Social media research

Brook Bolander
Table of contents

Positioned within the Handbook’s ‘Traditions’ section, this entry probes changes and developments in pragmatic research on social media. While social media is characterised as an example of Web 2.0, the chapter’s focus on change and development means it also discusses research that would commonly be seen as illustrative of an earlier stage in web development, or Web 1.0. This history is important for understanding the contemporary diversification of research foci, contexts, data and methodology. Given the wealth of scholarship on social media from a broadly sociolinguistic perspective (encompassing pragmatics), the chapter attempts to avoid extensive listing of literature according to research themes and areas. Whilst presenting examples and providing readers with further literature, it is based instead around a discussion of the ways in which the context for language use online has been viewed and complicated over time, and across various research traditions. This provides the foundation to reflecting upon how changes in what counts as context are relevant to research foci, and choice of data and methods.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Abel, Jürgen
2000 Cybersl@ng. Die Sprache des Internet von A bis Z. München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Adami, Elisabetta
2014 “Retwitting, reposting, repinning: Reshaping identities online: Towards a social semiotic multimodal analysis of digital remediation.” LEA – Lingue e Letterature d’Oriente e d’Occidente 3: 223–243.Google Scholar
Adami, Elisabetta and Carey Jewitt
2016 “Special issue: Social media and the visual.” Visual Communication 15 (3): 263–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis
2006 “Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 10 (4): 419–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Potentials and limitations of discourse-centred online ethnography.” Language@Internet 5, article 8. http://​www​.languageatinternet​.org​/articles​/2008​/1610Google Scholar
2013 “Online data collection.” In Data Collection in Sociolinguistics: Methods and Applications, ed. by Christine Mallinson, Becky Childs and Gerard Van Herk, 236–249. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
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 Researh 6 (1): 57–82.Google Scholar
Baron, Naomi
1984 “Computer mediated communication as a force in language change.” Visible Language 18 (2): 118–141.Google Scholar
Barton, David and Carmen Lee
2013 Language Online. Investigating Digital Texts and Practices. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baym, Nancy
1995 “The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication.” In Cybersociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community, ed. by Steven G. Jones, 138–163. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
1996 “Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 29: 315–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 “Introduction.” The Electronic Journal of Communication 13 (1). http://​www​.cios​.org​/www​/ejc​/v13n1​.htmGoogle Scholar
Bolander, Brook
2012 “Disagreements and agreements in personal/diary blogs: A closer look at responsiveness.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1607–1622. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Language and Power in Blogs: Interaction, Disagreements and Agreements. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolander, Brook and Miriam A. Locher
2010 “Constructing identity on Facebook: Report on a pilot study.” In Performing the Self, ed. by Karen Junod and Didier Maillat, 165–185. Tübingen: Narr Francke.Google Scholar
2014 “Doing sociolinguistic research on computer-mediated data: A review of four methodological issues.” Discourse, Context & Media 3: 14–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “ ‘Peter is a dumb nut’: Status updates and reactions to them as ‘acts of positioning’ in Facebook.” Pragmatics 25 (1): 99–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cherny, Lynn
1999 Conversation and Community: Chat in a Virtual World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cormode, Graham and Balachander Kristhnamurthy
2008 “Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0.” First Monday. Peer-reviewed Journal of the Internet 13 (6). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David
2001 Language and the Internet (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Language and the Internet (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danet, Brenda
(ed.) 1995 “Play and performance in computer-mediated communication.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 1 (2).Google Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa
2004 “Netzsprache – ein neuer Mythos.” In Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie. Internetbasierte Kommunikation, ed. by Michael Beißwenger, Ludger Hoffman and Angelika Storrer, 141–157. Osnabrück: Verein zur Förderung der Sprachwissenschaft in Forschung und Ausbildung.Google Scholar
Georgalou, Mariza
2017 Discourse and Identity on Facebook. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C.
1996 “Introduction.” In Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives, ed. by Susan C. Herring, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “Computer-mediated discourse.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton, 612–634. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
2007 “A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse.” Language@Internet 4, article 1. http://​www​.languageatinternet​.de​/articles​/2007​/761.Google Scholar
2013 “Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent.” In Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media, ed. by Deborah Tannen, Anna M. Trester, 1–25. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 2011: Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan, Dieter Stein and Tuija Virtanen
(eds.) 2013 “Introduction.” In Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication (Handbooks of Pragmatics, Vol. 9), ed. by Susan C. Herring, Dieter Stein and Tuija Virtanen, 3–32. Berlin and New York: Muton de Gruyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Christian R.
