Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 7:3 (2016) ► pp.463–481

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The role of metapragmatic expressions as pragmatic manipulation in a TV panel discussion program

 | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China
 | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China
Published online: 15 September 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.3.06liu
This study explores the role of metapragmatic expressions (MPEs) as pragmatic manipulation in a media context, with data drawn from a Chinese TV panel discussion program Tiger Talk. It argues that the program host selects MPEs to manipulate the ongoing interactions, in order to solve or prevent the actual or potential problems in the interactions. Hence, the functioning of MPEs is described as a process consisting of three stages: problem awareness, pragmatic manipulation, and problem resolution or prevention. It is found that the host mainly uses five types of MPEs, i.e. performatives, commentaries, evidentials, message glosses, and stance displayers for the sake of pragmatic manipulation across the three dimensions of interactive procedure control, rapport management, and impact monitoring. The article concludes that the host’s pragmatic manipulation of the ongoing interactions, driven by both institutional and interpersonal concerns, is motivated by his institutional rights and obligations as a program manager.
References (25)
Caffi, Claudia. 1984. “Introduction”. Journal of Pragmatics 81: 433–435. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. “Metapragmatics”. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2461–2466. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. “Metapragmatics”. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition, 82–88. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ciliberti, Anna, and Laurie Anderson. 2007. “Metapragmatic Comments in Institutional Talk: A Comparative Analysis Across Settings.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram 
Bublitz and Axel Hübler, 143–166. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Saussure, Louis. 2005. “Manipulation and Cognitive Pragmatics: Preliminary Hypotheses.” In Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, ed. by Louis de Saussure and Peter Schulz, 113–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in Public: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel. 2011. “Metapragmatics.” In Foundations of Pragmatics, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Neal R. Norrick, 107–136. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel, and Wolfram Bublitz. 2007. “Introducing Metapragmatics in Use.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler, 1–26. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005/2008. Metadiscourse. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1988. Generalized Conversational Implicatures and the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 1993/2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Penz, Hermine. 2007. “Building Common Ground through Metapragmatic Comments in International Project Work.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler, 263–292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ran, Yongping. 2013. “The Metapragmatic Negation as a Rapport-Oriented Mitigating Device”. Journal of Pragmatics 481: 98–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo. 2005. “Towards a Typology of Manipulative Processes.” In Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, language, mind, ed. by Louis de Saussure and Peter Schulz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1993. “Metapragmatic Discourse and Metapragmatic Function.” In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. by John A. Lucy, 33–58. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Sara W., and Xiaoping Liang. 2007. “Metapragmatic Expressions in Physics Lectures.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler, 167–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. 2007. “Metapragmatic Utterances in Computer-Mediated Interaction.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler, 87–106. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2006. “Discourse and Manipulation”. Discourse and Society 17(2): 359–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1999/2000. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2024. The Roles of Reflexivity in Meaning Negotiation and Sense-Making in a Courtroom Genre. In New Frontiers in Pragmalinguistic Studies [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 37], ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Chaemsaithong, Krisda & Kewalin Simuang
2022. The pragmatics of metapragmatics in death trials. Journal of Pragmatics 199 ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Ping & Huiying Liu
2022. Pragmatic manipulation of metapragmatic expressions in BELF meetings. Applied Pragmatics 4:1 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Schneider, Klaus P.
2022. Referring to Speech Acts in Communication: Exploring Meta-Illocutionary Expressions in ICE-Ireland. Corpus Pragmatics 6:2 ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Huiying & Ping Liu
2019. Common ground and metapragmatic expressions in BELF meetings: A response to Zhang and Wu. Journal of Pragmatics 148 ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo
Mulder, Jean, Cara Penry Williams & Erin Moore
2019.  Sort of in Australian English. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 29:1 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Orange, Victoria
2019. The 4E Encounter. In Supercomplexity in Interaction, ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Huiyu & Yicheng Wu
2019. (Core) common ground and the role of metapragmatic expressions: A comment on Liu and Liu (2017). Journal of Pragmatics 148 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 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