Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Language in Context Studies
- Part I Language in Context: A Sociohistorical Perspective
- Part II Philosophical, Semantic, and Grammatical Approaches to Context
- Part III Pragmatic Approaches to Context
- Part IV Applications of Context Studies
- Part V Advances in Multimodal and Technological Context-Based Research
- 19 Nonverbal Communication and Context: Multimodality in Interaction
- 20 AI, Human–Robot Interaction, and Natural Language Processing
- 21 Social Media and Computer-Mediated Communication
- Index
- References
21 - Social Media and Computer-Mediated Communication
from Part V - Advances in Multimodal and Technological Context-Based Research
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 November 2023
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Language in Context Studies
- Part I Language in Context: A Sociohistorical Perspective
- Part II Philosophical, Semantic, and Grammatical Approaches to Context
- Part III Pragmatic Approaches to Context
- Part IV Applications of Context Studies
- Part V Advances in Multimodal and Technological Context-Based Research
- 19 Nonverbal Communication and Context: Multimodality in Interaction
- 20 AI, Human–Robot Interaction, and Natural Language Processing
- 21 Social Media and Computer-Mediated Communication
- Index
- References
Summary
Within a cyberpragmatic framework rooted in cognitive pragmatics (Yus 2011), context is basically information that is brought to bear in turning the schematic coded input (e.g., spoken, written, or typed words) into interpretations. Although it is undeniable that contextual information may stem from different sources, eventually what is at stake in contextualization is to mentally assess and select the appropriate quality and quantity of information that allows us to reach meaningful interpretations. Regarding the specificity of social media and internet communication overall, several challenges for pragmatic analysis arise, some of which will be addressed in this chapter. Specifically, what interests most in an analysis of context online are: (a) the role of the interfaces in favoring/limiting the contextualization of utterances; (b) the role of the physical-virtual interface in today’s internet-mediated communication; and specially (c) the differentiation of the user’s personal, interactive, and social contexts managed in everyday virtual communication.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context , pp. 455 - 476Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Androutsopoulos, J. (2014). Languaging when contexts collapse: Audience design in social networking. Discourse, Context and Media, 4–5, 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beam, M. A., Child, J. T., Hutchens, M. J. and Hmielowski, J. D. (2018). Context collapse and privacy management: Diversity in Facebook friends increases online news reading and sharing. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2296–2314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J., Smits, L. and Yacoubi, N. (2020). Context and its complications. In De Fina, A. and Georgakopoulou, A. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies (pp. 52–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolander, B. (2019). Social media research. In Handbook of Pragmatics, vol. 22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 31–48.Google Scholar
Bolander, B., and Locher, M. A. (2020). Beyond the online offline distinction: Entry points to digital discourse. Discourse, Context & Media 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bou-Franch, P., and Garces-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2014). Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bou-Franch, P., and Garces-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2018). Relational work in multimodal networked interactions on Facebook. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1), 134–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bou-Franch, P., Lorenzo-Dus, N., and Garces-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2012). Social interaction in YouTube text-based polylogues: A study of coherence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 501–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
boyd, D. (2010). Social Network Sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Papacharissi, Z. (ed.), A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge, pp. 39–58.Google Scholar
Costa, E. (2018). Affordances-in-practice: An ethnographic critique of social media logic and context collapse. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3641–3656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Y., and He, W. (2015). Interpretation of the compositional meaning of movie posters from the perspective of multimodal discourse analysis. Paper presented at International Symposium on College Foreign Languages Education Reform and Innovation. Wuhan (China).Google Scholar
Davidson, B. I., and Joinson, A. N. (2021). Shape shifting across social media. Social Media + Society 7(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. L., and Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 476–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayter, D. (2016). Discursive Self in Microblogging: Speech Acts, Stories and Self-Praise. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duguay, S. (2016). “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”: Investigating sexual identity disclosure and context collapse on a social networking site. New Media & Society, 18(6), 891–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenlauer, V. (2014). Facebook as a third author – (Semi-)automated participation framework in social network sites. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenlauer, V. (2017). Social network sites/Facebook. In Hoffmann, C. R. and Bublitz, W. (eds.), Pragmatics of Social Media (pp. 225–242). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Erickson, T. (1997). Social interaction on the Net: Virtual community as participatory genre. In Sprague, R. H. (ed.) Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. VI, pp. 13–21). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gil-Lopez, T., Shen, C., Benefield, G. A., Palomares, N. A., Kosinski, M., and Stillwell, D. (2018). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23, 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, H. (2019). Genres, media, and recontextualization practices: Re-considering basic concepts of genre theory in the age of social media. Internet Pragmatics, 2(1), 54–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassan, H., and van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Semiotic analysis: Compositional meaning of corporate web pages. In Habil, H. and Hassan, H. (eds.), New Perspectives in Language and Communication Research (pp. 39–52). Skudai: UTM.Google Scholar
