Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“Stop Arguing”: Interventions as Metapragmatic Acts in Discussion Forum Interaction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Analyzing Digital Discourses

Abstract

There exists a wealth of research on practices of disagreement and conflict in online discussions, whereas attempts to moderate such behaviour have rarely been discussed. This study investigates interventions carried out by participants in online discussions as they try to steer the discussion or resolve disputes and conflicts. Interventions are approached as metapragmatic acts, whose functions range from organisational to mediational to affiliative. The analysis reveals that since interventions targeted at other participants can be regarded as face threats, interveners often try to explain and justify their acts. Reactions to interventions by the targeted, as well as other participants in the discussion, vary from silence and implicit acknowledgements to resistance and explicit acknowledgements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that these functions are not mutually exclusive; metapragmatic acts can be, and often are, multifunctional.

  2. 2.

    It is unclear how actively the moderators are able to monitor all discussions; it is more likely that they rely on participants to report inappropriate messages and then they may choose to intervene. In a recent thread on the Capitol Hill riot in the US, the moderators added this message at the beginning of the thread:

    Mod note: Please help to ensure all posts in this thread follow TSR’s community guidelines. If you see any posts which you think might not be within guidelines or might be deliberately encouraging misinformation, please just hit the report button. Our Moderation Team will be monitoring this thread.

  3. 3.

    I want to thank my research assistant Jonas Haverinen for his expert help with the script.

  4. 4.

    Here I would like to acknowledge the collaboration with Ulla Tuomarla, who works with Finnish discussion forum data, and with whom I have been able to discuss the functions of interventions. Interventions similar to the ones discussed in this paper can be found in Finnish online data.

  5. 5.

    Some TSR members have added a photograph on their profile page, some give their first name or indicate their gender with a symbol. I have used this information for the personal pronouns used to refer to the participants. When little or no personal information is given, I use the singular reference “they”.

  6. 6.

    This thread was also used in Tanskanen (2018) for a study on conflict and identity construction; during that analysis my attention was drawn to the interventions in the discussion.

  7. 7.

    I am grateful to Ulla Tuomarla for sharing this example with me.

  8. 8.

    Here is the original intervention and an English translation:

    hyssyn, hyssyn. ei saa yleistää. yksittäistapaus. ei saa antaa pelolle valtaa. pitää kääntää molemmat posket. puukko kilahtaa, henki pellolle vilahtaa. mikähän sota syttys,jos me tehtäs mussuille samat teot, mitä he ovat meille tehneet. oltas narun jatkona lyhtypylväässä.

    hush now, hush. one should not generalise. a one-off case. one should not let fear take over. one must turn both cheeks. a knife rings, a soul to the fields springs. what kind of a war would break out if we did the same to the mussies that they have done to us. we would be hanged from the lamp posts.

