Cover not available
Part of
The Construction of ‘Ordinariness’ across Media Genres
Edited by Anita Fetzer and Elda Weizman
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 307] 2019
► pp. 21–50

Are Austrian presidential candidates ordinary people?

Candidates’ self-presentation strategies on Twitter during the 2016 Austrian presidential election campaign

| University of Vienna, Austria
This paper investigates one specific aspect of impression management (self-presentation as an ordinary person) of the candidates during the 2016 Austrian presidential campaign on Twitter and asks whether the candidates’ campaigns followed the innovation or the normalization hypothesis. By applying Goffman’s concepts of “giving” vs. “giving off” information to the affordances of political communication on Twitter, a communicated ordinariness strategy is distinguished from a staged ordinariness strategy. Different forms of these two strategies are identified in the candidates’ tweets by investigating the pictorial and verbal elements of their tweets. Results show that both strategies are employed rather infrequently in all but one of the candidates’ tweets. Only one of the candidates used a staged ordinariness strategy during one phase of the campaign. These results show that most candidates employed communication strategies which conform to the normalization hypothesis rather than to the innovation hypothesis. Furthermore, the results suggest that following a consistent communication strategy throughout an entire campaign might ultimately lead to electoral success.
Keywords: political discourse, social media, microblogging, Twitter, political campaign, election campaign, politicians’ self-presentation, Austrian presidential election
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Doing “being an ordinary person” on social media platforms
  • 3.Data and campaign details
  • 4.Methodology
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Frequency of picture use in candidates’ tweets
    • 5.2Qualitative aspects of the politicians’ visual impression management strategies
    • 5.3Indicators of staged ordinariness
  • 6.Discussion and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.307.02gru
References (33)
References
Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bullingham, Liam, and Ana C. Vasconcelos. 2013. ‘“The Presentation of Self in the Online World”: Goffman and the Study of Online Identities’. Journal of Information Science 39 (1): 101–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul Anthony. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Draucker, Fawn, and Lauren Collister. 2015. ‘Managing Participation through Modal Affordances on Twitter’. Open Library of Humanities 1 (1):n.p. 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
Fetzer, Anita. 2006. ‘“Minister, We Will See How the Public Judges You.”’ Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2): 180–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Anchor Books.Google Scholar
. 1974. Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Gruber, Helmut. 1993. ‘Political Language and Textual Vagueness’. Pragmatics 3 (1): 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. ‘Quoting and Retweeting as Communicative Practices in Computer Mediated Discourse’. Discourse, Context & Media 20: 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. ‘Genres of Political Communication in Web 2.0’. In Handbook of Political Communication, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Bernhard Forchner, 412–425. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
. forthcoming. ‘Candidates’ Use of Twitter during the 2016 Austrian Presidential Campaign’. In The Pragmatics of Internet Communication, ed. by Chaoqun Xie and Francisco Yus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1985. ‘Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an Overhearing Audience’. In Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Teun van Dijk, 1:95–117. London: Adademic Press.Google Scholar
Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B. 2007. ‘(Pseudo-)Argumentation in TV-Debates’. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (8): 1360–1370. 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
Kendon, Adam. 1996. ‘Goffman’s Approach to Face-to-Face Interaction’. In Erving Goffman. Exploring the Interaction Order, ed. by Paul Drew and Anthony Wootton, 14–41. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Khamis, S., L. Ang, and R. Welling. 2017. ‘Self-Branding, “Micro-Celebrity” and the Rise of Social Media Influencers’. Celebrity Studies 8 (2): 191–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kietzmann, Jan H., Kristopher Hermkens, Ian P. McCarthy, and Bruno S. Silvestre. 2011. ‘Social Media? Get Serious! Understanding the Functional Building Blocks of Social Media’. Business Horizons 54 (3): 241–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koc-Michalska, Karolina, R Gibson, and Thierry Vedel. 2014. ‘Online Campaigning in France, 2007–2012: Political Actors and Citizens in the Aftermath of the Web.2.0 Evolution’. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 11 (2): 220–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreis, Ramona. 2017. ‘The “Tweet Politics” of President Trump’. Journal of Language & Politics 16 (4): 607–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, Gunter, and Theo van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Larsson, Anders O., and Bente Kalsnes. 2014. ‘“Of Course We Are on Facebook”: Use and Non-Use of Social Media among Swedish and Norwegian Politicians’. European Journal of Communication 29 (6): 653–667. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2006. ‘On the Human “Interaction Engine”’. In Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, ed. by Nicholas J. Enfield and Stephen Levinson, 36–69. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Littler, Mark, and Matthew Feldman. 2017. ‘Social Media and the Cordon Sanitaire: Populist Politics, the Online Space, and a Relationship That Just Isn’t There’. Journal of Language & Politics 16 (4): 510–522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marwick, A., and d. 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
Marwick, Alice. 2012. ‘The Public Domain: Surveillance in Everyday Life’. Surveillance & Society 9 (4): 378–393. DOI logoGoogle 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 Self on Twitter’. International Journal of Communication 6: 1989–2006.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. 1964. ‘Intention and Convention in Speech Acts’. The Philosophical Review 73 (4): 439–460. DOI logoGoogle 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
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2006. ‘Relevance Theory’. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 606–632. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2017. ‘The “Establishment”, the “Élites”, and the “People”: Who’s Who?’ Journal of Language & Politics 16 (4): 551–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele. 2015. ‘Searchable Talk: The Linguistic Functions of Hashtags’. Social Semiotics 25 (3): 274–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Enli, Gunn
2024. Populism as “Truth”: How Mediated Authenticity Strengthens the Populist Message. The International Journal of Press/Politics DOI logo
Hansson, Sten & Ruth Page
2023. Legitimation in government social media communication: the case of the Brexit department. Critical Discourse Studies 20:4 ► pp. 361 ff. DOI logo
Fetzer, Anita
2022. Small stories and accountability of discursive action in mediated political discourse: Contextualisation and recontextualisation of ordinary and not-so-ordinary participants. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo
Gruber, Helmut
2021. Chapter 9. Candidates’ use of Twitter during the 2016 Austrian presidential campaign. In Approaches to Internet Pragmatics [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 318], ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
Luebke, Simon M.
2021. Political Authenticity: Conceptualization of a Popular Term. The International Journal of Press/Politics 26:3 ► pp. 635 ff. DOI logo
Xie, Chaoqun, Francisco Yus & Hartmut Haberland
2021. Introduction. In Approaches to Internet Pragmatics [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 318], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Xie, Chaoqun
2020. The pragmatics of internet memes. Internet Pragmatics 3:2 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Xie, Chaoqun
2022. Introduction. In The Pragmatics of Internet Memes [Benjamins Current Topics, 120], ► pp. 1 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
[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 27 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.