Disagreement strategies and institutional face attack in Chinese mainstream media editorial comments on Weibo
Jie Xia | Jiangsu University of Science and Technology
This paper explores how readers of Chinese mainstream media editorials use disagreement strategies to attack the institutional face of the mainstream media organizations on Weibo. By quantitative and qualitative analysis, the disagreement strategies in Weibo comments were elaborated based on the logos-oriented and ethos-oriented distinction. It was found that logos-oriented disagreements were employed to criticize the content of the editorial, ethos-oriented ad-hominem disagreements were employed to attack the trustworthiness and impartiality of the mainstream media organizations, and ethos-oriented ad-personam disagreements were pure insults to express their negative emotions to the mainstream media organizations. The findings suggested that the online commenting space of Chinese mainstream media editorials is a public sphere of combined deliberation and liberal individualism. This study adds to existing literature the disagreement strategies used in online comments while shedding light on the role of online comments in the public sphere building in the Chinese social media context.
2019Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement (2nd edition). New York and London: Routledge.
Angouri, Jo
2012 “Managing Disagreement in Problem Solving Meeting Talk.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (12):1565–1579.
Angouri, Jo, and Theodora Tseliga
2010 “ ‘You Have No Idea What You Are Talking About!’ From E-disagreement to E-impoliteness in Two Online Fora.” Journal of Politeness Research 6(1): 57–82.
Badarneh, Muhammad A., and Fathi Migdadi
2018 “Acts of Positioning in Online Reader Comments on Jordanian News Websites.” Language & Communication 581: 93–106.
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich
1981The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. by Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Baym, Nancy K.
1996 “Agreements and Disagreements in a Computer-mediated Discussion.” Research in Language and Social Interaction 29(4): 315–345.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruce, Tayyiba
2018 “New Technologies, Continuing Ideologies: Online Reader Comments as a Support for Media Perspectives of Minority Religions.” Discourse, Context & Media 241: 53–75.
Coleman, Stephen, and Giles Moss
2012 “Under Construction: The Field of Online Deliberation Research.” Journal of Technology & Politics 9 (1): 1–15.
Dahlberg, Lincoln
2001 “Computer-mediated Communication and the Public Sphere: A Critical Analysis.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 7(1),
Dahlberg, Lincoln
2011 “Re-constructing Digital Democracy: An Outline of Four ‘Positions’.” New Media & Society 13 (6): 855–872.
Díaz-Campo, Jesús, and Francisco Segado-Boj
2015 “Journalism Ethics in a Digital Environment: How Journalistic Codes of Ethics Have Been Adapted to the Internet and ICTs in Countries around the World.” Telematics and Informatics 32(4): 735–744.
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar
2009 “Impoliteness and Identity in the American News Media: The ‘Culture Wars’.” Journal of Politeness Research 5(2): 273–304
Goffman, Erving
1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.
Gong, Shuangping
2014 “冲突性网评中情感立场的语用分析 [A pragmatic analysis of emotional stance in online conflict commentaries].” 现代外语 [Modern Foreign Language] 37 (2):168–178.
Graham, Todd, and Tamara Witschge
2003 “In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Deliberation?” Communications 28(2): 173–204.
Gruber, Helmut
2001 “Questions and Strategies Orientation in Verbal Conflict Sequences.” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (12): 1815–1857.
Habermas, Jürgen
1989The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
2017 “Participation in an Online Social Policy Discussion: Arguments in Focus.” Discourse, Context & Media 191: 58–65.
Lopez-Ozieblo, Renia
2018 “Disagreeing without a ‘no’: How Teachers Indicate Disagreement in a Hong Kong Classroom.” Journal of Pragmatics 1371: 1–18.
Masroor, Farzana, and Ummul Khair Ahmad
2017 “Directives in English Language Newspaper Editorials across Cultures.” Discourse, Context & Media 201: 83–93.
Mills, Charles W.
2000The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
Muntigl, Peter, and William Turnbull
1998 “Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing.” Journal of Pragmatics 29 (3): 225–256.
Neurauter-Kessels, Manuela
2011 “Im/polite Reader Responses on British Online News Sites.” Journal of Politeness Research 7(2): 187–214.
Papacharissi, Zizi
2009 “The Virtual Sphere 2.0: the Internet, the Public Sphere and Beyond.” In Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, ed. by Andrew Chadwick and Phillip N. Howard, 230–245. New York: Routledge.
Pomerantz, Anita
1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/dispreferred Turn Shapes. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shum, Winnie, and Cynthia Lee
2013 “(Im)politeness and Disagreement in Two Hong Kong Internet Discussion Forums.” Journal of Pragmatics 50(1): 52–83.
Sornig, Karl
1977 “Disagreement and Contradiction as Communicative Acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 11: 347–374.
Szabla, Malgorzata, and Jan Blommaert
2018 “Does context really collapse in social media interaction?” Applied Linguistics Review 11(2): 251–279.
Upadhyay, Shiv R.
2010 “Identity and Impoliteness in Computer-mediated Reader Responses.” Journal of Politeness Research 6(1):105–127.
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas
1989Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, Douglas
2006Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2019 “The conventionalization of mock politeness in Chinese and British online forums”. Journal of Pragmatics 1421: 270–280.
Weizman, Elda, and Gonen Dori-Hacohen
2017 “On-line Commenting on Opinion Editorials: A cross-cultural Examination of Face work in the Washington Post (USA) and NRG (Israel).” Discourse, Context & Media 191: 39–48.
Wojcieszak, M. E., and Diana C. Mutz
2009 “Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement?” Journal of Communication 59(1): 40–56.
Wu, Xiaoping
2018 “Discursive Strategies of Resistance on Weibo: A Case Study of the 2015 Tianjin Explosions in China.” Discourse, Context & Media 261: 64–73.
Wu, Xiaoping, and Richard Fitzgerald
2020 “ ‘Hidden in Plain Sight’: Expressing Political Criticism on Chinese Social Media.” Discourse Studies, Published online,
Xu, Feng, Yong Qi, and Xiaotong Li
2018 “What Affects the User Stickiness of the Mainstream Media Websites in China?” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 291: 124–132.
Yu, Haiqing
2006 “From Active Audience to Media Citizenship: The Case of Post-Mao China.” Social Semiotics 16 (2): 303–326.
Zhang, Wei, and Cheris Kramarae
2014 “ ‘SlutWalk’ on Connected screens: Multiple Framings of a Social Media Discussion.” Journal of Pragmatics 73(2): 66–81.
Zimmermann, Tobias
2015 “Between Individualism and Deliberation: Rethinking Discursive Participation via Social Media.” International Journal of Electric Governance 7 (4): 349–365.
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
Zhang, Yutong, Yixi Zou, Yutong Chen & Dan Zhang
2023. The Innovative Inheritance and Development of Guqin Art in the New Media Perspective. In Proceedings of the 2023 9th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2023) [Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 765], ► pp. 1187 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.