Teasing: Verbal play in two Mexicano homes.
Language and 1969 Linguistics Compass 3(5). Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humour. No aggression, only teasing: The pragmatics of teasing and banter. Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and 1964 illocutionary force. Meinhoff (eds.), Language and masculinity, 144–158. The role of expletives in the construction of masculinity. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The 1959 Weakest Link. Men talk: Stories in the making of masculinities. The language of jokes: Analysing verbal play. From bite to nip: The dialogic construction of teases. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1). Social network sites: Definition, history, and 1948 scholarship. From bonding to biting: Conversational joking 1946 and identity display. 1945 Boxer, Diana & Florencia Cortés-Conde. Do insults always insult? Genuine impoliteness versus non-genuine 1944 impoliteness in colloquial Spanish. In Diana 1941 Bravo (ed.), Estudios de la (des) cortesía en español: categorías conceptuales y 1942 aplicaciones a corpora orales y escritos, 365–398. El caso de conversaciones españolas de registro coloquial. Hacia una categorización sociopragmática de la cortesía, la descortesía 1940 y la anticortesía. Can you see the real 1937 me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Flattering and flaming: Interpersonal relations in online message 1935 boards. Influence of situational factors on the codification and 1933 interpretation of impoliteness. however, Maíz-Arévalo, for a plau- 16 sible explanation). It is beyond the scope of this article to find out why there seems to be a 15 preference for this option amongst the Spaniards (cf. By including only up to 50 exchanges, the amount of words was remarkably lower, 13 maybe as a result of Spanish users clicking “Like” rather than contributing their own words 14 to the exchange. 11 The Spanish dataset includes more exchanges so as to make it as extensive as the British 12 one. This definition matches exactly the kind of approach here adopted, hence its descrip- 10 tion as netnographic. 6 Kozinets (2010: 60) describes netnography as “a participant-observational research based 7 in online fieldwork uses computer-mediated communication as a source of data to arrive 8 at the ethnographic understanding and representation of a cultural or communal phenom- 9 enon”. However, it is impor- 3 tant to point out that I never accessed the data from my Smartphone but always from my 4 personal computer, so that the compiling process was easier i.e., the copied text was immedi- 5 ately pasted into a. Naturedly as a way to boost group rapport.Ģ The version used when compiling the corpus was the most recent one. Likewise, both groupsīorrow framing strategies from face-to-face communication but also employ other means afforded by Facebook itself. Jocular mockery is pervasive in both datasets and both British and Spanish users resort to it when confronted with bragging. Questions: (i) what triggers jocular mockery in each corpus? (ii) How is it “framed”? And (iii) how do interlocutors respond to it? To this end, two balancedĭatasets were gathered: one in (British) English and one in (Peninsular) Spanish, consisting of 6,215 and 6,193 words respectively. More specifically, and following Haugh’s (2010) and Haugh and Bousfield’s (2012) three inter-related dimensions, this paper intends to answer three This paper aims to redress this imbalanceīy analyzing a particular case of mock impoliteness – i.e., jocular mockery – in two Facebook communities (Spanish and English).
Research has mostly analyzed face-to-face interaction, generally ignoring computer-mediated communication. However, most of this research has concentrated on English while other languages have been neglected. Understood as an umbrella term covering different phenomena (e.g., banter, teasing, jocular insults, etc.), mock impoliteness has long attracted
0 kommentar(er)