2017 “Log in: Introducing the pragmatics of social media.” In Pragmatics of Social Media, ed. by Christian R. Hoffmann and Wolfram Bublitz, 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell
1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Rodney H.
2004 “The problem of context in computer mediated communication.” In Discourse and Technology. Multi-modal Discourse Analysis, ed. by Philip LeVine and Ron Scollon, 20–33. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas
2009 “Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory: The case of compliments.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (8): 1611–1635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
1990 Les Interactions Verbales (Vol. 1). Paris: A. Colin.Google Scholar
Lee, Carmen
2011 “Micro-blogging and status updates on Facebook: Texts and practices.” In Digital Discourse. Language in the New Media, ed. by Crispin Thurlow and Kristine Mroczek, 110–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Language choice and self-presentation in social media: The case of university students in Hong Kong”. In The Language of Social Media, ed. by Philip Seargeant and Caroline Tagg, 91–111. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. and Brook Bolander
2014 “Relational work and the display of multilingualism in two Facebook groups.” In Face Work and Social Media, ed. by Kristina Bedijs, Gudrun Held and Christiane Maaß, 157–191. Münster: Lit-Verlag.Google Scholar
Markham, Annette N.
1998 Life Online: Researching Real Experience in Virtual Space. Lanham: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
2004 “Internet communication as a tool for qualitative research.” In Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, ed. by David Silverman, 95–124. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Marcoccia, Michel
2004 “On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups.” Journal of Pragmatics 36: 115–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Novak, Marcos
1991 “Liquid architectures in cyberspace.” In Cyberspace: First Steps, ed. by Michael Benedikt, 225–254. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Orgad, Shani
2009 “How can researchers make sense of the issues involved in collecting and interpreting online and offline data?” In Internet Inquiry: Conversations about Methods, ed. by Annette Markham and Nancy Baym, 33–53. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Page, Ruth
2012 Stories and Social Media: Identities and Interaction. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Page, Ruth, David Barton, Johann W. Unger and Michele Zappavigna
2014 Researching Language and Social Media: A Student Guide. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spilioti, Tereza
2011 “Beyond genre: Closings and relational work in text-messaging.” In Digital Discourse. Language in the New Media, ed. by Crispin Thurlow and Kristine Mroczek, 67–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren
2010 “Enregistering internet language.” Language in Society 39: 457–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagg, Caroline
2016 “Heteroglossia in text-messaging: Performing identity and negotiating relationships in a digital space.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20 (1): 59–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagg, Caroline and Philip Seargeant
2016 “Facebook and the discursive construction of the social network.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication, ed. by Alexandra Georgakopoulou and Tereza Spilioti, 339–353. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2019 “Social media and the future of open debate: A user-oriented approach to Facebook’s filter bubble conundrum.” Discourse, Context and Media 27: 41–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurlow, Crispin
2013 “Fakebook: Synthetic media, pseudo-sociality, and the rhetorics.” In Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media, ed. by Deborah Tannen and Anna Marie Trester, 225–249. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Thurlow, Crispin, Laura Lengel and Alice Tomic
2004 Computer Mediated Communication: Social Interaction and the Internet. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Vaisman, Carmel L.
2016 “Pretty in pink vs pretty in black: Blogs as gendered avatars.” Visual Communication 15 (3): 293–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef
1999 Understanding Pragmatics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wargo, Jon M.
2015 “Spatial stories with nomadic narrators: Affect, snapchat, and feeling embodiment in youth mobile composing.” Journal of Language and Literacy Education 11 (1): 48–64.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Shawn T.
1996 “An archaeology of cyberspaces: Virtuality, community, identity.” In Internet Culture, ed. by David Porter, 5–22. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco
2011 Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele
2012 Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2016 “Social media photography: Construing subjectivity in Instagram images.” Visual Communication 15 (3): 271–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar