Article published In: Internet Pragmatics
Vol. 1:1 (2018) ► pp.161–183
Commenting on in-memoriam columns
Juggling with deliberative and epidictic norms
Published online: 28 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00008.wei
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00008.wei
Abstract
The discussion in this paper proposes to shed light on a hitherto under-researched area: commenting on in-memoriam columns. Borrowing the basic notions of deliberative and epidictic genres from classical rhetoric and accommodating them to a pragmatic study of online interaction between commenters and columnists, readers’ comments are conceived as follow-ups, which necessarily re-contextualize the initiating column. The mixed character of the initiating columns, which combine deliberative and epidictic features, encourages the commenters to choose between different readings of the columns in context, and exercise their discursive power in re-contextualizing the commenting/column interaction. The analysis suggests that in the data discussed here, commenters manifest clear preference for the epidictic. By so doing, they depart from norms of deliberation manifest in habitual political commenting. On a more general level, the analysis supports the initial claim, namely that by choosing between different readings of the initiating columns and following-up on them, commenters have the discursive power to shape and re-shape the interaction through preferred commenting strategies.
Keywords: online commenting, epidictic, deliberative, follow-ups, genres
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Commenting in online journalism
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1Background
- 3.2Data
- 4.Deliberative and epidictic genres
- 5.Enhancing deliberation: Ad-rem and ad-hominem commenting
- 6.Enhancing the epidictic
- 6.1Eulogistic formulae
- 6.2Emotional expressions
- 6.3Praising comments
- 7.Between deliberation and epidictic: The mixed type
- 8.Concluding remarks
- Notes
References
References (37)
Amossy, Ruth. 2000. L’argumentation dans le Discours: Discours Politique, Littérature d’Idées. Nathan: Paris.
Amossy, Ruth, and Roselyne Koren. 2010. “La <diabolisation>: Un avatar du discours polémique au prisme des présidentielles de 2007.” In Au Corps du Texte: Hommage à Georges Molinié, ed. by Delphine Denis, Mireille Huchon, Anna Jaubert, Michael Rinn, and Olivier Soutet, 219–236. Champion: Paris.
Aristotle. 1954. Rhetoric (transl. by W. Rhys Roberts, Ingram Bywater, and Friedrich Solmsen). New York: Modern Library.
Atkin, Hila. 2016. Readers’ Comments on Op-Eds – Evaluation and Response to Irony. M. A. thesis, Bar-Ilan University.
Benziman, Uzzi. 2011. Aharey Mot, Ha’ayin hashvi’it (after death, The Seventh Eye) 351, 01.11.2011. (in Hebrew)
Bohman, James. 2004. “Expanding dialogue: the Internet, the public sphere and prospects for transnational democracy.” In After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere, ed. by Nick Crossley, and John Michael Roberts, 131–155. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dori-Haohen, Gonen, and Nimrod Shavit. 2013. “The cultural meanings of Israeli Tokbek (Talk-Back Online Commenting) and their relevance to the online democratic public sphere.” International Journal of Electronic Governance 6 (4): 361–379.
Fetzer, Anita, and Elda Weizman. 2015. “Introduction.” In Follow-Ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across Contexts and Discourse Domains, ed. by Elda Weizman, and Anita Fetzer, IX–XIX. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fetzer, Anita, Elda Weizman, and Larry N. Berlin (eds.). 2015. The Dynamics of Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
. 1978. “Further notes on logic and conversation.” In Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantic 9), ed. by Peter Cole, 113–127. New York: Academic Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Johansson, Marjut. 2015. “Bravo for this editorial: writer’s opinions in comment sections.” In Follow-Ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across contexts and discourse domains, ed. by Elda Weizman, and Anita Fetzer, 219–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Johansson, Marjut, Sonja Kleinke, and Lotta Lehti. 2017. “The digital agora of social media: Introduction.” Discourse shulxan arux Context & Media 191:1–4.
Karo, Yossef. 1563. “Shulchan Arux, yore dea.” [Set Table, Will Teach Knowledge] 3441:2. Torat emet online. [URL]. Acc. May 2017. (in Hebrew)
Kleinke, Sonia. 2010. “Interactive aspects of computer-mediated communication: ‘Disagreement’ in an English and German public news group.” In Discourses in Interaction, ed. by Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, Marjut Johansson, and Mia Raitaniemi, 195–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kohn, Ayelet, and Motti Neiger. 2007. “To talk and talkback: Analyzing the rhetoric of talkbacks in online journalism.” Online Newspapers in Israel, ed. by Tehila Shwattz-Altshuler, 321–350. Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. (in Hebrew)
Laërtius, Diogenes. (3rd century AD. tr. 1959). Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, Book 1(transl. by Robert Drew Hicks). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Linell, Per. 1998. Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Context in Dialogic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Manosevitch, Idit. 2011. “User generated content in the Israeli online journalism Landscape.” Israel Affairs 1731: 422–444.
Papacharissi, Zizi. 2014. Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (transl. by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver). Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Quintillian, Institutio Oratoria Book III (transl. by H. E. Butler). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. [URL], acc. May 15, 2017.
Richardson, John E., and James Stanyer. 2011. “Reader opinion in the digital age: tabloid and broadsheet newspaper websites and the exercise of political voice.” Journalism 12(8): 983–1003.
Roeh, Itzhak. 1982. The Rhetoric of News in the Israel Radio: Some Implications of Language and Style for Newstelling. Bochum: Studienverlag N. Brockmeyer.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1981. “Irony and the use-mention distinction.” In Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 295–318. New York: Academic Press.
Upadhyay, Shiv R. 2010. “Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses.” Journal of Politeness Research 6 (1): 105–127.
Weizman, Elda. 2011. “Conveying indirect reservations through discursive redundancy.” Language Sciences 33(2): 295–304.
. 2012. “Negotiating irony through follow-ups: Readers’ comments on op-eds in the daily press.” In Proceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-ups across Discourse Domains: A Cross-cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May-2 June 2012, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Elizabeth Reber. [URL]
. 2015. “Irony in and through follow-ups: talk and meta-talk in online commenting.” In The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-ups, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence N. Berlin, 173–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2016. “Ironic commenting on op-eds: Obstructing discussion.” Israel Studies in Language and Society 9 (1–2):184–208. (in Hebrew)
Weizman, Elda, and Anita Fetzer (eds.). 2015. Follow-Ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across Contexts and Discourse Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Weizman, Elda
Weizman, Elda & Zohar Livnat
Xie, Chaoqun, Francisco Yus & Hartmut Haberland
2021. Introduction. In Approaches to Internet Pragmatics [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 318], ► pp. 1 ff.
Marmorstein, Michal & Jennifer Sclafani
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 march 2026. 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.
