1887
Volume 31, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper takes the form of a case study which examines to what extent a comment can be analyzed as a type of speech action. This study analyzed 507 replies to a post on a popular Chinese social media application, Xiaohongshu, which concerns feminist issues. A speech act analysis of these replies offers new insights on comments as a type of speech act by showing their constructive functions across intra-utterance, inter-utterance, and extra-textual contexts. Comments can facilitate the securing of hearer’s uptake of an illocutionary act, may modify the actual hearer’s uptake of another illocutionary act, and may ultimately contribute to the construction of sisterhood within a redefined context. The performance of comments in this study is grounded in a particular circumstance and is highly context-dependent. Nevertheless, this finding leaves open the possibility that comments may display other effects in different contexts.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24010.wan
2025-01-17
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austin, John L.
    1962How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Borge, Steffen
    2013 Questions. InMarina Sbisà & Ken Turner (eds.), Pragmatics of speech actions, 411–444. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214383.411
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214383.411 [Google Scholar]
  3. Brinton, Laurel J.
    2008The comment clause in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C.
    1987Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  5. Butler, Jess
    2013 For white girls only?: Post-feminism and the politics of inclusion. Feminist Formations25(1). 35–58. 10.1353/ff.2013.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2013.0009 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chankova, Mariya
    2019 Rejecting and challenging illocutionary acts. Pragmatics29(1). 33–56. 10.1075/prag.17041.cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17041.cha [Google Scholar]
  7. Clapp, Lenny
    2009 The rhetorical relations approach to indirect speech acts: Problems and prospects. Pragmatics & Cognition17(1). 43–76. 10.1075/pc.17.1.02cla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.1.02cla [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark-Parsons, Rosemary
    2021 “I SEE YOU, I BELIEVE YOU, I STAND WITH YOU”: #MeToo and the performance of networked feminist visibility. Feminist Media Studies21(3). 362–380. 10.1080/14680777.2019.1628797
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2019.1628797 [Google Scholar]
  9. Coffey, Julia & Kanai, Akane
    2021 Feminist fire: Embodiment and affect in managing conflict in digital feminist spaces. Feminist Media Studies23(2). 638–655. 10.1080/14680777.2021.1986095
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2021.1986095 [Google Scholar]
  10. Davison, Alice
    1975 Indirect speech acts and what to do with them. InPeter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Speech acts, 143–185. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_007
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_007 [Google Scholar]
  11. Díaz-Carrión, Isis Arlene
    2023 Sisterhood to promote the rhizomatic bodies of Mexican-mestiza women mountaineers. Gender, Place & Culture30(2). 256–277. 10.1080/0966369X.2022.2035697
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2022.2035697 [Google Scholar]
  12. Diedrichsen, Elke
    2022 Common ground in linguistic theory and internet pragmatics: Forms of dynamic multicultural interaction. InIstvan Kecskes (eds), The Cambridge handbook of intercultural pragmatics, 245–273. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108884303.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108884303.011 [Google Scholar]
  13. Diez, Illari & Bossio, Juan
    2023 Women’s solidarity as feminism in action: The concept of sisterhood (sororidad) in #LasRespondonas, a Facebook group in Peru. Information Technology for Development30(2). 229–245. 10.1080/02681102.2023.2279310
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2023.2279310 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gill, Rosalind
    2007 Post-feminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility. European Journal of Cultural Studies10(2). 147–166. 10.1177/1367549407075898
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549407075898 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2008 Empowerment/sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising. Feminism & Psychology18(1). 35–60. 10.1177/0959353507084950
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507084950 [Google Scholar]
  16. Guo, Jingyi, Ziwei Zhang, Jinhong Song, Lu Jin, Duan Yu & Sara Liao
    2022 Femvertising and postfeminist discourse: Advertising to break menstrual taboos in China. Women’s Studies in Communication45(3). 378–398. 10.1080/07491409.2022.2053624
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2022.2053624 [Google Scholar]
  17. Huang, Yan
    2009 Speech acts. InJacob L. Mey (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 1000–1009. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kroløkke, Charlotte & Sørensen, Anne Scott
    2006Gender communication theories & analyses: From silence to performance. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Labinaz, Paolo & Sbisà, Marina
    2021 Speech acts and the dissemination of knowledge in social networks. InChaoqun Xie, Francisco Yus & Hartmut Haberland (eds.), Approaches to internet pragmatics: Theory and practice, 145–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.318.05lab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.318.05lab [Google Scholar]
  20. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lewiński, Marcin
