Cover not available

Article In: Pragmatics and Society: Online-First Articles

Reaction buttons as backchannels

ORCiD logo with link | Universitat Jaume I
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
In spoken conversation, backchannels — responses like mhm, oh, wow — serve interpersonal and organizational roles, investing in rapport and helping order turns. Backchannels have also been found to arise in digital messaging. Additionally, in recent years, private messaging applications like WhatsApp offer a reaction button feature allowing users to press a previous message and pin an emoji to it. This study explores reaction buttons to examine whether they are always used as backchannels, and if they correspond to backchannel characteristics identified in spoken conversation.
The study analyzes 158 reaction button occurrences in a small corpus of WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, and iMessage exchanges. It compares them to foregoing definitions and characteristics of spoken backchannels, finding that almost all analyzed reactions fit backchannel criteria, with the exception of three transactional uses of ☐. Also, one of the most cited and sequentially systematic functions of spoken backchannels — the continuer — was not observed among the data. Thus, while reaction buttons seem largely related to backchanneling as previously conceived, they may show shifting practices, wherein their organizational impact is secondary, but their social role is indispensable.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Backchannels in spoken conversation
    • 2.2Backchannels in digital communication
  • 3.Study and methods
    • 3.1Research questions
    • 3.2Data collection and corpus
    • 3.3Analytical procedure
  • 4.Analysis and discussion
    • 4.1RQ1 findings
    • 4.2RQ2 findings
    • 4.3RQ3 findings
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
References (38)
References
Aull, Bethany. “Responses and Involvement in Intercultural WhatsApp Conversations: A Pragmatic Analysis.” Doctoral dissertation, Universidad de Sevilla, 2024.
Bavelas, Janet B., and Jennifer Gerwing. 2011. “The Listener as Addressee in Face-to-Face Dialogue.” International Journal of Listening 25 (3): 178–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Choe, Hanwool. 2018. “Type Your Listenership: An Exploration of Listenership in Instant Messages.” Discourse Studies 20 (6): 703–725. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clancy, Patricia M., Sandra A. Thompson, Ryoko Suzuki, and Hongyin Tao. 1996. “The Conversational Use of Reactive Tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin.” Journal of Pragmatics 26 (3): 355–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drummond, Kent, and Robert Hopper. 1993. “Back Channels Revisited: Acknowledgement Tokens and Speakership Incipiency.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 26 (2): 157–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eranti, Veikko O., and Markku Lonkila. 2015. “The Social Significance of the Facebook Like Button.” First Monday 20 (6). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, Julio C. 2015. The Language of Service Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardner, Rod. 1998. “Between Speaking and Listening: The Vocalisation of Understandings.” Applied Linguistics 19 (2): 204–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1986. “Between and Within: Alternative Sequential Treatments of Continuers and Assessments.” Human Studies 9 (2–3): 205–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayes, Rebecca A., Caleb T. Carr, and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2016. “One Click, Many Meanings: Interpreting Paralinguistic Digital Affordances in Social Media.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 60 (1): 171–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koester, Almut J. 2004. “Relational Sequences in Workplace Genres.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (8): 1405–1428. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laursen, Ditte. 2005. “Please Reply! The Replying Norm in Adolescent SMS Communication.” In The Inside Text: Social, Cultural and Design Perspectives on SMS, ed. by Richard Harper, Leysia Palen, and Alex Taylor, 53–73. Dodrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maíz-Arévalo, Carmen. 2013. ““Just click ‘Like”’: Computer-Mediated Responses to Spanish Compliments.” Journal of Pragmatics 511: 47–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “‘Small talk is not cheap’: Phatic Computer-mediated Communication in Intercultural Classes.” Computer Assisted Language Learning 30 (5): 432–446. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1923. “The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages.” In The Meaning of Meaning. A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism, ed. by Charles K. Ogden, and Ivor A. Richards, 451–510. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, Michael. 2002. “Good Listenership Made Plain: British and American Nonminimal Response Tokens in Everyday Conversation.” In Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, ed. by Randi Reppen, Susan M. Fitzmaurice, and Douglas Biber, 49–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. “Talking Back: ‘Small’ Interactional Response Tokens in Everyday Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 36 (1): 33–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKiernan, Thomas. 2016. Characterising Conversation on WhatsApp: Speech-like, or Not? Master’s thesis, The University of Manchester.
McSweeney, Michelle A. 2018. The Pragmatics of Text Messaging: Making Meaning in Messages. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Vincent. 2008. “New Media, Networking and Phatic Culture.” Convergence 14 (4): 387–400. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal R. 2012. “Listening Practices in English Conversation: The Responses Responses Elicit.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5): 566–576. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, Anne, and Svenja Adolphs. 2008. “Response Tokens in British and Irish Discourse: Corpus, Context and Variational Pragmatics.” In Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages, ed. by Klaus P. Schneider, and Anne Barron, 69–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padrigo, Ailyn Joy P. 2024. “Exploring the Impact of Facebook’s Reaction-button on Interpersonal Communication: A Study on Immediacy and Social Acceleration.” TEM Journal 13 (4): 3486–3494. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pipek, Vojtěch. 2007. “On Backchannels in English Conversation.” Doctoral dissertation, Masarykova Univerzita.
Rühlemann, Christoph, and Matthew Brook O’Donnell. 2015. “Introducing a Corpus of Conversational Stories. Construction and Annotation of the Narrative Corpus.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8 (2): 313–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sampietro, Agnese. 2016. Emoticonos y multimodalidad. El uso del pulgar hacia arriba en whatsapp. Aposta: Revista de ciencias sociales 691: 271–295.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘uh huh’ and Other Things that Come between Sentences. In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simon, Carsta. 2018. “The Functions of Active Listening Responses.” Behavioural Processes 1571: 47–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spagnolli, Anna, and Luciano Gamberini. 2007. “Interacting via SMS: Practices of Social Closeness and Reciprocation.” British Journal of Social Psychology 46 (2): 343–364. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sumner, Erin M., Luisa Ruge-Jones, and Davis Alcorn. 2018. “A Functional Approach to the Facebook Like Button: An Exploration of Meaning, Interpersonal Functionality, and Potential Alternative Response Buttons.” New Media & Society 20 (4): 1451–1469. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tagg, Caroline. 2009. “A Corpus Linguistics Study of SMS Text Messaging.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham.
Tao, Hongyin, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1991. “English Backchannels in Mandarin Conversations: A Case Study of Superstratum Pragmatic Interference.” Journal of Pragmatics 16 (33): 209–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tolins, Jackson, and Jean E. Fox Tree. 2014. “Addressee Backchannels Steer Narrative Development.” Journal of Pragmatics 701: 152–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yngve, Victor. 1970. On Getting a Word in Edgewise. In Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, 567–578. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 2022. Smartphone Communication: Interactions in the App Ecosystem. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele. 2012. Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How we use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue