1887
image of Bonding across Chinese social media
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores social bonding in language play via the construction of ‘Chinese character (annotation)’ on two major social media platforms ( and ) in China. The Chinese characters and their bracketed annotations under study, despite their one-to-one matching in sequence, never match each other either in meaning or in pronunciation. They convey a sense of playfulness among social media users who may be acquaintances or strangers to each other. While research on language play has uncovered systematic interpersonal meanings and social functions, our analysis of screen-based and user-based data shows that such linguistic behavior in a virtual community of practice contributes to social bonding among social media players. Within such structure and with different substitutes for both characters and annotations, social media users frame their expressions in evaluative or emotive ways to facilitate their presentation of an alternative self and of individual or community values.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19010.xie
2020-07-24
2020-08-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Androutsopoulos, Jannis
    2013 “Online Data Collection.” InData Collection in Sociolinguistics: Methods and Applications, ed. byChristine Mallinson, Becky Childs, and Gerard Van Herk, 236–249. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2014 “Languaging When Contexts Collapse: Audience Design in Social Networking.” Discourse, Context & Media45: 62–73. 10.1016/j.dcm.2014.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2014.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2015 “Negotiating Authenticities in Mediatized Times.” Discourse, Context & Media8: 74–77. 10.1016/j.dcm.2015.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2015.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anis, Jacques
    2007 “Neography: Unconventional Spelling in French SMS Text Messages.” InThe Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture, and Communication Online, ed. byBrenda Danet, and Susan C. Herring, 87–115. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Arndt, Horst and Richard W. Janney
    1985 “Improving Emotive Communication: Verbal, Prosodic and Kinesics Conflict Avoidance Techniques.” Per Linguam1:21–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Arndt, Horst, and Richard W. Janney
    1987InterGrammar: Towards an Integrative Model of Verbal, Prosodic and Kinesic Choices in Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110872910
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872910 [Google Scholar]
  7. 1991 “Verbal, Prosodic, and Kinesic Emotive Contrasts in Speech.” Journal of Pragmatics15: 521–549. 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90110‑J
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90110-J [Google Scholar]
  8. Bell, Nancy
    (ed.) 2017Multiple Perspectives on Language Play. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Coulson, S.
    2001Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551352
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551352 [Google Scholar]
  10. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dynel, Marta
    2017 “Participation as Audience Design.” InPragmatics of Social Media, ed. byChristian R. Hoffmann, and Wolfram Bublitz, 61–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110431070‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431070-003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dynel, Martal, and Fabio I. M. Poppi
    2019 “Risum teneatis, amici?: The Socio-Pragmatics of RoastMe Humor.” Journal of Pragmatics139: 1–21. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1985 “Frames and the Semantics of Understanding.” Quaderni di Semantica6(2): 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra
    2017 “‘Whose Context Collapse?’: Ethical Clashes in the Study of Language and Social Media in Context.” Applied Linguistics Review8(2–3): 169–189. 10.1515/applirev‑2016‑1034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-1034 [Google Scholar]
  15. Georgalou, Mariza
    2017Discourse and Identity on Facebook: How We Use Language and Multimodal Texts to Present Identity Online. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Goffman, Erving
    1959The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 1974Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Graham, Sage Lambert
    2018 “Impoliteness and the Moral Order in Online Gaming.” Internet Pragmatics1(2): 303–328. 10.1075/ip.00014.lam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00014.lam [Google Scholar]
  19. Gruber, Helmut
    2019a “Are Austrian Presidential Candidates Ordinary People? Candidates’ Self-Presentation Strategies on Twitter during the 2016 Austrian Presidential Election Campaign.” InThe Construction of ‘Ordinariness’ across Media Genres, ed. byAnita Fetzer, and Elda Weizman, 21–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.307.02gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.307.02gru [Google Scholar]
  20. 2019b “Genres, Media, and recontexualization Practices: Re-considering Basic Concepts of Genre Theory in the Age of Social Media.” Internet Pragmatics2(1): 55–83. 10.1075/ip.00023.gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00023.gru [Google Scholar]
  21. Haugh, Michael
    2017 “Teasing.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, ed. bySalvartore Attardo, 204–218. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315731162‑15
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731162-15 [Google Scholar]
  22. Herring, Susan C.
    2004 “Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis: An Approach to Researching Online Behavior.” InDesigning for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, ed. bySasha A. Barab, Rob Kling, and James H. Gray, 338–376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805080.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805080.016 [Google Scholar]
  23. Herring, Susan C., and Astsa Zelenkauskaite
    2009 “Symbolic Capital in a Virtual Heterosexual Market: Abbreviation and Insertion in Italian iTV SMS.” Written Communication26(1): 5–31. 10.1177/0741088308327911
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308327911 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hogan, Bernie
    2010 “The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online.” Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society30: 377–386. 10.1177/0270467610385893
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610385893 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jones, Rodney H.
