Volume 14, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper details the use of parentheses as pragmatic strategies in Chinese network socialization. The data were collected from Weibo, Wechat, QQ and other online social platforms, and analyzed from the perspective of Cyberpragmatics. We consider the pragmatic features and functions of parentheses as an indivisible part of the whole unit in relation to emojis or graphicons. As pragmatic strategies, parentheses aid speakers in indirectly performing various pragmatic intentions, like adding supplementary information to the interaction, isolating different topics, and contrasting content between the text outside and within parentheses. Further pragmatic functions realized by parentheses include indirectly conveying intention, relieving communicative awkwardness and adjusting interlocutors expectations. We conclude that using parentheses as pragmatic strategies in network socialization is the result of the evolution of the Internet language, and varies from the use of other emojis, which directly convey intentions and meaning.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aslan, Erhan
    2017 “The impact of face systems on the pragmalinguistic features of academic e-mail requests.” Pragmatics and Society8(1): 61–84. 10.1075/ps.8.1.04asl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.1.04asl [Google Scholar]
  2. Bajcar, Beata and Jolanta Babiak
    2020 “Neuroticism and cyberchondria: The mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty and defensive pessimism.” Personality and Individual Differences1621. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110006 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. Chang, Wei-Lin Melody and Michael Haugh
    2011 “Strategic embarrassment and face threatening in business interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics431: 2948–2963. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  5. Dainas, Ashley R. and Susan C. Herring
    2021 Interpreting emoji pragmatics. InApproaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and practice. Eds. byChaoqun Xie, Francisco Yus and Hartmut Haberland, 107–144. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.318.04dai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.318.04dai [Google Scholar]
  6. Eisenchlas, Susana A.
    2011 “On-line interactions as a resource to raise pragmatic awareness.” Journal of Pragmatics431: 51–61. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.013 [Google Scholar]
  7. Feng, Hairong
    2015 “Understanding cultural variations in giving advice among Americans and Chinese.” Communication Research42 (8): 143–1167. 10.1177/0093650213486668
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213486668 [Google Scholar]
  8. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Doubleday and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Grice, Herbert P.
    1975Logic and conversation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gu, Yueguo
    1990 “Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics14(2): 237–257. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90082‑O
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O [Google Scholar]
  11. Haugh, Michael
    2016 “‘Just kidding’: Teasing and claims to non-serious intent.” Journal of Pragmatics951: 120–136. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Haugh, Michael and Derek Bousfield
    2012 “Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English.” Journal of Pragmatics441: 1099–1114. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Haugh, Michael and Wei-Lin Melody Chang
    2019 “The apology seemed (in)sincere”: Variability in perceptions of (im)politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics1421: 207–222. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.11.022 [Google Scholar]
  14. Holmes, Janet, Meredith Marra and Bernadette Vine
    2012 Politeness and impoliteness in New Zealand English workplace discourse. Journal of Pragmatics441: 1063–1076. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  15. Horgan, Mervyn
    2020 “Urban interaction ritual Strangership, civil inattention and everyday incivilities in public space.” Pragmatics30(1): 116–141. 10.1075/prag.19022.hor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19022.hor [Google Scholar]
  16. Kiesling, Scott F. and Elka G. Johnson
    2010 “Four forms of interactional indirection.” Journal of Pragmatics421: 292–306. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  17. Leech, Geoffrey
    1983Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman 1983.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Leech, Geoffrey and Mick Short
    2007Style in Fiction-A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose (2nd Edition). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara
    2020 “Culture-driven emotional profiles and online discourse extremism.” Pragmatics and Society11(2): 262–291. 10.1075/ps.18069.lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18069.lew [Google Scholar]
  20. Locher, Miriam A. and Richard J. Watts
    2005 “Politeness theory and relational work.” Journal of Politeness Research1 (1): 9–33. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9 [Google Scholar]
  21. Luo, Luxin
    2018 “Variations of Online Punctuation: Bracket+.” Journal of Shenyang University (Social Science) 20(04): 472–476.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Mak, Bernie Chun Nam
    2020 “Doing business and constructing identities through small talk in workplace instant messaging.” Pragmatics and Society10(4): 559–583. 10.1075/ps.16064.mak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.16064.mak [Google Scholar]
  23. Mey, Jacob L.
    2001Pragmatics: An Introduction (second edition). Oxford: Blackwell [1993].
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2018 Review of Osamu Sawada 2018. Pragmatic aspects of scalar modifiers: The semantics-pragmatics interface. Pragmatics and Society9(4): 654–656. 10.1075/ps.00011.mey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.00011.mey [Google Scholar]
  25. 2021 Expanding pragmatics: Values, goals, ranking, and internet adaptability. InApproaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and practice, ed. byChaoqun Xie, Francisco Yus and Hartmut Haberland: 27–45. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.318.01mey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.318.01mey [Google Scholar]
  26. Miller, Elizabeth R.
    2013 “Positioning selves, doing relational work and constructing identities in interview talk.” Journal of Politeness Research9(1): 75–95. 10.1515/pr‑2013‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2013-0004 [Google Scholar]
  27. Morini, Massimiliano
    2013The Pragmatic Translator: An Integral Theory of Translation. London, New Delhi, New York, N.Y. and Sydney: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Norem, Julie K.
    2008 “Defensive pessimism, anxiety, and the complexity of evaluating self-regulation.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass2(1): 121–134. 10.1111/j.1751‑9004.2007.00053.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00053.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Placencia, Maria Elena, Amanda Lower and Hebe Powell Birkbeck
    2016 “Complimenting behaviour on Facebook Responding to compliments in American English.” Pragmatics and Society7(3): 339–365. 10.1075/ps.7.3.01pla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.3.01pla [Google Scholar]
  30. Rosenthal, Robert, and Lenore Jacobson
    1968Pygmalion in the classroom: teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 10.1007/BF02322211
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02322211 [Google Scholar]
  31. Searle, John R.
    1975 “Indirect speech acts.” InSyntax and Semantics. Speech Acts, ed. ByPeter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 59–82. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_004
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_004 [Google Scholar]
  32. Shen, Jiaxuan
    2016Nouns and Verbs. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Watts, Richard J.
    2003Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  34. Xie, Chaoqun, Francisco Yus, and Hartmut Haberland
    eds. 2021Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and practice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.318
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.318 [Google Scholar]
  35. Yip, Jesse W.C.
    2020 “Directness of advice giving in traditional Chinese medicine consultations.” Journal of Pragmatics1661: 28–38. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.016 [Google Scholar]
  36. Yus, Francisco
    2005 Attitudes and emotions through written text: the case of textual deformation in Internet chat rooms. Pragmalingua131: 147–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2011Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.213
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.213 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2014 “Not All Emoticons Are Created Equal.” Linguagem em (dis)curso14 (3): 511–529. 10.1590/1982‑4017‑140304‑0414
    https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-140304-0414 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2017 “Contextual constraints and non-propositional effects in Whats App communication.” Journal of Pragmatics1141: 66–86. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2018 “Identity-related issues in meme communication.” Internet Pragmatics1(1): 113–133. 10.1075/ip.00006.yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00006.yus [Google Scholar]

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