RASAL Lingüística

Issue 2023 - Vol. 2
Artículos

Stancetaking, online interaction and moral order

PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))
  • Débora Amadio
Débora Amadio
Facultad de Lenguas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
Bio
Portada del número 2023 vol. 2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56683/rs232083

Published 2023-09-30

Keywords

  • online discourse,
  • Facebook,
  • interaction,
  • stance,
  • moral order

How to Cite

Amadio, D. (2023). Stancetaking, online interaction and moral order. RASAL Lingüística, (2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.56683/rs232083

Copyright (c) 2023 RASAL Lingüística

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Grounded in the theoretical perspective of Interactional Sociolinguistics (Blommaert, 2017, 2019; Carranza & Vidal, 2013; Eckert, 2019) and Situated Discourse Analysis (Baxter, 2002; Fairclough, 1995, 2003), this paper examines aspects of the manifestation of the dimension of morality in online interaction. The data come from the public forum of Facebook pages dedicated to gender violence. The sequences of exchanges analyzed begin with a post featuring a narrative of the violent acts and a multimodal text. In this article, I show that the particular interactional stance (Du Bois, 2007) expressed in an opening post conditions the nature of the exhortations and recommendations offered by Facebook users. One of the interactional patterns detected is characterized by the adoption of a leading stance that favors other participants’ positioning which is convergent with the one expressed by the participant who initiates the sequence. The other one, which is deployed in cases of interactional conflict, involves the orchestrated defense of the leading stance in cases in which it is defied. In the conclusions, I argue that the discourse of the web pages analyzed includes communicative practices of vigilance that ultimately seek to produce a disciplining effect. I also discuss the relation between moral panic (Cohen, 2002 [1972)] and the voices that call for less aggressive and more polite ways of communication when representing perpetrators and demanding justice.

PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Accossatto, R. y Sendra, M. (2018). Movimientos feministas en la era digital. Las estrategias comunicacionales del movimiento Ni Una Menos. Encuentros, Revista de Ciencias Humanas, Teoría Social y Pensamiento Crítico, 6 (8), 117-136.
  2. Atkinson, J. M. y Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1984). Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
  3. Baxter, J. (2002). Competing discourses in the classroom: A post-structuralist discourse analysis of girls’ and boys’ speech in public contexts. Discourse & Society, 13 (6), 827-842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926502013006760
  4. Blommaert, J. (2008). Discourse. A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press.
  5. Blommaert, J. (2017). Durkheim and the internet: On sociolinguistics and the sociological imagination. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, Paper 173. Disponible en https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/durkheim-and-the-internet-on-sociolinguistics-and-the-sociologica
  6. Blommaert, J. (2019). From groups to actions and back in online-offline sociolinguistics. Multilingua, 38 (4), 485-493. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2018-0114
  7. Blommaert, J. y Varis, P. (2015). Enoughness, accent and light communities: Essays on contemporary identities. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, No. 139. Disponible en https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/enoughness-accent-and-light-communities-essays-on-contemporary-id
  8. Briggs, C. L. (1996). Disorderly discourse. Narrative, conflict and inequality. Oxford University Press.
  9. Carranza, I. E. y Amadio, D. M. (2015). La lectura selectiva en voz alta como práctica institucional. En C. Muse (Ed.), Lectura y escritura como prácticas sociales. Vol. 4. (pp. 79-87). Editorial de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Disponible en http://hdl.handle.net/11086/2310
  10. Carranza, I. E. y Vidal, A. (2013). Introducción. En I. E. Carranza y A. Vidal (Eds.), Lingüísticas del uso. Estrategias metodológicas y hallazgos empíricos. (pp.17-22). Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de la Universidad Nacional de Cuyo y Sociedad Argentina de Lingüística. Disponible en http://ffyl1.uncu.edu.ar/IMG/pdf/Carranza_y_Vidal_eds_2013.pdf
  11. Chouliaraki, I. y Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh University Press.
  12. Cohen, S. (2002 [1972]). Folk devils and moral panics. The creation of the Mods and Rockers (3ra ed.). Routledge.
  13. Coupland, N. (2010). ‘Other’ representation. En J. Jaspers, J. Östman y J. Verschueren (Eds.), Society and language use. Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 7. (pp. 241-260). John Benjamins.
  14. Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación (CSJN), República Argentina. (s.f.). Registro Nacional de Femicidios de la Justicia Argentina. Informe 2015. https://www.csjn.gov.ar/om/docs/femicidios_2015.pdf
  15. Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación (CSJN), República Argentina. (s.f.). Registro Nacional de Femicidios de la Justicia Argentina. Informe 2014. https://www.csjn.gov.ar/omrecopilacion/docs/informeFemicidios2014.pdf
  16. Cromdal, J. y Tholander, M. (2015). Morality in professional practice. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 9 (2), 155-164. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v9i2.25734
  17. del Valle Núñez, C. (2018). Tuits: Una respuesta descortés que reproduce la violencia de género. Oxímora, 13, 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1344/oxi.2018.i13.22440
  18. Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. En R. Englebretson (Ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. (pp.139-182). John Benjamins.
  19. Du Bois, J. W. y Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). Taking a stance on emotion: affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text & Talk, 32 (4), 433-451. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0021
  20. Eckert, P. (2019). The limits of meaning: Social indexicality, variation, and the cline of interiority. Language, 95 (4), 751-776. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0072
  21. Flairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. Longman.
  22. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power. Longman.
  23. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse. Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.
  24. Gordon, C. (2019). “You might want to look up the definition of ‘continential breakfast’”. Other-initiated repair and community building in health and weight loss blogs. Multilingua, 38 (4), 401-425. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2018-0041
  25. Grimshaw, E. (Ed.). (1990). Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversation. Cambridge University Press.
  26. Halliday, M. A. K. y Matthiessen, M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. (3ra Ed.). Hodder Education.
  27. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos (INDEC) de la República Argentina. (c.f.). Registro Único de Casos de Violencia contra las Mujeres (RUCVM), Resultados 2013-2018. https://www.indec.gob.ar/uploads/informesdeprensa/rucvm_03_19.pdf
  28. Jaffe, A. (2009). Stance. Sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
  29. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
  30. Ochs, E. y Kremer-Sadlik, T. (2007). Introduction: morality as family practice. Discourse & Society, 18 (1), 5-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069451
  31. Noblía, V. (2014). Cambios sociales y cambios lingüísticos: la conversación y la escritura en el chat. En A. Parini y M. Giammatteo (Eds.), Lenguaje, discurso e interacción en los espacios virtuales. (pp.119-130). Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de la Universidad Nacional de Cuyo y Sociedad Argentina de Lingüística. Disponible en http://ffyl1.uncu.edu.ar/IMG/pdf/Parini_y_Giammatteo_eds_2014.pdf
  32. Pisetta, A. (7 de marzo de 2019). ¿Cómo surgió el movimiento Ni Una Menos?. perfil.com. https://www.perfil.com/noticias/sociedad/como-surgio-movimiento-ni-una-menos-2015.phtml
  33. Pomerantz, A. (1985). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. En J. Atkinson (Ed.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in emotion and social interaction. (pp. 57-101). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.008
  34. Salerno, P. (2018). Discurso polémico e interacción en Twitter y comentarios digitales: el caso de Malvinas durante el último gobierno de CFK. Revista Latinoamericana De Estudios Del Discurso, 18 (1), 4-22. Disponible en https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/raled/article/view/33183
  35. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Volume 1. Cambridge University Press.
  36. Stokoe, E. y Edwards, D. (2015). Mundane morality: Gender, categories and complaints in familial neighbour disputes. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 9 (2), 165-192. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v9i2.25735
  37. Tagliamonte, S. (2015). So sick or so cool? The language of youth on the internet. Language in Society, 45, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404515000780
  38. Tagliamonte, S. (2016). Internet language. Everyone’s online. En S. Tagliamonte, Teen talk. The language of Adolescents. (pp.205-255). Cambridge University Press.
  39. Varis, P. y Blommaert, J. (2015). Conviviality and collectives on social media: Virality, memes and new social structures. Multilingual Margins, 2 (1), 31-45. https://doi.org/10.14426/mm.v2i1.55
  40. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research design and methods. Sage.
  41. Yus, F. (2014). El discurso de las identidades en línea. El caso de Facebook. Discurso & Sociedad, Vol. 8 (3), 398-426. Disponible en http://www.dissoc.org/ediciones/v08n03/DS8(3)Yus.pdf
  42. Wu, R.-J. R. (2004). Stance in talk. A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. John Benjamins.
  43. Zienkowski, J., Östman, J. y Verschueren, J. (2011). Discursive pragmatics. Handbook of pragmatics highlights. John Benjamin.