    2015 “Discourse, Cybernetics, and the Entextualisation of the Self.” InDiscourse and Digital Practices: Doing Discourse Analysis in the Digital Age, ed. byRodney H. Jones, Alice Chik, and Christoph A. Hafner, 28–47. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315726465
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726465 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kádár, Dániel Z., and Juliane House
    2020 “Ritual Frames: A Contrastive Pragmatic Approach.” Pragmatics30(1): 142–168. doi:  10.1075/prag.19018.kad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19018.kad [Google Scholar]
  27. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara, and Sherzer, Joel
    1976 “Introduction.” InSpeech Play: Research and Resources for Studying Linguistic Creativity, ed. byBarbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1–16. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. 10.9783/9781512803150‑002
    https://doi.org/10.9783/9781512803150-002 [Google Scholar]
  28. Knospe, Sebastian, Alexander Onysko, and Maik Goth
    (eds.) 2016Crossing Languages to Play with Words: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110465600
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110465600 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger
    1991Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lee, Carmen
    2007 “Linguistic Features of Email and ICQ Instant Messaging in Hong Kong.” InThe Multilingual Internet. Language, Culture and Communication Online, ed. byBrenda Danet, and Susan C. Herring, 184–208. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.003.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2014 “Language Choice and Self-presentation in Social Media: The Case of University Students in Hong Kong.” InThe Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet, ed. byPhilip Seargeant, and Caroline Tagg, 91–111. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137029317_5
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317_5 [Google Scholar]
  33. Litt, Eden
    2012 “Knock, Knock. Who’s There? The Imagined Audience.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media56(3): 330–345. 10.1080/08838151.2012.705195
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.705195 [Google Scholar]
  34. Madianou, Mirca, and Daniel Miller
    2012Migration and New Media: Transnational Families and Polymedia. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Maíz Arévalo, Carmen
    2017 “Getting ‘Liked’.” InPragmatics of Social Media, ed. byChristian. R. Hoffmann, and Wolfram Bublitz, 575–606. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110431070‑021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431070-021 [Google Scholar]
  36. Marwick, Alice E., and Danah boyd
    2010 “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Con text Collapse, and the Imagined Audience.” New Media & Society13: 96–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Nishimura, Yukiko
    2016 “Style, Creativity and Play.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication, ed. byAlexandra Georgakopoulou, and Tereza Spilioti, 103–116. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Norrick, Neal R.
    2004 “Humor, Tellability and Conarration in Conversation.” Text24: 79–111. 10.1515/text.2004.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2004.005 [Google Scholar]
  39. North, Sarah
    2007 “‘The Voices, the Voices’: Creativity in Online Conversation.” Applied Linguistics28(4): 538–555. 10.1093/applin/amm042
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm042 [Google Scholar]
  40. Page, Ruth
    2018Narrative Online: Shared Stories in Social Media. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316492390
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316492390 [Google Scholar]
  41. Page, Ruth, David Barton, Johann W. Unger, and Michele Zappavigna
    2014Researching Language and Social Media. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315771786
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771786 [Google Scholar]
  42. Pan, Yuling, and Dániel Z. Kádár
    2011Politeness in Historical and Contemporary Chinese. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Seargeant, Philip, and Caroline Tagg
    (eds.) 2014The Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137029317
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317 [Google Scholar]
  44. Su, His-Yao
    2007 “The Mutilingual and Multiorthographic Taiwan-Based Internet: Creative Uses of Writing Systems on College-affiliated BBSs.” InThe Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture and Communication Online, ed. byBrenda Danet, and Susan C. Herring, 64–86. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tagg, Caroline, and Philip Seargeant
    2014 “Audience Design and Language Choice in the Construction and Maintenance of Translocal Communities on Social Network Sites.” InThe Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet, ed. byPhilip Seargeant, and Caroline Tagg, 161–185. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137029317_8
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317_8 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tannen, Deborah, and Cynthia Wallat
    1993 “Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction: Examples from a Medical Examination in Interview.” InFraming in Discourse, ed. byDeborah Tannen, 57–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Terkourafi, Marina
    2001 “Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A Frame-Based Approach.” PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge. Available online at: www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/9573 (accessed3 March 2016).
  48. Thaler, Verena
    2016 “Varieties of Wordplay.” InCrossing Languages to Play with Words: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. bySebastian Knospe, Alexander Onysko, and Maik Goth. 47–68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110465600‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110465600-003 [Google Scholar]
  49. Thurlow, Crispin
    2012 “Determined Creativity: Language Play in New Media.” InDiscourse and Creativity, ed. byRodney Jones, 169–190. Harkow: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Toma, Catalina L., and Cassandra L. Carlson
    2015 “How Do Facebook Users Believe They Come across in Their Profiles?: A Meta-Perception Approach to Investigating Facebook Self-Presentation.” Communication Research Reports32(1): 93–101. 10.1080/08824096.2014.990557
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2014.990557 [Google Scholar]
  51. Utz, Sonja
    2015 “The Function of Self-Disclosure on Social Network Sites; Not Only Intimate, but also Positive and Entertaining Self-Disclosure Increase the Feelings of Connection.” Computers in Human Behavior45: 1–10. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.076
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.076 [Google Scholar]
  52. Wenger, Etienne
    1998Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803932
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wesch, Mike
    2008 “Context Collapse.” mediatedcultures.net/projects/youtube/context-collapse (accessed20 June 2016).
  54. Yus, Francisco
    2011Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.213
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.213 [Google Scholar]
  55. Zappavigna, Michele
    2011 “Ambient Affiliation: A Linguistic Perspective on Twitter.” New Media Society13(5): 788–806. 10.1177/1461444810385097
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385097 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2014 “CoffeeTweets: Bonding around the Been on Twitter.” InThe Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet, ed. by. Philip Seargeant, and Caroline Tagg, 139–160. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137029317_7
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317_7 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2018Searchable Talk: Hashtags and Social Media Metadiscourse. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Ziem, Alexander
    2014Frames of Understanding in Text and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.48
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.48 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19010.xie
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19010.xie
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