The formation of social bonds in digital communication
what is the contribution of the theory of politeness and the expression of stance?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14393/DLv17a2023-3Keywords:
Phatic communication, Cyberpragmatics, Politeness, Stance-takingAbstract
In Cyberpragmatics, the field of Pragmatics that analyzes interactions in the digital environment, the use of phatic language is considered prominent. Because it is related to membership, connectivity, and the formation of social bonds, the phatic culture incites its users to constantly validate the other as an interlocutor, as well as to seek social approval. Drawing from this framework, this study aims to investigate how / if the formation of phatic effects is associated with stance-taking, and with the acknowledgment of the principles of politeness. To investigate this, we analyzed the interactions that took place in a professional training forum, developed within a teacher training course, offered by a Brazilian Federal University. In our data, the speech acts identified revealed concern of the forum participants with strengthening group membership and with being acknowledged as competent speakers. Data analysis has also suggested that the participants met the expectations of the verbal behavior required by the communicative situation, which, in the case of the forums, was associated with the acknowledgment of the interlocutor, as well as with enriching social contact. Furthermore, from the phatic viewpoint, the complexity of the digital interaction has revealed that the phatic culture may transcend the exchange of affective and/or insubstantial communication to become an inherent feature of the digital environment.
Downloads
Metrics
References
ANDRADE, P. V. S. Tutela da honra nas redes sociais: a contribuição possível da teoria da impolidez. 2019. 225 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Direito) – Faculdade de Direito, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 2019.
BROWN, P.; LEVINSON, S. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
CULPEPER, J. Politeness and impoliteness. In: AIJMER, K.; ANDERSEN, G. (ed.). Handbooks of pragmatics: sociopragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2011. p. 391-436.
CULPEPER, J.; BOUSFIELD, D.; WICHMANN, A. Impoliteness revisited: the special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 35, n. 10-11, p.1545-1579, 2003. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2
CUNHA, G. X.; TOMAZI. M. M. O uso agressivo da linguagem em uma audiência: uma abordagem discursiva e interacionista para o estudo da im/polidez. Calidoscópio, v. 17, n. 2, p. 297-319, 2019. DOI https://doi.org/10.4013/cld.2019.172.05
CUNHA, G. X.; OLIVEIRA, A. L. A. M. Teorias de im/polidez linguística: revisitando o estado da arte para uma contribuição teórica sobre o tema. Estudos da Língua(gem), v. 18, n. 2, p. 135-162, 2020.DOI https://doi.org/10.22481/el.v18i2.6409
DUBOIS, J. W. The stance triangle. In: ENGLEBRETSON, R. (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007. p. 139-182.DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du
ELIAS, N. O processo civilizador: uma história dos costumes. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2011.
ENGLEBRETSON, R. (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdã: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164
EVANS, A. Stance and identity in Twitter hashtags. Language@ internet, v. 13, n. 1, p. 47-63, 2016.
GARFINKEL, H. Studies in Ethnomethodoly. London: Routledge Press, 1967.
GOFFMAN, E. On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In: GOFFMAN, E. Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face behavior. New York, Pantheon Books. 1967[1955]. p. 5-45. DOI https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203788387-2
GOFFMAN, E. La mise em scène de la vie quotidienne: les relations em public. v. 2. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1973.
GOFFMAN, E. Footing. In: GOFFMAN, E. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981. p. 124-159.
GRAINGER, K. “We’re not in a club now”: a neo-Brown and Levinson approach to analyzing courtroom data. Journal of Politeness Research, v. 14, n. 1, p. 19-38, 2018. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2017-0039
HALLIDAY, M.; MATTHIESSEN, C. Halliday's introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge, 2013. DOI https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203431269
HAUGH, M. Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 58, p. 52-72, 2013. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003
HOLMES, J. Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 12, p. 445–465. 1988. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90005-7
JAKOBSON, R. Linguistics and poetics. In: JAKOBSON, R. Style in language. MA: MIT Press, 1960. p. 350-377.
KERBRAT-ORECCHIONI, C. Les interactions verbales. Paris: Colin, 1992.
LANDONE, E. Discourse markers and politeness in a digital forum in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 44, n. 13, p. 1799-1820, 2020. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.001
LEECH, G. N. The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014. DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
LOCHER, M. A.; WATTS, R. J. Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008.
LOSA, S.; FILLIETTAZ, L. Negotiating Social Legitimacy in and across Contexts: Apprenticeship in a 'Dual' Training System. In: ANGOURI, J.; MARRA, M.; HOLMES, J. (ed.). Negotiating Boundaries at Work: Talking and Transitions. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017. p. 109-129. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474403146-008
LYONS, W. E.; THOMPSON, A.; TIMMONS, V. We are inclusive. We are a team. Let's just do it’: commitment, collective efficacy, and agency in four inclusive schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, v. 20, n. 8, p. 889-907, 2016. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1122841
MALINOWSKI, B. Psycho-analysis and anthropology. Nature, v. 112, p. 650-651, 1923. DOI https://doi.org/10.1038/112650a0
MILLER, V. New media, networking and phatic culture. Convergence, v. 14, n. 4, 387-400, 2008. DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856508094659
OLIVEIRA, A. L. A. M.; CARNEIRO, M. A pragmatic view of hashtags: the case of impoliteness and offensive verbal behavior in the Brazilian Twitter. Acta Scientiarum. Language and Culture, v. 42, n. 1, p. 1-13, 2020. DOI https://doi.org/10.4025/actascilangcult.v42i1.50500
OLIVEIRA, A. L. A. M.; CUNHA, G. X.; AVELAR, F. T. Emojis como Estratégias de Reparo em Pedidos de Desculpas: um estudo sobre conversas em ambiente digital. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada, v. 57, n. 3, p. 1615-1635, 2018. DOI https://doi.org/10.1590/010318138653341440311
ORIHUELA, J. L. Internet: la hora de las redes sociales. Nueva Revista, v. 119, p. 57–62, 2008.
ORSINI-JONES, M.; LEE, F. Intercultural Communicative Competence for Global Citizenship: Identifying cyberpragmatic rules of engagement in telecollaboration. London: Springer, 2018. DOI https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58103-7
PLACENCIA, M. E.; LOWE A.; POWELL, H. Complimenting behaviour on Facebook: Responding to compliments in American English. Pragmatics and Society, v. 7, n. 3, p. 339-365, 2016. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.3.01pla
SPERBER, D.; WILSON, D. Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell, 2002.
SPENCER-OATEY, H. Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 39, p. 639—656, 2007. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004
TALWAR, V.; WILLIAMS, S. M.; RENAUD, S. J.; ARRUDA, C.; SAYKALY, C. Children’s evaluations of tattles, confessions, prosocial and antisocial lies. International Review of Pragmatics, v. 8, n. 2, p. 334-352, 2016. DOI https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00802007
TRIBUS, A. C. The communicative functions of language: an exploration of Roman Jakobson’s theory in TESOL. 2017. 212 f. Dissertação (Metrado) - SIT Graduate Institute, Brattleboro, 2017.
VETERE, F.; SMITH, J.; GIBBS, M. Phatic interactions: Being aware and feeling connected. In: SMITH, J.; GIBBS, M. (ed.). Awareness systems. London: Springer, 2009. p. 173-186. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-477-5_7
YUS, F. Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2011. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.213
YUS, F. An outline of some future research issues for internet pragmatics. Internet Pragmatics, v. 2, n. 1, p. 1-33, 2019. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00018.yus
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Ana Larissa Adorno Marciotto Oliveira, Gustavo Ximenes Cunha
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain the copyright and waiver the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), allowing the sharing of work with authorship recognition and preventing its commercial use.
Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
