Chapter published in:
Emotion in Discourse
Edited by J. Lachlan Mackenzie and Laura Alba-Juez
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 302] 2019
► pp. 161–188

Chapter 7
A cognitive pragmatics of the phatic Internet

| University of Alicante (Spain)
Phatic interpretations are typically defined as those arising from an intention to create and maintain ties and social bonds, rather than an intention to transfer substantive information. As such, they are not typical instances of communication in which the eventual relevance centers upon the value of explicitly communicated content. Nowadays we are witnessing the so-called phatic Internet, in which the propositional content transferred to other users is increasingly irrelevant but the effects that this content generates (in terms of emotions and feelings of connection, sociability, group membership, friends’ acknowledgment and mutual awareness, etc.) are utterly relevant. This chapter will argue that it is mainly the feelings and emotions that are generated from phatic interactions (as well as phatic implicatures) that demand an extension of the scope of analysis and new terminology. Specifically, the term phatic effects will be proposed and applied to Internet-mediated communication. These effects are devoid of the qualities of intentionality and propositionality but are nevertheless essential to understanding why many users spend hours exchanging (apparently) irrelevant content with one another through the Net.
Keywords: emotions in phatic communication, phatic effects, Internet-mediated communication, relevance theory, contextual constraints, non-propositional effects
Article outline
  • 1.Phatic communication
  • 2.The phatic internet
  • 3.Reinterpreting phaticness on the internet
    • 3.1Phatic communication is intentional (but it may be unintentional)
    • 3.2Phatic communication is propositional (but it may be non-propositional)
    • 3.3Phatic utterances may be more or less phatic (and they may also produce joint phatic and non-phatic interpretations)
    • 3.4Phatic communication is speaker-centered (but it may be hearer-centered)
    • 3.5In phatic communication the explicit content is irrelevant (but it may be relevant)
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 March 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.302.07yus
References
Biocca, Frank, Chad Harms & Judee K. Burgoon
2003 “Toward a More Robust Theory and Measure of Social Presence: Review and Suggested Criteria.” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 12 (5): 456‒480. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carr, Caleb T., D. Yvette Wohn & Rebecca A. Hayes
2016 “[Like] as Social Support: Relational Closeness, Automaticity, and Interpreting Social Support from Paralinguistic Digital Affordances in Social Media.” Computers in Human Behavior 62: 385‒393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2009 “Explicit/Implicit Distinction.” In The Pragmatics Encyclopedia, ed. by Louise Cummings, 154‒162. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Choi, Sujeong
2016 “The Flipside of Ubiquitous Connectivity Enabled by Smartphone-Based Social Networking Service: Social Presence and Privacy Concern.” Computers in Human Behavior 65: 325‒333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Justine
2003 “Small Talk: Social Functions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 36 (1): 1‒6. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Justine & Nikolas Coupland
1992 “ ‘How Are You?’: Negotiating Phatic Communion.” Language in Society 21: 207‒230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Gerrard Mugford, Sergio Lomelí Vargas & Estefanía Vázquez Robles
2013 “La comunión fática como práctica local: La anticortesía y la cortesía positiva en el contexto mexicano” [Phatic Communication as a Local Practice: Anti-Politeness and Positive Politeness in the Mexican Context]. Sociocultural Pragmatics 1 (2): 199‒226.Google Scholar
González Manzo, Fabiana
2014 Talking Big about Small Talk: A Contemporary Theoretical Model for Phatic Communication. MA Thesis. Halifax: Mount Saint Vincent University.Google Scholar
Graham, Greg
2012 “Social Media & the Phaticization of Culture.” The Digital Realist, 23–4–2012 (blog entry).Google Scholar
Hopkins, Kane
2014 “The Phatic Nature of the Online Social Sphere: Implications for Public Relations.” PRism 11 (2).Google Scholar
Kulkarni, Dipti
2012 Phatic Communion in Instant Messaging: A Pragmatics Perspective. PhD Thesis. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Licoppe, Christian
2004 “ ‘Connected’ Presence: The Emergence of a New Repertoire for Managing Social Relationships in a Changing Communication Technoscape.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22: 135‒156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Licoppe, Christian & Zbigniew Smoreda
2005 “Are Social Networks Technologically Embedded?” Social Networks 27 (4): 317‒335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Nan
1999 “Building a Network Theory of Social Capital.” Connections 22 (1): 28‒51.Google Scholar
Lomborg, Stine
2012 “Negotiating Privacy through Phatic Communication. A Case Study of the Blogging Self.” Philosophy & Technology 25: 415‒434. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowenthal, Patrick R.
2010 “Social Presence.” In Social Computing: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, And Applications, ed. by Subhasish Dasgupta, 129‒136. Hershey: Information Science Reference. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw
1943 “The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages.” In The Meaning of Meaning, ed. by Charles K. Ogden & Ivor A. Richards, 6th edition, 296‒336. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Meltzer, Bernard M. & Gil Richard Musolf
2000 “ ‘Have a Nice Day!’ Phatic Communion and Everyday Life.” In Studies in Symbolic Interaction, ed. by Norman K. Denzin, Volume 23, 95‒111. Stamford, CT: Jai Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Vincent
2008 “New Media, Networking and Phatic Culture.” Convergence 14: 387‒400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nardi, Bonnie A., Steve Whittaker & Erin Bradner
2000 “Interaction and Outeraction: Instant Messaging in Action.” In Proceedings of Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 79‒88. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2004 “On the Social Importance of Phatic Utterances: Some Considerations for a Relevance Theoretic Approach.” In Current Trends in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics, ed. by Pilar Garcés Conejos, Reyes Gómez Morón, Lucía Fernández Amaya & Manuel Padilla Cruz, 199‒216. Seville (Spain): Intercultural Pragmatics Research Group.Google Scholar
2005 “On the Phatic Interpretation of Utterances: A Complementary Relevance-Theoretic Proposal.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 18: 227‒246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Social Effects: A Relevance Theory Perspective.” Paper delivered at the 31st AEDEAN International Conference , University of La Coruña (Spain), November 2007.
2009 “Understanding and Overcoming Pragmatic Failure when Interpreting Phatic Utterances.” In Pragmatics Applied to Language Teaching and Learning, ed. by Reyes Gómez Morón, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Lucía Fernández Amaya & María de la O Hernández López, 87‒108. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Park, Seongwon, Kwangsu Cho & Bong Gyou Lee
2014 “What Makes Smartphone Users Satisfied with the Mobile Instant Messenger? Social Presence, Flow, and Self-Disclosure.” International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering 9 (11): 315‒324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Park, Eun Kyung & Shyam Sundar
2015 “Can Synchronicity and Visual Modality Enhance Social Presence in Mobile Messaging?” Computers in Human Behavior 45: 121‒128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Placencia, María E. & Amanda Lower
2013 “ Your Kids Are So Stinkin’ Cute!:-): Complimenting Behavior on Facebook among Family and Friends.” Intercultural Pragmatics 10 (4): 617‒646. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radovanovic, Danica & Massimo Ragnedda
2012 “Small Talk in the Digital Age: Making Sense of Phatic Posts.” Proceedings of #MSM2012 Workshop. Lyon, April 2012.Google Scholar
Sarjanoja, Ari-Heikki, Minna Isomursu & Jonna Häkkilä
2013 “Small Talk with Facebook –Phatic Communication in Social Media.” Proceedings of AcademicMindTrek’13. Tampere, Finland, October 2013.Google Scholar
Schandorf, Michael
2016 A Gesture Theory of Communication. PhD Thesis. University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
Schwarz-Friesel, Monika
2015 “Language and Emotion: The Cognitive Linguistic Perspective.” In Emotion in Language, ed. by Ulrike Lüdtke (ed.), 157‒173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Senft, Gunter
1996 “Phatic Communion.” In Handbook of Pragmatics 1995, ed. by Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thompson, Clive
2008 “Brave New World of Digital Intimacy.” The New York Times, 5–9–2008, Magazine.Google Scholar
Varis, Piia & Jan Blommaert
2015 “Conviviality and Collectives on Social Media: Virality, Memes, and New Social Structures.” Multilingual Margins 2 (1): 31‒45.Google Scholar
Vetere, Frank, Jeremy Smith & Martin Gibbs
