Cover not available
Article published In:
Internet Pragmatics
Vol. 2:1 (2019) ► pp.112–135

Evidentiality and stance in YouTube comments on smartphone reviews

| Universidad de Belgrano
| University of Augsburg

Online participatory environments have become saturated spaces in terms of the opportunities that they offer for the display of different viewpoints and ideologies. YouTube, as a popular video-sharing and networking site, constitutes a new media space that invites both individual and collaborative stance-taking by participants who gather, virtually, to address a particular topic, issue or event depicted visually and discussed textually through the comments that are posted on the site. This interactional dynamics triggers a dialogic sequence of follow-ups through which stances are formulated following up on previous stances or counterstances. Against this background, this paper reports on a case study of individual and collaborative, and interdiscursive and intradiscursive stance-taking in participants’ comments to an online review focusing on the strategic use of direct (tactile) and indirect (inferential) references to evidentiality and their co-occurrence with argumentative markers. In this multilayered context stance-taking does not only contribute to evaluation but also to the construction of collective identities.

Keywords: stance, argumentative marker, evidentiality, multilayeredness, online review, comments, collective identity, follow-up
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The communicative act of follow-up
    • 2.1Stance-taking
    • 2.2Argumentation and argumentative markers
    • 2.3Evidentiality
  • 3.The interactional context of You Tube reviews
  • 4.Data and methods
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 May 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00025.par
References
Anderson, Benedict
2006 Imagined Communities. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis
2011 “From variation to heteroglossia in the study of computer-mediated discourse.” In Digital Discourse, ed. by Crispin Thurlow, and Kristine Mroczek, 277–298. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 “Participatory culture and metalinguistic discourse: Performing and negotiating German dialects on YouTube.” In Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media, ed. by Deborah Tanner, and Anna Marie Trester, 47–71. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot
1983 L’Argumentation dans la Langue [Argumentation in Language]. Brussels: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Austin, John L.
1975 How to do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bassett, Elizabeth H., and Kate O’Riordan
2002 “Ethics of internet research: Contesting the human subjects research model.” Ethics and Information Technology 41: 233–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bijker, Wiebe E.
1987 “The social construction of Bakelite: Toward a theory of invention.” In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, ed. by Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch, 159–187. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, Jean E., and Joshua B. Green
2009 YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Chun, Elaine, and Keith Walters
2011 “Orienting to Arab orientalisms: Language, race and humor in a YouTube video.” In Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media, ed. by Crispin Thurlow, and Kristine Mroczek, 251–273, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornillie, Bert
2009 “Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories.” Functions of Language 16 (1): 44–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
2007 “The stance triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse, ed. by Robert Englebreton, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald
1984 Le dire et le dit [What is Meant and What is Said]. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita
2014 “Foregrounding evidentiality in (English) academic discourse: Patterned co-occurrences of the sensory perception verbs seem and appear .” Intercultural Pragmatics 11(3): 333–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Etsuko Oishi
2014 “Evidentiality in discourse.” Intercultural Pragmatics 11(3): 321–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, Elda Weizman, and Laurence N. Berlin
(eds.) 2015 The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul
1975 “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ivković, Dejan
2013 “The Eurovision Song Contest on YouTube: A corpus-based analysis of language attitudes.” Language@Internet 101, Article 1. [URL] (accessed 10 December 2017).
Jaffe, Alexandra
2009 Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kozinets, Robert V.
2010 Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Landert, Daniela, and Andreas H. Jucker
2011 “Private and public in mass media communication: From letters to the editor to online commentaries.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 1422–1434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Livingstone, Sonia, and Peter Lunt
1994 Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Talk. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Livnat, Zohar
2012 “Follow-ups in a loose argumentative context: The pragmatic effectiveness of figurative analogy.” In Proceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-Ups Across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May – 2 June 2012, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Elisabeth Reber, 165–177. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg. [URL]
Mudambi, Susan, and David Schuff
2010 “What makes a helpful online review? A study of consumer reviews on Amazon.com.” MIS Quarterly 34(1): 185–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parini, Alejandro
2014 “La problematización del contexto en la comunicación en línea [The problematisation of context in online communication].” In Lenguaje, discurso e interacción en los espacios virtuales [Language, Discourse and Interaction in Virtual Spaces], ed. by Alejandro Parini, and Mabel Giammatteo, 145–166. Mendoza, Argentina: Editorial Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.Google Scholar
Parini, Alejandro, and Mabel Giammatteo
2017 El Lenguaje en la Comunicación Digital. Aspectos interaccionales y discursivos [Language in Digital Communication: Interactional and Discursive Aspects]. Mauritius: Editorial Académica Española.Google Scholar
Parini, Alejandro, and Luisa Granato
2016 “Discourse functions and resources in the co-construction of YouTube technology product reviews.” Paper presented at the 3rd International Pragmatics Conference of the American Pragmatics Association. Indiana University, Bloomington, 4–6 November 2016.
Pihlaja, Stephen
2011 “Cops, popes, and garbage collectors: Metaphor and antagonism in an atheist/Christian YouTube video thread.” Language@Internet 81, Article 1. [URL] (accessed 11 December 2017).
Reicher, Stephen
1982 “The determination of collective behavior.” In Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, ed. by Henri Tajfel, 41–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John, and Malcolm Coulthard
1975 Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri
1972 “La catégorisation sociale [Social categorisation].” In Introduction à la psychologie sociale [An Introduction to Social Psychology], ed. by Serge Moscovici, 272–302. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen, and Jessica Robles
2013 Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans, and Rob Grootendorst
1995 “Argumentation theory.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jan Blommaert, 55–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vásquez, Camila
2014 The Discourse of Online Consumer Reviews. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Warner, Michael
2002 Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda, and Anita Fetzer
(eds.) 2015 Follow-ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across Contexts Discourse Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zourou, Katerina, and Marie-Noëlle Lamy
2013 “Introduction.” In Social Networking for Language Education, ed. by Marie-Noëlle Lamy, and Katerina Zourou, 1–7. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Gibson, Will
2022. All you need is guitar pedals: The communicative construction of material culture in YouTube product reviews. Discourse, Context & Media 49 ► pp. 100626 ff. DOI logo
Pelttari, Sanna
2022. Emotional self-disclosure and stance-taking within affective narratives on YouTube. International Journal of Language and Culture 9:2 ► pp. 292 ff. DOI logo
Pelttari, Sanna
2023. YouTube. Internet Pragmatics 6:1 ► pp. 42 ff. DOI logo
Rivers, Damian J. & Andrew S. Ross
2021. “This channel has more subs from rival fans than Arsenal fans”: Arsenal Fan TV, football fandom and banter in the new media era. Sport in Society 24:6 ► pp. 867 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 august 2023. 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.