Article published in:Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions
Edited by Marta Dynel and Jan Chovanec
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 256] 2015
► pp. 99–133
Troubles talk, (dis)affiliation and the participation order in Taiwanese-Chinese online discussion boards
Online discussion boards are a common forum in which everyday users share troubles, elicit various forms of empathy and sympathy, and also seek advice from others. One challenge facing participants, as well as analysts, is the interpretation of expressions of discontent or dissatisfaction as either troubles talk, complaining, seeking advice, or some combination of these, given that each of these social actions/activities invokes a distinct preference structure and presumed differences in what counts as an affiliative or disaffiliative response. In this paper, drawing on an analysis of threads in a Taiwanese online parenting discussion board, we propose that one way in which participants navigate this complex array of preferences and (dis)affiliative responses is through the instantiation of a locally situated participation order, which is both afforded and constrained by the interactions that are mediated via online discussion boards. We further argue that emotional support can be indicated through both affiliative responses, such as mutual encouraging, mutual bemoaning, and empathic suggesting, as well as through disaffiliative responses, such as accusing and advising. We conclude that soliciting emotional support constitutes an important relational practice in online parenting discussion boards, whereby a warrant for sharing troubles with acquaintances and even strangers is established for these kinds of interactions.
Published online: 12 February 2015
Cited by 3 other publications
Haugh, Michael, Wei-Lin Melody Chang & Dániel Z. Kádár
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 november 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.
Bou-Franch, Patricia, Nuria Lorenzo-Dus, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
Burgess, Jean, and Joshua Green
2008 “Agency and Controversy in the YouTube Community.” Paper presented at IR 9.0: Rethinking Communities, Rethinking Place – Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) Conference , 15–18 October 2008, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Chan, Annie Hau-Nang
Dresner, Eli, and Susan Herring
Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Holt
Drew, Paul, and Traci Walker
Ess, CharlesAssociation for Internet Researchers
and 2002 “Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee.” Association for Internet Researchers. Available at http://aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf, accessed January 30, 2014.
Eysenbach, Gunther, and James E. Till
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, Nuria Lorenzo-Dus, and Patricia Bou-Franch
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
Haugh, Michael, Wei-Lin Melody Chang, and Dániel Z. Kádár
Forthcoming. “‘Doing Deference’: Identities and Relational Practices in Chinese Online Discussion Boards.” Pragmatics.
Heinemann, Trine and Veronique Traverso
Heritage, John, and Anna Lindström
Heritage, John, and Sue Sefi
2010 “Computer-mediated Conversation: Introduction and Overview.” LanguageInternet 7 (Article 2). Available at http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2801, accessed January 30, 2014.
Jefferson, Gail, and John R. Lee
Kádár, Dániel Z, Michael Haugh, and Wei-Lin Melody Chang
2010 “The Pragmatics of Peer Advice in a LiveJournal Community.” LanguageInternet 7 (Article 1). Available at http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010/2464, accessed January 30, 2014.
2013 “Introduction: Institutional Computer-mediated Troubles Talk.” LanguageInternet 10 (Article 2). Available at http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2013/kupferberg, accessed January 30, 2014.
Kupferberg, Irit, and Itay Hess
2013 “ ‘Me and My Guide Poodle, Lara, are about to Begin Our Third Year at the Hebrew University: Adults with Visual Impairment and Blindness Position themselves Interactively in Computer-mediated Conversations.” LanguageInternet 10 (Article 6). Available at http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2013/kupferberg2, accessed January 30, 2014.
Lamerichs, Joyce, and Hedwig Te Molder
Levinson, Stephen C.
Lindström, Anna, and Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, and Patricia Bou-Franch
Markham, Annette, and Elizabeth Buchanan
2012 “Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research. Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0).” Available at http://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf, accessed January 30, 2014.
Morris, Merrill, and Christine Ogan
Pederson, Sarah, and Janet Smithson
Pomerantz, Anita, and John Heritage
Pomerantz, Anita, and Jenny Mandelbaum
Rodham, Karen, and Jeff Gavin
1995 “Parties and Talking Together: Two Ways in which Numbers are Significant for Talk-in-interaction.” In Situated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities, ed. by Paul ten Have and George Psathas, 31–42. Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.
Sharkey, Siobhan, Janet Smithson, Elaine Hewis, Ray Jones, Tobit Emmens, Tamsin Ford, and Christabel Owens
Shaw, Chloe, and Alexa Hepburn
Shum, Winnie, and Cynthia Lee
Smithson, Janet, Siobhan Sharkey, Elaine Hewis, Ray Jones, Tobit Emmens, Tamsin Ford, and Christabel Owens
Steensig, Jakob, and Paul Drew
2008 “Conversation Analysis and Community of Practice as Approaches to Studying Online Community.” LanguageInternet 5 (Article 5). Available at http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2008/1537, accessed January 30, 2014.
Waring, Hansun Zhang