1887
Relational work in Facebook and discussion boards/fora
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This study investigates the communicative practices in English and German online discussion fora as exemplified by two thematically related sample threads. Combining first- and second-order approaches to (im-)politeness, the paper focuses on the question of how participants use intergroup rudeness as a means of in- and outgroup construction and examines how intergroup rudeness is metapragmatically negotiated as the discussions unfold. The results show that intergroup rudeness as well as metapragmatic comments are handled very differently in the two communities explored. Suggesting cultural preferences, there is a much higher degree of interactivity and a clear preference for negotiation at an interpersonal level in the German discussion group; its English counterpart favours negotiation at an intergroup level. Both threads provide metapragmatic evidence that the frequent use of rudeness tokens does not automatically make rudeness an accepted norm.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.25.1.03kle
2015-03-01
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Angouri, Jo , and Theodora Tseliga
    (2010) "You have no idea what you are talking about!" From e- disagreement to e-impoliteness in two online fora. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture6.1: 57–82. doi: 10.1515/jplr.2010.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.004 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bousfield, Derek
    (2008) Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.167
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.167 [Google Scholar]
  3. Burnett, Gary , and Laurie Bonnici
    (2003) Beyond the FAQ. Explicit and implicit norms in Usenet newsgroups. Library & Information Science Research25: 333–351. doi: 10.1016/S0740‑8188(03)00033‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(03)00033-1 [Google Scholar]
  4. Caffi, Claudia
    (1998) Metapragmatics. In J.L. Mey (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 581–586.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Culpeper, Jonathan
    (1996) Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics25: 349–367. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2010) Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics42: 3232–3245. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2011) Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  8. Danet, Brenda
    (2013) Flaming and linguistic impoliteness on a listserv. In S. Herring , D. Stein , and T. Virtanen (eds.), Pragmatics of Computer-mediated Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 639–664. doi: 10.1515/9783110214468.639
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468.639 [Google Scholar]
  9. Der Papst in den USA – Retter in der Not? (2008) Spiegel ONLINE. Forum. Retrieved April 25, 2008, fromforum.spiegel.de/showthread.php?t=3747.
  10. Dresner, Eli , and Susan C. Herring
    (2010) Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory20: 249–268. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2885.2010.01362.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01362.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Dubrovsky, Vitaly J. , Sara Kiesler , and Beheruz N. Sethna
    (1991) The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction6: 119–146. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci0602_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0602_2 [Google Scholar]
  12. Eysenbach, Gunther , and James E. Till
    (2001) Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ323: 1103–1105. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103 [Google Scholar]
  13. Graham, Sage L
    (2007) Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer- mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics39: 742–759. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.017 [Google Scholar]
  14. Haines, Russell , Jill Hough , Lan Cao , and Douglas Haines
    (2012) Anonymity in computer-mediated communication: More contrarian ideas with less influence. Group Decision and Negotiation, doi: 10.1007/s10726‑012‑9318‑2.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9318-2. [Google Scholar]
  15. Herring, Susan C
    (2007) A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. [email protected]4: article 1. RetrievedJune 23, 2013, fromwww.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/761.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hübler, Alex , and Wolfram Bublitz
    (2007) Introducing metapragmatics in use. In W. Bublitz , and A. Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1–26. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165 [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnson, Mike
    (2010) Anonymity in online discussion forums – does it promote connections?In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld , V. Hodgson , C. Jones , M. de Laat , D. McConnell , and T. Ryberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010. Lancaster: University of Lancaster, pp. 198–206.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kienpointner, Manfred
    (1997) Varieties of rudeness. Functions of Language4: 251–287. doi: 10.1075/fol.4.2.05kie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.4.2.05kie [Google Scholar]
  19. (2008) Impoliteness and emotional arguments. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture4: 243–256. doi: 10.1515/JPLR.2008.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2008.012 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kiesler, Sara , and Lee Sproull
    (1992) Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes52: 96–123. doi: 10.1016/0749‑5978(92)90047‑B
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(92)90047-B [Google Scholar]
  21. Kleinke, Sonja
    (2007) Sprachliche Strategien verbaler Ablehnung in öffentlichen Diskussionsforen des Internets. In S.K. Herrmann , S. Krämer , and H. Kuch (eds.), Verletzende Worte. Die Grammatik sprachlicher Missachtung. Bielefeld: Peter Lang, pp. 311–336. doi: 10.14361/9783839405659‑013
    https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839405659-013 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2010) Interactive aspects of computer-mediated communication – 'Disagreement' in an English-speaking and a German-speaking Public News Group. In S. Tanskanen , L. Helasvuo , M. Johannson , and M. Raitaniemi (eds.), Discourses in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 195–222. doi: 10.1075/pbns.203.15kle
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.203.15kle [Google Scholar]
  23. (2012) Responses to rhetorical questions in English and German public news groups in the Internet. Functions of Language19.2: 174–200. doi: 10.1075/fol.19.2.02kle
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.19.2.02kle [Google Scholar]
  24. Korenmatt, Joan , and Nancy Wyatt
    (1996) Group dynamics in an e-mail forum. In S. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 225–242. doi: 10.1075/pbns.39.18kor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.39.18kor [Google Scholar]
  25. Largier, Céline
    (2002) Aspekte der Debatte in argumentationsorientierten Internet-Foren: Die Abtreibungsdebatte in Frankreich und Deutschland. Deutsche Sprache30: 287–306.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Locher, Miriam A. , and Derek Bousfield
    (2008) Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language. In D. Bousfield , and M.A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Locher, Miriam A. , and Richard J. Watts
    (2008) Relational work and impoliteness. Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In D. Bousfield , and M.A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Marcoccia, Michel
    (2004) Online polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics36: 115–145. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00038‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  29. Maricic, Ibolya
    (2005) Face in Cyberspace: Facework, (Im)politeness and Conflict in English Discussion Groups. Växjö: Växjö University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Postmes, Tom , Russell Spears , and Martin Lea
    (1998) Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE- effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research25: 689–715. doi: 10.1177/009365098025006006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/009365098025006006 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2000) The formation of group norms in computer- mediated communication. Human Communication Research26: 341–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2000.tb00761.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00761.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Rhea, Nancy , Alfred Rovai , Michael Ponton , Gail Derrick , and John Davis
    (2007) The effect of computer-mediated communication on anonymous end-of-course teaching evaluations. International Journal on E-Learning6.4: 581–592.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Schütte, Wilfried
    (2000) Sprache und Kommunikationsformen in Newsgroups and Mailinglisten. In W. Kallmeyer (ed.), Sprache und neue Medien. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 142–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Should the US give the Pope such a presidential welcome? (2008) BBC NEWS-Have Your Say. Retrieved April 20, 2008, fromwww.bbc.co.uk/news/have_your_say/
  35. Severinson Eklundh, Kerstin
    (2010) To quote or not to quote: Setting the context for computer-mediated dialogues. [email protected]7: article 5. RetrievedJune 23, 2013, fromwww.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2665.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Smith, Christine B. , Margaret L. McLaughlin , and Kerry K. Osborne
    (1997) Conduct control on Usenet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication2.4. RetrievedJune 23, 2013, fromjcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue4/smith.html
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    (2005) (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpacking their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture1: 95–119. doi: 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95 [Google Scholar]
  38. Suler, John
    (2004) The online disinhibition effect. Cyber Psychology and Behavior7: 321–326. doi: 10.1089/1094931041291295
    https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295 [Google Scholar]
  39. Tajfel, Henri
    (1978) Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (ed.), Differentiation between Social Groups. Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 61–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa
    (2007) Metapragmatic utterances in computer-mediated interaction. In W. Bublitz , and A. Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 87–106. doi: 10.1075/pbns.165.07tan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.07tan [Google Scholar]
  41. Walther, Joseph B. , Jeffrey F. Anderson , and David W. Park
    (1994) Interpersonal effects in computer- mediated interaction. A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication Research21: 460–487. doi: 10.1177/009365094021004002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/009365094021004002 [Google Scholar]
  42. Watts, Richard J
    (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2005) Linguistic politeness research: Quo vadis?In R.J. Watts , S. Ide , and K. Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.xi–xlvii. doi: 10.1515/9783110199819
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199819 [Google Scholar]
  44. Watts, Richard J. , Sachiko Ide , and Konrad Ehlich
    (eds.) (2005) Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110199819
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199819 [Google Scholar]
  45. Weder, Mirjam
    (2008) Form and function of metacommunication in CMC. In S. Kelsey , and K.S. Amant (eds.), Handbook of Research on Computer Mediated Communication. Hershey, New York: Idea Group Publishing, pp. 570–586. doi: 10.4018/978‑1‑59904‑863‑5.ch041
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-863-5.ch041 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.25.1.03kle
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