Article published In: From Culture to Language and Back: The Animacy Hierarchy in language and discourse
Edited by Laure Gardelle and Sandrine Sorlin
[International Journal of Language and Culture 5:2] 2018
► pp. 248–270
*Sings myself happy birthday*
Externalizing and reassuming self in virtual performatives
Published online: 28 June 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00009.vir
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00009.vir
Abstract
This paper explores linguistic egocentrism in English through the lens of virtual performatives, i.e. self-referential stand-alone predications in the third person singular present tense through which users perform virtual action or emotion. The focus is on microblogging for apparently recreational purposes, where visibility, rather than reciprocity, must be a primary concern. Findings show that the common or garden virtual performative consistently relying on an externalized self occasionally turns into a variant where the self is subsequently reassumed, and then again possibly re-externalized within the same construction. The syntactic and discursive systematicity manifest in these constructions forbids treating them as erroneous. The paper discusses the benefits of this way of externalizing and optionally reassuming self, through fluctuation between third-person and first-person references, and touches upon metapragmatic awareness and logophoricity. In creating digital culture, virtual performatives point to users’ pragmatic adaptation of their public, social self to environments manifesting a high degree of context collapse.
Keywords: virtual performative, externalized self, reassumed self, pronouns, microblogging
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Materials and methods
- 3.Linguistic egocentrism and entry points
- 4.Externalizing self
- 5.Reassuming self
- 6.Enacting a microplay
- 7.On the dramatis persona ‘me’, stage directions, online commentary, and cartoons
- 8.Metapragmatic awareness
- 9.In search of logophoric notes
- 10.Concluding remarks
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (54)
Banks, J. (2017). Multimodal, multiplex, multispatial: A network model of the self. New Media & Society, 19(3), 419–438.
Cherny, L. (1995). The modal complexity of speech events in a social mud. Electronic Journal of Communication, 51. [URL]
Coesemans, R., & De Cock, B. (2017). Self-reference by politicians on Twitter: Strategies to adapt to 140 characters. Journal of Pragmatics, 1161, 37–50.
Cooper, W. E., & Ross, J. R. (1975). World order. In R. E. Grossman, L. J. San & T. J. Vance (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism (pp. 63–111). Chicago Linguistic Society.
van Dijck, J. (2013). ‘You have one identity’: Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society, 35(2), 199–215.
Ertel, S. (1977). Where do the subjects of sentences come from? In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Sentence production (pp. 141–167). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Georgakopoulou, A. (2013). Narrative analysis and computer-mediated communication. In S. C. Herring, D. Stein & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 695–715). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Gill, M. (2011). Authenticity. In J-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Pragmatics in practice: Handbook of pragmatics highlights, Vol. 91 (pp. 46–65). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hagège, C. (1974). Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 691, 287–310.
Hancock, J., & Gonzalez, A. (2013). Deception in computer-mediated communication. In S. C. Herring, D. Stein & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 363–383). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612–634). Oxford: Blackwell.
(2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 41, article 1, [URL]
(2012). Grammar and electronic communication. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
(2013). Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent. In D. Tannen & A. M. Trester (Eds.), Discourse 2.0: Language and new media (pp. 1–25). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Herring, S. C., & Kapidzic, S. (2015). Teens, gender, and self-presentation in social media. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. (pp. 146–152). Oxford: Elsevier.
Herring, S. C., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T. (Eds.) (2013). Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Honeycutt, C., & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. Proceedings of the forty-second Hawai’i international conference on system sciences (HICSS-42). Los Alamitos: IEEE Press.
Jespersen, O. (1949). A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part VII: Syntax. Copenhagen: Jørgensen.
Kolko, B. (1995). Building a world with words: The narrative reality of virtual communities. Works and Days 25/26, 13 (1/2), 105–126.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lee, C. (2011). Texts and practices of micro-blogging: Status updates on Facebook. In C. Thurlow & K. Mroczek (Eds.), Digital discourse: Language in the new media (pp. 110–128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2013). ‘My English is so poor…so I take photos’: Metalinguistic discourses about English on FlickR. In D. Tannen & A. M. Trester (Eds.), Discourse 2.0: Language and new media (pp. 73–83). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
(2014). Language choice and self-presentation in social media: the case of university students in Hong Kong. In P. Seargeant & C. Tagg (Eds.), The language of social media: Identity and community on the Internet (pp. 91–111). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Lindholm, L. (2010). ‘A little story for food for thought…’: Narratives in advice discourse. In S-K. Tanskanen, M. L. Helasvuo, M. Johansson & M. Raitaniemi (Eds.), Discourses in interaction (pp. 223–236). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Litt, E. (2012). “Knock, knock, who’s there?” The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 330–345.
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 31, 4–33.
Mühlhäusler, P., & Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Osgood, C. E., & Bock, J. K. (1977). Salience and sentencing: Some production principles. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Sentence production (pp. 89–140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Page, R. (2012b). The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 181–201.
Rettberg, J. W. (2014). Seeing ourselves through technology: How we use selfies, blogs and wearable devices to see and shape ourselves. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Robinson, L. (2007). The cyberself: The self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the digital era. New Media & Society, 9(1), 93–110.
Searle, J. R. (2001). How performatives work. In D. Vanderveken & S. Kubo (Eds.), Essays in speech act theory (pp. 85–107). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Simpson, J. (2013). Conversational floor in computer-mediated discourse. In S. C. Herring, D. Stein & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 515–538). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Sorlin, S. (2014). La stylistique anglaise: Théories et pratiques. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.
Verschueren, J. (1995). The conceptual basis of performativity. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds), Essays in semantics and pragmatics (pp. 299–321). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Virtanen, T. (2013a). Performativity in computer-mediated communication. In S. C. Herring, D. Stein & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 269–290). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
(2013b). 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, DC: Georgetown University Press.
(2015). Referring to oneself in the third person: A novel construction in text-based computer-mediated communication. In L. Gardelle & S. Sorlin (Eds.), The pragmatics of personal pronouns (pp. 215–238). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
(2017). Adaptability in online consumer reviews: Exploring genre dynamics and interactional choices. Journal of Pragmatics, 1161, 77–90.
Werry, C. C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 47–63). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Cited by (8)
Cited by eight other publications
Herring, Susan C. & Jing Ge-Stadnyk
2024. Emoji and illocutionarity. In Structures in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 345], ► pp. 124 ff.
Lindholm, Loukia
2024. Temporality in reaction GIFs as multimodal virtual performatives. In Structures in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 345], ► pp. 103 ff.
Sorlin, Sandrine
2024. How pragmatically (in)definite are you and
one?. In Structures in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 345], ► pp. 36 ff.
Wårvik, Brita
2024. Structures in discourse. In Structures in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 345], ► pp. 1 ff.
Virtanen, Tuija
Virtanen, Tuija
Virtanen, Tuija
Virtanen, Tuija
2024. Pretending to pretend. In The Pragmatics of Hypocrisy [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 343], ► pp. 187 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 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.