Jewitt, C. (2004). Multimodality and new communication technologies. In LeVine, Philip and Scollon, Ron (eds.), Discourse and Technology. Multimodal Discourse Analysis (pp. 184–195). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, R. (2004). The problem of context in computer-mediated communication. In LeVine, P. and Scollon, R. (eds.), Discourse and Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis (pp. 20–33). Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Kress, G., and van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lomborg, S. (2014). Social Media, Social Genres: Making Sense of the Ordinary. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marwick, A. and boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miltner, K. M. (2014). “There’s no place for lulz on LOLCats”: The role of genre, gender, and group identity in the interpretation and enjoyment of an internet meme. First Monday, 19(8). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i8.5391.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. (2020). Why Zoom is terrible. The New York Times, April 29. www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/sunday-review/zoom-video-conference.html.Google Scholar
Pano Alamán, A., and Mancera Rueda, A. (2014). La “conversación” en Twitter: Las unidades discursivas y el uso de marcadores interactivos en los intercambios con parlamentarios españoles en esta red social [The “conversation” on Twitter: The discursive units and the use of discourse markers in exchanges with Spanish members of parliament in this social networking site]. Estudios de Lingüística del Español, 35, 243–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puschmann, C. (2015). The form and function of quoting in digital media. Discourse, Context and Media, 7, 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, K. (2016). Contextual social capital: Linking the contexts of social media use to its outcomes. Information, Communication & Society, 19(5), 582–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K. (2015). The pragmatics of hashtags: Inference and conversational style on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics, 81, 8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spilioti, T. (2015). Social media discourse. In Tracy, K., Ilie, C., and Sandel, T. (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Szabla, M., and Blommaert, J. (2020). Does context really collapse in social media interaction? Applied Linguistics Review, 11(2), 251–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J.B. (2020). Mediated interaction in the digital age. Theory, Culture & Society, 37(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijck, J. (2013). “You have one identity”: Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society, 35(2), 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Leeuwen, T. (2014). About images and multimodality: A personal account. In Norris, S. and Maier, C. D. (eds.), Interactions, Images and Texts: A Reader in Multimodality (pp. 19–24). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Leeuwen, T. (2015). Multimodality. In Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E., and Schiffrin, D. (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed. (pp. 447–465). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, T. (2020). The new visuality of writing. In Stöckl, H., Caple, H., and Pflaeging, J. (eds.), Shifts toward Image-Centricity in Contemporary Multimodal Practices (pp. 64–85). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitak, J. (2012). The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikström, P. (2014). #Srynotfunny: Communicative functions of hashtags on Twitter. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 27, 127–152.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2007). Virtualidades reales: Nuevas formas de comunidad en la era de Internet [Real virtualities. New forms of community in the Internet age]. Alicante: University of Alicante, Servicio de Publicaciones.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2014). El discurso de las identidades en línea: El caso de Facebook [The discourse of online identities: The case of Facebook]. Discurso & Sociedad, 8(3), 398–426.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2015). Discourse and identity. In Wright, J. D. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (Vol. VI, pp. 498–502). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2016b). Discourse, contextualization and identity shaping. The case of social networking sites and virtual worlds. In Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (ed.), New Tools, New Approaches: Technology Implementation in Higher Education for Second Language Teaching and Translation Studies (pp. 71–88). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2016c). Towards a cyberpragmatics of mobile instant messaging. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2016: Global Implications for Culture and Society in the Networked Age (pp. 7–26). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2017a). Social media. In Barron, A., Gu, Y., and Steen, G. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 550–562). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2017b). Putting relevance at centre stage in research on human activity on the Internet. In Piskorska, A. and Wałaszewska, E. (eds.), From Discourse to Morphemes: Applications of Relevance Theory (pp. 86–102). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2017c). Contextual constraints and non-propositional effects in WhatsApp communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 114, 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2018). Identity-related issues in meme communication. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1), 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2019). An outline of some future research issues for internet Pragmatics. Internet Pragmatics, 2(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2021). Cyberpragmatics in the age of locative media. In Xie, C., Yus, F., and Haberland, H. (eds.), Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and Practice (pp. 75–105). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2022). Smartphone Communication: Interactions in the App Ecosystem. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (forthcoming). Irony and the Internet. In Gibbs, R. W and Colston, H. L (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M. (2017). Evaluation. In Hoffmann, C. R. and Bublitz, W. (eds.), Pragmatics of Social Media (pp. 435–458). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar