Appropriate Online Behavior

Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.
com
www.ebook777.com
Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
(In)Appropriate Online Behavior

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series (P&BNS)

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series is a continuation of Pragmatics & Beyond and
its Companion Series. The New Series offers a selection of high quality work
covering the full richness of Pragmatics as an interdisciplinary field, within
language sciences.
For an overview of all books published in this series, please see
http://benjamins.com/catalog/pbns
Editor Associate Editor

Anita Fetzer Andreas H. Jucker
University of Augsburg University of Zurich
Founding Editors
Jacob L. Mey Herman Parret Jef Verschueren
University of Southern Belgian National Science Belgian National Science
Denmark Foundation, Universities of Foundation,
Louvain and Antwerp University of Antwerp
Editorial Board
Robyn Carston Sachiko Ide Deborah Schiffrin
University College London Japan Women’s University Georgetown University
Thorstein Fretheim Kuniyoshi Kataoka Paul Osamu Takahara
University of Trondheim Aichi University Kobe City University of
Miriam A. Locher Foreign Studies
John C. Heritage
University of California at Los Universität Basel Sandra A. Thompson
Angeles Sophia S.A. Marmaridou University of California at
University of Athens Santa Barbara
Susan C. Herring
Indiana University Srikant Sarangi Teun A. van Dijk
Cardiff University Universitat Pompeu Fabra,
Masako K. Hiraga
Barcelona
St. Paul’s (Rikkyo) University Marina Sbisà
University of Trieste Yunxia Zhu
The University of Queensland
Volume 229
(In)Appropriate Online Behavior.
A pragmatic analysis of message board relations
by Jenny Arendholz
www.ebook777.com

A pragmatic analysis of message board relations
Jenny Arendholz
University of Augsburg
John Benjamins Publishing Company

Amsterdam / Philadelphia
TM
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8
the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence

of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Arendholz, Jenny.
(In)Appropriate Online Behavior : a Pragmatic Analysis of Message Board Relations /
Jenny Arendholz, University of Augsburg.
p. cm. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, issn 0922-842X ; v. 229)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Electronic discussion groups--Social aspects. 2. Online etiquette--Social aspects. 3.
Discourse analysis--Data processing. 4. Discourse analysis--Technological in-
novations. 5. Online social networks--Social aspects. 6. Internet--Social aspects.
7. Language and the Internet. I. Title.
ZA4480.A73 2013
302.30285--dc23 2012041715
isbn 978 90 272 5634 8 (Hb ; alk. paper)
isbn 978 90 272 7237 9 (Eb)
© 2013 – John Benjamins B.V.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
www.ebook777.com
To my parents
www.ebook777.com
Table of contents
List of figures and tables xi

Acknowledgements xiii
chapter 1
Introduction 1
chapter 2
Communicating via networks I: A technical perspective 5
2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 A short history of hypertext and the Internet 6
2.3 Scientific disciplines and hypertext: CMC & CMDA 10
2.4 In the spotlight: The ins and outs of message boards 12
2.5 Reservations against the social potential of CMC 17
2.5.1 Technological determinism vs. social constructionism 18
2.5.2 Cues-filtered-out approaches 19
2.6 Everything is not lost: The discovery of social potential within CMC 22
2.6.1 Opposed findings of more recent approaches 23
2.6.2 Compensatory mechanisms and netlingo 25
2.7 Summary: Why CMC can be social after all 33
chapter 3
Communicating via networks II: A social perspective 37
3.1 Introduction 37
3.2 Gathering online: In groups or communities? 38
3.3 Taking a look inside: The community of practice of The Student Room 41
3.3.1 Social roles revisited: The hybridization of the private and public 42
3.3.2 The emergence of norms and codes of conduct 46
3.4 Summary: Why we need to draw on FtF interaction 50
viii (In)Appropriate Online Behavior
chapter 4
Interpersonal relations I: The origins of politeness, face & facework 53
4.1 Introduction 53
4.2 Fraser, Lakoff and Leech: Some classic views on politeness 55
4.3 The face-saving view: Brown/Levinson’s Politeness Theory 58
4.3.1 Key concepts and inner workings 59
4.3.2 The predecessor: Goffman’s classic approach 66
4.3.3 Brown/Levinson vs. Goffman: Some interrelations 71
4.4 Summary: What to keep and what to drop 75
chapter 5
Interpersonal relations II: Putting (im)politeness
in an integrative perspective 79
5.1 Introduction 79
5.2 A working definition of politeness 80
5.3 Locher/Watts’ comprehensive framework of interpersonal relations 83
5.4 Impoliteness: The neglected stepbrother of politeness 89
5.5 Distinguishing types of inappropriate behavior:
Impoliteness vs. rudeness 95
5.6 Appropriate impoliteness: Mock-impoliteness and banter 97
5.7 Strings of inappropriate online behavior: Flaming 100
5.8 Summary: Implications of an integrative perspective for the analysis 102
chapter 6
Prelude to the analysis: Gathering contextual factors 105
6.1 Introduction 105
6.2 The participant: Personal contextual factors 107
6.2.1 Face constitution in online message boards 113
6.2.2 Trolling: A means of strategic deception 121
6.3 The relations: Interpersonal contextual factors 122
6.4 The setting: (Extra-) medial environmental factors 125
6.5 Summary: A comprehensive framework of context in message boards 125
www.ebook777.com
Table of contents ix
chapter 7
Analyzing online message boards I: Thread starts 127
7.2 Aspects of corpus compilation and its internal structure 130
7.3 Establishing interpersonal relations online 137
7.3.1 What’s in a heading? 138
7.3.2 The initiators: Investigating thread starters’ face claims 140
7.3.3 Face claims in first posts 145
7.3.4 Laying the groundwork for thread discussions: First entries 148
7.4 Other hotbeds for establishing contact: Profiles and signatures 157
7.5 Summary: Findings for the establishment of interpersonal relations 159
chapter 8
Analyzing online message boards II: Thread interaction 163
8.2 Managing interpersonal relations online 167
8.2.1 Getting to know others 168
8.2.2 Looking for like-minded others 182
8.2.3 Asking for advice 197
8.2.4 Asking for opinions 206
8.2.5 Blowing off steam 226
8.2.6 Offering advice/information 238
8.3 Summary: Findings for the management of interpersonal relations 247
chapter 9
Conclusion 259
Bibliography 265
Name index 281
Subject index 283
www.ebook777.com
List of figures and tables
Figure 1. Structure of a typical forum homepage (URL 4) 14

Figure 2. Structure of the homepage of the message board The Student Room (URL 5) 15
Figure 3. List of threads within a subtopic in The Student Room (URL 6) 15
Figure 4. Beginning of a thread in the message board The Student Room (URL 7) 16
Figure 5. Standard TSR header of posts to identify a user (left side) 29
Figure 6. User’s homepage on twitter, redirected from the drop-down menu 30
Figure 7. Standard TSR header of posts to identify a user (right side) 31
Figure 8. Selection of signatures in TSR 32
Figure 9. Prototypical TSR post with integral and accompanying components 33
Figure 10. Four directions of FTAs according to Brown/Levinson 61
Figure 11. Schematic representation of Goffman’s notion of face 72
Figure 12. Schematic representation of Brown/Levinson’s notion of face 73
Figure 13. Schematic representation of a combined model of face 76
Figure 14. Cognitive processes of individual value judgments about relational work 88
Figure 15. Cycle of face negotiation 117
Figure 16. Percentages of contributions per user (C/User) 136
Figure 17. User types according to frequency of contribution (in percentages) 136
Figure 18. Two strands of investigation: facework and relational work 163
Figure 19. Discourse structure and types of interactivity in two prototypical threads 164
Figure 20. Threads according to their interaction quotient (IQ) in percentages 166
Figure 21. Percentages of relational work in the entire message board corpus 253
Table 1. Types of message board recipients (Goffman 1981, modified) 44

Table 2. Lines of investigating politeness 55
Table 3. Lakoff ’s two-sided model of pragmatic competence (Watts 2003: 60, adapted) 57
Table 4. Brown/Levinson’s five superstrategies for the mitigation of FTAs (1987: 60, 69) 62
Table 5. Framework of relational work (Locher/Watts 2005: 12, adapted) 85
Table 6. Lachenicht’s strategies to modify FTAs (1980: 621, my emphasis) 91
Table 7. Types of impoliteness according to face-orientation 96
Table 8. Modified model of relational work 97
Table 9. Three dimensions of context 107
Table 10. Message board structures for self-portrayal 111
Table 11. Users’ options for self-portrayal online 112
Table 12. Contextual and environmental variables in message boards 126
Table 13. Internal structure of the message board corpus 132
Table 14. Sum total of contributions per user (C) in relation to their occurrence (O) 135
Table 15. User types according to frequency of contribution 136
Table 16. Thread titles (headings) according to their communicative purpose 137
xii (In)Appropriate Online Behavior
Table 17. Thread starters as “do-gooders” and “trouble makers” 144

Table 18. Grouping of the threads according to their interaction quotient (IQ) 165
Table 19. Relational work in thread #1 174
Table 21. Relational work in the first category (Getting to know others) 182
Table 24. Relational work in the second category (Looking for like-minded others) 197
Table 27. Relational work in the third category (Asking for advice) 205
Table 29. Relational work in the forth category (Asking for opinions) 225
Table 33. Relational work in the fifth category (Blowing off steam) 237
Table 35. Relational work in the sixth category (Offering advice/information) 247
Table 36. Availability versus trustworthiness of evaluations in type A and Bt posts 251
Table 37. Relational work in all 50 threads 252
Table 38. Incidences of relational work in the entire message board corpus 253
Table 39. Incidences of flaming in all six categories 254
Table 40. Types of relational work used in flames 254
Table 41. Percentages of relational work according to categories 256
Table 42. Ranking of the six categories according to the appropriateness of behavior 257
www.ebook777.com
Acknowledgements
This book could not have been written without contributions of various kinds
from many people. First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor
Wolfram Bublitz for supporting me and my work from the beginning to the end.
It was his personal and professional guidance that made me believe in the success
of this thesis. I am no less indebted to my second supervisor Dieter Götz for con-
tributing fruitful perspectives and helpful comments. I am very thankful for his
kind and flexible assistance in this project.
I am also deeply grateful to my dear colleagues and friends Christian
Hoffmann, Volker Eisenlauer and Monika Kirner, who took the time to discuss
and read through numerous drafts of chapters and who gave me valuable help
in shaping and arranging my thoughts. On a related note, I would also like to
express my thanks to all the other members of the doctoral colloquium Olena
Vorontsova, Iris Zimmermann, Elisabeth Fritz – and again to Wolfram Bublitz for
his hospitality – as well as Anne Troeltsch and Siaohui Kok, all of whom detected
typos, grammatical flaws and logical inconsistencies diligently.
Further, my thanks go to the kind souls in the secretary’s offices, especially to
Monika Martens, Gudrun Nelle and Inge Christopher, who generously and con-
stantly provided moral support, encouragement and the most delicious chocolate.
I would also like to thank our student assistants and Johannes Bleimeir in par-
ticular, who has been a great help in compiling the message board corpus and in
drawing up descriptive charts.
Most importantly, though, I would like to express my gratitude to my whole
family, my parents Karin and Jürgen Arendholz and my grandparents Vera and
Richard Arendholz, for their unwavering and unconditional moral and financial
support. Finally, I would also like to thank my husband Frank, who has been a
constant source of inspiration and calmness and who secured my mental and
physical wellbeing with heartfelt encouragement and good food.
Needless to say, none of the above is in any way to blame for any remaining
flaws or inadequacies, as I remain responsible for them.
Jenny Arendholz
Augsburg, August 2012
www.ebook777.com
chapter 1
Introduction
The opinions which we hold of one another, our relations with friends and kinsfolk
are in no sense permanent, save in appearance, but are as eternally fluid as the sea
itself. (Marcel Proust)
As is usually the case with comparatively young disciplines, at the outset there are
a lot of myths. In the case of the early days of computer-mediated communica-
tion (CMC) about two decades ago, the Internet was suspected to be ill-suited
for the transmission of social content and, even worse, to promote uninhibited
and rude behavior. In fact, these clichés are widespread and extremely tenacious
to this very day and are still propagated by various press releases, which every
now and then call for and suggest an etiquette for different types of communica-
tion via computers (see URL 1, 2). This claim should, however, be handled with
extreme care for various reasons: For one thing, it contains a careless and invalid
generalization when talking about “the” Internet. We are not, however, dealing
with one homogeneous type of mediated communication but with a number of
diverse and individual subtypes thereof. Instead of investigating “the” Internet,
we are in fact looking into chats, weblogs, email conversations and – in the case
of this study – online message boards like The Student Room (TSR), a discussion
platform for British and international students. For another thing, uninhibited
and rude behavior as well as their more desirable counterpart, polite behavior,
are not homogeneous phenomena either but rather fuzzy concepts, which are dif-
ficult to grasp.
One thing we can be sure of, however, is the nature of communication as such:
No matter if we interact with each other face-to-face or mediated via computers,
our utterances always encompass two separate but nevertheless interrelated sides:
We convey information on an ideational level, while we (un)consciously negoti-
ate social relations on an interpersonal plane at the same time (cf. Watzlawick et
al. 1967; Halliday 1978) – a pragmatic dichotomy which has also been labeled
transactional vs. interactional function of language by Brown/Yule (1983) and mes-
sage vs. metamessage by Tannen (1992). Accordingly, we are not only busy doing
Inhaltsarbeit but also Beziehungsarbeit (relational work), a distinction proposed
by Bublitz (22009), with the latter subsuming the process of manipulating inter-
personal relations in whatever way or direction. Admittedly, either of the two
sides of communication may be foregrounded according to the purpose of inter-

action, the ideational level in university lectures, to give but one example, or the
interpersonal level in small talk – with the respective other still being present. In
any event and independent of the channel used for transmission, there is always
an interpersonal aspect integrated in our utterances. Comments like “It’s not what
you said but the way that you said it” can be explained with recourse to this dis-
tinction, since how or even that we say what we say always communicates social,
interpersonal meaning as well (Tannen 1992: 14).
These preliminary and as of yet broad-brush considerations, which will be re-
visited in later chapters, introduce the two basic components of the object of this
study: online message boards and the interpersonal relations to be found therein.
The combination of these two leads to the general objective of this study, which
can be phrased as follows: How are interpersonal relations established, managed
and negotiated in online message boards?
The very nature of interpersonal relations itself poses, however, a serious
stumbling block for this kind of survey: As expressed in the above quote by
Proust, we are dealing with an extremely unstable and ephemeral phenomenon,
which is based on subjective and spontaneous value judgments and which is thus
always in a state of flux. Consequently, the quality of interpersonal relations lies
more often than not in the oft-cited eye of the beholder. What is more, interper-
sonal relations cannot simply be read off textual surface structures, but are subject
to constant negotiations within actual, socially constructed discourse. This holds
especially true for asynchronous message boards, where social institutions such
as communities are mainly shaped through discourse alone, as users do neither
share geographical space nor time (Rheingold 1993; Kollock/Smith 1999). On top
of that, and true to Humboldt’s (1820) maxim “Es giebt nichts Einzelnes in der
Sprache“, the process of creating and managing interpersonal relations is strongly
influenced by an almost indeterminable number of contextual factors.
It is thus imperative to first pin down the ins and outs of message boards and
even more so the fuzzy field of interpersonal relations, including its key com-
ponents and influencing factors, before delving into empirical analyses. Both of
these two basic strands of investigation shall help to operationalize the rather
broad objective appropriately. They are mirrored in the following research ques-
tions, which will also serve as a guideline for the course of this study:
A. The descriptive part

1. What are the technological and social prerequisites and mechanisms of
communication in online message boards like The Student Room (TSR)?
How are they made use of?
www.ebook777.com
Chapter 1. Introduction
2. How can key (as well as marginal) concepts of interpersonal relations be

defined and clustered adequately, especially in view of analyzing online
communication in message boards?
B. The empirical part
3. Which contextual factors need to be included when evaluating users’ on-
line behavior? Where can we find them in the message board system of
The Student Room (TSR)?
4. How are interpersonal relations formally expressed and interactively ne-
gotiated by experienced and new message board members? How many
incidences of (the various types of) positively and negatively marked be-
havior can be found?
The first research question within the descriptive part will be answered in Chap-
ter 2 and 3, while the second one will be dealt with in detail in Chapters 4 and 5.
For the purpose of illuminating the whole panoply of interpersonal relations,
condensed state of the art reports of key concepts such as politeness, impolite-
ness, rudeness and flaming as well as outlines of rather marginal concepts like
mock-politeness, mock-impoliteness and banter will be introduced, before being
assigned a place within the larger framework of relational work. Chapter 6 marks
the transition to the empirical part of this study: In it, contextual factors, which
can become influential for users’ as well as analysts’ evaluations of interpersonal
relations, are compiled and partly exemplified. This is done with the help of ex-
cerpts taken from a message board corpus, which is based on The Student Room
(TSR) and which was specifically designed for the present study. The keystone of
this study is represented by Chapters 7 and 8, which both expose and illustrate
mechanisms for the establishment and the negotiation of interpersonal relations.
To this end, the empirical analysis will not only compile (medium-specific) strat-
egies but also sound out the general atmosphere and participants’ interpersonal
conduct in said corpus.
As the nature of this subject only allows for a very limited amount of quanti-
tative research, the corpus analysis will be predominantly qualitative, exhibiting
a pragmatic and partly sociolinguistic orientation. This methodology is best de-
scribed by Herring (2004: 339):
The specific approach to computer-mediated discourse analysis […] is informed
by a linguistic perspective. That is, it views online behavior through the lens of
language, and its interpretations are grounded in observations about language
and language use.
Finally, Chapter 9 will summarize and evaluate the results of the empirical part
with recourse to the theoretical considerations of previous chapters.
The raison d’être of this study is manifold: Recent developments in online

message boards shall be accounted for in order to gain specific insights into this as
yet mostly unattended type of computer-mediated communication. Above that, a
structured, comprehensive and, above all, critical overview of the complex field of
interpersonal relations shall be given. Most importantly, though, an up-to-date,
realistic and empirically valid picture of interpersonal processes and behavior in
online communities endemic in message boards shall be drawn, in order to do
away with unjustified and obsolete myths that have been wandering through sci-
entific literature far too long.
www.ebook777.com
chapter 2
Communicating via networks I

A technical perspective
2.1 Introduction
Wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associa-
tive trails running through them […]. (Bush 1945)
As early as 1945 and almost half a century before its actual launching, Vannevar
Bush gave an astonishingly accurate description of what is commonly called “the
Internet” these days. This latest technological masterstroke is still gaining mo-
mentum in today’s information society as it has constantly extended its span of
functions and applicability over the past decades and has evolved from a simple
tool on military and academic desks to one of the most important communication
facilities in the middle of our homes. But how do we, in fact, communicate via
computers? Do we chitchat online in the same way as we do “live”, meaning face-
to-face (henceforth FtF)? Before we can even think of investigating this mediated
form of communication and the inner workings of interpersonal relations created
and maintained through it, we need to unfold the basic prerequisites of “going
online” in the first place. Despite its enormous popularity, only few users do in
fact know that it is not the Internet per se which allows them to communicate with
people at all times and all over the world, but the World Wide Web (WWW).
Although the distinction may be minor for users, researchers do not skid over
such details, which is why this chapter puts emphasis on purely technical con-
siderations to begin with. It also serves as a springboard for the social perspec-
tive adopted in the following chapter. The aim of Section 2.2 is thus to shed light
on the historic development of the Internet, the WWW and its essential com-
munication vehicle, hypertext. Subsequently, networked communication will be
displayed as the cornerstone of disciplines such as computer-mediated communi-
cation (henceforth CMC) and computer-mediated discourse analysis (henceforth
CMDA). Section 2.4 details the structure of one type of CMC, online message
boards, concentrating especially on The Student Room (TSR), the message board
system which will serve as the basis for the empirical section of this book. The
ensuing chapter deals with an extremely pressing issue, as it gives an in-depth de-
scription of doubts laid on the social potential of networked communication – a
skepticism which finds expression in two separate views, technological determin-

ism and the so-called cues-filtered-out approaches. These two pessimistic views
will be run counter in Section 2.6, which puts the social potential of CMC into
perspective by outlining those mistakes of former approaches that led to the false
assumptions about CMC in the first place and that need to be avoided in the anal-
ysis to come. Finally, the summary addresses the fact that CMC can be social after
all, thus setting the stage for the third chapter.
2.2 A short history of hypertext and the Internet
[H]ypertexts reflect the nature of the human mind itself [and] because we think as-
sociatively, not linearly, hypertext allows us to write as we think. (Bolter 2001: 42)
One of the most important, if not the most important foundation stones of the In-
ternet was the groundbreaking idea of hypertext, which paved the way for the cre-
ation and development of CMC in the first place. Originally born out of the desire
to technically support the human brain at information processing and problem
solving, the idea of hypertext was first brought up by the American engineer Van-
nevar Bush during the 1930s and finally published in his 1945 paper “As we may
think”. In it, Bush describes the Memex (Memory Expander), a “device in which
an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is
mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is
an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory” (1945: n.p.). Accordingly, the
Memex was supposed to resemble the human brain as an “intricate web of trails”
(ibid.), capable of tying items together in a way that one item can lead to any other
item immediately. Although this system was not based on computer-technology
yet, it is nevertheless often quoted as the ideational grandfather of today’s hyper-
text technology, since it already contained its key concept: linking documents
thematically as well as functionally via technical processes (Storrer 2008: 212f.).
It was the American sociologist and philosopher Ted Nelson, who, in his talk
“As we will think”, picked up Bush’s idea of the Memex in 1972, especially focusing
on the concept of trails in order to utilize it for text production processes. It was
also Nelson, who, in 1963, gave this new technique of producing and receiving
texts its name, hypertext. It was around that time that Nelson founded project
Xanadu, the first and still ongoing hypertext project, which was dedicated to the
establishment of a user friendly hypertext system. Indeed very similar to today’s
. Nelson’s enduring efforts are documented in his monographs Computer Lib/Dream Ma-
chines (1974) and Literary Machines (1981).
www.ebook777.com
Chapter 2. Communicating via networks I: A technical perspective
WWW, it was not only supposed to be stored decentrally but it was also meant to
be available worldwide. However, project Xanadu has not come to fruition yet.
The first one to instantiate a truly operative hypertext system – also inspired
by Bush – was yet another American computer pioneer, Douglas C. Engelbart, best
known for the invention of the computer mouse as an input device. His new sys-
tem, AUGMENT, was the result of a research agenda which was titled “Augment-
ing Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework”. True to its name, AUGMENT
was not meant to replace or automate human thought processes but to augment
them. Since Engelbart’s Augmentation Research Center (ARC) was funded by the
ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency), his new online system soon became
involved with the well-known ARPANET. It was established in 1969 and inter-
connected two research centers: a lab at UCLA and Engelbart’s lab at Stanford,
which were later joined by two other American research facilities (UCSB and the
University of Utah).
The early backbone of the first Internet was thus created, further facilitat-
ing the transfer of computer programs and data between remote computers of
geographically dispersed groups of scientists – years later, not only for academic
and business related purposes, but also in the interest of national defense (cf.
Rheingold 1993). The early 1970s eventually saw the development of computer
networks as a means of communication among computer scientists (see also 2.4).
The last step to popular use finally took place in the 1990s. Today, the Internet is
an almost global network which connects millions of computers by using a num-
ber of agreed formats, so-called protocols. In this process, the most crucial role is
played by the World Wide Web (WWW), developed in 1989 and made publicly
accessible in 1993 by the computer scientists Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau
at the European Organization for Nuclear Research CERN in Geneva. It is impor-
tant to note that, although often used synonymously, the WWW is only a part
of the Internet – as Thurlow et al. (2004: 29) remarked, “the Web is a technology
within a technology” or put figuratively, “the Web is to the Internet what language
is to communication: it cannot account for everything we do, but it is unquestion-
ably a major element in the larger system”. The WWW is a system of computer
servers which are connected through the Internet to support the exchange of files
which are formatted mostly in HTML (hypertext markup language).
The basic unit of the WWW to this very day is hypertext, which has been the
subject of scientific interest – and accordingly various definitional approaches –
ever since its inauguration. In 1992, Landow gave this technological definition of
hypertext, which is
text composed of blocks of words (or images) linked electronically by multiple
paths, chains or trails in an open-ended, perpetually unfinished textuality de-
scribed by the terms link, node, network, web and path. (1992: 3)
Another rather vivid description of hypertext is proposed by Bolter (2001: 35):

A hypertext is like a printed book that the author has attacked with a pair of scis-
sors and cut into convenient verbal sizes [– only] that the electronic hypertext
does not simply dissolve into a disordered heap, because the author also defines a
scheme of electronic connections to indicate relationships among the slips.
With regard to the comparison drawn between hypertexts and traditional (print-
ed) texts, especially (text) linguists were eager to find out the true nature of this
new kind of text. Consequently, they wanted to solve the arising question in what
way hypertexts can be distinguished from conventional (printed) texts. The re-
mainder of this chapter therefore briefly pinpoints the four most important claims
which are often put forward to illustrate key characteristics of hypertexts and to
delimit them from comparatively “old-fashioned” printed texts:
Claim 1: Hypertexts can be multi-linear

Following Storrer’s basic definition, hypertexts are “nicht-lineare Texte”
(2008: 215ff.) (corresponding to non-sequential texts), which need to be adminis-
trated with the help of computer-technology. For the sake of illustration, Nelson
remarks that “hypertext […] is text structure that cannot be conveniently printed”
(1972: 253). In order to get yet a clearer picture, we need to distinguish between the
production and the reception side of communication, which is why the notions of
compositional linearity and perceptive linearity (Hoffmann 2012: 47) appear to be
useful. With regard to these two notions, conventional texts are relatively static in
that authors suggest an optimal reading path (compositional linearity) which is
normally followed by the audience (perceptive linearity): Usually, we read a novel
from cover to cover and do not decide to read the second chapter before the first,
although there exists at least the theoretical possibility to do so. Hypertexts, by
their very nature, are characterized by a highly fragmentary organization as they
are more flexible and do not necessarily exhibit a compositional linearity: Cre-
ators of webpages do not usually tell us which link to click first – the exception,
of course, being some kinds of guided tours through networked pages. As there
. For a detailed and critical discussion surrounding the question whether de Beaugrande/
Dressler’s (1981) criteria for the differentiation of texts and non-texts can also be applied for a
classification of hypertexts, see, for example Vater (1992: 19) or Sandig (2000: 93).
. Further discussions about the characteristics of hypertext can also be found in Eisenlauer/
Hoffmann (2008), Bublitz (2005, 2008) and Huber (2000).
. Exceptions to this rule can be found in game books (such as Sugarcane Island) and diction-
aries or encyclopedias, in which the reader is encouraged or even supposed to choose his own
individual reading path.
www.ebook777.com
Chapter 2. Communicating via networks I: A technical perspective
are many links to choose from, users, on the other hand, are confronted with a
multitude of possible reading paths, depending on their interests and likings. For
this reason, most hypertexts are characterized as multi-linear.
Claim 2: Hypertexts can be coded multimodally

Unlike printed texts, hypertexts can be composed of more than just written texts,
as other representational formats (or modes), such as pictures, audio or video
files, can also be integrated in hypertext documents or be interconnected via hy-
perlinks. Since traditional texts such as newspapers, to give but one example, also
employ formats other than language (e.g. pictures), we have to keep in mind that
multimodality is not necessarily a unique feature of hypertexts – although the
technological possibilities of computer-mediated texts perfectly lend themselves
to multimodal use. This provides both producing and receiving users with a new
communicative potential. According to Nelson, hypertexts, which use more than
one channel for the communication of information, can therefore be referred
to as hypermedia. Other labels have been assigned to hypertext, for example by
Bolter (1991), who speaks of “synaesthetic texts”. As Bublitz remarks, hypertext
“refers to a much wider concept than text; indeed, it incorporates text as one of its
components” (2008: 259).
Claim 3: Hypertexts can be dynamic

The content of hypertext is rarely static, but subject to constant change and exten-
sion to meet the ever emerging user needs. Consequently, it is not unlikely that
. In this study, I follow Holly (1997) and Hoffmann (2012) in using the notion of medium for
tangible, technological means or carrier devices, such as the computer or books, which create,
intensify, store and transport (linguistic) signs over great distances (Holly 1997: 69f.). The term
form of communication, however, is reserved for virtual and multifunctional categories such as
message boards and other software services which are delimited through text-external configu-
rations like the number of participants, the temporal dimension (synchronous/asynchronous)
or the direction of communication (monologic/dialogic). Finally, modes or channels account
for the distinction between spoken and written discourse, including all kinds of representa-
tional formats such as pictures, audio or video files. Note, however, that the majority of the
approaches quoted in this chapter do not sustain this differentiation, but use the term medium
instead. For comprehensive discussions dealing with these different semiotic systems see also
Herring (1999, 2001, 2007), McLuhan (1964), Murray (1988) and Stöckl (2004, 2006).
. The notions hypertext and hypermedia are often used synonymously (cf. Kuhlen 1991).
Note, however, that Storrer (2008: 220) distinguishes carefully between hypertexts and e-texts.
She reserves the latter notion for those types of texts, which – although being available on-
line – exhibit typical characteristics of printed texts (e.g. sequential organization) and can be
understood as replicas of conventional (printed) publications (e.g. scientific articles). For this
reason, e-texts cannot be considered hypertexts in the sense of Storrer’s basic definition.
10 (In)Appropriate Online Behavior
webpages vanish into thin air over night never to be seen again. This feature must,
of course, also be taken into consideration when investigating hypertexts.
Claim 4: Hypertexts can be interactive

The term interactivity is used to describe a feature of the software which enables
it to react to users’ demands in predetermined ways and thus alludes to the coop-
eration between machines and humans. Above that, and even more importantly,
interactivity is not only a feature of hypertexts but of all kinds of computational
applications which allow users to manipulate their course of action, such as com-
puter games and learning programs. Interactivity can include a range of simple
operations such as clicking on links or entering search keywords (cf. Storrer
2008: 219).
2.3 Scientific disciplines and hypertext: CMC & CMDA
As we have seen before, web browsers such as Internet Explorer or Firefox can
be used for much more than just data transfer and information retrieval. As a
matter of fact, the communicative component has become more and more im-
portant in recent years, thereby earning the WWW a new sphere of scientific
research: computer-mediated communication (CMC). Lying at the intersection
of several disciplines, among them computer science, systems science, organiza-
tional theory, social psychology as well as sociolinguistics and (linguistic) prag-
matics, the field of CMC is dedicated to the research of the numerous aspects of
online communication. A rather broad definition is thus proposed by December
(1997), who – in agreeing with Herring (1996) – claims that CMC “is a process
of human communication via computers, involving people, situated in particular
contexts, engaging in processes to shape media for a variety of purposes”. A social
scientific definition, which appears to be more relevant considering the focus of
investigation of this study, is presented by Stephen (1991: 236), who considers
CMC research to be
the study in which the ways in which the computer as a communication medium
may influence social psychological/processes [sic!] occurring between human
communicators. Today’s CMC research analyzes new social practices (for ex-
ample, computer conferencing) enabled by institutional, national or global com-
puter communication networks and the consequences of various characteristics
of communication that occur uniquely or more frequently in this context (e.g.
anonymous exchange, asynchronous interaction, exclusive reliance on written
messages, etc.).
www.ebook777.com
Chapter 2. Communicating via networks I: A technical perspective 11
These postulated new “social practices”, which are supposed to be observable

when users exchange ideas with other users, can be witnessed in the most diverse
forms of communication within CMC, which encompass synchronous commu-
nication platforms such as web chats, instant messaging and MUDs as well as
asynchronous email, fora, message boards, and weblogs. The common differen-
tiation between synchronous and asynchronous types of CMC refers to the fact
that some communication platforms require users to be simultaneously present
when interacting with each other online. Asynchronous exchanges, in contrast,
are not at all tied to time and can be taken up, interrupted or ended whenever the
user feels like it or is able to fit it into his schedule without disrupting the con-
versational flow. This does not, however, mean that certain asynchronous types
of CMC cannot be utilized for synchronous purposes as well: One might easily
imagine the case in which a message board or a forum is used synchronously by
two or more interlocutors who happen to be online at the same time to discuss a
place to meet for the night.
Computer-mediated communication is predominantly text-based in that
messages are typed on computer keyboards and read as texts on computer
screens – normally, but not always, at two different locations. Consequently, the
production and the reception of a message, which usually happen at once in FtF
contexts, are automatically split up into two separate and temporally distinct acts.
For this reason, Beißwenger (2002, 2003) and others even treat chats as cases
of quasi-synchronous communication. Although activities dominating new elec-
tronic forms of communication very much resemble familiar technologies, e.g.
the telephone or the typewriter, their convergence in the digital sphere provides
users with entirely new possibilities (cf. Culnan/Markus 1987: 422).
As a matter of fact, it is this text-based communication that presents itself as
a fascinating new subject of interest not only for linguistic pragmatics. Accord-
ingly labeled as computer-mediated discourse (CMD), it is defined by Herring as
“the communication produced when human beings interact with one another by
transmitting messages via networked computers” (2001: 612). In comparison to
the broader interdisciplinary study of CMC, the analysis of CMD, termed com-
puter-mediated discourse analysis (CMDA), focuses specifically “on language and
language use in computer networked environments [and makes] use of methods
of discourse analysis (ibid., original emphasis). CMDA comprises “any analysis
of online behavior that is grounded in empirical, textual observations” (Herring
2004: 339) and is based on two major influencing factors: the technological
. The acronym MUD is short for multi-user dungeon and stands for a multi-user virtual world
similar to role-playing games, in which players get together in real-time for fun and games, as
well as for communicating with each other.
prerequisites of the medium (and of the form of communication) as well as the

social constraints of the situation (Herring 2007: 10). Although the field obtained
its name only in 1995 (cf. Herring 2001: 613), CMD analyses have already been
conducted since the mid-1980s – a claim which is supported by linguistic works
of Murray (1988) and Severinson Eklundh (1986), to quote but two (cf. Herring
2004: 340). In structuring the scope of CMDA, Herring illustrates that CMDA has
already been used for the investigation of numerous linguistic phenomena on a
micro-level (e.g. online word-formation, lexical choice, sentence structure, and
code switching) as well as on a macro-level (e.g. coherence, community, gender
equity, and identity).
2.4 In the spotlight: The ins and outs of message boards
So far, we have established that CMC serves as an umbrella term for an extremely
diversified range of forms of communication in terms of technological makeup
as well as potential communicative functions and corresponding social dealings.
To measure every one of them with the same yardstick would be inadequate, re-
sulting in unqualified and invalid overgeneralizations. This section will therefore
narrow the focus to message boards as the object of investigation, in order to
establish some basic technological facts and inner workings for the empirical part
of this work.
Nowadays, sections for discussion are an integral part of almost every website.
Not only do the most important web portals like Yahoo©, Google© and AOL©
maintain extensive (moderated or unmoderated) fora and/or message boards,
these web applications are also provided by institutions like universities and li-
braries, companies, TV channels, online data bases and so on. Although they may
have a common goal in helping users connect with each other, they differ not only
in layout and structure. More strikingly, the multitude of topics and fields of inter-
est discussed in these web applications almost seems to correspond with the large
repertoire of their aliases: Going online, you are not only invited to join Internet,
Web or discussion forums/fora, but also message or discussion boards, bulletin
boards, (electronic) discussion groups, and newsgroups.
Unfortunately, we cannot fall back on scientific literature to help us circum-
scribe these different notions, as we are yet dealing with a largely uninvestigated
. In a moderated discussion platform such as TSR (see next chapter), a supervising authority,
a moderator, has to approve of the appropriateness of entries before they are indeed posted.
. Note that even the formation of the plural poses a problem. This work will give preference
to the Latin plural.
www.ebook777.com
subject. Except for practical (online) guides, advice and support services on how
to access, join or create one of the aforementioned electronic discussion plat-
forms (cf. Bins/Piwinger 1997; Donnerhacke 1996; Fabrot 2001; Jasper 1997), the
amount of scientific let alone linguistic literature concerning basic notions and
structures of fora and message boards is rather thin (cf. Münz 2002). A great part
of literature focuses on the technical side of online communication, mostly stress-
ing computer programming. On the other hand, general introductions into CMC
(cf. Androutsopoulos et al. 2006; Beißwenger et al. 2004; Burger 2005; Crystal
2001; Herring 1996; Kuhlen 1991; Thurlow et al. 2004) deal with fora, message
boards and the like only peripherally and rather dwell on well-established com-
municative forms like email, chat or weblogs. No wonder that even providers of
such discussion platforms get occasionally confused about how to call them (cf.
Münz 2002).
The roots of fora and message boards, as we know them today, can be traced
back to the Usenet, a network of host computers which enables users to “post
messages to newsgroups that can be read (and responded to) by anyone who has
access to the system through a newsreader” (URL 3). The Usenet, which was orig-
inally set up as an experimental bulletin board system at the University of North
Carolina in 1979 (Jasper 1997: 12), comprises the ever-expanding newsgroups,
now counting more than 20,000, hosted all over the world and covering every
conceivable topic. The important difference between newsgroups, which reached
their prime in the mid 1990s, and present day fora/message boards is the need of a
newsreader (cf. MS Outlook Express©; NewsAgent© etc.), a program to decipher
the contents of the newsgroups (cf. Schütte 2000: 150). Since the year 1996, how-
ever, web based versions of this application gained popularity, rendering the need
for newsreaders obsolete. Thus, (discussion, web, internet) fora and (discussion,
message) boards can be subsumed under the heading of web based applications.
But what exactly makes the difference between fora and message boards? Ob-
viously, there are some features that they do share, such as thematic diversity and
a lot of predetermined templates at users’ disposal. Furthermore, visitors have to
register for some fora and message boards in order to contribute or even just to
read entries. Admittedly, the distinction between fora and message boards is not
of a dichotomous nature. On the contrary, there are also hybrid systems which
merge features of both or let users decide for one form of viewing the content or
another – among them www.selfhtml.org and also TSR. Still, fora and message
boards should be kept apart since they differ considerably with regard to their
internal arrangements.
As can be seen in Figure 1, fora give insight into the chronological and ref-
erential order of the ongoing discussion on their first page and thus visualize the
argumentative maze (cf. Münz 2002). This means that all chronologically ordered
Figure 1. Structure of a typical forum homepage (URL 4)
chains of contributions pertaining to one particular topic, the so-called threads,

can be perceived at once. Owing to the tree structure, a forum thus enables us-
ers to quickly establish reference and to recognize at a glance which entry refers
to which. Furthermore, this schematic representation of headings (standing for
complete entries) perfectly visualizes the nature of the ongoing online discussion,
which can be flat at times, for example, when all users respond to one entry (see
forth bullet in the upper half), or rather complex (see eighth bullet in the lower
half). In the latter case, users do not only respond to the original post itself, but
take comments and responses to this first post as a springboard for new con-
tributions. To see the full text version of the entries, users just have to click on
their headings within the tree structure. If one page is filled, a new one is opened
automatically with new entries always posted on top of the latest page. Older con-
tributions usually do not vanish into thin air but are meticulously stored away,
as they are relegated to other pages posterior to the first page or even to an ar-
chive. One way or another, discourse produced on such pages is always retriev-
able, less fleeting than its FtF counterpart and thus tangible, shared history (see
Sections 6.2, 6.3).
Message boards, on the other hand, are structured differently in that they offer
their users several thematic categories to pick from (see Figure 2). In this mostly
two-stage introductory navigation, ranging from overarching categories such as
“Live Advice” or “Hobbies and Interests” to subordinate topics like “Health and
Relationships” or “Fitness”, users are redirected systematically in order for them to
find the right place to read appealing posts or to place their own contribution. A
www.ebook777.com
Figure 2. Structure of the homepage of the message board The Student Room (URL 5)
Figure 3. List of threads within a subtopic in The Student Room (URL 6)
look at this superordinate page does not only inform users of their topical choices,
but also indicates “what’s hot and what’s not” by listing the sum total of posts so far
uploaded for one topic (see circle on the top right, Figure 2). Having picked an at-
tractive topic, users are subsequently presented with lists of topic related threads,
in which each thread is represented by means of the heading of its opening post
(OP), furnished with information about the last post and the number of replies
and views. This is illustrated in the last two columns on the right side of Figure 3.
Figure 4. Beginning of a thread in the message board The Student Room (URL 7)
In order to read a complete thread, users have to click on one of the head-
ings in the list and are then presented with the opening post and all the following
contributions. All posts appear in chronological order, most of the time latest on
top. The exact moment of posting is revealed through the time stamp on top of
each message. For the sake of clarity, The Student Room and many other message
boards also number the contributions in threads, assigning the “#1”-tag to the
thread starter and then counting upwards (see circles in Figure 4). Since this list-
like layout is based on a strictly chronological order of posts, it does not reveal
their referential order which is why users actually have to read entries (or at least
their subject headings) to distinguish posts that give an answer to the original
contribution from those which already comment on the comment. In contrast
to fora, however, users do not have to click on each and every heading within a
thread separately in order to read actual posts. The layout is thus less disruptive
for the reading flow and encourages lively discussions within well-defined topics.
In cases where discussions run the risk of going beyond the actual scope of the
thread, there is always the possibility of starting a new thread.
Message boards are a highly chameleonic, multifunctional and alterable type
of CMC, which is why it escapes generalizations and classifications. One com-
mon denominator, however, is the asynchronicity of communication (see above).
This is the reason why users are not pressured by time constraints when compos-
ing or commenting on entries. As a consequence, discussions can be continued
with or without interruptions over days, months or even years. What is more, this
www.ebook777.com
temporal freedom puts users – at least theoretically – in the comfortable posi-

tion to compose and edit as well as to interpret and reflect on complex and well-
wrought entries in peace and quiet (Tanskanen 2007: 89; cf. Suler 2005). Posts are
basically phrased with the help of users’ keyboards, although most of the message
boards allow for the insertion of audio-visual elements, such as pictures, graph-
ics, sound bites, videos, links etc. as well. Verbal input is thus complemented with
stimuli for other senses, which clearly enrich communicative exchanges via mes-
sage boards.
Of course, message boards such as The Student Room offer their users further
technical properties, namely those which are primarily useful for the recreation of
social context and the management of online interaction – mechanisms which al-
low for message boards to be the joyful and colorful places mushrooming all over
the WWW, which have become so popular in the last few decades. Some 40 years
ago, however, research did predict anything but a rosy future for CMC and its po-
tential for interpersonal exchange, which is at the center of this study. Before we
will return to discussing further properties of message boards, we need to answer
the following important questions: Why was the social potential of CMC under-
estimated? Which apparently wrong assumptions affected the image of CMC in
the first place? Since the forthcoming analysis of interpersonal relations sets out
to present at least message boards in a more realistic light in terms of its social
potential, we need to know about the former reservations against CMC. Only that
way can we detect the logical and analytical mistakes of the past.
2.5 Reservations against the social potential of CMC
Despite the promising developments of the technical innovations described above,

not every detail of the new communicative potential of CMC was appreciated
and welcomed with open arms immediately. Especially its usage for social pur-
poses was highly doubted at first so that critical voices rose immediately, warning
against the alleged risks of using computer networks for interpersonal communi-
cation. This skepticism was fueled by two major lines of concern which, although
definitely overstating the case, will be outlined in the following in more detail: the
fear of an exuberant and inevitable influence of technology on (inter)personal
cognitions as formulated in the theory of technological determinism and the al-
leged weaknesses of CMC itself, which were assumed to be medially inherent and
which found expression in the so-called cues-filtered-out approaches.
2.5.1 Technological determinism vs. social constructionism
The skepticism about the use of computer networks for interpersonal commu-
nication is reflected in an overly negative sentiment towards technology called
technological determinism. This theory, which owes its name to the American so-
ciologist and economist Veblen, takes up an extreme position in explaining the
relationship between technological change and social life:
[P]articular technical developments, communications technologies or media, or,
most broadly, technology in general are the sole or prime antecedent causes of
changes in society, and technology is seen as the fundamental condition underly-
ing the pattern of social organization. (Chandler 1995: n.p.)
Technology is therefore regarded as one of the most powerful forces behind social
change “at every level including institutions, social interaction and individuals”
(ibid.). Human factors and social conventions, on the other hand, are erroneously
dismissed as secondary phenomena. The inner makeup of technological deter-
minism is thus considered to be extremely influential insofar as it is
– reductionistic – reducing the relationship between technology and cultures to

one of straightforward cause and effect;
– monistic – oversimplifying an otherwise complex relationship to the effects of
a single factor (rather than being multi-causal);
– neutralizing – representing technology as neutral or value-free and therefore
absolved of ‘responsibility’;
– technological imperative – presenting technological ‘progress’ as unstoppa-
ble, inevitable, and irreversible.
(Thurlow et al. 2004: 41 following Chandler 1995)
A special subset of technological determinism is media determinism, its quin-

tessence being encapsulated in McLuhan’s famous aphorism “the medium is the
message” (1964). Although he does not explain the mechanisms through which
the widespread use of electronic media brings about social change, McLuhan sup-
ports the media-deterministic view insofar as he analyzes media as extensions
of the human senses or processes. As a result of media use, the organization of
human senses and their consciousness – in McLuhan’s words, people’s “sensory
balance” – are altered (cf. Meyrowitz 1985: 3, 17).
As the controversy is sparked off by the question how far technology does
indeed condition social change, Chandler (1995) justifiably cautions against over-
generalizations which are based on “the nature and pitfalls of a very persuasive
www.ebook777.com
stance”.10 Subsequently, technological determinism has been reviewed more and

more critically by scholars in recent time and has been contrasted with yet an-
other extreme view: appropriation theory or social constructionism. Although
these moderated approaches do not view users as operating in ways which are
downright dictated by technology, they do not mirror reality either. These two
approaches embody a stark contrast to technology-led theories of social change
since they reverse the roles of cause and effect, purporting that technological in-
novations are solely the (secondary) condensates of social constructs. Accord-
ingly, users are reinstituted as masters of the situation as they are the ones to
consciously “pick and choose from what is available, at times using things in un-
expected ways, at times not using some of the possibilities” (Baym 1995: 150). At
least in contrast to technological determinism, this perspective has been proven
to be a more realistic assessment of online interaction by several studies, as, for
example, by Baym’s (1995) work on online soap opera communities, which comes
to the conclusion that “even the most mundane interactions require that people
draw upon pre-existing resources that have meaning within a community to cre-
ate and invoke event types, identities, relationships, and norms” (1995: 150).
The truth most certainly lies somewhere between these two extreme posi-
tions: Certainly, we cannot act on the assumption that the “medium itself is [only]
a neutral delivery system” (Meyrowitz 1985: 15), which is why medium theorists
“suggest that media are not simply channels for conveying information between
two or more environments, but rather environments in and of themselves”
(Meyrowitz 1985: 16). Although the means of communication do not shape cul-
ture and personality completely, social and technological factors are still mutually
dependent. For that reason, the medium, or rather the communicative platform,
cannot be overlooked as a factor in analyses any longer (cf. Meyrowitz 1985: 18).
2.5.2 Cues-filtered-out approaches
The second strand of reservations according to which CMC is ill-suited for in-
terpersonal exchange, let alone social interaction, when compared to FtF get-to-
gethers points directly to the nature of CMC itself. In the late 1970s until the
mid 1980s, early scholars of CMC such as Baron (1984) and Kiesler et al. (1984)
10. Chandler (1995) adds that the antagonism described here is known in economics as a tech-
nology-push theory vs. a demand-pull theory. A similar controversy can be witnessed in devel-
opmental psychology over nature versus nurture which is one between genetic and environ-
mental determinism. While Thomas Hobbes was an early advocate of the importance of nature
(heredity), Jean-Jacques Rousseau represents the most famous proponent of the importance of
nurture (or experience) (cf. Chandler 1995).
identified a number of characteristics inherent in text-based CMC which they

considered to be detrimental for the creation and maintenance of social bonds
online. They held that
[e]lectronic media do not efficiently communicate nuances of meaning and frame
of mind, organizational loyalties, symbolic procedural variations, and, especially,
individuating details about people that might be embodied in their dress, loca-
tion, demeanor, and expressiveness. (Kiesler et al. 1984: 1126)
Apparently, CMC lacked important qualities of FtF communication, making it

an inadequate means for social interaction. This stance finds expression in the
so-called deficit approaches or cues-filtered-out approaches, coined by Culnan/
Markus in 1987, the trademark of which being long successions of judgmental ad-
jectives. According to Collins (1992), social context cues, which are supposed to be
“filtered out” in said approaches, refer to various geographic, organizational, and
situational variables that have ample influence not only on how conversational
content is conceived, but also on how it is perceived by users. These can include
demographic variables such as age, gender, race, socio-economic status, residence
as well as personal characteristics such as appearance, dress, accent, mood, size,
and attitude, but also interactional or back-channeling cues as conveyed by eye-
contact, facial expression, tone of voice, and body language. All these para- and
nonverbal cues are instantly present in FtF communication and generally rich in
relational information. In CMC, however, they are seemingly absent, which results
in insalubrious effects concerning interpersonal relations, as some information
cannot be fully transferred (McKenna/Bargh 2000). For this reason, ambiguities,
for example concerning the “intended” emotion, can arise. Following Derks et al.
(2008: 777), these misinterpretations can result in inappropriate reactions on the
part of the hearer, escalation of conflicts or negative judgments of the other user.
In fact, the notion cues-filtered-out approaches is an umbrella term for three
individual, though rather similar approaches, all of which proclaim the same
(negative) view on the social capacities of CMC to be shortly summarized in the
following:
1. Social presence theory

This theory11 holds a connection between the absence of social context cues and
the presence of uninhibited verbal behavior in CMC (cf. Kiesler et al. 1984). This
11. Although not designed to explain CMC in the first place and “at best a vague concept, never
clearly defined by its proponents” (Svenning/Ruchinskas 1984: 248), the theory has neverthe-
less been widely accepted (and later also criticized) as a major theory in this area (cf. Walther
1992: 55).
www.ebook777.com
so-called disinhibition effect is owed to the fact that audiences are not present
physically, depriving users of the possibility to detect social context cues in their
interlocutors. Baym (1995: 139f.) concludes that, “[w]ith these cues to social con-
text removed, the discourse is left in a social vacuum quite different from face-
to-face interaction”. CMC is thus extremely “low in social presence” (Short et al.
1976) and users can only imagine their interlocutors while typing seemingly for
and by themselves, which is why their attentional focus shifts from actual audi-
ences to the act of composing and responding to messages alone (Siegel et al.
1986). Accordingly, the users’ “level of sympathetic involvement with others is
attenuated and people don’t need to be sensitive to other’s [sic] feelings or mes-
sages, nor do they need to avoid impoliteness” (Collins 1992: n.p.). The absence of
a discernable audience entails yet another consequence: Since “the fear of physi-
cal retaliation as sanction for verbal aggression is non-existent” (ibid.), a sense of
freedom arises. The only remedy available in CMC is the showing of more non-
conforming, direct, or even aggressive behavior in return – unrestrained conduct
also known as flaming (Avgerinakou 2003: 273f., cf. Section 5.7).
2. De-individuation theory

The second theory focuses on the self-perception of the producing user. Thurlow
et al. (2004: 63) report that de-individuation “entails the subjugation to the group
and a concomitant reduction in self-focus [as] the group activity simply becomes
more important”. Since users hardly emit any social cues themselves, feelings of
technologically supported social anonymity and reduced self-awareness arise.
Spears/Lea (1994) suggested that this kind of anonymity within a powerful au-
dience may have a liberating effect, thus reducing inhibitions and feelings of
accountability to the audience as well as fostering self-disclosure. Accordingly,
feelings of embarrassment, guilt, empathy, and fear of retribution and rejection are
generally reduced; while antinormative, unrestrained, and uninhibited behavior
becomes more salient (Siegel et al. 1986: 161). The pressure to conform to norms
and expectations of the group is thus lifted from the anonymous communicator’s
shoulders (cf. Douglas/McGarty 2001: 400).
Note, however, that anonymity should not be equaled with not being identifi-
able (Joinson 1998). Although visual anonymity may be a given in the context of
CMC, as interlocutors literally cannot be seen, users are still identifiable (depend-
ing on the particular CMC platform for example by means of nicknames, email
addresses, links to personal web pages etc.) and can sometimes even be linked to
their true identities.
3. Media richness theory

Although based on the same assumption as social presence theory, the last of the
three theories draws different conclusions: Scholars back then considered CMC
a lean form of communication, attesting it a reduced capacity to transmit mul-

tiple social context cues and assessing it as being inferior for the communication
of rich information. FtF, on the contrary, was held to be the richest medium of
communication, “given the multiplicity of channels available to it” (Avgerinakou
2003: 274). Owed to the lack of aural and visual feedback, they reckoned the
general coordination of interaction, the resolving of disagreements or the reach-
ing of a consensus to be more difficult online (cf. Hiltz et al. 1986). Accordingly,
CMC seemed more liable than FtF to cause social friction. Consequently, “CMC
is deemed appropriate for the transfer of simple or unequivocal messages, but
insufficient for the communication of more equivocal, ambiguous, or emotional
information” (ibid.). Being discredited as impoverished and fragmented form
of communication (cf. Herring 2001: 613), CMC was considered an inadequate
mode of interpersonal communication (cf. reviews by Culnan/Markus 1987;
Walther 1996; Avgerinakou 2003).
To sum it all up, at the beginning of the 1980s, CMC stood accused of being
asocial, emotionally cold, impersonal, anonymous and unfriendly (Lea/Spears
1995: 214), in short: “the quality of communication is reduced as a result of the
technological restraints of the Internet” (Thurlow et al. 2004: 46, original em-
phasis). Above that, CMC was also called antisocial as “it has a negative impact
on offline communication and offline relationships” (ibid.) because people cut
themselves off from “real” FtF relationships.12 Then again, interpersonal relation-
ships, which were established solely online, were shrugged off as being “super-
ficial, unstable, shallow, and ephemeral leading to the creation of the specter of
pseudocommunity” (Lee 2005: 387 with reference to Foster 1997; Gimenez 1997).
Defeatist evaluations of CMC as displayed in these quotes should not be left un-
commented, though. The next chapter will demonstrate that most of the findings
of early CMC scholars should be handled with extreme care, to say the least.
2.6 Everything is not lost: The discovery of social potential within CMC
Despite the negative judgment of CMC passed through their research, Kiesler et
al. (1984: 1130) are the first to admit “that [their] own data do not provide any
evidence to distinguish among these tentative and somewhat limited potential
explanations”, a statement which Culnan/Markus (1987: 430) believe to apply to
12. A survey by Katz et al. (2001: 412) proved this claim to be wrong: It showed that the more
time Internet users spent online, the more likely they were to belong to offline religious, leisure,
and community organizations, when compared to nonusers. Internet use is thus not respon-
sible for the weakening of the fabric of neighborhoods and communities.
www.ebook777.com
their entire body of work. In explaining that the deficit approaches “were mostly
developed at a time when CMC hadn’t really begun to take off yet – either in terms
of popularity or academic research”, Thurlow et al. (2004: 60) come to the rescue
of those scholars involved in early CMC research. Ten years after the launching of
the first experimental studies of the early 1980s, several field studies investigating
CMC could not find the evidence to uphold the unsocial view of CMC (Walther
1992: 53). First and foremost, works by Walther and colleagues (e.g. Walther 1992;
Walther/Burgoon 1992; Walther et al. 1994) have revealed that the differences
between CMC and FtF interaction are not that large and, even more importantly,
tend to dissolve over time. The social potential of CMC thus needs to be put into
perspective.
2.6.1 Opposed findings of more recent approaches
Owing to more recent research, mostly conducted as field, not as laboratory stud-
ies13 (e.g. Feldman 1987; Ord 1989; Weedman 1991), the old allegations towards
CMC could be successfully refuted as popular myths, which only a few lay people
and journalists regard as valid to this very day (Thurlow et al. 2004: 47, 70; cf. URL
1, 2). Instead, a more realistic assessment of today’s situation has been revealed,
sometimes even furthering diametrically opposed findings. As a matter of a fact,
the rather distorted picture drawn up for CMC was partly due to the fact that
cues-filtered-out approaches operated on several false assumptions. Looking into
and hopefully overcoming these methodological mistakes, more recent studies
thus try
– to work on the problem empirically;

– not to treat FtF communication as the optimal form of communication
and thus as the standard against which to measure CMC: As Thurlow et al.
(2004: 49) fittingly remark, “[y]ou just have to think about a really boring
class you’ve attended to know that [sic!] FtF, bodily presence is no guarantee
of warm, personal, or sociable communication!”;
– to distinguish more carefully among different forms of communication with-
in CMC (synchronous vs. asynchronous, private vs. public vs. semi-public
etc.);
13. As summarized by Taylor (2000: 98f.), laboratory studies used artificial designs and proce-
dures: simulations comprised discussion groups of unnaturally small sizes, limited discussions
to only a few minutes, appointed participants who were unaccustomed to using CMC and
gave them very narrow tasks to perform. The validity of those results should in no event be
generalized.
– to distinguish more carefully among different types of tasks being worked

on;
– to distinguish more carefully among different users, their relationships and
their personalities;
– to determine the extent and nature of flaming as carefully as possible (see Sec-
tion 5.7): In surveying articles on CMC extensively, Lea et al. (1992) proved
that studies counting instances of flaming in CMC were not at all comparable
with each other, let alone with findings for FtF. Proceeding from different no-
tions of flaming, they operationalized this hazy phenomenon inconsistently
(e.g. language which is either extremely positive or negative (McCormick/
McCormick 1992), swearing and insults (Siegel et al. 1986) or even all mes-
sages conveying bad news etc. (Sproull/Kiesler 1986);
– not to treat flaming as a decontextualized phenomenon but consider the so-
cial context that is predefined or communicated via the medium;
– to collect user perceptions of each other and of the group when dealing with
intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (Taylor 2000: 98);
– to include time as a crucial factor for the development of compensatory
mechanisms to make up for the absence of social context cues.
Especially the last point on the list deserves a little more attention: Since fewer so-
cial cues can be transported within one message, we cannot proceed from the same
time frame as in FtF communication for the establishment of interpersonal rela-
tions. In time, however, users can and do develop a system which provides them,
to a certain degree, with compensatory mechanisms such as emoticons, smileys,
and capitalizations to emulate FtF contextual cues (cf. Avgerinakou 2003: 275)
and to make up for the “dramaturgical weakness of electronic media” (Kiesler
et al. 1984: 1125). Even back in the 1980s, Kiesler et al. considered it the task of
future research to “discover how groups respond to the difference [between CMC
and FtF communication]; how, given time, groups work out new communication
traditions and rules” (1984: 1127). As one of those future researchers, Walther and
his associates came to the following conclusion:
communicators using any medium experience the similar needs for uncertainty
reduction and affinity, and to meet these needs CMC users will adapt their lin-
guistic contextual behaviors to these solicitation and presentation of socially re-
vealing, relational behavior. The critical difference between FtF and CMC from
this perspective is a question of rate, not capability. (Walther et al. 1994: 465)
Obviously, users act on the same prerequisites online than they do in FtF settings,
as they want to be liked and connect with people (cf. Section 4.3). They need, how-
ever, comparatively more time not only to reach decisions but more importantly
www.ebook777.com
also to convey social cues, which are necessary for the establishment and/or nego-
tiation of relationships. Literally slowing down the communicative process are the
typing requirements, to give but one example.
Admittedly, the lack of channels is indeed a disadvantage of CMC – none that
cannot be compensated for, though. Users simply need to adapt their behavior
in putting their otherwise nonverbal behavior on record, thus learning new ways
of verbalizing relational content (cf. Walther/Burgoon 1992). As time limitations
were common in earlier (mainly task-oriented) laboratory studies investigating
CMC, we are now presented with the variable that may have had major influence
on the negative outcome in terms of the social potential of CMC. As a matter
of fact, slower moving CMC interaction may have been cut off before sufficient
messages were exchanged for the accruement of interpersonal effects (Walther
et al. 1994: 465). Although studies to prove this new perspective, other than an-
ecdotal or case study analyses, are still far and few between, it is safe to assume
that researchers should focus on longitudinal rather than cross-sectional studies
in order to yield suitable results for the investigation of interpersonal and social
patterns.
2.6.2 Compensatory mechanisms and netlingo
Instead of replying to a statement, you can smirk. Instead of leaving the room, you
can disappear in a cloud of iridescent, bubble-gum-flavored bubbles.
(Rheingold 1993: 148)
As the previous chapters have proven, FtF interaction has many qualities that are
absent in CMC settings, most importantly ever present and directly accessible
social context cues. These are imperative for interpersonal interaction insofar as
they do not only help to regulate the interaction (among others also by convey-
ing emotions) but above that also to provide speakers with valuable information
about their interlocutors, which certainly promote the formation of impressions
and the more accurate evaluation of their behavior (Culnan/Markus 1987: 427).
Fortunately, CMC does not have to forfeit these two major functions of social
context cues, since they are substituted – at least to a certain degree – by on-
line compensatory mechanisms: new electronic forms of communication feature
characteristics and functions which do not even have an equivalent in FtF but
are nevertheless quite beneficial for online interaction. This assessment is backed
up by Walther (1992: 77), who holds that “equilibrium theoretic principles sup-
port the contention of cue substitutability, in that interactants are likely to adopt
other symbol systems to convey affective messages that are unavailable nonver-
bally”. Walther/Parks (2002) call this new perception of CMC the cues-filtered-in
approach. Above that, seasoned users are extremely resourceful and become adept
to using and interpreting creative and sometimes even playful textual signs that
are supposed to make up for the felt lack of “real” para- and nonverbal cues. It
takes, of course, some time to establish these new conventions, which are even
deepened and further entrenched by the feeling of connectedness and relational
commitment through a history of previous and the anticipation of future interac-
tion. To be fair, one should mention that Hiltz/Turoff (1981) as well as Short et al.
(1976) foresaw this development even as early as the late 1970s, which only hints
to the very natural phenomenon of human beings always trying to make the best
of situations and easily accommodate to new (communicative) surroundings.
These “keyboard tricks” (Lea/Spears 1995: 217), also known as “affection
and metacommunicative cues” (Walther 1992: 80) or “relational icons” (Asteroff
1987) have become very common in usage and enjoy great popularity. Their most
prominent representative surely is the emoticon (a blend of emotion and icon),
also known as smiley :-), sometimes also winky ;-) or frowny :-(, which is basically
a combination of punctuation marks and other ASCII14 characters (for example
@>--;-- “a rose”). When read sideways,15 an emoticon resembles a face (or any
other iconic representation for that matter) which reveals information about the
author’s current mood or mental state (Constantin et al. 2002) and “the intended
emotional tone of a message” (Lea/Spears 1995: 217; cf. Crystal 2001). Depending
on the technical equipment of the type of CMC, users have selections of more or
less elaborate, sometimes even animated ready-made smileys at their disposal,
which can be inserted into the message with one click.16
In order to avoid ambiguity about how a message is supposed to be under-
stood, users can always resort to making their emotions explicit by spelling them
out (“I am angry!, This is scary!, I would like to hit you!”) (Derks et al. 2008: 768,
777). If there is still a need for more information, acronyms can be of some help
in establishing clarity: Typing MORF (“male or female”), GOS (“gay or straight”),
or A/S/L (“age, sex, location”) is a simple way of inquiring basic demographic
information about interlocutors.
Other ways of disclosing emotional states include using asterisks to stress
certain items in the text (*grin*) or capitalization to indicate screaming and thus
14. ASCII is short for the American Standard Code for Information Interchange, referring to
all characters typically available on a standard keyboard.
15. This reading technique is not necessary for the Asian equivalent of smileys, the so-called
kawaicons, such as (^o^) or \(^-^)/ as expressions of joy.
16. The multitude of smileys available in The Student Room (TSR) can be viewed under
URL 8.
www.ebook777.com
hinting at a rather emphatic way of conveying a message. Therefore, capitaliza-

tion can be seen as an indicator for impatience, frustration or maybe even anger.
Emotions can also be put across rather subtly by changing the font, color and/or
size of one’s words. Another popular way of expressing oneself online the quickest
possible way is by using the aforementioned acronyms. They are multifunctional
in that they are not only used to convey emotions (g “grin”, lol “laughing out loud”,
rofl “rolling on floor laughing” etc.), but also to get across reoccurring routine
formulae, sometimes concerning the circumstances of the (invisible) production
process (brb “be right back”, bbl “be back later”, imho “in my humble opinion”,
wdyt “what do you think?”, cy “see you”, thx “thanks”, irl “in real life”, F2F “face-
to-face”, some1 “someone” etc.) (Thurlow et al. 2004: 125). This latter function can
also be implemented by so-called actions or emotes, which are short phrases such
as *{Sender} eyes you up and down*, *{Sender} cries on your shoulder* (ibid. 125).
According to Benwell/Stokoe (2006: 251) they are “crucial ways of contributing
to identity work online and compensating for an absence of visual context, since
they can express relationships, flesh out dramaturgical space, reveal inner states
or motivations, or imbue the domain with a surreal cartoonish quality”.
As a matter of fact, we can learn a great deal about our participants just by
looking at their language, meaning their vocabulary, their grammar, their style
(Thurlow et al. 2004: 53). A lot of the following typographic gimmicks try to imi-
tate prosody, which is crucial not only for smooth online interaction, as proso-
dy is an important element for the interpretation of speaker intent. Electronic
paraverbal cues are, among others, transported through intentional misspelling
(for example the repetition of a vowel to emulate drawn-out pronunciation, as
in coooool or he is soooo cuuuuute, or of a final consonant to indicate stress, as in
yearsssssss ago). According to Walther (1992: 80), “lexical surrogates for vocal seg-
regates” add affective information and further convey informality, as for example
hmmm or yuk yuk. Spatial arrays are used to indicate pauses or to highlight words
or phrases. The opposite, typing words without spaces in between, can be a sign of
increased tempo. Grammatical markers, such as exclamation or question marks
as well as periods, can also be used as a means of highlighting, when used repeat-
edly. Most of all, rows of periods have become a classic means for indicating el-
lipsis of some sort and have even found their way to other communicative arenas
(Walther 1992: 79f.). In terms of creativity, only the sky is the limit.
In exploiting the system’s features, language is a “powerful strategic resource –
indeed the primary resource – for the creation of social reality in text-based
CMC” (Herring 2001: 623). For this reason, research has explored this special
online language in depth which goes by a multitude of names such as weblish,
netlingo, e-talk, tech-speak, wired-style, geek-speak17 and netspeak. Despite these

extravagant but harmless names, we should not assume that netlingo, to pick one
such umbrella term, is a completely different language, which radically affects
and even destroys “proper” language (cf. Baron 1984: 131). Early assessments that
“[n]etspeak is a development of millennial significance [and a] new medium of
linguistic communication” as enthusiastically proclaimed by Crystal (2001: 238f.),
clearly overstate the case. The only truly distinctive feature of netlingo is its in-
vincible amount of creativity, which clearly surpasses “normal” language. Surely,
no other “language” exhibits so many ad hoc word formation processes such as
“weblish, shareware, netiquette, e- and cyber- anything” (Thurlow et al. 2004: 124)
than netlingo. There is thus a “strong tendency to break traditional conventions
of written language to help create a more social orientation of speech” (ibid. 125)
which – depending on a wide range of contextual variables such as type of CMC,
participants, topic and purpose – leads to a hybrid form of speech and writing.18
This compilation of compensatory mechanisms created by users for the ex-
pression of social context cues and emotions clearly disproves the claim that CMC
is per se impersonal and emotionless. Still, we need to keep in mind when inter-
preting emoticons and the like that they are more deliberate and voluntary in
comparison to their rather spontaneous FtF counterparts. One could therefore
say that users of CMC have more control over the expression of their emotions,
which is partly due to the fact that there is a time-lag between receiving and an-
swering a message. Theoretically at least, this allows users to choose their words
and emoticons carefully. Derks et al. (2008: 778) therefore object that the “use of
emoticons […] does not necessarily tell us that individuals experience an emo-
tion, as it only conveys the conscious intentions and motives of the person using
the emoticon”. Whether or not these cues are comparable with their FtF counter-
parts in terms of subtlety and range of expression is yet another kettle of fish that
has been dealt with repeatedly (see Lea/Spears 1995: 216). Graham (2008: 285)
warns that
[s]mileys […] are not adequate to approximate the range of paralinguistic mark-
ers that help clarify intent in a face-to-face setting. This doesn’t mean that hearers
can’t and don’t assign intent to speakers, but simply the lack of adequate tools
to approximate paralinguistic and non-verbal messages may complicate this
process.
17. This term denotes the jargon of computer “geeks” and other specialists who are heavily
involved in developing communication technologies.
18. For a detailed discussion of the meanwhile “classic issue” of the fusion of orality and literacy
in CMC, see Murray (1988), Beißwenger (2002), Dürscheid (1999, 2003, 2006), Schütte (2000,
2002), Storrer (2001), Stein (2005) and Herring (2007).
www.ebook777.com
Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it is beyond question that emulated

social context cues nevertheless fill the virtual space with more warmth and so-
cio-emotional content than was expected for a long time. Several studies have
proven this claim (Rice/Love 1987; Ord 1989; McCormick/McCormick 1992;
Rheingold 1993) and others identified many ways in which emotions and impres-
sions are conveyed in this textual form of communication (e.g. Ferrara et al. 1991;
Selfe/Meyer 1991; Wilkins 1991). Thus, social presence can indeed “be cultured”
(Johansen et al. 1988: 141).
The question which needs to be answered yet is this: Which exactly are the
inherent, predetermined mechanisms of message boards such as The Student
Room which help its users emulate social context cues and manage their shared
interaction? In answering that question we have to focus on various templates,
an integral structural feature of message boards which either allow users to chose
from a drop-down menu or to fill in information totally freely and independent
of default settings. Therefore, a user’s leeway for creativeness is in a way pre-deter-
mined by the nature of the respective template (see Figure 9 below).
The first impression of one’s (presumably unknown) interlocutor is formed
through his username, the so-called nickname and his avatar, both of which can
be picked freely by the user. TSR itself provides a huge amount of ready-made
avatars for its users to serve as a digital “actor”. While the avatar is an optional fea-
ture, users are asked to choose a nickname in the process of registration in order
for them to be identifiable (see Figure 5). When clicking on the nickname (or on
the avatar) one is given the option “View Public Profile”, which may contain more
personal information. If the member bothers to fill the gaps, other users can learn
about his/her name, gender, age, orientation, bio(graphy), academic standing, in-
terests etc. In some cases, the option “Visit X’s homepage!” redirects the interested
reader to that person’s webpage, which can be on facebook or twitter or any other
(social network) site as well (see Figure 6).
This proves that identifiability is indeed a matter of degree and strongly de-
pendent on the user’s willingness to share personal data. Above that, this menu
Figure 5. Standard TSR header of posts to identify a user (left side)
Figure 6. User’s homepage on twitter, redirected from the drop-down menu
allows to contact users directly via PM (private message) or via email and to search
the entire board for all contributions ever posted by that specific user.
Underneath each nickname is a label (or status title), providing information
about the member’s status within the group. According to his number of posts
and activity, this label can read “New Member”, “Adored and Respected Member“
or even “Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room”, among many others.
If a user is the one to start a whole new thread, this is indicated through the addi-
tional label “thread starter”. In TSR, small icons reveal the (maybe feigned) gender
of the member as well as his momentary status (online or offline). The statistics
on the upper right hand side (see Figure 7) further hint at the joining date, the
location and the number of posts. The location is, however, neither an obligatory
piece of information, nor necessarily a truthful mirror of actual facts. In some
cases, it only bears witness to a member’s vivacious imagination. The same holds
true for yet another bit of optional information: flags to signal nationality.
Some headers, as the one in Figure 7, exhibit yet another piece of supplemen-
tary information: If a user wants to show that he is a member of a society, he can
do so with the help of the label “My Societies” below the count of the posts. One
click on this label reveals the name of the society or societies, such as “Bon Jovi
www.ebook777.com
Figure 7. Standard TSR header of posts to identify a user (right side)
Society”, “Arsenal F.C. Society” or “Chemistry Society”. In some cases, even infor-
mation about contacting the member via skype or MSN is positioned here.
An integral part of every header is the reputation system, which can be found
on the left side of the flag. While green gems basically are representative of a good
reputation, red ones attest to failures in behavior – both “handed out” by ordinary
members evaluating each other’s behavior. A mouse over even verbalizes the num-
ber of gems. Thus we learn that the member in our example “DJkG.1 has more
reputation than sense” with twelve green gems. Five red buttons, on the contrary,
warn that “X is infamous around these parts”. The number of points depends on
the gravity of the offence and can be removed after a while, if the member re-
deems himself. In order to preserve the expressiveness of that system, it is firmly
forbidden to “beg for rep” or to “gang up to give rep” (URL 8). A related system
with the same purpose, the “warnings”, can be used by moderators alone in order
to maintain a high standard. When reaching 15 warning points, members will be
banned, i.e. excluded from participating in the board, for a period of time.
The last option to further personalize a post is individualized signatures. Ac-
cording to Kollock/Smith “a combination of business card and bumper stickers
that members use to display their interests, opinions, and occupations” (1999: 10),
signatures can be inserted in every post and appear underneath the entry. Users
can exploit this template creatively, for example by communicating further refer-
ences to their personal backgrounds by listing exam dates, including pictures,
cartoons, or even their favorite quotes or video clips. Figure 8 provides a very
short selection. As a matter of fact, signatures may even contain instructions for
potential interlocutors such as “If you’re talking to me or replying to something
I’ve said, please quote or I probably won’t notice”. Quoting, i.e. clicking on the
“quote”-button to explicitly reference to previous entries, secures smooth, coherent
interaction. This allows for multiple users to converse with each other in several
separate conversational strands within one and the same thread. As contributions
Figure 8. Selection of signatures in TSR
are posted according to their time stamps, meaning chronologically and not the-
matically, ensuing disrupted adjacency can thus be repaired.
As has become obvious so far, there are plenty of ways – not only in TSR –
to re-create and learn about members’ personal attributes and status within the
group as well as to organize talk.19 Although real life personalities may be kept a
secret (see Section 6.2.1), compensatory mechanisms do have the power to create
(divergent) life-like online personalities, which are interrelated with one another
just as people in real life. TSR’s buddy lists20 bear witness to the net of interpersonal
relations forged among message board users. It further indicates, whether friends
are online and enables users to send private messages to (multiple) members.
19. Note that all the functions described here can be accessed without being a registered mem-
ber of TSR. Thus, even random lurkers (or analyzing scientists for that matter) can keep track
of threads without ever getting actively involved by contributing to it. In the context of CMC,
lurking is an acknowledged fact which is why users are usually aware of their posting to mul-
tiple audiences, including lurkers (see Section 3.3.1).
20. The opposite measure, ignore lists, can be used to block out posts from users who have
fallen into disgrace for whatever reason.
www.ebook777.com
Figure 9. Prototypical TSR post with integral and accompanying components
As this feature can contain private and intimate information about users, it can
only be viewed and accessed when registered to TSR.
Based on the multitude of features and templates discussed in this section,
we can now draw up a blueprint of a prototypical TSR post and its components
(see Figure 9). As indicated by the differing shadings, TRS components which are
integral to every single post as well as those which accompany it (i.e. profiles and
buddy lists) vary in terms of users’ influence on their filling: While some of them
are filled automatically by the system alone (dark grey squares), others are replen-
ished by users themselves when constituting their message board account (light
grey areas). Note, however, that this happens before the actual process of posting.
Still choices made in this process become visible repeatedly with each and every
post to come. The notion post therefore encompasses not only the actual entry
with the current, up-to-date, user-specific communicative content but also all the
other integral templates.
2.7 Summary: Why CMC can be social after all
Over the past two decades, the general opinion of CMC has definitely changed
for the better, either by disproving former claims or by recognizing a positive side
effect in (formerly purely disadvantageous) features of CMC. In stark contrast
to former views, CMC is now regarded as a promoter for “new, and even better,
social relationships, with people communicating across geographical and social
boundaries and creating new friendships and communities based on their shared
interests and concerns” (Thurlow et al. 2004: 46). Accordingly, anyone can par-
ticipate freely in open, democratic exchanges (Edinger/Patterson 1983; Herring
2001: 620), since a lot of hierarchical dominance and power information are hid-
den. Although this is certainly true for real-life status cues, the following chapter
will show that CMC is not at all free of social hierarchies either, as new structures
develop over time. This supposedly beneficial aspect of CMC thus needs to be
qualified instantly.
Another case of revaluation can be found in O’Sullivan’s (2000) view of the
“leanness” of the medium which can be, according to him, an advantage for the
communication of something complex. He cites several scenarios to illustrate his
claim, among them students who try to avoid showing their nervousness by com-
posing a quick, businesslike email to request an extension from their course lead-
er. Others simply want to avoid the discomfort of breaking bad news to people
(cf. Thurlow et al. 2004: 50). This goes to show that there are also positive sides to
supposedly purely disadvantageous features of CMC.
The same holds true for the feeling of anonymity, which has so far been called
advantageous for those users who exhibit inappropriate online behavior, as they
do not need to fear out-group punishment. In fact, anonymity combined with a
certain degree of identifiability can also be beneficial. As Derks et al. (2008: 772f.)
demonstrate with the help of the success of internet therapy sessions, a certain
degree of anonymity of CMC “creates a safer environment for some people to
share emotions and to facilitate self-disclosure” (cf. McKenna/Bargh 1999, 2000;
McKenna et al. 2002; Neurauter-Kessels 2011). Especially for therapeutic pur-
poses, visual anonymity can have a positive effect on patients’ self-disclosure. As
Suler (2004: n.p.) points out, “[s]eeing a frown, a shaking head, a sigh, a bored
expression, and many other subtle and not so subtle signs of disapproval or in-
difference can slam the brakes on what people are willing to express”.21 Virtual
presence in contrast to physical presence thus reduces the risk of ridicule or even
rejection (McKenna et al. 2002). In these contexts, the communication of emo-
tions is rather reinforced by CMC – especially in the case of displaying feelings
in the virtual presence of strangers. In this regard, Internet communication is
comparable to the “stranger on the train” phenomenon as described by Derlega/
Chaikin (1977) since
21. It is exactly for this reason that the analyst sits behind the patient in psychoanalysis, in
order to remain a “physically ambiguous figure”. As the analyst’s body language or facial expres-
sions are not revealed to the patient, he does not feel inhibited by the analyst’s physical reactions
(Suler 2004: n.p.)
www.ebook777.com
[c]yberspace makes talking with strangers easier. The fundamental point of many
cyber-realms, such as chat rooms, is to make new acquaintances. By contrast, in
most urban settings, few environments encourage us to walk up to strangers and
start chatting. In many cities, doing so would amount to a physical threat.
(Kang 2000: 1161)
Above that, Spears/Lea (1994) point out that co-presence with and identifiability
to the in-group can also lead to potential support within an intergroup context, as
a sense of solidarity can be created (Douglas/McGarty 2001: 401). We must, how-
ever, keep in mind that unlike in FtF, self-disclosure in CMC cannot be validated
easily due to limited social cues and the absence of nonverbal displays. It can
therefore also be used as a deliberate means of deception (see Section 6.2.2).
Statements that uninhibited behavior appears more often in CMC than in
FtF and is furthered by, or worse, is even a characteristic of this form of commu-
nication, as purported by early research, are thus far too general to contain any
informative value. Personality and social context variables play a more signifi-
cant role than the features of the communicative platform per se. In conclusion,
there is no evidence to assume that CMC is incapable of expressing and therefore
lacking emotions. Although there are no direct and systematic comparisons of
conversations treating the same topics in CMC and FtF to irrefutably prove this
claim, it is nevertheless safe to assume that socio-emotional content is indeed a
vital part of CMC (cf. studies of Baym 1995; Werry 1996). The development of
personal relationships mushrooming all over CMC, especially with regard to the
raging success of purely social services (e.g. Internet dating, support lists, instant
messaging, message boards) and the skyrocketing numbers of participants in nu-
merous social network sites (e.g. Facebook, Qzone, Orkud and MySpace), proves
this claim to be right. The level of socio-emotional content in CMC is thus greater
than once anticipated, which is why “cues-filtered-out approaches display a myo-
pic bias toward face-to-face communication” (Avgerinakou 2003: 275). What we
need is a “shift of focus from medium-related to user-related patterns of language
use [in CMC]” (Androutsopoulos 2006: 421). As has become obvious by now, it
is less the medium or the form of communication but rather the diversity and
creativity of its users that shape (not only) the language of CMC.
www.ebook777.com
chapter 3
Communicating via networks II

A social perspective
3.1 Introduction
The Internet is not about technology, it is not about information, it is about commu-
nication – people talking with each other, people exchanging e-mail, people doing
the low ASCII dance. (Strangelove 1994)
As implied by Strangelove, the purpose of the Web is no longer merely the fast
transmission of information; it has in fact become an important place for so-
cial encounter. The vast majority of people communicating via computers use
the Web “in search of social interaction, not just sterile information” and 80%
look for “contact and commonality, companionship and community” (Smolowe
1995: 20) – findings which exhibit a great resemblance with motives for FtF in-
teraction. While the Internet and the Web are nothing but the technology behind
CMC – Thurlow et al. (2004: 29) compare it to the hardware – cyberspace is a
synonym for the place of interpersonal interaction as it “is about the people who
use the Internet and the different uses they put it to” (ibid.).
Cyberspace can also be considered an amalgamation of social hypertexts,
since some of their nodes are becoming representations of people (Erickson
1996: n.p.) and their online relationships. In this way, it virtually brings people
together from all over the world for them to discover that they share specific in-
terests or emotional needs. What is interesting is the fact that cyberspace unites
people in virtual co-presence who would otherwise never meet in real life, e.g.
due to differences in geographical location. As a matter of fact, chances to find
like-minded people for special interest topics are by far better online than in one’s
immediate FtF neighborhood (cf. Schütte 2002: 351; Suler 2005). Bonding over
these shared topics and related values with virtual peer groups can result in the
formation of friendships and other close relationships. As the saying goes “Birds
of a feather flock together”, users are looking for people who are, or at least ap-
pear to be, just like them (see the need for association in Section 4.3.1). Message
boards, among other types of CMC, offer the ideal place to do just that. Dem-
onstrating their affiliation, users can gather in smaller groups to swap ideas on
their mutual hobbyhorse by engaging in stimulating discussions and interesting
chit-chat, by exchanging the latest news or also by dealing with important issues
of their everyday lives and giving advice to each other. In a nutshell, users can
“speak” their minds about (almost) anything with anyone, anytime.
This chapter aims at outlining the most important aspects of social activities
online, especially with regard to the message board system The Student Room
(TSR), surrounding the following questions: How can we describe the people who
populate and thus animate TSR? Should we speak of online groups or commu-
nities to describe their forms of gathering? How do these kinds of get-together
differ when compared with their offline counterparts? How do codes of conduct
emerge online?
3.2 Gathering online: In groups or communities?
While meeting and communicating online is an easy thing to do, giving this
form of gathering a name, however, is much more difficult. Both notions, groups
and communities, are by their very nature hard to define and highly ambiguous.
Certainly, factors like member size, degree of interrelatedness, stability (of the
common interest topic or purpose of meeting as well as of the participants) and
regularity play an important role for choosing one term over the other. But how
many people does it exactly take to turn a group into a community then? How
much interrelatedness and regularity is necessary for either of these? As usual, the
boundaries blur right before our eyes.
While the term group seems to stand for a rather loose and non-binding
assemblage of individuals, community entails a different connotation as it has
become
a convenient label for a whole range of feelings and ideas about people in tight-
knit, clearly identified, politically coherent collectives [which] is often used as a
rhetorical device for communicating a sense of comforting or reassuring togeth-
erness. (Thurlow et al. 2004: 109)
Community thus describes the get-together of users who know each other quite
well and encounter each other on a regular basis. This is also mirrored in the
following quote, the first and partly clumsy definition of online communities as
proposed by Rheingold (1993: 5):
Online communities are social aggregations that emerge from the net when
enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient
human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships.
www.ebook777.com
Chapter 3. Communicating via networks II: A social perspective 39
Ever since this first articulation of online community, the notion has become a
regular buzzword in CMC research (e.g. Cherny 1999; Werry/Mowbray 2001).
Critical voices (e.g. Fernback/Thompson 1995; Jones 1995), however, strongly
advise against overextending the term to the point of meaninglessness, as every
group seems to be elevated to the rank of a community automatically (Herring
2004). Apart from this pragmatic concern, Herring (referring to McLaughlin
et al. 1995) further voices a “philosophical skepticism that virtual community
can exist at all, given the fluid membership, reduced social accountability, and
lack of shared geographical space that characterize most groups on the Internet”
(2004: 343). Although this criticism is certainly valid for the first reason given by
Herring and acceptable for the second, the last aspect clearly misses the target
since “[y]ou don’t have to be living next door to someone – or even in the same
country – to feel close to them, to share an interest with them or a sense of belong-
ing” (Thurlow et al. 2004: 109). Long-distance relationships certainly are the best
counterexample.
It is true, however, that it is hard to get an idea of a certain community with
memberships fluctuating as much as in message boards. Investigating one unified
community is thus dangerous, as members belong to several, often overlapping
communities (Launspach 2000: 89). As to the claim of reduced social account-
ability, we have seen in Section 2.6 that there are indeed mechanisms that help to
create a sense of affiliation between the partners by providing some kind of infor-
mation about the users, not unlike that knowledge we have about each other in
a casual FtF group. Even in real life, we never know everything but only random
bits and pieces about the background of our fellow students, colleagues or sports
partners.
Obviously, the differences between online and FtF groups do not appear as
tremendous as they used to but rather seem to melt away. This impression is sup-
ported by Benwell/Stokoe (2006: 278), who came to the conclusion that “virtual
worlds strive to recreate conditions of RL [real life] rather than forge radically new
ways of conceiving of relations, communities and identity” (original emphasis).
This is also noticeable in the way users disclose information online. According to
Yum/Hara (2005), in early stages of typical FtF as well as CMC interactions, non-
intimate, impersonal topics are dealt with, while a more intimate level of informa-
tion is reached over time. The recurring reproach that cyber communities were
unreal, entirely populated by consciously constructed pseudo-identities, and thus
an alternative rather than an adjunct to real life (cf. Rheingold 1993; Turkle 1995;
Parks/Floyd 1996) does not hold: Virtual communities are as real or unreal as any
FtF community, which is proven by Anderson (1983: 6): “All communities larg-
er than primordial villages of face-to-face contact (and perhaps even these) are
imagined”. Although the term cyberspace certainly has a science-fictional sound
to it, interaction in online fora should not be viewed as existing in an indepen-

dent reality, separate and apart from offline environments, bodies, and concerns
(Kendall 1999: 60). We should therefore not make the mistake of considering of-
fline interaction as “more real” than online interaction. The distinction between
“real” and “virtual” is thus called into question.
What is more, real life relationships are neither replaced, nor reduced in value.
Online relationships should rather be considered as a means to support existing
conventional offline bonds or to complement them with new online relationships.
Herring (2004: 338) states that “many online relationships also have an offline
component”, a claim which is further supported by Baym (1998: 63), who remarks
that “[o]nline groups are woven into the fabric of offline life rather than set in op-
position to it. The evidence includes the pervasiveness of offline contexts in online
interaction and the movement of online relationships offline”.
All of this goes to show that we should be wary of using the term community
hastily – online or not. Instead, we should recollect the one underlying constant
in all types of communities: the “holding-in-common of qualities, properties,
identities or ideas” (Wilbur 1997: 8) among users, which leads to the (sometimes
temporary) formation of a group in the first place. Based on this assumption,
Lave/Wenger (1991) propose the concept of community of practice (CoP), also
known as discourse community (Swales 1990), terms which seem adequate for
the description of those dynamic and emergent networks within message boards,
as both imply the absence of physical (and temporal) co-presence. In contrast to
other approaches, a CoP does not classify social groupings on the basis of shared
abstract characteristics (such as class or gender) or co-presence (such as neigh-
borhood or workplace), but, true to its name, in virtue of shared practice (Eckert
2006: 683).
Originally developed as the basis of a social theory of learning, Eckert (ibid.)
describes a CoP as “a collection of people who engage on an ongoing basis in
some common endeavor: a bowling team, a book club, a friendship group, a crack
house, a nuclear family, a church congregation”. Consequently, very unique ways
of doing and talking, beliefs, values and power relations emerge in the course
of their joint activity around that endeavor (Eckert/McConnell-Ginet 1998: 490).
The two necessary prerequisites for the working of groups in general, but even
more so for CoPs in particular, are shared experiences and history (cf. the stor-
ing function of message boards, Section 2.4), which accumulate over time, as
well as a commitment to shared understanding by mutual sense making (Eckert
2006: 683). It is thus necessary to reveal the inner workings of the CoP at hand.
To this effect, the social aspect of getting together in The Student Room will be
outlined in the following.
www.ebook777.com
3.3 Taking a look inside: The community of practice of The Student Room
In order to contour (the emergence of) online CoPs, Baym (1995, 1997, 2000),
herself an active participant and scholar of online communities, proposes to have
a look at the following four processes:
– forms of expression (e.g. our talking about our communities)

– identity (e.g. our sense of shared group identity)
– relationship (e.g. our connections and interactions with others in the
community)
– norms (e.g. the rules and conventions we agree to live by together)
Although the second point can only be fathomed through introspection by in-
dividual users, all the other aspects are easily accessible for outside investigators.
While the third and fourth aspect will be in the focus of later paragraphs, the first
bullet point of Baym’s list will be dealt with immediately, thus revisiting the pre-
vious discussion: If we want to find out how message board users actually judge
their communicative environment, whether they feel part of a group or rather a
community, we need to take into consideration their phenomenological (subjec-
tive) account. A first explorative keyword search within TSR revealed that none
of the users ever referred to themselves as part of a group. Instead, some exam-
ples22 for the use of the term community could be found within the corpus (see
Section 7.2):
(1) Hello all, I am Andre and just become member of thgis community. I really
appreciate this TSR lobby and would love to share my views with others.
(andrewilson, thread #1: post 17)
(2) […] Anyway, I hope to eventually become a part of this community. Can’t
wait to talk to some of you.
(lilythrash21, thread #2: post 1)
(3) No because I have loads of friends who wouldn’t even think of using TSR. It’s
representative of the young internet community maybe , but not all teans.
(D3M!, thread #9: post 7)
(4) […] However, I find TSR a much more civilised community. […]
(maxfire, thread #9: post 30)
This result is not surprising considering the fact that TSR itself claims to be a
community as outspokenly demonstrated on the website’s homepage where one
22. Excerpts from the message board corpus are quoted in the original version, thus including
all kinds of spelling and formal mistakes.
is encouraged to “Join the UK’s largest student community”. This assessment is

further substantiated in the section dedicated to the Frequently Asked Questions,
the so-called FAQs. Under the category “About The Student Room”, users are in-
formed that “[t]he student Room is the world’s largest and fastest growing stu-
dent community, with over 250,000 members and more than 16,000,000 posts
on our forum”. As this introduction proceeds, the user can read repeatedly about
the “overall community wellbeing”, “the entire user community”, “the TSR com-
munity” and so on. This insight into the self-awareness of TSR creators as well as
users certainly complements our own objective perspective as outside observers.
Using the notion of community (of practice) thus seems a justifiable choice.
3.3.1 Social roles revisited: The hybridization of the private and public
As we have seen, virtual communities are best defined as “collectivities of people

bounded by technology and common interests rather than common location”
(Benwell/Stokoe 2006: 248). Concentrating on the latter part of this quote, the di-
verse implications of the lack of “common location” for message board interaction
need to be spelled out. Totally disengaged from “normal physical and spatial ref-
erence points” (Lea/Spears 1995: 202), the only “location” users have in common
is indeed the virtual space of the message board. Consequently, several traditional
boundaries can no longer be upheld and social spheres that were once distinct
overlap (Meyrowitz 1985: 5). This includes the distinction between personal and
mass communication (Parks/Floyd 1996; Lea/Spears 1995) or the separation of
profession and leisure in the sense of the former strict difference between office
and home time (Schütte 2000: 148; Avgerinakou 2003: 277). Although users inter-
act from their own secluded and secure private places, they send their messages
to the relatively open public place of the message board. This obvious blending or
hybridization of the private and the public sphere (Schütte 2000: 147f., 2002: 353)
brings one sphere into the other, thus creating new constellations of social spheres
separate and apart from real life contexts. In this “polycontextual situation”
(Avgerinakou 2003: 282), message board contributions are borne out of “the natu-
ralness, comfort and relaxation which could arguably be expected in a familiar
private space” (ibid.).
The result is rather irritating as very personal content and intimate revela-
tions are publicly displayed and distributed on the WWW for anyone to read
anytime. This is partly due to the aforementioned fact that users tend to perceive
themselves as rather anonymous citizens aloof from a very heterogeneous global
village. Since users feel that they cannot be traced back, they sense a freedom
to open up even to a completely unknown, physically non-present public (see
www.ebook777.com
Section 2.5.2). This effect is even strengthened by the knowledge that a simple
deregistration can end the membership in such an online community at a mo-
ment’s notice, which accounts for the general perception of this form of commu-
nication as an ephemeral phenomenon, largely devoid of any social obligations
(cf. Schütte 2002: 346). Paradoxically, the opposite is also true, since considering
oneself an integral part of a stable, clearly delimited group of close online friends
can actually have the same effect of disclosing behavior and result in feelings of
familiarity and comfortableness. This goes to show that the way we interact with
each other online and, even more important, how we perceive this interaction
bears witness of the changed social prerequisites in message boards. Agreeing
with Meyrowitz (1985), these have a strong effect on social behavior: Social stages
on which we perform our roles are rearranged and the sense of what is appropri-
ate and what is not can be altered (cf. Avgerinakou 2003: 277). It is thus imperative
to have a close look at the (emergence of) online codes of conduct in our message
board (see Section 3.3.2).
But there are other medium-specific phenomena, which can be traced back
to the changed communicative prerequisites: Contributions to message boards
are implicitly more often than explicitly “mehrfachadressiert” (Schütte 2000: 148),
which means that they are addressed to more than one interlocutor within the
board at a time. The following examples show how users explicitly address “every-
one” in their contributions:
(5) hi all, i’m frankie :) introduce yourselves to me! :)

hey, i’m Frankie, i’m 17 and from Nottinghamshire, UK. i’m currently
awaiting my AS results which is in 8 days, oh dearr! panicpanic!!!!
lol
aaanyway haha.. i love fine art, expressionism, oil paint (just getting
covered in paint really lol) and i like Drama too, and Law. i enjoy
shopping and long walks on sunny days i ADORE chocolate, alottt!
(superfrankie, thread #1: post 1)

(6) Your pearls of wisdom to university freshers…
Hello everyone.
I’m in abit of a dilemma, i need to write an article about student lifestyle but
have no idea where to begin.. and as im a fresher myself… i wouldnt have a
clue […] (Sahds, thread #42: post 1)
(7) Best universities for english?
Any ideas anyone. are there any official league tables etc out there. so far i’m
considering oxford and durham……………………….[…]
(Selenax, thread #45: post 1)
Typically, thread starters explicitly address their audience one way or another, by
means of the heading or the entry itself, as part of a question or through a greet-
ing. But who exactly is “everyone”? Goffman’s (1981) reflections on production
formats on the one hand and on the participation framework on the other help us
not only to understand the importance of multi-addressing but also to point out
the differences between CMC and FtF interaction. On the receiving end of com-
munication, Goffman distinguishes between ratified and unratified recipients.
Among the former, there are those directly addressed by the user’s post and those
who are not directly addressed but who are nevertheless ratified to follow the
ongoing conversation, such as regular group members other than the actual in-
terlocutor. At this point, the differentiation between addressed and unaddressed
recipients blurs, however, for the following reason: In contrast to FtF conversa-
tions, users usually do not converse with an individual (especially not by keeping
eye contact with him) but with the vaguely delineated, disperse audience within
the entire CoP of the particular thread. Although this audience is seldom verbally
addressed in terms of greetings or other terms of address (Hi group!, Hello all!,
Hey guys! etc.) as in the above examples, it is nevertheless addressed implicitly or
at least cognitively by users composing their contributions. It is thus questionable
whether there are indeed unaddressed recipients among those who are ratified
to “listen”. Multi-addressing – at least as a cognitive construct in the users’ minds
rather than a verbal condensate in users’ posts – thus becomes an indispensable,
medium-specific necessity.
In treating Goffman’s second, unratified type of recipients, another slight
medium-specific modification is called for. Again in contrast to FtF, we can and
should definitely expect a lot of invisible and unratified recipients in message
boards, who are termed lurkers in CMC environments. We can find overhear-
ing lurkers, who inadvertently or haphazardly “stumble” across message board
entries, and eavesdropping lurkers, who take interest in ongoing discussions for
the sake of scientific or commercial purposes. Similar to FtF interactions, these
roles are not set in stone, as uninvolved and unaddressed lurkers can easily turn
into ratified, addressed recipients by actively joining the ongoing conversation. In
my view and thus deviating from Goffman’s original classification, lurkers are the
ones to earn the label unaddressed recipients, which leads to the following modi-
fied categorization (see Table 1).
Table 1. Types of message board recipients (Goffman 1981, modified)

Ratified recipients Unratified recipients
– addressed individual users – u
naddressed overhearing lurkers
– addressed users in the CoP – u
naddressed eavesdropping lurkers
www.ebook777.com
The other side of the communication process is interesting to look at as well.

The contributing message board user is principal (the one who triggers the pro-
cess of text production), author (the one who writes the contribution) and anima-
tor (the one who delivers the contribution to the audience – in our case at least
by clicking on a “send” button) all in one. This is atypical for mass media where
all these productive steps and roles are normally realized by different people at
different times. While the producing side of the model still resembles very much
private FtF communication, the receiving side is already well adopted to the con-
ditions of mass communication – a clear-cut case of hybridization.
But there are other social roles besides that of producer and recipient that can
be found especially in CMC environments such as message boards, which can
no longer be defined with recourse to spatial or hierarchical dimensions of FtF
interaction. As Suler (2004: n.p.) puts it,
[i]f people can’t see you or your surroundings, they don’t know if you are the
president of a major corporation sitting in your expensive office, or some ‘ordi-
nary’ person lounging around at home in front of the computer. Even if people do
know something about your offline status and power, that elevated position may
have little bearing on your online presence and influence. (Suler 2004: n.p.)
Accordingly, users are predominantly judged by their online appearance and

therefore have an equal opportunity to voice themselves since they “start off
on a level playing field” (ibid.) regardless of their real life status, wealth, race,
gender, etc. We should not forget, however, that new internal power hierarchies
do develop, which is why utopian claims that CMC is inherently egalitarian are
compromised again (cf. Herring 2001: 624). Among these new hierarchies is the
broad classification of users into experienced insiders or regulars and so-called
newbies. As we have seen in Section 2.6, there are several indicators for a user’s
status in TSR boards (and most other boards for that matter): Labels (for example
“New Member”, “Exalted Member”), the joining date, the number of posts and
the reputation system all help to tell apart “regulars” from “newbies”. While regu-
lars are familiar with the underlying conditions of communicating ideas via mes-
sage boards, newbies are rather inexperienced newcomers, who still have to learn
how to communicate, bond and behave online. First of all, they are supposed to
study the FAQs and observe online conversations passively. Later, by contributing
regularly and constructively and by behaving according to the rules, newbies can
change their status over time and thus become full-fledged message board regu-
lars. Although it is hard to tell where to draw the line between a core member and
a sporadic contributor, this classification is nevertheless vital as it reveals the only
concrete clue to the underlying power structure within a board. Further insights
into prevalent social bonds among contributors can be gained by looking at the
buddy lists or by comparing users’ memberships in “societies” (see 2.6.2) within

the board to detect commonalities.
The last differentiation in terms of roles to be pointed out here is the one
between moderators and all the other members. Those responsible in TSR, the
(paid) administrators (short admins), give established and knowledgeable mem-
bers the opportunity to assume responsibility and oversee specific boards. In be-
coming TSR moderators (of varying hierarchical status such as supermoderators,
global moderators and minimods, further also forum assistants), users are sup-
posed to set a good example for appropriate online behavior as a by-product of
their ongoing conversations. While this actually holds true for each and every
member of the board, moderators have additional rights and powers in that they
can edit, delete or censor inappropriate posts (by replacing swear words with a
row of asterisks such as ***23) and caution their authors (by assigning red gems,
viz. “repping” them, see 2.6.2). They can also close entire threads and restrict,
suspend or even terminate memberships – even without previous warnings. Al-
though monetary fines or even physical violence are not at their disposal when it
comes to sanctioning misguided users, moderators still have considerable influ-
ence on the establishment and execution of the code of conduct, which is why it is
certainly helpful to spot those moderators and keep an eye on their behavior and
its possible influence on others. “Normal” users, on the other hand, also have a
variety of informal sanctions at their command, as they can insult, parody or in-
form the “bad seed” about his misbehavior; the most effective measure is certainly
giving him the silent treatment (Kollock/Smith 1996: 124). What actually needs
to be sanctioned is stipulated in the code of conduct of TSR. As a helpful compass
for appropriate online behavior (obviously not only for newbies), TSR netiquette
will be dealt with in theory and in practice in the following.
3.3.2 The emergence of norms and codes of conduct
A common code of conduct, or “norms of practice” (Herring 2001: 622), is yet

another indicator for the fact that we are indeed dealing with a virtual commu-
nity of practice. In all communities, online or offline, “rules of conduct tend to
be organized into codes which guarantee that everyone acts appropriately and
receives his due” (Goffman 1967: 55). It is not surprising that different composi-
tions of CoPs as well as their users’ diverging intersubjective expectations result in
23. Although the FAQs clearly advise against this procedure, users nevertheless use asterisks
themselves to veil (part of) their swearing. For this reason, it is hard to tell whether a post has
been censored by the moderators or whether asterisks were already part of the original version
of the entry.
www.ebook777.com
varying and very group-specific codes of conduct. Although we can make asser-
tions about the emergence and the overall contents and functions of such rules in
general, we still have to consider the TSR guidelines in particular.
Since Foucault (1980), we know that social institutions are constructed and
maintained through discourse alone – an insight which holds especially true
for online assemblages as in message boards, where social structures are cre-
ated exclusively out of words (Rheingold 1993; Kollock/Smith 1999). This type
of discourse generates rules, sanctions against the violation of these rules and
consequently also a system of governance as described above (see moderators) to
enforce these sanctions (Herring 2001: 624). But how do online norms come into
being in the first place? In accordance with Grice’s maxims, the need for co-opera-
tion and even more so for mutual respect motivates users to cast their “rules of
the game” into a relatively solid form, known as the netiquette, a blend of the two
nouns net and etiquette. Etiquette, meaning “the forms required by good breeding
or prescribed by authority to be required in social or official life” (Shea 1994: 19),
is etymologically rooted in the French word for ticket: “If you know the etiquette
for a particular group or society, you have a ticket for entry into it” (ibid.). The
netiquette as a collection of rules and guidelines draws users’ attention to what is
considered as polite, respectful and sociable behavior online. This includes norms
aimed at
preventing others from having to read useless material, limiting the extent to
which one can fictionalize identity, protecting other users’ privacy, retaining at-
tribution when following up on ideas, and remaining readable.
(Baym 1995: 159)
This may even include instructions for the appropriate amount of emoticons. The
core rules of netiquette, standardized catchphrases such as “Remember the hu-
man”, “Lurk before you leap” and “Respect other people’s time and bandwidth”,24
to name but three, can be encountered all over the web.25 These basic rules are
generally agreed upon and thus apply throughout almost all of cyberspace, as they
are direct reflections of a pre-existing social and cultural consensus among social
actors and thus common (FtF) courtesy (Goffman 1955).
24. Bandwidth, as defined by Shea (1994: 39), is the capacity of the wires and channels to carry
information or of host systems to store this information. In the past, this capacity was high-
ly limited. A note posted five times to the same thread or one that is longer than necessary
did waste bandwidth back then as it still wastes users’ valuable time today (cf. Kollock/Smith
1996).
25. A comprehensive list of rules of netiquette can be found in Shea (1994).
TSR netiquette forms part of the so-called FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions).
They identify the purpose of the community and address those recurring issues
which are concerned with the overall handling and functions of the communica-
tive platform as such. Consequently, this is also mirrored in the netiquette, which
does not only detail common FtF norms to spare the feelings of our interlocutors,
but also spells out rather medium-specific codes of conduct concerning what is ap-
propriate online behavior. Accordingly, these norms are always “infused” (Kiesler
et al. 1984: 1126) by those who developed and used electronic communication for
a relatively long time: A distinctive subculture of computing professionals and
“die-hard” regulars. As these are the individuals with the knowledge of the day-
to-day workings of the CoP and its challenges, they are given the opportunity to
modify the prevalent rules, which should consequently stand better chances to
fit to local conditions (Kollock/Smith 1996: 121). Another advantage of this joint
venture of shaping the terms and conditions of getting together lies in the fact that
those rules were not forced upon members by some unknown, outside authority
but emerged from their midst. Note, however, that this does not mean that every
single member has a say about these rules. In fact, only those major in rank can be
considered responsible for their generation. It is, therefore, by no means certain
whether everyone even reads those rules before posting, let alone whether users
actually attach value to those guidelines and conduct themselves accordingly.
As mentioned before, rules are not only made by those in charge at TSR, but
are also monitored by them. The sword of Damocles, in terms of the moderators’
sanctions, thus always hangs over the users’ heads to prevent the exploitation of
loopholes in the following rules (URL 9):
1. No personal attacks or inflammatory behaviour.

2. Post in the correct forum and stay on topic.
3. No cheating.
4. No advertising or inappropriate links.
5. Post in the English language unless in an area where it is acceptable to do
otherwise (a language society thread or the languages academic help forum).
Outside these areas always provide a translation. No text speak.
6. Respect the privacy of other users.
7. Do not condone or encourage illegal activity.
The last two items on this list refer to the protection of users, be it from any kind
of illegal activity or from being more exposed than desired (i.e. by posting some-
one’s private pictures or email address etc.). The same holds true for rule num-
ber 4, which bans any sort of advertisement or otherwise inappropriate content
www.ebook777.com
(even if only embedded, for example, via links). The fifth rule also reminds users
to be civil and not to swear (neither in words, nor in images, links or attachment),
to basically stick to the English language and to steer clear from “text speak” (i.e.
CMC specific acronyms and abbreviations, see Section 2.6.2). The third rule pays
tribute to the special nature of TSR: It prohibits users’ attempts “to ask for in-
formation about an exam [they] haven’t taken yet or provide information about
such an exam” (URL 9). The second advice is very typical for message boards in
general, as it asks to uphold the default topical hierarchy. Contributions, always
to be provided with a meaningful heading, should therefore only be posted once
and in the relevant thread. The second half of the above catchphrase (“stay on
topic”) is concerned with so-called thread drifts and thread hijacking. In contrast
to FtF and despite the fact those in charge recognize that discussions often “di-
verge and evolve” (ibid.), topics are not supposed to drift, which is why “threads
or responses that are not relevant to the initial post will most likely be deleted or
split into two different threads” (ibid.).
The first item on that list surely is the most important one for the present
study and thus deserves special attention. The “powers that be” specify this rule
by defining personal attacks and inflammatory behavior as those actions which
are supposed to provoke a negative response from another user. This is some-
times known as trolling or flaming (see Section 6.2.2 and 5.7 respectively), which
is mostly based on racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, pornographic, or other-
wise offensive material. As they put it (URL 9),
[w]e expect that you will show respect and sensitivity to the beliefs and views
of all users. Comments we believe to be rude, excessively profane, deliberately
antagonising or disruptive, or a personal attack will lead to a warning and may
result in the involved member(s) being suspended or banned immediately.
Once more, possible sanctions are recalled to mind. More importantly, expec-
tations concerning appropriate users’ behavior in dealing with other users and
their opinions are spelt out, as they are asked to “show respect and sensitivity”
and not to be rude, profane or antagonizing. While all the other rules primarily
focused on the handling of pre-set templates in the virtual environment of TSR so
as not to irritate interlocutors and endanger the cooperative online behavior, this
rule highlights individual’s verbal behavior towards his fellow-users. We can thus
conclude that discourse, either in terms of saying something or doing things with
words, can have effects on interlocutors’ needs or wants, which is why both areas
are described in the netiquette.
3.4 Summary: Why we need to draw on FtF interaction
“When in Rome, do as the Romans do” – this is what we are told to do in order to
fit in when we find ourselves among a new group of people. In our case, Rome is
TSR, which is why we need to observe the “TSRians” and their behavior as a com-
munity carefully to avoid premature judgments about their social intercourse. To
this end, this chapter has been dedicated to giving a first insight into the inner
workings of TSR on an interpersonal plane. Since most of the factors known in
FtF cannot be taken into account, with shared space leading the way, the only
springboard for the promotion of commonality are indeed shared (momentary)
interests. For this reason, TSR has been labeled a community of practice (CoP),
a term which also alludes to and thereby does justice to its emergent nature. Al-
though this chapter has brought to light more similarities with FtF interaction
than expected, some differences still cannot be denied. This becomes obvious
when investigating social roles (for example producer vs. addressee, regulars vs.
newbies, moderators vs. regular users etc.), which are a direct condensate of the
altered communicative prerequisites online. Still, cyberspace mostly aims at rec-
reating real life, which can also be seen in the attempt to cultivate a tailored code
of conduct by adopting guidelines from FtF interaction and adapting them for
the purposes of the online community. They are not only assembled but also con-
trolled in a cooperative effort. As is often the case, “[s]ocialization comes about
by actively participating in the everyday, contingent recreating of accountable
action, not by passively internalizing widely shared patterns for ritual behavior”
(Arundale 2006: 198). Thus, we need to keep in mind that these codes of conduct
can only be of approximate value: What is felt to be appropriate always lies in the
eyes of the beholder (see the discussion in Chapter 5). In fact, the emergent na-
ture of online communities itself inhibits the consolidation of accurate guidelines
that are valid “once and for all”. This is why FAQs should be regarded as an ad-
equate starting point rather than the end of the journey, open to constant revision
(Graham 2008: 302).
Leaving aside the true nature and development of FAQs and netiquette for
a moment, we need to be aware of the fact that it is not at all verifiable whether
users do indeed bother reading the netiquette as is recommended. Consequently,
we need to assume that users automatically fall back on what they know from real
life and what has proven to be efficient there one way or another. The influence
of real life on online behavior, at least in terms of evaluations and expectations of
what is appropriate and what is not, cannot be underestimated and needs to be
investigated meticulously. We will therefore shift the focus, away from the medial
setting and its implications for the social sphere, to the human beings behind
their keyboards.
www.ebook777.com
In order to find out about interpersonal online relations, we will have to go

back to the roots of FtF interaction and identify the basic human needs and strat-
egies for interpersonal behavior in real life contexts. The next two chapters are
therefore dedicated to a number of influential theoretic approaches that deal with
the foundations of interpersonal FtF relations. In this context, notions such as
mutual respect, cooperation, common courtesy, politeness but also rudeness, per-
sonal attacks, trolling, flaming and inflammatory, sociable, appropriate or inappro-
priate behavior, which have already been brought up throughout this chapter, will
be clarified.
www.ebook777.com
chapter 4
Interpersonal relations I
The origins of politeness, face & facework
4.1 Introduction
[Politeness] is a social lubricant less nocuous than alcohol, probably useful, like free
alcohol, for the corps diplomatique [or] a velvet glove within which to hide one or
another kind of iron fist […] (Sell 22005: 112)
On the way to describing interpersonal relations in FtF interaction, we cannot

help but stumble across the ubiquitous concept of politeness and its supposedly
clear-cut counterparts impoliteness and rudeness at every other step of the way. In
dealing with this notional triad step by step, I will take a close look at the concept
of politeness – and the neighboring concepts face and facework – by briefly review-
ing and discussing some of the most well-known approaches.
From an etymological point of view, the English lexeme polite can be traced
back to the Latin past participle form politus, literally meaning “polished”, met-
aphorically, however, also “refined” and “well-mannered” (cf. Stowasser et al.
2003: 388). While the origins of this lexeme appear rather unproblematic and
clear-cut, the understanding of polite behavior could not differ more:
Some people feel that polite behavior is equivalent to socially ‘correct’ or appro-
priate behavior; others considered it to be the hallmark of the cultivated man
or woman. Some might characterize a polite person as always being considerate
towards other people; others might suggest that a polite person is self-effacing.
There are even people who classify polite behavior negatively, characterizing it
with terms such as ‘standoffish’, ‘haughty’, ‘insincere’, etc. (Watts 2003: 1)
As this quote shows, politeness varies extremely with regard to the meanings and
connotations individual speakers associate with it, resulting in a bewildering am-
biguity in the use of this term. Members of speech communities possess clear
beliefs about and are capable of immediate and intuitive assessments of what con-
stitutes polite or rude, tactful or offensive behavior in ordinary, daily contexts of
use (Pizziconi 2006: 679). Although speakers agree on the existence and share
knowledge about the rules of politeness, i.e. of norms and principles to ensure a
smooth flow of conversation, linguists have difficulty putting their fingers on its
texture. Obviously, we are dealing with a case of “I know it when I see it”. In fact,
it even seems easier for us to grasp politeness ex negativo, as behavior which is in
line with the current set of rules usually does not attract any attention – contrary
to the lack thereof, which is absolutely noticeable (Haferland/Paul 1996: 29).
The definitional problem arises because politeness as a purely mental notion
is strongly dependent on the interpreting mind in terms of scope of applicability,
i.e. a person’s willingness to label an utterance or an action polite. More often than
not, politeness depends on the evaluation of individual interlocutors at individual
moments in individual circumstances. Accordingly, politeness is also a highly
context-sensitive phenomenon. To make matters worse, it is extremely flexible
with regard to its superficial manifestation on the utterance level, which is why
there is no such thing as a polite utterance per se but only utterances with a certain
potential to be perceived by interlocutors as polite or not. This explains why the
search for a standardized definition applicable to all sorts of contexts is bound to
fail right from the start.
Following Eelen (2001) and Watts (2003), no less than nine different, some-
times even contradictory approaches set out to tackle this definitional problem
and find a basic point of departure for a phenomenon which can be considered as
one of the marshiest fields within pragmatics. Nevertheless, it has been the focus
of scientific research across disciplines, especially pragmatics, since the late sixties
of the last century and has not lost any of its appeal for the academia to this very
day.26 In line with previous research, this chapter also sets out to disentangle the
complex anatomy of the concept of politeness. Some classic approaches which
have been poked and prodded, criticized, revised and extended in empirical and
theoretical studies of various disciplines to this very day are sketched in broad
strokes. Special focus will be put on the introduction of Brown/Levinson’s (1978)
seminal work, which will be supplemented by its predecessor, Erving Goffman’s
(1967) sociological approach.
26. This can easily be proven simply by looking at the stunning amount of literature document-
ing the interest in the study of interpersonal relations. In 1999, Fraser observed that there are
over a 1000 books, papers and articles published on the concept of politeness, among them
influential research monographs and collections such as Eelen (2001), Mills (2003), Watts
(2003), Locher (2004), Lakoff/Ide (2005) and Locher/Bousfield (2010), to name but a few. An
incredible amount of topic related papers can also be found in the Journal of Pragmatics and in
The Journal of Politeness Research, which was launched in 2005 to fill the need for a periodical
publication format dedicated to politeness research alone.
www.ebook777.com
Chapter 4. Interpersonal relations I: The origins of politeness, face & facework 55
Table 2. Lines of investigating politeness

Prepragmatic approaches Pragmatic approaches
– The social norm view – The conversational maxim view
– The face-saving view
4.2 Fraser, Lakoff and Leech: Some classic views on politeness
The astonishing number of approaches which are concerned with the demystifi-
cation of the nature of politeness can be summarized with the help of the follow-
ing skeletal overview. While the distinction between prepragmatic and pragmatic
approaches27 is based on Held (1995, 22005), the naming of the lines of investiga-
tion within this dyadic distinction is directly borrowed from proposals by Fraser
(1990: 219) and Thomas (1995: 158) (see Table 2).
1. The social norm view

Even before the boom of pragmatic engagement in the study of politeness in the
1970s, Romance and German linguistics had already taken an interest in this field
and assumed that politeness strongly depends on the underlying culture-bound
ideologies and norms. Behavior that conforms with these fixed sets of rules would
be considered polite, while actions that were not in congruence with the norm
would be evaluated as impolite or even rude behavior (Fraser 1990: 220). However,
the logical consequence of this approach, according to Held, is the incapacitation
of the individual speaker insofar as they are not acting intentionally anymore but
are turned into a “creative representative of a language community (1992: 138f.)
instead. The question we thus have to answer in this context is whether language
(including manifestations of politeness) is a purely social product based on the
norms and values of the respective community that lie beyond the control of the
rational individual or whether it is, in fact, the outcome of the unique and creative
cognitive system of the individual speaker. As is often the case, we cannot think
in terms of a black-and-white solution but have to adopt a middle position. As
speakers are at least generally aware that such norms and principles exist in the
society at large and in particular situational encounters, to be polite would thus
mean “to adapt yourself to different situations [and to behave] according to the
expectations of the place” (Blum-Kulka 22005: 259).
27. A similar proposal for the structuring of the field is put forward by Werkhofer (22005: 156),
the only difference being his rather unspecific and hence unfortunate choice of terms of tra-
ditional and modern approaches. Nevertheless, they give us a clue as to where to place the so-
called postmodern approaches which will be introduced in Chapter 5.
Closely related to the social norm view is Fraser’s sociolinguistic view of po-
liteness (1990), the conversational contract view. Although treated as a completely
distinct approach to politeness, Fraser nevertheless seems to describe the logical
consequence of the social norm view. He considers politeness to be the default
setting in conversational encounters in which participants simply fulfill what Fra-
ser calls the conversational contract (CC):
I assume that whenever two individuals […] engage in serious conversation they
establish a conversational contract. On entering into a given conversation, each
party brings an understanding of some initial set of rights and obligations vis-
à-vis the other. These may be a conventional set, for example, when two people
meet for the first time on the street, or this set may be determined by previ-
ous conversation and knowledge of the person they are talking with. During the
course of conversation, there is always the possibility for an ongoing renegotia-
tion of this conversational contract, an ongoing readjustment of just what rights
and what obligations each has towards the other. (1980: 343)
Accordingly, an utterance would be considered polite if the (rational) speaker

abides by the rules of the relationship and does not violate the rights and obliga-
tions prevailing in that specific encounter, at least not in the eyes of the hearer
(Fraser 1980: 343f.). Politeness is thus expected to exist in every conversation even
though participants do not necessarily recognize someone as being polite – after
all, this behavior is the norm. As stated before, only deviations from this norm
attract attention. What is also stressed in the above quote is the fact that polite-
ness is a collaborative endeavor undertaken by rational participants who pursue
a common (communicative) goal for the time of the actual exchange. Therefore,
politeness is an extremely instable element and subject to change.
In contrast to Fraser’s (1990: 221) conclusion, which holds that the social norm
view has few adherents among current researchers, Bousfield (2008: 45) claims
that “a divorce from the social norm approach for linguistic conceptualizations of
im/politeness may not only be a mistaken move, but, theoretically, an impossible
one”. It would thus not only be imprudent but also impossible for a sensible analy-
sis of politeness to completely factor out cultural and group norms of the speaker’s
social background. After all, a weak reading of the social norm view in combina-
tion with other approaches obviously cannot be condemned that easily.
2. The Conversational maxim view

In contrast to the aforementioned prepragmatic view, the pragmatic approach to
politeness abandons the rigid straightjacket of social norms, shifting the focus
to the rational individual and the “intentional, goal-oriented, situation-specific
selection of linguistic strategies between ego and alter” (Held 22005: 133). In this
quote, Held addresses several important issues which researchers tried to include
www.ebook777.com
little by little into their considerations when setting out to design a model that
would do the phenomenon of politeness justice.
The conversational maxim view is usually equaled with Lakoff ’s Conversa-
tional-maxims approach (1973) and Leech’s Politeness Principle (1983). Both of
their propositions rely on Grice’s seminal paper “Logic and conversation” (1975)
which not only introduced the Cooperative Principle (CP) and its maxims of qual-
ity, quantity, relation and manner, but also inspired research in politeness and
sparked off the entire pragmatic turn. In her paper “The logic of politeness, or
minding your p’s and q’s” (1973), Robin T. Lakoff tries to find reasons for those
cases in which maxims are not observed and locates them in the field of polite-
ness. Unfortunately, though, she never defines her understanding of politeness.28
Lakoff (1973: 297) articulates her view of politeness in the form of three prag-
matic rules, which have attracted a lot of criticism for their scant formulation and
their vague significance:
1. Don’t impose;
2. Give options;
3. Make A feel good, be friendly.
As Fraser (1990: 224) notices, these rules can be at times reinforcing each other,
at other times be in conflict with each other. Although formulated as imperatives,
this tripartite set of rules shall not be mistaken for a production model of polite-
ness. Lakoff places her “rules of politeness” side by side with Grice’s CP, which she
renames “rules of conversation”. While Grice’s maxims are subsumed under the
one, overarching maxim “Be clear”, Lakoff entitles her set of maxims “Be polite”,
with both sets of maxims constituting “Pragmatic Competence” (see Table 3).
Lakoff concludes this comparison with the assessment that, most of the time,
politeness takes precedence over clarity in cases where the two conflict. After
Table 3. Lakoff ’s two-sided model of pragmatic competence (Watts 2003: 60, adapted)
Pragmatic competence
Rules of conversation Rules of politeness
Be clear. (= Grice’s CP) Be polite.
R1: Quantity R1: Don’t impose.
R2: Quality R2: Give options.
R3: Relevance R3: Make A feel good – be friendly.
R4: Manner
28. In her later works, however, Lakoff is more explicit and refers to politeness as “a device used
in order to reduce friction in personal interaction” (1979: 64).
all, the avoidance of offense is considered more important than the achieve-
ment of clarity, “since in most conversations, actual communication of impor-
tant ideas is secondary to merely reaffirming and strengthening relationships”
(Lakoff 1973: 297f.). Abiding by the rules of politeness, thus inevitably leads to the
breaching of the rules of conversation, which is ultimately the reason why the CP
is violated fairly regularly.
Similar to Lakoff ’s proposal, Geoffrey Leech, in his monograph Principles of
Pragmatics (1983), also leaves the CP unaltered and adds a politeness principle
(PP), which regulates the “social equilibrium and the friendly relations which en-
able us to assume that our interlocutors are being cooperative in the first place”
(1983: 82). Leech elaborates this claim with the help on his six maxims: tact, gen-
erosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy. Following Lakoff, he
places his PP on the same level as Grice’s CP and considers it “a necessary comple-
ment, which rescues the CP from serious trouble” (1983: 80) as it gives reasons
why speakers deviate from the Gricean maxims as often as they do. He illustrates
this claim with the following classic example (1983: 80):
A: We’ll all miss Bill and Agatha, won’t we?
B: Well, we’ll all miss BILL.
In this short piece of dialogue, B obviously flouts Grice’s maxim of quantity, cer-
tainly for a good reason, viz. he did not want to sound offensive by giving the full
information, which is nevertheless implicated here (“we won’t miss Agatha”). As
Watts argues, the “discourse marker well […] indicates a constraint on [B’s] ability
to uphold the CP by abiding to the PP” (2003: 65). The two principles seem to be in
conflict here and the speaker has to decide for himself which principle to follow.
4.3 The face-saving view: Brown/Levinson’s Politeness Theory
It seems, however, that no matter where one arrives with politeness, one must begin
with Brown and Levinson. (Meier 2004: 7)
Probably the most widely received approach to politeness to this very day was
proposed by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson in their 1978 essay “Uni-
versals in language usage: Politeness phenomena”, once again published in 1987
as a monograph, Politeness. Some universals in language usage. True to Meier’s
introductory quote, no study concerned with interpersonal relations can do with-
out key concepts of Brown/Levinson’s seminal work, which therefore earns the
label Politeness Theory or, owed to the central notion of face, the face-saving view
(Fraser 1990).
www.ebook777.com
Brown/Levinson also support Grice’s view and adopt the assumption that in-
terlocutors’ (verbal) behavior is by its nature rational and efficient. In accordance
with Lakoff and Leech, they also justify the temporary non-acceptance of Grice’s
maxims with considerations for politeness, among – as they concede – other pos-
sible motivating forces such as irony, sarcasm or humor. The focus of their model
rests, however, exclusively on politeness.
4.3.1 Key concepts and inner workings
Brown/Levinson present a speaker-centric model in which the slot of an actual

speaker is filled with a cardboard figure, since all assumptions are based on a
model person (MP) with the “ability to rationalize from communicative goals to
the optimal means of achieving these goals” (Watts 2003: 85). The hearer, how-
ever, only serves as a parameter for the MP’s assessment of the most appropriate
politeness strategy in the current situation. How he might actually react to the
chosen strategy is never an issue in Brown/Levinson’s paper. The conception of
both the speaker and the hearer in this model has earned them serious critique.
Following the aforementioned theories of Lakoff and Leech, the fundamental goal
of politeness for Brown/Levinson is also the maintenance of social cohesion. The
key to achieving just that, however, lies in the well-known basic notions of face
and face wants.
Brown/Levinson’s rational model person is assumed to have face, an indi-
vidual’s “public self-image that every member [of a society] wants to claim for
himself ” (1987: 61). Although both authors acknowledge that face is a culture-
sensitive notion whose content will be subject to “cultural elaboration” (1987: 13),
they still assume that “the mutual knowledge of members’ public self-image or
face, and the social necessity to orient oneself to it in interaction, are universal”
(Brown/Levinson 1987: 61f.). Despite this claim to universality, the picture Brown/
Levinson have drawn of face still exhibits a Western ethnocentric orientation. As
to the nature of face, they add the following reflections:
Thus face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, main-
tained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. In gen-
eral, people cooperate (and assume each other’s cooperation) in maintaining face
in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face.
That is, normally everyone’s face depends on everyone else’s being maintained,
and since people can be expected to defend their faces if threatened, and in
defending their own to threaten others’ faces, it is in general in every participant’s
best interest to maintain each other’s face […]. (Brown/Levinson 1987: 61)
Based on this definition of face, Brown/Levinson distinguish two separate types

of face.29 Note, however, that the choice of terms is rather unfortunate since posi-
tive and negative are not meant to be evaluative terms for ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as one’s
intuition might suggest but as two opposite poles on a scale:
negative face: “the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his action be
unimpeded by others” (1987: 62) or “his want to have his freedom of action un-
hindered and his attention unimpeded” (1987: 129).
positive face: “the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some
others” (1987: 62) or “his perennial desire that his wants (or the actions/acquisi-
tions/values resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable” (1987: 101).
A speaker’s face is closely linked to so-called face wants, “which every member
knows every other member desires, and which in general it is in the interests
of every member to partially satisfy” (Brown/Levinson 1987: 62). Roughly trans-
lated, one could say that a person’s negative face is the need to be independent, to
have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others. The positive face, on
the contrary, focuses on the need to be accepted, even liked in a group and to be
treated that way. They mirror what O’Driscoll calls the “duality between associa-
tion and dissociation” (1996: 4),30 i.e. the need to “come together, make contact
and identify with others, to have ties, to belong, to merge [on the one hand, and]
the need to go off alone, avoid contact and be deindividuated, to be independent,
to separate” on the other. Tannen elucidates:
We need to get close to each other to have a sense of community, to feel we’re
not alone in the world. But we need to keep our distance from each other to
preserve our independence, so others don’t impose on or engulf us. This duality
reflects the human condition. We are individual and social creatures. We need
other people to survive, but we want to survive as individuals. (1992: 15)
Having introduced the notion of face we are now in a position to comprehend

Brown/Levinson’s view of politeness. It is not only a means of showing concern
for the other, as was rightly assumed by Lakoff and Leech before, but more pre-
cisely a means of showing concern for the other person’s face. For that reason,
29. In formulating their bipartite notion of face, Brown/Levinson had in mind Durkheim’s
(1915) positive and negative rites (Brown/Levinson 1987: 43; cf. O’Driscoll 1996: 2; Bargiela-
Chiappini 2003: 1460).
30. Schopenhauer’s (1851) often-quoted example of porcupines trying to get through a cold
winter can also be used to explain this duality. Tannen (1992: 14f.) elucidates that “they huddled
together for warmth, but their sharp quills prick each other, so they pull away. But then they get
cold. They have to keep adjusting their closeness and distance to keep from freezing and from
getting pricked by their fellow porcupines.”
www.ebook777.com
Hearer´s Speaker´s
negative negative
face face
Hearer´s Speaker´s
positive positive
face face
Figure 10. Four directions of FTAs according to Brown/Levinson
Brown/Levinson focus on the maintenance of the other’s face and examine very
carefully what happens when our interlocutor’s face is in fact endangered and
what can be done to mitigate that threat. In this context, Brown/Levinson in-
troduce the by now famous notion of face threatening acts (FTAs) with which
they associate “those acts that by their nature run contrary to the face wants of
the addressee and/or of the speaker” (1987: 65), indicating that “some acts are
intrinsically threatening to face” (1987: 65). This claim, however, has been refuted
before, since there can never be a 1:1 relationship between a surface structure of
whatsoever form or content and its evaluation in the interpreting mind.
Bearing this strong point of criticism in mind, we nevertheless distinguish
four cases of FTAs: Those addressed to the hearer and/or the speaker and those
related to the positive or the negative face. Schematically, the possibilities for the
direction of FTAs can be depicted in a four-way grid (see Figure 10). Each of these
four possibilities is fathomed by Brown/Levinson (1987: 65ff.) in the form of de-
tailed and extensive lists. Although this classification seems rather clear-cut, the
categories are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there can be overlaps as some acts
can simultaneously pose a threat to the negative and the positive face of the hearer
and the speaker. According to Brown/Levinson (1987: 67), these kinds of cross-
classification are evident in complaints, interruptions, threats, strong expressions
of emotion but also in requests for personal information.
In order to weaken FTAs, this speaker-oriented production model outlines
five strategies for the mitigation of FTAs from which corresponding substrate-
gies are derived. Their five basic superstrategies are summarized in an often cited
table (see Table 4). In choosing the appropriate strategy,31 speakers will also have
to consider
31. The choice of strategies is meticulously illustrated by Yule (1996: 62ff.) in his famous ex-
ample on how to ask someone for a pen.
the relative weightings of (at least) three wants: (a) the want to communicate the
content of the FTA x, (b) the want to be efficient or urgent, and (c) the want to
maintain H’s face to any degree. Unless (b) [and also (a)] is greater than (c), S will
want to minimize the threat of his FTA. (Brown/Levinson 1987: 68)
These strategies range from type number one (still a very face-threatening strat-
egy) to type number five, “Don’t do the FTA”, which stands for the best possible
way to protect the other’s face by simply avoiding the FTA altogether. The sec-
ond best way of mitigating face damage is by picking strategy number four, “off
record”. The speaker avoids unequivocal impositions by veiling their intentions
which, of course, necessitates a more complicated inference process on the part of
the hearer. Linguistically, this strategy can be implemented by “metaphors, irony,
rhetorical questions, understatement, tautologies, all kinds of hints as to what a
speaker wants or means to communicate, without doing so directly, so that the
meaning is to some degree negotiable” (Brown/Levinson 1987: 69). This strategy
offers a great advantage to the speaker insofar as they can always make use of
its inherent loophole, addressed by Brown/Levinson in the last part of the quote
above: Since the speaker’s true and maybe face-threatening intentions cannot be
pinpointed, they can be denied at all times. As a payoff of this strategy, the speaker
can, for example, “get credit for being tactful, non-coercive; [and] he can avoid
responsibility for the potentially face-damaging interpretation” (1987: 71).
If the speaker does not have the possibility to avoid the FTA altogether or
to use the “off record”-strategy, he will have to go “on record” – a strategy which
is further divided into two subtypes. The “most direct, clear, unambiguous and
concise [and thus face-threatening] way possible” (Brown/Levinson 1987: 69)
of these two subtypes is strategy number one, which works “without redressive
action, baldly”. Since this strategy involves the greatest amount of face-threat, it
should be used only in circumstances which assure that the face-threat for the
Table 4. Brown/Levinson’s five superstrategies for the mitigation of FTAs (1987: 60, 69)
Lesser
1. Without redressive
action, baldly
Estimation of risk of
On record 2. Positive
politeness
face loss
Do the FTA With redressive

action
4. Off record 3. Negative
politeness
5. Don’t do
the FTA
Greater
www.ebook777.com
hearer is minimal. These include, for example, emergencies or time constraints,

in which a speaker is forced to confine themselves to the most direct way of trans-
mitting their message and where considerations for the other person’s face are
absolutely marginal:
A situation which combines all these external constraints would be making a
“May Day” call from a foundering ship; this will certainly demand speaking with
maximum efficiency. In emergencies or in highly task-oriented situations, such
as teaching someone to drive, we find that the speaker is likely to focus on the
propositional content of the message, and pay little attention to the interpersonal
aspect of what is said. (Thomas 1995: 170)
What is more, utterances can also be pronounced baldly when the power differen-
tial is so great, as, for example, between a boss and his employee or between a drill
instructor and a recruit (see also Section 6.3), that the face-risk for the employee
or the recruit is by the very nature of their relationship of no consequence, regard-
less of the rating of the imposition. Although going “on record” is an extremely
straightforward way of articulating one’s point of view, Brown/Levinson still as-
cribe certain payoffs to this kind of strategy since the speaker can, for example,
“get credit for honesty, for indicating that he trusts the addressee; he can get credit
for outspokenness, avoiding the danger of being seen to be a manipulator; he can
avoid the danger of being misunderstood” (1987: 71).
The second possible way for a speaker to go “on record” is “with redressive ac-
tion”, which includes “attempts to counteract the potential face damage of the FTA
by doing it in such a way, or with such modifications or additions, that indicate
clearly that no such face threat is intended or desired” (Brown/Levinson 1987: 69f.).
Redressive actions of that kind can take one of two forms, depending on whether
the positive or the negative face is in danger. Accordingly, Brown/Levinson dis-
tinguish between positive and negative politeness, the former being understood as
the expression of solidarity, informality, and familiarity, which is supposed to em-
phasize the fact that both speakers want the same thing and have a common goal
(Yule 1996: 62). Then again negative politeness, which is rated by Brown/Levinson
as more polite than its positive counterpart, focuses on the addressee’s negative
face and consists of assurances that the speaker recognizes and respects the ad-
dressee’s negative face wants and will not (or will only minimally) interfere with
the addressee’s freedom of action (Brown/Levinson 1987: 70). Speakers therefore
tend to show deference, emphasize the importance of the other’s time or concerns,
and even include an apology for the imposition or interruption (Yule 1996: 62). In
substantiating their five superstrategies, Brown/Levinson assign several substrate-
gies to them, which are then illustrated with numerous examples. Similar to their
implementations on FTAs, these kinds of lists can never be exhaustive and only
provide some greater insight into otherwise purely theoretical categories.
The choice of an appropriate strategy is, in fact, based on a rather complex
process of calculation in which the degree of face threat must be determined.
Brown/Levinson (1987: 74ff.) suggest the equation Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx,
thus assessing three basic sociological variables (D, P, R) for the more or less con-
scious calculation of the weightiness of a particular FTA (Wx): the social distance
(D), the relative power between the two interlocutors (P) as well as the rank or
size of the imposition of the act involved (R). While D tries to factor in the de-
gree of familiarity and solidarity that exists between a speaker and their hearer,
thus describing a symmetric, horizontal relationship based on the frequency and
kind of past interactions, P measures the degree to which the speaker is able to
impose their will on the hearer with a view to the power that the hearer has over
the speaker. In this case, an asymmetric, vertical relationship exists between in-
terlocutors. Finally, R is defined by culture and situation, since it accounts for the
expenditures of goods and/or services the speaker is asking of the hearer, includ-
ing the right of the speaker to perform the act, and the degree to which the hearer
welcomes the imposition.
It is important to note, however, that we are not dealing with three completely
independent variables, distinct and apart from each other, but with interrelated
ones. Above that, these variables only matter “to the extent that the actors think
it is mutual knowledge between them” (1987: 74). In contrast to actors’ assump-
tions of such ratings, actual power, distance etc. are in fact insignificant. These
variables – due to their highly culture-sensitive nature – must be (re-)measured
for every single instance of interaction. In Fraser’s (1990: 231) words,
[…] none of these variables can be viewed as a constant between individuals; par-
ticipants vacillate in their social distance when job and anger intervene, relative
power is altered as the roles and responsibilities change back and forth even over
short periods of time, and the specifics of an act content or the circumstances of
the participants at the time can easily cause a change in the ranking of degree of
imposition.
Naturally, the Politeness Theory as outlined above received a lot of criticism32 –

besides the fact that Brown/Levinson never give a definition of their key concept
politeness even though it is a prominent part of the title of both their publications.
The same holds true for the notion of universality, which was also heavily attacked
32. Among the most rigorous critics were probably Brown/Levinson themselves when they
reviewed their 1978 paper in the introduction to their 1987 monograph, in which they com-
mented on certain weaknesses of their approach, often put forward by fellow researchers.
www.ebook777.com
considering the fact that only a small corpus of linguistic data from three unre-
lated languages and cultures was used. In the following, only the most important
points of criticism will be mentioned.
One of the most severe points of criticism is concerned with Brown/Levinson’s
view of FTAs as an almost ubiquitous phenomenon. This prompted Schmidt to
state that their concept of politeness is “an overly pessimistic, rather paranoid view
of human social interaction” (1980: 104) since most speech acts are considered
inherent FTAs in one way or another. Fraser carries this point to extremes when
he remarks that theoretically all acts “require the hearer to do work to understand
the speaker’s communicative intentions” (1990: 229). On the other hand, social
beings that we are, we need contact and hence interaction with others, or, put-
ting it rather extremely, we need to bother and be bothered by others. This would
make FTAs the rule rather than the exception in our everyday lives. To solve this
obvious contradiction, one could thus argue that a phenomenon as common as an
FTA should simply be rid of its negative connotation.
A lot of criticism has struck one of the center pieces of Brown/Levinson’s
model: The five super-strategies and the politeness-ranking of these strategies.
Blum-Kulka (1985) and others doubted, for example, whether off-record strate-
gies are indeed always felt to be the most polite way of conveying say a request,
since speakers might appear manipulative rather than polite. Above that, these
strategies should not necessarily be seen as mutually exclusive, with positive and
negative politeness leading the way.
The number of super- and substrategies did not remain uncommented either
as it soon became obvious that “counting strategies is basically a fruitless exercise,
since context is so important for interpreting the significance of any linguistic
form” (Holmes 2006: 689). Consequently, the three sociological variables, power,
distance and rank, took center stage. Although the inclusion of sociological vari-
ables in their model clearly was a much appreciated step in the right direction,
their number did not remain undisputed. Many voices claim that these three “re-
markably vague terms” (Werkhofer 22005: 175) fall well short of covering all influ-
encing factors and/or that more of them need to be factored in – as, for example,
the presence of a third/forth person. Brown/Levinson, however, elucidate that P,
D, and R should not be understood as “the only relevant factors [as they simply]
subsume all others (status, authority, occupation, ethnic identity, friendship, situ-
ational factors etc.) that have a principled effect on such assessments” (1987: 80).
The authors also concede that “there may be a residue of other factors which are
not captured within the P, D, and R dimensions” (1987: 16). Accordingly, the ex-
planatory power of their equation is affected as well because it clearly oversimpli-
fies the complexity of human relations.
A false sense of simplicity is also seen – especially by more recent critics – in

the misconception of the discursive nature of human interaction. Brown/Levinson
have often been accused of not taking into account the discursive struggle over the
social values of politeness – an accusation that should certainly be directed to the
general modus operandi at that time than to this particular approach. In accor-
dance with the proceedings of other approaches, Brown/Levinson base their anal-
yses on the sentence-level and concentrate basically on the speaker (neglecting the
hearer-perspective completely). Meaning-making in this model thus appears to be
a unilateral and thus static endeavor. The opposite is, however, far more realistic:
More recent approaches, leading to a regular paradigm shift (see Chapter 5), act
on the assumption that the creation of meaning and mutual understanding should
better be described in terms of a dynamic process in which participants negotiate
meaning interactionally (Holmes 2006: 688).
4.3.2 The predecessor: Goffman’s classic approach
Communication has many functions but an ever-present one is to put forth the kind
of person one is and to suggest how one sees the other. (Tracy 1990: 217)
In 1967, eleven years before the first publication of Brown/Levinson’s work, soci-
ologist Erving Goffman presented his work about interactional order in human
communication, Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. This collec-
tion of (previously published) Goffmanian papers was to become extremely influ-
ential for the work of social science researchers as well as for linguists.33 Portioned
in six separate essays, the first one of Goffman’s reflections, “On Face-Work: An
Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction”, introduced the by now famous
notions of face and face-work.34 Although proposing a theory of social interac-
tion rather than a framework for polite behavior, this chapter nevertheless paved
the way for Brown/Levinson’s work about politeness and especially for their
notion of face.
In identifying the subject of his account on social organization in everyday
life interactions, Goffman writes: “It is that class of events which occurs during
co-presence and by virtue of co-presence. The ultimate behavioral materials are
the glances, gestures, positionings, and verbal statements that people continuously
33. A few years later, in 1979, a similar approach concerned with image work was proposed to
the German-speaking academia by Werner Holly in his book Imagearbeit in Gesprächen. Zur
linguistischen Beschreibung des Beziehungsaspekts.
34. Departing from Goffman’s original spelling of face-work, the contracted form facework will
be used in this study.
www.ebook777.com
feed into the situation, whether intended or not” (1967: 1). In order to describe
what he considers “behavioral materials”, Goffman introduces his well-known
terminology, starting with his understanding of a line, a notion which is closely
linked to his concept of face. Thus, someone35 involved in social interaction be-
haves according to
a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which he expresses his view of the situ-
ation and through this his evaluation of the participants, especially himself. Re-
gardless of whether a person intends to take a line, he will find that he has done
so in effect. The other participants will assume that he has more or less willfully
taken the stand, so that if he is to deal with their response to him he must take
into consideration the impression they have possibly formed of him. (1967: 5)
A line, one could therefore say, is the (un)consciously produced, mostly structured
and perceivable way a person acts verbally and/or non-verbally in front of others.
Since a speaker wants to convey a self-image, his (verbal) behavior, as expressed in
his lines, is the condensate, so to speak, of whom he (thinks he) is and of whom he
would like others to think he is. To that effect, face according to Goffman is
the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others
assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delin-
eated in terms of approved social attributes – albeit an image that others may
share […]. (1967: 5)
The concept of face, which originated in China,36 was known as early as the fourth
century BC (Hu 1944) by social anthropologists before it entered the scene of so-
ciology. With regard to the line he has taken, a person “may be said to have, or be
in, or maintain face” (Goffman 1967: 6) when he behaves in accordance with his
line – in his eyes and, even more importantly, in the eyes of the others. The typical
emotional response, according to Goffman, would be feelings of confidence and
assurance. On the other hand, a person “may be said to be in wrong face“ (1967: 8)
in cases where his behavior can by no means be integrated into his line. Finally,
a person “may be said to be out of face“ (1967: 8) in situations where he does
35. Goffman’s ideal social actor is also based on a Western model of interactant (Bargiela-
hiappini 2003: 1463).
C
36. Chinese scholars share Goffman’s point of view in stressing that face is a situational con-
struct which is firmly embedded in interpersonal relations (Ho 1994). Goffman’s adoption of
the Chinese notion of face bears a weak point, though: Originally devised to account for cul-
tures putting group identity before individual identity, Goffman removed this concept from
its original context and transported it into the clearly individualistic Western hemisphere (cf.
Vilkki 2006: 326ff.; Bargiela-Chiappini 2003).
not even dispose of a line that would be expected of him in this sort of contact.
The latter two cases are likely to trigger feelings of embarrassment, shame and
inferiority. Speakers may also feel disappointed and confused because of failed
expectations: An encounter which was intended to strengthen face may have ef-
fectuated the exact opposite. Consequently, a person may become “shamefaced”, as
Goffman (1967: 9) calls the emotional outcome of this worst case scenario. In the
end, a person could even “lose his face”. The only way out in this kind of situation
is what Goffman (ibid.) calls “to save one’s face”, referring to the process by which
someone sustains an impression for others that he has not lost face.37
In this play with faces, Coupland/Jaworski (2004: 22) even see a “dramaturgi-
cal element of every day encounters”, in which speakers as ‘actors’ do not only talk
but actually ‘perform’. Face, consequently, resembles a ‘stage mask’ “that people
carefully select and ‘wear’ to conjure up specific images and effects”. The dyna-
mism of this performance is owed to the multiple roles each participant disposes
of and to the fact that he is emotionally attached to the image that others associate
with him. Accordingly, a person reacts immediately when perceiving even subtle
changes in the face he is “given” by his interlocutors. Then again, in encounters
with people whom he will probably never have dealings with ever again, his line
is of minor importance since his behavior remains without further consequence
for his future face, which is attributed but only existent for the short time of this
particular encounter. His self-image, thus, stays unaffected.
These lines of thought already indicate that there is in fact an important con-
nection – especially in terms of face creation and modification – between the
individual (and his face) and the influence of other participants (and their faces)
that must not be underestimated. For this reason, Goffman (1967: 7) claims that
“a person’s face clearly is something that is not lodged in or on his body, but rather
something that is diffusely located in the flow of events in the encounter”. He thus
considers face to be a dynamic, almost ephemeral notion:
In any case, while his social face can be his most personal possession and the
centre of his security and pleasure, it is only on loan to him from society; it will
be withdrawn unless he conducts himself in a way that is worthy of it. Approved
attributes and their relation to face make of every man his own jailer; this is a fun-
damental social constraint even though each man may like his cell. (1967: 10)
Accordingly, face is not (only) something that we can determine in and for
ourselves by the choice of lines. On the contrary, we very much depend on our
37. The capacity to suppress and conceal any tendency to become shamefaced is what Goffman
calls poise (1967: 9), which helps people control their embarrassment and hence the subsequent
embarrassment that they and others might experience over their embarrassment.
www.ebook777.com
interlocutors to “give” us face. To put it in a nutshell, we are what and how others
think we are. This rationale, however, opens up another can of worms in form of
the old, baffling, and largely unanswerable question of whether there is a true self
that exists apart from interaction. Above that, face is a conglomerate of a multitude
of different, highly situation-specific facets of face, each being appropriate only in
certain situations, which is restructured and reinvented through every new com-
municative encounter. Goffman (1967: 31) therefore proposes a double definition
of the self as “an image pieced together from the expressive implications of the full
flow of events in an undertaking” on the one hand and “as a kind of player in a
ritual game who copes honorably or dishonorably, diplomatically or undiplomati-
cally, with the judgment for contingencies of the situation”. Face is thus a product
of the interactional dyad, not a fixed inner possession, which lies “in the eye of
the beholder”. Thus, Goffman’s notion of face “is a socially attributed aspect of self
that is temporarily on loan for the duration of the interaction in accordance with
the line or lines that the individual has adopted” (Watts 2003: 125).
In Goffman’s model, the hearer is allocated a central position: Not only has he
major influence on the formation of face in the speaker’s mind, but above that, he
clearly has a face of his own to gain or to lose:
Just as the member of any group is expected to have self-respect, so also he is
expected to sustain a standard of considerateness; he is expected to go to certain
lengths to save the feelings and the face of others present, and he is expected to
do this willingly and spontaneously because of emotional identification with the
others and with their feelings. (Goffman 1967: 10)
Motivated by different reasons, participants in social interaction are thus concerned

with the maintenance of their own as well as their interlocutors’ faces, which is why
“tacit cooperation will naturally arise so that the participants together can attain
their shared but differently motivated objectives” (Goffman 1967: 29). Therefore, a
person who does not want to appear heartless or shameless should always attend
to his interlocutor’s face needs. As a side benefit, he avoids having to witness the
other’s humiliation or his defacement (1967: 11). The mutual care for interlocutors’
faces, which Goffman calls facework, is a basic structural feature of interaction in
general, and even more so of face-to-face interaction. The “maintenance of face is
thus a condition of interaction, not its objective” (1967: 12). Facework can be seen
as interlocutors’ (un-)conscious actions, which can become habitual:
By face-work I mean to designate the actions taken by a person to make whatever
he is doing consistent with face. Face-work serves to counteract ‘incidents’ – that
is, events whose effective symbolic implications threaten face. (1967: 12)
According to Goffman, facework can exhibit a defensive or a protective orien-

tation. While the first one aims at defending one’s own face, the latter seeks to
protect the interlocutor’s face. Although clearly distinguished terminologically,
practices to protect either of those faces can, in fact, be taken simultaneously. As
Goffman explains, “[i]n trying to save the face of others, the person must choose
a tactic that will not lead to loss of his own; in trying to save his own face, he must
consider the loss of face that his action may entail for others” (1967: 14). In terms
of tactics to save one’s interlocutor’s face, Goffman invokes avoidance and cor-
rective processes. While the former subsumes a range of maneuvers, which shall
avoid the occurrence of face threats in the first place, the latter becomes operative
when a face threat could not be prevented by the participants and cannot be over-
looked either. Consequently, “participants are likely to give it accredited status as
an incident” and take measures to rectify it because “one or more participants find
themselves in an established state of ritual disequilibrium or disgrace, and an at-
tempt must be made to re-establish a satisfactory ritual state for them” (Goffman
1967: 19).
With facework being the default in interpersonal behavior, Goffman argues
that “there is no occasion of talk so trivial as not to require each participant to
show serious concern with the way in which he handles himself and the others
present” (1955: 226). Although critical voices accuse Goffman of designing a so-
cial actor who is “almost obsessively concerned with his own self-image and self-
preservation” (Bargiela-Chiappini 2003: 1463), it is indeed realistic to assume that
“there is no faceless communication” (Scollon/Scollon 1995: 38) and that speakers
have some sense of facework and experience in its use at their command. Being,
however, the multilayered undertaking that it is, the choice of appropriate face-
work presents considerable problems even for experienced interlocutors. In both
mediated and immediate encounters (Goffman 1967: 33), usually persons already
stand in some kind of social relationship with one another and expect to stand in
a given relationship to them after the particular encounter has ended (Goffman
1967: 41). For that reason, Goffman claims that interlocutors during encounters
mainly make an effort “to get through the occasion and all the unanticipated and
unintentional events that can cast participants in an undesirable light, without
disrupting the relationships of the participants” (1967: 41). Facework is not neces-
sarily transmitted explicitly and sometimes, more subtle ways of conveying face-
work seem advantageous as it
often relies for its operation on a tacit agreement to do business through the
language of hint – the language of innuendo, ambiguities, well-placed pauses,
carefully worded jokes, and so on. The rule regarding this unofficial kind of com-
munication is that the sender ought not to act as if he had officially conveyed the
www.ebook777.com
message he has hinted at, while the recipients have the right and the obligation
to act as if they have not officially received the message contained in the hint.
Hinted communication, then, is deniable communication; it need not be faced
up to. (Goffman 1967: 30)
Finally, Goffman (1967: 24) points out that facework can also be exploited stra-
tegically, a tactic he calls aggressive use of face-work. Someone can, for example,
adopt a particularly modest line, hoping that this behavior will gain him a com-
pliment – a tactic which is also known as fishing for compliments. Here, facework
becomes “less a scene of mutual considerateness than an arena in which a contest
or match is held. The purpose of the game is to preserve everyone’s line from
an inexcusable contradiction, while scoring as many points as possible against
one’s adversaries and making as many gains as possible for oneself ” (Goffman
1967: 24). It is obvious that Goffman also kept in sight the flip side of the coin
of consideration for others, namely the negative, manipulative side of facework,
which will be dealt with in detail in Chapter 5.
4.3.3 Brown/Levinson vs. Goffman: Some interrelations
Both approaches being introduced, we can shed some light on the interrelated-
ness of Brown/Levinson’s and Goffman’s theories. First of all, let us juxtapose the
two notions of face presented above. As we have seen, Goffman had in mind a so-
cial concept of face which is dynamically negotiated between interactants in con-
tact. It is bestowed post-factum from the outside for the duration of the exchange,
which makes face an instable concept and subject to situation-specific variation
(cf. Watts 2003: 104). Face is thus not only constituted like a piece of patchwork
with center pieces and more peripheral ones, but also partly reinvented within
every ongoing talk exchange over longer stretches of time. Therefore, it is a sum-
mative construct with more or less changing constituents. Due to its permeable
borders that allow for influences from the outside to pass through, the processes
of change are triggered by interlocutors, who, in turn, can be biased by the speak-
er’s (non)verbal behavior. It is this behavior which may support or contradict the
speaker’s line and may have a very strong influence on future alterations and rati-
fications of his face – again induced by his interlocutors. This social interplay of
constant alterations and readjustments of a speaker’s face can be visualized in a
circular model (see Figure 11).
Brown/Levinson, on the other hand, assume a rather individualistic concept
of face which is bestowed as a pre-facto and consistent desire from the inside
(cf. O’Driscoll 1996: 6). Rather insusceptible for outside influences and hence
independent of social interaction, face can be seen as a binary construct, often
face
(non)verbal
behaviour
(lines)
face
face
face
to be ratified or rejected
Figure 11. Schematic representation of Goffman’s notion of face
entitled as face-dualism, consisting of two innate wants, mirroring basic human

needs: The need to be independent and the need to be an accepted part of the
group (negative and positive face). The two authors see face not as a socially cre-
ated, interpersonal reality, but as intrapersonal wants of the model person (cf.
Werkhofer 22005: 168). The particular filling of these two abstract needs is deter-
mined individually by each and every speaker in each and every culture and con-
text. Accordingly, Brown/Levinson’s notion of face is a ready-made self-image,
constructed prior to the interaction, which shall be upheld by society. Insights
into the speaker’s understanding of face and his personal face needs can only be
gained from subjective evaluations of the speaker’s (non)verbal behavior.
In lacking a pivotal aspect, the interactive dimension, Brown/Levinson’s idea
of face indeed differs considerably from Goffman’s sociologically richer model:
“Brown and Levinson seem to be thinking of the self as a stable core of values
lodged somewhere in the individual, whereas for Goffman self is far less ‘real’ and
is constantly renegotiable” (Watts 2003: 105). Critics hence considered Brown/
Levinson’s concept of face as extremely selective and far too static, “abstracting
not only from the dimension of ritual order, but from all kinds of social order”
(Werkhofer 22005: 178). This becomes evident when depicted graphically in the
following unidirectional model (see Figure 12).
Although Brown/Levinson’s idea of positive face seems to be derived di-
rectly from Goffman’s understanding of the term, the same cannot be said about
their notion of negative face. We can, however, detect a correspondence between
positive politeness and Goffman’s avoidance rituals, if one neglects the differ-
ent targets – the hearer (Brown/Levinson) and the speaker (Goffman) – for just
www.ebook777.com
(non)
verbal
behaviour
positive negative
face face
Figure 12. Schematic representation of Brown/Levinson’s notion of face
a moment. Both strategies aim at saving face: Positive politeness tries to claim
common ground between participants and attend to each other’s needs, whereas
avoidance rituals try to steer clear of a possible lack of common ground and thus
of face challenges as such.
Besides the two different notions of face, there is still a second important ques-
tion to be answered: What kind of relationship exists between Goffman’s notion
of facework and Brown/Levinson’s concept of politeness? Or in Watts’ words: “Is
it not the case that the strategies suggested by Brown and Levinson […] are face-
work strategies rather than politeness strategies?” (2003: 93) – a question which
is rather difficult to answer considering the fact that we are still in the dark about
Brown/Levinson’s understanding of politeness. What we can, however, proceed
from is the assumption that politeness, at least in the eyes of Brown/Levinson,
strongly equals face-threat-mitigation. As we have seen in the explanations above,
politeness is used in their model as a strategy to “soften the blow” for the faces of
everyone involved. The sub-strategies proposed by Brown/Levinson to accom-
plish this goal exhibit, however, a serious structural problem in mixing analytical
levels, i.e. by giving behavior-related as well as purely grammatical instructions.
Surely, the general idea is not wrong, since politeness is mirrored by more than
just grammatical structures in actual language usage. Still, the question remains:
What do they actually describe, facework or politeness? We could go as far as as-
cribing their behavior-related instructions (such as seek agreement) to the socio-
psychological field of facework, while its purely linguistic condensate (strategies
as, for example, impersonalize S and H) could be put under the umbrella term of
linguistic politeness.38 To quote Holtgraves, linguistic politeness could then “be

viewed as essentially the linguistic means by which face-work is accomplished”
(2005: 75). Leaving aside the admittedly blurred boundary between these two
fields, one can nevertheless outline two general strands of approaching the top-
ic: Socially appropriate behavior – based on a speaker’s rational stance as well
as his social beliefs, motives and goals – and its realization in linguistic surface
structures.
This distinction harbors another serious problem, though. Watts certainly has
a point when he doubts the usefulness of a term such as linguistic politeness, which
“runs the risk of becoming vacuous, since any linguistic expressions and all which
are used in face-maintenance would then be examples of ‘linguistic politeness’”
(2003: 118). Accordingly, utterances which are labeled as linguistically polite – the
typical example being particles such as please and thank you – can, but do not
necessarily need to be used for facework, let alone be received as such by inter-
locutors. And vice versa: Utterances which are obviously not polite on the surface,
such as you silly bugger or even swear words, can nevertheless be employed for
facework (cf. Watts 2003: 93).
In default of a definition of politeness, one could therefore argue that Brown/
Levinson’s ideas indeed orbit around what Goffman called facework rather than
politeness, although most certainly with a narrowed scope because it is “dealing
only with the mitigation of face-threatening acts [and fails to] account for those
situations in which face-threat mitigation is not a priority, e.g., aggressive, abu-
sive or rude behavior” (Locher/Watts 2005: 10). While politeness, according to
Brown/Levinson, operates only when face interests are at stake, facework has a
much wider scope and “can be used to defuse, manage, enhance, or downgrade
self and/or other’s face” (Ting-Toomey 1994: 2). Since politeness and facework
intersect only partially, with politeness being only one aspect of facework, po-
liteness theory can never be fully equaled with face theory (Watts 2003: 117; cf.
Bargiela-Chiappini 2003: 1463; Kasper 1997: 377).
38. Note, however, that the notion of linguistic politeness is also used heterogeneously, since it
can mean the use of verbal means to translate a polite attitude on a textual level but also the
study of politeness as conducted by linguists in general. In the following, I will use the term
linguistic politeness in the first of the two senses.
www.ebook777.com
4.4 Summary: What to keep and what to drop
The critical introduction to some of the classic approaches to politeness has

shown that the linchpin of models trying to get a sensible grip on a fluctuating
notion such as politeness is – at least for this investigation – their applicability to
actual data as well as the logical consistency of their internal structure. While the
rather static approaches proposed by Lakoff and Leech were certainly necessary
and useful forerunners for present-day research on politeness, they are clearly not
dimensioned for an analysis of interpersonal relations in message boards, since
they cannot do justice to the dynamic nature of communication. This is partly
due to the fact that both models were built on speech act theory and Grice’s CP,
treating communication as a rationalistic and objectifiable phenomenon. Above
that, speakers appear as central figures whose intentions can be reconstructed
faithfully by hearers. Most of the time, this is even done with an extremely limited
scope on (usually very complex) contextual variables. Besides the fact that utter-
ances are ascribed single functions, both approaches neglect the negotiation and
co-construction of meaning and evaluation of politeness.
A viable theory must take account of all those factors that are elementary
to the interactive negotiation of meaning within human communication, most
of all situation-specific contextual aspects. Consequently, we need to fathom as
many of the contextual factors that are accessible in and relevant for the strings of
conversation in our message board corpus as possible (see Chapter 6). As a result,
the static approaches will be left behind. The social norm view, including Fraser’s
conversational contract view, should, however, not be discarded that easily.
The most important input for the upcoming line of thought surely concerns
key concepts such as face, facework and politeness. The initial insight that the lat-
ter of the three notions should not be placed on the same analytical level as face-
work will be further elaborated, once politeness will be embedded within a larger
framework (cf. O’Driscoll 2011). With facework being a comparatively straight-
forward and unproblematic notion, designating the negotiation and mutual care
for interlocutors’ faces, all there is to do is to agree on an understanding of face,
having in mind the two propositions by Brown/Levinson and Goffman with their
strengths as well as their weaknesses. In short, Goffman’s model clearly underes-
timates the human nature of individuals. Then again, Brown/Levinson’s model
hardly accounts for the social nature of human interaction. Since a realistic model
should combine both aspects, a “best-of-both-worlds” model is called for (see
Figure 13). In this combined model, we take Goffman’s circular, social view as a
springboard and enrich it with a valuable element from Brown/Levinson’s model,
the idea of inherent, universal human needs of association and dissociation. We
face
(non)verbal
behaviour
face (lines)
face
face
to be ratified or rejected
Figure 13. Schematic representation of a combined model of face
will keep their idea of positive and negative face because obviously, “face dual-
ism is just too valuable to be jettisoned” (O’Driscoll 1996: 4). According to this
model, face is negotiated socially and reconstructed constantly in every instance
of social encounter, but always on the basis of immanent human desires, which
Brown/Levinson called positive and negative face (fP and fN). Although those
two factors clearly influence the construction of face, we need to remember that
their individual nature differs from person to person. As a matter of fact, face is a
summative conglomerate, which (re-)constitutes itself in interaction and which is
composed of numerous different and partly ephemeral facets. Depending on the
situation speakers find themselves in, they activate and sometimes even create a
unique constellation of these facets, which form the face speakers consider appro-
priate for a certain encounter and which they display through their (non)verbal
behavior (cf. Goffman’s lines). In doing so, speakers must have a great deal of
rather stable facets at their disposal, which have grown with them, so to speak,
reflect their biography and past experiences and have proven to be successful in
previous interactions (cf. Locher 2011; O’Driscoll 2011). If this were not the case,
individuals would have to reinvent themselves constantly, which would at best be
extremely time-consuming and strenuous. At worst, however, this lack of consis-
tency in our personality would look pathological as in the case of multiple per-
sonality disorder.
Finally, the reactions and assessments of interlocutors will show speakers
whether they “put on the right face” or whether they need to change their lines to
www.ebook777.com
yield the desired effect in terms of their face. Even Brown herself later shared this
interactive view on face, claiming that
B&L face wants are an interactionally relevant phenomenon, not a matter of our
deepest personality and identity construction [because] they are only attributed
to a person who is constructing his/her utterance in an interactional context.
[Consequently,] face is indisputably interactionally created and manipulated.
(Arundale 2006: 199f.; cf. Brown 2001: 11623)
www.ebook777.com
chapter 5
Interpersonal relations II
Putting (im)politeness in an integrative perspective
5.1 Introduction
Still in search for a viable definition and way of approaching the notion of polite-
ness, this chapter delves into present-day discussions of politeness, thereby fo-
cusing on the so-called postmodern approaches. More importantly, though, it
aims to see the bigger picture of interpersonal relations by treating politeness for
what it is, namely as one ingredient of a comprehensive framework of several
related phenomena. In feeling out said framework, this chapter will also lead us
to the “dark side” (Austin 1990) of interpersonal relations and to the realm of
impoliteness.
Admittedly defined rather vaguely, postmodernism is used as an umbrella
term for those approaches which are “grounded in a broadly constructionist posi-
tion on the nature of reality” (Haugh 2007: 297), including, of course, the dynamic
endeavor of creating meaning. It is thus out of the question to perceive language
use and especially politeness in terms of the infamous conduit metaphor (cf.
Reddy 1979), where ready-made linguistic end products are encoded by the
speaker, transported and decoded by the hearer. As human communication is
far more complex than that, there can be no such thing as ready-made end prod-
ucts, which are transported mechanically and unambiguously to our interlocu-
tors, especially not when it comes to the construction of meaning (cf. Arundale
2006: 195; Bublitz 2009: 40ff.). Viewed from a postmodern perspective, advocated
by pragmaticians such as Eelen (2001), O’Driscoll (2001), Watts (2003, 22005),
Locher (2004, 2006a, b), Locher/Watts (2005, 2008) as well as by Spencer-Oatey
(1993, 2002, 2005, 2007), politeness is apprehended as evolving and emerging
dynamically during interaction. As the following example illustrates, all conversa-
tional action is – as Arundale (2006, 2010) calls it – “conjointly co-constituted”:
[A]ssume a first speaker utters “That’s a nice jumper”. If the second utters “You
can’t borrow it”, the two together interactively achieve operative interpretings of
the first utterance as a request. If the second speaker were to say “Thanks”, the two
would conjointly co-constitute operative interpretings of the first utterance as a
compliment. (2006: 196)
In the following, politeness as well as impoliteness are put in perspective, this

time, however, from an integrative and discursive point of view. In order to do
so, Locher/Watts’ (2005) framework of relational work will be at the center of
attention.
5.2 A working definition of politeness
Nothing will ever fix the reference of “politeness” to human behavior once and for
all. (Sell 22005: 113)
Why should one select a statement as daunting and as discouraging as Sell’s in-
troductory quote as the starting point for a chapter which intends to do just the
seemingly impossible, finding a definition for a quality of interaction which is
subject to change through time and across cultural space? The answer is rather
simple: because he is right. As will be shown in the following, the search for a
consensual definition of a term as complex as politeness is bound to fail, which is
why we can at most find a tailor-made, approximate working definition39 to serve
as a basis for the targeted analysis of interpersonal relations in the online message
board at hand.
The search for a definition of politeness is intertwined with a major meth-
odological decision: Either we approach the notion of politeness with a purely
abstract model in mind, hoping for the emergence of some universally valid
mechanisms, which can be applied to each and every particular instance. In the
worst case, however, such an abstract model yields findings that are so general
that they will only be of a limited informative value. Alternatively, we dispense
with a heightened degree of abstraction in favor of an investigation of a reduced
set of individual cases. Although findings are far from universally valid, they are
still significant and informative, at least for the limited scope of investigation. It
is indeed the latter course of action that will be picked for the empirical analysis
of this study.
This methodological predicament is partly mirrored, and most of all named, in
Watts et al.’s (22005) differentiation between first-order politeness and second-order
politeness – a dichotomy which was later taken up by Eelen (2001), who termed
it politeness1 and politeness2. Watts et al. explain that the “pursuit of universals
will necessarily involve us in second-order concepts, whereas the investigation
into politeness in individual cultural frameworks will almost inevitably involve
39. See Watts (2003: 51f.) for an interesting discussion concerned with the definition of polite-
ness based on an exhaustive compilation of numerous previous definitions.
www.ebook777.com
Chapter 5. Interpersonal relations II: (Im)politeness in an integrative perspective 81
first-order concepts” (22005: 4). Accordingly, first-order politeness focuses on a

common-sense, folk, or lay understanding and evaluation of social behavior as
politeness and deals with questions such as “How do members of the community
perceive and classify action in terms of politeness?” (Kasper 1997: 375). Second-
order politeness, on the other hand, is an abstract, theoretical construct within a
top-down model of language usage (Watts et al. 22005: 3). Note that only the latter
direction involves claims of universality.
In pursuing a first-order approach to politeness, researchers can only hope
to find sporadic testimony of interlocutors’ individual, atomistic, group-specific
evaluative snapshots in current situations on which to base their theorizing. As
only those basic tendencies are in fact tangible and hence suitable starting points
for investigations, I agree with Watts,40 who points out that “investigating first-
order politeness is the only valid means of developing a social theory of polite-
ness [because] second-order politeness should concern itself with the discursive
struggle over first-order politeness” (2003: 9). In this sense, observations from the
domain of first-order politeness can at least give some indication of the concept
of second-order politeness. Only this way can social scientists avoid lifting the
term politeness out of the realm of everyday discourse and elevate it to the status
of a theoretical concept. Based on some evaluative specimens, researchers still
tried – and failed – to abstract away from them in search of a second-order grip
on politeness. This failure can be chalked up to the fact that
the first thing we would have to do is to find ways of isolating across cultures all
those strategies, verbal as well as nonverbal, that construct, regulate and repro-
duce forms of cooperative social interaction – an obviously impossible task.
(Watts 2003: 49)
For this reason, the focus of research must be and has always been, consciously
or not, on first-order politeness because the only thing we can actually do is to
study how individuals evaluate and struggle over first-order politeness. In so do-
ing, native speakers rely very much on the “feel for the game” (Watts 2003: 75),
which they develop continuously through the participation in a wide variety of
interactions. Clearly, this kind of culturally determined experience evades being
wrapped into rules.
Following Locher/Watts’ advice “to take native speaker assessments of polite-
ness seriously and to make them the basis of a discursive, data-driven, bottom-up
approach to politeness” (2005: 16), a first explorative analysis of the corpus mate-
rial at hand (cf. Section 7.2) proves insightful in terms of participants’ explicit
40. In this context, Watts makes it perfectly clear that his 2003 monograph is to be understood
as a “radical rejection of politeness2” (2003: 11).
first-order conceptions of politeness. In addition to the code of conduct described

in Section 3.3.2, this procedure provides the second clue to message board us-
ers’ understanding of this particular term – or at least to some of the evaluative
snapshots mentioned above. It is, however, hardly surprising that lexemes such as
polite or impolite are very rarely if ever explicitly used for evaluations of interac-
tants’ behavior (cf. Watts 2003: 218). Indeed, only six instances of users mention-
ing the lexemes polite or politeness at all in the entire corpus (my emphasis) could
be found:
(1) […] a massive change from the kind-hearted, polite boy he was when I knew
him not so long ago […] (cpj1987, thread #10: post 47)
(2) […] If I walk past someone in the street and we make eye contact then I smile
out of politeness, regardless of their gender – its jsut a friendly gesture.
(doodle7, thread #14: post 5)
(3) […] i think if there are two people walking past each other on a lonely street
its awkward not to smile or look at each other! so usually its just out of polite-
ness or being friendly id say. (Jdizzle09, thread #14: post 44)
(4) […] The guy at Chicago was perfectly polite, if a little fed up (but who
wouldn’t be doing that job?). […] The guy at LAX when I went in 2005 was
really polite, so it’s a mixed bag in that respect. […]
(JSS16, thread #26: post 81)
(5) […] I’m not insecure, I don’t even know who you are, I just don’t really see
any reason why I need to be espescially polite or civil towards you. […]
(bete noire, thread #42: post 58)
(6) […] After months of me waiting to get a reply I emailed them asking what
was taking so long (fairly politely) only to be told that […]
(LastLordofTime, thread #47: post 25)
In most of these examples, the search terms are used to describe actions (example
(6)) or persons (examples (1) and (4)) within a user’s narration of events – un-
fortunately without letting us know, why these actions and persons deserved the
label polite. Since examples (2) and (3) give at least one instance of politeness
(smiling when walking past someone on the street), we learn about these users’
assessments of these specific situations. The third and the fifth example are inter-
esting insofar as polite is mentioned in the same breath as being friendly and civil.
The author of example five even explicitly doubts the necessity of the two qualities
for Internet exchanges.
As predicted, we cannot learn nearly enough from these scarce examples to
deduce a first-order definition of politeness in this CoP. Two conclusions must be
www.ebook777.com
drawn from this first empirical endeavor, which are also mirrored in the analyti-
cal setup in Chapter 8. (1) More often than not, we are lacking explicit partici-
pants’ evaluations, which is why we need to take the dyad of the communicating
partners as the minimum unit of analysis and focus on complete series of moves
and counter-moves. Only this way can we hope to witness a discursive struggle
over (first-order) politeness and related phenomena. Although we will definitely
keep our eyes open for explicit evaluations, interlocutors’ implicit reactions will
be assigned a prominent, since hopefully expressive role in this process. (2) For
those cases, in which hearer reactions are not as revealing as expected, we should
take back-up measures and pursue a second-order line of argumentation for a
consistent evaluation of politeness from an outside perspective. To avoid enter-
ing the empirical analysis empty-handedly, I propose the following second-order
working definition of politeness, which tries to capture this opaque phenomenon
the best way possible:
From the speaker’s perspective, politeness is rational because purposeful (non-)
linguistic behavior, which (un)consciously aims at maintaining social order by
showing consideration for others. Based on experience, it exhibits an individual-
istic and mental nature. From a social perspective, it is negotiated collaboratively
in concrete interaction. Strongly dependent on contextual factors, politeness
must be considered an evaluative and instable notion.
In a nutshell, being polite means reciprocally showing “consideration for others,

often at the expense of one’s own interests” (Watts 2003: 31), but always with a
view to successful present, sometimes even future interaction. Thus, for the time
of the actual exchange, participants pursue a common (communicative) goal.
They do so either unconsciously by means of ritualized, fixed expressions, or, al-
ternatively, by deploying politeness creatively and idiosyncratically, often in a de-
liberate and goal-oriented fashion. In any scenario, politeness can be transmitted
through a wide range of communication channels, with language being only one
such channel.
5.3 Locher/Watts’ comprehensive framework of interpersonal relations
In fact, politeness is not the only discursively constructed entity, which arises out
of actual interaction. The same holds true for related notions such as impolite-
ness, over-politeness and the like, which is why Locher/Watts (2005) propose a
comprehensive framework of what they call relational work. It incorporates the
entire spectrum of interpersonal relations, yet tries to set its components apart
from each other. Before we can, however, delve into the inner make-up of this
framework, the very notion of relational work needs defining. According to

Locher/Watts, it is
the ‘work’ individuals invest in negotiating relationships with others. Human be-
ings rely crucially on others to be able to realize their life goals and aspirations,
and as social beings they will naturally orient themselves towards others in pur-
suing these goals. (2005: 10)
Three years later, Locher/Watts specify their initial definition insofar as relational
work includes “all aspects of the work invested by individuals in the construc-
tion, maintenance, reproduction and transformation of interpersonal relation-
ships among those engaged in social practice” (2008: 96). It is no coincidence that
this definition is reminiscent of Goffman’s notion of facework. In fact, Locher/
Watts are very clear about the fact that Goffman’s work in general and his idea
of face in particular (see Section 4.3.2) is the driving force behind their own ap-
proach.41 Locher even goes as far as using the terms relational work and facework
synonymously, claiming that the “process of defining relationships in interaction
is called face-work or relational work” (Locher 2004: 51). In this regard, I beg to
differ. Though it is certainly true that both notions are dependent on negotiation
processes, are always present in any form of socio-communicative encounter and
are definitely intertwined, they still differ in terms of their focal point. In retro-
spect to Goffman’s original definition of facework as “the actions taken by a per-
son to make whatever he is doing consistent with face” (1967: 12), interlocutors
orient to each others’ faces and negotiate face claims. Then again relational work,
true to its name, foregrounds the negotiation of present and future relationships
between individuals (cf. O’Driscoll 2011 for the related differentiation between
face and politeness).
Among the string of nouns used in their second definition to relational work,
one strikes as particularly characteristic of Locher/Watts’ integrative approach. As
a matter of fact, the noun transformation hints to the fact that relational work is
not only oriented to the maintenance of harmony, cooperation, and social equi-
librium (2005: 11). Quite to the contrary relational work also touches on the flip
side of the coin, as it “comprises the entire continuum of verbal behavior from
direct, impolite, rude or aggressive interaction through to polite interaction, en-
compassing both appropriate and inappropriate forms of social behavior” (Locher
2004: 51). While Brown/Levinson distinguish between polite and impolite behav-
ior, the umbrella term relational work clearly subsumes a much wider panoply of
41. Although Locher/Watts (2008: 96) mention that they also include Brown/Levinson’s per-
spective on face in their understanding of relational work, they do not give any detail on how
they understand these two concepts of face to be actually united (but see Section 4.4).
www.ebook777.com
Table 5. Framework of relational work (Locher/Watts 2005: 12, adapted)

Relational work
negatively marked unmarked positively marked negatively marked
impolite non-polite polite over-polite
inappropriate appropriate42 appropriate inappropriate
forms of negotiating interpersonal relations. The focus is thus widened far beyond
the fuzzy limitations of politeness, which is now seen as one cog in the wheel
within the larger framework of relational work as outlined in Table 5. As indi-
cated in the first horizontal row, Locher/Watts differentiate between unmarked
and (positively or negatively) marked behavior. It is marked negatively in those
cases where it appears to be inappropriate in the eyes of the interlocutors (see last
horizontal row). Participants can come to this negative evaluation when they per-
ceive their interlocutor’s behavior to be downright impolite (see the first column)
or over-polite (see the last column).43 On the other hand, positively marked be-
havior, as displayed in the black-rimmed column, strikes as being distinctly polite
and hence appropriate. Locher/Watts (2005: 14), however, distinguish very care-
fully between this type of appropriate behavior and a second one: As indicated
in the second column, unmarked behavior also counts as appropriate, although
non-polite behavior. To illustrate this distinction, Watts (2003: 257) invokes the
following scenario:
Imagine that you have booked two tickets to see a play and that they are num-
bered P51 and P52. Twenty minutes before the play is due to begin you locate row
P and move along it to seats 51 and 52 only to find that someone else is already
sitting there. What is the appropriate mode of behaviour in this situation?
Watts (ibid.) lists several options for verbally calling attention to the fact that
those sitting in seats P51 and P52 must have made a mistake:
42. As a synonym for the term appropriate, Watts (2003: 19) proposes the term politic to label
interlocutor’s evaluations of “[l]inguistic behavior which is perceived to be appropriate to the
social constraints of the ongoing interaction, i.e. as non-salient”. Although he sees an advantage
in this second-order concept “precisely because it is not in common usage and indexes a wide
variety of forms of social behavior that include but are broader than what might be referred to
in lay terms as POLITE” (2005: xlii), the notion will be rejected for this study.
43. Since both of these two types of relational work have the same effect in terms of the inter-
locutor’s evaluation, Watts (2005: xliii) represents the same content in a circular shape in which
both ends of Table 5 actually meet. The advantage of this form of representation is obvious:
Impolite and over-polite behavior appear right next to each other, indicating their relatedness.
Excuse me. I think you’re sitting in our seats.

Excuse me but those are our seats.
I’m sorry. I think there must be some mistake.
I’m sorry, but are you sure you’ve got the right seats?
All of these four statements seem to be appropriate to resolve this situation.

Whether one or all of them can also be considered polite, is, however, totally
open to discussion. In this case, I side with Watts, who argues that we are deal-
ing with cases of unmarked, non-polite/appropriate behavior which “can be ex-
pected in this type of situation [since] there’s not much else you can say in” (Watts
2003: 257, original emphasis). Let us not forget, though, that all kinds of indirect
speech acts, such as “How strange, you seem to have the same tickets as we.” offer
lots of creative alternatives to Watts’ utterances.
A differentiation between these two types of appropriate behavior is called for,
since a great deal of relational work actually is of an unmarked nature and goes
largely unnoticed (Locher/Watts 2005: 11). Non-polite behavior thus encompass-
es all those instances of appropriate behavior which do not excel through being
explicitly polite. As a consequence, the scope of politeness is limited considerably.
Summarizing the most important insight of their distinction, Locher/Watts af-
firm that “polite behavior is always [appropriate] while [appropriate] behavior
can also be non-polite” (2005: 12). In other words, not everything that is appro-
priate in a certain situation necessarily earns the label polite. For an utterance to
be estimated as polite, there must be a certain excess or surplus, which lets it stand
out positively in contrast to other appropriate utterances and which encompasses
behavior that is perceived to be more than is socially required. For obvious rea-
sons, this perspective has been termed the surplus approach to politeness repeat-
edly (cf. Kasper 1990; Locher 2004; Watts 22005).
Viewed from this perspective, many of Brown/Levinson’s strategies of posi-
tive and negative politeness need to be assigned to the category of non-polite/
appropriate rather than polite/appropriate behavior. This includes the use of
terms of address, honorifics, indirect speech acts and many other forms of ritual-
ized expressions, which are a fixed part of conversations and are thus routinely
expected by participants. Since this canonical and institutionalized behavior does
not constitute a conversational surplus, it should not count as explicitly polite
either – even if that means breaking with traditional evaluations.
Despite their seemingly clear-cut distinction of types of relational work, the
two authors do not leave unstated the fact that “there can be no objectively defin-
able boundaries between these categories” (2005: 12), and
[t]he points at which speakers perceive [appropriate] behavior to be ‘polite’ may,
and certainly do, vary considerably from speaker to speaker, from community
www.ebook777.com
of practice to community of practice and even from one situational context to

another in the case of individual speakers. (Watts 2005: xliii)
This holds, of course, also true for the differentiation between other neighbor-
ing – or even distant – concepts within Locher/Watts’ chart, such as the one
between polite and over-polite behavior. Watts et al. (22005: 8) elucidate this par-
ticular distinction with a rather unambiguous and hence convenient example of a
request: While an utterance such as “Would you please close the window?” clearly
minimizes a potential FTA, the utterance “Do you think I could possibly prevail
upon you to close the window?” does not minimize the FTA any further, as one
might expect, but, on the contrary, begins to have the opposite effect. In this case,
less is clearly more, which is why “[o]ver-politeness is often perceived as negative
exactly because it exceeds the boundary between appropriateness and inappro-
priateness” (Locher 2004: 90). Although these two context-deprived utterances
can serve as examples for polite vs. over-polite behavior respectively, this does not
eliminate the possibility for the exact same utterances to be evaluated differently
in another context by other participants. This means that predicting evaluations,
even those of close friends, is virtually impossible since they are based on norms
and standards, which have been accumulated individually in a lifelong process.
Then how come that communication – despite potential evaluative gaps be-
tween interlocutors’ perceptions of interpersonal behavior – can still work out
smoothly at all? Apparently, the intersection between interlocutors’ evaluations,
i.e. their common ground, must be big enough to avoid communicative break-
downs – at least in regular, everyday encounters, with exceptions surely proving
the rule. Obviously, when judging the appropriateness of utterances, we seem to
possess similar expectations, not only as receivers of (non)verbal behavior but
also as their producers. In this regard, we can anticipate which reactions, i.e. eval-
uations, are expected from us (as receivers) and which reactions, i.e. evaluations,
we can expect (as producers) (cf. Spencer-Oatey 2007). These two directions of
the cognitive interplay between expectations and evaluations are depicted in
Figure 14. Although this deductive process theoretically works for both produc-
ing and receiving participants, postmodern approaches stress the primacy of the
hearer. In Figure 14, this is indicated through the diverging intensities of the two
arrows, suggesting the preferred (right) reading path.
The similarity of our expectations, or rather the willingness to counterbal-
ance diverging expectations, can be ascribed to interlocutors’ basic human needs
of association (see Section 4.3.1), which prompt them to behave in such a way
that they are liked and considered as rightful members of their peer group. As a
consequence, we can assume that communities of practice must possess certain
norms for appropriate behavior, among them the code of conduct of TSR (see
Production Linguistic stimulus

side
Individual value
Behavioral
judgments about
expectations
relational work
Individual value
Behavioral
judgments about
expectations
relational work
Reception
side
Figure 14. Cognitive processes of individual value judgments about relational work
Section 3.3.2), which members knowingly and willingly follow. This adherence
to group specific norms, which mirrors the desire to conform to the expectations
of a particular reference group, “engenders a structure and predictability which
results in a considerable saving of energy in everyday life and can be viewed as
serving the goal of something akin to social harmony and perhaps even survival”
(Meier 1995: 352).
As underlying frames of knowledge and social norms re-enter the scope of
scientific interest concerning interpersonal relations, the social norm view (see
Section 4.2) celebrates a comeback – at least to some extent. Werkhofer sees a
need in coupling postmodern approaches with prepragmatic ones when he ex-
plains that
the modern view is biased towards a one-sided individualism [with] difficulties
arising […] from the corresponding neglect of social dimensions [which] tend to
be overlooked or grossly underestimated by the adherents of this view. [A]ll ver-
sions of this view either neglect social realities completely or, adopting a remark-
ably simplistic, traditional approach, reduce them to only a small set of vaguely
defined dimensions which are then relegated to a secondary status […].
(22005: 157)
He concludes that while “neither of them [traditional and modern approach] can
completely be rejected, neither of them is also fully acceptable” (ibid.). Thus, both
perspectives should not be considered as rivaling alternatives but as complement-
ing each other. To this end, Chapter 6 will fathom contextual factors, which may
be influential for message board users’ expectations and evaluations.
www.ebook777.com
5.4 Impoliteness: The neglected stepbrother of politeness
To completely cover Locher/Watts’ framework, we still need to have a close look

at the other half of the model of relational work, which encompasses types of
negatively marked and thus inappropriate behavior, labeled over-politeness and
impoliteness. Since over-polite behavior is usually regarded as “a less than optimal
application of politeness patterns which in principle are perfectly acceptable in
a given language or culture” (Kienpointner 1997: 257), it is clearly of a different
quality than impolite behavior per se. The latter needs to be dealt with in more de-
tail, especially so since it is part of a regular terminological jumble which is used
to designate various types of inappropriate behavior. While Culpeper (1996) uses
the term impoliteness, we can also find rudeness (Kienpointner 1997), aggravat-
ing language (Lachenicht 1980), face attack acts (Austin 1990) and, in the field of
CMC, flaming, in scientific discourse.
For a long time, research in the field of impoliteness44 seemed to have been
overshadowed by the omnipresent notion of politeness; in fact, it almost appeared
to be treated as its neglected stepbrother (cf. Locher 2011). Although impoliteness
is mentioned every now and then in most of the leading approaches to polite-
ness, the focus was nevertheless on the more popular of the two siblings, po-
liteness. Culpeper et al. summarize a common rationale to explain this lack of
attention by stating that “an impoliteness framework is unnecessary, since Brown/
Levinson’s (1987) politeness framework already postulates a category, bald on re-
cord, which accommodates ‘impolite’ phenomena” (2003: 1547). But as there are
what Culpeper et al. call “maximally offensive examples” (2003: 1548) that fall
outside the specific contexts of bald on record strategies, the idea that Brown/
Levinson’s category could adequately encompass all kinds of impoliteness phe-
nomena needs to be rejected.
This sustained lack of interest for impoliteness is also astonishing consider-
ing the fact that negatively marked behavior was always assumed to be easier to
detect than behavior which conforms to politeness norms (cf. Mills 2002; Watts
2003). Still, merely a handful of approaches primarily dealing with impoliteness
(and rudeness) is worth mentioning, a rather moderate number of publications
compared to the vast amount of literature in politeness research. As impoliteness
was hastily dismissed as a by-product of or a deviation from politeness, unworthy
of being treated as an autonomous field of research, scientific approaches inad-
equately tried to explain impoliteness in terms of politeness, either by making use
44. Note that the notion of impoliteness is used here as a hyperonym for inappropriate behav-
ior in general and thus includes various subtypes which will be dealt with in more detail in the
course of this chapter.
of models and methods which were originally designed for a completely different
phenomenon or by deriving models for the description of impoliteness from po-
liteness models. As Eelen points out,
the concepts involved can never explain impoliteness in the same way or to the
same extent as they explain politeness. So the bias towards the analysis of polite-
ness is not just a matter of differential attention, it goes far deeper than that: it
is a conceptual, theoretical, structural matter. It is not so much quantitative, but
rather a qualitative problem. (2001: 104)
This way of proceeding can be exemplified with the help of three approaches,
which take politeness, or, to be more precise, Brown/Levinson’s model of polite-
ness as a starting point for the classification of impoliteness:
“Aggravating language – a study of abusive and insulting language”

Lachenicht’s (1980) approach45 investigates what he calls aggravating lan-
guage, which he studies “as a rational attempt to hurt or damage the addressee”
(1980: 607) and which can be “performed with various degrees of intention to
hurt” (1980: 613).46 This hurt can be induced by two types of aggravation, which
allude to Brown/Levinson’s dichotomy of face in a rather obvious way:
Negative Aggravation: an aggravation strategy that is designed to impose on the
addressee, to interfere with his freedom of action, and to attack his social position
and the basis of his social action.
Positive Aggravation: an aggravation strategy that is designed to show the ad-
dressee that he is not approved of, is not esteemed, does not belong, and will not
receive cooperation. (1980: 619)
The center piece of Lachenicht’s paper is his modification of Brown/Levinson’s

theoretical system (see Section 4.3.1), to which he adds another branch, thereby
extending it to abusive language (see Table 6). In line with Brown/Levinson, this
adapted model takes FTAs as a starting point and assumes that they can be modi-
fied – the only difference being that modifications can lead not only to the weak-
ening of their face-threatening potential (with mitigation, which corresponds to
Brown/Levinson’s category with redressive action) but also to their strengthening
(with aggravation). The extra branch, containing positive and negative aggravation,
45. For a detailed critique of Lachenicht’s model, dealing, among others, with the authenticity
of his data and the selectivity between positive and negative aggravation, see Culpeper et al.
(2003).
46. As will become obvious later in this chapter, Lachenicht’s concept of aggravation equals
with the notion of rudeness.
www.ebook777.com
Table 6. Lachenicht’s strategies to modify FTAs (1980: 621, my emphasis)

Greatest
With (6) Negative Aggravation
aggravation (5) Positive Aggravation
Weight of FTA after
On Record
modification
Without
Do FTA (4) Bald-On-Record
modification
(1) Off
Record
(0) Don’t do With (3) Positive Politeness
the FTA mitigation (2) Negative Politeness
Least
is added right above the familiar bald-on-record strategy to indicate the sever-
ity of the FTA’s impact (mirrored also by the increasing numbers). Additionally,
Lachenicht designates Brown/Levinson’s bald-on-record and off-record strategies
to serve as possible aggravation strategies.
To illustrate his own two concepts, positive and negative aggravation, he de-
liberately copies Brown/Levinson’s course of action and provides an extensive
compilation of linguistic strategies which can be used separately or in a combined
way to aggravate face. Yet he hints that the “final realization of the superstrategy
need not always be verbal [but] may consist of gifts, punches, reassuring smiles,
raised eyebrows, gestures, and the tone of voice” (1980: 622), thus indicating that
“the range of techniques that may be employed far exceeds the bounds of linguis-
tics” (1980: 680).
“Politeness revisited – the dark side”

Another approach referring back to Brown/Levinson’s taxonomy is presented by
Austin (1990). Contrary to Lachenicht, she regards the construction of a model
which attempts to impose a taxonomic structure as a futile endeavor (1990: 291) –
still she relies on Brown/Levinson’s superstrategies. Without questioning them,
she claims that they are multi-functional in that “[f]ace attack is often, in fact, an
application of the same principles which are used for face preservation; and many
of the strategies for the one can be co-opted for the other” (1990: 277). By face
attack acts, Austin means “those communicative acts which are injurious to the
hearer’s positive or negative face, and are introduced in a situation which could
have been avoided, but where their inclusion is perceived by the hearer to be in-
tentional” (1990: 279). As will be seen later on, face attack acts fit the description
of rudeness.
For utterances to be interpreted “on the dark side”, contexts were regarded as
decisive – an insight which is the outstanding feature of her paper. Above that, she
specifically stresses the role of hearers, thus concentrating her analyses more on
their part – definitely a step in the right direction.
“Towards an anatomy of impoliteness”

