Marking Online Community Membership: The Pragmatics of Stance-taking

  • Jonathan R. WhiteEmail author
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 20)


Data from academic seminars conducted through Skype textchat is analysed in this chapter, and the focus is on examples of how users mark community membership. Membership is marked explicitly by using pronominals and the metonymic use of the seminar group name. It is also marked implicitly by using reduced forms, which are stereotypical examples of a textchat speech style. I argue that these are markers of stance-taking, where community membership is recovered pragmatically as a weak implicature. Dis-alignment with the community is also seen, as individuals can also implicate their independence as setters of linguistic norms.


  1. Agha, A. (2003). The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication 23, 231–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agha, A. (2005). Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15, 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. New York: Blackwells.Google Scholar
  7. Bowerman, J. (2016). Examining the nature of referential metonymy. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 28, 1–19.Google Scholar
  8. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7(4-5), 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DuBois, J. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp.139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, A. (2016). Stance and identity in hashtags. Language@Internet 13, article 1.Google Scholar
  12. Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 6(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp.338–376). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Herring, S. C., &Zelenkauskaite, A. (2009). Symbolic capital in a virtual heterosexual market: Abbreviation and insertion in Italian iTV SMS. Written Communication26(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jaffe, A. (2000). Introduction: Non-standard orthography and non-standard speech. Journal of Sociolinguistics4(4), 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaffe, A. (2009). Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In A. Jaffe (Ed.). Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp.3–28). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jenks, C. J. (2014). Social interaction in second language chat rooms. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lapadat, J. C. (2007). Discourse devices used to establish community, increase coherence, and negotiate agreement in an online course. Journal of Distance Education 21(3), 59–92.Google Scholar
  19. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li, D. C. S. (2010). When does an unconventional form become an innovation? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook on World Englishes (pp.617–633). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Myers, G. (2010a). The discourse of blogs and wikis. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  22. Myers, G. (2010b). Stance-taking and public discussion in blogs. Critical Disourse Studies 7(4), 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Padilla Cruz, M. (2005). “On the phatic interpretation of utterances: A complementary Relevance-theoretic proposal”. RevistaAlicantina de EstudiosIngleses18, 227–246.Google Scholar
  24. Padilla Cruz, M. (2007). “Phatic utterances and the communication of social information: A Relevance-theoretic approach”. In P. Garcés-ConejosBlitvich, M. Padilla Cruz, R. Gómez Morón,& L. Fernández Amaya (Eds.), Studies in intercultural, cognitive and social Pragmatics (pp.112–129). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Savas, P. (2011). A case study in contextual and individual factors that shape linguistic variation in synchronous text-based computer-mediated communication. Journal of Pragmatics 43(1), 298–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scott, K. (2005). Child null subjects. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 17, 1–25.Google Scholar
  27. Scott, K. (2006). When less is more: Implicit arguments and Relevance Theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18, 139–170.Google Scholar
  28. Scott, K. (2013). Pragmatically motivated null subjects in English: A relevance theory perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 53, 68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scott, K. (2015). The pragmatics of hashtags: Inference and conversational style on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics 81, 8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. S. M. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Squires, L. (2010). Enregistering Internet language. Language in Society39, 457–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stainton, R. (2006). Words and thoughts: Subsentences, ellipsis and the philosophy of language. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tagg, C. (2016). Heteroglossia in text-messaging: Performing identity and negotiating relationships in a digital space. Journal of Sociolinguistics 20(1), 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vandergriff, I. (2013). “My major is English, believe it or not:)” – Participant orientations in nonnative/native text chat. CALICO Journal 30(3), 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vandergriff, I. (2016). Second-language discourse in the digital world: Linguistic and social practices in and beyond the networked classroom. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. White, J. R. (2014a). Standardisation of reduced forms in English in an academic community of practice. Pragmatics and Society5(1), 105–127. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. White, J. R. (2014b). The pragmatics of reduced forms in an Internet community of practice. In I. Witczak-Plisiecka (Ed.). Lodz Studies in Language 33: Cognitive and pragmatics aspects of speech actions (pp.167–183). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. doi: Google Scholar
  39. White, J. R. (2015). Processes and variations in language economisation. Ampersand2, 72–82. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. White, J. R. (2016). Local norms in CALL language practice. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Technology6(1), 40–54. doi: 10.4018/IJCALLT.2016010103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. White, J. R. (2017). Exploration of textual interactions in CALL learning communities: Emerging research and opportunities. Hershey, Penn.: IGI Global (to be published in June, 2017).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishDalarna UniversityFalunSweden

Personalised recommendations