2009 “Phatic Interactions: Being Aware and Feeling Connected.” In Awareness Systems. Advances in Theory, Methodology, and Design, ed. by Panos Markopoulos, Boris de Ruyter & Wendy Mackay, 173‒186. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wang, Victoria, John V. Tucker & Kevin Haines
2012 “Phatic Technologies in Modern Society.” Technology in Society 34: 84‒93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Victoria, John V. Tucker & Tracey E. Rihll
2011 “On Phatic Technologies for Creating and Maintaining Human Relationships.” Technology in Society 33 (1–2): 44‒51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco
2005 “Attitudes and Emotions through Written Text: The Case of Textual Deformation in Internet Chat Rooms.” Pragmalingüística 13: 147‒174.Google Scholar
2011a Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011b “Relevance Equations of Effective Internet Communication.” In Interdisciplinarity and languages: Current Issues in Research, Teaching, Professional Applications and ICT, ed. by Barry Pennock & Francisca Suau, 65‒86. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2014a “Turismo móvil: Discurso, interactividad y usabilidad en las ‘apps’ de turismo” [Mobile Tourism: Discourse, Interactivity and Usability in the ‘Apps’ for Tourism]. Paper delivered at Discurso y Géneros del Turismo 2.0 . Valencia: University of Valencia and IULMA, April 2014.
2014b “El discurso de las identidades en línea: El caso de Facebook” [The Discourse of Identities Online: The Case of Facebook]. Discurso & Sociedad 8 (3): 398‒426.Google Scholar
2014c “Not All Emoticons are Created Equal.” Linguagem em (Dis)curso (special issue on Relevance Theory) 14 (3): 511‒529. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015a “Should Relevance Theory Analyse What is Non-Propositional, Non-Intentional but yet Affects the Eventual Relevance?” Paper delivered at Relevance Round Table Meeting 4 . Institute of English Studies, Jagiellonian University of Kraków, September 2015.
2015b “The Discursive Management of the Phatic Internet (and how to Explain It Pragmatically).” Paper delivered at Approaches to Digital Discourse Analysis (ADDA) Conference . Valencia (Spain), November 2015.
2016a “Online Identity: A (Non)Propositional Account.” Paper delivered at EPICS VII . Pablo de Olavide University (Seville), May 2016.
2016b “La seducción de lo no codificado” [The Seduction of What is not Coded]. In Manifestaciones Intermediales de la Literatura Hispánica del Siglo XXI, ed. by Victoria Beguelin & Gabriela Cordone, 33‒53. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
2016c “Towards a Cyberpragmatics of Mobile Instant Messaging.” In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2016: Global Implications for Culture and Society in the Networked Age, ed. by Jesús Romero-Trillo, 7‒26. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016d “The Phatic Internet: Networked Feelings and Emotions across the Propositional‒Non-Propositional and the Intentional‒Unintentional Board.” Paper delivered at the International Conference on Language and Emotion . Madrid, November 2016.
2017 “Contextual Constraints and Non-Propositional Effects in Whatsapp Communication.” Journal of Pragmatics 114: 66‒86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Žegarac, Vladimir
1998 “What is ‘Phatic Communication’?” In Current Issues in Relevance Theory, ed, by Villy Rouchota & Andreas H. Jucker, 327–362. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Žegarac, Vladimir & Billy Clark
1999 “Phatic Interpretations and Phatic Communication.” Journal of Linguistics 35: 321‒346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Piskorska, Agnieszka
2021. The internet and social media as a theme and channel of humor. Internet Pragmatics 4:1 ► pp. 12 ff. Crossref logo
Yus, Francisco
2019. An outline of some future research issues for internet pragmatics. Internet Pragmatics 2:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Yus, Francisco
2021.  In Approaches to Internet Pragmatics [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 318], ► pp. 75 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 2022. 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.