Article published In:
Journal of Asian Pacific Communication: Online-First Articles

Evolvement and use of stigmatized expressions in computer-mediated communication

| Harbin University of Science and Technology
A stigmatized expression is featured by its potentially discrediting attributes unwanted by community members. It is heavily context-dependent, especially in computer-mediated communication (CMC), which is text-based and features abbreviations, acronyms, and creative use of punctuation. The paper discusses the perception, judgment, and use of stigmatized expressions from the socio-cognitive approach (SCA) perspective. Our theory- and data-based analysis leads to the following conclusions. First, stigmatized expressions are considered pervasive and generally detrimental, thus worthy of continuous attention. Second, their emergence and recognition arise from the mutual effort of societal and individual factors, making them dynamic, ambiguous, context-dependent, and culture-specific. Third, the mechanism of generating stigmatized expression turns out to be spiral, while the circulation seems scarcely affected by its divergent interpretations. The sociocultural context serves as a trigger and an outcome in that it facilitates the processing of stigmatized expressions and is simultaneously modified.
Keywords: stigmatized expressions, socio-cognitive approach, computer-mediated communication, context
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Research background
    • 2.1Stigma and stigmatized expressions
    • 2.2Theoretical framework: Socio-cognitive approach (SCA)
    • 2.3Types of stigmatized expressions in CMC
    • 2.4Research questions
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Instruments
    • 3.3Procedure
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Question 4–7: General impression of stigmatized expressions
    • 4.2Question 8–9: Judgment of specific examples
    • 4.3Question10–12: Justifications
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Etic and emic understanding of stigmatized expressions
    • 5.2Emergence of stigmatized expressions
      • 5.2.1Diachronic changes
      • 5.2.2Synchronic variations
    • 5.3Characteristics of use
      • 5.3.1Circulation in CMC
      • 5.3.2Context-dependency
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.00111.gen
References (55)
References
Argüelles, David, Victor Pérez-Samaniego, and Elena López-Cañada. 2022. “Do you find it normal to be so fat? Weight stigma in obese gym users.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 57(7):1095–1116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basinger, Erin, Molly Farris, and Amy Delaney. 2020. “Investigating the Experience of Diabetes Stigma in Online Forums”. Southern Communication Journal 85(1): 43–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blitvich, Pilar Garcés-Conejos. 2022. “ Karen: Stigmatized Social Identity and Face-threat in the On/offline Nexus.” Journal of Pragmatics 188(1): 14–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bou-Franch, Patricia, and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2014. “Conflict Management in Massive Polylogues: A Case Study from YouTube.” Journal of Pragmatics 731: 19–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brooker, Phillip, Julie Barnett, John Vines, Shaun Lawson, Tom Feltwell, Kiel Long. 2018. “Doing Stigma: Online Commenting around Weight-Related News Media.” New Media & Society 3201–22, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buckwitz, Vincent, Patricia Porter, Johannes Bommes, Georg Schomerus, and Stephen Hinshaw. 2021. “Continuum Beliefs and the Stigma of Depression: An Online Investigation”. Stigma and Health 6(1): 113–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC). 2023. The 52nd Statistical Report on China’s Internet Development. Online at [URL], retrieved on August 8th, 2024.
Christopherson, Laura. 2010. “What are People Really Saying in World of Warcraft®’ chat?” Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 47(1): 1–2. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clair, Matthew. 2018. “Stigma.” In Core Concepts in Sociology, ed. by J. Michael Ryan, 318–321. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creswell, John W. 2015. A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. California: Sage.Google Scholar
Crocker, Jennifer, and Brenda Major. 1989. “Social Stigma and Self-esteem: The Self-protective Properties of Stigma.” Psychological Review 96(4): 608–630. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 2008. Txtng: The gr8 db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Derks, Daantje, Agneta H. Fischer, and Arjan E. R. Bos. 2008. “The Role of Emotion in Computer-mediated Communication: A Review.” Computers in Human Behavior 24(3): 766–785. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dombi, Judit, Tetyana Sydorenko and Veronika Timpe-Laughlin. 2022. “Common ground, cooperation, and recipient design in human-computer interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics, 1931: 4–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duan, Jinyun, Xia Xiaoting, and Lyn M. Van Swol. 2018. “Emoticons’ Influence on Advice Taking.” Computers in Human Behavior 791:53–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duncker, Dorthe. 2017. “Reflexivity, Repetition, and Language-making Online.” Language Sciences 61(5): 28–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fan, Lizhou, Yu Huizi, & Yin Zhuanyuan. 2020. “Stigmatization in Social Media: Documenting and Analyzing Hate Speech for COVID-19 on Twitter.” Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, David. 2020. “Anti-Chinese Hate Speech Online Has Skyrocketed Since the Coronavirus Crisis Began.” Vice.com, March 27, 2020, retrieved August 3rd, 2024 from [URL]
Gleason, Jennifer. 2019. “Direct and Indirect Acts of Stigmatization.” Journal of Social Ontology 5(1): 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Graddol, David, and Joan Swann. 1989. Gender Voices. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Graham, Sage L., and Claire Hardaker. 2017. “(Im)politeness in Digital Communication.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. by Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Daniel Z. Kádár, 785–814. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gyollai, Daniel. 2020. “The sociocognitive approach in critical discourse studies and the phenomenological sociology of knowledge: intersections.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Science 211: 539–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan. 2002. “Computer-Mediated Communication on the Internet.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 36(1): 109–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Computer-mediated discourse.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi Hamilton, 612–634. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Relevance in Computer-mediated Conversation.” In Handbook of Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication, ed. by Susan Herring, Dieter Stein, and Tuija Virtanen, 245–268. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hossain, Mohammad Bellal, et al.. 2021. “COVID-19 Public Stigma in the Context of Government-Based Structural Stigma: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey of Adults in Bangladesh.” Stigma and Health 6(2): 123–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joachim, Gloria, and Sonia Acorn. 2000. Living with chronic illness: the interface of stigma and normalization. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 32(3):37–48.Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z., and Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan, and Zhang Fenghui. 2009. “Activating, Seeking, and Creating Common Ground: A Socio-cognitive Approach.” Pragmatics & Cognition 172(2): 331–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. “Dueling Contexts: A Dynamic Model of Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 40(3): 385–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “The Paradox of Communication: A Socio-cognitive Approach.” Pragmatics and Society 1(1): 50–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2021. Sociocognitive Pragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, eds. by Haugh, M., Kádár, D. Z., Terkourafi, M., 592–615. Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. The Socio-cognitive Approach to Communication and Pragmatics. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam. 2005. “Language is Never, Ever, Ever, Random.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 111: 263–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Wee Kyung, and Sung Rae Shin. 2023. “Integrated Factors Affecting Intention of COVID-19 Preventive Behaviours Including Vaccination in Korea.” Nursing Open, 10(5): 3424–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Link, Bruce G., and Jo C. Phelan. 2001. “Conceptualizing Stigma.” Annual Review of Sociology 271: 363–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lonzer, Jennifer L., et al. 2023. “Health Communication Should Do No Harm: Weight and Diabetes Stigma in Online Health Content.” Journal of Patient Experience DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Major, Brenda, and Laurie T. O’Brien. 2005. “The Social Psychology of Stigma.” Annual Review of Psychology 561: 393–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, Neil, Mark Bedworth, and John Bridle. 1987. “NETspeak — A Re-implementation of NETtalk.” Computer Speech & Language 2(3–4): 289–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milošević, Ivana Trbojević. 2019. “Skidding on common ground: A socio-cognitive approach to problems in intercultural communication situations.” Journal of Pragmatics 1511: 118–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pescosolido, Bernice A., and Jack K. Martin. 2015. “The Stigma Complex.” Social Science & Medicine Annual Review of Sociology 411: 87–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porter, David. 1997. “Introduction.” In Internet Culture, ed. by David Porter, xi–xviii, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jane, Vitaly Dubrvsky, Sara Kiesler, and Timothy W. McGuire. 1986. “Group processes in computer-mediated communication.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 371:157–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
SPSSPRO. 2022. “2022 nian, Zhongguoren dui tongxinlian de kanfa taidu ruhe?“ [How do Chinese people view homosexuality in 2022?] Online at [URL], retrieved on August 10th, 2024.
Tang, Ying, and Khe Foon Hew. 2018. “Emoticon, Emoji and Sticker Use in Computer-mediated Communications: Understanding its Communicative Function, Impact, User Behavior and Motive.” In New Media for Educational Change, Educational Communications and Technology Yearbook, ed. by Deng Liping, Will W. K. Ma, and Cheuk Wai Rose Fong, 191–200. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurlow, Crispin, Laura Lengel, and Alice Tomic. 2004. Computer Mediated Communication: Social Interaction and The Internet. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Tyler, Imogen. 2020. Stigma: The Machinery of Inequality. Croydon: CPI Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vienne, Philippe. 2004. “Au-delà du stigmate: La stigmatisation comme outil conceptuel critique des interactions et des jugements scolaires.” Éducation et Sociétés 131:177–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walther, Joseph B., Kyle P. D’Addario. 2001. “ The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication.” Social Science Computer Review 191:324–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wanniarachchi, Vajisha U., Anuradha Mathrani, Teo Susnjak, and Chris Scogings. 2020. “A Systematic Literature Review: What is the Current Stance Towards Weight Stigmatization in Social Media Platforms?” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 1351: 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Shawn. P. 1997. “An Archaeology of Cyberspaces: Virtuality, Community, Identity.” In Internet Culture, ed. by David Porter, 5–22. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 2011. Cyberpragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Rongrong, Wang, Milo, Toubiana, Madeline, & Greenwood, Royston. 2021. “Stigma Beyond Levels: Advancing Research on Stigmatization.” Academy of Management Annals 15 (2): 188–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar