1887
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores how readers of Chinese mainstream media editorials use disagreement strategies to attack the institutional face of the mainstream media organizations on . By quantitative and qualitative analysis, the disagreement strategies in comments were elaborated based on the logos-oriented and ethos-oriented distinction. It was found that logos-oriented disagreements were employed to criticize the content of the editorial, ethos-oriented ad-hominem disagreements were employed to attack the trustworthiness and impartiality of the mainstream media organizations, and ethos-oriented ad-personam disagreements were pure insults to express their negative emotions to the mainstream media organizations. The findings suggested that the online commenting space of Chinese mainstream media editorials is a public sphere of combined deliberation and liberal individualism. This study adds to existing literature the disagreement strategies used in online comments while shedding light on the role of online comments in the public sphere building in the Chinese social media context.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.19016.xia
2023-03-14
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aiken, Scott F., and Robert B. Talisse
    2019Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement (2nd edition). New York and London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Angouri, Jo
    2012 “Managing Disagreement in Problem Solving Meeting Talk.” Journal of Pragmatics44 (12):1565–1579. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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 Research6(1): 57–82. 10.1515/jplr.2010.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.004 [Google Scholar]
  4. Badarneh, Muhammad A., and Fathi Migdadi
    2018 “Acts of Positioning in Online Reader Comments on Jordanian News Websites.” Language & Communication581: 93–106. 10.1016/j.langcom.2017.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2017.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich
    1981The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. byMichael Holquist and Caryl Emerson. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baym, Nancy K.
    1996 “Agreements and Disagreements in a Computer-mediated Discussion.” Research in Language and Social Interaction29(4): 315–345. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2904_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2904_2 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bruce, Tayyiba
    2018 “New Technologies, Continuing Ideologies: Online Reader Comments as a Support for Media Perspectives of Minority Religions.” Discourse, Context & Media241: 53–75. 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Coleman, Stephen, and Giles Moss
    2012 “Under Construction: The Field of Online Deliberation Research.” Journal of Technology & Politics9 (1): 1–15. 10.1080/19331681.2011.635957
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2011.635957 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dahlberg, Lincoln
    2001 “Computer-mediated Communication and the Public Sphere: A Critical Analysis.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication7(1), 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2001.tb00137.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00137.x [Google Scholar]
  11. 2011 “Re-constructing Digital Democracy: An Outline of Four ‘Positions’.” New Media & Society13 (6): 855–872. 10.1177/1461444810389569
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810389569 [Google Scholar]
  12. Díaz-Campo, Jesús, and Francisco Segado-Boj
    2015 “Journalism Ethics in a Digital Environment: How Journalistic Codes of Ethics Have Been Adapted to the Internet and ICTs in Countries around the World.” Telematics and Informatics32(4): 735–744. 10.1016/j.tele.2015.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar
    2009 “Impoliteness and Identity in the American News Media: The ‘Culture Wars’.” Journal of Politeness Research5(2): 273–304
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gong, Shuangping
    2014 “冲突性网评中情感立场的语用分析 [A pragmatic analysis of emotional stance in online conflict commentaries].” 现代外语 [Modern Foreign Language] 37 (2):168–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Graham, Todd, and Tamara Witschge
    2003 “In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Deliberation?” Communications28(2): 173–204. 10.1515/comm.2003.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gruber, Helmut
    2001 “Questions and Strategies Orientation in Verbal Conflict Sequences.” Journal of Pragmatics33 (12): 1815–1857. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00083‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00083-7 [Google Scholar]
  18. Habermas, Jürgen
    1989The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Johansson, Marjut
    2015 “Bravo for this editorial! Users’ Comments in Discussion Forums.” InFollow-ups in Political discourse, ed. byElda Weizman and Anita Fetzer, 83–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.60.04joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.04joh [Google Scholar]
  20. Kádár, Dániel Z., Michael Haugh, and Wei-Lin Melody Chang
    2013 “Aggression and Perceived National Face Threats in Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese CMC Discussion Boards.” Multilingua32 (3): 343–372. 10.1515/multi‑2013‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2013-0016 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kleinke, Sonja
    2010 “Interactive Aspects of Computer-mediated Communication: Disagreement in an English and a German Public News Group.” InDiscourses in Interaction, ed. bySanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, Marjut Johansson, and Mia Raitaniemi, 208–230. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.203.15kle
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.203.15kle [Google Scholar]
  22. Kleinke, Sonja, and Elif Avcu
    2017 “Public Discourse beyond the Mainstream Media: Intercultural Conflict in Socio-political Discussion Fora.” Discourse, Context & Media191: 49–57. 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  23. Labov, William and David Fanshel
    1977Therapeutic discourse. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Langlotz, Andreas, and Miriam A. Locher
    2012 “Ways of Communicating Emotional Stance in Online Disagreements.” Journal of Pragmatics44(12): 1591–1606. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  25. Le, Elizabeth
    2010Editorials and the Power of Media: Interweaving of Socio-cultural Identities. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.35
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.35 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lehti, Lotta, and Johannna Kallio
    2017 “Participation in an Online Social Policy Discussion: Arguments in Focus.” Discourse, Context & Media191: 58–65. 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lopez-Ozieblo, Renia
    2018 “Disagreeing without a ‘no’: How Teachers Indicate Disagreement in a Hong Kong Classroom.” Journal of Pragmatics1371: 1–18. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.016 [Google Scholar]
  28. Masroor, Farzana, and Ummul Khair Ahmad
    2017 “Directives in English Language Newspaper Editorials across Cultures.” Discourse, Context & Media201: 83–93. 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.09.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.09.009 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mills, Charles W.
