1887
image of Deceptive clickbaits in the relevance-theoretic lens
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores the nature of clickbaiting as a form of viral journalism from a relevance-theoretic perspective ( ). The focus is on deceptive clickbaits, i.e., manipulative internet headlines whose interpretation, based on the way they are worded, leads to opening an information gap, thus luring the reader into clicking on the link provided with a view to increasing the website traffic. It is highlighted that such headlines exploit linguistic underdeterminacy, and unlike felicitous headlines, which provide an accurate representation of the article content and therefore play the role of ( ), deceptive clickbaits induce recipients to generate interpretations which arouse their intense curiosity but are ultimately incompatible with the article’s content. The paper shows how relevance theory can explain the interpretation bias that the reader of deceptive clickbaits falls prey to and advances the idea that there is affinity in this respect between deceptive clickbaits and jokes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22003.jod
2022-09-06
2022-12-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bach, Kent
    2007 “Regression in Pragmatics (and Semantics).” InPragmatics, ed. byNoel Burton-Roberts, 29–30. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_3
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_3 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bazaco, Ángela, Marta Redondo, and Pilar Sánchez-García
    2019 “Clickbait as a Strategy of Viral Journalism: Conceptualisation and Methods.” Revista Latina de Comunicación Social74: 94–115. www.revistalatinacs.org/074paper/1323/06en.html. 10.4185/RLCS‑2019‑1323en
    https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2019-1323en [Google Scholar]
  3. Belleri, Delia
    2014Semantic Under-Determinacy and Communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137398444
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137398444 [Google Scholar]
  4. Blom, Jonas, and Kenneth Hansen
    2015 “Click Bait: Forward– Reference as Lure in Online News Headlines.” Journal of Pragmatics76: 87–100. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.010 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bransford, John, and Marcia Johnson
    1972 “Contextual Prerequisites for Understanding: Some Investigations of Comprehension and Recall.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior11: 717–726. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(72)80006‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9 [Google Scholar]
  6. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2010 “Lexical Pragmatics, Ad Hoc Concepts and Metaphor: From a Relevance Theory Perspective.” Italian Journal of Linguistics22 (1): 153–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, Yimin, Nadia Conroy, and Victoria Rubin
    2015 “Misleading Online Content: Recognizing Clickbait as False News.” InProceedings of the 2015 ACM on Workshop on Multimodal Deception Detection, 15–19. 10.1145/2823465.2823467
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2823465.2823467 [Google Scholar]
  9. Day, H. I.
    1982 “Curiosity and the Interested Explorer.” Performance and Instruction21 (4): 19–22. 10.1002/pfi.4170210410
    https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4170210410 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dor, Daniel
    2003 “On Newspaper Headlines as Relevance Optimizers.” Journal of Pragmatics35: 695–721. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00134‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00134-0 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dynel, Marta
    2009Humorous Garden-Paths: A Pragmatic-Cognitive study. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2018Irony, Deception and Humour. Seeking the Truth about Overt and Covert Untruthfulness. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501507922
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501507922 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ecker, Ullrich, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ee Pin Chang, Rekha Pillai
    2014 “The Effects of Subtle Misinformation in News Headlines.” Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied20 (4): 323–335. 10.1037/xap0000028
    https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000028 [Google Scholar]
  14. Galasiński, Dariusz
    2000The Language of Deception. A Discourse Analytical Study. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 10.4135/9781452220345
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452220345 [Google Scholar]
  15. Geer, John, and Kim Kahn
    1993 “Grabbing Attention: An Experimental Investigation of Headlines During Campaigns.” Political Communication10: 175–91. 10.1080/10584609.1993.9962974
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.1993.9962974 [Google Scholar]
  16. Graney, John
    1990 “Determination of Fact and Opinion: A Critical Reading Problem.” Journal of Psycholinguist Research19: 147–166. 10.1007/BF01077414
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01077414 [Google Scholar]
  17. Iarovici, Edith, and Rodica Amel, R.
    1989 “The Strategy of the Headline.” Semiotica77 (4): 441–459. 10.1515/semi.1989.77.4.441
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1989.77.4.441 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ifantidou, Elly
    2009 “Newspaper Headlines and Relevance: Ad Hoc Concepts in Ad Hoc Contexts.” Journal of Pragmatics41: 699–720. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.016 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jaki, Sylvia
    2014Phraseological Substitutions in Newspaper Headlines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.46
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.46 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jaszczolt, Katarzyna
    2012 “Semantics/Pragmatics Boundary Disputes.” InSemantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, ed. byClaudia Maienbom, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, 2333–2360. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jodłowiec, Maria
    2015The Challenges of Explicit and Implicit Communication. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑05190‑2
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-05190-2 [Google Scholar]
  22. Krug, Damon, Byron George, Shawn Hannon, and John Glover
    1989 “The Effect of Outlines and Headings on Readers’ Recall of Text.” Contemporary Educational Psychology14: 111–123. 10.1016/0361‑476X(89)90029‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(89)90029-5 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuiken, Jeffrey, Anne Schuth, Martijn Spitters, and Maarten Marx
    2017 “Effective Headlines of Newspaper Articles in a Digital Environment.” Digital Journalism5 (10): 1300–1314. 10.1080/21670811.2017.1279978
    https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1279978 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lew, Robert
    1996 “Exploration of Linguistic Ambiguity in Polish and English Jokes.” Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics31: 127–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Livingstone, Sonia, and Peter Lunt
    1994Talk on Television. Audience Participation and Public Debate. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Loewenstein, George
    1994 “The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation.” Psychological Bulletin116 (1): 75–98. 10.1037/0033‑2909.116.1.75
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75 [Google Scholar]
  27. Miller, Lisa., Jason Cohen, and Arthur Wingfield
    2006 “Contextual Knowledge Reduces Demands on Working Memory during Reading.” Memory & Cognition34: 1355–1367. 10.3758/BF03193277
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193277 [Google Scholar]
  28. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    2015 “On the Role of Vigilance in the Interpretation of Puns.” Humor – International Journal of Humor Research28 (3): 469–490.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2016 “Vigilance Mechanisms in Interpretation: Hermeneutical Vigilance.” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis133 (1): 21–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Piskorska, Agnieszka, and Maria Jodłowiec
    2018 “Weak Communication, Joke Targets and the Punch-Line Effect: A Relevance-Theoretic Account.” Studies in Polish Linguistics13 (1): 25–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Piskorska, Agnieszka
    2020 “Introduction: The Literal-Figurative Language Continuum and Optimally Relevant Interpretations.” InRelevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics, ed. byAgnieszka Piskorska, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.8.00pis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.00pis [Google Scholar]
  32. Potthast, Martin, Sebastian Köpsel, Benno Stein, and Matthias Hagen
    2016 “Clickbait Detection.” InAdvances in Information Retrieval, ed. byNicola Ferro, Fabio Crestani, Marie-Francine ‎Moens, Josiane Mothe, Fabrizio Silvestri, Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio, Claudia Hauff, and Gianmaria Silvello, 810–817. Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑30671‑1_72
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30671-1_72 [Google Scholar]
  33. Schneider, Kristina
    2000 “Emergence and Development of Headlines in English Newspapers.” InEnglish Media Texts Past and Present: Language and Textual Structure, ed. byFriedrich Ungerer, 45–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.80.05sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.80.05sch [Google Scholar]
  34. Scott, Kate
    2021 “You Won’t Believe What’s in This Paper! Clickbait, Relevance and the Curiosity Gap.” Journal of Pragmatics175: 53–66. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.023 [Google Scholar]
  35. Shin, Dajung, and Sung-il Kim
    2019 “Homo Curious: Curious or Interested?” Educational Psychology Review31: 853–874. 10.1007/s10648‑019‑09497‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09497-x [Google Scholar]
  36. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2002 “Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind–Reading.” Mind & Language17: 3–23. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00186
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00186 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2005 “Pragmatics.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics17: 353–388.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2008 “A Deflationary Account of Metaphors.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. byRaymond Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007 [Google Scholar]
  40. Straumann, Heinrich
    1935Newspaper Headlines. A Study in Linguistic Method. London: Unwin Brothers.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sweeny, Kate., Darya Melnyk, Wendi Miller, and James Shepperd
    2010 “Information Avoidance: Who, What, When, and Why.” Review of General Psychology14 (4): 340–353. 10.1037/a0021288
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021288 [Google Scholar]
  42. Van Dijk, Teun
    1988News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Wiley, Jennifer, and Keith Rayner
    2000 “Effects of Titles on the Processing of Text and Lexically Ambiguous Words: Evidence from Eye Movements.” Memory & Cognition28: 1011–1021. 10.3758/BF03209349
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209349 [Google Scholar]
  44. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
    2012Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 [Google Scholar]
  45. Yus, Francisco
    2013 “An Inference-Centered Analysis of Jokes: The Intersecting Circles Model of Humorous Communication.” InIrony and Humor: From Pragmatics to Discourse, ed. byLeonor Ruiz Gurillo, and M. Belén Alvarado-Ortega, 59–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.231.05yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.231.05yus [Google Scholar]
  46. 2016Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/thr.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.4 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22003.jod
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: clickbait headlines ; jokes ; underdeterminacy thesis ; punchline effect ; relevance theory
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