Article published In:
Pragmatics and SocietyVol. 7:3 (2016) ► pp.463–481
The role of metapragmatic expressions as pragmatic manipulation in a TV panel discussion program
This study explores the role of metapragmatic expressions (MPEs) as pragmatic manipulation in a media context, with data drawn from a Chinese TV panel discussion program Tiger Talk. It argues that the program host selects MPEs to manipulate the ongoing interactions, in order to solve or prevent the actual or potential problems in the interactions. Hence, the functioning of MPEs is described as a process consisting of three stages: problem awareness, pragmatic manipulation, and problem resolution or prevention. It is found that the host mainly uses five types of MPEs, i.e. performatives, commentaries, evidentials, message glosses, and stance displayers for the sake of pragmatic manipulation across the three dimensions of interactive procedure control, rapport management, and impact monitoring. The article concludes that the host’s pragmatic manipulation of the ongoing interactions, driven by both institutional and interpersonal concerns, is motivated by his institutional rights and obligations as a program manager.
References (25)
Caffi, Claudia. 1984. “Introduction”. Journal of Pragmatics 81: 433–435. 
. 1993. “Metapragmatics”. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2461–2466. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
. 2006. “Metapragmatics”. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition, 82–88. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
. 2007. Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ciliberti, Anna, and Laurie Anderson. 2007. “Metapragmatic Comments in Institutional Talk: A Comparative Analysis Across Settings.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram
Bublitz and Axel Hübler, 143–166. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
de Saussure, Louis, and Peter Schulz (eds). 2005. Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, language, mind. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
de Saussure, Louis. 2005. “Manipulation and Cognitive Pragmatics: Preliminary Hypotheses.” In Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, ed. by Louis de Saussure and Peter Schulz, 113–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in Public: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.
Hübler, Axel. 2011. “Metapragmatics.” In Foundations of Pragmatics, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Neal R. Norrick, 107–136. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hübler, Axel, and Wolfram Bublitz. 2007. “Introducing Metapragmatics in Use.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler, 1–26. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hyland, Ken. 2005/2008. Metadiscourse. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Kleinke, Sonja, and Birte, Bös. 2015. “Intergroup Rudeness and the Metapragmatics of its Negotiation in Online Discussion Fora”. Pragmatics 25(1): 47–71.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1988. Generalized Conversational Implicatures and the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Mey, Jacob L. 1993/2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Penz, Hermine. 2007. “Building Common Ground through Metapragmatic Comments in International Project Work.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler, 263–292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ran, Yongping. 2013. “The Metapragmatic Negation as a Rapport-Oriented Mitigating Device”. Journal of Pragmatics 481: 98–111.
Rigotti, Eddo. 2005. “Towards a Typology of Manipulative Processes.” In Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, language, mind, ed. by Louis de Saussure and Peter Schulz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Silverstein, Michael. 1993. “Metapragmatic Discourse and Metapragmatic Function.” In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. by John A. Lucy, 33–58.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Sara W., and Xiaoping Liang. 2007. “Metapragmatic Expressions in Physics Lectures.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler, 167–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. 2007. “Metapragmatic Utterances in Computer-Mediated Interaction.” In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler, 87–106. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2006. “Discourse and Manipulation”. Discourse and Society 17(2): 359–383.
Verschueren, Jef. 1999/2000. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.
. 2000. “Notes on the Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language Use”. Pragmatics 10(4): 439–456.
Cited by (7)
Cited by seven other publications
Chaemsaithong, Krisda & Kewalin Simuang
2022. The pragmatics of metapragmatics in death trials. Journal of Pragmatics 199 ► pp. 47 ff. 
Liu, Ping & Huiying Liu
2022. Pragmatic manipulation of metapragmatic expressions in BELF meetings. Applied Pragmatics 4:1 ► pp. 92 ff.
Schneider, Klaus P.
2022. Referring to Speech Acts in Communication: Exploring Meta-Illocutionary Expressions in ICE-Ireland. Corpus Pragmatics 6:2 ► pp. 155 ff.
Liu, Huiying & Ping Liu
2019. Common ground and metapragmatic expressions in BELF meetings: A response to Zhang and Wu. Journal of Pragmatics 148 ► pp. 118 ff.
Mulder, Jean, Cara Penry Williams & Erin Moore
Orange, Victoria
2019. The 4E Encounter. In Supercomplexity in Interaction, ► pp. 59 ff.
Zhang, Huiyu & Yicheng Wu
2019. (Core) common ground and the role of metapragmatic expressions: A comment on Liu and Liu (2017). Journal of Pragmatics 148 ► pp. 111 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.