A similar, yet more elaborate attempt to modify Brown/Levinson’s classic model
for the sake of inappropriate behavior is presented by Culpeper (1996). In order to
draft “an anatomy of impoliteness”, he does not extend Brown/Levinson’s original
model, but literally turns it upside down. He assumes that each of their politeness
superstrategies has its opposite impoliteness superstrategy – meaning that im-
politeness superstrategies are opposite in terms of orientation to face, which are
thus means of attacking face instead of enhancing or supporting face (1996: 356).
What is more, Culpeper also adopts Brown and Levinson’s formula for assess-
ing the weightiness of an FTA: “The greater the imposition of the act, the more
powerful and distant the other is, the more face-damaging the act is likely to be”
(1996: 357). Culpeper therefore invokes the following five strategies, which do not
necessarily have to occur singularly but can be mixed:
1. Bald on record impoliteness: the FTA is performed in a direct, clear, unambig-
uous and concise way in circumstances where face is not irrelevant or mini-
mised. It is important to distinguish this strategy from Brown and Levinson’s
Bald on record […] where little face is at stake, and, more importantly, it is
not the intention of the speaker to attack the face of the hearer.
2. Positive impoliteness: the use of strategies designed to damage the addressee’s
positive face wants.
3. Negative impoliteness: the use of strategies designed to damage the address-
ee’s negative face wants.
4. Sarcasm or mock-politeness: the FTA is performed with the use of politeness
strategies that are obviously insincere, and thus remain surface realisations.
5. Withhold politeness: the absence of politeness work where it would be ex-
pected (e.g. failing to thank somebody for a present may be taken as deliber-
ate impoliteness). (1996: 356f., 2005: 41, my emphasis)
This clearly needs elaboration as obviously, some politeness strategies cannot be

turned around to create impoliteness strategies that easily. While it works quite
well with positive and negative politeness/impoliteness by employing a diametri-
cally opposite set of (negative) instructions (e.g. “seek disagreement” or “invade
the other’s space”), the bald on record-strategy poses the first problem. This time,
the strategy as such remains untouched, since – as some have argued before –
it already is an impoliteness strategy. Instead, and thus diverging from Brown/
Levinson’s original model, the contextual conditions are turned upside down
here, as there is a danger to face now.
www.ebook777.com
The fourth strategy resembles Brown/Levinson’s off record-strategy insofar

as the FTA is performed in a veiled, indirect way. But contrary to the original,
Culpeper proposes the use of insincere politeness (and not rhetoric figures) to be
deliberately hurtful (and not mitigate an FTA). As Culpeper’s understanding of
sarcasm strongly resembles Leech’s view of irony, Culpeper (1996: 356) refers back
to Leech’s definition of the Irony Principle (IP): “If you must cause offence, at least
do so in a way which doesn’t overtly conflict with the [Politeness Principle, see
Section 4.2], but allows the hearer to arrive at the offensive point of your remark
indirectly, by way of an implicature” (1983: 82). On the interplay of the IP and the
PP, Leech (1983: 142) later expands as follows:
Apparently, then, the IP is dys-functional: if the PP promotes a bias towards
comity rather than conflict in social relations, the IP, by enabling us to bypass
politeness, promotes the ‘antisocial’ use of language. We are ironic at someone’s
expense, scoring off others by politeness that is obviously insincere, as a substi-
tute for impoliteness.
Consequently, politeness can be used in an inappropriate fashion. For this reason,

the result of the IP is “the opposite of social harmony that is supposed to be pro-
moted through Brown and Levinson’s Off record politeness” (Culpeper 1996: 357).
Since irony is normally used for enjoyment and comity, Culpeper replaces Leech’s
notion of irony with sarcasm (or mock-politeness), which is supposed to cause
social disharmony – a fact which is actually stated in Leech’s definition of irony
as well!47 Culpeper then goes on declaring sarcasm (and mock-politeness) as the
opposite of banter (and mock-impoliteness, see 5.6), since the latter two usually
cause social harmony (ibid.). With reference to Locher/Watts’ integrative model,
Culpeper’s mock-politeness could therefore be regarded as a case of over-polite
and thus inappropriate behavior, which is not used accidentally but strategical-
ly. Last but not least, withhold politeness, as the last of Culpeper’s five strategies,
seems to be the appropriate counterpart for the classic politeness strategy with-
hold the FTA.
Emulating Brown/Levinson’s model even further – and consequently attract-
ing the same points of criticism –, Culpeper (ibid.) also gives a provisional list of
output strategies for positive and negative impoliteness. Accordingly, he issues a
warning to remind his readership that this list is clearly not exhaustive, as strate-
gies always depend upon an appropriate context to be impolite and can also be
47. The distinction between (harmonious) ironic and (disharmonious) sarcastic rudeness,
which is based on the underlying intention of speakers rather than the surface form of poten-
tially ironic or sarcastic utterances, is also shared by Kasper (1990: 210f.) and Kienpointner
(1997: 263).
conveyed by paralinguistic and non-verbal means such as the avoidance of eye-

contact or shouting (Culpeper 1996: 358).
As the three short overviews have proven, it is not necessarily easy to describe
inappropriate behavior based on a model designed for politeness, as strategies
cannot be adopted par for par. To my knowledge, attempts to do so have only
taken recourse to Brown/Levinson’s model, consequently inheriting a lot of its
flaws and shortcomings. It is thus little surprising that such courses of action did
not only result in descriptively inadequate comments on impoliteness, to say the
least (Eelen 2001; Culpeper et al. 2003; Bousfield 2008), but above that, impolite-
ness also ran the risk of being discredited as “the parasite of politeness” (Culpeper
1996: 355). Accordingly, and also true to the corresponding word formation pro-
cess behind it, impoliteness was simply regarded as the polar opposite of polite-
ness. An admittedly naïve equation based on an extremely oversimplified notion
of politeness could therefore read as follows: impoliteness is attributed to the non-
adherence or even the deliberate and conscious violation of socially sanctioned
rights and obligations of politeness, like the lack of particles such as please, thank
you, and sorry when expected by interlocutors in a particular situation. Back in
1973, Lakoff agreed with this premature point of view in arguing that impoliteness
was simply the absence of politeness and a form of “plain speaking”. Beside the
fact that we do not know what exactly Lakoff considers to be “absence” of polite-
ness, this assessment strongly contradicts with insights gained through Locher/
Watts’ classification of relational work (see 5.3): A “lack of politeness” in whatever
form does not automatically equal with impolite and inappropriate behavior, but
might just as well be considered as non-polite and perfectly appropriate behavior.
The polar perspective thus cannot be upheld.
Regarding politeness as the norm and rudeness as “merely pragmatic failure
at achieving that norm” (Beebe 1995: 156) needs to be discarded as a simplistic
myth as well. A closer look into the matter easily proves that impoliteness is just
as multi-faceted as politeness. A by all means perfect example to illustrate that
point is presented by Beebe (1995: 161): In a busy New York restaurant, a group
of people were repeatedly asked by different waiters if they would care to order.
As they had made it plain that they intended to have a discussion over lunch and
would therefore take their time over their meal, the attentiveness of the wait-
ers “seemed to reflect a desire on the part of the waiters to get it over with, not
a policy regarding length of stay, a lack of communication among waiters, or a
problem with crowding, so it was viewed as rude”. This scenario proves the point
that “pushy politeness”, as Beebe termed this special instance of over-politeness,
is most probably evaluated as a case of negatively marked behavior. Beebe con-
cludes that impoliteness is not automatically a failure to be polite, but that it can,
www.ebook777.com
on the contrary, also be a matter of tactic motivation and thus in fact “a reflec-
tion of pragmatic competence” (1995: 154) for the achievement of certain aims in
a conversation. Impoliteness is thus non-cooperative but still (mostly) rational
behavior.
5.5 Distinguishing types of inappropriate behavior:

Impoliteness vs. rudeness
The remarkable terminological haziness between the two concepts of impoliteness

and rudeness has often been tried to be explained away with respect to speakers’
intentions. Terkourafi, for example, remarks that “[p]inning down the speaker’s in-
tention plays a decisive role for charting one’s subsequent course of action [which
is why] resolving the speaker’s intention cannot be dispensed with” (2008: 62).
This entails, however, a severe problem, as vital importance is placed on yet an-
other flighty and indeterminable factor for the assessment of the appropriateness
of speakers’ (non)verbal behavior. Terkourafi is very aware of the fact that there
is no way of undoubtedly attaching these two labels to authentic conversations
based on intentions, as they are not available for open inspection. Speaking with
Culpeper et al., “[i]nterlocutors do not wear their intentions on their sleeves [and]
what is in people’s heads is accessible neither to analysts nor to interlocutors (nor
even, ultimately, fully accessible to those whose behaviour is under investiga-
tion)” (2003: 1552, with reference to Grimshaw 1990: 281). Observing analysts
cannot count on participants’ openly sharing their true intentions with others
either because, as a matter of fact, candid statements about their intentions do not
necessarily have to mirror the truth but can be deliberately deceiving.
Before, however, we start to use impoliteness and rudeness synonymously or
choose one over the other in default of a reliable distinctive criterion, I intend
to uphold Terkourafi’s (2008: 62) definition according to which impoliteness is
regarded as accidental and sometimes attributed to speakers’ ignorance or in-
competence (as in cross-cultural communication), while rudeness is described
as intentional. Rudeness is thus regarded as prototypically non-cooperative com-
municative behavior which usually destabilizes personal relationships between
interactants. As examples of unintentional, hence accidental and unmotivated
impoliteness, Kienpointner (1997: 269) invokes the impolite behavior of chil-
dren and foreigners, who just do not know better (yet). In both cases, we can
witness the consequences of insufficient linguistic and/or cultural knowledge,
which Thomas (1983) calls “pragmatic failure”. But even adults within the same
culture or language can produce impoliteness in the form of slips of the tongue or
Freudian slips (Kienpointner 1997: 269). In the following, I will give preference to

the notion of impoliteness, reserving rudeness only for specific cases in which we
have at least some kind of evidence that the speaker acted with bad intentions to
willfully commit a face-threatening act.
Another way of approaching the matter is by examining the different func-
tions of impoliteness which entails the appealing question whether it is inevitable
to consider impoliteness as inappropriate behavior once and for all – especially
in view of concepts such as Leech’s (1983) mock-impoliteness or banter, which call
into play a vital function of impoliteness in human communication. Following
Kasper’s definition, mock-impoliteness “extends to utterances which are overtly
impolite yet blatantly false in their propositional content, and are thus understood
as joking behavior” (1990: 211). Obviously, we are dealing with a completely dif-
ferent function of impoliteness, one that is extremely marked, yet – in contrast to
all the other functions mentioned before – in a positive rather than in a negative
way. Strictly speaking, it is thus not even a kind of impoliteness – least not when
we look at its function and not at its form – because it is not at all face-threaten-
ing but on the contrary face-maintaining or even face-enhancing. For this reason,
superficially impolite utterances cannot automatically be judged as inappropriate
once and for all, which is why I propose a differentiation between two functions of
impoliteness, which are based on the (intended or unintended) effect a speaker’s
utterance has on his interlocutor’s face (see Table 7).
The advantage of this model is its hearer-orientation. We are not reliant on
non-tangible speakers’ intentions of whatever nature, but can base our judgments
on parameters which are comparatively easy to access: hearers’ reactions, which
mirror their evaluations of the appropriateness of utterances at least to some de-
gree. As discussed before, the differentiation between the notion of impoliteness
or rudeness within the left column remains problematic, as it strongly depends on
Table 7. Types of impoliteness according to face-orientation

Types of impoliteness according to face-orientation
face-threatening face-maintaining / face-enhancing
negatively marked impoliteness: (positively) marked “impoliteness”:48
– impoliteness – mock-impoliteness
– rudeness – banter
= inappropriate = appropriate
48. Strictly speaking, the term impoliteness can only be used for a superficial, formal descrip-
tion. From a functional perspective, however, we are clearly not dealing with impoliteness at
all.
www.ebook777.com
Table 8. Modified model of relational work

Relational work
negatively (positively) unmarked positively negatively
marked marked marked marked
impolite mock-impolite non-polite polite over-polite
rude banter mock-polite
inappropriate appropriate appropriate appropriate inappropriate
the state of evidence for speakers’ negative intentions. With these two functions
of impoliteness separated, we can now add a new column to Locher/Watts’ (2005)
framework of relational work, representing (positively) marked “impolite” behav-
ior as displayed in Table 8. This new column enriches the original model with
one more variety of appropriate behavior – only this time in combination with
formally “impolite” behavior. As this type of formal impoliteness is extremely
marked, rather positively than negatively, the next chapter will reveal the working
principles behind both types of “appropriate impoliteness”.
5.6 Appropriate impoliteness: Mock-impoliteness and banter
Although swearwords and “other linguistic phenomena which are assumed to

be typical examples of rudeness49 in many languages/cultures, for instance loud-
ness of voice (shouting), frequent interruptions, bare imperatives, taboo words,
ironic remarks, aggressive jokes, indirect attacks, etc.” (Kienpointner 1997: 255)
are strongly biased towards an impolite interpretation – at least from a purely
formal point of view –, they might as well be a sign of something completely dif-
ferent: familiarity, solidarity or even a signal of intimacy (cf. Lachenicht 1980: 608;
Leech 1983: 144; Terkourafi 2008: 68). In this case, mock-impoliteness and banter
are instances of a special type of “impoliteness that remains on the surface, since
it is understood that it is not intended to cause offence” (Culpeper 1996: 352).
As established before, a prototypical feature of impoliteness, non-cooperativeness
(cf. Kienpointner 1997: 258), does not hold for these two kinds of appropriate im-
politeness. A closer look at the characteristic workings of these two phenomena
49. For the sake of legibility, one needs to keep in mind that Kienpointner (1997) prefers the
term rudeness over impoliteness. The use of the term rudeness thus only mirrors Kienpointner’s
wording. It is not, however, used intentionally to imply the difference between the two notions
as established above.
might help us tell them apart. In order to do so, let us start with Leech, who intro-
duced the banter principle:
In order to show solidarity with h, say something which is (i) obviously untrue,
and (ii) obviously impolite to h [which leads to the interpretation that] what s
says is impolite to h and is clearly untrue. Therefore what s really means is polite
to h and true. (1983: 144)
Whether utterances as those described by Leech are automatically polite just

because they are not impolite has been questioned before. It should go without
saying that mock-impoliteness as well as banter can only be assessed correctly
and thus appreciated if interlocutors know each other well. Otherwise, utterances
such as “You silly bugger” (Kienpointner 1997: 261) could easily be misinterpret-
ed as truly face-threatening, when used between relative strangers. Kienpointner
interposes that although mock-impoliteness can be a bit risky in rather formal
circumstances, it can nevertheless be successfully used to relax the stiff atmo-
sphere (1997: 262). The question whether interlocutors who are in fact close to
each other still sense the slightest face-threat within mock-impoliteness or ban-
ter can only be answered individually by the interlocutors involved. I argue that
if mock-impoliteness and banter are appropriate in a given context, chances are
rather slim that a face-threat is actually perceived. On the contrary, odds are that
a face-maintaining, if not even a face-enhancing stance is detected by the hearer;
according to Leech, banter reflects and fosters social intimacy (1983: 144). He also
points out that in intimate relationships, the necessity and importance to show
politeness tends to decrease (ibid.). Consequently, not showing explicit means of
politeness and even being superficially impolite can paradoxically be associated
with and promote intimacy (cf. Culpeper 1996: 352).
In fact, Wolfson (1988: 32) came to the same conclusion: In closely exam-
ining social distance, Wolfson’s bulge model of interaction shows that “speech
behavior tends to be most frequent and most elaborated between those who
are acquaintances and casual friends, rather than between intimates or strang-
ers” (Holmes 1995: 13). With intimates and strangers marking the two extreme
poles on a scale of minimal and maximal social distance respectively, Wolfson
perceives a bulge-shaped curve spanning between these two extremes: While be-
havior among intimates and strangers seems to show great similarities in terms
of reduced (interpersonal) attention, there is a marked difference in the more
elaborate interpersonal behavior of acquaintances and casual friends at the center
of the bulge. Wolfson explains her findings with the relative degree of stability of
the relationships involved.
www.ebook777.com
Although mock-impoliteness and banter are often used synonymously, the

latter one stands out as being more ritualized in form, which is why Kienpointner
uses the term ritual insults50 in his taxonomy, defining them as “sophisticated
systems of syntactic and semantic rules […], known in different languages and
cultures all over the world, especially among young male adults” (Kienpointner
1997: 262f.). As a kind of language game, known in America as sounding, playing
the dozens or signifying, it usually takes place particularly amongst black adoles-
cents (cf. Labov 1972; Culpeper 1996: 353). On the basis of shared knowledge
within a peer group (see Section 6.3), the key to understanding ritualized banter
lies in taking insults in a non-serious way and perceiving them as obviously un-
true. Only then can banter be considered as a game: purely competitive, totally
detached from actual facework, with winners (those who have the widest range
of insults at hand) and losers. Ritual insults thus do not endanger social relation-
ships but are often used as “a societal safety valve” (Culpeper 1996: 353), which
enhances group solidarity. Unlike real insults, “the more exaggerated ritual insults
are, the less they are in danger of being taken seriously” (Kienpointner 1997: 263).
Typical cases of banter are introduced by Labov in his renowned study Language
in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular (1972). The target of these
insults usually being someone’s mother, those forms of banter also go by the name
Yo Mam(m)a Jokes:
J1: Your mother take a swim in the gutter.
J2: Your mother live in a garbage can.
J1: Least I don’t live in 1122 Boogie Woogie Avenue, two garbage cans to the
right. (1972: 319)
Labov (1972) warns that it is consequently the “weak” insults which may cause the
most trouble, as this kind of behavior may be interpreted as real personal insults
and thus as truly inappropriate behavior (cf. Culpeper 1996: 353). In equal rela-
tionships, impoliteness has a tendency to escalate due to a lack of “a default mech-
anism by which one participant achieves the upper hand” (1996: 355). An insult
can thereby trigger a counter-insult which may set in motion a spiral of insults,
possibly even including physical violence. This leads us to the dynamics of insults
and corresponding counter-measures as described by the notion of flaming.
50. Ritual insults can also be witnessed in army recruit training discourse, where they appear to
be the norm rather than the exception. Drill sergeants’ behaviors may or may not be evaluated
by recruits as impolite, as the face-threat is based on “ritualized and institutionalized codes of
linguistic behavior” (Mills 2005: 270).
5.7 Strings of inappropriate online behavior: Flaming
[L]ay observers commonly represent flaming as a highly negative message that func-
tions like a metaphorical flamethrower that the sender uses to roast the receiver
verbally. (O’Sullivan/Flanagin 2003: 68f.)
The presumed reasons for the occurrence of flaming – among them anonym-
ity, text-based communication without social context cues, an initial lack of a
normative code of conduct, cultural diversity and disparate interests, needs and
expectations – have already been outlined in Section 2.6.1. In the past, this term
has been used abundantly to label the most diverse phenomena: swearing, insults
and name-calling, but also an increased willingness to communicate bad news or
negative information or even expressions of personal, emotional feelings towards
other people. It is therefore imperative to delineate the notion of flaming as pre-
cisely as possible.51
Originally borrowed from computer subculture, to flame meant “to speak
incessantly and/or rabidly on some relatively uninteresting subject or with the
patently ridiculous attitude” (Steele 1983: 63) – not only in CMC but in general.
Flaming in this sense was thus equaled with violations of Grice’s maxims. In recent
years, however, semantic changes of this notion seem to have limited its scope of
application to forms of computer-mediated communication only. According to
general consensus, flaming is “hostile and aggressive interaction” (Thurlow et al.
2004: 70) directed towards an immediate interlocutor. Accordingly, my reading of
flaming is restricted to ad hominem attacks only. Whether repetitious punctua-
tion, constant capitalization, swearing and other expressive and uninhibited ver-
bal means count as flaming, needs to be decided by interlocutors, making flaming
another emergent and evaluative notion. Being a co-constructed phenomenon
very similar to other types of inappropriate behavior, we cannot speak of flaming
if nobody seems to take offence (cf. Avgerinakou 2003: 276), which is why we are
again reliant on interlocutors’ (explicit) reactions. What is more, flaming in tight-
knit groups is not automatically negative and destructive but can, on the contrary,
be used just like mock-impoliteness or banter to express identification with the
group and convey a sense of belonging and camaraderie. Since “affiliation reduces
the danger of threats to interpersonal face” (Arndt/Janney 22005: 39), the term
pseudo-flaming or even mock-flaming clearly is in order in these cases.
51. For an ample collection of definitional approaches to the notion of flaming see Turnage
(2007).
www.ebook777.com
If the notion of flaming encompasses the same interpersonal functions as

impoliteness, or even rudeness, and mock-impoliteness – only in an online con-
text – how come we need this additional notion at all? As a matter of fact, there
is only one characteristic that does set flaming apart from all the other notions,
prompting some users to even speak of flame wars for dramatic effects: Flames
can only be witnessed in strings of utterances, the minimum being two causally
but not necessarily spatially consecutive inappropriate entries, in which one im-
polite utterance is followed by another and maybe even by yet another. In other
words, flames involve one, sometimes more users in reciprocally exchanging ad
hominem attacks, which can be interspersed with unmarked, pacifying comments
of third party interlocutors. Thus describing a structural quality rather than a
functional one, the notion of flaming does not qualify to be incorporated into
Locher/Watts’ (2005) framework of relational work. It could, however, be seen as
a structural hyperonym to all the other types of inappropriate behavior – at least
for the sphere of online interaction.
The notion of flame war is insofar more fortunate as it reflects the dialogic or
even polylogic quality of a process, which continues until one of the parties in-
volved gets bored and is too tired to continue. To illustrate this process, Shea cites
a USENET (see Section 2.4) participant who describes the typical sequence of a
flame war and points out that, at least in his view, they are ubiquitous:
*Every* discussion list of which I have been a part – no matter what its subject –
has fallen victim to such ills – a few have gone down in e-flames. The pattern is
absolutely consistent. Writer A drops a light remark – always *tangential* to the
main discussion. Writer B interprets the message in the worst possible light and
fires off an outraged reply, in which writer A is called a racist, a classist, a fas-
cist – whatever seems to apply. Writers C-L chime in, rather like the crowds in a
DeMille film, muttering ‘Shame!’ or ‘I agree!’ or ‘A is right!’ or ‘B is right!’ Writer
A replies saying, ‘Gosh, it was just a joke. I’m not a fascist. Lighten up.’ Writer B
says, ‘This issue (the South, date rape, Nicaragua) is DEADLY SERIOUS. I won’t
lighten up. I won’t.’ By the time things have cooled down, Writers A and B have
left the list; or Writers N-DD have left the list; or the list has died. These are not
*odd* occasions – they happen to *every list.* (1994: 73)
Investigating ways of resolving attacks in a USENET group, Baker (2001) lists and
explains the following, CMC-specific strategies:
1. Advocate “sympathy/understanding” (albeit issued with a patronizing and

superior tone, one of the least aggressive resolution strategies);
2. Laissez-faire (ignore the attacker);
3. Flame (by far the most common resolution strategy was to respond in kind);
4. Threat of physical violence (less common, more aggressive and probably face-
tious means of challenging);
5. Censorship (complaining to the postmaster in charge to express intention of
denying the attacker e-mail access, in effect to censor him);
6. Exposure (outing a user by listing all of his postings to a Usenet group, about
any subject, thus substantiating any antagonistic tendencies).
In fact, flames hardly ever arrive in an agreement between the opponents. Third
party interventions, on the other hand, are all the more common and involve
other users in attempting to reconcile or least to silence the flaming parties. In
this regard, the fifth strategy, the contacting of the attacker’s system administrator,
can be seen as the last and certainly most extreme resort in online environments
(Lee 2005: 388).
5.8 Summary: Implications of an integrative perspective for the analysis
In the course of finding a working definition for politeness from a postmodern,

discursive point of view, a strategy for the handling of the slippery notion of po-
liteness in the forthcoming empirical analysis emerged. It became obvious that
labeling utterances as polite always involves a certain amount of subjectivity on
the part of the observing analyst. This bias can, however, be reduced by allocat-
ing the hearer perspective, i.e. fellow users involved in a string of message board
conversation, and contextual variables a central position within the analytical
framework.
Above that, the notion of politeness was put in perspective and integrated
in Locher/Watts’ framework of relational work. With the advent of appropriate
behavior, the scope of politeness was reduced considerably, leaving only those ut-
terances to the label polite which feature a surplus of consideration towards inter-
locutors. This revised notion of politeness was then contrasted with inappropriate
behavior. The vagueness between the two terms impoliteness and rudeness could
not, however, be eliminated completely since the only difference lies in a willfully
hurtful intention on part of the speaker in the case of rudeness, which can, of
course, never be proven without doubt in actual data.
A special case of impoliteness could be found in mock-impoliteness (and its
ritualized version banter): Utterances which appear impolite and hurtful on the
surface level actually aim at creating solidarity and consequently usually lack any
face-threatening force. In the right context, mock-impoliteness as (positively)
marked behavior is thus absolutely appropriate. As a distinct type of relation-
al work, it was assigned a place of its own in Locher/Watts’ model, which was
www.ebook777.com
expanded accordingly to serve as a profound basis for the upcoming empirical

analysis.
The last of the subtypes of impoliteness to be distinguished, flaming, was not
granted that privilege, since it cannot be set apart from types of impoliteness
functionally. It can, however, be considered a hyperonym of negatively marked
behavior of whatever sort, as it designates a particular structural feature that can
theoretically be sported by all of them: strings of utterances which are used to
reciprocate inappropriate behavior over a longer stretch of time.
www.ebook777.com
chapter 6
Prelude to the analysis

Gathering contextual factors
6.1 Introduction
[C]ontext can be the whole world in relation to an utterance. (Pinkal 1985: 36)
As already hinted in previous chapters, it is imperative to base “objective” analy-

ses52 of interlocutors’ interpersonal relations and their very own assessments
thereof on two major keystones: speakers’ and hearers’ (non)verbal actions and
reactions as well as contextual factors, which might have influenced these kinds of
(non)verbal choices in the first place. The relation between these two cornerstones
is depicted by Goodwin/Duranti (1992: 3) through the simple binary distinction
between figure and ground, as the notion of context involves “a fundamental jux-
taposition of two entities: (1) a focal event; and (2) a field of action within which
that event is embedded.” Although contextual factors certainly help solidify judg-
ments which would otherwise be based on hearers’ (non)verbal reactions alone,
[…] it is often difficult to put one’s finger on exactly what aspects of the situation
ought to count as context and sometimes even more difficult for the analyst to
gain access to those aspects of the communication, especially when they involve
the ‘private’ actions of people sitting alone in front of their computer screens.
(Jones, R. 2002: 21)
Observing outsiders can therefore barely guess which of these factors actually
triggered a certain assessment and to which degree. As this will remain the hear-
er’s secret – just like the intentions behind a speaker’s utterance – we always run
the risk of over- or underestimating certain variables. What is worse, we might
not even have access to some or be aware of other variables.
The intriguing notion of context has been in the center of pragmatic attention
since the discipline’s inauguration and has ever since been used as a pretext to
52. Despite arduous efforts to consult all kinds of sources for an analysis that is as objective as
can be, we are always left with a subjective tinge of the analyst’s very own perspective. Accord-
ing to Ehlich, the object of study “can only be researched from within, not from some seemingly
external position” (22005: 74).
explain away unexpected results of analyses. But what exactly does context stand
for? Taking Schmid’s proposal as a first landmark, context is “anything that can
have influence on the interpretation of an utterance” (2002: 435). As convenient
and appealing as this description may seem, this broad definition certainly needs
refinement. First and foremost, context is never a fixed and solid entity which is
simply “out there” for us to find. We should therefore stick to those approaches
which point out that context is, in fact, a cognitive construct, which is just as
emergent and dynamic a notion as is politeness, because in speaking and under-
standing, speakers and hearers create current contexts for current utterances (cf.
Goodwin/Duranti 1992; Gumperz 1992; Quasthoff 1994; Bazzanella 2002; Bublitz
2003 and Clark 2006). This can easily be illustrated considering the fact that the
moment a thought is uttered, it instantaneously becomes part of the context and
thus relevant for the interpretation of the following as well as the preceding utter-
ances. What is more, contextual factors, such as power relations, do not stand in
a simple unidirectional cause and effect relationship with politeness and related
phenomena. On the contrary, the dialectic relationship between the two leads to
a transformation of both interpersonal relations and contextual factors within
communicative exchanges (cf. Kasper 1990: 203). To a greater or lesser extent,
contexts are thus constantly changing. Consequently, Schmid fittingly remarks
that “context resides neither in the surrounding text nor in the situation, but in
the mind” (2002: 442). For this reason, context is “never completely shared by
participants” (Auer 1995: 13). This is especially true for CMC in general and mes-
sage board interaction in particular, where users usually participate from separate
places and time (cf. Chapter 2).
There are, however, some influential variables which are not liable to change
and which can thus indeed be shared completely by participants. Bublitz regards
these factors as “the given infrastructure of an utterance” (2003: 382, original em-
phasis), which he calls environment, thereby stressing its rather stable nature in
contrast to the fluctuating character of context. Of course, not all of these “re-
sources” (cf. Mercer 2000: 44) within the environment are automatically relevant
for the ongoing interpretative process since only those which have in fact signifi-
cance for the negotiation of meaning are turned into context. Following Bublitz,
“context is interpreted environment” (2003: 383).
As a prelude to the analysis, this chapter tries to bring together those influ-
encing variables from the online and the offline world which presumably have an
impact on the interpretation of interpersonal relations in online message boards
(cf. Savas 2011 for chats). May the determination of relevant contextual factors be
a diligent task for FtF interaction, it is even more so for CMC, where possibilities
to monitor our interlocutors’ faceted social presence in multiple social situations
www.ebook777.com
Chapter 6. Prelude to the analysis 107
Table 9. Three dimensions of context

Dimensions
– personal (context) – location
– interpersonal (context) – accessibility
– (extra-) medial (environment) – verifiability
are clearly limited. The framework for the investigation of contextual factors in
message boards used in this chapter is based on earlier approaches such as Firth
(1957), Hymes (1974, 1986), Murray (1988), Herring (2007) etc. Although the
eight components of Hymes’ model for the ethnography of speaking (setting/scene,
participants, ends, act sequence, key, instrumentalities, norms, and genre) will
partly resurface within the three major categories proposed here, the tripartite
structure itself is reminiscent of Murray’s proposal to distinguish between three
dimensions: the participant, the activity being engaged in (the interpersonal axis),
and the physical dimension or setting (including both the physical environment
in which communication takes place as well as the various channels available for
communication). In maintaining Bublitz’ differentiation between (emergent)
context and (static) environment and by ascribing message board specific loca-
tion, accessibility and verifiability to these dimensions, the following analytical
grid presents itself (see Table 9).
Emphasizing once more the interrelations between the online and the offline
sphere, users automatically draw on their FtF experiences and expectations – even
or especially in the context of context. For that reason, online interaction can-
not be divorced from offline contexts and a good deal of shared understanding
among participants (even among newbies) is directly imported from the offline
world. Although most of these factors can easily be compared to those regularly
occurring in FtF interaction, some of them may reappear as a medium specific
equivalent in message boards.
6.2 The participant: Personal contextual factors
The first dimension is solely dedicated to the participant, dealing with all those
factors of a user’s personal background which can but do not necessarily have to
be turned into context for the evaluation of (interpersonal) utterances:
– appearance: voice, bodily features, clothes etc.;

– demographics: gender, age, ethnicity, social class, educational level, occupa-
tion, status, region etc.;
– current feelings, moods etc.;

– cultural background;
– knowledge gathered in past experiences.
Although neatly ordered in a list, which makes no claim of being exhaustive, it is

the interplay of all these (and coming) factors within a user’s mind, which turns
their demarcation as influencing variables into a guessing game. While most of
the factors are quite straightforward, others are in themselves indistinct, which is
why at least for the last two bullet points, some elucidations are in order.
Culture is insofar an important influencing variable as it sets the course for
participants’ very particular face sensitivities,53 strategies in relational work, as well
as conceptions of (role-related) rights and obligations (Spencer-Oatey 2002: 543)
(cf. social norm view, Section 4.2). Naturally, “people from different cultures often
have not only different ideas about what counts as language, but also different
ideas about what count as imposing, options, friendliness, dominance, support-
iveness, and other key concepts” (Arndt/Janney 22005: 29f.). Accordingly, users’
expectations and interpretation of their own as well as their interlocutors’ be-
havior are closely linked to their cultural background. Culture is also a dynamic
notion, which can be defined as “traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected)
ideas and especially their attached values” (Clyne 1994: 2). In focusing on its in-
ner make-up, Spencer-Oatey adds that culture is “a fuzzy set of attitudes, beliefs,
behavioural conventions, and basic assumptions and values that are shaped by a
group of people” (2000a: 4). In structuring these components, she regards basic
assumptions and values as belonging to the inner core, while attitudes, beliefs and
social conventions are part of the outer core, resulting in (non-)verbal surface-
level behavioral manifestations (ibid.), which are hence only the condensate of the
underlying cultural framework and need to be evaluated as such.
These are, of course, only two of numerous ways to define this notoriously dif-
ficult term. As Watts points out, its use “ranges from national groupings, through
languages, gender-specific differences, social classes, subcultures determined
by interest groups, age groups, in-groups, etc. and back to broad, sweeping no-
tions such as ‘western European and North American culture’, ‘Asian culture’”
(2003: 101). For the purpose at hand, I will stick to the above definitions, keeping
in mind that even with a clear-cut, comprehensive definition of culture at hand,
there is no way for us to access users’ real life cultural influences, as they are si-
multaneously members of different cultural groups anyway. Even more so in CMC
environments, where we can only keep our eyes open for implicit clues within
53. For a comprehensive and supposedly universal framework of ten value constructs, which
form the basis of individual face sensitivities, see Schwartz (1992) and Schwartz et al. (2001).
www.ebook777.com
users’ messages: As studies by Johnstone/Bean (1997: 222f.) have proven, speakers

deliberately choose how they sound, meaning that conscious speech choices are
used as an instrument to identify with larger groups or individuals. These choices
concern all levels of language (among them dialect stereotypes, unconventional
figurative language, poetic repetition, alliterations etc.) and can serve as devices
for the creation of a personal style and thus a social self.
Although users’ points of views are clearly biased by their cultural background,
they are not submissive puppets on a string. On the contrary, their very own expe-
riences as individuals within cultures must be ascribed equal importance, which
brings us to the last item on the list: knowledge gathered in past experiences. Obvi-
ously interwoven with the notion of culture, a special form of shared knowledge,
it encompasses not only interactional patterns, proficiencies and skills with re-
gard to language but also knowledge on how to handle a computer, what to do in
CMC and how to communicate via TSR. These random examples of past experi-
ences can be grouped into types of knowledge, the first basic distinction being the
one between procedural knowledge (‘knowing how to’) and factual or declarative
knowledge (‘knowing that’ or ‘knowing about’) (Rumelhart/Norman 1981).
The latter notion comprises three further subtypes: Linguistic knowledge de-
scribes the knowledge of the general principles and strategies of human verbal
interaction. Tulving (1972: 386) compares it to “a mental thesaurus, organized
knowledge a person possesses about words and other verbal symbols, their mean-
ing and referents, about relations among them, and about rules, formulas, and
algorithms for the manipulation of these symbols, concepts, and relations”. With
a view to this type of knowledge, we have to remember that, in theory, message
boards are open for everyone all over the world, not only native speakers of Eng-
lish. Linguistic knowledge, just like any other type of knowledge, is thus totally
user-specific and can differ immensely among users.
Another important component of factual knowledge is episodic knowledge
(also known as episodic memory) which “is concerned with unique, concrete, per-
sonal experience dated in the rememberer’s past” (Tulving 1983: v) – as, in the
context of message board conversations, previous exchanges with other users. In
Tannen’s words, “[i]n a series of conversations between the same people, each
encounter bears the burdens as well as the fruits of earlier ones” (1992: 23). In
message boards, these burdens and fruits are put down in writing, as these en-
counters are automatically stored in archives. One could therefore say that (parts
of) a user’s message board related episodic knowledge is preserved and portrayed
electronically – not unlike a diary open to public – to be accessed by anyone, any
time (see Section 2.4). Due to these message board structures and in contrast to
FtF communication, it is extremely easy for rather personal episodic knowledge
to “go public”, first and foremost by quoting older posts from the archive, thus
transforming them from comparatively private to public knowledge, ready to be

shared by the entire CoP.
This transformation is most natural for the third and last type of factual
knowledge: Semantic or conceptual knowledge is easily turned into shared knowl-
edge since it “refers to a person’s abstract, timeless knowledge of the world that he
shares with others” (Tulving 1983: v). Conceptional knowledge, like being famil-
iar with the concept of a computer or a message board, is insofar impersonal, as
it is detached from and independent of personally experienced episodic memory
dated in the past.
As has become obvious in the last paragraph, it is imperative for users to share
at least part of their knowledge with interlocutors in their CoP in order to secure
smooth and trouble-free conversation. This is all the more endangered the less
overlap between users’ mutual knowledge or common ground (Clark 1982, 2006)
there is, including expectations for appropriate behavior. In a nutshell,
the more convergent people’s situational assumptions are in a given instance, the
more they feel that they understand each other; and the more divergent their
situational assumptions are, the less they feel that they understand each other.
Conflicts arise when people repeatedly fail to achieve some type of convergence.
(Arndt/Janney 22005: 32)
Looking back at the introductory list, it is fairly obvious that most of its factors
are rooted in the offline world. Therefore, it is interesting to see if and how they
can be transferred online. Table 10 gives an overview of TSR templates and other
structural features of this particular message board (see Section 2.6.2) which offer
users a platform for self-portrayal, also including explicit self-definitions within
the verbalized contents of posts, which are typical for message board newbies.
Obviously, users and their individual traits are in fact visible in each and ev-
ery post they submit: As Table 10 shows, most of the user related information is
presented in the form of pre-filled templates, which are inserted automatically in
each post. Above that, peripheral elements outside of the post, which accompany
contributions but are not an integral part thereof, can further substantiate (but
also contradict) first impressions. Finally, users have the opportunity to round off
their self-portrayal independent of templates and in various ways by manipulating
and playing with the contents of their posts as such. What is interesting is the fact
that users are virtually “present” even if they are not participating synchronously:
By means of older posts and said central and peripheral elements, their self-pre-
sentation is available even if the person is not. In this sense, users always inhabit
both offline and online environments simultaneously, which led some researchers
to consider the self as multiple (Stone 1995; Turkle 1995). R. Jones speaks of “a
www.ebook777.com
Table 10. Message board structures for self-portrayal

Central elements Peripheral elements
(within the post) (outside of the posts)
Template dependent – n ickname – p rofile information
inserted automatically – a vatar – links to personal
– labels webpages, weblogs,
– s tatistics facebook accounts and
– s ignature other social network
– r eputation system sites
– s ocieties
Template independent – e mbedded objects (real life pictures,
inserted individually sound files, videos, etc.)
– e xplicit self-definitions
– i diosyncratic formal make-up of
posts (fonts, sizes, colors, emoticons,
capitalizations, emotes, etc.)
new kind of interactional accessibility involving new ways of being present and
monitoring others’ presence” (2002: 17, original emphasis).
Still, a lot of details that make an individual unique cannot be expressed
through templates or other message board specific compensatory mechanisms
to mimic FtF or real life conditions. This holds especially true for those features
which cannot be captured in numbers or pictures but which have to be distilled
from whatever can be read between the lines in messages, such as a person’s cul-
tural background or educational level, to name but two. Regarding the search for
users’ background information, Herring points out that a lot of information “is
given off largely unconsciously by [users’] sophistication of language use, includ-
ing adherence to prescriptive norms” (2001: 621), thus possibly revealing more
authentic information than any strategically filled template ever could. While de-
liberately stated information indicates how one wishes to be perceived, there are
also much more subtle, even unintentional clues slipping almost unnoticed as,
for example, contained in writing style, proper use of abbreviations and the like
within messages. Although both forms of expressions can be used strategically,
the second one is certainly much harder to control (cf. Donath 1999: 38).
In any event, we cannot assume that all personal factors, whether given con-
sciously or not, are carried over truthfully, as “the presentation of self is tilted away
from the physical axis [which] paves the way for the manipulated presentation of
alternative, ephemeral, and disposable selves through our relationships with oth-
ers” (Lea/Spears 1995: 220). Theoretically, this means that the technical make-up
of message boards leave a lot of leeway for their users to creatively reinterpret
Table 11. Users’ options for self-portrayal online

Mirroring self → Masquerading self → Borrowing self → Fabricating self
real : virtual = 1:1 slight alterations, pretending to be 100% fictitious
(“WYSIWYG”) foregrounding or someone else
downplaying traits
++ degree of authenticity ––
and manipulate their self-portrayal online. This can be achieved either by leaving
out or de-emphasizing certain individual traits or by foregrounding, altering or
plainly inventing others. Table 11 depicts a scalar chart of users’ options for self-
portrayal with two extreme poles and a gradual decrease of authenticity.
In order for us to verify users’ self-presentations, we would need access to
their real life data to make the comparison. But there lies the rub: With the excep-
tion of those rare cases in which we know our interlocutors from previous FtF
encounters, there is no way for us to access “the real person” behind the keyboard.
Since even personal information made explicit in users’ posts or portrayed on
users’ personal webpages, weblogs, facebook-accounts and the like can be a hoax,
we have to settle for dealing with online personae of varying degrees of truthful-
ness. Hints to a user’s potential insincerity and attempt to deceive could, however,
be found in the rare but nevertheless possible cases of contradicting information
given about an online persona. In any case, the consequence of not really know-
ing about interlocutors – be it from an inside (user) or from an outside (observer)
perspective – remains the same: Users’ perceptions of interactions and our assess-
ments thereof can exhibit discrepancies. Despite or even because of the fact that
our analyses are based on message contents and on possibly doctored contextual
factors, our input could, in the worst case, be contradictory.
In this connection, several questions have been posed repeatedly: How big
are the differences between online personae and their real life originators, sitting
in flesh and blood behind their keyboards? In other word: How much identity
construction is really going on in message boards? Is it as bad as it appears to
be? Is the term identity construction even justified or should we talk about face
constitution instead? Especially with regard to our key concepts, relational work
and facework, we have to ask ourselves how face is actually constituted in this
computer-mediated environment.
www.ebook777.com
6.2.1 Face constitution in online message boards
[W]e can be multiple, a different person… each time we enter cyberspace, playing
with our identities, taking ourselves apart and rebuilding ourselves in endless new
configurations. (Bell 2000: 3)
The first step in answering all these questions and in validating the substance of
the above quote certainly lies in a distinction between identity and face, two terms
which should be kept apart carefully (cf. Cupach/Metts 1994; Ting-Toomey 1988;
Tracy 1990). While face is the epitome of social self is a dynamic, emergent no-
tion, which is constantly negotiated in interaction (see Section 4.3), identity is an
individual, much broader phenomenon (Arundale 2006: 202). Admittedly, both
notions have a lot in common: They are both interrelated and multi-faceted as
they are composed of multiple attributes and arise, are maintained and changed
with the help of others in dialectic processes – each to a certain extent. For this
reason, Giddens (1991) refers to identity as “projects of the self ” which are under
current, life-long construction. We should not make the mistake of considering
identity as something unitary, fixed and stable per se, which has matured com-
pletely by the time we reach adulthood (Thurlow et al. 2004: 97). In comparison
to the chameleonic notion of face, however, identity appears to be the more stable
of the two concepts as it is face rather than identity which stresses the “centrality
of human communication in forming and sustaining the social self ” (Arundale
2006: 200). Consequently, I side with Spencer-Oatey (2007: 642), who considers
identity to be relatively stable and enduring “cognitive representations” which are
formed by speakers, telling them who they are.
This can be illustrated with the help of the following example: Those who have
tried to rid themselves of bad habits or of unattractive character traits, such as
smoking or making hasty judgments about people, know how hard it is to change
one’s way lastingly. While it is relatively easy to let others think that we have
changed for the better (change of face), it is all the more difficult to allocate these
alterations a permanent place within ourselves (change of identity). Not unlike a
promotional poster, face is indeed “a public self-image” in the best Goffmanian
sense, which means that it does not only encompass “what one thinks of oneself,
but what one thinks others should think of one’s worth” (Spencer-Oatey 2007: 642).
Lines help us create this (momentary) image (used here synonymously with face),
which depends on the hearer to be ratified in a dyadic process (see Figure 11).
Our interlocutor, on the other hand, takes an opportunistic stance towards face
constitution, since or although clues certainly do not superabound. In accordance
with the assumption that we meet like-minded people on the Internet, with whom
we share a great deal of our very own interests, views and values, face is assumed
and holds until proven otherwise (Kendall 1999: 66). It can thus be characterized
as being comparatively more open for change, created to have an effect on our in-
terlocutors, certainly based on our identities but not necessarily a truthful mirror
thereof. Then again identity means our inner make-up, resting upon and solidi-
fied through a variety of influences and episodic and semantic memories of past
experiences, which is only partly open to alteration.
Transferred to the domain of CMC, I proceed from the assumption that us-
ers do not, in fact, (re-)construct their own identities, as these are too deeply en-
trenched constructs within themselves to be altered just by a mouse-click. Instead,
they constitute their online faces for the current purpose and goal of activity by
changing their nickname, avatar or other superficial components of their online
presence. As is often the case with technological innovations, the first explorative
investigations ascribed almost magic potency and unprecedented possibilities of
interaction to CMC. It was then that terms such as netspeak (Crystal 2001) and
online identities were coined. With regard to the latter, Chandler (1998), for ex-
ample, believed that the Web is a truly powerful “technology of self ”, a term used
by Michel Foucault in 1988 to refer to the means with the help of which individuals
represent themselves. Let us follow Chandler’s (1998) train of thought yet a bit fur-
ther: In the text-based world of CMC, in which people talk themselves into exis-
tence and thus construct their identities, these technologies of the self allow us not
only to think about our identity and to transform the way we think of ourselves,
but also to change ourselves to who we want to be. Turkle agrees and claims that
[y]ou can be whoever you want to be. You can completely redefine yourself if
you want. You can be the opposite sex. You can be more talkative. You can be less
talkative. Whatever. You can just be whoever you want really, whoever you have
the capacity to be. You don’t have to worry about the slots other people put you in
as much. It’s easier to change the way people perceive you, because all they’ve got
is what you show them. They don’t look at your body and make assumptions. All
they see is your words. (Turkle 1995: 184)
Meanwhile, however, we have learned not to overestimate the creative power of

CMC, which is why I consider the term identity construction (cf., for example,
Locher 2011) as set too high and thus inappropriate. Instead, I prefer the notion
of face constitution to designate more realistic processes of impression manage-
ment in CMC.
Contrary to common belief, the relatively conscious creation of face is not
a CMC-related innovation, but again an imitation of a procedure that is most
natural in FtF interaction, as users unconsciously orient themselves by familiar
www.ebook777.com
FtF mechanisms: Goffman (cf. 4.3.2) compared social life in general to some kind
of multi-staged drama in which each of us performs different roles in different
social arenas (cf. Meyrowitz 1985: 2). Just like social actors are constantly chang-
ing their costumes and roles, the presentation and texture of their faces (i.e. the
facets they have shown) change accordingly, always with regard to new situations
and audiences. For this reason, the aforementioned “dramaturgical element” of
face constitution (cf. Coupland/Jaworski 2004: 22) should not be overrated, as it is
long since “old hat”: Whether online or offline, the constant activity of represent-
ing ourselves to others accompanies us at every turn, on any stage of life.
Another inherent “item” that accompanies us wherever we go is those basic
human needs which loom behind Brown/Levinson’s bipartite concept of face (see
Section 4.3.1). Logically, these needs for association and dissociation can also be
spotted every so often in message board interaction. From a user’s perspective, the
need for association is evident in his getting involved to varying degrees, either
by (constantly) contributing messages to threads, or by assuming responsibility
in the board (for example as a moderator), by joining “societies” and by extend-
ing his buddy list, to give just a few examples. On the other hand, a user’s need
for dissociation is mirrored in behavior, which aims at keeping one’s distance
and thus guarding one’s privacy and autonomy, for example by using nicknames
and unrelated avatars or by refraining from disclosing (links to) private informa-
tion (such as photos or contact details). Note, however, that avoiding affiliation is
rather atypical for and counterproductive to the collaborative nature of message
boards. This will also become evident in the empirical analysis to come.
Online codes of conduct urge their users, among other things, to respect their
interlocutors’ face needs (see Section 3.3.2). In changing the perspective and fo-
cusing on the interlocutor, we can detect that a user’s need for association is met
when their interlocutor welcomes them, interacts with them, invites them into a
“society” or offers friendship. In Brown/Levinson’s terms, this kind of behavior
would be called positive politeness (see Section 4.3.1). Then again, this need can
be threatened when interaction is withheld, users are ignored or, even worse, bul-
lied or flamed (see Section 5.7). Finally, if interlocutors support a user’s need for
dissociation – thus showing negative politeness in Brown/Levinson’s words – they
respect his privacy, i.e. they accept nicknames and the like as they are. Not show-
ing consideration for this need could be manifest in behavior which pressures a
user to disclose more than he is willing to. In the worst case, interlocutors could
even disclose information about someone single-handedly (such as photos, pri-
vate mails, links etc.). The following example demonstrates the need for associa-
tion and the ratification thereof:
(1) Re: ¡Hola! Soy Lily.
Originally Posted by lilythrash21

Hey, I stumbled upon this site last night and found it interesting,
so I decided to make an account.
Allow me to introduce myself.
I’m Lily, and I’m a Cuban-American in Stamford, CT. I’m a musician,
a photographer, and a writer. I play bass, guitar, and I sing.
I’m not a very low-profile person. XD
Anyway, I hope to eventually become a part of this community. Can’t wait
to talk to some of you.

Hello Lily and Welcome to

This place is very addictive! Enjoy your time here!.
Eventually become a part of this community…. You already are!
(R£SP£CT, thread #2: post 2)
In her original post, which is quoted here by R£SP£CT, newcomer lilythrash21

introduces herself and expresses her wish to “eventually become a part of this
community”. Her interlocutor replies by welcoming her with a typical smiley. He
further indicates that she already is a part of the community, thereby attending to
her positive face needs.
Instances of the need for dissociation can also be found in TSR message
boards, as displayed in the next example, which shows an empty user profile. Al-
though a regular user with a lot of reputation, not a single piece of personal in-
formation is disclosed. The user’s privacy and distance to the community are thus
protected:
(2)
(Toiletpaper8, thread #2: profile)
www.ebook777.com
The question that still needs to be answered, though, is how face is dynamically
constituted and negotiated in TSR message boards in the best Goffmanian sense.
Similar to FtF interaction,54 online face is also a bricolage of many diverse and
partly ephemeral facets, a summative conglomerate which transpires through
lines. Just as we spontaneously combine facets of our face for the current purpose
in FtF interaction and make them known through our (non)verbal behavior (the
lines), we can also piece together an online mosaic of our face – the only dif-
ference lies in the means involved: Technological gimmicks and templates lend
themselves as vehicles for the transportation and publication of lines, which in
turn serve as clues in the identification of a user’s face claims. By altering and
(re-)combining templates with a few clicks, we can constantly manipulate and
remodel our lines and thus our face claims. Just like in FtF, we can thereby fore-
ground one trait to the disadvantage of another. Unlike FtF, however, we certainly
do this more consciously: In FtF, we are only partly in control of our lines due to
time constraints and the simple fact that we are physically present and thus per-
ceivable, to name but two among many other reasons. This process can be visual-
ized in the following negotiation cycle (see Figure 15).
This interplay between lines dropped by users and interlocutors’ as well as ob-
servers’ possible line-based interpretations of their face claims shall be elucidated
with the help of some examples.
Users:
Interlocutors:
drop lines
interpret lines
(in templates)
Interlocutors:
Users:
ratify or reject
claim face
face claims
Figure 15. Cycle of face negotiation
54. But see O’Driscoll’s objection “that participants’ faces in mediated communication remain
untouched at the time [since] production and reception of messages are dislocated not only in
time but also in space” (2011: 25f., original emphasis). This view is only partly shared. After all,
facework does have effects on interlocutors, be they immediate as usually (but not always!) the
case in FtF or lagged as in message boards.
(3)
(Tha_Black_Shinobi, thread #3: profile)

(Tha_Black_Shinobi, thread #3: post 1)
This user’s profile and posts exhibit a rather playful conduct with face consitution:
His (or her, for that matter) self-portrayal shows a strong affiliation with a New
York Hip Hop clan, the “Wu-Tang Clan”, according to which he aligns (most of)
his face claims. All the templates available to him, among them his nickname,
avatar, signature, location information and flag as well as his societies (“Christian,
Law, Hip Hop and African Society”), are used consistently to convey his major
line, which could be phrased as either “I am a die-hard ‘Wu-Tang Clan’ fan” or
even “I belong to the ‘Wu-Tang Clan’”. The latter interpretation of his lines can be
deduced when looking at his signature, which shows a picture of said clan and
is titled “My Family Portrait”. Presumably winkingly, he fabricates a whole new
online persona for himself.
www.ebook777.com
Further, maybe more authentic lines such as his religious and sporting streak
can be derived from the section “Interests”. With his statement in the lower sec-
tion of his “Academic Info”, he informs other users that “seriously [he] will hope-
fully be doing Law at the University of Nottingham in September […]”, thereby
dropping another, maybe more truthful line about himself, which is insofar be-
lievable as it is backed up by his membership in the “Law Society”. Above that,
and even more importantly, this statement is an admission that most parts of his
self-portrayal are not to be taken too seriously, which is, at least in this case, rather
obvious.
This example of face constitution goes to show that lines cannot only lead
to contradicting face claims and interpretations thereof (“I’m a Clan member”
vs. “I’m a future student”), but also that lines do not necessarily have to add up
to a coherent mosaic. Although the same holds also true for FtF interaction, the
increased deceptive potential of online message boards, which is based on the
technological possibilites, is nevertheless stressed by this example.
(4)
Picking up on the lines conveyed through various templates such as the label
(“New Member”), the number of posts (“2”), the join date (with regard to the
time stamp of the post) and the reputation system (only one gem), a rather co-
herent picture presents itself: superfrankie is an inexperienced newcomer, a new-
bie. In addition to this template-induced information, the content of her post as
well as its rather idiosyncratic make-up further substantiate this first impression:
She does not only utter explicit face claims about herself but drops more lines
when she creatively garnishes these claims with abundant use of smileys, color
changes, acronyms (“lol”) and other in-group abbreviations (“AS”), capitaliza-
tion (“ADORE”), repetitious punctuation (“!!!!”) and emulated speech (“aaany-
way”, “alottt”). Interpreting users could assume that superfrankie wants to be seen
in a certain way, thus inferring the following face claims: UK, female, sociable,
self-confident (see her nickname superfrankie), lively, emotional, casual (see the
typos), young, versatile and probably many other things. Obviously, we do not
always have to consult the profile, as some posts themselves are extremely reveal-
ing and full of lines. At least with regard to her self-confident and sociable nature,
her profile information confirms this impression by proclaiming “i’m a bubbley,
bright girl who loves to meet new people”. The same is true for her versatility,
as she lists plenty of interests in the respective section. Although consistent in
her self-portrayal, she could, of course, exaggerate or masquerade her “true” face.
Again we have to rely on the user to provide us with authentic information.
Whether online or offline, lines are indeed ratified by hearers – either explic-
itly or implicitly. Although most ratifications are tacit, some are indeed explicit.
The following pair of examples bears witness to that fact:
(5) Re: ¡Hola! Soy Lily.

Hey, I stumbled upon this site last night and found it interesting,
so I decided to make an account.
Allow me to introduce myself.
I’m Lily, and I’m a Cuban-American in Stamford, CT. I’m a musician,
a photographer, and a writer. I play bass, guitar, and I sing.
I’m not a very low-profile person. XD
Anyway, I hope to eventually become a part of this community. Can’t wait
to talk to some of you.
Hello. You sound very talented.

I hope you stick around. PM me if you need help or a chat.
(Kagutsuchi, thread #2: post 6)
lilythrash21’s introductory post, which also served as the starting point for exam-
ple 1 (see above), is quoted and then commented on by another user, Kagutsuchi.
By stating “You sound very talented”, he interprets the line(s) which she consis-
tently presented in her post as well as in her profile in her favor, thus explicitly
ratifying her face claims.
Since lilythrash21 chose to make her first appearance with a Spanish head-
ing – she started her thread with the heading “Hola! Soy Lily!” – she dropped
another line of her having a Spanish-speaking background and most likely being
fluent in that language. This is also reinforced through her profile, where she de-
scribes herself with the words “I’m this Cuban-Irish-American number”.
www.ebook777.com
Re: ¡Hola! Soy Lily.

Ese debe ser el más breve mensaje de siempre.