    2000The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Muntigl, Peter, and William Turnbull
    1998 “Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing.” Journal of Pragmatics29 (3): 225–256. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)00048‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00048-9 [Google Scholar]
  31. Neurauter-Kessels, Manuela
    2011 “Im/polite Reader Responses on British Online News Sites.” Journal of Politeness Research7(2): 187–214. 10.1515/jplr.2011.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2011.010 [Google Scholar]
  32. Papacharissi, Zizi
    2009 “The Virtual Sphere 2.0: the Internet, the Public Sphere and Beyond.” InRoutledge Handbook of Internet Politics, ed. byAndrew Chadwick and Phillip N. Howard, 230–245. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/dispreferred Turn Shapes. InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Shum, Winnie, and Cynthia Lee
    2013 “(Im)politeness and Disagreement in Two Hong Kong Internet Discussion Forums.” Journal of Pragmatics50(1): 52–83. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.010 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sornig, Karl
    1977 “Disagreement and Contradiction as Communicative Acts.” Journal of Pragmatics11: 347–374. 10.1016/0378‑2166(77)90028‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(77)90028-5 [Google Scholar]
  36. Szabla, Malgorzata, and Jan Blommaert
    2018 “Does context really collapse in social media interaction?” Applied Linguistics Review11(2): 251–279. 10.1515/applirev‑2017‑0119
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0119 [Google Scholar]
  37. Upadhyay, Shiv R.
    2010 “Identity and Impoliteness in Computer-mediated Reader Responses.” Journal of Politeness Research6(1):105–127. 10.1515/jplr.2010.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.006 [Google Scholar]
  38. Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Walton, Douglas
    1989Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2006Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Wang, Wei
    2008 “Newspaper Commentaries on Terrorism in China and Australia: a Contrastive Genre Study.” InContrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric, ed. byUlla Connor, Ed Nagelhout, and William Rozycki, 169–191, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.169.11wan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.169.11wan [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, Jiayi, and Charlotte Taylor
    2019 “The conventionalization of mock politeness in Chinese and British online forums”. Journal of Pragmatics1421: 270–280. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.019 [Google Scholar]
  43. Weizman, Elda, and Gonen Dori-Hacohen
    2017 “On-line Commenting on Opinion Editorials: A cross-cultural Examination of Face work in the Washington Post (USA) and NRG (Israel).” Discourse, Context & Media191: 39–48. 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Wojcieszak, M. E., and Diana C. Mutz
    2009 “Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement?” Journal of Communication59(1): 40–56. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2008.01403.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x [Google Scholar]
  45. Wu, Xiaoping
    2018 “Discursive Strategies of Resistance on Weibo: A Case Study of the 2015 Tianjin Explosions in China.” Discourse, Context & Media261: 64–73. 10.1016/j.dcm.2018.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  46. Wu, Xiaoping, and Richard Fitzgerald
    2020 “‘Hidden in Plain Sight’: Expressing Political Criticism on Chinese Social Media.” Discourse Studies, Published online, 10.1177/1461445620916365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620916365 [Google Scholar]
  47. Xu, Feng, Yong Qi, and Xiaotong Li
    2018 “What Affects the User Stickiness of the Mainstream Media Websites in China?” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications291: 124–132. 10.1016/j.elerap.2018.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2018.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Yu, Haiqing
    2006 “From Active Audience to Media Citizenship: The Case of Post-Mao China.” Social Semiotics16 (2): 303–326. 10.1080/10350330600664888
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330600664888 [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhang, Wei, and Cheris Kramarae
    2014 “‘SlutWalk’ on Connected screens: Multiple Framings of a Social Media Discussion.” Journal of Pragmatics73(2): 66–81. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  50. Zimmermann, Tobias
    2015 “Between Individualism and Deliberation: Rethinking Discursive Participation via Social Media.” International Journal of Electric Governance7 (4): 349–365. 10.1504/IJEG.2015.074325
    https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2015.074325 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.19016.xia
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.19016.xia
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