Article published in:
Internet Pragmatics
Vol. 1:1 (2018) ► pp. 134–160

Relational work in multimodal networked interactions on Facebook

| University of Valencia
| University of North Carolina at Charlotte
The paper argues that the notion of Relational Work (Locher and Watts 2005) needs to be expanded to be able to account for sociability in the networked interactions afforded by social platforms such as Facebook. Thus, the aim of this paper is to explore how the nature of networked interactions impacts the emergence of relational practices therein. Importantly, Relational Work is a language based framework whereas networked interactions are highly multimodal. By applying Norris’ (2004) multimodal framework to the analysis of a Facebook wall event, we show how key sociability functions are carried out by semiotic modes other than language. Furthermore, the analysis shows how relational behaviors (such as politeness, impoliteness, etc.) are highly intertwined and should not be compartmentalized, as has traditionally been the case.
Keywords: Relational Work, multimodality, networked interactions, Facebook, im/politeness


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 28 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00007.bou

Full-text

Relational work in multimodal networked interactions on Facebook
References

[ p. 157 ]References

Androutsopoulos, Jannis
2014a “Moments of sharing: Entextualization and linguistic repertoires in social networking.” Journal of Pragmatics 73: 4–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014b “Languaging when contexts collapse: Audience design in social networking.” Discourse, Context and Media 4–5: 62–73.Google Scholar
2015 “Networked multilingualism: Some language practices on Facebook and their implications.” International Journal of Bilingualism 19(2): 185–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, Jan, and Malgorzata Szabla
2017 “Does context really collapse in social media interaction?” Plenary paper presented at the conference on Moving Texts: Mediations and Transculturations . Aveiro, 12 July 2017.
Bou-Franch, Patricia, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
2014 “Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube.” Journal of Pragmatics 73: 19–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bou-Franch, Patricia, Nuria Lorenzo-Dus, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
2012 “Social interaction in YouTube text-based polylogues: A study of coherence.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 17(4): 501–521. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, Derek
2007 “Beginnings, middles and ends: A biopsy of the dynamics of impolite exchanges.” Journal of Pragmatics 39(12): 2185–2216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
boyd, danah, and Alice E. Marwick
2011 “Social privacy in networked publics: Teens’ attitudes, practices, and strategies.” Work‐in‐progress paper for discussion at the Privacy Law Scholars Conference on June 2, 2011 in Berkeley, CA.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Castells, Manuel
2000 “Toward a sociology of the network society.” Contemporary Sociology 29(5): 693–699. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
2005 “Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show the weakest link.” Journal of Politeness Research 1: 35–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield, and Anne Wichmann
2003 “Impoliteness revisited with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics 35(10–11): 1545–1579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danet, Brenda
2013 “Flaming and linguistic impoliteness on a listserv.” In Pragmatics of Computer- Mediated Communication, ed. by Susan C. Herring, Dieter Stein, and Tuija Virtanen, 639–664. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eelen, Gino
2001 A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome’ Publishing.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar
2009 “Impoliteness and identity in the American news media: the culture wars.” Journal of Politeness Research 5: 273–304.Google Scholar
[ p. 158 ]
2010a “The YouTubification of politics, impoliteness and polarization.” In Handbook of Research on Discourse Behavior and Digital Communication: Language Structures and Social Interaction, ed. by Rotimi Taiwo, 540–563. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b “A genre approach to the study of im-politeness.” International Review of Pragmatics 2(1): 46–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “Politics, ‘lies’ and YouTube: A genre approach to assessments of im/politeness on Obama’s 9/9/2009 presidential address.” In New Perspectives on (Im)politeness and Interpersonal Communication, ed. by Lucía Fernández-Amaya, Maria de la O Hernández López, Reyes Gómez Morón, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Manuel Mejias Borrero, and Mariana Relinque Barranca, 62–90. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2013 Face, identity, and im/politeness: Looking backwards, moving forward – From Goffman to practice theory.” Journal of Politeness Research 9(1): 1-33.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, Alexandra, and Tereza Spilioti
2016 “Introduction.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication, ed. by Alexandra Georgakopoulou, and Tereza Spilioti, 1–15. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Georgalou, Mariza
2016 “ ‘I make the rules on my wall’: Privacy and identity management practices on Facebook.” Discourse & Communication 10(1): 40–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Sage G.
2007 “Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community.” Journal of Pragmatics 39(4): 742–759. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael, and Dereck Bousfield
2012 “Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English.” Journal of Pragmatics 44(9): 1099–1114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2007 “The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative.” Journal of Politeness Research 3(2): 295–317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation and face.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2106–2119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Jocular mockery as interactional practice in everyday Anglo-Australian conversation.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(1): 76–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan C., and Jannis Androutsopoulos
2015 “Computer-mediated discourse 2.0.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, (2nd edn.), ed. by Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin, 128–151. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
2004 “Introducing polylogue.” Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kozinets, Robert V.
2010 Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther, and Theo Van Leeuwen
2006 Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lee, Carmen K. M.
2011 “Micro-blogging and status updates on Facebook: Texts and practices.” In Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media, ed. by Crispin Thurlow, and Kristine Mroczek, 110–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 159 ]
Locher, Miriam A.
2010 “Introduction: Politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communication.” Journal of Politeness Research 6(1): 1–5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., and Richard Watts
2005 “Politeness theory and relational work.” Journal of Politeness Research 1: 9–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, and Patricia Bou-Franch
2011 “On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(10): 2578–2593. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maíz-Arévalo, Carmen
2013 ““Just click ‘Like’”: Computer-mediated responses to Spanish compliments.” Journal of Pragmatics 51: 47–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maíz Arévalo, Carmen
2015 “Jocular mockery in computer-mediated communication: A contrastive study of a Spanish and English Facebook community.” Journal of Politeness Research 11(2): 289–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Markham, Annette, and Elizabeth Buchanan
2012 Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). http://​aoir​.org​/reports​/ethics2​.pdf
Marwick, Alice E., and dannah boyd
2011 “I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience.” New Media & Society 13(1): 114–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara
2003 Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James, and Lesley Milroy
1985 “Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation.” Journal of Linguistics 21: 339–384. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Sigrid
2004 Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Page, Ruth E.
2010 “Revisiting narrativity: Small stories in status updates.” Text and Talk 30 (4): 423–444.Google Scholar
2012 Stories and Social Media. Identities and Interaction. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Papacharissi, Zizi
2011 “Conclusion: A networked self.” In A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, ed. by Zizi Papacharissi, 304–318. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Seargeant, Philip, and Caroline Tagg
2014 “Introduction: The language of social media.” In The Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet, ed. by Philip Seargeant, and Caroline Tagg, 1–20. London: Palgrave-Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagg, Caroline, and Philip Seargeant
2014 “Audience design and language choice in the construction and maintenance of translocal communities on social network sites.” In The Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet, ed. by Philip Seargeant, and Caroline Tagg, 161–185. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 “Facebook and the discursive construction of the social network.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication, ed. by Alexandra Georgakopoulou, and Tereza Spilioti, 339–353. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina
2005 “Beyond the micro-level in politeness research.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(2): 237–262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 160 ]
Watts, Richard
2003 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
West, Laura, and Anna M. Trester
2013 “Facework on Facebook.” In Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media, ed. by Deborah Tannen, and Anna M. Trester, 133–154. Washington, D.A.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Michael
2010 “But the data is already public: On the ethics of research in Facebook.” Ethics & Information Technology 12(4): 313–325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

