This paper analyzes how social network users engaged in
discussions under a public post contribute to knowledge dissemination through their
verbal behavior in the light of an Austin-based speech-act theoretical framework. We
first argue that such a framework can be applied not only to face-to-face
interaction, but also to internet-mediated communication, since it identifies kinds
of illocutionary acts on the basis of recognizable procedure patterns which can be
made manifest through different communication channels. We then examine to what
extent the performance of different kinds of illocutionary acts contributes to
knowledge dissemination through the achievement of their characteristic effects or
other aspects of their procedure patterns. For each of four main classes of
illocutionary acts, we discuss examples from comments on Facebook posts concerning
health- and politics-related issues.
Bou-Franch, Patricia, Nuria Lorenzo-Dus, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
2012 “Social
Interaction in YouTube Text-Based Polylogues: A Study of
Coherence.” Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 17(4): 501–521.
Carr, Caleb T., David B. Schrock, and Patricia Dauterman
2012 “Speech
Acts Within Facebook Status Messages.” Journal of
Language and Social
Psychology 31(2): 176–196.
DiNucci, Darcy
1999 “Fragmented
Future.” Print 53(32): 221–222.
Dresner, Eli, and Susan C. Herring
2010 “Functions
of the Nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and Illocutionary
Force.” Communication
Theory 20: 249–268.
Graham, Sage L.
2007 “Disagreeing
to Agree: Conflict (Im)politeness and Identity in a Computer-Mediated
Community.” Journal of
Pragmatics 39: 742–759.
Graham, Sage L.
2016 “Relationality,
Friendship, and Identity in Digital
Communication.” In The
Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital
Communication, ed. by Alexandra Georgakopoulou, and Tereza Spilioti, 305–320. Abingdon: Routledge.
Herring, Susan C.
2004 “Computer-Mediated
Discourse Analysis: An Approach to Researching Online
Behavior.” In Designing
for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, ed.
by Sasha Barab, Rob Kling, and James H. Gray, 338–376. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Herring, Susan C., and Jannis Androutsopoulos
2015 “Computer-Mediated
Discourse 2.0.” In The
Handbook of Discourse Analysis (2nd
edn.), ed. by Deborah Tannen, Deborah S. Schiffrin, and Heidi Ehernberger Hamilton, 127–151. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Labinaz, Paolo, and Marina Sbisà
2017 “Credibilità e disseminazione di conoscenze nei social
network [Credibility and
Knowledge Dissemination in Social
Networks].” Iride 30: 63–86.
Lewis, David
1979 “Scorekeeping
in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical
Logic 8: 339–359.
Marsili, Neri
2020 “Retweeting:
Its Linguistic and Epistemic
Value.” Synthese.
Millikan, Ruth G.
2005Language:
A Biological
Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Reilly, Tim
2007 “What
Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of
Software.” Communications &
Strategies 65: 17–37.
Sbisà, Marina
1984 “On
Illocutionary Types.” Journal of
Pragmatics 8: 93–112.
Sbisà, Marina
1987 “Acts
of Explanation: A Speech Act
Analysis.” In Proceedings
of the First International Conference on
Argumentation. Vol. 2, ed.
by Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles Arthur Willard, 7–17. Dordrecht: Foris.
Sbisà, Marina
1989Linguaggio, ragione, interazione. Per una pragmatica degli atti
linguistici [Language, Reason,
Interaction. For a Pragmatic Theory of Speech
Acts]. Bologna: il Mulino; reprinted as a digital edition by
Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2009 [the page numbers
indicated in the paper refer to the digital
edition]. [URL] (accessed 10 April 2018).
Sbisà, Marina
1990 “Speech
Acts and the Expression of Affect.” Grazer
Linguistische
Studien 33–34: 279–295.
Sbisà, Marina
1999 “Ideology
and the Persuasive Use of
Presupposition.” In Language
and Ideology: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics
Conference. Vol. 1, ed.
by Jef Verschueren, 492–509. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
Sbisà, Marina
2001 “Illocutionary
Force and Degrees of Strength in Language
Use.” Journal of
Pragmatics 33: 1791–1814.
2009 “Uptake
and Conventionality in Illocution.” Lodz Papers
in
Pragmatics 5: 33–52.
Sbisà, Marina
2018 “Varieties
of Speech Act
Norms.” In Normativity
and Variety of Speech Actions, ed.
by Maciej Witek, and Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka, 23–50. Leiden: Brill.
Sbisà, Marina
2020 “Assertion
among the Speech
Acts.” In The Oxford
Handbook of Assertion, ed. by Sanford C. Goldberg, 159–178. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, John R.
1969Speech
Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R.
1975 “A
Taxonomy of Illocutionary
Acts.” In Language,
Mind and Knowledge, ed. by Keith Gunderson, 344–369. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Searle, John R., and Daniel Vanderveken
1985Foundations
of Illocutionary
Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simpson, Thomas W.
2017 “Telepresence
and Trust: A Speech-Act Theory of Mediated
Communication.” Philosophy &
Technology 30: 443–459.
Strawson, Peter F.
1964 “Intention
and Convention in Speech Acts.” The Philosophical
Review 73: 439–460.
Witek, Maciej
2013 “Three
Approaches to the Study of Speech Act.” Dialogue
and
Universalism 23: 129–142.
Witek, Maciej
2015 “An
Interactional Account of Illocutionary
Practice.” Language
Sciences 47: 43–55.
2014 “El discurso de las identidades en línea: El caso de
Facebook [The Discourse of
Online Identities: The Case of Facebook].” Discurso
&
Sociedad 8: 398–426.
Cited by
Cited by 7 other publications
Caponetto, Laura & Paolo Labinaz
2023. Marina Sbisà’s Deontic Approach to Speech Actions. In Sbisà on Speech as Action [Philosophers in Depth, ], ► pp. 1 ff.
García-Sánchez, Soraya
2021. TED talks: multimodal communicative affordances for EPS/ELF dissemination. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 10:2 ► pp. 261 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 march 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.