Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑07299‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-07299-3 [Google Scholar]
  36. Venäläinen, Satu
    2021 “Nobody cares for men anymore: Affective-discursive practices around men’s victimisation across online and offline contexts.” European Journal of Cultural Studies, OnlineFirst. 10.1177/13675494211021097
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494211021097 [Google Scholar]
  37. Verschueren, Jef
    2011Ideology in Language Use: Pragmatic Guidelines for Empirical Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139026277
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026277 [Google Scholar]
  38. Weiss, Gilbert, and Ruth Wodak
    2003 “Introduction: Theory, interdisciplinarity, and critical discourse analysis.” InCritical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity, ed. byGilbert Weiss, and Ruth Wodak, 1–34. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. White, Peter R. R.
    2012 “Exploring the axiological workings of ‘reporter voice’ news stories – Attribution and attitudinal positioning.” Discourse, Context & Media1(2–3): 57–67. 10.1016/j.dcm.2012.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2012.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wright, David
    2020 “The discursive construction of resistance to sex in an online community.” Discourse, Context & Media36, 100402. 10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100402
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100402 [Google Scholar]
  41. Zappavigna, Michele
    2012Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2017 “Evaluation.” InPragmatics of Social Media, ed. byChristian R. Hoffmann, and Wolfram Bublitz, 435–458. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110431070‑016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431070-016 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2021 “Ambient affiliation in comments on YouTube videos: Communing around values about ASMR.” Journal of Foreign Languages44(1): 21–40. jfl.shisu.edu.cn/EN/Y2021/V44/I1/21
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00082.far
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00082.far
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