Cover not available
Article published In:
Internet Pragmatics
Vol. 2:1 (2019) ► pp.54–82
Articles

Genres, media, and recontextualization practices

Re-considering basic concepts of genre theory in the age of social media

| Vienna University
The main argument put forward in this paper is that traditional linguistic genre theories neglect the importance of media and their modal affordances in the formation of new genres. It argues that media cannot be viewed as (passive) configurations of technical, semiotic, and cultural features which are chosen by actors/ rhetors in order to serve their communicative needs, but rather as mediators whose modal affordances actively influence communicators’ meaning making choices. In order to support this argument, it will be shown how forms of discourse representation gradually developed from a stylistic device in oral communication to a genre constitutive practice (e.g., in printed academic communication), and eventually became a genre of its own (as the practice of “sharing” content) in social media communication. In the analyses, the focus is on the interplay between modal affordances of the different media in which discourse representation formats are used, their formal properties, and pragmatic factors (like audience expectations in different communicative genres and situations). It is shown how innovative aspects of a medium influence formal features of discourse representation which in turn serve different communicative purposes in different genres.
Keywords: genre formation, genre theory, textual voice, discourse representation, recontextualization, new media communication, social media communication
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Some common assumptions of genre theories
  • 3.What is a medium?
    • 3.1Relevant affordances of different media
  • 4.Recontextualization and discourse representation
  • 5.Empirical part: Discourse representation in different media and genres
    • 5.1Discourse representation in spoken discourse
    • 5.2Discourse representation in research articles
    • 5.3Discourse representation in e-mail communication
    • 5.4Discourse representation in Twitter discourse fragments
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 May 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00023.gru
References (62)
References
Bakhtin, Michail. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Edited by Caryl Emerson, and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bateman, John A. 2017. “Triangulating transmediality: A multimodal semiotic framework relating media, modes and genres.” Discourse, Context & Media 201: 160–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateman, John, Janina Wildfeuer, and Tuomo Hiippala. 2017. Multimodality, Foundations, Research and Analysis: A Problem-Oriented Introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bawden, David, and Lyn Robinson. 2000. “A distant mirror?; the Internet and the printing press.” Aslib Proceedings 52(2): 51–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison, Wisc.: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 2004. Worlds of Written Discourse. London: continuum.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2009. Entwurf einer Theorie der Praxis: Auf der ethnologischen Grundlage der kabylischen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
boyd, Dana, Scott Golder, and Gilad Lotan. 2010. “Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter.” In Proceedings of the 43nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-43), 1–10. CD-ROM, IEEE Computer Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Bronwyn, and Rom Harre. 1990. “Positioning: The discursive production of selves.” Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior 201(1): 43–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Draucker, Fawn, and Lauren Collister. 2015. “Managing participation through modal affordances on Twitter.” Open Library of Humanities 1(1): 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa. 2005. “Medien, Kommunikationsformen, kommunikative Gattungen.” Linguistik Online 22(1): 3–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dynel, Marta. 2014. “On the part of ratified participants: Ratified listeners in multi-party interactions.” Brno Studies in English 40(1): 27–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehlich, Konrad. 1983. “Text und sprachliches Handeln.” In Schrift und Gedächtnis, ed. by Aleida Assmann, Jan Assmann, and Christof Hardmeier, 24–43. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Ehlich, Konrad, and Jochen Rehbein. 1986. Muster und Institution. Untersuchungen zur schulischen Kommunikation. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Eisenlauer, Volker. 2014. “Facebook as a third author – (Semi-)automated participation framework in Social Network Sites.” Journal of Pragmatics 721: 73–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. 2012. The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, Christian. 2017. Social Media: A Critical Introduction (2nd edn.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Specific genre features of new mass media.” In Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Veronika Koller, 363–383. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Quoting and retweeting as communicative practices in computer mediated discourse.” Discourse, Context & Media 201: 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. to appear. “Doing ordinariness on Twitter: An analysis of tweets of the 2016 Austrian presidential campaign candidates.” In Construction of Ordinariness across Media Genres, ed. by Anita Fetzer, and Elda Weizman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne, and Hubert Knoblauch. 1994. “‘Forms are the food of faith’: Gattungen als Muster kommunikativen Handelns.” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie 41: 693–723.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Culturally patterned speaking practices – the analysis of communicative genres.” Pragmatics 5(1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 2006. “Interactional coherence in CMC.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4(4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. “A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse.” Language@Internet 41, article 1. [URL]
2013. “Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent.” In Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media, ed. by Deborah Tannen, and Anna Marie Tester, 1–25. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Holly, Werner. 1997. “Zur Rolle von Sprache in Medien: Semiotische und kommunikationsstrukturelle Grundlagen.” Muttersprache 1071: 64–75.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Medien, Kommunikationsformen, Textsortenfamilien.” In Textsorten, Handlungsmuster, Oberflächen. Linguistische Typologien der Kommunikation, ed. by Stephan Habscheid, 144–164. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. 2001. “Technologies, texts and affordances.” Sociology 35(2): 441–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1999. “Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge.” Applied Linguistics 20(3): 341–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobs, Eva-Maria. 1999. Textvernetzung in den Wissenschaften. Zitat und Verweis als Ergebnis rezeptiven, reproduktiven und produktiven Handelns. Tübingen: Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
John, Nicholas A. 2013. “Sharing and Web 2.0: The emergence of a keyword.” New Media & Society 15(2): 167–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khamis, Susie, Lawrence Ang, and Raymond Welling. 2017. “Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of social media influencers.” Celebrity Studies 8(2): 191–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, Gunther. 2010. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leeuwen, Theo van. 2008. Discourse and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Livnat, Zohar. 2012. Dialogue, Science and Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Yabing, Chloe Kliman-Silver, and Alan Mislove. 2014. “The tweets they are A-changin’: Evolution of Twitter users and behaviour.” In Proceedings of the Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 305–314. Palo Alto: The AAAI Press. [URL]Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James R., and David Rose. 2008. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Marwick, Alice, and dana boyd. 2011. “To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on Twitter.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17(2): 139–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Carolyne R. 1994. “Genre as social action.” In Genre and the New Rhetoric, ed. by Aviva Freedman, and Peter Medway, 23–43. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Page, Ruth. 2012. “The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags.” Discourse & Communication 6(2): 181–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papacharissi, Zizi. 2012. “Without you, I’m nothing: Performances of the self on Twitter.” International Journal of Communication 61: 1989–2006.Google Scholar
Schneider, Jan-Georg. 2017. “Medien als Verfahren der Zeichenprozessierung: Grundsätzliche Überlegungen zum Medienbegriff und ihre Relevanz für die Gesprächsforschung.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 181: 34–55.Google Scholar
Severinson Eklundh, Kerstin. 2010. “To quote or not to quote: Setting the context for computer-mediated dialogues.” Language@Internet 71, article 5. [URL]
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spronck, Stef. 2012. “Minds divided: Speaker attitudes in quotatives.” In Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid van Alphen, 71–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Squires, Helen. 2015. “Twitter: Design, discourse and the implications of public text.” In Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication, ed. by Alexandra Georgakopoulo, and Teresa Spiloti, 239–255. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suh, Bongwon, Lichan Hong, Peter Pirolli, and Ed H. Chi. 2010. “Want to be retweeted? Large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in Twitter network.” In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom 2010), 177–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2004. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite. 2006. “Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 381: 567–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vitak, Jessica. 2012. “The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56(4): 451–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 1988. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Tübingen: UTB/Mohr.Google Scholar
Wieser, Matthias J. 2012. Das Netzwerk von Bruno Latour: die Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie zwischen Science & Technology Studies und poststrukturalistischer Soziologie. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2006. “Relevance theory.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Lawrence R. Horn, and Geoffrey Ward, 606–632. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1971. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele, and J. R. Martin. 2018. “#Communing affiliation: Social tagging as a resource for aligning around values in social media.” Discourse, Context & Media, 221: 4–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (21)

Cited by 21 other publications

Andersson, Marta
2024. Multimodal expression of impoliteness in YouTube reaction videos to transgender activism. Discourse, Context & Media 58 ► pp. 100760 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Baoqin
2024. Chaoqun Xie: The Pragmatics of Internet Memes . HUMOR 37:3 ► pp. 471 ff. DOI logo
Bülow, Lars & Michael Johann
2023. Effects and perception of multimodal recontextualization in political Internet memes. Evidence from two online experiments in Austria. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo
Chen, Xinren & Tiancheng Chen
2023. The naturalness of Chinese online chatting: Organization and recontextualization. Frontiers in Communication 8 DOI logo
Pfurtscheller, Daniel
2023. Zitieren via Screenshot. Digitale Pragmatik und Medialität bildbasierter Zitierpraktiken. In Digitale Pragmatik [Digitale Linguistik, 1], ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Yus, Francisco
2023. Social Media and Computer-Mediated Communication. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context, ► pp. 455 ff. DOI logo
Haugh, Michael
2022. (Online) public denunciation, public incivilities and offence. Language & Communication 87 ► pp. 44 ff. DOI logo
Haugh, Michael
2024. Online public denunciation as recursive social practice. Internet Pragmatics 7:1 ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo
Johannessen, Marius Rohde
2022. Genres of Participation in Social Networking Systems: A Study of the 2021 Norwegian Parliamentary Election. In Electronic Participation [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13392], ► pp. 124 ff. DOI logo
Weizman, Elda & Zohar Livnat
2022. Dialogic meaning-making in political settings. Pragmatics and Society 13:5 ► pp. 731 ff. DOI logo
Chang, Wei-Lin Melody, Michael Haugh & Hsi-Yao Su
2021. Taking it too far. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 31:3 ► pp. 382 ff. DOI logo
Haapanen, Lauri
2021. Chapter 7. Journalists’ use of social media. In Participation, Engagement and Collaboration in Newsmaking [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 94], ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Reyero, David, Daniel Pattier & David García-Ramos
2021. Adolescence and Identity in the Twenty-First Century: Social Media as Spaces for Mimesis and Learning. In Identity in a Hyperconnected Society, ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Dynel, Marta
2020. Laughter through tears: Unprofessional review comments as humor on the ShitMyReviewersSay Twitter account. Intercultural Pragmatics 17:5 ► pp. 513 ff. DOI logo
Dynel, Marta
2024. The pragmatics of sharing memes on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics 220 ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo
Haapanen, Lauri & Leo Leppänen
2020. Recycling a genre for news automation. AILA Review 33 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Kirner-Ludwig, Monika
2020. Internet memes as multilayered re-contextualization vehicles in lay-political online discourse. Internet Pragmatics 3:2 ► pp. 283 ff. DOI logo
Kirner-Ludwig, Monika
2022. Internet memes as multilayered re‑contextualization vehicles in lay-political online discourse. In The Pragmatics of Internet Memes [Benjamins Current Topics, 120], ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Xie, Chaoqun, Ying Tong & Francisco Yus
2020. Bonding across Chinese social media. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 30:3 ► pp. 431 ff. DOI logo
Sakai, Noboru
2019. How much reading between the lines is there in online game playing?. Internet Pragmatics 2:2 ► pp. 290 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Voices of Supporters [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 101], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2024. 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.