Cover not available

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. 177–202

Get fulltext
PDF logo with download linkDownload Chapter PDF

“no prizes to anybody spotting my typo, by the way”

The interplay between criticism and identity management in the comments sections on newspaper websites

 | University of Heidelberg, Germany
Open Access logo
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
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.78.08ell
Abstract
Criticising others not only seems to be one of the core functions of comments posted on newspaper websites, but also an intriguing means to perform identity work. This paper therefore consists of a fine-grained analysis of the discursive construction of identity in critical comments posted on the websites of the Guardian and the Times. Drawing on the framework proposed by Bucholtz and Hall (2005, 2010), the study explores how the users construe and negotiate not only the identity of the person criticised in their comments, but also their own. Focusing on criticism targeting the journalist and prior commenters, it reveals how criticism can be used to foreground certain identity aspects and uncovers the different strategies employed for this purpose.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data, goals and methodology
  • 3.The communicative situation
  • 4.The discursive moves of criticism and disagreement
  • 5.Targets of criticism
  • 6.Aspects criticised and forms of criticism
    • 6.1Criticising the journalist
      • 6.1.1Journalistic quality and identifying the target
      • 6.1.2Challenging argument/reasoning
      • 6.1.3Attitude/character
      • 6.1.4Lack of integrity (balance, completeness, objectivity)
      • 6.1.5Minor aspects
    • 6.2Criticising other comment writers
  • 7.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (57)
References
Androutsopoulos, J. K. (2013). Online data collection. In C. Mallinson, B. Childs, & G. van Herk (Eds.), Data Collection in Sociolinguistics: Methods and Applications (pp. 235–249). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Angouri, J. (2012). Managing disagreement in problem solving meeting talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12): 1565–1579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Angouri, J., & Tseliga, T. (2010). “You have no idea what you are talking about!” From e-disagreement to e-impoliteness in two online fora. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1): 57–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baym, N. K. (1996). Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 29(4): 315–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bell, A. (1991). The Language of News Media. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolander, B. (2012). Disagreements and agreements in personal/diary blogs: A closer look at responsiveness. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12): 1607–1622. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Language and Power in Blogs: Interaction, Disagreements and Agreements. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Retrieved from [URL]
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5): 585–614. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Locating identity in language. In C. Llamas, & D. Watt (Eds.), Language and Identities (pp. 18–28). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Community standards and participation guidelines: 10 guidelines which we expect all participants in the Guardian’s community areas to abide by. (2009). Retrieved from [URL]
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3): 349–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12): 3232–3245. doi : Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diani, G. (2015). Politeness. In K. Aijmer, & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 169–191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Domingo, D. (2011). Managing audience participation: Practices, workflows and strategies. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, Z. Reich, & M. Vujnovic (Eds.), Participatory Journalism (pp. 76–95). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DuBois, J. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eller, M. (2017). Reader Response in the Digital Age: Letters to the editor vs. below-the-line comments. A synchronic comparison, (Doctoral dissertation, University of Heidelberg). Retrieved from [URL]. Cite to nonCR Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, A., & Weizman, E. (2015). Following up across contexts and discourse domains: Introduction. In E. Weizman, & A. Fetzer (Eds.), Follow-Ups in Political Discourse. Explorations Across Contexts and Discourse Domains (pp. ix–xix). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gruber, H. (2001). Questions and strategic orientation in verbal conflict sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(12): 1815–1857. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heinonen, A. (2011). The journalist’s relationship with users: New dimensions to conventional roles. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, Z. Reich, & M. Vujnovic (Eds.), Participatory Journalism (pp. 34–55). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T. A. van Dijk, (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3, Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 95–119). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Harlow, England, New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson, M. (2015). Bravo for this editorial!: Users’ comments in discussion forums. In E. Weizman, & A. Fetzer (Eds.), Follow-Ups in Political Discourse. Explorations Across Contexts and Discourse Domains (pp. 83–107). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kleinke, S. (2007). Sprachliche Strategien verbaler Ablehnung in öffentlichen Diskussionsforen im Internet. In S. K. Herrmann, S. Krämer, & H. Kuch (Eds.), Verletzende Worte. Die Grammatik Sprachlicher Missachtung (pp. 311–336). Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Interactive aspects of computer-mediated communication: ‘Disagreement’ in an English and a German public news group. In S. -K. Tanskanen, M. -L. Helasvuo, M. Johansson, & M. Raitaniemi (Eds.), Discourses in Interaction (pp. 195–222). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society, 22(2): 193–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langlotz, A., & Locher, M. A. (2012). Ways of communicating emotional stance in online disagreements: Theorising disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12): 1591–1606. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Retrieved from [URL]
(2006). Advice Online: Advice-Giving in an American Internet Health Column. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Retrieved from [URL]
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1): 9–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luzón, M. J. (2011). ‘Interesting post, but I disagree’: Social presence and antisocial behaviour in academic weblogs. Applied Linguistics, 32(5): 517–540. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Thompson, E. R. (2008). ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ advice: How to advise more effectively. In M. T. Motley (Ed.), Studies in Applied Interpersonal Communication (pp. 145–164). Los Angeles, etc.: SAGE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Green, A. S. (2002). Virtual group dynamics. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1): 116–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(3): 225–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neurauter-Kessels, M. (2011). Im/polite reader responses on British online news sites. Journal of Politeness Research, 7(2): 187–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
OED. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pfister, M. (2001). Das Drama: Theorie und Analyse. München: Fink.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 57–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reich, Z. (2011). User comments: The transformation of participatory space. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, Z. Reich, & M. Vujnovic (Eds.), Participatory Journalism (pp. 96–117). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., & Masip, P. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16: 463–487. Retrieved from [URL]
Schiffrin, D. (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society, 13(3): 311–335. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from [URL]
Tannen, D. (2002). Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10–11): 1651–1669. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Terbush, J. (2013, September 25). Is it time to kill the comments section?: Haters gonna hate, trolls gonna troll. Retrieved from [URL]
The Guardian’s Editorial Code. (2007). Retrieved from [URL]
Upadhyay, S. R. (2010). Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(1): 105–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Upton, T. A., & Cohen, M. A. (2009). An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as example. Discourse Studies, 11(5): 585–605. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Virtanen, T. (2013). Mock performatives in online discussion boards: Toward a discourse-pragmatic model of computer-mediated communication. In D. Tannen, & A. M. Trester (Eds.), Discourse 2.0. Language and New Media (pp. 155–166). Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kehoe, Andrew & Matt Gee
2019. “Thanks for the donds”. In Reference and Identity in Public Discourses [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 306], ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo

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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue