1887
image of The invitation game
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper analyses Danish Tinder chats that in the very first message after ‘matching’ immediately launch the prospect of meeting. A collection of 41 threads is analyzed using Goffman’s (1967, 1974) concepts of face and interactional framing, outlining methods participants use to open a chat after having matched and addressing the interest and purpose they have approached in the other party. Methods include, in particular, inferences that can be made based on the type of activity or setting suggested for a future meeting, indirectness and ambiguity related to how the social actions are designed, and the conversational cues used such as emojis and enthusiasm markers. The analysis also shows how participants work out and negotiate whether they have a common interest in meeting, in particular, how they exploit and deal with ambiguities used extensively as a mechanism for flirting. The analysis further suggests that practices adhere to gender-stereotypes showing how participants may handle and orient to a norm that women should not agree to meet with a stranger early on in a chat correspondence.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00111.and
2024-06-04
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al Rashdi, Fathiya
    2018 “Functions of emojis in WhatsApp interaction among Omanis.” Discourse, Context &Media: –. 10.1016/j.dcm.2018.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersen, Elisabeth Muth
    . under review. “‘So fast on the keys, when do you have time to meet’: Interactionally generated invitations in Danish Tinder chats.”
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bateson, Gregory
    1972Theory of Play and Fantasy: Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 1976 “A theory of play and fantasy: Steps to an ecology of mind.” InRitual, Play, and Performance: Readings in the Social Sciences/Theatre, ed. byRichard Schechner, and Mady Schuman, –. New York: Seabury Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bella, Spyridoula
    2009 “Invitations and politeness in Greek: The age variable.” Journal of Politeness Research(): –. 10.1515/JPLR.2009.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2009.013 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bella, Spyridoula, and Amalia Moser
    2018 “What’s in a first? The link between impromptu invitations and their responses.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  7. Berkowitz, Dana, Justine Tinkler, Alana Peck, and Lynnette Coto
    2021 “Tinder: A game with gendered rules and consequences.” Social Currents(): –. 10.1177/23294965211019486
    https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965211019486 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, Penelope, and Steven Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cunningham, Michael R.
    1989 “Reactions to heterosexual opening gambits: Female selectivity and male responsiveness.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin(): –. 10.1177/0146167289151003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167289151003 [Google Scholar]
  10. Danesi, Marcel
    2017The Semiotics of Emoji: The Rise of Visual Language in the Age of the Internet. London: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781474282024
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474282024 [Google Scholar]
  11. Drew, Paul
    2018 “Equivocal invitations.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  12. Eslami, Zohreh R.
    2005 “Invitations in Persian and English: Ostensible or genuine?” Intercultural Pragmatics(): –. 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.453
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.453 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fisher, Maryanne L., Sarah Coughlin, and T. Joel Wade
    2020 “Can I have your number? Men’s perceived effectiveness of pick-up lines used by women.” Personality and Individual Differences, . 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109664
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109664 [Google Scholar]
  14. García, Carmen
    1999 “The three stages of Venezuelan invitations and responses.” Multilingua(): –. 10.1515/mult.1999.18.4.391
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1999.18.4.391 [Google Scholar]
  15. Glenn, Phillip J., and Mark L. Knapp
    1987 “The interactive framing of play in adult conversations.” Communication Quarterly(): –. 10.1080/01463378709369670
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378709369670 [Google Scholar]
  16. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interaction Ritual. New York: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 1974Frame Analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1978 “Response cries.” Language: –. 10.2307/413235
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413235 [Google Scholar]
  19. Grice, Herbert P.
    1975 “Logic and conversation.” InSpeech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole, and Jerry Morgan, –. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gumperz, John J.
    1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  21. Isaacs, Ellen A., and Herbert H. Clark
    1990 “Ostensible invitations.” Language in Society(): –. 10.1017/S0047404500014780
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500014780 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kallis, Rhiannon B.
    2020 “Understanding the motivations for using Tinder.” Qualitative Research Reports in Communication(): –. 10.1080/17459435.2020.1744697
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17459435.2020.1744697 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kleinke, Chris L., Frederick B. Meeker, and Richard A. Staneski
    1986 “Preference for opening lines: Comparing ratings by men and women.” Sex Roles(): –. 10.1007/BF00288216
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288216 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lerner, Gene H.
    1996 “Finding ‘face’ in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly(): –. 10.2307/2787073
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2787073 [Google Scholar]
  25. Licoppe, Christian
    2021 “The spectre of ‘ghosting’and the sequential organization of post-match Tinder chat conversations.” InAnalysing Digital Interaction, ed. byJoanne Meredith, David Giles, and Wyke Stommel, –. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑64922‑7_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64922-7_8 [Google Scholar]
  26. Margutti, Piera, Liisa Tainio, Paul Drew, and Véronique Traverso
    2018 “Invitations and responses across different languages: Observations on the feasibility and relevance of a cross-linguistic comparative perspective on the study of actions.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.12.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  27. Placencia, María Elena, and Amanda Lower
    2017 “Compliments and compliment responses.” InPragmatics of Social Media, ed. byChristian R. Hoffmann, and Wolfram Bublitz, –. Berilin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110431070‑023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431070-023 [Google Scholar]
  28. Pomerantz, Anita
    1988 “Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy.” Communications Monographs(): –. 10.1080/03637758809376177
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376177 [Google Scholar]
  29. Márquez Reiter, Rosina, and David M. Frohlich
    2020 “A pragmatics of intimacy.” Internet Pragmatics(): –. 10.1075/ip.00044.mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00044.mar [Google Scholar]
  30. Rijk, Lynn de, and Wyke Stommel
    2023 “Where to start? Initiating post-match chat interaction on Tinder.” InConversation Analytic Perspectives to Digital Interaction: Practices, Resources, and Affordances, ed. byAino Koivisto, Heidi Vepsäläinen, and Mikko T. Virtanen, –. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Roca-Cuberes, Carles, Will Gibson, and Michael Mora-Rodriguez
    2023 “Relationship initiation and formation in post-match Tinder chat conversations.” Discourse & Communication(): –. 10.1177/17504813231156118
    https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813231156118 [Google Scholar]
  32. Rüdiger, Sofia, and Daria Dayter
    2020 “Manbragging online: Self-praise on pick-up artists’ forums.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.012 [Google Scholar]
  33. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1979 “Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. byGeorge Psathas, –. New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sobkowiak, Mikołaj
    2006 “Modalverbet skulle i dansk og dets engelske ækvivalenter [The modal verb skulle in Danish and its English equivalents].” Folia Scandinavica Posnaniensia: –.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Speer, Susan A.
    2017 “Flirting: A designedly ambiguous action?” Research on Language and Social Interaction(): –. 10.1080/08351813.2017.1301297
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1301297 [Google Scholar]
  37. Tannen, Deborah
    1998 “The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance.” InThe Feminist Critique of Language, ed. byDeborah Cameron, –. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2009 “Framing and face: The relevance of the presentation of self to linguistic discourse analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly(): –. 10.1177/019027250907200404
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250907200404 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2013 “The medium is the metamessage.” InDiscourse 2.0: Language and New Media, ed. byDeborah Tannen, and Anna Marie Trester, –. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Tannen, Deborah, and Cynthia Wallat
    1993 “Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview.” InFraming in Discourse, ed. byDeborah Tannen, –. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Thompson, Riki
    2022 “More than the selfie: Online dating, non-monogamy, normativity, and linked profiles on OkCupid.” Journal of Language and Sexuality(): –. 10.1075/jls.20005.tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.20005.tho [Google Scholar]
  42. Wolfson, Nessa
    1989Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhang, Yiqiong, Min Wang, and Ying Li
    2021 “More than playfulness: Emojis in the comments of a WeChat official account.” Internet Pragmatics(): –. 10.1075/ip.00048.zha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00048.zha [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00111.and
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00111.and
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Tinder chats ; gender ; play ; invitations ; facework ; framing ; ambiguity
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