Cover not available

Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 28:2 (2015) ► pp.465–485

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

The rhetoric of online support groups

A sociopragmatic analysis English-Spanish

 | Universitat Politècnica de València
Published online: 19 February 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.28.2.05per
The study draws on a diverse sample of adult users of online support groups to investigate how men and women engage in written conversations, and how these interactions are carried out in English and in Spanish contrastively. We will see to what extent female and male communicators in online support groups display similar power behaviours since some authors believe that these fora seem to provide a context where factors such as power and status are neutralised. In general, the detailed quantitative analysis suggests that women use powerless markers far more frequently than men. Therefore the findings support the contention that gender-based differences persist on the Internet, an arena which was initially believed to be free of built-in bias. On the other hand, the inter- and cross-cultural comparison indicates that the discourse practices in English include more powerless markers than those in Spanish. Interestingly, the abundant use of occurrences of formal addresses and polite forms displayed by men in Spanish may suggest that, in online support groups, men may be adopting communicative strategies traditionally associated with women’s discourse.
References (45)
Albelda, M. (2004). Cortesía en diferentes situaciones comunicativas, la conversación coloquial y la entrevista sociológica semiformal. In D. Bravo & A. Briz (Eds.), Pragmática sociocultural: Análisis del discurso de cortesía en español (pp. 109–134). Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Albelda, M., & Cestero, A.M. (2011). De nuevo, sobre los procedimientos de atenuación lingüística. Español Actual, 961, 9–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arguello, J., Butler, B.S., Joyce, E., Kraut, R., Ling, K.S., Rosé, C., & Wang, X. (2006). Talk to me: Foundations for successful individual-group interactions in online communities. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 959–968). ACM.
Barak, A., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Suler, J. (2008). Fostering empowerment in online support groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1867–1883. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Discourse pragmatics. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse and social interaction (pp. 38–63). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. (2013). Domestic violence and public participation in the media: The case of citizen journalism. Gender and Language, 7(3), 275–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Briz, A. (2012). La (no) atenuación y la (des) cortesía, lo lingüístico y lo social: ¿Son pareja? In J. Escamilla Morales & G. Henry Vega (Eds.), Miradas multidisciplinares a los fenómenos de cortesía y descortesía en el mundo hispánico (pp. 33–75). Barranquilla/Estocolmo: Universidad del Atlántico/Universidad de Estocolmo: Cadis, Programa Edice.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Briz, A., & Albelda, M. (2013). Una propuesta teórica y metodológica para el análisis de la atenuación lingüística en español y portugués: La base de un proyecto en común (ES.POR.ATENUACIÓN). Onomazéin, 281, 288–319. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. (Ed.). (2004). Language and woman’s place: Text and commentaries. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carstarphen, M.G., & Lambiase, J.J. (1998). Domination and democracy in cyberspace: Reports from the majority media and ethnic/gender margins. In B.L. Ebo (Ed.), Cyberghetto or cybertopia: Race, class, and gender on the Internet (pp. 121–135). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. Spoken and written language. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35–53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coates, J. (1989). Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups. In J. Coates & D. Cameron (Eds.), Women in their speech communities (pp. 94–122). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connor, U., Nagelhout, E., & Rozycki, W. (Eds.). (2008). Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davison, K.P., Pennebaker, J.W., & Dickerson, S.S. (2000). Who talks?: The social psychology of illness support groups. American Psychologist, 55(2), 205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2013). Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, A.B., Bukatko, D., Hallahan, M., & Crawford, M. (2007). The medium makes a difference: Gender similarities and differences in instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(4), 389–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fragale, A.R. (2006). The power of powerless speech: The effects of speech style and task interdependence on status conferral. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1011, 243–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1980). Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 341–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In G. Kaltenbock, W. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 15–35). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García Vizcaíno, M.J. (1988). Estrategias de cortesía verbal en inglés y en español. Tesis doctoral. Universidad de Granada (Spain).
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R.B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guiller, J., & Durndell, A. (2006). ‘I totally agree with you’: Gender interactions in educational online discussion groups. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5), 368–381. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasselgreen, A. (2004). Testing the spoken English of young Norwegians: A study of test validity and the role of “smallwords” in contributing to pupils’ fluency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haverkate, H. (2004). El análisis de la cortesía comunicativa, categorización pragmalingüística de la cultura española. In D. Bravo & A. Briz (Eds.), Pragmática sociocultural: Análisis del discurso de cortesía en español (pp. 55–65). Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herring, S.C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online communities. In S.A. Barab, R. Kling, & J.H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herring, S.C., & Stoerger, S. (2014). Gender and (a)nonymity in computer-mediated communication. In S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff, & J. Holmes (Eds.), The handbook of language, gender, and sexuality (pp. 567–586). London: John Wihley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hobsbawn, E. (1994). Ages of extremes: The short twentieth century 1914-1991. St Ives: Abacus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study of meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In P. Peranteau, J. Levi, & G. Phares (Eds.), Papers from the Eight Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 183–228). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2004). Language and woman’s place with annotations by the author. In M. Bucholtz (Ed.), Language and woman’s place: Text and commentaries (pp. 16–120). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Markkanen, R., & Schröder, H. (1997). Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 3–18). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mendiluce Cabrera, G.M., & Hernández Bartolomé, A.I. (2005). La matización asertiva en el artículo biomédico: una propuesta de clasificación para los estudios contrastivos inglés-español. Ibérica, 101, 63–90.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mo, P.K., Malik, S.H., & Coulson, N.S. (2009). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: A systematic literature review of online health-related support groups. Patient education and counseling, 75(1), 16–24. Available at: [URL] Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ng, S.H., & Bradac, J.J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Barr, W.M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Barr, W.M., & Atkins, B.K. (1980). Women’s language “or” powerless language. In S. McConnell-Ginet (Ed.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 93–110). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parton, S.R., Siltanen, S.A., Hosman, L.A., & Langenderfer, J. (2002). Employment interview outcomes and speech style effects. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(2), 144–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez-Sabater, C. (2011). Cartas por Internet: Las implicaciones lingüísticas y estilísticas de los mensajes de correo electrónico y los comentarios del sitio de redes sociales FACEBOOK. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 241, 111–130.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez-Sabater, C., & Montero-Fleta, B. (2014). Pragmatic competence and social power awareness: The case of written and spoken discourse in non-native English environments. International Journal of English Studies, 14(2), 21–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poveda Cabanes, P. (2007). A contrastive analysis of hedging in English and Spanish architecture project descriptions. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 201, 139–158.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seale, C., Ziebland, S., & Charteris-Black, J. (2006). Gender, cancer experience and internet use: A comparative keyword analysis of interviews and online cancer support groups. Social Science & Medicine, 62(10), 2577–2590. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sussman, N.M., & Tyson, D.H. (2000). Sex and power: Gender differences in computer-mediated interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(4), 381–394. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Urmson, J.O. (1952). IV.—Parenthetical verbs. Mind, 61(244), 480–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Maíz-Arévalo, Carmen
2026. “You Look Divine!”: An AI-Assisted Analysis of Supportive Strategies To Transgender Groups on Spanish-Speaking Reddit. Corpus Pragmatics 10:1 DOI logo
Bou-Franch, Patricia
2016. ‘Did he really rape these bitches?’. In Exploring Language Aggression against Women [Benjamins Current Topics, 86], ► pp. 1 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