References

  • Adrianson, Lillemor, and Erland Hjelmquist. 1991. Group processes in face-to-face and computer-mediated interaction. Behaviour and Information Technology 10 (4): 281–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angouri, Jo, and Miriam Locher. 2012. Theorising disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (12): 1549–1553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendholz, Jenny. 2013. (In)appropriate Online Behaviour: A Pragmatic Analysis of Message Board Relations. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendholz, Jenny. 2017. Message boards. In Pragmatics of Social Media, ed. Christian Hoffmann and Wolfram Bublitz, 125–149. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Avgerinakou, Anthi. 2003. Flaming in computer-mediated interaction. In Rethinking Communicative Interaction, ed. Colin B. Grant, 273–293. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Naomi S. 1984. Computer mediated communication as a force in language change. Visible Language XVIII (2): 118–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blommaert, Jan, and Ben Rampton. 2011. Language and superdiversity. Diversities 13 (2): 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolander, Brook. 2012. Disagreements and agreements in personal/diary blogs: A closer look at responsiveness. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (12): 1607–1622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolander, Brook. 2013. Language and Power in Blogs: Interaction, Disagreements and Agreements. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bou-Franch, Patricia, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich. 2014. Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics 73 (1): 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caffi, Claudia. 1998. Metapragmatics. In Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, ed. Ronald E. Asher and Jacob Mey, 581–586. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, Jonathan, and Michael Haugh. 2014. Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Derks, Daantje, Arjan E.R. Bos, and Jasper von Grumbkow. 2007. Emoticons and social interaction on the Internet: The importance of social context. Computers in Human Behavior 23 (1): 842–849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dresner, Eli, and Susan Herring. 2010. Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory 20 (3): 249–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dynel, Marta, and Fabio Poppi. 2019. Risum teneatis, amici? The socio-pragmatics of RoastMe humour. Journal of Pragmatics 139 (1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, Angela Cora, and Jennifer Baker Jacobs. 1999. The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction 32 (4): 337–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. 2003. Computer-mediated communication. In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. Verschueren Jef, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen, 1–21. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. 2012. A simple disagreement? A row? Or a massive fall out? On the challenges of an analytical task. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (12): 1623–1625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, Sage L. 2007. Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (4): 742–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, Sage L. 2008. A manual for (im)politeness? The impact of the FAQ in electronic communities of practice. In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher, 281–304. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, Jeffrey T., and Philip J. Dunham. 2001. Language use in computer-mediated communication: The role of coordination devices. Discourse Processes 31 (1): 91–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, Sandra. 2000. Maintaining the virtual community: Use of politeness strategies in an email discussion group. In Words on the Web: Computer Mediated Communication, ed. Lyn Pemberton and Simon Shurville, 69–78. Exeter and Portland, OR: Intellect Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, Michael. 2010. When is an email really offensive? Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 6 (1): 7–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, Michael. 2018. Corpus-based metapragmatics. In Methods in pragmatics, ed. Andreas H. Jucker, Klaus P. Schneider, and Wolfram Bublitz, 619–643. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, Starr Roxanne, Kenneth Johnson, and Murray Turoff. 1986. Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research 13 (2): 225–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hübler, Axel, and Wolfram Bublitz. 2007. Introducing metapragmatics in use. In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler, 1–26. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Rodney, and Sigrid Norris. 2005. Discourse as action/discourse in action. In Discourse in Action: Introducing Mediated Discourse Analysis, ed. Sigrid Norris and Rodney Jones, 3–14. London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinke, Sonja, and Birte Bös. 2015. Intergroup rudeness and the metapragmatics of its negotiation in online discussion fora. Pragmatics 25 (1): 47–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurzon, Dennis. 2015. Silence. In Handbook of Pragmatics, vol. 19, ed. Jan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren, 1–26. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langlotz, Andreas, and Miriam Locher. 2013. The role of emotions in relational work. Journal of Pragmatics 58: 87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Hangwoo. 2005. Behavioral strategies for dealing with flaming in an online forum. Sociological Quarterly 46 (2): 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locher, Miriam. 2010. Introduction: Politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Politeness Research 6 (1): 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, Kenneth L. 1967. Etic and emic standpoints for the description of behavior. In Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior, ed. L. Kenneth Pike, 37–72. The Hague and Paris: Mouton & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sifianou, Maria. 1995. Do we need to be silent to be extremely polite? Silence and FTAs. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 5 (1): 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. 2007. Metapragmatic utterances in computer-mediated interaction. In Metapragmatics in Use, ed. Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler, 87–106. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. 2014. “Eipäs nyt puhuta omia”: Metapragmaattiset kommentit opiskelijoiden keskustelupalstoilla. In Kieli verkossa: Näkökulmia digitaaliseen vuorovaikutukseen, ed. Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, Marjut Johansson and Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, 51–74. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. 2018. Identity and metapragmatic acts in a student forum discussion thread. In The Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline: Personal - Group - Collective, ed. Birte Bös, Sonja Kleinke, Sandra Mollin, and Nuria Hernández, 133–152. John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Dominic, and Ruth Filik. 2016. Sarcasm in written communication: Emoticons are efficient markers of intention. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2): 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschueren, Jef. 2000. Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics 10 (4): 439–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Languages, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen

Authors
  1. Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of French Studies, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

    Marjut Johansson

  2. Department of Languages, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen

  3. Department of English & American Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

    Jan Chovanec

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tanskanen, SK. (2021). “Stop Arguing”: Interventions as Metapragmatic Acts in Discussion Forum Interaction. In: Johansson, M., Tanskanen, SK., Chovanec, J. (eds) Analyzing Digital Discourses. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84602-2_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84602-2_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84601-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84602-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation