In:The Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline: Personal - group - collective
Edited by Birte Bös, Sonja Kleinke, Sandra Mollin and Nuria Hernández
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 78] 2018
► pp. 133–152
Get fulltext
Identity and metapragmatic acts in a student forum discussion thread
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 23 July 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.78.06tan
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.78.06tan
Abstract
Starting with the idea that identity is dynamic, interactive and contextualised, the present study offers a close reading of a discussion thread from an online student discussion forum. During the discussion, the interactants both construct identity with language and use identity in order to frame and evaluate their own and others’ contributions. The discussion turns into a metapragmatic debate in which the interactants move away from the topic of the discussion to talk about who is allowed to say what on the topic. The analysis shows how a participant whose identity is flexible is challenged by the other participants, for whom her identity is defined from the beginning, as she self-positions as an outsider. Her contributions are evaluated against this positioning, and for the others her identity resists change.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Constructing identity
- 2.1Identity and interaction
- 2.2Identity and metapragmatics
- 3. Material: The Student Room
- 4.Identity and metapragmatic acts in the Freshers Week discussion
- 4.1Laurelei’s self-positioning as continental
- 4.2Laurelei’s self-positioning as British
- 4.3Laurelei’s self-positioning as someone with a dual nationality
- 5.Discussion and conclusions
Notes References
References (47)
Primary sources
The Student Room. Retrieved from: [URL]
Secondary sources
Adrianson, L., & Hjelmquist, E. (1991). Group processes in face-to-face and computer-mediated interaction. Behaviour and Information Technology 10(4): 281–296.
Antaki, C., & Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identity as an achievement and as a tool. In C. Antaki, & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in Talk (pp. 1–14). London: SAGE.
Avgerinakou, A. (2003). Flaming in computer-mediated interaction. In C. B. Grant (Ed.), Rethinking Communicative Interaction (pp. 273–293). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bamberg, M., De Fina, A., & Schiffrin, D. (2011). Discourse and identity construction. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of Identity Theory and Research (pp. 377–396). Berlin: Springer.
Baron, N. S. (1984). Computer mediated communication as a force in language change. Visible Language, XVIII(2): 118–141.
Bolander, B. (2012). Disagreements and agreements in personal/diary blogs: A closer look at responsiveness. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12): 1607–1622.
Bolander, B., & Locher, M. A. (2010). Constructing identity on Facebook: Report on a pilot study. In K. Junod, & D. Maillat (Eds.), Performing the Self (pp. 165–185). Tübingen: Narr Francke.
Bou-Franch, P., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2014). Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics, 73(1): 19–36.
Bruckman, A. (2002). Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on disguising data collected in human subjects research on the internet. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3): 217–231.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5): 585–614.
Caffi, C. (1998). Metapragmatics. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (pp. 581–586). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Culpeper, J., & Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1): 43–63.
de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (1999). The discursive construction of national identities. Discourse & Society, 10(2): 149–173.
De Fina, A. (2003). Identity in Narrative: A Study of Immigrant Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2006). Group identity, narrative and self-representations. In A. De Fina, D. Schiffrin, & M. Bamberg (Eds.), Discourse and Identity (pp. 351–375). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Delahunty, J. (2012). ‘Who am I?’ Exploring identity in online discussion forums. International Journal of Educational Research, 53: 407–420.
Derks, D., Bos, A. E. R., & von Grumbkow, J. (2007). Emoticons and social interaction on the internet: The importance of social context. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1): 842–849.
Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20(3): 249–268.
Garcia, A. C., & Jacobs, J. B. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4): 337–367.
Georgakopoulou, A. (2003). Computer-mediated communication. In J. Verschueren, J -O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Graham, S. L. (2007). Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4): 742–759.
(2008). A manual for (im)politeness? The impact of the FAQ in electronic communities of practice. In D. Bousfield, & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp. 281–304). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2001). Language use in computer-mediated communication: The role of coordination devices. Discourse Processes, 31(1): 91–110.
Harrison, S. (2000). Maintaining the virtual community: Use of politeness strategies in an email discussion group. In L. Pemberton, & S. Shurville (Eds.), Words on the Web: Computer Mediated Communication (pp. 69–78). Exeter/Portland, OR: Intellect Books.
Haugh, M. (2010). When is an email really offensive? Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1): 7–31.
Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13(2): 225–252.
Hübler, A., & Bublitz, W. (2007). Introducing metapragmatics in use. In W. Bublitz, & A. Hübler (Eds.), Metapragmatics in Use (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kleinke, S., & Bös, B. (2015). Intergroup rudeness and the metapragmatics of its negotiation in online discussion fora. In M. Locher, B. Bolander, & N. Höhn (Eds.), Relational Work in CMC. Special issue of Pragmatics, 25(1): 47–71.
(2018). Indeterminate us and them: The complexities of referentiality, identity and group construction in a public online discussion. In B. Bös, S. Kleinke, N. Hernández, & S. Mollin (eds.), The Discursive Construction of Identities: Personal–Group–Collective (pp. 153–176). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Kopytowska, M. (2012). Editorial: Critical perspectives on ideology, identity and interaction. CADAAD, 5(2): i–xiv.
Locher, M. A. (2010). Introduction: Politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1): 1–5.
Locher, M. A., & Bolander, B. (2015). Humour in microblogging: Exploiting linguistic humour strategies for identity construction in two Facebook focus groups. In M. Dynel, & J. Chovanec (Eds.), Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions (pp. 135–155). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Locher, M. A., & Hoffmann, S. (2006). The emergence of the identity of a fictional expert advice-giver in an American internet advice column. Text & Talk, 26(1): 67–104.
Ortega, L., & Zyzik, E. (2008). Online interactions and L2 learning: Some ethical challenges for L2 researchers. In S. Sieloff Magnan (Ed.), Mediating Discourse Online (pp. 331–355). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tanskanen, S -K. (2007). Metapragmatic utterances in computer-mediated interaction. In W. Bublitz, & A. Hübler (Eds.), Metapragmatics in Use (pp. 87–106). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2014). ”Eipäs nyt puhuta omia”: Metapragmaattiset kommentit opiskelijoiden keskustelupalstoilla. In M -L. Helasvuo, M. Johansson, & S -K. Tanskanen (Eds.), Kieli verkossa: Näkökulmia digitaaliseen vuorovaikutukseen (pp. 51–74). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Thompson, D., & Filik, R. (2016). Sarcasm in written communication: Emoticons are efficient markers of intention. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(2): 105–120.
Verschueren, J. (2000). Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics, 10(4): 439–456.
Waugh, L. R. (2008). Shifting linguistic identities in interaction: The case of a French-English bilingual. In M. Mantero, P. Miller, & J. Watzke (Eds.), Readings in Language Studies: Volume 1: Language Across Disciplinary Boundaries (pp. 211–227). St Louis, MO: International Society for Language Studies, Inc.
(2010). Pronominal choice in French conversational interaction: Indices of national identity in identity acts. In S -K. Tanskanen, M -L. Helasvuo, M. Johansson, & M. Raitaniemi (Eds.), Discourses in Interaction (pp. 81–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
Biri, Ylva & Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen
Yamaguchi, Masataka & Risako Ide
Pakkala-Weckström, Mari
Schneider, Klaus P.
Johansson, Marjut, Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen & Jan Chovanec
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa
2024. “Ding ding ding we have a hypocrite!”. In The Pragmatics of Hypocrisy [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 343], ► pp. 74 ff.
Xie, Chaoqun, Francisco Yus & Hartmut Haberland
2021. Introduction. In Approaches to Internet Pragmatics [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 318], ► pp. 1 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
