Cover not available
Article In:
The Speech Act(ion) of Commenting in Social Media and Beyond
Edited by Robert Külpmann and Rita Finkbeiner
[Pragmatics & Cognition 31:2] 2024
► pp. 367–390

Sisterhood construction through commenting by Chinese women

ORCID logo | University of Porto
This paper takes the form of a case study which examines to what extent a comment can be analyzed as a type of speech action. This study analyzed 507 replies to a post on a popular Chinese social media application, Xiaohongshu, which concerns feminist issues. A speech act analysis of these replies offers new insights on comments as a type of speech act by showing their constructive functions across intra-utterance, inter-utterance, and extra-textual contexts. Comments can facilitate the securing of hearer’s uptake of an illocutionary act, may modify the actual hearer’s uptake of another illocutionary act, and may ultimately contribute to the construction of sisterhood within a redefined context. The performance of comments in this study is grounded in a particular circumstance and is highly context-dependent. Nevertheless, this finding leaves open the possibility that comments may display other effects in different contexts.
Keywords: commenting as a speech act, sisterhood, post-feminist discourse(s), Chinese social media
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Sisterhood and feminism on the internet
    • 2.2Speech act theory
      • 2.2.1Taxonomy of illocutionary acts
      • 2.2.2Performance of illocutionary acts
      • 2.2.3Indirect speech acts and illocutionary pluralism
    • 2.3Comment
  • 3.Data
  • 4.Forms of comments
    • 4.1Comments in directives
    • 4.2Comments in assertions
  • 5.Commenting as an action
    • 5.1Performance of comments
    • 5.2Modifying hearer’s uptake
    • 5.3Constructing sisterhood
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (45)
References
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borge, Steffen. 2013. Questions. In Marina Sbisà & Ken Turner (eds.), Pragmatics of speech actions, 411–444. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Jess. 2013. For white girls only?: Post-feminism and the politics of inclusion. Feminist Formations 25(1). 35–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chankova, Mariya. 2019. Rejecting and challenging illocutionary acts. Pragmatics 29(1). 33–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clapp, Lenny. 2009. The rhetorical relations approach to indirect speech acts: Problems and prospects. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(1). 43–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark-Parsons, Rosemary. 2021. “I SEE YOU, I BELIEVE YOU, I STAND WITH YOU”: #MeToo and the performance of networked feminist visibility. Feminist Media Studies 21(3). 362–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coffey, Julia & Kanai, Akane. 2021. Feminist fire: Embodiment and affect in managing conflict in digital feminist spaces. Feminist Media Studies 23(2). 638–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davison, Alice. 1975. Indirect speech acts and what to do with them. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Speech acts, 143–185. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Carrión, Isis Arlene. 2023. Sisterhood to promote the rhizomatic bodies of Mexican-mestiza women mountaineers. Gender, Place & Culture 30(2). 256–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diedrichsen, Elke. 2022. Common ground in linguistic theory and internet pragmatics: Forms of dynamic multicultural interaction. In Istvan Kecskes (eds), The Cambridge handbook of intercultural pragmatics, 245–273. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diez, Illari & Bossio, Juan. 2023. Women’s solidarity as feminism in action: The concept of sisterhood (sororidad) in #LasRespondonas, a Facebook group in Peru. Information Technology for Development 30(2). 229–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gill, Rosalind. 2007. Post-feminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility. European Journal of Cultural Studies 10(2). 147–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Empowerment/sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising. Feminism & Psychology 18(1). 35–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guo, Jingyi, Ziwei Zhang, Jinhong Song, Lu Jin, Duan Yu & Sara Liao. 2022. Femvertising and postfeminist discourse: Advertising to break menstrual taboos in China. Women’s Studies in Communication 45(3). 378–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2009. Speech acts. In Jacob L. Mey (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 1000–1009. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kroløkke, Charlotte & Sørensen, Anne Scott. 2006. Gender communication theories & analyses: From silence to performance. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Labinaz, Paolo & Sbisà, Marina. 2021. Speech acts and the dissemination of knowledge in social networks. In Chaoqun Xie, Francisco Yus & Hartmut Haberland (eds.), Approaches to internet pragmatics: Theory and practice, 145–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin. 2021. Illocutionary pluralism. Synthese 1991. 6687–6714. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liao, Sara. 2019. Wang Hong fashion culture and the post-feminist time in China. Fashion Theory 25(5). 663–685. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malinowska, Ania. 2020. Waves of feminism. In Karen Ross, Ingrid Bachmann, Valentina Cardo, Sujata Moorti & Cosimo Marco Scarcelli (eds.), The international encyclopedia of gender, media, and communication, 1–7. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLean, Jessica, Sophia Maalsen & Sarah Prebble. 2019. A feminist perspective on digital geographies: Activism, affect and emotion, and gendered human-technology relations in Australia. Gender, Place & Culture 26(5). 740–761. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2012. What is a context? In Rita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer & Petra B. Schumacher (eds), What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges, 9–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, Ealasaid. 2013. Feminism: A fourth wave? Political Insight 4(2). 22–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nau, Charlotte, Jinman Zhang, Anabel Quan-Haase & Kaitlynn Mendes. 2023. Vernacular practices in digital feminist activism on Twitter: Deconstructing affect and emotion in the #MeToo movement. Feminist Media Studies 23(5). 2046–2062. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pálmadóttir, Valgerður, Evelina Johansson-Wilén & Eva Schmitz. 2023. Collective identity, solidarity, and sisterhood in the ASAB cleaning women’s strike in Sweden and the Women’s day off in Iceland. Labor History 64(5). 478–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rodak, Lidia. 2020. Sisterhood and the fourth wave of feminism: An analysis of circles of women in Poland. Oñati Socio-Legal Series 10(1s). 116S–134S. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 1984. On illocutionary types. Journal of Pragmatics 81. 93–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Speech acts in context. Language & Communication 221. 421–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Uptake and conventionality in illocution. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5(1). 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, Marina & Turner, Ken. 2013. Introduction. In Marina Sbisà & Ken Turner (eds.), Pragmatics of speech actions, 1–21. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 2023. Essays on speech acts and other topics in pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Kimberly T. & Carpenter, Nathan J. 2019. Sharing #MeToo on Twitter: Incidents, coping responses, and social reactions. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion 39(1). 87–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. R. 1979. Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1998. On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7(1). 3–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter Frederick. 1964. Intention and convention in speech acts. The Philosophical Review 73(4). 439–460. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Yun & Tavmen, Güneş. 2024. New outlets of digital feminist activism in China: The #SeeFemaleWorkers campaign. Feminist Media Studies, 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witek, Maciej. 2005. An interactional account of illocutionary practice. Language Sciences 471. 43–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Three approaches to the study of speech acts. Dialogue and Universalism 23(1). 129–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. Irony as a speech action. Journal of Pragmatics 1901. 76–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Tegan. 2017. #Intersectionality: The fourth wave feminist Twitter community. Atlantis 38(1). 54–68.Google Scholar