1887
image of Beyond the recipe
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates user participation in an online cooking community based on 265 comments about a recipe by Jamila, a popular food blogger, chosen for her significant influence in the Romanian culinary blogosphere. 73.6% ( = 195) are positive, whereas 26.4% ( = 70) are negative. While positive comments are more common, negative comments reveal more engagement from critics, often characterized by longer responses, detailed critiques, and frequent interactions. Using dialogue analysis and politeness research, we illustrate how users construct identities by balancing critique with indirect language use and defensive reactions. Common actions include hedging, justification, indirect criticism, and face-saving acts. We also analyze how commenters use humor, sarcasm, and multimedia components such as emoji to convey tone and emotion.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00214.saf
2025-09-29
2025-11-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Angouri, Jo and Theodora Tseliga
    2010 “ʻYou Have No Idea What You are Talking About!’ From e-disagreement to e-impoliteness in two online fora.” Journal of Politeness Research(): –. 10.1515/jplr.2010.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.004 [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson
    [1978] 1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Burton, Katelyn Leigh
    2016You Are What You Eat: Investigating Food Discourse and Digitally-Mediated Identities. Open Access Dissertations. Paper 432. Available athttps://digitalcommons.uri.edu/oa_diss/432
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Diemer, Stefan and Maximiliane Frobenius
    2013 “When making pie, all ingredients must be chilled. Including you: Lexical, syntactic and interactive features in online discourse — a synchronic study of food blogs.” InCulinary Linguistics: The chef’s special, ed. byCornelia Gerhardt, Maximiliane Frobenius, and Susanne Ley, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clu.10.02die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clu.10.02die [Google Scholar]
  5. Diemer, Stefan, Marie-Louise Brunner, and Selina Schmidt
    2014 “Like, Pasta, Pizza and Stuff” — New Trends in Online Food Discourse. Cuizine(). Available athttps://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1026769ar. 10.7202/1026769ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1026769ar [Google Scholar]
  6. Domingo, Myrrh, Gunther Kress, Rebecca O’Connell, Heather Elliott, Corinne Squire, Carey Jewitt, and Elisabetta Adami
    2014 “Development of methodologies for researching online: The case of food blogs.” National Centre for Research Methods Working Paper. Available athttps://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/id/eprint/3704/
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dumitrache, Liliana and Mariana Nae
    2023 “Romanian Food on an International Plate: Exploring Communication, Recipes, and Virtual Affect in Culinary Blogs.” Berichte Geographie und Landeskunde(): –. 10.25162/bgl‑2023‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.25162/bgl-2023-0003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Eelen, Gino
    2001A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Herring, Susan C.
    1999 “The Rhetorical Dynamics of Gender Harassment Online.” The Information Society(): –. 10.1080/019722499128466
    https://doi.org/10.1080/019722499128466 [Google Scholar]
  10. Kleinke, Sonja
    2008 “Emotional Commitment in Public Political Internet Message Boards.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology(): –. 10.1177/0261927X08322483
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X08322483 [Google Scholar]
  11. Lewis, Tania
    2010 “Branding, celebritization and the lifestyle expert.” Cultural Studies(): –. 10.1080/09502386.2010.488406
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2010.488406 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2018 “Digital food: from paddock to platform.” Communication Research and Practice(): –. 10.1080/22041451.2018.1476795
    https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2018.1476795 [Google Scholar]
  13. Locher, Miriam A. and Richard J. Watts
    2005 “Politeness Theory and Relational Work.” Journal of Politeness Research(): –. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9 [Google Scholar]
  14. Luzón, María José
    2013 “Public Communication of Science in Blogs: Recontextualizing Scientific Discourse for a Diversified Audience.” Written Communication(): –. 10.1177/0741088313493610
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313493610 [Google Scholar]
  15. Mills, Sara
    2003Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615238
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238 [Google Scholar]
  16. Moor, Peter J.
    2008 Flaming on YouTube. Master’s Thesis. Available atscholar.petermoor.nl/youtube.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Neurauter-Kessels, Manuela
    2011 “Im/polite reader responses on British online news sites.” Journal of Politeness Research(): –. 10.1515/jplr.2011.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2011.010 [Google Scholar]
  18. Sifianou, Maria
    2001 ““Oh! How appropriate”: Compliments and politeness.” InLinguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish, ed. byArın Bayraktaroğlu and Maria Sifianou, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.88.14sif
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.88.14sif [Google Scholar]
  19. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    2005 “Rapport management theory and culture.” Intercultural Pragmatics(): –. 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.335
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.335 [Google Scholar]
  20. Sproull, Lee and Sara Kiesler
    1986 “Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication.” Management Science(): –. 10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492
    https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492 [Google Scholar]
  21. Thaler, Verena
    2014 “Negative evaluation and face work in French and Italian online comments.” InFace Work and Social Media, ed. byKristina Bedijs, Gudrun Held, and Christiane Maaß, –. Zürich/Berlin: LIT Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Tzanne, Angeliki
    2019 “Politeness, praising, and identity construction in a Greek food blog.” InFrom Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness, ed. byEva Ogiermann and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182119.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182119.003 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2021Relational Work in Digital Communication. The Case of Greek Food Blogs. Athens: Pedio.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Watts, Richard J.
    2003Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  25. Weigand, Edda
    2000 “The Dialogic Action Game.” InDialogue Analysis VII. Working with dialogue. Selected papers from the 7th IADA conference, ed. byMalcolm Coulthard, Janet Cotterill, and Frances Rock, –. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110941265‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110941265-002 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2010Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2012 “Professional action games. Theory and practice.” InProfessional Communication across Languages and Cultures, ed. byStanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.17.04wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.17.04wei [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00214.saf
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Mixed Game Model ; online community ; culinary comments ; cultural identity
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