Bou-Franch, Patricia
2019.  In Technology Mediated Service Encounters [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 300], ► pp. 223 ff. Crossref logo
Collins, Luke
2020.  In Corpus Approaches to Social Media [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 98], ► pp. 175 ff. Crossref logo
Fetzer, Anita
2021.  In Approaches to Internet Pragmatics [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 318], ► pp. 47 ff. Crossref logo
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar & Patricia Bou-Franch
2019.  In Analyzing Digital Discourse, ► pp. 3 ff. Crossref logo
Kumar, Ritesh
2020. #shutdownjnu vs #standwithjnu. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 8:1 ► pp. 29 ff. Crossref logo
Labinaz, Paolo & Marina Sbisà
2021.  In Approaches to Internet Pragmatics [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 318], ► pp. 145 ff. Crossref logo
Page, Ruth
2019. The future of internet pragmatics. Internet Pragmatics 2:1 ► pp. 46 ff. Crossref logo
Sinkeviciute, Valeria
2018. “Ya bloody drongo!!!”. Internet Pragmatics 1:2 ► pp. 272 ff. Crossref logo
Sinkeviciute, Valeria
2020.  In (Im)politeness and Moral Order in Online Interactions [Benjamins Current Topics, 107], ► pp. 67 ff. Crossref logo
Vasileva, Viktoria & Liubov Ivanova
2021. Speech etiquette of professional online communities. Russian Journal of Communication 13:2 ► pp. 183 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 september 2021. 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.