    2021 Illocutionary pluralism. Synthese1991. 6687–6714. 10.1007/s11229‑021‑03087‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03087-7 [Google Scholar]
  22. Liao, Sara
    2019 Wang Hong fashion culture and the post-feminist time in China. Fashion Theory25(5). 663–685. 10.1080/1362704X.2019.1638158
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1362704X.2019.1638158 [Google Scholar]
  23. Malinowska, Ania
    2020 Waves of feminism. InKaren Ross, Ingrid Bachmann, Valentina Cardo, Sujata Moorti & Cosimo Marco Scarcelli (eds.), The international encyclopedia of gender, media, and communication, 1–7. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781119429128.iegmc096
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119429128.iegmc096 [Google Scholar]
  24. McLean, Jessica, Sophia Maalsen & Sarah Prebble
    2019 A feminist perspective on digital geographies: Activism, affect and emotion, and gendered human-technology relations in Australia. Gender, Place & Culture26(5). 740–761. 10.1080/0966369X.2018.1555146
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1555146 [Google Scholar]
  25. Meibauer, Jörg
    2012 What is a context?InRita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer & Petra B. Schumacher (eds), What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges, 9–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.196.04mei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.196.04mei [Google Scholar]
  26. Munro, Ealasaid
    2013 Feminism: A fourth wave?Political Insight4(2). 22–25. 10.1111/2041‑9066.12021
    https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-9066.12021 [Google Scholar]
  27. Nau, Charlotte, Jinman Zhang, Anabel Quan-Haase & Kaitlynn Mendes
    2023 Vernacular practices in digital feminist activism on Twitter: Deconstructing affect and emotion in the #MeToo movement. Feminist Media Studies23(5). 2046–2062. 10.1080/14680777.2022.2027496
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2022.2027496 [Google Scholar]
  28. Pálmadóttir, Valgerður, Evelina Johansson-Wilén & Eva Schmitz
    2023 Collective identity, solidarity, and sisterhood in the ASAB cleaning women’s strike in Sweden and the Women’s day off in Iceland. Labor History64(5). 478–495. 10.1080/0023656X.2023.2223518
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2023.2223518 [Google Scholar]
  29. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rodak, Lidia
    2020 Sisterhood and the fourth wave of feminism: An analysis of circles of women in Poland. Oñati Socio-Legal Series10(1s). 116S–134S. 10.35295/OSLS.IISL/0000‑0000‑0000‑1163
    https://doi.org/10.35295/OSLS.IISL/0000-0000-0000-1163 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sbisà, Marina
    1984 On illocutionary types. Journal of Pragmatics81. 93–112. 10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90066‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90066-3 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2002 Speech acts in context. Language & Communication221. 421–436. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(02)00018‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(02)00018-6 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2009 Uptake and conventionality in illocution. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics5(1). 33–52. 10.2478/v10016‑009‑0003‑0
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-009-0003-0 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sbisà, Marina & Turner, Ken
    2013 Introduction. InMarina Sbisà & Ken Turner (eds.), Pragmatics of speech actions, 1–21. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214383.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214383.1 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sbisà, Marina
    2023Essays on speech acts and other topics in pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780192844125.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192844125.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Schneider, Kimberly T. & Carpenter, Nathan J.
    2019 Sharing #MeToo on Twitter: Incidents, coping responses, and social reactions. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion39(1). 87–100. 10.1108/EDI‑09‑2018‑0161
    https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2018-0161 [Google Scholar]
  37. 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]
  38. Searle, John. R.
    1979Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  39. Stalnaker, Robert C.
    1998 On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information7(1). 3–19. 10.1023/A:1008254815298
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008254815298 [Google Scholar]
  40. Strawson, Peter Frederick
    1964 Intention and convention in speech acts. The Philosophical Review73(4). 439–460. 10.2307/2183301
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2183301 [Google Scholar]
  41. Wang, Yun & Tavmen, Güneş
    2024 New outlets of digital feminist activism in China: The #SeeFemaleWorkers campaign. Feminist Media Studies, 1–17. 10.1080/14680777.2024.2334782
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2024.2334782 [Google Scholar]
  42. Witek, Maciej
    2005 An interactional account of illocutionary practice. Language Sciences471. 43–55. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2013 Three approaches to the study of speech acts. Dialogue and Universalism23(1). 129–141. 10.5840/du201323125
    https://doi.org/10.5840/du201323125 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2022 Irony as a speech action. Journal of Pragmatics1901. 76–90. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.010 [Google Scholar]
  45. Zimmerman, Tegan
    2017 #Intersectionality: The fourth wave feminist Twitter community. Atlantis38(1). 54–68.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24010.wan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24010.wan
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