(That must be the shortest message ever)
(Afcwimbledon2, thread #2: post 21)
As this conversation unfolds, Afcwimbledon2 picks up on her language choice and

decides to formulate a reply to another one of her posts, a smiley, in Spanish as
well, thereby implicitly ratifying her face claims.
6.2.2 Trolling: A means of strategic deception
Structures and templates available in message boards can also be exploited strate-
gically for deceptive purposes, as information about our interlocutors is in most
cases not verifiable. Deliberately misleading someone online is called trolling, a
term which is borrowed from the domain of fishing. Trolling expert Donath ex-
plains this technique as follows:
[Y]ou set your fishing lines in the water and then slowly go back and forth drag-
ging the bait and hoping for a bite. Trolling on the Net is the same concept –
someone baits a post and then waits for the bite on the line and then enjoys the
ensuing fight. (1999: 45)
Trolling is thus a game in which participants regularly and intentionally bring the
play with their face-masks to the boil. Unfortunately, this game is often played
without everyone involved knowing about his participation – except for one
person, of course, the deceiver. The “troll”55 sets out to gain access to a certain
group of people within a community, pretending to be one of many legitimate
participants to share interests and values. He fools his interlocutors into believ-
ing his face claims by posting messages which are “intentionally incorrect but
not overly controversial” (Herring et al. 2002: 372), thus stirring up trouble from
within. While flames aim at inciting all readers, the goal of a stereotypical troll
is “to draw in particularly naive or vulnerable readers” and to catch inexperi-
enced users (ibid.). Then again the result of both flaming and trolling are rather
similar. According to Donath (1999: 45), trolling cannot only disrupt or divert the
55. As noted by Herring et al. (2002: 382), the terms “troll” and “troller” can be used inter-
changeably to refer to a person who sends messages which deliberately convey a wrong impres-
sion about themselves. Unfortunately, their messages are also called “trolls”.
discussion or disseminate bad advice. Above that, it can also damage the feeling
of trust in a community, or create an atmosphere of constant suspicion. A troll
can thus be extremely detrimental to interpersonal relations in online communi-
ties in such a way that simple and naive questions are not answered anymore, if
everyone is suspected to be a troll anyway. Consequently, an ambience of mistrust
and latent accusations can scare away newbies.
Although trolls indeed walk abroad one message board or the other, thereby
personifying the malicious intent to veil one’s true nature, basic claims about face
deception in CMC in general and in message boards in particular as described
above should be considered as the exception rather than rule. Burnett/Marshall
(2003) rightly point out that early assumptions about the creative potential of
“identity” play online were overgeneralizations based on particular CMC con-
texts like MUDs, in which the playful adoption of fantasy identities is their raison
d’être. A more realistic stance is adopted by Döring (1999: 38f.), who assumes
that, despite technological possibilities to deceive, users prefer exchanges which
are based on authentic facts rather than on creative fabrications. When we recall
the motivation of users to go online and to participate in message boards in the
first place, the saying “Birds of a feather flock together” springs to mind. As dis-
cussed before (see Chapter 3), the majority of users seek the casual get-together
and exchange with like-minded people, to detect genuine commonalities and
maybe even bond over shared topics. Deception thus appears highly inappro-
priate at least with regard to the accomplishment of this special social purpose.
Besides, keeping up a façade is certainly much more exhausting than sticking to
the facts.
6.3 The relations: Interpersonal contextual factors
The discussion of face deception online already involved another important

component of interaction other than the speaker: the interlocutor. As these two
belong together like two sides of the same coin, the focus is now shifted from
the (self-portrayal of the) individuals to their relations with their interlocutors
and their manifestations in TSR message boards. With the exception of the first
two questions, which have already been answered in the previous part, Arndt/
Janney’s (22005: 32f.) complex of questions fathoms the second dimension rather
appropriately:
What kind of partner am I dealing with? What kind of person does the partner
think I am? Are we equal or unequal? Do we like each other or not? Is the partner
a member of group with which I identify myself? What is the partner’s role in
www.ebook777.com
the group? What do we have in common? How does the partner view our social
relationship? What are the partner’s motives? How does the partner expect me to
talk? What strategies have worked in the past with partners like this?
Accordingly, we need to take the following factors, which determine interper-

sonal relations, into consideration:
– social distance between interlocutors;

– power relations between interlocutors;
– social norms shared between interlocutors;
– content-related and interpersonal motives;
– participation structure;
– previous exchanges (common ground).
Previous exchanges hold an exceptional position insofar as they do not only pro-
vide an important basis for interlocutors’ common ground and necessary co-text
for the evaluation of utterances. Above that, they also lend themselves as a source
for the determination of all the other factors on the list. It becomes once more ob-
vious that all these interpersonal contextual factors cannot be viewed as operating
detached from each other but rather as small cogs in a big wheel, constantly influ-
encing one another. Similar to personal contextual factors, interpersonal relations
and practices are also established in message boards by means of continued mes-
sage exchange but also along the lines of experiences made in FtF interactions.
Only in those rare cases in which interlocutors have created and defined their
relations in real life before, is it theoretically possible to transfer these relations to
the online domain. The distinction of these two cases, let alone the detection of
shades of grey in-between, lies again beyond the capacity of observing outsiders.
The first two items on the list, social distance and power relations can be
described as multidimensional, constantly evolving and interacting concepts.
With recourse to Brown/Levinson’s (1978) outline of the two contextual factors
D (distance) and P (power), we can characterize the former as symmetric, hori-
zontal and the latter as asymmetric, vertical relations (see Section 4.3.1). Social
distance, which is also known under various aliases such as solidarity, closeness,
familiarity and relational intimacy (Spencer-Oatey 2000b: 33), is dependent on
factors like social similarities, frequency of contact and length of acquaintance,
which can create “likemindedness or similar behavior dispositions” (Brown/
Gilman 1972: 258).
Then again power is sometimes labeled status, dominance or authority
(Spencer-Oatey 2000b: 32) and alludes to the degree to which one person is able
to control the behavior of and impose on the other. Watts further explains that
“A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s initially
perceived interests, regardless of whether B later comes to accept the desirability

of A’s actions” (1991: 62). Accordingly, power is a relationship between at least
two people, which is not reciprocal in the sense that both can have power in the
same area of behavior (Brown/Gilman 1972: 255). It is interesting to note that, es-
pecially in the case of power, relational work and power are mutually influential.
Determining directions of causality reasonably is thus rendered almost impos-
sible. An integral part of the concept of power certainly are those (expectations
of) rights and obligations that come with the territory of social roles within a CoP
such as TSR (see Section 3.3.1). Social online roles are dynamically renegotiated
among participants based on “the extent and quantity of participation rather than
[on] social pre-givens” (Avgerinakou 2003: 281).
Since item number three on the above list, shared norms, has already been
dealt with in detail in Section 3.3.2, we can focus on content-related and inter-
personal motives for social encounters in TSR boards right away. Following To-
masello (2008: 136), we are animated to interact with each other online or offline
by three fundamental motives: requesting (things, information), sharing (emo-
tions, opinions) and informing others, which can be done for recreational, profes-
sional, pedagogical, creative and many other communication purposes (Herring
2001: 622). Of course, these motives are closely linked, if not even directly related
to interpersonal aims as well. All of these motives can be dealt with in more or less
detail in various topical discussions provided by the hierarchy of subtopics and
related threads within TSR. Depending on the current purpose of interaction,
interlocutors naturally invoke certain expectations, which help them evaluate the
appropriateness of certain utterances.
Finally, the item participant structure aims to amass those demographics of
the CoP which might also be influential for interpersonal group processes. We are
therefore looking for clues concerning, for example, the distribution of gender,
the average age, the sum total of ratified members (both actually, actively partici-
pating as well as potential members), the amount and rate of participation and
the like. All of these aspects will be fathomed in the empirical part of this study
(see Section 7.2).
Most of these interpersonal contextual factors find expression in the same
technological means of TSR that have already been discussed above in the context
of self-representation of participants. The contents and make-up of current and
previous posts, including all of their central and peripheral templates (with signa-
tures, labels and societies leading the way), thus also appear as a major source for
the retrieval of interpersonal information. Above that, however, registered users
have access to “buddy lists”, which mirror online friendships. Furthermore, FAQs
have already proven useful as a source for normative views on behavior in TSR
(see Section 3.3.2).
www.ebook777.com
6.4 The setting: (Extra-) medial environmental factors
Last but not least, some thoughts about environmental factors are still in order. To
cut a long story short, this third type of factors, which can have an impact on in-
terlocutors’ evaluations of utterances, encompasses basically anything that can be
pointed or referred to. With regard to the offline world, pointing is to be taken lit-
erally, while referring to something online can also be carried out with the help of
hyperlinks or embedded objects such as photos, graphics, videos, sound files and
the like. It could be argued, however, that hyperlinks are not variables within a us-
er’s environment themselves but rather textual, cohesive means to relate a source
domain with a target domain. Only the latter of the two and thus part of the hy-
perlink is a piece of the user’s environment to be pointed at. R. Jones remarks that
“the physical circumstances in which computer mediated communication takes
place can have important effects on how such interaction is conducted” (2002: 3).
In this way, almost everything and everybody in the real or virtual environment
can become influential, if turned into context by interlocutors. Needless to say
that contextualized resources from the offline world can hardly be traced from
the interlocutor’s and the observer’s online perspective, unless made explicit. For
this reason, R. Jones criticizes the use of the notion setting as it “is too static and
material to adequately capture the dynamic, contingent and expansive interaction
of material and virtual realities involved in computer mediated communication”
(2002: 11) and considers the German term Umwelt the more appropriate choice
to capture practically anything that surrounds social actors during the process of
interaction.
6.5 Summary: A comprehensive framework of context in message boards
Obviously, there is a vast number of (personal and interpersonal) contextual as

well as environmental factors which can – at least in theory – be held responsible
for the highly individual allocation of evaluative labels for instances of relational
work. As outside observers and also as interlocutors, or even speakers for that
matter, we can never be sure which factor was indeed pivotal for a certain value
judgment, since we are dealing with a multifaceted and unpredictable interplay of
a diverging number of partly highly ephemeral factors (see Table 12).
Although I have argued that message board templates make a noticeable effort
to provide contextual information, a word of warning still is in order: (1) Tem-
plates, independent of their number and degree of sophistication, cannot work
miracles, which is why a lot of contextual factors still remain in the dark or would
have to be filtered from message contents in extremely elaborate processes – with
Table 12. Contextual and environmental variables in message boards

Domain Factors
– a ppearance: voice, bodily features, clothes etc.
– d emographics: gender, age, ethnicity, social class, educational
level, occupation, status, region etc.
– c urrent feelings, moods etc.
personal – c ultural background
– k nowledge gathered in past experiences
context
– s ocial distance between interlocutors

– p ower relations between interlocutors
– s ocial norms shared between interlocutors
– c ontent-related and interpersonal motives
interpersonal – p
articipation structure
– p
revious exchanges (common ground)
– a nything that can be pointed or referred to
environment
– o nline (linking to or embedding of photos, graphics, videos,

sound files etc.)
– o ffline
(extra-)medial
no prospect of success in terms of accuracy and validity. But everything is not

lost as users, following Suler’s (2004: n.p.) line of argumentation, are quite savvy
in deducing missing contextual information and filling in missing clues, always
carried by the wish to have found a likeminded soul. (2) The danger of circular
argumentation is looming when it comes to determining evaluations of relational
work based on contextual factors and vice versa! This becomes alarmingly evident
in Morand/Ocker’s (2003: n.p.) statement about role orientations: “The specific
tactics of politeness may thus prove useful to researchers in measurement of these
role orientations.” The following analysis will thus treat contextual factors as help-
ful indices for the evaluation of relational work without falling into the trap of
overinterpreting template-mediated clues.
www.ebook777.com
chapter 7
Analyzing online message boards I

Thread starts
7.1 Introduction
It is the lack of direct correspondence between text and discourse that makes com-
munication so indeterminate, and so intriguing. (Widdowson 2007: 8)
The discussion of relational work in previous chapters has shown that (the mean-
ing of) discourse cannot be read off unambiguously from text, since it is coopera-
tively and spontaneously created and negotiated by interlocutors – in Widdowson’s
words, “when we use language we do not just present the meanings that are en-
coded in it, we exploit them as a potential resource for making meaning of our
own [thus making] semantic meaning serve a pragmatic purpose” (2007: 8). In
this context, Herring warns that the textual basis “can only tell us what people do
(and not what they really think or feel). Any interpretations of the latter based
on the former necessarily contain an element of speculation and risk being in-
correct” (2004: 358). The speculative and risky business of interpreting texts can,
however, be diminished to at least some extent by incorporating contextual fac-
tors and metapragmatic utterances, which both have the potential to enhance the
accuracy of the allocation of form and function.56
While contextual factors have been discussed in great detail in the previ-
ous chapter, a few elucidations on metapragmatic utterances are still in order.
Caffi defines metapragmatics, among others, as “the investigation of that area of
the speaker’s competence which reflects the judgments of appropriateness on
one’s own and other people’s communicative behavior” (1993: 2461). Accord-
ingly, metapragmatic utterances refer to speakers’ quotes or comments on their
own, someone else’s, or the speech community’s use of language (Hongladarom
2007: 32).
56. Another way of backing up interpretative analysis would be to ask users about their under-
lying intentions. As argued in previous chapters (see Section 5.5), more often than not users
are not at all capable of pinpointing the exact nature of their doing, viz. their intention, neither
in retrospect nor during the actual conversation. For this reason, this study desists from inter-
viewing participants and bases its argumentation on the textual documentation alone.
Realistically, however, we will not encounter helpful contextual factors and/or

enlightening metapragmatic utterances at every step of the way throughout the
analysis. Still, the investigation of interpersonal relations in message board entries
can be promoted by adopting a favorable perspective, viz. as participant observer.
Originated by social anthropologists such as Malinowski (1922), who also coined
the term participant observation, this traditional and renowned research strategy
has developed into the principal method for ethnographic research and has been
used in a wide range of disciplines, among them sociology, communication stud-
ies, social psychology but also in linguistics (see, for example, studies by Holly
(1979) or Beißwenger (2010)). The analyst becomes or at least takes the stance of a
participating observer who does not merely observe, but tries to find a role within
the group he observes – even if only as outside observer. In putting himself in the
shoes of his objects of study – in this case, message board participants – he hopes
that his evaluations mirror those of actual participants.
In any event, one can argue that message boards and other forms of CMC
have known participant observers for a long time and even recruit actual users
from them: they are called lurkers (see Section 3.3.1), who sometimes follow the
proceedings of a single thread or an entire board religiously until they either de-
cide to get actively involved or lose interest. These participant observers, includ-
ing the analyst of this study, are as familiar with the thread and its contributors
as any other user and are thus absolutely capable of valid value judgments. Since
participants in most CMC settings are usually aware of the possible and even
probable presence of lurkers, the observer’s paradox is of no consequence. Of
course, “official” online participants and participant observers rely on slightly di-
vergent pools of contextual information, with participant observers intentionally
looking for as many contextual clues as possible and “official” participants sharing
more episodic knowledge. Still, this fact is also rather unproblematic – after all
this is a characteristic feature of communication in general, be it in FtF settings
or online. Similar to FtF, we can act on the assumption that the overlap between
these two pools is big enough to ensure somewhat identical evaluations on both
sides (see also Section 5.3).
With the intention of getting a realistic picture of the structure of interper-
sonal relations on “the Internet”, only a handful of studies have been conducted in
the recent past.57 In general, Herring criticizes that
57. See the 2010 special issue of the Journal of Politeness Research containing, among others,
Locher’s general synopsis of the study of (interpersonal relations in) CMC in the introduction.
www.ebook777.com
Chapter 7. Analyzing online message boards I: Thread starts 129
[…] much research on online behavior is anecdotal and speculative, rather than
empirically grounded. Moreover, Internet research often suffers from a prema-
ture impulse to label online phenomena in broad terms, e.g., all groups of people
interacting online are ‘communities’; the language of the Internet is a single style
or ‘genre’. (2004: 338)
Although mostly investigating authentic online interaction in one form of com-

puter-mediated communication or the other, such as Internet lists (Herring 1995;
Maricic 2001), email discussions (Harrison 2000; Hatipoglu 2007), instant mes-
saging/chats (Darics 2010; Savas 2011), voice mail (Hobbs 2003), YouTube post-
ings (Lorenzo-Dus et al. 2011), news sites (Neurauter-Kessels 2011) and even
bulletin board systems (Simmons 1999) and fora (Lee 2005), most studies never-
theless exhibit certain weaknesses which do not only limit their general persua-
siveness but also their value as a role model for this present study. While some of
them concentrate on one aspect of interpersonal relations alone, like flaming as
in Lee (2005) or identity construction (Erickson 1996; Taylor 2000; Baker 2001;
Benwell/Stokoe 2006), most of them can be accused of showing too strong a bond
with Brown/Levinson’s original model when trying to apply (parts of) their sys-
tem of categories to CMC data.
Against this background, the present study, which is to my knowledge unprec-
edented in this form, tries to steer clear of the aforementioned analytical traps. In
trying to find empirically valid insights for one form of CMC alone, a corpus
containing a cross section of the message board system of The Student Room (cf.
Chapter 2 and 3) is investigated mostly qualitatively, keeping a safe distance from
Brown/Levinson’s classification. In terms of the validity of these results, a word
of warning still is in order: Although the results gained in this study may exhibit
some general trends and communicative mechanisms, they still represent noth-
ing but a snapshot, as these findings are only true for the excerpts investigated at
this specific point of time under these specific circumstances. Since every sample
is unique, we should not assume the findings to be representative of TSR as a
whole, message boards in general, let alone “the Internet”.
The aim of this chapter is hence twofold: describing the inner make-up and
the compilation of the corpus first, before conducting the first part of the empiri-
cal analysis, which is supposed to shed some light on how interpersonal relations
are established in this environment. In order to do so, the focus will be put on
thread starts, viz. first entries, alone. After the investigation of the content and
structure of their headings, the users behind these first entries will be introduced.
The third and most important component of this chapter is, however, dedicated
to the formal and functional description of actual thread starts.
7.2 Aspects of corpus compilation and its internal structure
It should go without saying that the mere process of compiling a corpus – at first
totally independent of its analysis – is an endeavor which is just as biased as the
judgment of interpersonal relations itself since corpora are always designed with
a certain purpose in mind (cf. Schulze 1985: 119). Consequently, it is important
to shortly outline those aspects that influenced the compilation of the respective
corpus: For the empirical analysis targeted in this study, I was looking for mate-
rial which involved “typical” message board users in “typical”, non-specific topical
communication. According to S. G. Jones’ report “The Internet Goes to College”
(2002), which documents a large-scale survey of Internet use among several thou-
sand university and college students across the United States, students appear as
heavy users of the Internet in comparison to the general population. As S. G.
Jones’ study revealed, using the Internet is completely integrated into college stu-
dents’ daily routines and is as much a tool for educational as it is for interpersonal
purposes. With this in mind, a message board which is predominantly populated
by students took center stage in the first process of selection: The Student Room
(henceforth TSR). Beside its appealing target group of British and international
students58 and its topical variety, it also qualified because of its structural features
(see Chapters 2 and 6), which disclose a lot of additional, valuable information
about the context and the participants.
Above that and every bit as important as the aforementioned aspects, TSR
also met essential ethical considerations. As message board conversations can be
read long after they actually took place, they are a hybrid between interperson-
al and mass communication (Marcoccia 2004: 117, see also Section 3.3.1). This
raises an ethical issue, including concerns about (personal) copyright, which or-
bits around the much discussed question what kind of online material can be
exploited unhesitatingly for scientific analyses. It is thus important to note that for
the purpose of this study, every single piece of input for the corpus – messages as
well as surrounding interpersonal information – was and still is completely open
to public. It can be accessed unhindered, since TSR does not require observers
to register as a member in order for them to read through its threads. Claridge
(2007: 88) compares fora in general (thus also message boards) to “’normal’ web
sites [which] can be visited and read by any Internet user at any time, in the same
way as people would read an online newspaper” – a view which is also shared by
Graham (2010) and Holmberg (2008). Tanskanen views message board discus-
sions “as unproblematic in this respect” (2007: 89). For the purpose of this study, I
58. Although message boards may be designed and intended to attract a certain crowd, theo-
retically they are open to practically everybody interested (cf. Claridge 2007: 94).
www.ebook777.com
adopted Maricic’s (2005: 71f.) standards, according to which participants’ consent

for the usage of their discourse is not required if
– the data are gathered from a public forum which requires neither password
nor registration in order to access it;
– the participants do not represent a group of people in a potentially vulnerable
position (such as minorities of any kind);
– the thread does not deal with topics that could possibly damage the partici-
pants if exposed.
In view of the vagueness of the last of the three items on the list, Maricic (2005: 72)
proposes to disguise anything that might disclose participants’ real identities, just
to be on the safe side.
Once the appropriate message board had been chosen, the corpus could
be compiled. From the various data sampling techniques proposed by Herring
(2004: 348), I decided for a random mode of thread selection within TSR, mean-
ing that “each [thread was] selected or not by a coin toss” (ibid.) within various
subtopics, thus guaranteeing representativeness and generalizability. The usual
disadvantage of this course of action, according to Herring loss of context and
coherence, could be counteracted by downloading complete and coherent threads
instead of single, decontextualized messages. The term complete has to be handled
with care, though. Threads always have a clear beginning as they come into exis-
tence the moment a user, the thread starter, decides to introduce a new topic. They
do not, however, end in a pre-determined way, but simply “die” without any warn-
ing due to lack of interest (Claridge 2007: 91), a process which can take hours,
days, months or even years. Since threads can always be taken up again, even after
a sizable amount of time with no activity at all, it is practically impossible to tell
whether a thread is “complete” or not.59 Consequently, completeness could not be
taken as a defining criterion for the choice of a thread. Instead, deadlines were set
for the acquisition of samples (see Table 13 below): all the posts within the thread
available up to this point in time were collected in their entirety. However, a look
at the sampling deadline in comparison to the date of the last entry shows that
in most cases, users had already lost interest in the topic some time before the
download date. This means that the latest discussions must have been brought to
a preliminary end, hence temporarily concluding the entire thread.
59. A classic example of this phenomenon can be found in thread #5 (Meteor Shower :)): Start-
ed in 2008 (07/08/2008), it was quite attractive as a topic for two days before it died down. It
was picked up again and continued, however, almost exactly one year later (12/08/2009) – again
staying interesting for two days before dying down once more. Another thread which was car-
ried forward for several years was #38 (Jolly useful Geography websites).
To enable easy processing, the complete material gathered in this way was
saved as screenshots to ensure visual cohesion and in the format of word files to
facilitate subsequent work with the text. At the end of the sampling process, the
corpus comprised 50 threads, featuring the following details (see Table 13).60
Table 13. Internal structure of the message board corpus

# Thread title No. No. Date of first No. Posts/ Sampling
posts users & last post days day deadline
1 hi all, i’m frankie :) introduce 18 8 12/08/2009 – 4 4.5 01/10/2009
yourselves to me! :) 15/08/2009
2 ¡Hola! Soy Lily. 42 10 05/08/2009 – 7 6.0 01/10/2009
11/08/2009
3 Why Are So Many People On Here 81 49 12/08/2009 – 2 40.5 01/10/2009
Homeschooled? 13/08/2009
4 booze illegal? 67 37 13/08/2009 – 2 33.5 01/10/2009
14/08/2009
5 Meteor Shower :) 74 45 07/08/2008 – 7 10.6 01/10/2009
13/08/2009
6 Are you in favour of Euthanasia? 67 49 11/08/2009 – 3 22.3 01/10/2009
13/08/2009
7 Who are more friendly: Northerners 120 90 11/08/2009 – 3 40.0 01/10/2009
or Southerners (England) 13/08/2009
8 ‘Life is too short’ 57 31 10/08/2009 – 4 14.3 02/10/2009
13/08/2009
9 Is TSR an accurate reflection of today’s 34 31 12/08/2009 – 1 34.0 02/10/2009
youth? 12/08/2009
10 Could you ever forget your family? 112 39 12/08/2009 – 2 56.0 02/10/2009
13/08/2009
11 What does this girl mean by this? 120 92 13/08/2009 – 3 40.0 02/10/2009
(convo included) 15/08/2009
12 I’m bitter and twisted 66 36 12/08/2009 – 2 33.0 02/10/2009
13/08/2009
13 Do intellectuals put you off? 65 35 13/08/2009 – 1 65.0 02/10/2009
13/08/2009
14 How to stop strange people speaking 54 41 13/08/2009 – 2 27.0 02/10/2009
to me 14/08/2009
60. As noted before, spelling and grammar mistakes in the original posts, headings etc. re-
mained unchanged.
www.ebook777.com
Table 13. (continued)

15 To drink or not to drink….? 67 54 12/08/2009 – 21 3.2 02/10/2009
01/09/2009
16 What does it mean if a girl smiles at 61 52 11/08/2009 – 3 20.3 2/10/2009
you? 13/08/2009
17 Burton’s rejected me for a credit card, 23 12 12/08/2009 – 2 11.5 02/10/2009
I think :S 13/08/2009
18 The Official ‘I’m going to fail my 172 123 18/05/2005 – 1498 0.1 02/10/2009
exams’ Society 24/06/2009
19 Snow Patrol!!! 75 24 30/11/2006 – 1115 0.1 02/10/2009
19/08/2009
20 Most underrated Actor? 84 70 03/08/2009 – 6 14.0 02/10/2009
08/09/2009
21 Half Blood Prince thread *no spoilers* 143 86 15/07/2009 – 27 5.3 03/10/2009
10/08/2009
22 Favourite Musical and Why? 49 34 03/06/2009 – 90 0.5 03/10/2009
31/08/2009
23 Who’s your favourite Friends 69 53 26/07/2009 – 10 6.9 03/10/2009
character? 06/08/2009
24 Would you go on holiday with some- 44 35 17/07/2009 – 29 1.5 03/10/2009
one from TSR you don’t know irl? 14/08/2009
25 What countires have you been to? 120 104 05/08/2009 – 21 5.7 03/10/2009
25/08/2009
26 Has anyone been to America recently 86 54 27/07/2009 – 15 5.7 03/10/2009
??…border control experience 10/08/2009
27 Why modern feminism is illogical, 87 21 03/08/2009 – 10 8.7 03/10/2009
unnecessary, and evil 12/08/2009
28 Women Make Crappy Musicians 88 69 21/07/2009 – 42 2.1 03/10/2009
31/08/2009
29 Creationism of evolution? 100 30 17/06/2009 – 107 0.9 03/10/2009
01/10/2009
30 how much of the bible is ‘truth’ and 80 25 18/03/2009 – 5 16.0 03/10/2009
can god really have made everything? 22/03/2009
31 Should governments block websites? 31 24 25/02/2008 – 538 0.06 03/10/2009
16/08/2009
32 Are we waling into a surveillance 49 26 10/08/2009 – 3 16.3 03/10/2009
society? 12/08/2009

33 What makes you happy? 104 90 05/12/2008 – 296 0.4 03/10/2009
26/09/2009
34 Pros and cons of boarding school 15 09 01/05/2009 – 103 0.1 04/10/2009
12/08/2009
35 Do you use a timetable to study? Or 33 31 06/08/2009 – 2 16.5 04/10/2009
don’t you even plan?? 07/08/2009
36 Guide to How to Revise Effectively? 42 31 22/05/2008 – 466 0.09 04/10/2009
30/08/2009
37 Grammar schools beat the private 56 33 09/08/2009 – 5 11.2 04/10/2009
sector. 13/08/2009
38 Jolly useful Geography websites 88 49 12/10/2004 – 1804 0.05 04/10/2009
20/09/2009
39 music /noise whilst staying at uni 19 13 12/08/2009 – 4 4.8 04/10/2009
halls? 15/08/2009
40 Veganism 27 22 25/03/2009 – 140 0.2 04/10/2009
11/08/2009
41 So it seems everyone just wants to ruin 39 32 10/08/2009 – 6 6.5 04/10/2009
there livers in university 15/08/2009
42 Your pearls of wisdom to university 108 75 03/08/2009 – 16 6.8 04/10/2009
freshers… 18/08/2009
43 Image change when going to uni? 50 48 08/08/2009 – 4 12.5 04/10/2009
11/08/2009
44 Am I wasting my time studying 31 14 26/05/2009 – 79 0.4 04/10/2009
English? 12/08/2009
45 Best universities for english? 38 25 15/07/2009 – 8 4.8 04/10/2009
22/07/2009
46 Can studying literature become too 64 40 18/06/2009 – 16 4.0 04/10/2009
pretentious? 03/07/2009
47 The best universities for film and tv 42 27 05/01/2009 – 245 0.2 04/10/2009
production? 07/09/2009
48 Q&A thread – Journalism Courses 22 6 02/05/2009 – 7 3.1 04/10/2009
08/05/2009
49 Gap Year vs Career…Me vs Parents 18 10 29/07/2009 – 3 6.0 04/10/2009
31/07/2009
50 ‘Tories plan tougher teacher tests’ 70 26 02/07/2009 – 93 0.8 04/10/2009
02/10/2009
www.ebook777.com
Table 14. Sum total of contributions per user (C) in relation to their occurrence (O)
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
O 979 279 117 60 29 34 16 14 10 9 7 3
% 62.4 17.7 7.5 3.8 1.8 2.2 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2
C 13 17 19 22 24 25 27 29 30 32 3271 posts
O 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1570 users
% 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 % all user
Casting a first glance at the corpus, we can learn that the sum total of 327161
posts is produced by ca. 157062 users – the ratio of posts and users being a first
clue to the fact that interaction in this material is not as dialogic, or even polylog-
ic, as one could have imagined. As a matter of fact, there is only a small portion of
users who make more than only one appearance within the entire corpus, which
reflects the unstableness and fluctuating character, maybe even the enormous size
of this special CoP. This latter aspect can, of course, only be determined when
investigating the complete content of TSR. According to TSR self-assessment as
“the world’s largest and fastest growing student community, with over 250,000
members and more than 16,000,000 posts”, this estimation seems reasonable. A
click on the member list, which is open to public and updated constantly, even
discloses the amazing number of more than 460,000 participants.63 In figures,
the personnel’s (inter)activity within this corpus can be described as shown in
Table 14.
The pie chart visualizes the high amount of users who contributed only once
in all 50 threads of the entire corpus. Indeed, only 56 of all users (3.6%) authored
eight or more posts, with one participant being responsible for the highest amount
of posts per user, cpj1987 with 32 posts (see Figure 16).
61. As the length of contributions varies considerably from solitary emoticons to full-grown
monologues, it is hard to determine the actual word count for such a corpus. What is more,
posts always contain a certain amount of words which are inserted automatically by the system
and cannot be counted as part of the actual entry. With this in mind, we can only give an ap-
proximation to the sum total of words in this corpus, which amounts to ca. 285,000 words.
62. Note that this figure cannot simply be deduced from the sum total of users per thread,
since some users take part in more than one thread. Also, some nicknames are so similar (for
example jammydodger09 vs. jammythedoger, katielou vs. katie_lou or Matt_1991 vs. matt_91)
that it is questionable whether we are really dealing with two separate users or with one and the
same. For that reason, the number of users should only be taken as an approximation.
63. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/memberlist.php, accessed September 12th 2010.
C/User percentage
12.1%
7.5% 1
2
17.7% 62.4% 3
≥4
Figure 16. Percentages of contributions per user (C/User)
Obviously, the number of users who could be termed regulars in this corpus
is rather slim, since 62.4% of all users posted only one time, just 2.0% contributed
ten times or more and the small portion of 0.4% of all users entered the conversa-
tion more than twenty times. Based on these figures, I propose the following, cer-
tainly arbitrary differentiation of user types (see Table 15). These figures can also
be illustrated as a pie chart (see Figure 17), again emphasizing the overwhelming
amount of onetime posters.
Since these statistics only give a first, general impression about the users’
activities throughout the entire corpus, their significance for users’ activities in
single threads is certainly limited. The latter, however, is by all means much more
interesting and will be focused on in the progress of this chapter.
Table 15. User types according to frequency of contribution

User type No. %
onetime poster (1 post) 979 62.4
recurring poster (2–19 posts) 584 37.2
regular poster (≥ 20 posts) 7 0.4
= 1570 = 100.0
1%
Onetime poster (1 post)

37%
Recurring poster (2–19 posts)
Regular poster (≥20 posts)
62%
Figure 17. User types according to frequency of contribution (in percentages)
www.ebook777.com
7.3 Establishing interpersonal relations online
To get a picture of interpersonal relations in online message boards, we need to

consider what users actually do to establish and/or manage relations and how
they proceed in doing so. To begin with, an analysis of the very first stimulus for
budding conversations in threads is called for, as subsequent posts are formulated
most of the time in reaction to them. This means concentrating on initial posts
and their headings. In the first step of the analysis, we will see how topics are in-
troduced and, in so doing, how contact with future interlocutors is established. It
will also be interesting to see at a later point whether, on an interpersonal plane,
some kind of groundwork for the following course of action is laid at this initial
point by the thread starter.
Table 16 proposes one possible grouping of all 50 threads, which was estab-
lished based on their content and above all their (interpersonal) communicative
purpose. It should go without saying that overlaps in categorization can hardly be
avoided. Accordingly, the six broad categories (see Table 16) are posited, which
will serve as the basis of the second part of this analysis to be conducted (see Sec-
tion 8.2).
Table 16. Thread titles (headings) according to their communicative purpose

Communicative Thread title (headings) No.
purpose
1. G
etting to know #1 hi all, i’m frankie :) introduce yourselves to me! :) 2
others #2 ¡Hola! Soy Lily.
ooking for like- #18 The Official ‘I’m going to fail my exams’ Society
2. L 2
minded others #19 Snow Patrol!!!
sking for advice #11 What does this girl mean by this? (convo included)
3. A 16
#14 How to stop strange people speaking to me
#15 To drink or not to drink….?
#16 What does it mean if a girl smiles at you?
#24 Would you go on holiday with someone from TSR you don’t know irl ?
#34 Pros and cons of boarding school
#35 Do you use a timetable to study? Or don’t you even plan??
#39 music /noise whilst staying at uni halls?
#40 Veganism
#41 So it seems everyone just wants to ruin there livers in university
#42 Your pearls of wisdom to university freshers…
#43 Image change when going to uni?
#44 Am I wasting my time studying English?
#45 Best universities for english?
#47 The best universities for film and tv production?
#49 Gap Year vs Career…Me vs Parents

Communicative Thread title (headings) No.
purpose
4. A
sking for #3 Why Are So Many People On Here Homeschooled? 23
opinions #4 booze illegal?
#6 Are you in favour of Euthanasia?
#7 Who are more friendly: Northerners or Southerners (England)
#8 ‘Life is too short’
#9 Is TSR an accurate reflection of today’s youth?
#10 Could you ever forget your family?
#13 Do intellectuals put you off?
#20 Most underrated Actor?
#21 Half Blood Prince thread *no spoilers*
#22 Favourite Musical and Why?
#23 Who’s your favourite Friends character?
#25 What countires have you been to?
#27 Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil
#28 Women Make Crappy Musicians
#29 Creationism of evolution?
#30 how much of the bible is ‘truth’ and can god really have made
everything?
#31 Should governments block websites?
#32 Are we walking into a surveillance society?
#33 What makes you happy?
#37 Grammar schools beat the private sector.
#46 Can studying literature become too pretentious?
#50 ‘Tories plan tougher teacher tests’
lowing off steam #12 I’m bitter and twisted
5. B 3
#17 Burton’s rejected me for a credit card, I think :S
#26 Has anyone been to America recently ??…border control experience
6. O
ffering advice/ #5 Meteor Shower :) 4
information #36 Guide to How to Revise Effectively?
#38 Jolly useful Geography websites
#48 Q&A thread – Journalism Courses
As Table 16 reveals, the two main communicative purposes of this particular

message board are asking others for advice (category three) and for opinions (cat-
egory four), thus dominating the topical orientation of this cross-section of TSR
with 39 of 50 threads.
7.3.1 What’s in a heading?
As could be anticipated, headings are a way of foreshadowing the content of a post

and thus serve as a kind of condensed abstract to it. Accordingly, they exhibit a
www.ebook777.com
rather compact structure with one to 14 words only, averaging 6.4 words, consist-
ing either of (complex) noun phrases (10 times), (strings of elliptical) interrogative
sentences (29 times), or (strings of) declarative sentences (11 times). Naturally,
their formal embodiment varies considerably, as it is strongly dependent on us-
ers’ idiosyncratic ideas thereof. Nevertheless, a lot of thread starters make use of
CMC-specific netlingo in including abbreviations, acronyms (“irl”, #24, “Q&A”,
#48), strings of punctuation marks (#15, 19, 26) and also various ASCII-smileys,
which help convey a certain emotional stance that goes with the heading and the
post. This can be witnessed in thread #17, to give but one example. Here, the user
expresses their contriteness with the smiley “:S”. What is more, orthography is
respected in most cases as typos hardly occur (for an exception see #25 and 41).
Case sensitivity varies.
With regard to the interpersonal focus of this work, we can discern that head-
ings are of course used to establish a first contact between the thread starter and
his potential interlocutors. In order to be successful and to trigger the desired
reaction, the thread starter needs to have the purpose of his thread in mind, thus
formulating the heading accordingly. This fails only in three cases (#8, 40, 41), in
which the headings – voluntarily maybe – are not very revealing at all and do not
contain any clues as to what to expect from the thread. All the other headings in
this corpus are more goal-oriented. In the first category, Getting to know others,
the two users chose basically two strategies: explicitly greeting the audience (“hi
all”, #1, “¡Hola!”, #2) and introducing their names, thus giving insight into a very
small part of their being. Thread #1 even tried to stimulate the anticipated com-
munication with the rather straightforward yet mitigated imperative “introduce
yourselves to me! :)”, in which the smiley seems to serve as a softener. All the other
headings avoid this type of directive in favor of interrogative clauses, which
seem adequate for most of the categories. The interrogative clauses, which appear
with (e.g. #14) rather than without (e.g. #3) the corresponding question mark,
can be very elliptic (#4 booze illegal?), at times even intertextual and poetic (#15
To drink or not to drink….?), sometimes consisting of simple noun phrases only
(#20 Most underrated Actor?). In some cases, the question structure is abandoned
completely to the benefit of noun phrases (e.g. #21 Half Blood Prince thread *no
spoilers*, #34 Pros and cons of boarding school) or simple declarative clauses (e.g.
#37 Grammar schools beat the private sector.). In view of the categories, users in
the third category, one way or another, request advice, while participants of the
fourth category try to elicit opinions. Some requests, however, refer to a certain
form of the posts to come, as in thread #21, in which its initiator asks their audi-
ence not to post any spoilers (“*no spoilers*”), at least not in an unmarked way.
The strategy for the second category, Looking for like-minded others, and for
the sixth, Offering advice/information, lies in stating the object of the common
interest, which can either be interesting or helpful for interlocutors, and thus
spark off lively discussions. This is achieved by noun phrases, simple and adorned
with repetitive punctuation as in thread #19 (Snow Patrol!!!) or complex and un-
varnished as in #18 (The Official ‘I’m going to fail my exams’ Society), #36 (Guide
to How to Revise Effectively?), #38 (Jolly useful Geography websites) and #48 (Q&A
thread – Journalism Courses).
The remaining category, Blowing off steam (number five), is the most hetero-
geneous one. It can be considered a special case since users do not directly ask for
advice or for a discussion but only seem to vent about something, thus sharing
their feelings with (unknown) others.
Reactions to these and all the other headings and their corresponding initial
posts will show, whether these first, very diverse attempts to establish contact and
hence to launch some kind of rapport are considered appropriate.
7.3.2 The initiators: Investigating thread starters’ face claims
With a look at the thread starters’ nicknames, the 50 initial posts were obviously
composed by 44 different users, as the user Just Another Student originated a pair
of threads (#6, 7), the user Have Your Say three of them (#31, 32, 33) and four
posts (#11, 12, 14, 16) appear to have been penned down by Anonymous (anony-
mous user #1). While the first two cases are cut and dried, the third one is all
the more problematic in terms of consistency of face claims. Although the sparse
information given in the profile, only the join date, indicates that we are indeed
dealing with one and the same user, the contents of the four initial posts speak
a different language: Surely, thread #11 (What does this girl mean by this? (convo
included)) and #16 (What does it mean if a girl smiles at you?) could have been
initiated by the same person, a somewhat inexperienced, insecure male user in
need of advice on how to read girls. In these two cases, (unconscious) face claims
appear to be consistent. Even the first post of thread #12 (I’m bitter and twisted)
agrees with this impression, as, again, we are presented with a person who suf-
fers from his lack of social skills for the establishment of relations. Fittingly, the
incapacity he describes is also mirrored in the very composition of his post, as
there is no visible attempt to actually make contact, let alone establish some kind
of relation with other users who are, in all likelihood, supposed to help him. His
lines provide once more the picture of a withdrawn, asocial character – still we
cannot be sure in this case if the post was composed by a male person. Although
written under the same nickname, the first post of thread #14 (How to stop strange
people speaking to me) clearly breaks with the aforementioned face claims as, most
strikingly, this is the report of a girl (“this 40 year old wolf-whistled at me”, “I don’t
wear revealing clothes or makeup, I’m not pretty”).
www.ebook777.com
Consequently, we cannot be sure about who is behind these posts, let alone
how many persons we are actually dealing with, since neither signatures nor all
the other templates provide any further information to convince readers of the
authenticity of these posts. Therefore, one might even suspect these posts to be
a complete fabrication, strategically placed to inflame a discussion and test re-
actions.64 All of this goes to show that even if communicative platforms such
as TSR provide users with a wide range of compensatory mechanisms for the
(re)production of social context, they are still not immune from strategic de-
ception such as trolling (see Section 6.2.2) as these mechanisms can easily be
circumnavigated.
Fortunately, the other 43 users’ face claims are rather low-maintenance, either
because they are straightforward and consistent or because there is not much to
interpret: While 16 users did not bother to fill out the profile templates at all,
13 thread starters disclosed personal information very selectively. Only 15 us-
ers made the most of the options provided by TSR to drop lines and to establish
face claims. In addition to personal background information provided by users in
their profiles, more clues can be gathered in post-inherent templates, which are
either filled out individually by the user or automatically by the system (see Sec-
tion 2.6.2). Information given in the latter form is certainly more reliable, as users
do not have many possibilities to rig these facts. A user’s TSR experience thus
becomes obvious in the sum total of their posts and in their label as well as in the
length of their membership at the point of their posting (shortened LMP), which
can be roughly determined through the difference between the time stamp of the
post and the date of becoming a member.
Depending on how much personal information is disclosed in the profile, the
field of thread starters can be categorized into three broad classes, empty profiles,
fragmentary profiles and informative profiles, which contain more or less face
claims. The first group of users does not really disclose anything about their per-
sonal background. Although we can learn something about their user habits with
reference to TSR by looking at the post-inherent templates which are inserted
automatically, the individually filled templates are for the most part empty and
hence inconclusive: Users mention their name and age very seldom, only giving
random hints about their geographic whereabouts – partly via embedding flags,
64. Looked at from a forensic linguistic point of view, arguments can be found which substan-
tiate the claim that the author of all four posts is indeed one and the same person: In contrast
to other message board contributions, this user follows case sensitivity consequently, always
introduces new segments of his post with paragraphs, displays an almost flawless syntax and
orthography and does not make use of typical CMC netlingo. Only the lengths of these posts
vary.
partly explicitly. Accordingly, face claims remain rather vague and can sometimes
only be based either on group affiliations, which are traceable via TSR-inherent
societies, some telling nicknames or avatars, the latter being used only in one of
two cases. With the exception of one user, we are not dealing with newbies who
did not find the time to fill out their profiles either but, on the contrary, with more
or less experienced users – with memberships ranging from less than a month to
ten months tops.
An interesting TSR feature to provide insightful information about users’
standing within the CoP, thus revealing previous effort to relational work, is the
reputation and warning system (see Section 2.6.2). With eleven users exhibiting
an unknown (Anonymous) or small amount of positive reputation – ranging from
one (seven times), two (two times) to three (once) gems – we come across two
very experienced users with ten and 18 positive evaluations respectively: Mel-
onFace and Lord Hysteria, the latter also being a so called PS Helper.65 It will
be interesting to see whether this somewhat elevated position among “ordinary”
members is also mirrored in their initial posts as well as in their interlocutors’
reactions to them. The same holds, of course, also true for the flip side of the coin:
Within this first batch of users, there are also three users with negative reputation:
Maker (–1), Neo Con (–3) and Don_Scott (–10) seem to have the tendency to stir
things up, with the last two even being admonished by moderators repeatedly.
This becomes obvious when looking at their warning levels (Don_Scott 3, Neo
Con even 5). We will see whether these three live up to their reputation in their
first (and subsequent) posts and how other users will respond to them. Finally, it
is not surprising either that three of the five users highlighted in this paragraph
are in fact veteran users: Neo Con (1295 posts), Don_Scott (3090 posts) and Lord
Hysteria (8829 posts).
In contrast to the first of the three groups, most users in the second group
give their interlocutors as well as random lurkers a rather good impression about
themselves by answering at least to some sections of the profile – the only excep-
tions being Jambre (#20) and alienpmk (#40): Despite filling out one profile section
each (school names), this is hardly enough evidence to deduce face claims. All the
others, however, detail quite a few facets of their faces, thereby mostly touching
on hobbies and interests. Again, we can tell from the societies they are engaged
in as well as from nicknames, avatars and various profile sections. In contrast to
the previous group, however, some of these users drop clues about their faces
65. A PS Helper is an experienced student and user who takes over responsibility within TSR
(see Section 3.3.1) by offering help with the wording of other members’ Personal Statements for
their university application. As this voluntary work is pursued by a lot of users, we can find 55
PS Helpers among the users in this corpus.
www.ebook777.com
by means of evaluating themselves explicitly, as, for example, in “Im not a geek“
(#5), “I’m left-wing”, “I’m an agnostic” (#6/7), “I know a thing or two” (#13), “I
am a mature student” (#28). While most users can be considered established and
experienced TSR-members, having composed between 50 and 500 posts, Adonis
surely tops the bill with over 6000 contributions within a year. Another veteran
user of this group is logic123 with 2218 posts.
In terms of reputation, a slightly different picture presents itself. This time,
there are twelve out of 13 users who have a small amount of positive reputation
with one (eight times), two (two times) or three (two times) gems and only one
user, Adonis, with a rather high amount of reputation (12). Despite and in con-
trast to these positive evaluations, some users have been warned and even banned
by the moderators, such as ShiVji (#8) and Mr_Mad (#28), who have 15 warn-
ings and are consequently banned permanently. Two more users, Barz (#29) and
the aforementioned user Adonis have gained two warnings, the latter also be-
ing “Banned”. With respect to this group, we will thus have to keep a close eye
on the behavior of ShiVji, Adonis, Mr_Mad and Barz and on their interlocutors’
reactions.
TSR-members of the last group display an intensive, sometimes even play-
ful conduct with most of the sections of their profiles. A large proportion of us-
ers posts numerous and extensive self assessments with regard to political views,
interests, habits and personal characteristics in general. Consequently, profiles
are often exploited as another platform, besides entries in posts, to describe and
introduce themselves – a special usage of profiles which will be picked up once
more in Section 7.4. Suffice it to say for now that a lot can be deduced from these
profiles about their creators’ faces and how they want to be apprehended. In some
cases, face claims are even contradicting and overtly reveal their contents not be
taken too seriously (see thread starter of thread #3 and Section 6.2.1 for details on
the profile of Tha_Black_Shinobi). Above that, even more than half of all users (8
in 15) let an avatar speak for themselves, while the LMP varies considerably from
less than a month (including two newbies, superfrankie and lilythrash21, who
posted their first contributions the very day they became a member) to several
years. The most experienced users are 9MmBulletz with 1437 posts and Geogger
with 3517 posts. Geogger can not only chalk up the highest amount of reputation
(12), but is also a PS Helper. Eleven other users also enjoy popularity with one
gem (5 times), two gems (2 times), four, five, six and seven gems (each once).
While three users do have a negative reputation (-1 for elixira, -2 for J_Hunter
and -4 for stellatommo20), it is again a user with positive reputation who has been
warned nine times by moderators: 9MmBulletz.
In concluding this section, we can proceed from the assumption that thread
starters are a heterogeneous group of users, encompassing newbies as well as
Table 17. Thread starters as “do-gooders” and “trouble makers”

“do-gooders” “trouble makers”
nickname reputation experience nickname reputation experience
Lord Hysteria +18 8829 posts Don_Scott –10 3090 posts
(#36) PS Helper (#27) WL 3
Geogger +12 3517 posts Neo Con –3 1295 posts
(#38) PS Helper (#17) WL 5
MelonFace +10 478 posts Mr_Mad +1 19 posts
(#46) (#28) WL 15 Permanently banned
Sahds +7 711 posts 9MmBulletz +1 1437 posts
(#42) (#34) WL 9
Geritak +6 883 posts ShiVji +2 ? posts
(#15) (#8) WL 15 Permanently banned
Barz +3 420 posts
(#29) WL 2
Adonis +12 6349 posts
(#13) WL 2 Banned
those who have been around for a long time, males (19) as well as females (16)
and those who do not want to disclose their sex (9). Primarily, they state to be
from Great Britain (30), but also from the United States (2) or from some unbe-
knownst locations (5). In four cases, other locations were stated; three users gave
contradicting and thus unclear information. With users’ age varying from 16 to
22 years, with 23 abstentions from disclosing this piece of information, the aver-
age age in this cross section of TSR lies at 18.76 years.
In the course of the ensuing investigation, extra attention will be paid to those
users who stand out from the other thread starters in terms of experience as well
as a heightened amount (i.e. more than five points) of negative and positive repu-
tation, including their warnings levels. In Table 17, these candidates are listed
accordingly as either “do-gooders” or “trouble makers”.
Although Table 17 displays a surplus on the negative side, this does not mean
that users tend to be rather uninhibited. On the contrary, most of these alleged
“trouble makers” still possess a positive reputation, which hints at the fact that
other users must have considered them valuable interlocutors at some point in
the past. This impression is also supported by a look at the overall distribution
of positive and negative reputation, which reveals that 38 users have been rated
positively by their fellow peers, while only five of them were evaluated negatively
(with one case not being reported). The sum total of warnings level among all 44
thread starters is also low with seven instances only. It still goes to show, however,
whether this rather positive first impression can be upheld.
www.ebook777.com
7.3.3 Face claims in first posts
A first glimpse of the content of the first posts, which will be examined in some
detail in the next chapter, can already be caught here, as it stands to reason to link
some of the user related insights gained in the previous section to their first posts.
In so doing, I will not only focus on those users who have been highlighted as
experienced “do-gooders” and “trouble makers” before, but also cite one or two
connections between face claims and first posts of “ordinary” thread starters. A
comparison between these two components yields 22 results: While half of the 44
users’ face claims are either intangible or cannot be associated at all with any part
of the first post, the other 22 cases do exhibit a connection, as one face claim or
the other is picked up again somewhere within the post. In a lot of cases (9), face
claims, especially those concerning interests, are simply mirrored in the choice of
topic for the post:
– Just Another Student (#6, 7) claims to be interested in debates, thus picking
hot topics such as “Are you in favour of Euthanasia?” and “Who are more
friendly: Northerners or Southerners (England)”;
– i.am.lost (#9) is a “social media addict”, who is very involved in TSR and mem-
ber of several societies, initiated the thread “Is TSR an accurate reflection of
today’s youth?”;
– Adonis (#13), who opposes the TSR specific trend to brag with grades and
diplomas, asks “Do intellectuals put you off?”;
– Geritak (#15), who is interested in social sciences and enthused about going
to university soon, asks herself and others whether drinking could enhance
her chances of integration on campus (“To drink or not to drink….?”);
– Have Your Say (#31, 32, 33) praises himself as a valuable and smart interlocu-
tor in his label (“Best Thread Starter in Town”), consequently coming up with
current and partly controversial topics, which are bound to evoke responses
(“Should governments block websites?”, “Are we walking into a surveillance
society?”, but also “What makes you happy?”);
– 9MmBulletz (#34) claims to be “naturally academically intelligent, but […]
also naturally lazy/laid back”, prompting him to ask whether boarding schools
could be an option to enhance his working morals (“Pros and cons of board-
ing school”);
– stellatommo20 (#39) is very clear about his musical streak, thus wondering
“music /noise whilst staying at uni halls?”;
– Eden09 (#48) exhibits a journalistic streak and consequently opens a “Q&A
thread – Journalism Courses”;
– Geogger (#38), an experienced former student and “Traveller extraordinaire”,
offers “Jolly useful Geography websites” in her thread.
A closer look at the last two examples shows that face claims can also be manifest
in the choice of purpose of one’s thread. This is especially evident in the combina-
tion of the category Offering advice/information and users whose lines represent
them as experienced, helpful and/or maybe even older than the other users, for
which both Eden09’s and Geogger’s threads are perfect examples. It is thus not
surprising that thread initiators in this category are not only valued members but
sometimes even PS Helpers, such as Geogger or Lord Hysteria, the latter offering
helpful information in his Guide to How to Revise Effectively? (#36).
Apart from topic and category choices, face claims can also loom in stand-
points taken firmly, as in the case of logic123 (#41, So it seems everyone just wants
to ruin there livers in university): This user’s lines present him as a straight A stu-
dent, who proudly discloses his grades, which matches the following statement
in his initial post: “Id dont drink alcohol, never will, never have and will not be
pressurised into doing so.”
What is more, some face claims become evident not only in the choice of con-
tent as such but also in the way this content is conveyed: Inexperienced newbies
looking for contact, such as alienpmk (#40) or superfrankie (#1), are perceived to
be very sociable, enthused, even “bubbly”, which also shows in their initial entries,
which can be colorful (in the true sense of the word) and very straightforward,
as proves part of the heading of the first post of thread #1 “introduce yourselves
to me! :)”. The “Best Thread Starter in Town”, Have Your Say (see above), is in-
deed rather skillful, since he poses questions without answering them and takes
himself out of the focus by quoting articles, thus providing best conditions for a
balanced discussion.
The connection between face claims and (the formal side of the) content can
also be witnessed in the posts of those users whose lines hint to a rather belliger-
ent background (see “trouble makers” above). More often than not, they do not
seem to seek a balanced discussion at all, as the following examples will attest to:
– ShiVji (#8) seems to be permanently banned (Warnings Level 15) for a rea-
son: The user presents himself very outspoken in his thread “Life is too short”,
when he teases “If so, why do you come on TSR? It’s the most brutal way to
waste your ‘short life’. Also, is it true that people who live under this philoso-
phy die young?”;
– Don_Scott (#27) not only picks a controversial and polarizing topic but also
phrases his view of things unambiguously and unmitigated in the heading
Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil. Although this is only
the quote of the title of an article, to which he even posts the link, he evalu-
ates it positively, thus underlining his perspective once more: “… great article
provides a great answer to the modern feminist myths”;
www.ebook777.com
– The same holds true for Mr_Mad (#28): Women Make Crappy Musicians,
which is also expressed in the choice of wording. He continues his rant,
among others, with “You could probably do some digging on the Internet-
and if you were a woman you could convince a man to do some digging on
the Internet and then”, thereby attesting once more to his biased and almost
hostile attitude, thus solidifying his negative reputation;
– Neo Con (#17), posting in the category “Blowing off steam”, features a signa-
ture in which he quotes and comments on a flame by another user, thereby
keeping a former conflict alive. Another hint to his impulsive nature can be
seen in his choice of wording (“Wtf ”).
Counterexamples can be found in the posts of Barz (#29) and MelonFace (#46):
Despite his negative reputation (Warnings Level 2) and the rather hot top-
ic (Creationism of [sic! or] evolution?), Barz manages to leave a lot of room for
discussion:
I personally beleive we have evolved from apes. and that god does not exist.
If you beleive otherwise could you state your reasons why and show any evi-
dence to support your claims let the discussions begin […] plz dont turn
this into a flame war. (p1)
As the request in the last sentence implies, this user is very aware of the explosive
nature of this topic and behaves accordingly. MelonFace lives up to his positive
reputation (“do-gooders”, see above) by taking every possible measure to avoid
friction:
Apologies in advance to any literature students, this is only my opinion. […]

Ok rant over , just interested to see if anyone feels the same way? […]
From Past experience I hereby declare to every reader of this thread that:
I May Be Completely Wrong And By No Means Endorse Said View Or Expect
It To Be Agreed Upon By The General Public And As Such Do Expect Mild/
Severe Criticism So Please Be As Trigger Happy On The Neg Rep As You Wish.
(p1)
Whether the content and form of this supplement has indeed the desired effect
of de-escalation or the exact opposite is yet to be seen. As could be proven in this
section, lines cannot only be detected in profiles and other template driven sec-
tions within posts. On the contrary, these first impressions can be sensibly linked
to and are also graspable in headings and entries in multifarious ways.
7.3.4 Laying the groundwork for thread discussions: First entries
Much of what has been found out when investigating headings holds also true for
first entries – albeit in most cases in a prolonged form. The first entries usually
spell out in more detail what has already been insinuated more or less explicitly
in the heading. They are the lynchpin for the ongoing conversation insofar as
they are the centerpiece of the conversational stimulus, which elicit responses
in the form of all subsequent entries. In phrasing answers to these thread starts,
which set the standards at least in terms of content, if not also in terms of style
and rapport, interlocutors always interpret them on various levels, thus taking
them as the yardstick. We should not, however, ignore the fact that first entries do
have competition among themselves, as the entirety of comments and responses
as well as the relations established therein also serve as a model for subsequent
contributions. But let us take one step at a time. First of all, we need to deter-
mine what thread starters do in these first entries and how they do it. Only then
is it possible to sketch the interplay between first entries and subsequent ones
in the proceeding thread or, to be more accurate, to evaluate the interpersonal
appropriateness of these first entries based on interlocutors’ interpretations and
reactions thereof. With this in mind, recurring (interpersonal) patterns of thread
starts shall be carved out in the following.
You would think that the first and easiest way of establishing relations con-
sists of greeting your peer group and that those who try to lure others into joining
the thread, the thread starters, would greet their future interlocutors. In the realm
and reality of TSR, though, greetings are a scarce good. Only seven in 50 posts
contain an explicit greeting formula at all, two of which belong to the category
Getting to know others, in which a greeting appears to be directly linked to the
introduction of self: In thread #1, the greeting of the heading (“hi all”) is followed
up with another greeting in the actual entry (“hey”). The same can be witnessed
in thread #2 (same category), in which the author greets with “¡Hola!” first (head-
ing), in order to repeat this function in the actual entry with “Hey”. Two more
greetings form part of first entries in the category Asking for advice: “Well hello
there, my first thread.” (#40) and “Hello everyone.” (#42). The other instances of
greetings can be found in the category Looking for like-minded others in the first
entry of thread #19 (“Hey”), in the category Offering advice/information in thread
#5 (“Hi guys”) and in thread #48 (“Hi”). Although the small sample is certainly
not fit for generalizations, it seems as though first entries only get to see a greet-
ing, when something is at stake, like the acceptance of the two newbie-posters in
thread #1 and 2 in the TSR community, where first impressions count.
Closest to greeting interlocutors is another way of beginning a post, namely
by spelling out who the thread is directed at, as in #8 (‘Life is too short’): “The
www.ebook777.com
thread is aimed at the ones who live life under this philosophy” (my emphasis),
thereby also referring back to the heading. Revisiting the heading one way or the
other, thus creating lexical cohesion and further topical coherence, is generally
one of the most common means of starting (or, for that matter, also ending) an
entry, which can be found in almost every thread. Then again, users far and few
between also refer to other threads (#20), link to websites (#6, 37) or quote parts
of or even entire online articles (#27, 37) to create common ground or preview the
form and/or contents of their entry in the first few lines, like in #13, “Here’s a Q.”
(see also thread #4 and 11). Especially the latter technique is used quite frequently
to pave the way for what is coming up and thus to avoid, as it seems, anticipated
misunderstandings and conflicts. The success of this strategy lies again in the eyes
of the beholding interlocutors (see Section 8.2). Accordingly, we can find the fol-
lowing metapragmatic utterances:
Now – i’d better say before anyone mocks me – i’m not… (#4)
This is not meant to be an overly serious thread btw! (#7)
I know it [the TV series Friends] finished years ago, but…, (#23)
Now, i dont know if this topic has been brushed apon before but i wanted to
hear peoples opinions as to what they believe. (#29)
Apologies in advance to any literature students, this is only my opinion.
(#46, original emphasis)
Speaking of metapragmatic utterances, they are, of course, not only booked for
entry-initial positions but can occur throughout the entire entry, providing as
much clarity about the content and users’ attitudes towards it as possible, thus
trying to avoid tension. To that effect, they are high in number with some entries
even making use of metapragmatic utterances more than once:
Allow me to introduce myself. (#2)

[…] i feel the need to stress this as […] – maybe my post is slightly mislead-
ing – soz bout that (#4)
Here’s a Q. (#13)
Sorry for the long post. (#14)
plz dont turn this into a flame war (#29)
Obviously, some metapragmatic utterances are used to comment on the upcom-

ing content in a rather ritualized, fixed form as in thread #2 and #13 to give but
two examples. Then again others are quite verbose (e.g. #4, 29), as they detail
former reactions in trying to avoid similar experiences.
In the last and most common way of launching an entry, users start to nar-
rate almost abruptly what has happened to them (to ask for advice subsequently,
third category) or what is on their mind concerning a certain controversial issue
(to start a discussion, fourth category). The following entry-initial excerpts bear
witness to this pattern:
OK, so I’m doing a prjoect over the summer (a Nuffield Bursary) at a place…
(#14)
I’m 18 and for my entire life, I have been… (#15)
Ok so I am paying for my clothes and she goes… (#17)
ok i have gone through all of my education so far in a catholic environ-
ment. (#30)
Basicaly, Im in first year college and… (#34)
Now that we had a look at how thread initial entries are usually introduced, let us
jump to the other end and examine how the thread starters at least in this corpus
manage to close their very first entries and thus lead over to the interactive part. It
certainly does not come as a big surprise that a farraginous variety of closings can
be found – even in this small sample – with animated or ASCII smileys playing a
central role in a lot of cases, to which the following examples will attest:
Discuss (#4)
…might calm your nerves :P (#5)
Just a basic traveling question - why not?! (#25)
WHAT DO YOU THINK???? (#30)
Good luck to all sitting exams now and in future! (#36)
I’d really appreciate your help.. thanks!! (#42)
Help! (#44)
Obviously, smileys as keystones of entries can accompany representatives, ex-

pressives and directives (including suggestions to join the group or the discus-
sion), even metapragmatic utterances (#25). In any case, the composer’s emotive
stance and attitude towards the content seem to be stressed more or less unam-
biguously by the presence of this emoticon: While the smiley in #36 reveals the
author’s emotional state quite straightforwardly and discloses amusement, it is all
the more difficult to tell the smiley’s meaning in #4 beyond a general open and
friendly attitude. One could also argue that the smiley serves as a mitigatory de-
vice to soften the bare imperative of the directive. In this regard, smileys seem
to have a unique way of establishing contact on an interpersonal plane between
www.ebook777.com
online interlocutors, which is why their impact on further discussions will be

closely observed. Sometimes, the closing of entries is even taken over completely
by smileys, as they do not directly refer to the previous utterance and are sepa-
rated from it at least by a paragraph or a break:
(#1)
[\]66 x (#23)
Underneath the smiley in #23, the small x indicates a virtual kiss, which can also
be found in thread #40: “Thanks guys. [\] x”. Although this is quite customary in
traditional written exchange between (at least) friends, it seems quite intimate
and almost rushed for a message board entry – especially in view of the fact that
at that point it is unpredictable who is going to answer at all.
Apart from inserting smileys, there are still other ways of rounding off an
entry, among them repeating the initial question(s) (#3, 1667, 49), putting in one’s
own two cents right after initiating a discussion (#20, 25, 28) or explicitly asking
for people’s thoughts and opinions (#6, 27, 50). Naturally, these closings differ
considerably from a formal point of view and can be encountered in combination
with other closing rituals, such as thanks (#8, 15, 39, 40, 42), links to articles (#32,
33), best wishes and invitations to contact the user (#36, 48) or again metaprag-
matic utterances (#29, 46). Above that, some closings are further ornamented
with other accessories such as apologies68 like in #14, “Sorry for the long post.”,
additional reflections (#6, 14), general justifications for the existence of the post
as such (#15), even instructions for the moderators as to the form of this thread,
e.g. in #48: “Mods – can this be made a sticky thread?”. Finally, some entries do
not seem to have a real closing after all, such as threads #12, 18, 26, 38 or 47,
which do not include further closing formulae but simply end with the narration
and with a member list respectively. In one case (#36), the thread starter even
made use of a second, subsequent post to add his invitation to discuss his previ-
ous contribution.
Although the majority of closings in this corpus does not exhibit any pecu-
liarities, some of them do stand out against the others, such as the following two
66. Borrowed from HTML, the combination [\] will be used henceforth to indicate paragraphs
contained in the original entries.
67. Thread #16 constitutes an exception insofar as the whole entry only comprises one ques-
tion, which is – to make matters worse – quite repetitive of the heading. Consequently, catego-
ries such as beginning or closing of an entry cannot really be applied.
68. The second of the only two apologies to be found within these 50 initial posts is part of
thread #4: “…maybe my post is slightly misleading – soz bout that”, soz being short for ‘sorry’.
directives: While “Discuss.” in thread #13 appeared as totally unmitigated bare

imperative, the closing of thread #21, “Post what you think of the film, or what-
ever.” sounds almost lukewarm and indifferent. What is more, an opinion was
presented in the form of an extremely inflammatory statement in #28, “Women
always like to use sexism as an excuse for their lack of genius.”, which is most cer-
tainly bound to provoke fierce reactions by interlocutors.
The prominent role of smileys has already been stressed in the context of
closings. Still they are not confined to that position alone. On the contrary, smi-
leys can be found all over the entry, as they are one major and easy to produce
compensatory mechanism for the transportation of emotive prosody. A rather
extreme but all the more vivid example of how smileys can be employed to convey
an emotional stance presents itself in thread #1, in which superfrankie, a newbie
who seems to be very enthused about being part of TSR now, confides her feelings
about the upcoming AS results as follows:
[…] oh dearr! panicpanic!!!! lol aaanyway haha..; i

ADORE chocolate, alottt! […]
Obviously, a variety of (animated) smileys helps this user to express her feelings
(sheer panic) quite straightforwardly and unambiguously. In addition to that, she
also uses emulated speech in “oh dearr”, “aaanyway” and “alottt”, capitalization
(“ADORE”), acronyms (“lol”), color and font changes and action turns (“panic-
panic”) as well as repeated punctuation (!!!!) to further substantiate her feelings.
Note, however, that this example is the exception rather than the rule, as users
usually make moderate use of these compensatory mechanisms and only sel-
dom put the whole array into one single entry. To voice their emotions or at least
their attitudes towards a certain proposition, thread starters picked smileys like
, , , , , , , , , , , , or and also “:)” or
“:P” or combinations such as throughout their entries. The reticence in
view of using compensatory mechanisms and netlingo in general becomes all the
more obvious considering the fact that 18 in 50 entries can do completely without
any kinds of compensatory mechanisms (#3, 20, 50 among others). What is more,
not a whole lot of acronyms and abbreviations has been used either: With the
exception of typical CMC acronyms such as lol (‘laughing out loud’), rly (‘really’),
Wtf (‘what the fuck’), irl (‘in real life’) and also kthnxbai (‘okay, thanks, bye’) and
very few other abbreviations like convo (‘conversation’), soz (‘sorry’) and Q (‘ques-
tion’), first entries pretty much resembled regular spoken rather than written ex-
changes. Accordingly, orthography was partly erroneous and syntax was handled
flexibly, especially in terms of punctuation and mixed case, which could also be
owed to a certain disinclination to correct typos in this kind of communicative
environment.
www.ebook777.com
Still users fortuitously rather than consciously followed the fifth rule of TSR
netiquette and desisted from using much “text speak” (see Section 3.3.2). Wheth-
er or not thread starters actually read the code of conduct according to which
they are supposed to phrase their contributions, there still seems to be a general
awareness about when you run the risk of pushing limits too far. For this rea-
son, Just Another Student, to give an example, starts his initial post in thread #6
with a prelude about the positioning of his contribution within the categories of
TSR (including giving permission to the moderators to move it), which reflects
rule number 2 in TSR netiquette (“Post in the correct forum and stay on topic”,
see Section 3.3.2): “I’m not sure if this should be in the Debate and Discussion
Forums or whether it can be in either. I know on this forum you can a broader
participation. But feel free to move it, of course.” Another thread starter, Anony-
mous (#14), is “Sorry for the long post”, as this user feels to have overstretched
the audience’s patience. Then again others, obviously disobeying such rules, are
not even aware of doing so: lilythrash21 starts the second thread with a Spanish
heading, clearly violating another part of the fifth rule, which states “Post in the
English language unless in an area where it is acceptable to do otherwise (a lan-
guage society thread or the languages academic help forum.). Outside these areas
always provide a translation.” Whether these infringements of the TSR code of
conduct are actually perceived and commented on and, above all, how interlocu-
tors will handle the first and extremely comprehensive rule “No personal attacks
or inflammatory behaviour” is yet to be seen in the second half of this analysis,
revolving around hearer reactions.
To round off this chapter, the last few paragraphs will be dedicated to the
description of prototypical functional patterns of each of the six broad categories
of communicative purposes. Beforehand, we can establish that there are at least
two aspects that all of these categories have in common: users’ need to explain or
even justify the choice and/or genesis of the topic as well as the prominent role of
a certain emotional stance, which is contained in almost any post in whatsoever
category.
1. Getting to know others

Posts of this category mostly contain a lot of personal background information,
including the disclosure of current issues of this person’s life as well as interests.
With the help of simple declarative clauses of the pattern S V Cs as in I’m X. or
S V O such as I do X., a lot of face claims are revealed. The aim of these kinds
of posts, to establish contact with other users, can be pursued quite differently:
While superfrankie in thread #1 chooses the slightly mitigated but still rather di-
rect imperative “introduce yourselves to me :)” right away (heading), lilythrash21
(thread #2) resorts to the rather formal and fixed expression “allow me to intro-
duce myself ” (entry) to preview her next communicative moves.
2. Looking for like-minded others

As already indicated in the title, users of this category want to find like-minded
others in order to find members for a new society within TSR (see Section 2.6.2),
dedicated to their mutual hobbyhorse. This activity is per se a social one, aimed at
creating interpersonal bonds, for which the target audience is often sketched, the
purpose and aim of this society is outlined and existing members are listed.
3. Asking for advice

The crucial point in this category is the backdrop of the story, which needs to be
narrated and evaluated by the affected person, the thread starter, in order to bring
the audience up to speed. Only then is it possible to get advice from the others, the
sole purpose of this category, which can be accomplished in many different ways.
Looking through the corpus, though, we can detect at least four different types of
eliciting advice, perceivably ranging from a low to a high degree of imposition (cf.
4.3.1), with type three and four being approximately on the same level:
1. narration without interrogative clauses explicitly addressing interlocutors;

2. interrogative clauses summarizing the problem without explicitly asking for
advice, e.g.: What could she mean by it though? (#11);
3. explicitly addressing the others when asking for advice, e.g.: What say ye?
(#24);
4. Others: directives, expressives, representatives, e.g.: What are the pros
and cons and is it for me? [\] Are you allowed game consoles there and lap-
tops? [two breaks] Please answer as many questions that I pose as you can.
(#34).
4. Asking for opinions

The same narrative procedure can be witnessed in this category, which also re-
quires a background to be told first before a discussion can be encouraged – un-
less, of course, the heading is self-explanatory and already contains the basic
issues, as in threads #29 Creationism of [sic! or] evolution? and #30 how much of
the bible is ‘truth’ and can god really have made everything? If that is not the case,
the bone of contention needs to be spelled out one way or another in the entry.
If it is a personal opinion or theory that a user wants to put up for discussion,
he needs to make his views known. Otherwise, we are dealing with more or less
common knowledge that has to be (re)created in order for it to become common
ground. As the following list shows, users in the corpus often proceed by posting
(links to) online articles or by quoting or summarizing (parts of) them:
Good website: [link] (#6)
www.ebook777.com
A very interesting article here: [link] Highlights are: [quotes from the original
article] (#37)
Here’s another story: [link] In condensed form: [summarizing main points]
(#50)
Thread starters usually avoid imposing on their interlocutors, as they phrase their
attempts to create common ground very tentatively, for example with the help of
modal auxiliaries or by just posting a link. The decision to visit a website or not is
thus left to the interlocutor. Only in some rare cases is the interlocutor faced with
excerpts or even with a complete article which he has to read through first before
getting the drift of the desired discussion. The second excerpt from thread #6 ob-
viously does not create common ground per se but rather stresses the necessity of
common ground for the upcoming discussion.
To actually launch said discussion, (strings of) interrogative clauses are
used to raise the subject. In most cases, these are directly addressed to potential
interlocutors:
Also I was wondering why you lot are homeschooled. Did you get bullied at
school or have agoraphobia or something? Or do you have really clingy over-
protective parents who don’t want you to go to school with other teenagers?
[…] And also who teaches you? Your parents or do you hire a private tutor(s)
to do it (#3)
Is the UK sleepwalking into a surveillance state? Do we need more adequate
safeguards? Have you been snooped on? (#32, original emphasis)
Labours argument is that they brand kids as failures? But what about the
private schools, branding us all as failures in terms of parent income? (#37)
The second half of this list shows that a few users prefer posing questions imper-
sonally, thus imposing less on interlocutors. In some cases, these questions are
followed up with an invitation to discuss, frequently in the form of imperatives,
sometimes, however, also as interrogative clauses or as combinations of both:
… – does anyone agree/disagree? […] Discuss (#4)

Anyway, what are other people’s thoughts? (#6)
Post what you think of the film, or whatever. (#21)
WHAT DO YOU THINK???? (#30)
Ok rant over , just interested to see if anyone feels the same way? (#46)
Reactions? (#50)
Again, some users do not feel the need to post either a question or an invitation to
discuss at all. It will be interesting to see whether there are any differences in the
way interlocutors react to these diverse invitations to discuss. Another ingredient
which reflects the nature of this category consists of users’ evaluations of the topic,
viz. adopting one position or the other:
I cant really see any benefits to home education. (#3)

… – terrible though it is i can't help but wonder… […] personally i don't think
completely illegalising it is the way to go – perhaps if… (#4)
[in answering the question in the heading] No, I am not. […] My views aren’t
as strong as they may seem. I am only slightly against it and can see the for
arguments. (#6)
Women always like to use sexism as an excuse for their lack of genius. (#28)
I wholly support grammar schools – I think they enable so much social mobil-
ity and are a credit to Britain. (#37)
While some users mitigate (#4, 6, 37) or even lay low about their opinions, pre-
sumably to steer clear from biasing the discussants beforehand, others seem to
pursue the exact opposite: In the best case, they are simply open about their point
of view (#3). In the worst case, however, they seem to want to pick a fight (#28).
5. Blowing off steam

The second to last category consists of mainly two parts: the narration of the
problem and the evaluation thereof. Compliant with the name of this category, it
is not unusual either to show some emotions in this process:
It makes me so angry. (#12)
Anyway this is a rant,… […] I find it so stupid how they cannot say your apli-
cation has been rejected, they always pussyfoot around the subject. (#17)
and whats the reason for your trip??…Lifestory or what.. (#26)
6. Offering advice/information

Finally, examples in this category usually stem from older, experienced users, who
feel that they can share their experiences about whatsoever topic with the younger
crowd. Accordingly, these thread starts are rather long and can take the form of
a guide (#36), a list (#38), or a Q&A section (#48). These can be accompanied by
explanations about the necessity or form of these posts, some also by good luck
wishes:
Good luck to all sitting exams now and in future! (#36)

Hope this helps. Feel free to ask any more questions (#48)
www.ebook777.com
7.4 Other hotbeds for establishing contact: Profiles and signatures
As a matter of fact, we do not have to look as far as the content of the threads in
order to find attempts to make contact with fellow-participants. Two templates to
be filled out creatively by users, profiles and signatures, lend themselves for this
purpose as well – at least theoretically. As we have seen before (see Section 7.3.2),
profiles are seldom filled out and hardly contain any kind of personal information
at all. Still, five out of 50 users prove to be the exception to this rule, as they use
their profile for this particular purpose, very well knowing that – unlike in thread
interaction – the only way to receive a response is via private mail or as part of an
entry in one thread or another:
hey! […] (#1, profile of superfrankie)

Hiya! […] Feel free to PM me with queries about any of the above. I don’t bite.
(#15, profile of Geritak)
Hi- how are you? No, really. How’s the form? […]
(#19, profile of imnotapenguin)
[…] Feel free to ask if you want to know more about the course/uni […]
(#50, profile of lingwist)
An even bigger exception to the rule is DaveSteed24, initiator of thread #4, and his
use of his profile, since he dedicates an entire section of his profile to some of his
favorite TSR interlocutors:
you all
There are some people i’ve met on here who mean an awful lot to me, [\]
Firstly to Dannidolly who introduced me to the this site i’m really really
happy that we’ve got back into contact not having you in my life was
really strange and i missed our chats so much here’s to many many
more there are some people i think that you know you’re meant to have
in your life and thats definitely what i feel with you i hope so anyway
[\] MissAphrodite, talking with you over the past year about every-
thing and anything really means the world to me I don’t think i could
have got through this last year without you to talk to every day you
always help me with my problems i hope i’m just as good at helping with
yours it would really put a smile on my face to see you happy one day
and i definitely am to be able to call you my friend love you sis [\]
AccioJellyBean thank you so much for the compliments about my work
you gave me faith in it when i needed it and i’ll always be grateful – and i
hope i’ll get to acknowledge you in the back of my book one day thank
you for being my friend and making me smile you’re really one of the
loveliest, kindest, funniest girls i could ever hoped to have met and uni
will be that much more awesome now i’ll be going with you [\] And
Writergirl, thank you for always knowing exactly what to say when im
down, i don’t know what i’d do without you sometimes you really have an
ability for making me smile when i dont think i can you really are one
of the sweetest girls in the world i truly am lucky and grateful that you
quoted me on here i hope you find someone special one day [\] hope
i don’t get into trouble for writing this
Instead of seeking new contacts by means of his profile, DaveSteed24 concentrates

on existing relationships with fellow-participants. By thanking them for their sup-
port and friendship as well as by praising their qualities, he verbally strengthens
their positive faces and their need for association as well as his own.
Besides profiles, signatures can also be used as a means of transportation for
messages to co-participants, be they known or unknown. Another look at the first
50 posts revealed three such examples, two of which involved thread starters in
giving instructions to potential future interlocutors:
Quote me if you want a reply (#21, signature of J_Hunter)

[\] Please quote me. (#48, signature of Eden09)
Exceptional for this category is the signature that Neo Con, originator of thread
#17, has attached to each and every one of his contributions: In displaying ex-
cerpts from a bickering with another user, he keeps alive an old flame:
Funny neg rep, nice to see you still thinking of me days on end, who really
doesn’t have a life hmm
‘Funny you mock me for caring too much about TSR when you’re spending
HOURS each day bickering with your similarly stupid peers. Don’t you have
anything else to do, I KNOW wanna-be dentists have to study!
I was going to say ‘grow some balls’ but then again your genome is a cancer
on the world, we don’t need more weak, stupid, angry and restless retards in
this world so I certainly hope you and your trash parents don’t excrete out
another foul one, we’re damn saturated, OK?:ye From DJkG.1’
It further confirms that neoconservatism is a bonafide ideology to protect

western civilization and it’s values.
Naturally, one can only speculate about Neo Con’s reasons for the content of
his signature. In terms of facework, however, he clearly distances himself from
his interlocutor and threatens his face by parading his interlocutor’s aggressive
behavior.
www.ebook777.com
7.5 Summary: Findings for the establishment of interpersonal relations
This chapter has given formal and functional insights into integral patterns of
thread starts in the form of headings and first entries. As could be shown, head-
ings managed in an average of six words to attract interlocutors’ attention for the
topic. More often than not, this was insofar successful as the purpose of the thread
could be conveyed adequately within this first line (for exceptions see thread #8,
40, 41), for example by means of greetings and introductory statements in the
first category (Getting to know others), stating the target group in the second one
(Looking for like-minded others) or by requests for advice and opinions in the
third and forth category (Asking for advice, Asking for opinions). Headings were
further employed to convey a first emotional stance and included initial signs of
mitigation.
The investigation of face claims was insightful in those cases, in which users
decided to disclose a certain amount of their personal backgrounds, thus drop-
ping lines for analyzing participants, which could partly be rediscovered either
in the form and the content of their first entries. In the course of this, valuable
demographic insights about the thread starters could be gained. Above that, a
dozen users could be distinguished from the other thread starters based on their
extraordinary good or bad reputation, which gives a first reference point as to
their previous interpersonal behavior. Accordingly, it will be in the interest of
this study to keep a close eye on these “do-gooders” and “trouble makers” in the
developing interaction.
Last but not least, the analysis of the first entries illustrated that greetings
were a scarce good and rather informal in style (“hey, hi”). Users often decided on
other ways of beginning an entry, among them linking to other webpages, quoting
(parts of) articles, revisiting the heading or previewing the content, to name but
a few. Above that, closings were multifarious and often accompanied by smileys,
which is an important feature, among others, to convey emotions and attitudes
towards propositions but also to mitigate directives. More than once, the main
part contained a narrative component which set out to create common ground or
introduced a personal opinion, subsequently segueing into asking for advice or
opinions and invitations to discuss. Finally, metapragmatic utterances appeared
to be a welcome means in the attempt to create clarity and avoid ambiguity and
could be encountered in various positions within an entry. Whether this attempt
is indeed crowned with success will show the analysis of all subsequent entries
which found entrance into this corpus.
In the following, it will be interesting to see how interlocutors actually react
to what is presented to them, including their verbal behavior with regard to ac-
cepting invitations to discuss, answering questions, dealing with and generating
emotional display, responding to (inflammatory) opinions and much more. Will

economics and laziness win over relational work or will it be the other way round,
for example when the smoothness of conversation is at stake? In a word, what
kind of communicative behavior can we expect from interlocutors? Will they
mirror those of thread starters without further ado, will they display completely
different kinds of communicative behavior or will they even comment explicitly
on what seems either appealing and appropriate or intolerable and inappropri-
ate to them? Although explicit comments will certainly appear only far and few
between, we will definitely find implicit comments hidden in the propositions
of utterances themselves. Only in the light of hearer reactions is it possible to
evaluate and subsequently label thread starters’ original posts as appropriate or
inappropriate, thus revisiting the comprehensive framework of relational work
proposed in Section 5.5.
A first hint on the judgment of appropriateness of initial posts can already be
found in seven of the said initial posts themselves. Even without looking at hearer
reactions, we know that the first entries of threads #4, 6, 30, 37, 39, 44, 46, in their
original form, must have caused or at least have been suspected to cause some
kind of misunderstanding or tension among the interlocutors. As automatically
inserted system notes at the end of each entry reveal, these thread starters saw the
need to clarify parts of the entry by modifying its original content – at least once.
A look at the time stamps of the posts shows that the users had several minutes to
a few hours to alter their contributions after their first publications:
thread #4 (DaveSteed24):
time stamp original post: 13-08-2009: 13th August 2009 13:37
automatic system note: Last edited by DaveSteed24 : 13-08-2009 at 16:04.
potential change in content: Prohibition is a stupid idea when applied in real life i feel the
need to stress this as a lot of people who have posted seem to
think i am pro – maybe my post is slightly misleading – soz
bout that
thread #6 (Just Another Student):

automatic system note: Last edited by Just Another Student : 11-08-2009 at 00:06.
potential change in content: Anyway, what are other people’s thoughts? My views aren’t as
strong as they may seem. I am only slightly against it and can
see the for arguments.
thread #30 (bunny9213):

time stamp original post: 18-03-2009: 18th March 2009 13:14
automatic system note: Last edited by bunny9213 : 18-03-2009 at 13:46.
potential change in content: ?
www.ebook777.com
thread #37 (Worried Pasta):

automatic system note: Last edited by Worried Pasta : 09-08-2009 at 19:44.
thread #39 (stellatommo20):

automatic system note: Last edited by EierVonSatan : 12-08-2009 at 20:51.
thread #44 (elixira):

time stamp original post: 26-05-2009: 26th May 2009 20:36
automatic system note: Last edited by elixira : 26-05-2009 at 20:40.
potential change in content: P.S. I do not want to be any sort of teacher.
thread #46 (MelonFace):

time stamp original post: 18-06-2009: 18th June 2009 23:13
automatic system note: Last edited by MelonFace : 18-06-2009 at 23:27.
potential change in content: From Past experience I hereby declare to every reader of this
thread that: I May Be Completely Wrong And By No Means
Endorse Said View Or Expect It To Be Agreed Upon By The
General Public And As Such Do Expect Mild/Severe Criticism
So Please Be As Trigger Happy On The Neg Rep As You Wish.
As suggested in the excerpts, lurking observers who did not witness the launching
of the first draft of the post can only guess as to which parts were altered, deleted
and/or added. The passages quoted from the first post of thread #4 and #46 are
insofar noticeable as they appear to be a supplement to the original, separated
from the rest of the entry by a break and standing out for their bold type face and
coloring respectively. Also, the P.S. in thread start #44 most likely seems to be a
supplement. The other posts leave much more room for speculation as neither
content nor typeface offer any further clues. Another secret revolves around the
question whether the change was purely prophylactic or caused by actual reac-
tions. So far we can only be sure about thread #4, since the user refers to “a lot of
people who have posted” which, together with a clarifying statement about this
user’s point of view in this discussion, must have been the part added later on. The
real reason(s) behind all the other modifications can at most only be determined
when looking at the subsequent posts.
www.ebook777.com
chapter 8
Analyzing online message boards II

Thread interaction
8.1 Introduction
Seizing up on the description of the fifty first posts gained in the previous chapter,
this one undertakes the second step of the analysis by examining reactions to
these first posts, as contained in all subsequent posts within the threads, with the
management of ensuing interpersonal relations naturally leading the way. Taking
the two central concepts from Chapter 4 and 5, facework and relational work, as
a springboard, the two major strands of investigation to be pursued in this study
can roughly be sketched as in Figure 18. In order to pursue the two strands of
investigation, it is necessary to remember and uphold the distinction between
the terms relational work and facework proposed in Section 5.3. Although both
notions are certainly closely related and share more than one feature (e.g. their
discursive nature), they differ in terms of their focal point, which is the nego-
tiation of present and future relationships between individuals in the context of
relational work and the negotiation of faces, face claims and basic human needs
as subsumed under the notion facework. The scope of latter of the two notions
Following the introductory post, participants…

– react to the thread starter’s input
– meet the specific requirements of the category, i.e.
giving of advice, uttering of opinions etc.
In doing so, participants negotiate their…
faces relations
→ facework → relational work
Figure 18. Two strands of investigation: facework and relational work

also finds expression in the combined model of face as introduced in Section 4.4,
which unites the advantages of both Goffman’s and Brown/Levinson’s notion of
face. Based on the understanding of face expressed in this model, we can not only
describe the discursive negotiation of face claims among message board partici-
pants, but also spot strategies which support or subvert their need for association
and/or dissociation within interaction (henceforth positive and negative facework
respectively). On the other hand, there is the modified model of relational work
(see Section 5.3), which helps us classify the various types of appropriate and
inappropriate behavior among interlocutors. According to this schema, all oth-
er 3221 posts of the fifty threads, which have not been discussed so far, will be
sounded out. While results to the first strand (facework) will be listed qualita-
tively in the form of strategies for each subchapter, the latter (relational work) will
be displayed quantitatively in a grid.
To avoid measuring all threads by the same yardstick and to do their various
communicative purposes justice, the analysis will be conducted according to the
classification proposed in Section 7.3 (see Table 16), viz. in six groups. To struc-
ture the content of all these threads even a little bit further, thus facilitating the
actual analysis, their interactional nature needs to be foregrounded: While some
threads exhibit a rather flat hierarchy, others are far more complex and branched.
For the sake of illustration, Figure 19 shows what two prototypical threads could
look like. On the left-hand side, one stimulus, the thread start (indicated by “1”),
triggers entries which exclusively respond to the first post, thus creating a low de-
gree of interaction. A high degree of interaction is shown on the right-hand side,
where responses refer to the first post (see 2, 4, 6, 8) or comment on the comment
of the comment (see, for example, posts 5 and 10). Then again, posts can com-
1 1
2 2 3 5
3 vs. 4 7
4 6 11
… 8 9 10
Figure 19. Discourse structure and types of interactivity in two prototypical threads
www.ebook777.com
Chapter 8. Analyzing online message boards II: Thread interaction 165
ment on the content of two (or more) previous posts simultaneously (see post 7)
or on the interaction between two (or more) users (see post 11).
Needless to say that these two types of interaction are prototypical extreme
cases, each at an end of an imaginative scale. The more realistic, intermediate
types, however, need to be located somewhere in the middle of that scale, dis-
playing at most a tendency to either of the two poles of the scale. If we want to
determine the interaction of threads more accurately and distinguish them nu-
merically by that feature, all we need is a simple formula, which interrelates the
number of users (U) with the number of posts (P) in a thread, thus generating an
approximate interaction quotient: IQ = 1 – U:P.69 The lowest possible degree of
interaction is achieved, when 50 users contribute 50 posts, resulting in an interac-
tion quotient of 0 (0%). Then again, the IQ is the highest possible, when the same
amount of posts (50) is created by only two users: 0.96 (96%.)70 With the help of
this formula, we can group all threads according to their interaction quotient (see
Table 18).
A look at the corresponding pie chart (see Figure 20) reveals that the interac-
tion in the TSR corpus is rather low, as almost half of all threads display an IQ
below 35% (48% of all threads). Then again the small proportion of 14% of all
threads features an IQ above 65%. This results in an average IQ of only 44% for
all threads, which means that only a minority of users in these threads engages
in exchanges with more than one turn per interlocutor, i.e. in dialogues or even
polylogues. In the best case, we have an IQ of 76% (threads #2, 27), at worst only
4% (thread #43).
Another look at the two prototypical patterns of interaction described above
tells us also something about the nature of the posts themselves. Reconsidering
the importance of the hearer perspective for the evaluation of the appropriateness
Table 18. Grouping of the threads according to their interaction quotient (IQ)
Interaction quotient (IQ) No. threads %
high (100–65%) 7 14
medium (64–35%) 19 38
low (34–0%) 24 48
69. The first part of this formula (1 – ) is necessary for the quotient to better mirror the degree
of interaction: large numbers for a high degree and small numbers for a low degree of interac-
tion – and not the other way around.
70. The number of one user can be ruled out in this formula, as monologues are not only very
unlikely but also uninteresting for this study. For obvious reasons, it is impossible to ever yield
an interaction quotient of 100%.
14%
IQ > 65
48% 65 > IQ > 35
IQ > 35
38%
Figure 20. Threads according to their interaction quotient (IQ) in percentages
of posts, we need to develop a system to distinguish those posts which receive val-
ue judgments from their successors from those which do not. Ideally these value
judgments replace but at least back up the evaluation of the participant observer.
Accordingly, we should make a point about three different categories of posts:
– evaluated posts (= type A) are analyzed based on subsequent posts referring

to them:
A ← B
– evaluating posts (= type B) contain value judgments about preceding type A
posts:
A ← B
– erratic posts (= type C) stand isolated and without any reference to previous
posts:71
A ← B C
With regard to the communicative purpose of message boards, isolated type C

posts are not likely to be found very often in the corpus and will only play a mar-
ginal role in this study. Instead, the analysis will focus on the interpersonal ap-
propriateness of type A posts, which can be judged to some degree on the basis of
subsequent type B posts. In dialogic structures, however, most posts can be both
type A and type B, as they are evaluating (B) and being evaluated (A) at the same
time. The only two exceptions to this overlap of functions concerns the first and
71. This also includes posts which comment on the entire thread, lacking reference to one
specific contribution previously posted. As potential evaluations contained in this special kind
of type C post cannot be attributed to one or two particular (type A) posts, they are useless for
this study. At best, they may be beneficial for capturing one user’s impression of the atmosphere
of (parts of) the thread.
www.ebook777.com
the last post within dialogic structures: Lacking a predecessor to evaluate, the
first post can only be a type A post. Then again, the last one can only be a type B
post, since there is no subsequent post to evaluate it. Consequently, only type A
posts in dialogue-initial position and type B posts in dialogue-terminal position
(henceforth Bt) are functionally fixed.
By their very nature, all 50 initial posts (see Chapter 7) can be labeled type A
posts, as they are evaluated by all those subsequent type B posts which refer to the
first one. Evidently, these numerous evaluations can vary considerably, in case of
which the initial posts concerned will be dealt with separately. The same special
attention will, by the way, also be paid for elaborate posts which, for one reason
or another, contain more than one direction of relational work evaluating maybe
even more than one previous post. Apart from initial posts, a second group of
type A posts can be spotted here and there, comprehending those comments to
the thread start which serve themselves as springboards for further comments.
This is typical for dialogic or even polylogic structures, which are ideal hotbeds
for the negotiation of interpersonal relations. Bearing in mind the low IQs dis-
cussed above, which hint to flat communicative hierarchies with few dialogic or
polylogic structures, it is easily predictable that evaluated, type A posts will be
fewer in number than dialogue-terminal type Bt posts (see also Table 36 and 37).
Since we cannot afford to concentrate on type A posts alone, type Bt posts will be
an integral part of this analysis as well.
8.2 Managing interpersonal relations online
Although the basic course of action and the central concepts for the analysis have
been laid out in the introductory section, the first chapter to really dissect the ma-
terial, 8.2.1, will be quite elaborate in order to demonstrate as clearly as possible
the analytical steps and to spell out the underlying methods and assumptions
of the results. For that reason, both threads of this category will be discussed in
detail. Since qualitative analyses are not only a finicky but also a lengthy business,
subjecting each and every one of the fifty threads to this procedure cannot be the
aim of this chapter – at least not this graphically. Accordingly, the course of action
for the other subchapters will change: Only one thread per category will be exam-
ined in detail to be supplemented with insights gained in the other threads subse-
quently. Noteworthy examples will, however, be quoted whenever necessary.
A first clue to the popularity of topics picked in first posts and/or of the way
these were presented by the respective thread starter can be found out rather eas-
ily: by simply looking at the speed of interaction. This is revealed in the amount
of posts per day of each thread (see Table 13, Section 7.2) and can be estimated
against the average number of 12.5 posts per day (p/d).
8.2.1 Getting to know others
The purpose of this category, to get to know others on TSR, ideally calls for an
interactive exchange between interlocutors. Indeed, both threads in this category,
#1 (hi all, i’m frankie :) introduce yourselves to me! :)) and #2 (¡Hola! Soy Lily.),
exhibit a medium to high IQ with 56% and 76% respectively. The sub-average
number of posts per day, 4.5 and 6 respectively, indicates a moderate interest in
the content of both original posts, making them perfectly comparable. Before we
can start relating further thread developments to them, the content of the initial
posts (henceforth presented in boxes before the analysis) needs to be summarized
in the shortest possible way:
hi all, i’m frankie :) introduce yourselves to me! :)

hey, i’m Frankie, i’m 17 and from Nottinghamshire, UK. i’m currently
awaiting my AS results which is in 8 days, oh dearr! panicpanic!!!!
lol [\]
aaanyway haha.. i love fine art, expressionism, oil paint (just getting covered
in paint really lol) and i like Drama too, and Law. i enjoy shopping and
long walks on sunny days i ADORE chocolate, alottt! [\]

The first entry of thread #1 was composed by superfrankie (henceforth s), a new-
bie who presented herself as a “bubbly”, sociable and extremely enthused young
girl. These face claims also come out clearly in the way her post is designed (e.g.
change of color, exuberant use of smileys and emulated speech, etc.). In trying to
get others to introduce themselves to her, she makes her intentions known very
soon (heading) and above all quite straightforward (imperative, mitigated with a
smiley). To do her bit, she greets her interlocutors before introducing herself.
Before going into any details, it is safe to say that interlocutors’ reactions are
uniformly positive, as s’s behavior is widely accepted and not met with disap-
proval in any way, thus hinting to an absolutely appropriate way to start a thread.
With the exception of some smileys here and there, which are an integral part of
every thread, her very idiosyncratic style is neither commented on in any way nor
copied. Among the seven users who reacted to her post, four newbies and three
established members could be identified, which is insofar important as the kind
of response varied according to the respondents’ status: Newbies show a tendency
www.ebook777.com
to recreate (part of) the structure of the introductory post and to pick up and
elucidate on the proposed topics (i.e. the disclosure of personal information, AS
results). This is quite evident in the following example:
hey im lauren, good like with your AS results, i got my standard grade
results a week ago. [\] i love drama too, its like my main hobbie (p2)
Other newbie reactions saw the creation of very similar posts when compared to
the thread starter’s attempt to make contact, formally as well as functionally. Still
no one, including the thread starter, bothers to answer these two:
Hello all, I am Andre and just become member of thgis community. I really
appreciate this TSR lobby and would love to share my views with others.
(p17)
hey guys, im ali, im waitin on A2 results aswell, good luck 2 u all 4 urs!!
(p18)
Established members’ responses, on the contrary, vary considerably in terms of

their structure as well as their content and do not copy the initial post. Corre-
sponding to their heightened status, experienced members do not seem to feel
the need to concentrate on and introduce themselves or to pick up on presented
topics. Instead, they focus on the new user, whom they welcome and include into
the group. In some cases, they even praise the value of the new inductee for the
community:
Welcome to TSR. I get my A2 results next week too, not too long now
[\] Happy posting (p4)
[\] Seems like another great addition to TSR (p10)
Big up da Nottingham massive!!”….and all that. welcome (p13)
The last user acknowledges the thread starter’s home with a casual line about Not-
tingham before welcoming her also.
The facework towards the thread starter as provided by newbies as well as
established members aims at strengthening her sense of belonging and becoming
in-group. s’s need for association, which is clearly expressed in her post, is thus
met. Owed to these very face wants, s gives answers to as many comments as pos-
sible (4 out of 7) and does so as suavely as possible, using, for example, first names
whenever possible. Thereby, she does not only heighten the IQ of this thread but
also initiates several dialogic structures with other users. In so doing, she recipro-
cates the others’ good intentions and fulfills the preset frames of adjacency pairs.
In other words, she thanks for welcome and good luck wishes, laughs to indicate
that she is still present and interested in the conversation or continues conversa-
tional topics:
Hi Lauren thankyouu! i’m really nervous… haha. and really? in year 13

we’re gonna study Steven Berkoff, should be interesting! how did you do in
your results?? (p3)
Thank you for the welcome, Hannah Good luck in your results too! (p5)
hahaha thankyou very much!! how are you? (p14)
Those users who do not disclose much information are also answered, even if
only in the same non-committal way:
L: Hi there. I’m new too. → (p11)

s: heyyy. how are you? (p12)
Since the conversational flow runs smooth and does not exhibit any amplitudes
to either side, we can assume that s and her fellow-users consider them at least
appropriate, if not even a little bit more. We will return to the question of evalu-
ation a little later.
In this first thread, four dialogic structures can be detected, involving the
thread starter s and four other users: l, h, L and D. As a matter of fact, two of these
four dialogic structures have already been touched on before when talking about
adjacency pairs. Accordingly, s’s interaction with h basically consists of the thread
start, followed by a welcome (p4, see above) and a thankful reaction thereto (p5,
see above). The same holds true for s’s short-lived chat with L (p11, 12, see above).
Only two users, l and D do indeed engage in longer conversations with the thread
starter, with altogether 7 and 5 turns respectively. l, herself a newbie, partly imi-
tates the structure of s’s post in that she also uses a greeting before she introduces
herself (see above, p2). Subsequently, she wishes s luck for her exams and picks
up on topics introduced by s, thereby creating topical cohesion. From an interper-
sonal point of view, her response establishes common ground between the two,
telling s that some of her likes (“drama”) and dislikes (“AS results”) are indeed
shared. Thus having found commonalities to base future interaction on, the fol-
lowing posts revolve around those two topics. More importantly, though, it is not
the exchange of information per se but the evaluation thereof which creates close-
ness and bonding in the form of the positive atmosphere of encouragement and
thankfulness on the part of l and s respectively. Concentrating only on the pivotal
parts of this interaction, their positive facework surfaces in the following:
s: oh dearr! panicpanic!!!! lol (p1)

l: good like with your AS results (p2)
www.ebook777.com
s: thankyouu! i’m really nervous… haha. (p3)

l: aww you’l be fine (p6)
s: well done (p7) [referring to l’s splendid results]
l: thanks (p8)
s: that sounds good!! (p9) [referring to l’s plans]
Obviously, this exchange is an example of functional and thus appropriate be-

havior. The well-known question, however, is this: Is l and s’s behavior towards
each other unmarked or can we detect a surplus somewhere in between their
reactions, thus indicating politeness? In a word: Where to draw the line between
these two types of interpersonal behavior? A part of the answer to this question
certainly lies in the hearer’s perspective, which is why it is important to stick to
those evaluations that are explicitly made by the interlocutors or that can implic-
itly be inferred by observing participants on the basis of said subsequent utter-
ances. Unfortunately, this course of action almost never yields concrete labels.
If we want to attach them anyway, we need to differentiate between them the
best possible way. With regard to message board interaction and following the
insights gained in previous chapters (see the working definition of politeness in
5.2 and subsequent elaborations), this study will stick to the following distinction
between unmarked/appropriate and positively marked/polite behavior: Any at-
tempt to show consideration for the other (i.e. wishing someone luck, cheering
someone on, evaluating something positively or supporting views etc.) will be
classified as positively marked/polite behavior, since users are not forced by con-
vention or fear of sanctions to behave that way. This does not, however, include
behavior which can be expected by means of the purpose of the category, as for
example, advice-giving in an advice thread. There must be a real discernable sur-
plus, originating directly from the voluntary good will of interlocutors. Ritualized
reactions thereto, prototypically in the form of thanks, are, however, considered
appropriate yet unmarked behavior, because there is actually really not much else
for interlocutors to do in order to complete the adjacency pair. Omitting to do so
can not only entail negative reactions but even endanger the continuation of the
exchange as such.
In illustrating the evaluative processes within s and l’s dialogue and in attach-
ing some labels, the following picture72 presents itself:
72. Note that the change of coloring towards the end of s’s and l’s exchange, from white to grey,
represents the types of posts, starting with (white) type A posts in the first six turns and ending
with s’s (grey) type Bt post.
s: p1 oh dearr! panicpanic!!!! lol im. Ø

l: p2 good like with your AS results ex. +
s: p3 thankyouu! i’m really nervous… haha. im. Ø
l: p6 aww you’l be fine im. +
s: p7 well done [referring to l’s splendid results] ex. +
l: p8 thanks im. Ø
s: p9 that sounds good!! [referring to l’s plans] im. +
Once more we realize the importance of spelling things out and reacting verbally
(or at least with the help of smileys) in computer-mediated environments (see, for
example, p3 and p8), even if this means completing an adjacency pair in the most
typical, ritualized way, as mechanisms usually employed in FtF to respond, like a
smile or a nod of the head, are not available in message boards. Still, we should
be careful to pigeonhole this behavior as just a case of politeness. Three different
types of relational work, which will be picked up again in Table 19, can be discov-
ered in this short excerpt:
– “ex. +” = positively marked, i.e. appropriate, polite behavior as in posts 2 and

7 based on explicit evaluative judgments by the interlocutor (see arrows in
posts 3 and 8);
– “im. +” = positively marked, i.e. appropriate, polite behavior as in posts 6 and
9; given the lack of explicit judgments by interlocutors, evaluations remain en-
tirely implicit and can only arise from the participant observer’s perspective;
– “im. Ø” = unmarked, appropriate behavior as in posts 1, 3 and 8; again, evalu-
ations remain implicit and draw on the evaluative judgments of the partici-
pant observer.
The exchange between s and l eventually ends with s not asking any further ques-
tions. This may be due to the fact that she is already engaged in another conversa-
tion, this time with D. In contrast to the previous dialogue, this one is far more
superficial, containing casual small talk and badinages, in which D does not dis-
close any personal information or pick up any of s’s topics:
D: p13 Big up da Nottingham massive!!….and all that. ex. +

welcome
s: p14 hahaha thankyou very much!! how are you? im. Ø
www.ebook777.com
D: p15 good thanks, enjoyed the nottingham sunshine today im. Ø

and yourself?
s: p16 haha i’m goodgood thankyou! you been upto much? X im. Ø
What seems to have worked for their conversation so far, comes to a sudden halt:
Despite or maybe even because of the virtual kiss, which marks the end of s’s last
post, her question remains unanswered. While the first three contributions can
clearly be labeled “appropriate”, we cannot be sure about the last one, since we
do not know the reasons for D’s decision not to keep their casual chat going. It is
more than probable, though, that D did not answer to s’s post (16) for other rea-
sons than his feeling of inappropriateness.
In order to count and group the diverse incidences of interpersonal behav-
ior along the lines of unmarked/appropriate, positively marked/appropriate and
negatively marked/inappropriate behavior, a matrix will be used to note down
the results gained in qualitative analyses. In it, evaluations for type A posts will
be distinguished from those of type Bt posts. Above that, the matrix also reveals
whether judgments of appropriateness were explicitly delivered by interlocutors
themselves (“ex.”, see above) or whether they could be implicitly read out by the
analyzing participant observer (“im.”).73 Due to the very nature of Bt posts, mean-
ing that they can never be explicitly evaluated, the latter distinction only applies
to type A posts. With regard to the entire first thread, this is what the matrix looks
like (see Table 19).
In evaluating the thread start (p1), the reactions of all seven interlocutors
indicate a unanimous judgment of unmarked behavior. The first impression of
thread #1 being an epitome of smooth conversation can now be backed up by fig-
ures: no incidence of inappropriate behavior could be found, as all 18 posts were
classified as appropriate behavior, eight of which even as positively marked, polite
behavior. Four of the politeness labels were directly derived from interlocutors’
own verbal estimations, while the other four were the results gained by adopting
a participant observer’s perspective.
73. Obviously, explicit statements, which reveal interlocutors’ personal judgments about the
appropriateness of utterances, are more reliable than those of outside observers. Considering
the fact that the former are extremely rare, we cannot help but factoring in the latter into our
analysis as well. To account at least for the difference of reliability, uninvolved observers’ judg-
ments will always be listed separately.
Table 19. Relational work in thread #1

Type of Functional → appropriate Dysfunctional → inappropriate
post and
marked + marked + m unmarked marked – marked – m
evaluation
“polite” “mock-impolite” Ø74 “impolite” “mock-polite”
(“rude” = r)
A: 11 ex. 4 0 0 0
im. 1 0 6 0 0
Bt: 7 im. 3 0 4 0 0
∑: 18 8 0 10 0 0
18 0
¡Hola! Soy Lily.

Hey, I stumbled upon this site last night and found it interesting, so I decided
to make an account. [\]
Allow me to introduce myself. [\]
I’m Lily, and I’m a Cuban-American in Stamford, CT. I’m a musician, a pho-
tographer, and a writer. I play bass, guitar, and I sing. [\]
I’m not a very low-profile person. XD [\]
Anyway, I hope to eventually become a part of this community. Can’t wait to
talk to some of you.
(lilythrash21, thread #2: post 1)
The initial part of thread #2 was composed in the same vein as thread #1, the only
difference being the user’s method to convey her wish to make contact. Although
lilythrash21 (l) also starts her entry with a greeting, which is followed by an intro-
duction of self, she does not force herself on her future interlocutors in the same
way superfrankie did: Every so often, she softens the sensed imposition of her
addressing others. Evidence for this claim can be found in the metapragmatic yet
extremely ritualized utterance “Allow me to introduce myself.” as well as in the use
of the downtoning adverb “eventually” and the restricting premodification of the
noun phrase “some of you”.
This post prompted nine other users to react, with four of them being similarly
inexperienced as the thread starter herself and five of them being regular experts.
As shown by the IQ (76%), this thread is one of the two most interactive threads
in the entire corpus. This is due to the fact that the thread consists of basically five
subordinate but at times quite extended dialogues between l and someone else.
74. Note that the combination “ex. Ø” does not exist, since explicit evaluations and unmarked
behavior are categories which are mutually exclusive.
www.ebook777.com
The structure alone is thus indicative of the thread starter’s wish to embark on
conversations that are carried on over more than just two turns. The active part
adopted by l is also mirrored in her number of posts: 21 of altogether 42.
Reactions to the introductory posts are very similar to the ones described
in the first thread of this category – the only difference being the fact that new
and old users cannot be told apart that easily by their reactions this time. Six out
of eight interlocutors start off with a greeting before welcoming her, confirming
some of her face claims, declaring her as part of the in-group, picking up on some
of her topics (i.e. her Spanish heading and her name), expressing the wish to stay
in contact or inviting her to private chats. Some examples:
Hello Lily and Welcome to [\] This place is very addictive! Enjoy
your time here!. [\] Eventually become a part of this community…. You
already are! (p2)
Hello. You sound very talented. [\] I hope you stick around. PM me if
you need help or a chat. (p6)
Hey there [\] I’m probably not the best person for advice on this site, I’m
kind of new too [\] I just saw your spanish thread title and got a bit excited
about it [\] It’s what I want to do at Uni! [\] Anyway, Enjoy the Student
Room! (p11)
is there anything that your not into? [\] welcome to
(p15)
Since she did not explicitly ask her fellow members to introduce themselves, only
one user did so voluntarily.75 Based on a misunderstanding, one user even tried
to give her some technical advice (see below). Further bonding processes involve
positive evaluations of things that are dear to the thread starter (i.e. the Spanish
language) or shared status (“hi lily, im also new here..^^ and welcome“, p28), part
of which serve as a basis for dialogic structures.
Again similar to her predecessor, l acts as a moderator within the entire thread
and tries to pick up as many conversational strings as possible in order to keep
them going. Accordingly, she gives thanks for the kind wishes, offers and advice in
English and in Spanish, uses metapragmatic utterances to secure comprehension
75. Note, however, that this user replied in Spanish to reciprocate l’s heading (see negotiation
of face claims, Section 6.2.1). Maybe one of the simplest phrases to remember in Spanish is an
introduction like “¡Hola! ¡Me illamo Simon!”. With regard to his typo and the fact that he later
admits to need a dictionary to produce Spanish sentences, one could argue that Simon chose
his introduction only as a means to an end and not necessarily with a truly interpersonal inten-
tion of introducing himself in mind.
and avoid friction and positively evaluates ideas brought forward by her com-
rades. The following excerpts bear witness to this:
Thank you very much. (p5)

Why thank you! I just might take you up on that. (p7)
Really? Wow, that’s kind of nice. (p14)
Oh okay. Thanks. (p25)
Thank you. And same to you! (p29)
XD gracias. (p40)
Now that general types of reactions on both sides have been discussed, let us turn
to the inner structure of the dialogic encounters which have not been dealt with
so far, focusing again on the relational work. The first rather short dialogue (three
turns including the thread start) involves l and g:
g: p15 is there anything that your not into? ex. + m

welcome to
l: p17 Hm… not much that I can think of. XD Thank you. im. Ø
P15 exhibits a very interesting form of positively marked, appropriate behavior.

Labeled as “ex. + m”, g’s entry borders on mock-impoliteness, which becomes evi-
dent when looking at g’s first smiley. The fact that in her reaction l plays along sup-
ports this view. Similar to thread #1, l’s thanks is ritualized and aims at completing
the adjacency pair opened by “welcome”. It is thus classified as “im. Ø”.
R: p2 Hello Lily and Welcome to [\] This place is ex. +

very addictive! Enjoy your time here!. [\] Eventually be-
come a part of this community…. You already are!
l: p3 Thanks! Haha I just meant figuring out how to find my im. Ø
way around here, you know?
R: p4 Oh right! Well if you need any help then just ask! Anyone ex. +
will be glad to help you!. Though Im sure you’l be able to
find you way around.
l: p5 Thank you very much. im. Ø
In this exchange, R almost outdoes himself in offering in-group membership.

Funny enough, in his attempt to do positive facework for the newbie, he misun-
derstands her. In resolving this misunderstanding, l softens the blow by showing
www.ebook777.com
thankfulness and with the help of emulated laughter at the beginning, downton-
ing particles (“just”, “you know”) and a smiley at the end. R accepts her explana-
tions without elaborating on this misunderstanding any further, thus implicitly
evaluating her behavior as appropriate. Still he continues his attempts at positive
facework in two different ways: by offering help and by judging her as a capable
user. This extraordinary amount of consideration is met with thanks by l, who
thereby accomplishes what is usually expected from her. Although her formulaic
expression is adorned with yet another smiley, we should be wary of taking this
as an indicator for another type of facework, such as positively marked behavior.
After all, almost every entry ends with a smiley.
The exorbitant use of smileys is also evident in the next dialogue, in which l
converses with K:
K: p6 Hello. You sound very talented. [\] I hope you stick ex. +
around. PM me if you need help or a chat.
l: p7 Why thank you! I just might take you up on that. ex. +
K: p8 Glad to hear. I’d be happy to chat. ex. +
l: p9 im. Ø
K: p10 im. Ø
After a range of posts which give and reciprocate positive facework verbally, this
conversation clearly fizzles out with two posts containing nothing but a regular
smiley, whose expressiveness is rather limited, as it only signals something like
agreement and joy.
The last of the rather short exchanges to be discussed here takes place be-
tween l and Ra, who picks up on l’s Spanish speaking background by greeting her
in Spanish. In so doing, Ra makes a grammatical mistake, which he addresses
when correcting himself. l attenuates the gravity of his mistake by telling him that
she did not even see a need to correct it herself, meaning that she did not consider
it worth a face threat:
Ra: p39 Hola Latino Cien por Ciento! ex. +

l: p40 XD gracias. im. Ø
Ra: p41 I meant latina of course. im. Ø
l: p42 I wasn’t going to correct you, but thank you for that. im. Ø
With D, l embarks on a topic-driven conversation, revisiting the central face claim

of her initial post, her Spanish background:
D: p11 Hey there [\] I’m probably not the best person for advice ex. +
on this site, I’m kind of new too [\] I just saw your span-
ish thread title and got a bit excited about it [\] It’s what I
want to do at Uni! [\] Anyway, Enjoy the Student Room!
l: p12 Oh haha that’s cool. Thank you! [\] I love Spanish, too. im. Ø
Of course, it’s constantly pounded into by my dad and
grandma, but that doesn't change the beauty of the lan-
guage. [\] Quick question, just out of curiosity. Are there
many Hispanics or Latinos in England? I’m partially of Eu-
ropean heritage, myself, but when I go to Europe, I mostly
stay in Ireland and Spain.
D: p35 Erm… I don’t really know. In fairness I can’t see how THAT im. Ø
many would like to move somewhere cold and rainy like it is
most of the time here. [\] I presume people will move here,
but I don’t think they’re the most popular culture to move
here [\] I would love to spend more time in Spain; I re-
ally should try and do some more for my A-level. I feel a bit
of a let down for not doing as much work on it as I thought
I would
l: p36 I see what you mean. However, there are a lot of Puerto im. +
Ricans in New York, and it gets considerably cold there. [\]
Oh, well. I’m sure you were busy with many other things, as
well. Maybe after you complete all these things, you can take
a while to explore the culture in Spain.
D: p37 That’s true. [\] I suppose they’re probably is a number of im. Ø
Hispanics living here. I know people that have Spanish rela-
tives tho [\] When I go to Uni I’ll hopefully get to go on
the year abroad, which is exciting! [\] Have you kept a lot of
your Cuban roots?
l: p38 That’s cool. [\] Oh, yeah. I’d imagine so. I’m actually im. +
about to do the same thing. [\] I do keep my Cuban
roots, and close. I always joke that my dad's house is Cuba
in Connecticut. You step inside, and there are people yelling
in Spanish and making arroz con leche. We have pictures
of Cuba all over the place. We go and visit a lot of family in
Little Havana (AKA, a certain area of Miami) a lot, too.
www.ebook777.com
In the first instance, however, D points out that the two of them share the status
of newbies, which is why she cannot help her find her way in TSR either – even
though she certainly would have liked to offer help. In this way, D has created a
common ground between herself and l which is instantly expanded by D’s shared
interest for Spanish. Her wishing l a good time in TSR concludes her contribution
as well as her positive facework, which is acknowledged positively by l. After-
wards, it is l who gives her interlocutor consideration by showing her under-
standing and cheering D on with her plans, even though D does not explicitly
appreciate l’s efforts.
The longest of all dialogues in this thread takes place between l and A, yet
another interlocutor to pick up on her Spanish heading, which is why some part
of the conversation is conducted in Spanish, with an English translation provided
her and there. The moment this translation is missing, another user, T, intervenes
to issue a warning: In order for them not to get in trouble with the moderators,
TSR netiquette requests entries to be composed in the English language; if they
are not, a translation needs to be provided (see Section 3.3.2). Both interlocutors
are thankful for the advice, willingly accept this condition and each provide a
translation for l’s last post. After that, however, their conversation switches back
to English. In the end, their exchange is mainly concerned with the weather, a
typical subject for small talk and phatic communication, obviously even in com-
puter-mediated environments:
A: p16 ¡Hola! ¡Me illamo Simon! [\] (Hello, my name is Simon). [\] ex. +
Welcome to TSR!
l: p18 Gracias. im. Ø
A: p19 Thats Ok! im. Ø
l: p20 im. Ø
A: p21 Ese debe ser el más breve mensaje de siempre. [\] (That must im. Ø
be the shortest message ever)
l: p22 Eso es cierto. Probablemente es el más corto. Ahora, ¿qué im. Ø
hora es allí?
T: p23 I would provide a translation before the wannabe-mods and ex. +
mods arrive.
A: p24 Yeh – I’m not that good at spanish – I had to use a diction- im. Ø
ary to work my answer out. [quote of l’s p22] = That is true.
It is probably the shortest. Now, what time is it there? [\] En
la actualidad unos 15 minutos hasta el 4, y el tiempo ahora
es que no merecen la etiqueta de “verano”. [\] (It currently
about 15 minutes until 4, and the weather right now isn’t
deserving the label of “summer”.)
l: p25 Oh okay. Thanks. [\] I said, “That is true. It is probably the im. Ø
shortest. Now, what time is it there?” [\] Because here, we’re
hours behind. I'm just kind of fuzzy on exactly how many
hours.
l: p26 I’m going to switch back now. [\] Why, is it nice and cold im. Ø
there? AGH it’s hot here. Hate it. When I wrote that mes-
sage before, it was around 9:45 in the morning. Wow… big
difference.
A: p27 Its not cold, its incredibly humid, and very wet. im. Ø
l: p30 What percent humidity? I have friends that live in Texas, im. Ø
and they HATE how miserable it gets in the summer.
A: p31 I have no idea – its alot better today though… im. Ø
l: p32 I hate humidity. It’s disgusting. Feels like you’re breathing im. Ø
water.
A: p33 Except that fact that you are not. im. Ø
l: p34 But you kind of are. Just evaporated water. im. Ø
A last word in terms of the evaluation of the very first post of this thread still is or-
der. l’s thread start has been directly evaluated by those eight users whose ensuing
dialogues with l have been discussed meticulously in the previous paragraphs. All
of these eight users concordantly yet implicitly agree on the appropriateness of p1
(“im. Ø”). With this in mind, the relational work displayed by the ten participants
of this second thread is summarized in Table 20.
As the figures attest, the second thread was very similar to the first one as it
was also characterized by an extremely harmonious atmosphere. Instances of in-
appropriate behavior could not be detected and appropriate behavior went mostly
unnoticed (29 times). In twelve cases, interlocutors’ demeanor could be labeled
polite, with one instances of mock-impoliteness as a special type of appropriate
behavior standing out in particular.
In summarizing the behavior in the entire first category, Getting to know oth-
ers, the following recurring strategies could be witnessed, which all added up to
www.ebook777.com

post and
evaluation
“polite” “mock-impolite” Ø “impolite” “mock-polite”
(“rude” = r)
A: 33 ex. 10 1 0 0
im. 1 0 21 0 0
Bt: 9 im. 1 0 8 0 0
∑: 42 12 1 29 0 0
42 0
positive facework on part of the extremely active thread starter as well as his in-
terlocutors. In particular, interlocutors
– greeted each other in various forms

– welcomed newcomers
– offered in-group membership
– exchanged bits and pieces of personal information
– picked up on and elucidated topics introduced by the thread starter, thus cre-
ating common ground and topical cohesion
– thanked for considerate utterances
– confirmed face claims
– reciprocated facework by completing adjacency pairs
Maybe due to a lack of experience, newbies showed the tendency towards hum-
bly imitating previous posts in terms of form and content, especially the thread
start. Then again savvy, self-confident members did not disclose much informa-
tion about themselves but rather concentrated on their interlocutors, obviously
with the intention to “recruit” as many newcomers as possible into TSR. In that
vein, they tried to make them feel welcome and comfortable by instantly includ-
ing newbies into the community. They also took the liberty of delivering down-
right positive value judgments about their new fellow-users, which is yet another
means of attending to their (explicitly stated) need for association. Although there
are no explicit comments about prevalent facework, the lack of interpersonal inci-
dents and the smooth flow of the conversation indicate that everything must have
worked within the normal boundaries of conduct within these two TSR-threads.
This is once more emphasized by the composition of the sum total of relational
work, comprehending 39 cases of unmarked/appropriate behavior and even 21
examples of positively marked behavior (see Table 21).
Table 21. Relational work in the first category (Getting to know others)
post and
evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 44 ex. 14 1 0 0
im. 2 0 27 0 0
Bt: 16 im. 4 0 12 0 0
∑: 60 20 1 39 0 0
60 0
8.2.2 Looking for like-minded others
This category brings together users who have something in common outside TSR.
In the case of the first thread within this category, The Official ‘I’m going to fail my
exams’ Society (#18), it is the fear of having failed an exam, while the second one,
Snow Patrol!!! (#19), is designated for fans of this band. Despite this shared ori-
entation, the IQs of the two threads could not differ more with 28% (low, #18) vs.
68% (high, #19). In terms of posts per day, however, both threads are very similar
in sharing the exact same amount of only 0.1 p/d. Since the second one promises
more dialogic or even polylogic structures in view of the high IQ, thread #19 will
be chosen as exemplary thread for this category:
Snow Patrol!!!
Hey I’m thinking of starting up a Snow Patrol Society and was just wondering
if anyone would be interested in joining. If you love Snow Patrol then you are
very welcome
(imnotapenguin, thread #19, post 1)
Based on common interest in the music group “Snow Patrol”, this thread aims at
starting a society, thereby inviting fans to join the discussion. The driving force
behind this thread is a female user who presents herself as multifaceted, sociable
and enthused about the things she likes. Accordingly, she is in search of other
users sharing one of her hobby horses. Her thread start does not seem to impose
too much on her fellow-users (“I’m thinking of…”, “was just wondering if anyone
would…”). Then again, her eagerness to attract like-minded users finds expres-
sion in her use of repetitive punctuation in the heading, the three smileys at the
end of the entry as well as the premodifying adverb very before welcome.
www.ebook777.com
Among the 23 users who react to this post, only two of them are relatively new
to TSR with all the others being experienced TSRians. The comparatively high IQ
(68%) stems from the regular polylogue which is created by the Snow Patrol fans,
who do not only engage in dialogic interaction but in-between also comment on
the comment. Frequently of the party is the thread starter, who adopts an active
role with 18 further contributions dispersed over the thread. Before dialogues do
develop it is common practice to signal interest in the society. As the following
examples show, the wish to join the society is sometimes adorned with a reason
why this user should be allowed to become a member:
meee I adore snow patrol, I listen to their latest album almost daily and I’m
still not bored of it. I wish they were coming to Sheffield (p8)
Count me in!!! (p19)
I wanna join! I wanna join! [\] I love Snow Patrol (p32)
Join me up! Snow Patrol are an incredible band, I’ve played them 700 times or
so in the past 2 months. I think I have an obsession =/ [list of favorite albums]
(p37)
Apart from expressing the wish to become a part of the society, which enthused
users phrase with the help of emulated speech (p8) or repetition of punctuation
or entire sentences (p19, 32), there are other ways for interlocutors to react to
the initial post, especially as the conversation proceeds. Naturally with regard to
Snow Patrol, participants discuss their opinions about songs and albums, share
their experiences with and knowledge about the group and recommend pieces of
music to each other. They do so verbally, but also via links and quoted passages
from other webpages. Metacommunicatively, some even comment on the thread
activity. Here are some examples for posts reacting to the topic rather than to the
invitation to join the group:
They ain’t what they used to be. (p6)

I’ve just been getting back into them, I keep going through little periods where
I listen to loads of them. I liked the second album a lot when it came out, but
I keep going back to the first . (p10)
Their 1st album was Songs for Polarbears, and the 2nd was When It’s All Over
We Still Have to Clear Up, are those what you meant? (p11)
Honestly my fav band. Ever. [\] Can’t believe it’s so dead in here tho.
(p69)
The thread starter adopts an active role in the thread as she welcomes members,
comments on and evaluates responses and shares information and emotions:
unfinished sympathy- welcome- you are the very first member!

(p28)
hmmm that is really hard to find. try here: [link] its in dollars like, but they
ship worldwide. its pure dear on amazon, something like £20 for a few tracks!
[\] You might want to check this out too: [link] however, it’s not very clear
if it’s the 2003 or 2004 version […] (p52)
The following short dialogues involving the thread starter (i) also give evidence
for her creating topical cohesion and displaying emotions. In terms of facework,
this means the strengthening of interpersonal bonds based on their common top-
ic and by attending to all of their need for association:
M: p32 I wanna join! I wanna join! [\] I love Snow Patrol im. Ø
i: p33 Hey no problem just go here: [link] [\] and click Join. [\] im. Ø
Then just put in your sig that you’re a member or something.
Spread the word! There has to be more than 5 fans here:o
M: p34 5 members only? im. Ø
i: p35 yeah, and that’s including me! snow patrol totally rule- there im. Ø
have to be other sensible like-minded people on this site
surely
F: p37 Join me up! Snow Patrol are an incredible band, I’ve played im. Ø
them 700 times or so in the past 2 months. I think I have
an obsession =/ [\] What are your favourite albums? My
order of preference goes Final Straw > When It’s All Over
We Still Have To Clear Up > Eyes Open > Songs for Polar-
bears (though Velocity Girl, one of my favourite songs is on
that). [\] There’s not a single track I don’t like on any of them
though!
W: p38 [quote: There’s not a single track I don’t like on any of them im. Ø
though!]
i: p39 Hi welcome to the club! haha 700 times- wow that’s dedica- im. +
tion! [\] Hmm my fav album has got to be Final Straw,
then When It’s All Over. I can't choose between the other 2
yet because im having trouble getting my hands on Songs
for Polar Bears. Nobody sells it!!!
www.ebook777.com
During the course of interaction, the thread starter reports the official launching
of said society, which can be assessed as an effort to expand their commonality,
now in the form of a real society on TSR (see 2.6.2). It is also one of three attempts
to keep the conversation going, which seem to become more and more outspoken
and fervent:
Just to let you know, the Snow Patrol Society is now up and running! […]
(p23)
well i haven’t been on in a while but i just saw the guys in belfast and they were
AMAZING!!! they even played starfighter pilot!
(p31)
Just thought I’d try to kick this off again! [\] Well i must say, i was quite disap-
pointed that the Patrol went home from the Brits empty handed. They totally
deserved best album- way better than the Arctic Monkeys [\] Any
one else catch their performance or is planning to go see them soon???
(p40)
Indeed, her last attempt to reboot the discussion, which seemed necessary to her
after half a month of silence, is quite successful: In picking up on a topic which
is current and relevant for fans, she sets in motion a very complex polylogue be-
tween herself (i) and four other members, F, a, b, and D. Although this thread
featured polylogues before, this particular one strikes as impressing due to the
interwoven topics and activities of its five authors:
i: p40 Just thought I’d try to kick this off again! [\] Well i must say, im. Ø
i was quite disappointed that the Patrol went home from the (41,
Brits empty handed. They totally deserved best album- way 46,
better than the Arctic Monkeys [\] Any one else 47)
catch their performance or is planning to go see them soon???
F: p41 Yeah, I was disappointed too [\] Performance?! Where? im. Ø
When? *hopes it is near-ish* [\] Do you know how hard it
is to get hold of this shirt? Very hard, take my word for it
Been trying for while now – so far, one American company
that never sent it, and one off eBay that’s a bit too tight I’ll
get it eventually… [\] –Forgotmytea
i: p42 Unfortunately, i meant their performance on TV- if only they im. Ø

would hurry up and play the UK again!!! [\] That’s a nice shirt
I must say- do they sell it on the shop section of the official
site? I’ve been looking for one myself that has the wee snow-
flake logo on it- feel free to send me the one that didn’t fit!
[\] I’ve just noticed the bonus points available for guessing
the deep obscure meaning behind your location and i think i
know the answer. Do I get a prize???
F: p43 ;no; Sadly, they only have it in green on their site, which is (in im. Ø
my opinion) nowhere near as nice When are they playing
on TV, then? I don’t have aTV Here at uni so I’ll have to
email home and get my parents/brother to record them
[\] Well, if by bonus points you mean rep, then yeah [\]
–Forgotmytea
F: p44 [announcement from Snow Patrol webpage] [\] Sounds im. Ø
good – I might just have to go to that…. Anyone else
planning on seeing the Patrol live then? [\] –Forgotmytea
i: p45 ^^^ oh wow nice one!!! I’m definitely going to do my best to im. Ø
get to that! It’ll make up for not going to Oxegen
a: p46 Hey everyone, I love Snow Patrol they are one of the best im. Ø
(→40) bands in a long while. Have seen them twice in Northern (48,
Ireland and can’t wait to see them headlining at Oxegen, it 49)
should be great. I agree about the Brits they were robbed.
F: p48 Definitely robbed Eyes Open is wonderful [\] You’ve im. Ø

seen them live twice!? *jealous* I’m definitely go-
ing to go to the Isle of Wight festival if possible (lectures or
Snow Patrol, lectures or Snow Patrol… heck, I'm sure the lec-
tures won’t be that important anyway! ) [\] –Forgotmytea
i: p50 ooooh tough choice there- just get someone to tape the lec- im. Ø
tures for you- sorted!
b: p47 No I didn’t see it but I defo think that Snow Patrol should im. Ø
(→40) have got the best album – although I do love the Arctic Mon-
keys too.
i: p49 yes there abc88 and becky xxx whats the craic? [\] on a im. Ø
(→46, random note- ive just bought songs for polar bears and im (51,
47) totally hooked on Fifteen Minutes Old- ive got it on repeat 54)
here! [\] ps. abc88 i am so jealous!!! twice!!! and oxegen!!!!
arggggh i love your life!!!
www.ebook777.com
F: p51 Did you get the 2006 re-release with the bonus tracks? I adore im. Ø
“My last girlfriend”, “JJ”, “Marketplace” and “Sticky Teen-
age Twin”. Then there’s all the non-bonus songs, of course,
like “Starfighter Pilot”, “Little Hide”, “Velocity girl”…. Ah, I
could go on for ages I’ve got “Chocolate” on order right
now – can’t wait for that to arrive!! #excited# [\] And Dvorak’s
“From the New World: Symphony number 9” as well [\]
Back on topic :o, still looking for (and failing to find) “Spit-
ting Games” – the original single, with “Steal” and “Brave” on
it. Rather hard to find…. Or that could just be me
Hard to find at a reasonable price on CD, anyway. [\] –Forgot-
mytea
i: p52 hmmm that is really hard to find. try here: [link] [\] its in dol- ex. +
lars like, but they ship worldwide. its pure dear on amazon,
something like £20 for a few tracks! [\] You might want
to check this out too: [link] [\] however, it’s not very clear if
it’s the 2003 or 2004 version [\] If I find anything better Ill let
you know! Oh, and during my searches I found that shirt you
were looking for: [link] [\] Yeah I got the 2006 release, so i
have piles of new tracks that i haven’t got round to listening to
yet. I still have a couple to hear on When It’s All Over… cause
I keep on replaying Olive Grove and cant get past it! :o
F: p53 Thank you!! I’ve been looking in the wrong places im. Ø
then, every one I saw seemed to be £20 ish I’ll have to (61)
see if I win the “Chasing Cars” single I’m bidding on first, ex. +
bought far too many singles recently… :o Money running (56)
low, though I suppose I could always starve myself for a bit
to afford that single Thanks for the shirt link too, but
I’ll stick with the (tightish!) one I have. I also bought this one,
which I really like (and is a better fit!!): [picture of a t-shirt]
[\] All this talk of Snow Patrol reminds me, when I bought
“Chocolate” off eBay, it came with “You’re all I have”, which
I already have. I’ve got no need for two, so if you don’t have
that single, and want it, I can send it to you p&p shouldn’t
be a problem if you’re reasonably close, and it’s a pretty small
package… Let me know if you want it [\] Oh, and we’re all
friends here, call me Ben from now on I know what you
mean about listening to one song endlessly, I’m like that with
An Olive Grove… too!! And Warmer Climate, and Spitting
Games, and Perfect Little Secret, and You’re all I have: live,
and….. [\] –Ben
D: p61 I’ve got this t-shirt [link] [\] Well, nearly that t-shirt. I bought im. Ø
it at a gig they did at Meadowbank Stadium in Edinburgh last
year (octoberish I think). Fits really well and I luuuuve it lol.
[\] I really want to go to see SP again but im starting uni in
september so wont have time for a while
F: p62 [quote, part 1] That’s lovely I might have to try and get im. +
something like that now I’ve seen it (suddenly not content
with the 2 I already have ) [quote, part 2] ;console; You
may well I managed to find time to go and see Dragon-
Force live while at uni (sadly missed the Patrol – this year…),
so it’s not like you’re working 24/7 [\] Either that, or you’re
meant to work 24/7, and I’m about to fail
D: p64 Well apart from Radio 1s Big weekend I’ve not been to see im. Ø
any other bands like that. Fantastic feeling and at the Ed-
inburgh one I was right at the front to the left of the stage.
Gives me shivers just thinking about it (apart from when a
drunk old man spilled his beer on my ankles lol, that’s a dif-
ferent kind of shiver). I think that t-shirt cost me £18 – most
expensive t-shirt I’ve ever had lmao but it’s lovely really. [\] As
I say, that one’s slightly different but the picture’s the same. On
the back it had the tour-dates on it too. [\] Anyone else loving
“Open Your Eyes”? Really love the bit near the end where it’s
just crashing music – very overwhelming eh?
i: p56 [quote, part 1] Im glad i was some help! yeah i spend wayyyy im. +
(→53) too much on CD’s, as soon as I get paid im off to HMV
[quote, part 2] Wow thats really nice of you! I’ll have to
have a hunt around my room to see if I have that one and I’ll
let you know- might take a while though, my room is such a
mess :o
a: p54 Thanks lol. If it is any consolation the second time I saw Snow im. Ø
(→49) Patrol was at a festival in Northern Ireland and had to spend (55,
most of the set looking for my friend who i had lost. They are 57)
great live though especially the first time I saw them at the
Ulster Hall. When they played ‘Run’ everyone got out their
lighters and mobile phones and started singing. [\] I am really
loving Eyes Open at the moment so I can’t wait to hear them
perform songs from the album.
www.ebook777.com
F: p55 [quote, part 1] Sounds great *goes green with envy* im. Ø
[quote, part 2] Yeah, Eyes Open is fantastic, it was the first
Snow Patrol album I heard Being the stupidly hardcore
fan I am , I’ve just ordered the singles Spitting Games
(thanks imnotapenguin, I did order it from that eBayer in
America in the end ), and Chasing Cars. I couldn't decide
which to buy, so I went for both…. :o [\] –Ben
i: p57 aw I would love to see them in the Ulster Hall- it would be im. Ø
(→54) nice to see them in a smaller venue than the Odyseey, because
they are closer to the audience and its just a more intimite
gig- you feel like you are their best mate for a couple of hours!
I went to see Duke Special in a small club, after hearing them
support the Patrol in december, and he was brilliant- highly
recommended.
a: p58 Yeah I agree, I love the Ulster Hall, you feel so close to the im. Ø
band on stage. I love Duke Special!!!! i am soo jealous that
you got to see them. Hopefully I will see the at oxegen as i’d
say they are good live.
i: p59 aye they were brilliant- although it was so typical right- me im. Ø
and my friends managed to get right to the front, and then
near the end they come down off the stage, go to the back of
the hall, and start singing there! All the people at the back
had a perfect view and we couldn’t see a thing! Are
they going to be at Oxegen? ohhhh i am so ragin i didnt get a
ticket!!! Although im not sure the whole tent thing would be
my scene- id have to check into a nearby 5-star hotel and only
emerge on the field when the patrol appear!
a: p60 Duke Special are not on the bill for oxegen. But I am hoping im. Ø
they will be added later as I really want to see them play live.
Obviously, this polylogue does not provide any exceptional cases regarding rela-
tional work, as most entries are considered to be perfectly appropriate, with only
four exceptions showing a tendency to positively marked, polite behavior. Ow-
ing to the polylogic structure, however, five entries (p40, 46, 49, 53, 54) received
more than one evaluation, viz. two or even three (p40). Although this has no
consequence for four of these five posts, in which evaluations are unanimous, the
fifth example (p53) yielded diverging results: p61 did not judge it at all (“im. Ø”),
p56 explicitly praised its author (“ex. +”). There is, however, a compelling reason
for this: While the author of p56 was offered a kind gift in p53, for which she is

post and
evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 44* ex. 2 0 0 0
im. 1 0 41 0 0
Bt: 30 im. 3 0 27 0 0
∑: 74 6 0 68 0 0
74 0
* + 1 exception p53: im. Ø, ex. +
thankful, this offer did not concern the user who composed p61, who commented
on other parts of the rather longish contribution of p53. As an exception with
more than one evaluation, this entry cannot become part of the evaluative matrix,
but needs to be treated separately.
The impression of a harmonious and smooth conversation among like-mind-
ed users is further substantiated by other dialogic as well as polylogic structures,
in which appropriate, unmarked behavior clearly prevails. This also includes the
thread start, which was implicitly but nevertheless unanimously considered to
be appropriate (“im. Ø”) by twenty users. The results gained for this thread are
summed up in Table 22.
The Official ‘I’m going to fail my exams’ Society

Clearly a lot of people are going to faill their exams. . Only joking . [\]
No successful people are allowed on this thread – only people who are going
to fail or who feel miserable about their exam performance. You can all cry
on this thread without being riduculed by succesful people. [\] [list of 27
members]
(inequality, thread #18, post 1)
The sole purpose of the second thread in this category is to comfort those who
believe to fail or have failed an exam. For this reason, the thread starter makes it
perfectly clear that “successful people” are excluded. In contrast to thread #19,
some obvious differences need to be addressed. First of all, thread #18 contains
the first type C posts so far, the relevance of which will be discussed later on. What
is more, the hierarchy of the communication structure is extremely flat: dialogues,
let alone polylogues are a scarce good, a fact which is also mirrored in the distri-
bution of the types of posts (see Table 23). Most entries refer to and answer the
www.ebook777.com
initial one, which they implicitly evaluate as unmarked, appropriate (“im. Ø”).
Fittingly, the thread starter, i, plays an extremely subordinate role: In contributing
only two further posts, he leaves the thread largely unmoderated. In his first post
after the initial one, i tries to silence a trouble maker who aims at bringing him
into disrepute by telling his fellow users that i is a fraud:
a: p4 this person is so cool hes going to cambridge hes doing ex. – r

double maths and he got 100% in all the maths exams so
far P1-6 M1-3 S1
i: p5 Ne [sic! Be] quiet, go and work in wyevale. im. – r
a: p47 inequality has already got an A in maths and hes do- im. – r
ing double maths he was doing 5 A levels, double maths,
chem, phys and music but he dropped chem after AS then
he dropped music aabout 2 months ago and he doesn’t
even go to maths he teaches himself he hasn’t done a single
physics question in the whole year and he is still going to
get an A theres no way hes going to fail hes taking the pi*s
out of all you
This clearly is the first example for dysfunctional, inappropriate behavior between
message board interlocutors. We can even speak of rude behavior (“r”) in all three
cases, since the intention to hurt and discredit the other is obvious. Faced with a
small string of negatively marked utterance after negatively marked utterance, we
could call the entire incident a flame.
The second time i chimes into the conversation, he welcomes another user
into the society. Interestingly, and true to his two previously discussed posts (p1
and p5), his third contribution also exhibits marked behavior – this time, how-
ever, it is positively marked in the form of mock-impoliteness:
W: p21 I’m going to get a B in maths, hist and eng lit Which im. Ø
means I wont get into Uni [\] Can i join too
please
i: p22 No. Only joking yes. im. + m
This second and last of the thread starter’s involvements in the thread is also ex-
ceptional insofar as he only allows one user explicitly to become part of the so-
ciety – even though most posts contain exactly the same wish. In this regard,
thread #18 pretty much resembles its predecessor, since most users’ responses
consist in the wish to join the society – again phrased in many different ways. In
a lot of cases, this wish is accompanied by remarks or worries about the subject
they are going to fail or already have failed. The second largest group of responses
comprises those users who do not utter the wish to join but express their wor-
ries and feelings of hopelessness right away. Then there are also those who look
for someone with similar problems and those who try to create a more positive
atmosphere by offering help, wishing luck and cheering others up. Since this is a
special feature of this thread, here are some examples:
YOUR NOT GOIN TO FAIL (p34)

WTF are you doing in here? – get out Lu [lighten up]! (p51)
Best of luck for tomorrow anyway, It’s not worth getting worked up the
day before =) (p84)
[…] I’m sure you’ll all do FANTASTIC! If I can pass, anyone can! Yay!
(p113)
Come on guys, this thread is so pessimistic and melancholic ! If you
BELIEVE you will pass, then you will! I know it is cliched, but I’m sure it
works! [\] If you revise and work hard in lessons then why will you all fail?
[\] POSITIVE THINKING!! (p131)
The first example surely strikes as odd, mostly because the utterance is written in
capitals, which is usually used for screaming in CMC. The calming influence of
this post is thus highly questionable and also not met with a response. The same
holds true for the second example, which also borders on inappropriate behavior,
as can be told by the following reaction: “as in get out of this thread or get out
of TSR ” (p55). Another maybe naïve but still appropriate attempt to make
others feel a little better is p14 (“im. Ø”), “Nobody here is going to fail.”, eliciting
the response “What a stupid thing to say.” (p15, “im. – r”), which substantiates
users’ general tendency to fly off the handle easily in this thread. For this reason,
advice sometimes mingles with patronizing and mocking behavior, thus crossing
the line to inappropriate behavior:
well i know that iam succesful and iam not allowed on this thread!!!!! but
there is nothing that you can do. [\] imagine that i do not think that you
are serious people….once you fail just work harder and you will be better i
think…if not then you are dommed ha ha ha (p104)
Other reactions to the thread start include:
– self-pity: […] Im doomed! (p9)

– self-mocking: Hey I’m gonna fail higher maths, art & design & chemistry (its
bloody difficult). haven’t even sat the exams yet there’s positive thinking
for ya (p74)
www.ebook777.com
– calculated optimism: *thinks posativly* i might just fail my psychology unit

6” (p17)
– comments on the entire thread: This thread just cheered me up (p87)
– joking: i need to join this soc too [two breaks] i hate august i really don’t
want to know my results why aren’t we allowed to burn ‘em?? (p157)
– explicit emotional display: I feel awful,I’ve just remembered some of my phys-
ics phy4 mistakes and it made me feel awful | it made me panic more and
I’m very scared (p120)
Finally, there are also those users who counteract the instructions of the thread
starter and deliberately distance themselves from the apocalyptic mood – again,
more often than not to the detriment of the desperate folk and with an insult or
an admonition to follow hard on the heels:
Nope, I’m going to pass them all. (p11)

well i’m not going to fail anything, just might not get into uni (p143)
C: p44 [quote: Nobody here is going to fail.] [\] lol! [\] [quote: ooh ex. –
ooh can I join?…..Im gonna fail physics especially….had a
practical exam today… […] I dont think I did too well..coz
I was so p*ssed off….grrrr] [\] lol again!! [\] sorry – good
luck everyone. Sorry if i don’t join, but I’m probably not
going to fail – i probably won’t do as well as everyone
thinks, but not fail thank god.
a: p49 why do you think your better than everyone else? you im. –
didn’t get into oxford and you only applied to Aston so
now you have to go to Aston how stupid is that lol.
w: p12 Im going to pass my exams, and gets As in them – hahaha- ex. – r

haha u f*cking crybabies (p12)
J: p13 Wow, they just give ‘em away these days, don’t they. [\] im. + m
F*cker. [\] (p13)
The question of whether we are faced with mock-impoliteness, impoliteness or

even rudeness in the second part of the latter exchange can be answered at least
approximately with a look at contextual information (see Chapter 6), which pro-
vides some hints for likely evaluations of these two utterances. With w being a
new member, who is already banned, and J an experienced user with an extremely
high reputation, chances are good that at least J did not have a hurtful intention in
mind. Both utterances are evaluated accordingly.
As the next excerpt demonstrates, malevolent members also use mock-polite-

ness in this thread, thus providing us with an example for the last possible type of
relational work:
q: p134 I’m going to fail my exams. I’ll never finish all my music im. Ø
exam grades by next year [\] I’m also going to fail my
A levels.
J: p135 good for you im. – m
q: p136 Yes very good for me im. Ø
In terms of facework, there are basically three types of respondents: The lament-
ing folks (highest proportion), who think they will fail and try to find like-minded
people and comfort. Their behavior is appropriate for the purpose of the thread
and mirrors their need for association. The insulting folks (low proportion) mock
and insult the lamenting folks, partly bragging with their own success. Their be-
havior is inappropriate, mostly even negatively marked behavior to the disadvan-
tage of the lamenting folks. Finally, there is the comforting folks (low proportion),
who encourage and comfort the lamenting folks with the help of appropriate,
partly even positively marked behavior in favor of the lamenting folks’ need for
association. Interestingly, the moderators in this thread behave rather unobtru-
sively and do not call rowdies to order.
In order to end on a positive note and to illustrate the facework of a member
of the comforting folk, one last example shall be presented for this thread:
A: p52 Can’t sleep because I’m too worried about my maths exam im. Ø
m: p53 Aww, but Maths is cool. So so cool. im. Ø

A: p54 It’s not cool when you need a B, and are failing. im. Ø
m: p56 It pains me to hear that. [\] I guess it’s a little late to im. +
offer my help…?
A: p57 Are you a maths genius? Do you know a brain surgeon? im. Ø
www.ebook777.com
m: p58 I do A-level Further Maths, so I could’ve come in useful. =\ im. +

[\] Don’t worry. I’m sure I could become a brain surgeon,
unlock the secrets of time travel and bam! All sorted. [\]
Alternatively, get some sleep. Exam tomorrow? [\] Worry-
ing about it won’t help now. You’ve learned as much as you
can learn. Just do your best.
A: p60 Friday afternoon. I’m going to study as much as I Can til 9 im. Ø
tomorrow night.
m: p61 Hmm. Well I’ll be on MSN pretty much throughout the ex. +
course of the day tomorrow (because I have no sense, and
lack serious will power!). So, you know where to find me.
=)
A: p62 Thanks Might need some last minute hints im. Ø
Unlike all the other threads dealt with so far, this one was not only characterized
by functional communication. Accordingly, the final account (see Table 23), which
factors in the interpersonal value of every single post, bears testimony to that.
As the matrix reveals, thread #18 contains 13 cases of inappropriate behavior,
three of which have even been explicitly evaluated as such by interlocutors. What
is also interesting is the fact that five out of 13 cases of negatively marked behavior
could not only be classified as impolite, but as downright rude. Still, appropri-
ate behavior was predominant even in this thread and could be counted almost
twelve times as often as inappropriate behavior. Within this category, unmarked,
appropriate behavior clearly outstripped all forms of positively marked behavior
with 130 to 24 incidences.

Type of post Functional → appropriate Dysfunctional → inappropriate
and evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 54 ex. 4 1 3 (2r) 0
im. 6 1 37 2 (1r) 1
Bt: 113 im. 10 3 93 7 (2r) 0
∑: 167 (+5 C) 20 4 130 12 (5r) 1
154 13 (5r)
Incidentally, the analysis of this thread brought us also the first bunch of type
C posts, which shall not remain unmentioned. The author of p87 describes his
change of mood after reading through the thread: “This thread just cheered me
up ”. Then again others address more or less the entire cast of the thread, such
as p131, “Come on guys, this thread is so pessimistic and melancholic […]”.
Although capturing the mood of the entire thread, these posts still dropped out of
the final calculation, as they do not directly refer to any other of their surround-
ing posts. These examples prove, however, that not every type C post is automati-
cally unrelated to the content of the ongoing discussion. Of course, there are also
“classic” type C posts, such as p38, in which user D – totally unrelated to previous
posts – utters the following request: “I am Boared Can I Talk Tio U”, to which no
one bothers to react.
When summarizing the entire category, Looking for like-minded others, sev-
eral new insights in contrast to the first category strike the eye. In responding to
the initial post, users
– signal their interest in the group by uttering the wish to join or by joining;
– look for others with similar problems;
– state opinions and express feelings;
– create a positive atmosphere by cheering others up, offering help and wishing
luck;
– create a negative atmosphere by patronizing, mocking and even insulting
others.
The thread starter’s behavior differed considerably within this category: While
the initiator of the first thread (#19) composed 18 out of 75 posts, thus assuming
an active role in the conversational flow, the second thread starter appeared very
withdrawn with only two out of 172 posts. In general, thread starters
– welcomed their fellow users;

– evaluated their responses and shared information;
– tried to keep the conversation going (only #18).
Finally, it is worth mentioning that this category does not only exhibit cases of
positively marked and unmarked behavior, but also incidences of “the dark side”.
Still, they do not carry much weight with 228 to only 13 examples of appropriate
versus inappropriate behavior respectively. Above that, thread #18 saw the first
specimen of type C posts, which could not be factored into the analysis due to the
lack of anaphoric as well as cataphoric reference. In figures, this can be expressed
as shown in Table 24.
www.ebook777.com
Table 24. Relational work in the second category (Looking for like-minded others)
and evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 98* ex. 6 0 3 (2r) 0
im. 7 1 78 2 (1r) 1
Bt: 143 im. 13 3 120 7 (2r) 0
∑: 241 (+5 C) 26 4 198 12 (5r) 1
228 13 (5r)
*+ 1 exception #19p53: im. Ø, ex. +
8.2.3 Asking for advice
In this category, participants are mostly explicitly asked for advice for a problem
put forward by the thread starter. In sharing their pearls of wisdom and trying
to help the initiator of the thread, TSR users seldom engage in lively discussions,
thus hardly producing dialogic structures. This is also mirrored in the statistics
for a category that comprises the second largest number of items in the entire cor-
pus: Of the sum total of 16 threads, 12 (75%) exhibit a low IQ, with the remaining
4 threads (25%) featuring a medium IQ. Surprisingly, there are no threads with a
high interaction quotient. Similar results can be spotted when looking at the num-
ber of posts per day as an indicator of the attraction of the content of the opening
post: As a matter of fact, 11 out of 16 threads stayed beneath the average of 12.5
p/d, thus receiving responses only extremely hesitantly (see, for example, thread
#34, Pros and cons of boarding school, with only 0.1 p/d or thread #40, Veganism,
with 0.2 p/d). The other five threads attracted more contributions per day, thus
sporting a high amount of p/d such as thread #11, What does this girl mean by
this? (convo included), with a whooping 40 p/d. To illustrate this category, thread
#14, How to stop strange people speaking to me (IQ: 24%, p/d: 27) will be picked:
How to stop strange people speaking to me

OK, so I’m doing a prjoect over the summer (a Nuffield Bursary) at a place
that’s an hour and a half away by train. Been there for two and a half weeks,
got a week and a half left. [\] Last week as I was walking to the station, this
12 year old kid asked me for my number and this 40 year old wolf-whistled
at me, but that was fine because I could just walk away. [another incident] [\]
Today however, another guy spoke to me. I’d say he was in his mid-twenties,
single (he told me) and he sat a lot closer than the other guy – opposite me
in a 4 – but the train was practically empty and I saw him walk down the
carriage past loads of empty seats. He said he’d seen me sitting alone on the
train before and he started speaking to me. He didn’t ask creepy questions
like “Are you a virgin?” or whatever (I’ve had that before) but he talked about
seeing me later/tomorrow and invited me to his barbershop tonight when I
finish my project for the day. [\] Now of course I’m not going to go, but I’m
concerned that I may see him tomorrow or over the next week and he’ll keep
being friendly. I’d much rather sit alone on the train! Also he might ask why
I didn’t turn up. I don’t want any trouble, particularly because by the time he
gets on (half an hour from my destination, which is the last stop) it’s almost
empty. [weighing options to avoid the guy] [\] I don’t wear revealing clothes or
makeup, I’m not pretty and when they talk to me I always act even more shy
than I am naturally, so I don’t know why people talk to me. It’s not like I ask
for it! I always give false details so they can’t track me down, but that doesn’t
stop people recognising me on the journey. [\] So what can I do to stop this
guy and people in general speaking to me? I don’t mind friendly chats like
with the bloke last night but I don’t want to develop a ‘friendship’ with this
other guy. Of course I could say tomorrow’s my last day or something, but
then if he sees me next week..? [\] Sorry for the long post.
(Anonymous User #1, thread #14, post 1)
The opening post of thread #14 stands out against most other initial posts because
of its length (which is why it needed to be shortened here). Even the thread start-
er, Anonymous user #1 (A), acknowledges this violation of the TSR code of con-
duct and apologizes with the metapragmatic utterance “Sorry for the long post”.
The rather obscure thread starter, who does not disclose anything about him- or
herself, has already been suspected to be a troll (see Section 7.3.2), since all four
threads set up by him contain diverging face claims thus pointing to different,
maybe deliberately faked personas. In this thread, A plays the part of a girl who
narrates her problem in detail before asking her co-participants for advice. She
does so in a well-structured way, abiding by orthography and punctuation. Not
only can we find hardly any typos but also no signs of netlingo, at least the latter
being unusual for message board entries.
A sum total of 53 responses were elicited by this initial post – among them
only two follow-up contributions by the thread starter, who only intervenes to
justify her position and to thank everyone present for their helpful suggestions
to get rid of the man on the train. The latter is the most prominent of all possible
reactions:
Easy, whenever someone is about to sit next to you on a bus/train, simply pat
the seat whilst, raising your eyebrows and grinning leeringly. Works for me
www.ebook777.com
every time. A pox to the fat person who dares to try and sit next to me on the
bus (p2)
Invest in an mp3 player. Works a charm. (p4)
Stare out the train window therefore not inducing any conversation. (p6)
Headphones. (p8)
Others, however, react less understanding and helpful, laying the blame on the
thread starter herself. Some of them are presented with a corresponding answer
immediately:
Wow, women sure can be paranoid… (p20)

put down the giant sign, saying, ‘talk to me’. (p34)
funny how guys wouldn’t mind at all if a girl spoke to them, but if its the other
way around, girls bitch, stfu [= shut the fuck up] (p51)
9: p5 you are the reason why guys dont talk to girls in public ex. –
places…
A: p33 Gee, wow thanks. If a guy roughly my age approached me, im. Ø
say, aged 15 to 19, I’d be more chatty even though I have a
boyfriend, simply because it’s nice to make friends. Quite
frankly though, I don’t want guys 10 years older than me
trying to be my mate. […]
While sharing strategies, some users discover commonalities with their interlocu-
tors and contribute their own experiences:
[\] I’m not the only one! (p12)
it can be flattering until it gets to that uncomfortable point [\] i always feel
unhapy when a person interest in me doesn’t equate to the how well they
know me [\] i struggle to say no too but because you can’t be too careful this
day and age i will always say i have a boyfriend who fancy very much because
of how strong he is [\] it can also be insulting that people think you can be
won over that easily i suppose (p17)
OP, tell them to **** off. it’s only a stranger, so who cares? [\] I remember
one time, some 16 year olds were on a bus with me and asked me “yo blud,
you got a cigarette?” i said “no, i don’t give money to low-class chav people”.
they wanted to hit me, but they got off the next stop, and shouted and swore at
me as they left. [\] I couldn’t care less. I didn’t know them, he who gets angry
loses. (p35)
Then again others comment on the views and/or face claims expressed by their
co-participants, or joke about the problem described:
Balaclava…..nobody sits next to someone wearing a balaclava. Oh the fun of

it… […] (p43)
cover yourself in manure, im sure nobody would want to sit next to you if you
stink. (p46)
n: p9 You can tell them to f off. Wouldn’t work on me, but on im. Ø
other less confident guys. MP3 Player works well too. But
that ain’t ever stopped me either, so really just be polite and
if they creep you out move.
S: p14 You do realise how bad you make yourself sound right? im. Ø
[…]
n: p18 Last time I hit on a girl on a train she orginally told me to im. Ø
f off. 20 minutes later she was giving me her number and
asking for mine. I’m good at what I do.
G: p21 It was probably a fake number to make you **** off. [\] To im. Ø
(→18) be honest, I feel terrible for the girls who have to put up
with desperate guys constantly trying to hit on them when
they’re just trying to get from A to B. There’s something
very creepy about having to trap a girl in a moving train
before they will talk to you. [\] Even more repulsive is the
fact that most of these guys are completely oblivious to
how uncomfortable they make the poor girls feel. Espe-
cially the idiots who are like “naw man i am usin mar skillz
to get da girlz lol dey like it u see.”
f: p24 I really want to see how you do that […] im. Ø

(→18)
n: p30 I think the specific line I used was, wow, that’s very rude. im. Ø
(→24) You this impolite to all strangers. Then i got a sorry, what
did you want. And then we just got talking. Then I had to
get off and she asked for my number and gave me hers.
And it wasn’t phony cause she was the one texting me. [\]
I’m not some creep, I don’t do that kind of thing often, but
if I do stick out my neck, a girl trying to insult me before
I’ve spoken a single word kinda means nothing. Of course
after a minute if she still hatin, it’s me that shes hating, not
the being approached part.
www.ebook777.com
p: p28 OMG i hate guys like you. Are you stupid enough to not im. – r
(→18) the get the msg if she swore at you? I bet it was a fake num-
ber cos I do it all the time
In offering advice to the thread starter, n provoked a multilayered discussion

about his character in p9, basically dealing with the negotiation of his face claims
between himself and six other participants. Here is the second string of dialogue
elicited by p9:
n: p9 You can tell them to f off. Wouldn’t work on me, but on im. Ø
other less confident guys. MP3 Player works well too. But
that ain’t ever stopped me either, so really just be polite and
if they creep you out move.
F: p22 If a girl told you to f- off you wouldn’t take a hint and leave im. Ø
her alone?
n: p29 If she told me after a minute or so. But if the opening line im. Ø
is F-off then yeah, I’ll try my luck for a bit. That’s just how I
am. If i don’t get anywhere after like 30 seconds I’ll apolo-
gize and cut my losses.
T: p31 People who boast about such things on the internet are im. – r
generally compensating for their failures in life.
n: p32 Lol, I’m not boasting. I was just replying to some state- im. Ø
ments. But who cares. it’s the internet! [\] And yes, like
everyone else I have my own failures in life. I know my
short comings, no need to tell me.
In summarizing the exemplary thread for this category, we obtain the following
figures, which correspond with previously gained results in terms of the distri-
bution of appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Interestingly, in most cases of
negatively marked behavior, the intention to hurt the other’s face was quite obvi-
ous, which is why these posts earned the label rude (see Table 25).
Naturally, the analysis of the other 15 threads belonging to this category has
brought to light more examples for the facework strategies as discussed for thread
#14. Above that, more strategies, positive as well as negative ones, could be detect-
ed in the behavior of thread starters and their interlocutors likewise. Classified into
groups, one might summarize them in the following, far from exhaustive list:

and evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 15 ex. 0 0 1 0
im. 1 0 12 1 (1r) 0
Bt: 39 im. 2 0 33 4 (3r) 0
∑: 54 3 0 45 6 (4r) 0
48 6 (4r)
A. positive facework, i.e. in favor of the need for association or dissociation:

– giving helpful suggestions, advice and/or warnings to solve the problem
and/or to answer the initial question;
– contributing own experiences;
– thanking others for suggestions;
– discussing impressions (face claims) of others;
– discovering commonalities, sharing worries and feelings, teaming up;
– reassuring and encouraging others;
– leaping at someone’s defense;
– commenting on others’ views by either supporting and agreeing with
them or by correcting or contradicting them;
– enjoying others’ jokes;
– discussing (more or less seriously) the code of conduct in TSR;
– dissolving misunderstandings by asking for and giving clarifications;
– praising formal aspects such as others’ signatures.
B. negative facework, i.e. to the detriment of the need for association or
dissociation:
– laying the blame for the problem on the one with the problem (mostly the
thread starter);
– not helping but joking instead;
– mocking the other (also with the help of smileys, inappropriate links and
pictures);
– insulting the other bluntly;
– commenting negatively on the form of the post;
– suspecting the other to be a troll – verbally and pictorially;
– criticizing the content of the other’s post.
www.ebook777.com

and evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 28* ex. 0 0 6 (4r) 1
im. 0 0 14 5 (5r) 2
Bt: 88 im. 3 0 34 49 (42r) 2
∑: 116 (+2 C) 3 0 48 60 (51r) 5
51 65 (51r)
*+ 2 exceptions p1, 7: im. Ø, im. – r
A lot of examples for the negative side of facework stem from thread #11, a thread
which poses an exception insofar as its originator was suspected to be a troll at all
times. For this reason, almost every reaction was downright hostile with only a
small proportion of posts trying to deal with the actual question seriously. Con-
sequently, the figures depicting the relational work in this thread (see Table 26)
speak for themselves.
Never before has a thread contained so many instances of inappropriate, dys-
functional posts, with impoliteness and mock-politeness, and most of all rudeness
leading the way. Indeed, this is the only thread in which there are more instances
of inappropriate behavior than appropriate behavior – a reliable indicator for the
fact that the bulk of participants considered the thread starter and the content of
his opening post to be a fraud.
Beside this notable exception, there were other exchanges worth mentioning
for one reason or another: In answering the initial question of the thread starter,
a user in thread #43 stated his opinion without criticizing or even addressing
anyone else: “I’ve no intention on changing whatsoever. Why should I? It’s my
life, not anyone else’s.” (p8). Still, someone must have taken offence in this post, as
the user received a negative reputation (i.e. he was “negged”), leaving him won-
dering “And why was I negged for this? ” (p17). This goes to show that it is not
always easy – not even for users of TSR – to separate between a disagreement on a
content-related plane and one on an interpersonal plane. In theory, only the latter
should be relevant for the reputation system, whose purpose is not to reprimand
users for (diverging) opinions but only for misconduct.
In thread #16, we encounter users who gang up against the thread starter to
mock him. What is interesting about their behavior, though, is the fact that with
their “laughter” (basically “lol” and smileys), they mutually evaluate their con-
duct as appropriate. They do so with a view to the opening post, which contains a
question that can indeed hardly be taken seriously (heading: “What does it mean
if a girl smiles at you?”; first post: “What is she thinking?”). Accordingly, the label
appropriate has a different value in this particular thread. Hence, it can also be
attached to a post, which would have been estimated differently in other contexts.
As noted before, this example illustrates that appropriateness really lies in the eye
of the beholder.
The same thread holds another cluster of posts worth discussing, since they
can be considered one of the very rare cases of a cut and dried evaluation. With
reference to two previous posts, which answer the thread starter’s question more
than frivolously, this particular TSR member types underneath both quotes
“Mean!” (#16p51), thereby clearly evaluating the interpersonal effect of his two
predecessors’ entries. Other examples for beautifully outspoken evaluations of
a preceding post can be found in thread #15, in which the entry “and if, at 18,
you’ve not ever even touched alcohol, your parents much be so so obsessive about
controlling what you eat – never had good chocolate mousse or anything?” (p53)
is followed up with these two comments: “Totally uncalled for ” (p54) and
“Couldn’t really let this one go. […]” (p63). It is cases like these which are
ideal for a post-hoc evaluation, since users’ views and interpretations are virtually
committed to writing.
An interesting contradiction of form and content can be detected in thread
#49. Proving that there is indeed no constant connection between these two, a
user literally screams at his interlocutor with a large font size (36pt) and bold
capitals – which usually counts as rude behavior – just to encourage him. The
reaction of the one shouted at confirms the positive effect of this rather unusual
facework strategy, though:
E: DO WHAT YOU WANT [original: 36pt] [\] I’m tired of answering this ques-
tion. Your an adult [original: 36pt], you don’t need your parents to run your
life anymore. It’s entirely up to you what you do with your time. (#49p7)
M: Fantastic! That made me smile (#49p9)
Last but not least, a very explicit statement about how to treat other users online,
posted in thread #42, shall not be left out either. At the end of a heated argument
between two participants, which could also qualify as a flame, one of the users
leaves the following remark:
[…] I’m not insecure, I don’t even know who you are, I just don’t really see any
reason why I need to be espescially polite or civil towards you. My social skills
are fine, but this is the internet and I’m not really looking to make friends with
www.ebook777.com
you or anyone like you. There’s nothing to gain from kissing your arse and
there’s nothing I lose from being impolite to you. (#42p58)
The simple fact that most other users do behave when interacting with their fel-
low members, even become friends, signals that this opinion is not shared by
the majority. The figures for the entire third category (see Table 27) support this
claim. Even thread #11 (the troll-thread) could not change the general outcome
of all 16 threads. As noted before, cases of appropriate behavior outstrip cases of
inappropriate behavior at the rate of 6:1 approximately. While examples of both
mock-politeness and mock-impoliteness are rare, it is again unmarked behavior
which surpasses all other types by far. Even the relatively high amount of 49 inci-
dences of politeness (see Table 27) cannot change that.
A look at the seven exceptions reveals the obvious: Evaluations tend to vary
between marked and unmarked behavior in the eyes of the interlocutors. Although
the biggest possible contrast could not be detected in this batch of threads – i.e.
the contrast between positively and negatively marked behavior – some posts at
least managed to elicit such diverse evaluations as unmarked vs. rude.
On a marginal note, this category saw three of those thread starters in action
that excelled either by their positive or negative reputation (see Section 7.3.2). Two
of them, Geritak (#15) and Sahds (#42), both of whom were labeled “do-good-
ers” previously, did not leave an impression at all, as they hardly intervened in
the threads created by them. The third of them, the “trouble maker” 9MmBulletz
Table 27. Relational work in the third category (Asking for advice)
and evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 210* ex. 10 0 17 (10r) 1
im. 6 0 166 8 (7r) 2
Bt: 536 im. 33 3 426 70 (48r) 4
∑: 746 (+12 C) 49 3 592 95 (65r) 7
644 102 (65r)
*+ 7 exceptions # 11p1, 7: im. Ø, im. – r
#15p13: im. Ø, ex. – r
#41p1: im. Ø, im. –
#44p6: im. Ø, ex. +
#45p6, 12: im. Ø, ex. –
(#34), gave us at least something to work with in the form of four further contri-
butions. Although he did not really stir up any trouble in them, a rather demand-
ing and impatient streak was still salient: Seven minutes after his initial entry, he
posted “someone?” (p2), approximately half an hour after his first appearance in
this thread, he addressed his interlocutors once again rather bluntly by uttering
“anyone else?” (p7), thus pushing noticeably unmitigated for answers.
8.2.4 Asking for opinions
In this category, high IQs could be expected, as interlocutors are (mostly explic-
itly) asked by thread starters to exchange their opinions and to discuss a topic.
In reality, though, ten out of 23 threads feature a low (43.5%), eight a medium
(34.8%) and five a high IQ (21.7%). Despite these figures, the interactive charac-
ter of this category does shine through, as five of the seven threads in the entire
corpus that rank “high” in terms of their IQ can be found in this category. A look
at the number of posts per day yields diverging results, since some threads exhibit
very high results, such as thread #13 with 65 p/d, then again others extremely low
ones (see, for example, thread #33 with only 0.4 p/d). To illustrate this category,
a thread in which participants engage in a heated discussion shall be chosen.
Thread #13 (Do intellectuals put you off?) appears to be the ideal candidate, since
it does not only exhibit an elevated IQ of 46% and a high amount of 65 posts per
day. Above that, the thread starter has been found out to be one of the “trouble
makers” in Section 7.3.2, which makes this thread even more appealing from an
analytical point of view.
Do intellectuals put you off?

Here’s a Q. [\] Would you be put off by someone if they were a bit of an
intellect? [\] Now I have to make the distinction between someone who is
intelligent vs an intellect [\] The latter being someone who chooses to engage
themselves in certain pursuits of the mind, and could be classified as a deep
thinker, someone who say engages in heated debates and likes to be expressive
about their viewpoint and theories and whatnot, being into socio-cultural
issues, etc… etc … [\] Discuss.
(Adonis, thread #13, post 1)
Adonis (A) is an extremely savvy TSR user with more than 6000 posts at the mo-
ment of posting this contribution. Despite a warnings level of two, he sports a
high amount of positive reputation (12 gems). To a certain extent, this documents
his behavior in previous exchanges and the varying results yielded in terms of
relational work therein. Showing awareness for his effect on others, he even puts
www.ebook777.com
this face claim into words by crowning himself “Winner of: Most controversial
member on TSR” in his profile (see Section 7.3.2). In his opening post, A makes
his expectations for the progress of this thread perfectly clear: The question he
would like to see answered is not only repeated (heading and entry) but also la-
beled as such by the metapragmatic statement “Here’s a Q”. The main part of this
entry attempts to define the most central concept of his object of discussion, in-
tellectuals. Afterwards, his fellow-participants are forthrightly asked to discuss by
means of a bare imperative.
In complying with this request, 34 experienced participants speak their minds,
thus creating 64 subsequent posts, among them five follow-up contributions by
the thread starter himself. As usual, only a small proportion of users try to answer
the question seriously, exploiting the advantages of netlingo and the means of
communication here and there as the following examples attest:
no, i find them very interesting to talk to..so im not put off. [\] but as long
as they wernt like that all the time..it’s good for convo every now and then.
(p3)
Depends how keen they are for everyone to know they’re intelligent. (p5)
Real intellectuals (read: not people who are simply intelligent and go to a top
uni) = (p36)
Agreement with certain lines of argumentations is signaled in a similar manner:
Ha ha I see your point. I meant I have […] (p19)

I know what you mean… hate it when people are patronising on the basis of
what seems like your appearance. HATE it. (p22)
LOOOOOOL. (p41)
What is more, a big part of this thread includes reactions which show that the
initial question is not taken seriously and thus answered ironically or jokingly,
sometimes even offensively, as the last two excerpts demonstrate:
Yep, definitely. I hate it when people think. Why can’t we just walk around
naked and do each other at whim. (p2)
People’s biggest muscle shouldn’t be their brain. Time and time again, I’ve told
that to people, sigh. [\] Ok seriously. [\] I don’t like it when people […]
(p21)
R: I like my girls like I like my horses. Stubborn at first, but easily broken.
(p11)
O: That’d be all of them then. (p13)
intellectuals, I will hump the first female intellectual i meet- I haven’t met any
yet…. but i love listening to intellectual people. (p17)
In some cases, the thread starter is even mocked for asking the question (in this
form) in the first place, leading at times to full-fledged discussions about his or
others’ face claims:
Great idea asking in a student forum. (p4)

I don’t think this is something you have to worry about. (p6)
C: p7 Looks like you’ve used ‘intellect’ in place of ‘intellectual’. An im. Ø

intellect is something a person possesses, not what a person
is. [\] Anyhow, the way I look at things, your description
of an intellectual here sounds like a person I can have a
meaningful relationship with (be it platonic or otherwise)
and anyone else I would dismiss as a drone.
A: p14 you know… I should’ve been more specific and proof-read im. Ø
things [\] anywaaaaaay [\] basically… what I meant was [\]
like what someone else pointed out earlier [\] people who
are bit toooooooo keen on trying to prove their ‘intelli-
gence’ or overly-analytic types
W: p63 Are you a bit dumb? im. –
A: p64 nope im. Ø
C: p20 You must realise that loading a question with two qualifiers ex. –
(→14) suggesting excess renders it completely pointless. If some-
one is “too” keen and “overly” analytical, that by definition
means that these qualities in them are developed more
than would be desirable in the context of the question, so
the answer that I would be put off is necessitated. [\] You’ve
also changed the question. At first you were talking about
intellectuals, and now you’re talking about people who are
attempting to appear intellectual, and there is a big differ-
ence between these types. [\] Before you accuse me of being
picky, notice that you’ve started a thread about intellectuals
so you’ve brought it on yourself.
A: p32 Tis true Mr. Pedantic [\] I would answer the rest, but you im. – m
know me.. laziness
www.ebook777.com
What is intriguing about the exchange between these three users is not only the
fact that they negotiate their face claims but also how these face attributions are
taken. C positions himself as a rather pedantic discussant who needs to define the
objects of discussion meticulously before actually joining said discussion – a be-
havior which is outspokenly mocked by A in p32, thus finishing off the dialogue
between these two users. A on the other hand does not live up to his reputation as
a “trouble maker” at all, when he does not answer but endorse allegations against
his face. Indeed, he agrees when others would have protested (p14) and simply
negates when others would have picked a fight (p64). Some posts later, A even
admits voluntarily, “[…] on a side note: I swear I have issues communicating [\] I
know what I wanna say, but it never seems to come out right lol” (p18), thus even
reinforcing previous face constitutions.
In fact, neither A nor C are off the hook yet when it comes to negotiating their
face claims – the only difference being that A passes the torch to someone else, I,
as A reports back only once in p31:
I: p21 People’s biggest muscle shouldn’t be their brain. Time and im. Ø
time again, I’ve told that to people, sigh. [\] Ok seriously.
[\] I don’t like it when people go overboard with intellectual
debates. […]
C: p25 I think you’re confusing the majority of people with a genu- im. Ø
ine interest in ‘intellectual pursuits’ (as much as I have that
expression – it typically means ‘things you have to think
about a bit to take an interest in’) with a specific – though
admittedly voal – subset comprising those who […]
I: p28 Er that’s kind of what I thought OP meant. I a bit confused im. Ø
to what OP means then.
C: p30 Well, given that it’s a thread by Adonis, it usually means im. – r
he’s thought of something but not bothered to actually also:
decide how he’s going to put it before posting, write a mess im. Ø
which people interpret in various ways and then tell people
he meant something else (in an equally ambiguous way)
whenever they answer it in a way that he didn’t want them
to.
I: p32 I’m a fairly new member so I don’t know much about im. Ø
Adonis accept he likes weight training. [\] oh well.
C: p35 He also enjoys looking at oiled up men far more than im. – r
any man claiming to be straight should. Probably more
than any man claiming to be gay should. [\] Don’t worry,
there are actually plenty of us in the fitness forum (myself
included) who enjoy weight training but don’t go for the
oily men.
A: p31 it’s funny because it’s true lol [\] ah [C] making me lol in im. Ø
(→30) real life at 2am [yes my clock is 7 mins fast in adonistan]
I: p33 so basically you’re a well liked troll with lots of positive rep? im. Ø
[\] I’m rather fond of trolls as they make TSR interesting,
and seem to rebel in a forum that is governed by so many
strange rules that you have to abide by (I got alerted for
claiming Mr.Blobby was a celebrity hence my thread should
remain in Celeb gossip rather than chat). [\] I don’t see why
some people get so worked up by trolls, their threads don’t
really have any significance upon their own life do they
(they have the power to ignore them or resist the tempta-
tion to launch in a scathing attack on them).
In this example, users’ rather unexpected reactions result in two different evalua-
tions of p30. Practicing his pedantry yet again, C once more tries to incite A, while
discussing with I. As seen before, A keeps his cool and agrees with C’s evaluation
of himself instead of disagreeing and being insulted. Accordingly, p30 can only
be labeled “im. Ø” – at least from A’s and, for that matter, also from I’s perspec-
tive. Other participant observers, however, would have estimated this entry as
“im. – r” in all likelihood. For that reason, this particular entry deserves two la-
bels and needs to be treated as an exception.
Although C’s behavior has escaped direct commentary so far, the next par-
ticipant, m, is not as indulgent as her predecessors. In her conversation with T,
in which she creates common ground by sharing T’s views, she also starts on C’s
previous entries, renegotiating once more his face claims:
m: p22 I know what you mean… hate it when people are patronis- ex. +
ing on the basis of what seems like your appearance. HATE
it.
T: p26 Thank you, someone who understands . Snap on GCSE’s ex. +
btw.
www.ebook777.com
m: p38 *High five* and lets hope the the next set of results follow im. +
suit! [\] The combination of intelligence, sportiness, (to T)
a tendncy to be intellectual, good looks and courtesy is ex. – r
too rare for my liking [\] And [C] is doing an excel- (to C)
lent job of demonstrating the kind of aggressive, annoying im. +
and pointless pedantry that would put me right off. Thank (to A)
you. [\] (Yes I know this was not the question but I feel its
related. [A], everyone else got what you meant )
C: p40 Wicked, thanks. One more I can add to the ever-growing im. Ø
list of women who won’t sleep with me because I’m obnox-
ious. [\] […]
m: p44 I understand your need to be so pedantic, your posts im. +
resemble the way I think. But I’ve learnt to restrain it
because it tends to annoy people and in a lot of cases it’s
just pointless really. [\] I think this thread has been fairly
coherent for a TSR thread, with most people having un-
derstood the question or having at least made a comment
related in some way. [\] I wouldn’t worry, no-one properly
understands the world. But it sounds like you have a better
understanding than most.
C: p49 I tend to look at the pedantry issue the other way round; im. Ø
what place could it more appropriate or more necessary for
me to unleash my otherwise (slightly) restrained pedantry
than on a forum populated by students? [\] I’ve long since
realised that it’s pointless trying to represent myself ac-
curately on TSR so instead I find it a much more pleasant
(and less frustrating) use of my time to be far more con-
frontational and picky than I otherwise would, and pretend
that I’m some sort of wit.
m: p56 Of the two options, unleashing your pedantry upon real life, im. Ø
or upon anonymous strangers in a student forum, I would
agree that the second option is better. Even so, its still not
appropriate or neccessary in most cases. Just annoying. Not
what people want to be distracted with, especially in light
hearted discussions, like this one. You can learn to recognise
when its appropriate to be pedantic, I’ve found. [\] People
will always have communication issues and not express
their views perfectly, or interpret questions differently. The
nature of language itself prevents perfect communication.
Just have to do your best to understand I guess.
7: p42 You’re always speaking the truth, everytime i read your im. +
(→40) posts they’re always quality either funny/clever/helpful
C: p43 Unfortunately evidence in this thread suggests that those im. Ø
whose opinions matter the most (at least if I am to ever get
laid again) – the lady types – are not in agreement.
7: p46 I must agree then, your internet reputation has been im. Ø
dented, you must hide all evidence of your existence in this
online world
After the bonding between m and T in posts 22, 26 and 38, the latter one also ad-
dresses two other users, C and A. Naturally, the three different addressees elicit
different types of interpersonal behavior, mirrored in the labels attached to this
post: “im. +” and “ex. – r”. In discussing C’s behavior, the ensuing interaction
between m and C also touches on the coherence of the thread and on what is ap-
propriate in TSR and what is annoying. Unexpected help for C’s face arrives in
form of user 7, who does positive facework for C by praising the enduring quality
of his posts.
Astonishingly, even insults can be subject to negotiation, as the following ex-
cerpt – despite being rather cryptic in terms of content – proves:
B: p9 No, it’s very feckable. im. Ø

a: p45 as far as i undestand, i’m assuming someone’s written that im. Ø
down in a sketchbook somewhere. or more, screenshotted
it and put it into a large word document entitled “I WILL
GET HER”
B: p47 Do you think someone cares that much? im. Ø

a: p50 Well, I know nothing about TSR, however, I stumbled im. Ø
across the poem thread for Cultivated which I think sug-
gested as much….? [\] However, I’m just a little creeped out
that you don’t find my comment rather insulting
B: p51 Should I? [\] Is it? im. Ø
a: p53 Well no, it just makes me out to be a lot more stalkerish im. Ø
than I am… [\] Meh insulting was probably the wrong
word, but hey, most of my words are the wrong words…
B: p54 I’m used to stalkers on here tbh. im. Ø
a: p55 oh….. [\] and you’re still here? im. Ø
www.ebook777.com

and evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 30* ex. 2 0 1 0
im. 2 0 24 1 0
Bt: 32 im. 0 0 27 2 (2r) 3
∑: 62 (+1 C) 4 0 51 4 (2r) 3
55 7 (2r)
*+ 2 exceptions p
30: im. – r, im. Ø
p38: im. +, ex – r
Table 28 summarizes the relational work found in this thread. A look at the other
22 threads within this category reveals even more possibilities to more or less
meet the expectations of the respective thread starters. In the following, these
strategies will be listed and illustrated with a few examples.
As we have seen before, the initial question or problem contained in the
thread start can be answered in more or less detail, ranging from a single smi-
ley to several paragraphs. Some users do with a single quote to phrase their re-
sponse, as in “Whoever kills himself, kills
a man”. [\] – St. Augustine (#6p56). Other
TSR-members make use of the multimodal
potential of the communicative platform,
for example by embedding links to other
webpages (see, for example, #3p62, #27p5 or
#28p34, 73). These may include links to “You
Tube”-videos (#20p38) or any kind of picture
to be found online (#20p9). Then again, the
latter two can also be directly embedded in
the entry (#7p97, #20p21). The screenshot
taken from thread #32, post 6 illustrates
how a picture can serve as a response almost
single-handedly.
In agreeing with certain lines of argumentation of their predecessors, partici-
pants do not necessarily have to be wordy to make their agreement known, but
can resort to other, sometimes message board specific means of expression:
Wow, I Agree Completely [\] (#33p89)

I second this. (#7p82)
snap! (#25p77)
yes. (#20p12)
Hear hear. (#50p56)
EXACTLY. (#8p21)
My thoughts exactly. (#7p18)
i concur! (#31p15)
[… reconfirmation of emma watsons utter perfection. ] DAYUMMM she’s
fine!! (#21p13)
I know man! (#7p88)
(#20p10)
[animated smileys high-fiving] (#7p24)
^ This one. (#3p4)
[\] This. This. A thousand times this! I don’t think I’ve ever […]
(#20p32)
As a look at the above list reveals, a lot can be expressed with the help of smileys,
which cannot only be used to accompany and modify utterances but which can
also serve as entire utterances by themselves: To signal agreement, the smiley in
#20p10 holds up a sign to refer to the previous entry, while #7p24 shows two
animated smileys which are about to high five. The same effect, referring and
agreeing, is achieved by another strategy, registered towards the end of the list: us-
ing the determinative pronoun this, sometimes in combination with small arrows
(see #3p4) to indexically portend to the point made in the preceding entry.
On an interpersonal plane, this kind of verbal behavior involves bonding and
sympathizing with others over shared views and experiences. While this is only
implicitly contained in some of the above excerpts, it becomes explicit in the fol-
lowing examples:
I’m exactly the same. [\] OP, I don’t think […] (#4p51)
I feel awful for you (#7p44)
Same here and I’m 23 Birmingham and North Wales are the furthest
North I’ve been. Never been to Scotland. (#7p90)
www.ebook777.com
I feel muchhh the same as you, OP. [\] I suppose […] (#46p13)
My feelings exactly. No wonder I didn’t […] (#46p14)
In this context, one should not forget to mention either that this also includes the
sharing of emotions:
thinking about it makes me want to punch one right now Grrr I need to
punch something now. […] (#7p87)
I am never happy thesedays. [\] I try to be happy, going out etc … but I
never reach a state where I can say “I am satisfied and happy with life”
(#33p35)
!!!ICE CREAM!!! [\] (#33p46)
I love my grammar school (L) (#37p23)
Besides bonding, positive facework can also be accomplished by praising oth-

ers’ contributions explicitly, a strategy which mostly subsists on metapragmatic
utterances:
Good argument (#7p53)

[…] You just pooned the Harry Potter heathen. Well done. (#21p84)
Good point. (#31p9)
brapboybrap’s posts make me happy. (#33p34)
Then again some users go as far as distributing positive reputation for entries
which were very much to their liking; some users at least promise to do so. Oth-
ers, very aware of the possibility of being negatively “repped”, give utterance to
that fear also:
lol +rep (#3p48)

Awesome post, I’ll rep you when I’ve replied (#21#87)
Ross and very close behind is Chancey (+rep for anyone who can name the
episode where this comes up) (#23p49)
I just want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with missygeorgia. Positive rep
for you. (#27p39)
If you could, please PM me tomorrow so I can pos-rep you. I haven’t got a rep
left today. (#29p69)
[…] (awaits bad rep, but TBH, I don’t care) (#7p12)
Who cares, we all know London is the best place to be in England. ( Please
don’t neg ) (#7p66)
In this category, another kind of cooperative behavior is demonstrated by users

who engage in the negotiation of meaning, be it in terms of clarifying and asking
for clarification with regard to the phrasing of certain entries, reference or (po-
tential) misunderstandings:
L: I think he means where is the ‘i am from the midlands and … southerners

/northerners’ (#7p21)
d: Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh …yeah,
think you’re right. Long day! probably a sign that i should be off to bed. tata
TSR (#7p31)
W: Just take a look in H&R. (#9p2)

m: I don’t get it (#9p29)
L: hehe, that’s ok. Fairy snuff […] (#10p12)

E: Fairy snuff?! (#10p13)
L: Fair enough (#10p14)
E: Lol! I’m stealing that! (#10p15)
P: It depends how you define the pay gap. […] (#27p22)

E: Maybe you misunderstood me. I am not holding […] (#27p23)
P: Yeah I was agreeing with you. The problem is […] (#27p24)
E: I wasn’t sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing lol, you said stuff that agreed
with me but it seemed like you were disagreeing for some reason. (#27p25)
E: That isn’t the point I was making, could you at least read what I was replying
to and not quote out of context? […] (#27p41)
m: I was specifically responding to the ‘how does somebody being a feminist in
this country help women in Sudan?’ comment, I should have made that clear.
(#27p44)
Read my posts again, not once did I call you boring, that was another poster.
(#4p48)
[…] I’m not sure what you mean. Could you clarify? (#29p89)
Well, I was addressing the OP more than you, but I suppose that it equally
applies (as your last sentence certainly seems to imply a rule from what pre-
cedes, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt). […] (#37p29)
Especially thread starters are often faced with the need to revisit the phrasing of
their original posts or their personal viewpoint of the topic conveyed in it. With a
view to the following excerpts, all of which produced by the initiator of thread #4,
this can indeed turn into a challenging endeavor:
www.ebook777.com
can i stress again that i am not in favour of prohibition – i’m not an idiot – that
clearly doesn’t work – maybe my title was poorly thought through and people
are not actually reading the post – bit long i suppose (#4p6)
did anyone actually read anything other than the title? […] (#4p13)
again – not personally in favour of prohibition – which i said in my OP – and
yes i know it doesn’t work – i just titled my thread as such to catch people’s
attention/stimulate discussion – obviously wrong way to do it (#4p31)
Similar to previous categories, the dropping of lines as well as the negotiation of

face claims can also be witnessed in this category:
I’m a Southerner and I’d definitely say Northerners. I’m not very friendly.
(#7p69)
im still weirder though :’( (#21p86)
[…] I’m a genius for figuring that one out. (#21p123)
this will probably be an epic post. I am SUCH a geek. […] (#21p139)
[…] OP sounds like a right cock. […] (#28p62)
[\] The standard is really dropping these days … (#28p64)

OP – Are you gay? (#28p85)
Being snug. I’ve discovered recently that I’m a very tactile person, and feeling
very cosy, secure and safe makes me smile. [\] Sam [\] xxx (#33p23)
Metapragmatic utterances, as stated before, are an integral part of conversations,

online and offline, and of the negotiation of relations therein, as they are often
used as a lubricant to avoid anticipated friction. This can also be witnessed in
the following excerpts in which users apologize for (parts of) their entries, for
instance for their length, topic drifts or outbursts of emotions:
[…] Sorry if that turned into a bit of a rant.. erm. (#3p51)

[…] (Sorry if I went off topic) (#3p54)
Sorry double post (#3p80)
Sorry this post is so long and took such a long time to post; I just really wanted
to try and give a decent answer (#10p86)
[…] Crazy. /end rant. (#21p141)
The same function, averting anticipated friction, can be assumed for the following
set of examples in which participants point to or correct formal mistakes in their
entries or make explicit the tentative nature of their opinions:
Edited to correct grammatical error. (#20p62)

Can someone edit the title its supposed to be Creation OR evolution
(#29p2)
oh **** i think i made an error somewhere in that last post (#32p43)
Edit: Fail. Only just noticed there was a 2nd and 3rd page to this thread and
that it wasn’t a new thread. (#50p55)
[…] but that’s just my opinion. (#8p50)
I know this is a stupid thing to say in a hypothetical situation, but […] [\]
Sorry for the lack of sensible answers! (#10p10)
someone correct me if i’m wrong (i also haven’t read the book in a few years)
(#21p39)
kinda off topic but […] (I stand to be corrected) […] [\] Apologies if this is a
stupid question but i was wondering […] (#30p38)
Of course, not every reaction is as positive or as constructive in terms of topical

progression as the ones described so far. While some interlocutors simply dis-
agree with previously posted views, others outspokenly state their disinterest for
the entire topic. In doing so, users clearly set themselves apart from the rest of this
particular community of practice, thereby attending to their need for dissocia-
tion. Others even go one step further by contributing ironic or joking, partly even
offensive answers, which mock or insult either the thread starter or other users.
The following list provides examples for all of these types of responses:
(1) disagreeing:
sorry, but i dont see how your coming up with these theories when youve
admitted that […] (#3p33)
Lies. (#7p72)
Correction, they are not treated equal in some parts of society, […]
(#27p62)
Err, no. (#27p67)
(#28p39)
(2) stating disinterest:

cant say i give a flying monkeys (#3p45)
yeah, okay, whatever. (#28p12)
Tl;dr. [= too long, didn’t read] [\] Is this a new subcontinent? Well it sounds
lovely – I put “yes”. [\] I kid, I’m not that stupid. [thread topic: Are you in
favour of Euthanasia?] (#6p38)
www.ebook777.com
(3) answering ironically/jokingly:

Everybody should be watched, all the time… [\] Well ok, poor people should
be watched all the time, you just know that they’re up to no good…
[thread topic: Are we walking into a surveillance society?] (#32p4)
Fentanyl. [thread topic: What makes you happy?] (#33p15)
(4) mocking, replying offensively:

Are you ******* mad?! (#4p7)
So in your view, […] [\] DaveSteed24 for Prime Minister!!! (#4p16)
[…] You see, I at this point like to use something called COMMON SENSE
[originally: 36pt], and i use big letters because its clearly something you are
lacking… [\] […] People like you is whats wrong with the world, interferring
busy bodies who see other people […] and finally, before your pea sized brain
explodes, note that […] [\] So there we go. Go take a half an asprin to ease
that tired brain of yours.. (#4p58)
The OP [= opening poster] really didn’t think this through

(#21p6)
ahah you’re so ignorant. I’m not even gonna bother (#28p28)
idiot. (#28p40)
Grow a pair OP, for god’s sake. […] (#28p65)
Stupid post. (#28p76)
Bugger you. […] (#28p87)
Haha – well as you yourself demonstrate, grades clearly aren’t everything,
darling. (#37p13)
At this point, a selection of the most noteworthy passages regarding the manage-
ment of interpersonal relations within this category and their evaluation shall be
presented. In thread #3, we encounter the following short exchange:
V: p3 Most people on here are social rejects. ex. – r

G: p4 ^ This one. im. – r
What is interesting about these two utterances is the fact that by agreeing with
the preceding entry, G adopts not only the propositional content of V’s entry but
above that its interpersonal orientation, making his contribution as rude as that
of his predecessor. (For the sake of completion, it should be noted that V received
its explicit, negative evaluation from another user.)
A clear-cut case of rudeness thanks to the explicit evaluation by a fellow-

user presented itself in thread #7, in which the thread starter asks Who are more
friendly: Northerners or Southerners (England):
h: p113 tbh I think the northerners are just jealous that us southern- ex. – r
ers are richer than them so whinge about how they smile
at each other in the street more (who the **** cares if this
happens????) to make up for their inferiority complex. [\]
Really they should be greatful – all regions of the UK spend
more in tax than they pay, apart from the south-east and
London, which pay more in tax than they spend. Basically,
the northerners suck on the south-east’s juicy cock
O: p114 you’re really think it’s an inferiority complex, and not, im. Ø
y’know, rudeness like that? like in your post just then?
Thread #46 saw another strategy to handle anticipated negative reactions

(see above), namely by means of something that could be labeled preemptive
rudeness:
And the very fact I just said “l’art pour l’art” probably makes me pretentious.
But I like the way my mind works now, it gives me satisfaction, so really
if you’re going to criticise me for it. (p33)
Speaking of rudeness, thread #4 (booze illegal?) clearly takes the cake with more
instances of “ex. – r” (10 times) than any other thread in and outside of this cat-
egory. This can mostly be blamed on the thread starter D, who adopts a very ac-
tive role: In his 13 (out of 67) further contributions, he cannot seem to let pass any
opportunity to pick a fight, which more often than not leads to a substantial flame.
The following excerpt depicts only one of these cases:
D: p12 and you suffer because you can’t drink at home? – when it is ex. – m
stll available elsewhere – how exactly? – excuse my boring
nature Mr Life of the Party
K: p16 yea, thats it. You’ve solved our drinking problems right ex. – m
there, with all the people who get stupidly drunk at home
every night? […] [\] [D] for Prime Minister!!!
D: p17 clearly i’ve touched a nerve – […] – excuse me if my post ex. – m
has somehow threatened your way of life – smart-arse ex. – r
www.ebook777.com
K: p21 […] Well, if your in a club, do you expect to be around the ex. – r
local church group sipping on fresh orange and cups of
tea? No, its going to be drunk people, you don’t like it, don’t
go – I don’t go to church, then complain about all the people
praying, or to a WI meeting, and complain that there is no
men – I’m sure you wouldn’t be missed. […]
D: p24 your really only enforcing the fact that u are a smart-arse – ex. – r
[…] – the main point of my argument which all TSR’s binge
drinkers have conveniently side-stepped to mock me – i am
deeply sorry that my suggestion to make it only available
in pubs was so unutterably stupid – i am humble enough to
admit that this is not the solution – the point of this thread
was to discuss other solutions to the problem of binge
drinking – not to mock me and post sarky comments – i at
no point said that my solution was the correct one – obvi-
ously the words ‘perhaps’ and ‘would this help?’ fell on
deaf – smart-arse ears but there we are
K: p25 Well, perhaps I am a smartarse, but I would rather be a ex. – r
smartarse than a going around suggesting stupid ideas,
that wouldn’t work in a month of sundays. [\] Also, your
OP didn’t mention anything about other solutions to binge
drinking – [quote from the OP] Oh, and I know what a
luxury is (I’m a smart arse if you hadn’t noticed ) and
driving is most definatly a luxury or have you never heard
of public transport up there on your high horse?
D: p29 well i was obviously misguided in thinking that some of the ex. – r
users of this website who commented on my post might
actually be able to discuss something and voice their own
solutions by themselves rather than call people boring
because of an opinion but that’s my mistake – [\] and i
have obviously heard of public transport and while u say
there are other places to get around than cars i say there are
other ways to enjoy yourself than drinking – yes driving is
a luxury – but a necessary one to some people – i don’t see
how drinking is necessary – but i’m sure you’ll enlighten me
on that soon enough
K: p48 Read my posts again, not once did I call you boring, that im. – r
was another poster. [\] Also, I see now, because I have
disagreed with your views, your calling me an alcoholic or
saying I need alcohol to enjoy myself. Neither is true, but
I’m sure that wont matter to you, because I am not enagag-
ing in your wonderfull discussion.
D: p49 oh – sorry about that [\] well stop posting then im. – m
That there is indeed another way of handling these kinds of face threats is demon-
strated by two other users in the same thread. Since q does not reciprocate the of-
fensiveness of L’s remark, but chooses to agree with him instead, their discussion
does not degenerate into a flame:
q: p30 Yup. Never really got binge drinking myself. I don’t need im. Ø
alcohol to be happy; sad most of our country does. Maybe
it’s cos we live in such a dump?
L: p34 The rest of the country simply don’t think in the same way ex. – r
as you do, thank the Lord. […] That said, you probably
didn’t give very much thought to your statement, otherwise
you might have exposed the inherent nonsense in it without
my help. Chances are you just wanted to jump up on your
high-horse and look clever. Well, you’ve failed.
q: p36 lol, you are right I don’t care much hence my lack of word im. Ø
on this page compared to yours. [\] It worries me you put
family in the same bracket as booze though.
L: p42 Both are ordinary parts of a normal person’s life. My point im. Ø
was that one’s lifestyle is not divisible by parts, however
small.
After a longer sequence of exchanging arguments, users in thread #30 also decide
to take the high road instead of turning the discussion into a flame:
Fair enough. Let’s agree to differ lol. But I can’t help commenting that it still
doesn’t allow for a ‘more scientific creation of the earth’. (p77)
Worth mentioning in this context is a type C post to be found in thread #27,

as it provides insightful information about the perceived outcome of a previous
flame – at least from the perspective of one co-participant of the two arguing
parties:
www.ebook777.com
Elipsis has just owned missy georgia. (p86)
One last aspect that needs to be dealt with in this paragraph concerns those us-
ers that have been labeled as “do-gooders” and “trouble makers” in Section 7.3.2,
since this category saw six out of twelve of these special thread starters in action.
The behavior of the only “do-gooder” among them, MelonFace (#46), which was
observable in eleven further contributions apart from p1, was evaluated in nine
cases as “im. Ø”, while the other two entries earned the labels “ex. +” and “ex. –“.
Hence, MelonFace (M) has indeed proven to be a “do-gooder”. Even his only mis-
step is corrected immediately:
M: p54 This doesn’t really make any sense. But one is rather posh, ex. –
isn’t one?
B: p55 oh … no, not posh at all. I’m sorry you didn’t un- im. Ø
derstand, but it’s a bit unkind to make a comment like that
because you don’t think I was clear enough. [\] I’ll try to
simplify: I think that […]
h: p56 Well, to be fair, there was a bit of verbal fluff in that post, ex. –
(→55) but I assume you were aware of that when you wrote it.
M: p57 sorry, it does make sense, and its better than ‘dat lit be gd ex. +
(→55) WUUUT’ atleast, but i’m slightly hungover, and was too
tired to understand . I think you would make quite a
good politician…
B: p58 I’m glad you called me on it anyway, because I some- im. Ø

(→57, times get far too carried away with the intoxicating
56) elegance of a well-turned phrase … And that’s never fun to
plough through when you’re hung over. [\] I also agree that
‘dat lit be gd WUUUT’.
[quote h’s contribution]
Fluff? Ouch. Overwritten, perhaps, but self-parody is the
only way for my crushing anxieties and excessive perfec-
tionism to be kept from silencing me entirely. [\] Gosh, all
my literary flaws are coming to light today, aren’t they? I
think it’s nap time.
h: p59 Well, “excessive polysyllabic verbiage which is super- as im. +
well as mellifluous”, then, if you prefer. I thought “fluff ” was
a nicer way of putting it. *shrug*
B: p60 Metafluff! im. Ø
h: p61 Hmm, but wouldn’t that be fluff which transcends the es- im. Ø
sence of mere fluffness?
In this exchange, the interaction between h and B is also noticeable: What seems
to have been a well-phrased and appropriate post (p56), adorned with a series of
mitigating devices such as “Well, to be fair”, “I assume” and a winking smiley, still
hurt B’s feelings in p58, thus earning a negative evaluation.
Adonis’ behavior has already been discussed (see exemplary thread #13
above). Of the remaining four “trouble makers”, Don_Scott (#27) took a backseat
in his thread with three out of 86 subsequent contributions and did not stir up
any trouble. Although ShiVji (#8) made himself similarly scarce, his three (out of
57) entries are marked by an outspoken and critical tone – obvious, for example,
in p4: “anon fail ”. Then again Barz (#29) adopted a very active role by author-
ing 25 of the next 99 entries. In so doing, he managed to stay on topic and reply
factually, thus proving his reputation wrong.
The last candidate on the list to be discussed is Mr_Mad (M), initiator of
thread #28, who totally lives up to his reputation with the challenging, even con-
descending and insulting topic Women Make Crappy Musicians. Full of offensive
remarks concerning the “lack of genius” in women, this extraordinary thread start
sets the course for the interpersonal conduct in the entire thread – predictably in
a very negative way. One example shall suffice:
M: [list of female musicians] <--------- [\] THEY ARE NOT MUSCIAL GENIUS
YOU DUMB BITCH!! THEY ARE JUST AVERAGE ARTIST. [\] HOW
DARE YOU. (p68)
m: Fine if you disagree with my opinion, but calling me a dumb bitch? Too far.
[\] You have no right whatsoever. [\] Do you offend everyone you disagree
with? [\] Go back to your hole or something, idiot. (p69)
Amazingly enough, though, there are still users who try to react to his statement
seriously by putting forward factual arguments. Others try to ignore him (“
yeah, okay, whatever.”, p12). Taking this as a piece of evidence, one could argue
that behavior in message boards, contrary to its reputation, deserves to be seen
in a more positive light, since users do not automatically jump on each and every
bandwagon.
Another reaction to this kind of offensive behavior involves users in analyz-
ing the thread starter’s face claims and/or the nature of the thread as such:
I love people like you!! Those guys who are willing to spout controversial crap
in the hope that one day they’ll be noticed!! Well I hope that now you’ve got
a few reactions, you can feel truly appreciated and go on with life, with the
belief that someone, somewhere cares (p15)
www.ebook777.com
.. your ignorant rant is obviously for attention and i’m pretty sure you don’t
believe and/or don’t understand what you’re on about. [\] well done.. (p21)
This thread is just going to become a thread, isn’t it? (p24)

Yep, check out his rape convictions thread in H&R [\] Definite troll. Appears
to be suffering from GIVEMEATTENTION-itis (p29)
Conclusively, the relational work of the entire fourth category can be depicted
with the help of figures (see Table 29).
Similar to previous categories, Asking for opinions impresses with its display
of 1670 cases of appropriate and functional behavior. With regard of the ratio of
almost 15 to 1 cases of appropriate vs. inappropriate behavior, the overall impres-
sion of the fourth category can justifiably be characterized as harmonious, point-
ing to the fact that discussions in these 23 threads must have been – at least for
the most part – factually. While nine posts were classified as type C posts and thus
left out of the analysis and six entries received diverging evaluations (see excep-
tions), the remaining 111 contributions were labeled as inappropriate behavior.
As seen before, more than half of these posts were not only impolite, but pre-
sented themselves as palpably rude. Accordingly, impolite posts – although rare
when compared to the sum total of posts – are more often than not put forward
unambiguously vehement.
Table 29. Relational work in the forth category (Asking for opinions)
and evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 719* ex. 25 0 23 (14r) 3
im. 12 0 628 27 (15r) 1
Bt: 1062 im. 17 0 988 48 (28r) 9
∑: 1781 (+9 C) 54 0 1616 98 (57r) 13
1670 111 (57r)
*+ 6 exceptions # 4p17: ex. – r, ex. – m
#9p28: im. Ø, im. – r
#10p110: im. Ø, im. + (post Bt)
#13p30: im. Ø, im. – r
#13p38: im. +, ex. – r
#28p1: im. Ø, ex. – r
8.2.5 Blowing off steam
This category comprehends threads which are used by TSR members to blow off
some steam about a recent experience or a general problem. Although thread
starters certainly do so in order to get responses from fellow-users –, why else go
public with personal problems in a message board – they seldom outline their
expectations for these responses. Accordingly, narrations end without questions
being asked or advice being requested. There are hardly any guidelines for fu-
ture interlocutors to follow, which is why, in theory, they enjoy absolute freedom
in phrasing their contributions. In line with this first estimation, the figures de-
scribing the responses vary considerably: While the IQs are constantly medium
(#26: 37%, #12: 45% and #17: 48%), the number of posts per day range between
an above-average of 33 p/d for thread #12 (I’m bitter and twisted), 11.5 p/d in
thread #17 (Burton’s rejected me for a credit card, I think :S) and a below-average
of 5.7 p/d in thread #26 (Has anyone been to America recently ??… border control
experience).
The thread to be discussed in detail in this category is #12, as it elicited most
responses per day and can thus be judged as the most attractive one among the
three Blowing off steam-threads:
I’m bitter and twisted

Every time I go out I see fat people with friends, ugly people with friends,
mean people with friends, nerds with friends, goths with friends, chavs with
friends, bitches who used to bully me non-stop for all my school life – they
all have friends. It makes me so angry. I want to hurt them. I have no friends,
I have never had friends. [\] I didn’t used to be like this, I didn’t care I just
got on with it. But now I don’t understand what’s so ******* detestable about
me that I’m incapable of making friends. Instead I get bullied, picked on and
laughed at and randomly shouted at in the street and shunned from regular
society like I’m some kind of total freak. [\] It’s taken its toll on me. I see a
psychiatrist, I take “medication”, but it does sweet FA. I don’t know what to
do, I think it’s jealousy eating me up, jealousy and lack of understanding – I
don’t understand how some people who all have their faults have friends but
I don’t. I didn’t care before but as each day goes by I want to get back at the
people who did this to me.
(Anonymous User #1, thread #12, post 1)
This is yet another thread to be initiated by the obscure participant Anonymous

User #1 (A) (see 7.3.2 and 8.2.3). This time, we are obviously dealing with a male
person who is lamenting about his difficult (school) life and his incapacity to make
friends, uttering the wish to get back at those he feels to be responsible for his mis-
www.ebook777.com
ery. He narrates his problem mainly with simple, sometimes complex declarative
clauses without addressing anyone or asking for anything in particular. The only
hint as to what this user is aiming at and what kind of response he might expect
from his interlocutors can be found in the third paragraph: “I don’t know what to
do, […]” bears at least the potential to be read as an implicit request for advice.
One way or another, this thread start prompted 35 mostly savvy users to au-
thor 65 responses, 14 of which were composed by A himself, which hints to an
active role of the thread starter. In trying to resolve misunderstandings, A ex-
plains his viewpoint more than once, thereby keeping the conversation going.
Very often, he does so by answering two interlocutors within one post, quoting
and commenting on one after the other. Consequently, a tangled web of commu-
nicative threads is woven, which can only partly be reproduced in the following.
A first overview can, however, be given with regard to the reactions of his co-par-
ticipants, who basically engage in a lively and more often than not dialogic, partly
even polylogic discussion about A’s character and his problems. In fact, reactions
vary considerably in terms of interpersonal appropriateness:
(1) neutrally analyzing the problem, e.g.

I believe jesus once said when he was laying down the rap to his homedogs:
Do not fret about the mote in your neighbours eye before dealing with the
huge goddamn stick up your ass. [\] In other words, you seem to be refusing
to acknowledge your faults, and because of this you can’t get rid of them and
move on and get friends. (p2)
(2) giving of advice, e.g.

You need to find people you have common interests with (in films, music,
literature, uni, sports and the list goes on), and be kind to them. That’s it. [\]
As long as you act nicely and don’t seem desperate, you should be able to make
friends. (p12)
(3) sympathizing, e.g.

I can totally relate to you anon! It may seem unbelievable but you’re not alone.
I’ve travelled places, been outgoing, went to a london uni, […] [\] You’re not
alone. (p16)
(4) offering friendship, e.g.

Why should the teacher tell them that ? Quite a strange teacher . [\] I’ll be
your friend,is that ok ? (p17)
(5) putting negative self-perceptions into perspective, e.g.

[…] Other than those very strange comments about revenge you don’t seem
too bad. (p14)
(6) humorous comments, e.g.

Just go out more…into daylight! (p44)
(7) blaming him for his situation and criticizing his attitude, e.g.
You have no friends because you’re bitter and twisted. [\] STOP HATIN’ YO”
(p4)
While all these reactions can be considered more or less helpful but in any case
mostly appropriate (see p4 for a borderline case), other types of responses can
be detected in which users mock and offend the thread starter, thus doubtlessly
crossing the line to inappropriate behavior:
see what,you can not even find a mind-liked here,you thought everyone was
misunderstanding you,then what the hell are you thinking about? maybe it’s
the poor ability of expression that makes you own 0 friend.ie when you say
“may i make a friend with you?” [\] peple may get the informationas this,” you
have a problem?” [\] sorry,i am no offence. (p53)
As the following excerpts attest, some of the most extreme responses do not stay
uncommented. Interestingly, the thread starter seems to dwell on this kind of
behavior, challenging his interlocutor to further elucidate his views:
K: p48 [quote: But now I don’t understand what’s so ******* detest- ex. – r
able about me that I’m incapable of making friends.] Read
your intro.. That should answer it..
A: p49 Go on then, what? [\] Bearing in mind I’ve already ex- im. Ø
plained I don’t view the various attributes I listed as faults
just that other people might and so how do these people
have friends.
K: p61 Well you wondered why you don’t have any friends? [\] im. – r
With that kind of attitude (referring to your intro) .. You’re
not going to have any..
A: p62 You still haven’t explained what kind of “attitude” you’re on im. Ø
about.
In this extremely rude reaction of I towards the thread starter A, another partici-
pant, x, leaps at the thread starter’s defense. Although commenting on I’s post, x
obviously addresses A, thus carrying out two types of relational work within one
entry:
www.ebook777.com
I: p10 go top yourself…it’s the only form of productivity you can ex. – r
provide to this world…
x: P41 seriously, ignore idiots like this seriously [\] and as for im. +
what you said hun, i can see how it seems not fair!! but to
all the people that have bullied you etc… what goes around
comes around, just remember that people should be
afraid of karma, because it will get them one day. [\] if
you’ve got no friends, maybe people pick up on your feel-
ings and deep inside you might feel so angry that its hard
for you to let go. instead, forget about the past…have a
fresh start. put on a smile, be friendly, and try and be more
social/go to social activities
Then again, some fellow-members gang up on the thread starter, stating their
doubts about the truthfulness of the introductory post very bluntly:
a: p33 I’m sure you’re exaggerating. Why on earth would random im. Ø
people across the street make the effort to insult you? (Un-
less you’re extremely odd looking.)
A: p34 I promise you I’m not exaggerating. I didn’t say across the im. Ø
street, generally it’s people on the same side of the street
shouting **** at me. Not sure if I’m odd looking, I asked
my psychiatrist, who said I look normal but they probably
have to say that. I’m not white-British and was always bul-
lied for that. Might have something to do with it.
W: p47 i am totally on board with you! it seems the rest are all im. Ø
(→33) freaks except himself.
One last note on the questionable background of the thread starter: In looking at
his reactions, one cannot help but wonder if the thread starter is seriously naïve
and in need of help or rather playing his interlocutors for a fool. Though he is
very quick at rephrasing ambiguous content over and over, he does not seem to
show any interest when friendship (see p17) or sympathy (see p16) are generously
offered. Ironically, the latter is taken up by somebody else and serves as a spring-
board for a mostly smiley-based but nevertheless empathetic exchange between
S and L:
S: p16 I can totally relate to you [A]! It may seem unbelievable but im. +
you’re not alone. I’ve travelled places, been outgoing, went
to a london uni, stayed in the social scene that is leicester
square till 6 in the morning trying to find 1 friend, someone
who will say they need a friend and wants to hang out. Even
I didnt care who it was, I was willing to chat to anyone …
but you know what I ended up with? Ended up with chat-
ting to beggars on the street, and they are the most friendli-
est non-fake people you’ll ever see. Theres nothing wrong
with me, I just think Im an omen or something to friend-
ship. [\] You’re not alone.
L: p36 ex. +
S: p38 thanks so much x means alot lol ex. +
L: p64 haha aww no problem! [\] you will find great friends im. Ø
soon enough
The impression of A being a fraud is further substantiated in the last example, in

which, again, A does not react at all to the advice given in M’s post but to the typo
instead. Consequently, M is not heard of anymore in this thread:
M: p21 I think your exadurating. There must be something pretty im. Ø

wrong if people are calling you out on the street now
wouldnt there? [\] Go put some drum n bass music on
really loud and ride your bike down a road really fast and
disperse your rage into how cool you feel while your speed-
ing down the street. Then speak to people while your on an
ego-trip from your awesomeness. At these times conversa-
tion flows the best and your bound to make friends. [\] ”
A: p27 What does exadurating mean? Google says it’s not a word. im. Ø
[\] I don’t know what’s wrong with me, if I did I’d change it,
but I get a lot of comments from people when I’m just walk-
ing down the street it just makes me hate them even more I
can’t believe people are that evil.
Although this particular thread-initial post was received and reacted to quite het-
erogeneously, all 25 subsequent posts directly referring to said thread start judged
it implicitly as appropriate (“im. Ø”). With this information in mind, the final ac-
count of relational work in this thread looks as follows (see Table 30):
www.ebook777.com

and evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 36 ex. 5 0 2 (2r) 0
im. 2 0 26 1 0
Bt: 30 im. 6 1 21 2 0
∑: 66 13 1 47 5 (2r) 0
61 5 (2r)
Despite some hostile and definitely inappropriate undertones, the bulk of the
communicative exchanges (61 to 5) in this thread were nevertheless characterized
by appropriate, sometimes even positively marked, polite behavior. In the remain-
ing of this chapter, the two threads left to analyze for this category will be dealt
with very briefly.
Burton’s rejected me for a credit card, I think :S

Ok so I am paying for my clothes and she goes if you get a burton card you
get 10% off on every purchase. I asked if it’s free to get the card and how long
it will take. [\] She said it’s free and will take 5 mins. [\] Anyway on the phone
she said it hasn’t gone through, apparently they couldn’t hear her very well
[\] Then I get a leaflet saying reasons for being declined a credit card. Wtf I
don’t have any CCJ’s or anything. I think maybe cause I put my income as zero
being a student? [\] Anyway this is a rant, I’ll be a dentist in a few years and
that should settle it. [\] I find it so stupid how they cannot say your aplication
has been rejected, they always pussyfoot around the subject. Then I saw the
same girl at a bus stop with fag in hand.
(Neo Con, thread #17, post 1)
The profile and other contextual clues reveal this thread starter to be a US-Ameri-
can user who is known for his sense of belligerence, earning him an entry in the
list of “trouble makers” (see Section 7.3.2). Living up to his reputation, he uses this
thread opening to fume about being declined a credit card. In the course of the
thread, however, Neo Con (N) is very responsive, contributes actively (8 out of 22
reactions to the thread start) and shows himself – contrary to his negative reputa-
tion – thankful and relieved for the enlightening comments:
Thanks, I feel alot better now that you have said it could be because I put my
income as zero. For awhile I panicked that maybe something is wrong with
my history, but I haven’t done anything so it couldn’t be that. [\] Yes I guess
people do get abusive, I just don’t see why someone would. I mean it’s just
burton’s right lol? (p6)
Hmm now it’s making sense. I always thought not having a credit history
would make me clean but clearly you need to build it up like from banks as
you say. [\] Thanks for the help. (p10)
The otherwise uneventful and short thread involves interlocutors who are not di-
rectly addressed and whose reactions are not predetermined in any way, in specu-
lating about reasons for this kind of treatment and sharing experiences about
credit cards. The smooth and relaxed nature of this thread is also mirrored in
figures (see Table 31).
Has anyone been to America recently ??…border control experience

I love the country n all but taking your fingerprints and webcam snap…?
Through border control. Thats kind of violation. They did it with everyone
and i went New York and i can understand that because of 9/11 and wanting
to protect the country. Is that the case of other parts of America when enter-
ing.. [\] I found it very James Bond 007. It wasnt just one fingerprint it was
both hands ..Just found it over the top.. I think other people felt violated too..
[\] And the border control guy was nice but the questions they have to ask
like ..have you been to the states before/when was the last time you came? and
whats the reason for your trip??…Lifestory or what..but again they did it to
everyone
(Jesspops, thread #26, post 1)
This relatively new member, Jesspops (J), vents and wonders about airport pro-
cedures in the United States. Her introductory question in the heading can be
regarded as a rhetorical one, which might, however, also serve as a springboard

and evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 13 ex. 2 0 0 0
im. 0 0 11 0 0
Bt: 10 im. 0 0 10 0 0
∑: 23 2 0 21 0 0
23 0
www.ebook777.com
for other users’ responses. Other than that, there is no further attempt to make
contact with potential interlocutors, as her first post only contains a narration and
evaluation of her experience. Although her subject yielded 85 responses, J adopts
a rather passive role and allows other users to run her thread, replying only three
times after her initial post. Despite the flat hierarchy, some dialogic structures
develop here and there.
In responding to the initial post, and very similar to the preceding thread, J’s
fellow-users share their feelings about border control and sympathize with her,
sometimes even emphatically:
I hate American border control with a passion - rude to the point of offensive
and when they decided to search my bags they dropped my camera (com-
pletely destroyed it) and apparently I was liable for the damage done!!! [\]
There is also one particular security officer at my closest British airport (deals
with transition to air side) who seriously gets off on her job…I can accept that
you have a job to do, but there is a difference between a frisk search and you
******* groping me! (p31)
Yeah, we kind of tend to be a bit crazy about border control in America, espe-
cially lately. It’s kind of ridiculous after a certain point. (p83)
A lot of users are prompted to remember and share their own border control
experiences, occasionally in some detail. Then again others relativize her negative
feelings by means of finding arguments for the procedures or by downplaying the
matter, sometimes with the help of humor:
Heh, it’s so much worse when you’re trying to enter America with an Arabic/
Muslim name like me. I got pulled into a room and had to prove I was there
to visit etc. (p2)
It’s happened for years, it’s not that much of a big deal, if you’re used to travel-
ing. (p4)
I would agree that it could be a very stressful and intimidating experience,
but you must bear in mind why they’re doing it. It’s nothing personal at all, it’s
simply attempting to help protect the lives of everyone in the country. They
may come across as ignorant and rude, but that’s simply a technique they use
to put you under pressure so that if you are lying about something, you might
crack and slip up on some facts, giving them reason to detain you further and
gather more information. […] (p17)
The explosive nature of this topic finds expression in two longish dialogic struc-
tures between two males and two females respectively, which can justifiably be
called flames:
d: p6 At least we don’t having CCTV everywhere we go! Nor do im. Ø

we have an overbearing government, Americans just don’t
want criminals entering our borders I guess.
G: p17 […] [quote: At least we don’t having CCTV everywhere ex. –
we go! ] Neither does the UK. You believe everything you
read in the papers? [quote: Nor do we have an overbearing
government] LOL
d: p23 You are just an idiot. [\] You have no stats to back up your ex. – r
statement. All you can do is neg rep. Because you are too
stupid to do anything else. [\] [link] (I live in London) n[\]
[link] [\] So GTFO [= get the fuck out] and STFU [= shut
the fuck up]. [\] But then again you are Ghost and Ghost is
really cool and amazing and I love him [\] But the Uni of
Ulster is ****, well played for getting in there a real achieve-
ment, what did you get a B and 3 Cs at A level? And you are
questioning my intelligence… ROFL [\] Moral of this story
is only to neg rep someone after having a debate, what a
tool.
G: p25 Hahah, typical yank. You got so annoyed by my post that ex. – r
you felt the need to rummage through my site? Nice one.
I’d like to think I’ve done fairly well for myself, not only did
I “get in there”, but I also got a 1st class honours, and have
been awarded best graduate, and been accepted for a PhD.
If you could live up to even half of that, I’d be impressed.
[\] Editing your post 3 times because you’re THAT slow a
thinker is a bit pathetic. Go eat some twinkies, it’ll make
you feel better.
d: p28 Lol all at the university of Ulster – very impressive… Sup- im. – r
posedly you need at least a C in math GCSE for comp sci
there. ROFL [\] Actually we like to cure the problems of
Ireland and Northern Ireland, so your welcome.
d: p26 [quote: The only bit in your post that didn’t make me cringe. ex. – m
Keep it up. (Erased in the original post)] Wow you can read.
Well done.
D: p27 Awwwww is David getting angry? ex. – m
d: p29 Lol i was going to get angry with you but then I saw your ex. – r
afro, sick afro man.
www.ebook777.com
r: p30 Ffs [= for freak’s sake] quit with the ad hominems and stick im. Ø
to the point.
D: p47 I am not here to fight, only here to make peace =P im. Ø
d: p49 I also forgot to mention that I saw the janitor in your sig, im. Ø
classic.
The flame war between d and G is not only overt when looking at the responses
of these two interlocutors, which contain blunt, off-topic insults and swear words
in acronyms. Even more valuable for our analysis are the reactions of two other
participants, D and r, who try to intervene in two very different ways: While D
mocks d in p27 only to clarify that he is not looking for any trouble in p47, real-
izing that d is only too willing to take him on also, r calls it as he sees it in p30 and
urges them to stop with the ad hominem attacks, thereby reminding them of the
TSR code of conduct. Since G has already bowed out of the conversation, there is
only D left to deal with. In the end, d decides to make peace with him by applaud-
ing part of D’s signature (“the janitor” is a “classic”).76
A rather humorous reaction is taken as the springboard for the female flame
war in this thread:
Q: p51 lol my fave bit is the green card questions they ask, as if im. Ø
you’d ever say yes to any of them- i particularly LOL at the
nazi party participation “have you been a member of the
nazi party between 198 and 1939” or something like that. [\]
“er no, I’m a 17 year old black girl.” [\]
[…]
l: p70 I would hazard a guess than more than 99% of visitors to ex. –
the UK haven’t committed genocide, either. [\] Why does it
bother you so much that there is a question on a form that
doesn’t apply to you or most people? Get a grip.
76. Common ground is created with reference to US pop culture: The janitor is a hugely popu-
lar character from the TV-series Scrubs. Embedding his picture in a signature is obviously met
with approval.
L: p72 Really? There have been a hell of a lot of genocides within ex. –
living memory, and all it asks is if you partook in any shape
or form. I’d say it was more likely someone would fit that
criteria, than them having been a member of a specific fas-
cist government that hasn’t existed for sixty years. But if you
think there are more 80+ Nazis out there wanting to fly to
America to do their Nazi business, than there are relatively
young ex-soldiers from recent genocidal regimes who bear
a grudge, then more power to you [quote previous
post] It doesn’t bother me at all, other than amusing me
with its sheer ridiculous nature. All that bothered me was
that you thought such an idiotic and amusing question was
the same as asking about any known terrorist affiliation, as
if you don’t ask all those questions on top of the stupid Nazi
one. Why does it bother you so much that we think this
question is so idiotic? It’s a dumb question, we’re allowed to
be amused by it. Get a grip.
l: p74 You are getting way too worked up over this question. Take ex. –
a deep breath.
L: p75 I’m really not. I just thought I’d point out you’re being ex. –
unreasonable. The question makes me laugh. You make me
facepalm. Nevermind though.
l: p76 You’ve written 455 words on why that question shouldn’t be ex. – r
on that application form. Complete fail.
L: p79 You cared enough about my posts to have the words in them im. – r
counted. I’d say that’s more of a fail.
In this flame, the decline of their conduct from factual and topic-driven to per-
sonal and topic-unrelated is gradual. Since there is no bystander to thwart their
destructive behavior, the flame only stops with both sides coming to a stalemate in
terms of insults. In figures, the relational work in this thread can be summarized
in Table 32. Although appropriate behavior is again superior to inappropriate be-
havior with 69 to 15 posts, there are some indicators for the heated exchanges
elicited by users’ controversial views on the topic: nine explicit cases of negatively
marked and above that even rude behavior in addition to three other posts, which
could at least implicitly be labeled rude. These stand in marked contrast to only
one incidence of (explicit) politeness.
The entire fifth category, Blowing off steam, saw rather heterogeneous top-
ics: an unhappy student in search of friends, an angry student who did not get a
credit card and a shocked student whose report about border controls in the USA
www.ebook777.com

and evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 40 ex. 1 0 9 (4r) 2
im. 0 0 27 1 (1r) 0
Bt: 44 im. 0 0 41 2 (2r) 1
∑: 84 (+ 2 C) 1 0 68 12 (7r) 3
69 15 (7r)
Table 33. Relational work in the fifth category (Blowing off steam)
and evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 89 ex. 8 0 11 (6r) 2
im. 2 0 64 2 (1r) 0
Bt: 84 im. 6 1 72 4 (2r) 1
∑: 173 (+ 2 C) 16 1 136 17 (9r) 3
153 20 (9r)
triggered the most diverse reactions. In figures these are portrayed in Table 33.
Obviously, the main part of interpersonal exchanges of the three threads belong-
ing to this category was characterized by appropriate (87%) rather than inappro-
priate behavior (153 to 20 posts). Similar to previous categories, the amount of
polite behavior is almost insignificant when compared to that of unmarked be-
havior (16 to 136), with mock-impoliteness as a special case of appropriate behav-
ior being detected only once in 175 posts. On the other side of the scale, we can
put on record that 9 out of 17 cases of impoliteness could also be labeled as rude.
This hints at the fact that dysfunctional behavior is more often than not the result
of a hurtful intention than it is accidentally.
In terms of facework, users’ strategies towards their interlocutors, which have
been mentioned above in some detail, can be grouped and summarized accord-
ingly: In order to support each other’s need for association, interlocutors ana-
lyzed problems and situations, gave advice, sympathized with each other, shared
experiences and feelings, offered friendship, tried to raise the other’s spirits (for
example with humorous remarks) and showed themselves thankful. The second
component of positive facework, viz. the support of the need for dissociation,
was most of all achieved by accepting diverging opinions. On the other hand, we
could also encounter cases of negative facework, in which the two basic human
needs were not taken care of. In this context, we witnessed users putting others’
views and problems in perspective by relativizing or even downplaying it, laying
the blame for something on each other, verbally excluding someone from the
community, doubting the truthfulness of someone’s story or even mocking and
flaming someone.
8.2.6 Offering advice/information
Despite the fact that interaction is not necessarily a must for a category, in which
one savvy user offers advice and/or helpful information to whomever interested
without being asked for it, we can find all types of IQs in the four examples of this
category: a low IQ in thread #36 (Guide to How to Revise Effectively?), a medium
IQ in thread #5 (Meteor Shower :)) and #38 (Jolly useful Geography websites) and
a high one in thread #48 (Q&A thread – Journalism Courses). All four of them
share, however, a below-average amount of posts per day, which is in two cases
even below 0.1 p/d (#36: 0,09 p/d, #38: 0.05 p/d). Thread #48 exhibits at least an
amount of 3.1 p/d, #5 even 10.6 p/d. Obviously, the four initial posts in this cat-
egory do not contain content and/or are not phrased in a way that prompts others
to answer immediately, let alone numerously. To illustrate this category, thread
#48 as the one scoring highest in terms of IQ will be chosen as an example:
Q&A thread – Journalism Courses

Hi, [\] Everyone seems to be asking the same questions so I thought it would
be easiest to set up a Q&A thread about Journalism courses here. I will do
my best not to be biased and will answer any questions as best I can. [\]
[Q&A section] [\] Hope this helps. Feel free to ask any more questions [\]
Mods – can this be made a sticky thread?
(Eden09, thread #48, post 1)
In this thread, Eden09 (E), a female user with a journalistic streak, uses various
ways to address (“Hi,”) and involve her audience (“Feel free to ask any more ques-
tions ”) – among them moderators in particular (“Mods – can this […]”), at
whom she directs a request. In so doing, she makes it perfectly clear that this
thread does aim at interaction and that she is willing to be an active part of it. Ac-
cordingly, nine of the 21 following responses are produced by the thread starter
herself, while all the other posts are crafted by five other users, all of whom are
quite experienced TSR members.
www.ebook777.com
As could have been expected, their responses to the opening post mainly in-
clude thanking and praising the author for making the effort of compiling such a
“Q&A thread”. Above that, some of them go into details about their professional
aspirations or their doubts and worries:
Good thread [\] I was going to write the same sort of thing, because there
are always SO many threads asking questions (especially that dreaded ‘isn’t
a journalism undergrad degree useless?’) and I have a list of questions that I
was going to answer but I was too lazy to actually do it (p5)
Good thread. I’m going to do a journalism degree at LJMU, hopefully. […]
(p12)
Others outspokenly disagree with some of the points made in the opening post:
NCTJ accrediation isn’t vital, Cardiff and City, arguably the two best jour-
nalism schools in the UK don’t offer it at undergraduate. There is a grow-
ing feeling that accredited undergraduate degrees are a waste of time and
money – they don’t teach you anymore then a NCTJ short course. […] (p4)
It’s funny that the newspapers are being mentioned… An astonishingly out-
dated medium that does not have much future to be honest – and yes, I know
that some newspapers have been here for 100 years plus, but truth be said, the
sale of newspapers is constantly declining. […] (p15)
Based on these two types of responses, the thread starter E embarks on several
dialogic exchanges with her interlocutors: On the one hand, she wishes them luck,
advises and encourages them, and generally shows interest in personal details
disclosed by her fellow posters. On the other hand, controversial points are dis-
cussed vigorously but nevertheless factually. For the sake of illustration, two dia-
logic strings are displayed in the following:
C: p2 That was well written and informative, thanks [\] I’m im. +
hoping to get on to a course and do journalism next year…
E: p3 Good luck! Do you know where abouts yet? What alevels are im. +
you doing?
C: p8 I haven’t Ive got a NVQ in childcare, which i passed with im. Ø

a distinction, and i am currently finishing 3 OU courses in
law, psychology and child psychology. I’m hoping that’ll be
enough, or but I’m very scared that it won’t. I’ve been pub-
lished a few times, though, so hopefully that’ll help! [\] I’ve
applied for Chester and Birmingham City. Nervous! [\] Any
tips if i do get accepted?
E: p10 Law will be very useful and getting published is a big im. +
achievement as well so you’ll stand a fighting chance. [\]
As for tips, do lots of work experience whilst you’re on the
course, at the local paper, local radio station and you’ll get
your name out there, build up some industry contacts. Also
do lots for the student paper and radio station too, they’re
always good to bulk up the CV. Also start a blog and put a
link to it at the bottom of your emails etc. sometimes people
like to have samples of work they can read rather than you
just telling them how good you are in a CV [\] In terms
of finding contacts and interviewees for stories, don’t tell
them you’re a student, tell them you’re a freelance journalist,
most people don’t want to help students
Despite the fact that the next two interlocutors disagree, their exchange is not
only characterized by long, well-wrought arguments but also by its factual style.
As indicated by the underlined passages, users in this part of the thread take the
high road in finding ways to exchange arguments and stay on-topic without mak-
ing leeway into inappropriate, flaming behavior:
D: p15 It’s funny that the newspapers are being mentioned… An im. Ø
astonishingly outdated medium that does not have much
future to be honest – and yes, I know that some newspapers
have been here for 100 years plus, but truth be said, the sale
of newspapers is constantly declining. […] Sorry to say that,
but it’s good to be aware of the fact that newspaper journal-
ism is not as an excellent of a career as it has been 10–20
years ago, and probably never will be again [\] Of course
there are still gonna be newspapers in circulation, probably
for the next dozen years or so, but methinks they don’t have
much future anyway
E: p16 Wow, you have some very strong views. [\] IMO im. Ø
newspapers are the most traditional form of news, but not
really outdated. There are some people who feel that news-
papers are the only true form of media left as broadcast news
isn’t allowed to be subjective, print is, and for the press to
fulfil their role as scrutinising the executive (fourth estate if
you want to google it) then it has to be subjective.
www.ebook777.com
D: p17 IMO print is as much “subjective” as broadcast news and im. Ø

vice versa. [\] On the other hands – I always thought that it’s
objectivity that matters and should be encouraged (however
hard to achieve as the final outcome), not the subjectivity, i.e.
“bias” (of whatever sort). [\] (do they not mean more
or less the same? correct me if I’m wrong, I’m not a native
speaker so lol )
E: p18 Not really, most newspapers lean towards one end of the im. Ø
political spectrum, right or left, and a few hover in the mid-
dle. This is what I meant by them having subjectivity, their
aim is to attract a particular audience and so they would
bring up the issues that are of concern to that audience. Does
that make sense? [\] Edit: just wanted to add that by law the
broadcast media isn’t allowed to be subjective because they
are viewed by such a mass audience.. I’m not sure what the
laws are, I just know they’re a lot tighter about what they are
allowed to broadcast. [\] And yeah, usually objectivity is […]
D: p19 That’s pretty interesting – where I’m from (Poland) the im. Ø
broadcast media are pretty much subjective […] Good to
know that, had no idea that there actually is law here that
explicitly forbids public broadcasters to steer off-centre
E: p20 Yea I can imagine it being very different in other countries, im. Ø
you only have to watch FOX news to realise, I didn’t believe
it was actual news the first time I saw it […] Thinking about
it, I’m not sure if it’s just the BBC who’re obligated to remain
objective or all broadcasters… anyone else have any idea? (I
should probably know this being a journalist lol )
The harmonious nature of this thread, which is pretty uneventful in terms of in-
terpersonal relations, finds also expression in figures (see Table 34).
The other three threads of this category resemble thread #48 to a great extent,
which is why they will only be discussed very briefly. Again, they involve experi-
enced thread starter in offering helpful information to his interlocutors, viz. help-
ful geography websites (#38), the pointer to watch a meteor shower (#5) and hints
on how to study effectively (#36).

and evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 16 ex. 0 0 0 0
im. 3 0 13 0 0
Bt: 6 im. 1 0 5 0 0
∑: 22 4 0 18 0 0
22 0
Guide to How to Revise Effectively?

How to Revise Effectively?
[\] This may be a little late for some people, but I was inspired to make this
having seen so many people worried, depressed and generally down over
exams, so here is a guide I use: [\] [detailed and structured description of a
method to study] [\] If you start your revision early, plan your revision carefully
and follow your plan with those past papers, your chances of success are greatly
enhanced. [\] Good luck to all sitting exams now and in future!
(Lord Hysteria, thread #36, post 1)
This originally colorful entry was authored by Lord Hysteria (L), one of TSR many
PS Helpers. It is very well structured and reveals detailed information, starts with
an explanation on why he considers this thread necessary and closes with good
luck wishes to those sitting exams. In doing so, he more or less directly addresses
those to which this thread may come in handy. Towards the end, the intensity of
his advice is emphasized by the change of color (to red) and style (italics). The
cheerful smiley in terminal position serves as a closing and may have been used
to stress the optimistic tone.
Interestingly, the first one to “reply” to the initial post is the thread starter
himself, supplementing his guide with an explicit invitation to his fellow-users –
among them especially those who have been successful in the past – to discuss
and share study methods and habits:
Now that I have put my section up, just thought it would be great to start an
actual thread on studying habits. People who have seen great results please
respond and let us know how you study and what was effective for you. So
others can take some pointers. (p2)
www.ebook777.com
Accordingly, the first “real” response composed by one of his 30 partly inexpe-
rienced interlocutors can only be found in the third post. Since L’s speech act is
divided over two posts, with p1 containing the propositional and illocutionary act
and p2 the perlocutionary act, thus expressing the thread starter’s expectations
for the progress of the thread, I will treat the two posts as one connected entry.
In accepting L’s proposal for the continuation of the thread, his fellow-mem-
bers embark on describing and evaluating methods, thereby sharing pointers –
partly via links – on how to study successfully. Above that, additional topic-related
questions are asked and users, above all the thread starter, are thanked and praised
for contributing great ideas. Dialogic structures, let alone polylogic structures,
were, however, only far and few between. Here is a sample of users’ responses:
What a good good boy. That’s a very helpful guide. (p4)

[…] thanks for this Lord. you get my rep for today (p9)
thanx for the ideas guys. ive found that the whiteboard mind mapping is really
workin 4 me (p13)
Can I add one? [\] Actually study in free periods. Requires willpower and
immense self control but will be worth it. (p25)
this was really helpful! thanks alot! <3 (p40)
The thread starter is a rather passive participant – with 7 out of 41 responses

penned down by L – who joins in the conversation only occasionally, mostly by
thanking and accepting thanks by others but also by joking with them and giving
additional advice:
I am a good boy! ;yes; (p6)

Thankies [\] OK – No more spamming … (p8)
no probs mate (p16)
Although basically characterized by a friendly atmosphere, even this thread has

at least one passage in store in which the thread starter faces an appalled TSR user
who accuses him of plagiarism:
A: p19 OMG – The guide has all been copied – I was just reading im. Ø
my Letts KS3 Maths book and 90% of it is all from the book.
L: p20 so what? [\] Not everyone can access Letts, and I so happen im. Ø
to think it is worth it.
A: p21 wtf are you on about? you obviously copied it out of a letts ex. –
book and claimed it as your own. That’s plagarism and can
get you into some serious trouble…..
L: p22 where? [\] Unlike coursework, where you have to sign im. + m
a document saying it is yours, I never at any point said it is
mine. I think you have been doing too much coursework.
In keeping his cool, L manages to take the wind out of A’s sails. Instead of letting
the conversation degenerate into an unpleasant exchange of accusations, L calmly
brings forward arguments in his favor and ends with a nice example of mock
impoliteness – maybe to conciliate his interlocutor. Whether this is successful is
uncertain since there is not further response by A. And another thing is uncer-
tain: Although using quite expressive acronyms (“wtf ”, “omg”) to articulate his
emotions, we cannot even know if A was not mocking L all along.
What is interesting about this thread is the fact that the pair of opening posts
are not judged unanimously. Instead, votes are divided between two types of ap-
propriate behavior: While 15 users saw p1 as unmarked (“im. Ø”), 8 evaluated
it explicitly positive and thus as polite (“ex. +”). The initial post thus needs to be
noted down as an exception.
Jolly useful Geography websites

Edited to update useful sites. I will add others in as people put them on this
thread [This is a copy of the one in the Secondary Geography thread!] [\]
Here’s an updated list of all the others in this thread [\] [list comprising 37
links to websites, each furnished with a comment about the content]
(Geogger, thread #38, post 1)
Geogger (G), another experienced PS Helper to initiate a thread, is an expert on

traveling and geography, which is why she is willing to share her knowledge with
others. In contrast to the preceding thread, G solely focuses on technical and con-
tent related details, thus leaving out any interpersonal gestures such as addressing
interlocutors, inviting them to share their knowledge or to contribute to a lively
discussion. In this way, it is totally left to the 48 interlocutors to react appropri-
ately to this thread start.
Again, the most obvious reaction to this kind of thread opening is thanking
its author. Far more characteristic for this thread are, however, discussions about
the usefulness of this link or another. Above that, this thread also prompted users
to contribute their own favorite links, to ask for other project-specific links and
to offer their help voluntarily. A “best of ”-list of all these possible reactions could
look like this:
www.ebook777.com
Godammit!! I wish id been on here during my A levels. Lol (p3)

Omg, this site is majic thankyou sooooo much! (p21)
woo! thanx geogger! so efficient hehe (p29)
oooo, thats a good one! (p41)
Looking for something for your presentation? [\] Then [link] may be helpful.
The most important statistics of a country in one image. Copy & Paste it into
your work. (p71)
After the initial post, the thread starter almost vanishes completely, never to be
seen again and resurfacing only one more time in p85. Traces of her participa-
tion can only be found in the form of quotes, which are embedded in her fellow-
members’ posts – with her original contribution however missing and thus not
counting for this study.
Meteor Shower :)
Hi guys,
Just to let you all know next tuesday (12th of August) there will be a meteor
shower (Perseids), the best of 2008 the experts say.
Those of you in the countryside will see a lot, and I saw them last year, one
of the best experiences in my life. Unfortunatly I live in London so light pol-
lution resricts me, but fear not I’ll be making an effort to go to the country-
side – it really is worth it
Would be good for you all to see it, especially as its two days before AS/A-level
results, might calm your nerves :P
(Arsenal4life, thread #5, post 1)
Last but not least, thread #5 was composed by Arsenal4life, who decided to pass
on some information he considers to be useful for his stressed-out fellow TSR-
mates, which he directly addresses more than once (“Hi guys”, “to let you all know”,
“those of you”, “good for all of you”, “might calm your nerves”). This considerate
and selfless deed triggered 73 responses, three of which have been authored by
the thread starter, again to offer additional information during rather short-lived
dialogic exchanges. Slightly contradictory to his initial attitude of friendliness,
two out of his three interjections are marked by mock-impoliteness, as he calls
one of his interlocutors a “lucky b*****d :P” (p18), another one “smartass […]
” (p28).
Similar to the preceding threads, users exchange information and experienc-
es, some also express thanks to the thread starter. Allusions to meteor-related pop
culture and literature is a special means of bonding in this particular thread – and
obviously also of misunderstandings, as the following excerpt from a more com-
plex polylogue illustrates:
s: p6 ooh sounds fun. Just remember: don’t look at the green im. Ø
meteors. [\] (Sorry, a weird reference from a book no one
has probably really read)
p: p7 Will anyone be hurt/maimed? im. Ø
N: p9 No don’t worry, they burn harmlessly as they enter the im. +
Earth’s atmosphere
p: p10 Epic fail. im. – r

s: p8 They’ll go blind, and then be eaten by genetically engineered im. Ø
(→7) walking, hunting man eating plants! [\] (I think you’re talk-
ing to me? )
J: p14 Triffids! one of my fave books ever! im. Ø
Since N obviously did not notice the allusion, he answers the question literally
and to his best knowledge and belief. In so doing, he even shows consideration for
the user he considers to be worried, p. Instead of uncovering the misunderstand-
ing and/or showing gratefulness for the other’s concern, p answers with rudeness.
In the continuation of this exchange, another Triffids-remark meets with so much
approval and excitement that s is willing to give J another round of “reputation”,
thereby doing positive facework and strengthening their bond: “aahaha I’d rep
you again but alas ” (p30).
In contrast to other categories and owed to the altruistic purpose of this cat-
egory, the facework is more than ever based on thankfulness and sharing. Thread
starters are praised for the kind contributions and sometimes even rewarded with
“reputation”. Users share their knowledge (e.g. by means of links), experiences,
feelings and worries, encourage and wish each other luck. Above that, they bond
over shared topics and interests and try to avoid misunderstandings as soon as
possible. Naturally, some aspects are discussed ardently, others provocatively,
leading in some rare cases to dysfunctional communication. This is also mir-
rored in the final account, which gives a valid picture of the entire category (see
Table 35).
As could have been predicted by the relatively low IQs and the altruistic in-
tentions of the four thread starters – among them Lord Hysteria (#36) and Geog-
ger (#38), both of whom have been labeled “do-gooders” before –, this category is
yet another epitome of appropriate behavior with 213 to 2 cases. The introductory
posts of threads #5 and #36 elicited divided evaluations insofar as some users
considered them unmarked, but nevertheless appropriate, while others indicated
a decidedly positive evaluation through their responses.
www.ebook777.com
Table 35. Relational work in the sixth category (Offering advice/information)

and evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 72* ex. 10 0 1 0
im. 6 1 54 0 0
Bt: 143 im. 21 3 118 1 (1r) 0
∑: 215 (+8 C) 37 4 172 2 (1r) 0
213 2 (1r)
*+ 2 exceptions # 5p1: im. Ø, ex. +
#36p1: im. Ø, ex. +
8.3 Summary: Findings for the management of interpersonal relations
In focusing on users’ reactions to the propositional content and/or the phrasing

of thread starts and subsequent dialogic and polylogic structures, this chapter
examined the management of interpersonal relations among interlocutors in all
50 threads of this message board corpus. In doing so, two strands of investigation
were pursued for all six purpose-driven categories: Qualitatively, we found out
about participants’ facework strategies and illustrated their linguistic implemen-
tation with the help of selected examples. The quantitative analysis provided an
overview of the types of relational work, which were also exemplified by means of
message board excerpts. The only thing left to do is to bring together the results
of the six categories in order to make a point about facework and relational work
witnessed in the entire corpus.
With regard to facework, participants resorted to various strategies to either
support or subvert others’ needs for association and dissociation – thereby natu-
rally affecting their own face needs accordingly. In order not to list these strategies
one by one again, the following overview bears witness to the attempt to condense
them into somewhat broader, yet certainly variable and anything but exhaustive
categories:
A user’s (U1) need for association

… finds expression in U1’s
– greeting and thanking others (also in advance);
– signaling interest in a topic and/or in joining a topic related society;
– sharing of personal information, experiences, emotions and opinions;
– offering or asking for advice, sympathy and friendship;

– joking with others;
– attempting to keep a conversation going;
– dropping lines (laying the groundwork for face-negotiations);
– praising interlocutors for their contributions and/or efforts made, also by
“repping” others positively;
– apologizing for lengths of entries, topic drifts, outbursts of emotions etc.;
– making the tentative nature of opinions explicit;
– negotiating meaning (viz. reference, phrasing etc.) to clarify content and in
order to avoid misunderstandings and friction;
– discussing the code of conduct.
… is supported by his fellow-users (U2-n) by means of their

– welcoming U1 (in the group) / offering in-group membership;
– offering help, advice, warnings;
– sharing personal information, experiences, emotions and opinions;
– picking up and elucidating on topics introduced by U1, thus creating com-
mon ground and topical cohesion;
– discovering commonalities, teaming up, bonding;
– sympathizing with U1, cheering him up, encouraging him, comforting him,
wishing him luck;
– approving of U1’s humorous remarks;
– agreeing with lines of argumentation/opinions;
– defending U1 against others;
– praising U1 for his contribution(s) and/or efforts made, also by “repping” him
positively;
– confirming face claims;
– reciprocating relational work, for example by completing adjacency pairs (i.e.
greeting back, thanking him etc.).
… is subverted by his fellow-users (U2-n) by means of their

– ignoring U1;
– parading disinterest;
– excluding U1 of the in-group;
– patronizing, blaming, mocking, insulting U1;
– criticizing the content of U1’s post, attitude, opinions, or the choice of topic as
such;
– doubting the truthfulness of U1’s story;
– not answering in a topic related manner, e.g. by means of joking or ironic
comments;
www.ebook777.com
– attributing unfavorable face claims to U1;

– “repping” U1 negatively.
A user’s (U1) need for dissociation

… finds expression in U1’s
– staying vague when disclosing personal information (incl. avoiding dropping
lines);
– refusing to join a society, ignoring offers of friendship;
– stating disinterest in the topic;
– giving ironic answers;
– criticizing the (phrasing of the) topic;
– disagreeing with the views of others, contradicting them;
– dropping out of the conversation;
– evaluating others’ responses negatively;
– patronizing, blaming, mocking, insulting others;
– violating the code of conduct (without apologizing).
… is supported by his fellow-users (U2-n) by means of their

– accepting diverging opinions without picking a fight over it;
– ganging up with U1 against prevailing opinion(s) (thus giving U1 a sense of
association by agreeing with them, see above);
– not pressuring U1 into disclosing further information.
… is subverted by his fellow-users (U2-n) by means of their

– not accepting diverging opinions; trying to convince U1 of opposing views, if
necessary by force (i.e. insults, flames etc.);
– relativizing or downplaying a particular problem;
– pressing for more information;
– calling U1 to order, for example to respect the code of conduct.
As stated before, these kinds of lists can never be exhaustive, nor is it possible
to avoid overlaps in certain strategies, as both sides of the coin, supportive and
subversive facework, are closely associated with each other. Obviously, there are
far more strategies for positive facework than for its negative counterpart – a fact
which perfectly mirrors the general purpose and nature of message boards as a
place for gathering and association of like-minded people in the broadest sense.
Accordingly, the human need for dissociation plays a subordinate role in this type
of communication.
Interestingly, behavior did not only vary with regard to the orientation of
facework but in some cases also according to the status of the participants within
TSR. Especially in the first category (Getting to know others), a difference between
savvy regulars on the one hand and inexperienced newbies on the other hand was
noticeable. While newbies did not seem to venture too much in their introducto-
ry posts – content-wise and interpersonally – and often stuck to the pattern of the
preceding entry rather closely, experienced members acted more self-confident,
thus composing decidedly more idiosyncratic contents. Then again, moderators
and other TSR “officials” remained on the sidelines most of the time, appear-
ing more often than not as interested fellow-interlocutors rather than interfering
supervisors.
In this chapter, attention was also paid to the behavior of some noticeable
thread starters throughout their respective threads, referring to the five “do-good-
ers” and seven “trouble makers” introduced in Section 7.3.2. Due to the lack of
active participation, it turned out that assumed reputations could not always be
falsified, like that of Geritak (#15), Geogger (#38) and Sahds (#42). Others, like
the “do-gooders” Lord Hysteria (#36) and MelonFace (#46), proved to be worthy
of the reputation previously derived from the information contained in various
templates, as they excelled by their consistent appropriate, at times even posi-
tively marked behavior. The investigation of the “trouble makers” on the other
hand, yielded more heterogeneous results. While some of them, such as Adonis
(#13), Neo Con (#17), Don_Scott (#27) and Barz (#29), behaved contrary to their
negative reputation by making perfectly acceptable, at times even considerate
contributions, others conducted themselves in more predicable ways: ShiVji (#8)
and 9MmBulletz (#34), although contributing seldom and not stirring up any
trouble, made themselves conspicuous by their outspoken and impatient streak.
Last but not least, Mr_Mad’s (#28) behavior clearly indicated that he was asking
for trouble. Just by looking at the choice of his topic and the explicit wording
of his heading (Women Make Crappy Musicians), let alone the challenging, even
condescending tone of his contributions, it was soon obvious that he absolutely
lived up to his reputation.
Reconsidering the numerous examples provided in the course of this chapter,
we can also make some generalizations about the formal side of these strategies.
Although contributions vary considerably in terms of length and elaborate-
ness, one cannot help but notice that compensatory mechanisms are used fairly
consistently to make up for the lack of para- and nonverbal clues in this type of
computer-mediated environment. As predicted in Section 2.6.2, users tended to
emphasize the content of their statement and their underlying emotional stances
towards their interlocutors by means of deliberate color, font and size changes and
with the help of emulated speech, capitals and most of all smileys. Especially the
latter ones, be it in animated form or furnished with signposts, came in handy to
reproduce non-verbal behavior iconically, among others hugging, high-fiving, or
flipping somebody the bird, or to convey opinions quite outspokenly. Above that,
www.ebook777.com
Table 36. Availability versus trustworthiness of evaluations in type A and Bt posts

type A, ex. type A, im. type Bt, im.
(explicit evaluation) (implicit evaluation) (implicit evaluation)
availability low medium high
trustworthiness high medium low
the multimodal potential has also been made use of more than once by users who
decided against a verbal response in favor of embedded pictures, videos and links
to other websites. As a consequence, the negotiation of interpersonal relations
does not – as feared – fall by the wayside in a form of communication that tends
to favor an economic mode of speaking. Instead, the negotiation process can,
but does not necessarily have to, take on a more economic form. For that reason,
economic ways of expression and interpersonal negotiations are not mutually ex-
clusive categories.
As already indicated by the mean interaction quotient (IQ) of 37% for all
threads, the degree of dialogicity, let alone polylogicity, fell short of our expecta-
tions. For that reason and to draw a valid picture of relational work in this kind
of message board, we could not limit ourselves to dialogic or polylogic structures,
but included all type A and type Bt posts, independent of their position within
the interaction structure of the thread. With regard to the availability but also the
trustworthiness of evaluations of relational work to be found in posts, Table 36
presents itself. Obviously, there are a lot of type Bt posts (see also Table 37), which
are – due to their very nature (no subsequent post and hence no evaluation) – the
least trustworthy, and a smaller amount of type A posts with a medium to high
degree of trustworthiness. Unfortunately, though, even type A posts with one,
sometimes even two or more subsequent posts are not always explicitly assessed,
as not every follow-up contribution contains evaluative statements about its pre-
decessor. For these reasons, the majority of posts are not explicitly evaluated at
all, which is why the participant observer perspective gains momentum and can-
not be neglected. For the sake of transparency, the least we can do, however, is to
separate these two perspectives, interlocutors’ explicit and participant observers’
implicit evaluations. Accordingly, the final account for all 50 threads is presented
in Table 37.
The final results as portrayed in this table could hardly be clearer and go hand
in hand with the previously established fact that there is a predominance of us-
ers’ need for association over their need for dissociation when getting together
in message boards: In a ratio of approximately 12:1 posts, participants’ behavior
in this corpus is primarily appropriate (92.3%) and seldom characterized by in-
appropriateness (7.7%). The numerical superiority of the former category obvi-
ously stems from the fact that it comprehends a huge amount of unmarked, yet
Table 37. Relational work in all 50 threads

and evaluation
(“rude” = r)
A: 1232* ex. 73 1 55 (32r) 6
im. 35 2 1017 39 (24r) 4
Bt: 1984 im. 94 10 1736 130 (81r) 14
∑: 3216 (36 C) 202 13 2753 224 (137r) 24
2968 248 (137r)
*+ 16 exceptions # 4p17: ex. – r., ex. – m #15p13: im. Ø, ex. – r
#5p1: im. Ø, ex. + #19p53: im. Ø, ex. +
#9p28: im. Ø, im. – r #28p1: im. Ø, ex. – r
#10p110: im. Ø, im. + (type Bt) #36p1: im. Ø, ex. +
#11p1: im. Ø, im. – r #41p1: im. Ø, im. – r
#11p7: im. Ø, im. – r #44p6: im. Ø, ex. +
#13p30: im. Ø, im. – r #45p6: im. Ø, ex. –
#13p38: im. +, ex. – r #45p12: im. Ø, ex. –
appropriate behavior with 2753 posts, representing 92.8% of the entire category
of functional communication (and still 85.6% of message board communication
in its entirety). This behavioral type stands in marked contrast to its two co-con-
stituents in the category of appropriate behavior, namely politeness with 6.8% and
mock-impoliteness with only 0.4%. Obviously, the use of impoliteness to mock
interlocutors is extremely rare.
When looking only at the second half of Table 37, mock-politeness is also
outnumbered by impoliteness/rudeness with 9.7% to 90.3%. Remarkable for that
category, though, is the proportion of impoliteness and rudeness: 137 of 224 neg-
atively marked, impolite posts enclosed hints to their author’s hurtful intention,
which is why they have also been labeled rude. Percentage-wise, we are talking
about 61.2% of negatively marked, impolite behavior and still 55.2% of all cases of
dysfunctional, inappropriate behavior. This goes to show that once interlocutors
make the (unconscious) decision to reply in an offensive manner, they do so quite
straightforwardly and unambiguously, not veiling their spiteful intention.
As the analysis has also shown, the initial sum total of 3271 posts (see Ta-
ble 15, Section 7.2) needs to be corrected slightly: Since the authors of threads
#29, 34 and 36 were also the driving forces behind the second post in each of the
three threads, p2 did not count as an autonomous post but as the continuation
of the first one. Accordingly, three posts need to be subtracted from the original
www.ebook777.com
Table 38. Incidences of relational work in the entire message board corpus
Relational work
negatively (positively) unmarked positively negatively
marked marked marked marked
impolite mock-impolite non-polite polite over-polite
(rude) banter mock-polite
inappropriate appropriate appropriate appropriate inappropriate
– +m Ø + –m
= 224 (137r) = 13 = 2753 = 202 = 24
(7%) (0.4%) (85.6%) (6.3%) (0.7%)
sum total. Subtracting 36 type C posts and 16 exceptions, we are finally in the
position to make a point about the incidences of relational work in the remaining
3216 posts of our message board corpus (see Table 38). The numerical range of
relational work as found in the message board corpus can also be visualized with
the help of a pie chart (see Figure 21).
Although not a part of the framework of relational work, we should still make
a point about the occurrence of flames. As has been established before (see Sec-
tion 5.7), not every impolite or rude utterance counts as a flame. When looking
through the six categories once more and by reevaluating strings of negatively
marked behavior, we encounter 26 flames in 14 threads (see Table 39). With the
exception of the first (Getting to know others) and the sixth category (Offering
advice/information), all other categories featured more than one flame in one or
more threads, with the fourth category leading the way and the third category
close behind. This result is not surprising, as it actually matches the six differ-
ent purposes and interpersonal orientations of each category (see also Table 41).
Lengths of flames varied: While most flames consisted of the minimal amount
0.7% 0.4%
6.3% 7%
–
+m
Ø
+
85.6%
–m
Figure 21. Percentages of relational work in the entire message board corpus
Table 39. Incidences of flaming in all six categories

Categories No. of flames
1. Getting to know others 0
2. Looking for like-minded others 2 (in 1 thread)
3. Asking for advice 9 (in 5 threads)
4. Asking for opinions 13 (in 7 threads)
5. Blowing off steam 2 (in 1 thread)
6. Offering advice/information 0
∑ 26 (in 14 threads)
Table 40. Types of relational work used in flames

Explicit evaluations Implicit evaluations
neg. marked 16 15
neg. marked rude 22 17
neg. marked mock / over polite 7 3
unmarked – 4
of posts needed for a flame, two (17x), we could also find flames with three (3x),
four (1x), five (1x), six (1x), seven (1x) and eight (1x) posts. The longest flame to
be found in this corpus comprehended 11 posts. Accordingly, an average flame
was 3.2 posts long. Flames exhibited the assortment of negatively marked (and
unmarked) behavior (see Table 40).
These figures prove what has already been predicted in Section 5.7: Explicit
user evaluations of behavior are particularly relevant in the context of flames, as
this is the first time that they outnumber implicit participant observer evalua-
tions with 45 and 35 cases respectively. In accordance with the nature of flam-
ing, hurtful intentions are seldom veiled, which is why rudeness can be counted
more often than impoliteness in both explicit and implicit perspectives. Every so
often – four times to be more precise – flames were interspersed with unmarked
entries from users who commented on the ongoing flame, sometimes in order to
end it peacefully. In a nutshell, these figures attest that once users decide to start
a fight with someone, they do it – not unlike a tempest – unvarnished but rarely
persistently.
What still needs to be discussed shortly are the so-called exceptions, which
have so far been bracketed out of the final results (see Table 37). Since these 16
entries could not be evaluated unanimously, they escaped the attribution to one
of the above categories of relational work. As a matter of fact, we can distinguish
two subtypes among these exceptional posts: those which received more than
one evaluation (type A only) and those which contained more than one type of
www.ebook777.com
relational work (type A and B). While the former constitute the lion’s share of the
exceptions, the latter are very rare and can only be found in contributions, which
answer to two interlocutors in two diverging strings of conversation by means of
one and the same entry. Consequently, evaluations of these posts saw combina-
tions of labels, mostly of unmarked and (negatively or positively) marked behav-
ior. In the case of type A posts, these labels could also vary between implicit and
explicit perspectives based on one or more subsequent posts referring to the one
in question. Never have evaluations varied that much, however, as to produce a
combination of positively and negatively marked behavior – a clue for the inter-
pretative boundaries even of online contributions. Although evaluations of p38 in
thread #13 hinted to two types of relational work, “im. +” and “ex. – r”, we have to
keep in mind that the author used this particular post to react to the behavior of
two separate interlocutors.
For the sake of completion, one should not forget to mention either that five
of the 16 exceptions were found in thread initial position. Although the content
and/or the phrasing of thread starts usually received “im. Ø”, two of these five
were also explicitly considered as polite (#5 Meteor Shower :), #36 Guide to How
to Revise Effectively?), one explicitly as rude (#28 Women Make Crappy Musicians)
and the last two implicitly as rude (#11 What does this girl mean by this? (convo
included), #41 So it seems everyone just wants to ruin there livers in university).
Speaking of initial posts, we are now in the position to make an educated
guess as to why seven of the 50 thread starters changed their initial posts only
shortly after posting their original draft (see Section 7.5). In fact, users in threads
#6 and 44 did not produce any inappropriate utterances, which means that – at
least as a minimal effect – clarifications volunteered by thread starters in their
modified second drafts did not cause any friction. A more positive evaluation
could even hold that these modifications avoided friction and misunderstandings
right at the outset. Since interlocutors did not thematize these particular parts of
the introductory posts, there is no way of knowing for sure about their impact on
the conversationalists. In the case of threads #30, 37 and 39, we are still in the dark
about what made the thread starter change his entry. Negatively marked behavior
in these threads is in no way related to the respective thread starts. Reactions in
the remaining two threads (#4 and 46) are, however, a little more revealing: The
thread starter of #4 was attacked by two other users because of his (presumed)
opinion on the proposed topic. For that reason, he saw a need for clarification
about his real point of view, in order to avoid further negative reactions and mis-
understandings. As interlocutors’ behavior in the rest of the thread proves, this
was the right decision. The situation is different in thread #46: In conceding that
his views may be completely wrong, the thread starter achieved the exact opposite
Table 41. Percentages of relational work according to categories

Functional → appropriate Dysfunctional →
inappropriate
“polite” “mock- Ø “impolite” “mock-
impolite” (“rude” = r) polite”
1. Getting to know 33.3 1.7 65.0 0 0
others
100 0
2. Looking for like- 10.8 1.7 82.1 5.0 0.4
minded others
94.6 5.4
3. Asking for advice 6.6 0.4 79.3 12.7 1.0
86.3 13.7
4. Asking for 3.0 0 90.8 5.5 0.7
opinions
93.8 6.2
5. Blowing off steam 9.2 0.6 78.6 9.8 1.8
88.4 11.6
6. Offering advice/ 17.2 1.9 80.0 0.9 0
information
99.1 0.9
effect. As the reaction “Don’t be silly. This isn’t about right or wrong.” (p37) shows,
his attempt to avoid friction obviously backfired.
In order not to judge all categories by the same yardstick, the last overview
presents the final results once more in a more detailed manner. Note, that in Ta-
ble 41, each of the six categories represents 100%. When looking at the high per-
centages for functional, appropriate behavior in general, ranging from a minimal
of 86.3% to a maximum of 100%, it becomes obvious that all of the categories
sported mostly smooth interaction. As a result, the percentages for inappropriate
behavior are rather low with 0% to 13.7% only. According to this overview, the
first category, Getting to know others, was characterized by harmonious exchanges
only, with the highest amount of politeness (33.3%) of all six categories. This re-
sult is almost self-explanatory and quite predictable with regard to the purpose of
this category, namely associating with TSR strangers. In the course of introduc-
ing oneself to a broader audience, controversial topics are least likely to come
up. Still, belligerent exchanges can never be ruled out completely for any of these
categories or any particular topic for that matter. It is, however, the third group,
Asking for advice, which contained most friction with the lowest percentage of
www.ebook777.com
Table 42. Ranking of the six categories according to the appropriateness of behavior
Appropriate Inappropriate Average IQ
behavior behavior
Cat. 1: Getting to know others 100.0% 0.0% 66%
Cat. 6: Offering advice/information 99.1% 0.9% 45%
Cat. 2: Looking for like-minded others 94.6% 5.4% 48%
Cat. 4: Asking for opinions 93.8% 6.2% 38%
Cat. 5: Blowing off steam 88.4% 11.6% 43%
Cat. 3: Asking for advice 86.3% 13.7% 23%
appropriate behavior (86.3%) and the highest (13.7%) for impolite or even rude
behavior. Outpacing even categories such as 4 (Asking for opinions) and 5 (Blowing
off steam), which could have been expected to cause more dysfunctional commu-
nication, the third category saw quite dubious thread starters, with Anonymous
User #1 leading the way. In some cases, these users and/or the topics introduced
by them were not taken seriously or were straightforwardly considered fake, thus
eliciting fierce quarrellings more than once.
To sum it all up, let us classify the six categories according to the appropriate-
ness (and inappropriateness) of their participants’ behavior, incorporating also
the average interaction quotient (IQ) for each category. As can be learnt from
Table 42, categories 1 and 6 form the leading group in terms of functional behav-
ior, while categories 2 and 4 constitute the midfield with categories 5 and 3 com-
ing last. What is especially interesting about this overview is the correlation of the
threads’ average interaction quotients and their participants’ conduct. Although
the average values must not be overestimated – after all IQs varied considerably
within the six categories – it is most striking that the category with the highest
average IQ (66%) is also the one highest in terms of appropriate behavior, while
the category with the lowest average IQ (23%) ranks also lowest with regard to
interpersonal conduct. This suggests a positive correlation between the degree of
interaction and the functionality of the exchange, which is, however, proven to
be an oversimplification by actual thread analyses: While flames appeared within
highly interactive structures, perfectly appropriate behavior could also be spotted
in threads with hardly any interaction.
www.ebook777.com
chapter 9
Conclusion
This study intended to merge two fields of research, interpersonal pragmatics and
computer-mediated communication. With respect to the latter, we concentrated
on one form of communication among many others in CMC, viz. message boards,
which so far have not attracted as much scientific attention as related communi-
cative platforms such as chat or email – especially not in combination with the
first field of research mentioned above. In terms of interpersonal pragmatics, it
was vitally important to this study to cover the whole range of interpersonal rela-
tions, i.e. the positive as well as the negative sides of human behavior towards each
other and not just to focus on one particular, isolated phenomenon.
The objective of this study has been twofold: We tried to shed some light
on the basic question of how interpersonal relations are established, managed
and negotiated in online message boards. At the same time, we kept in view a
common myth about online communication in general. In concentrating on the
message board system The Student Room (TSR) as one representative of message
boards, this study tried to falsify the claim that online communication is unsuited
for interpersonal purposes and a hotbed for uninhibited and rude behavior. In
doing just that, the study showed that interpersonal relations in online message
boards should be judged very carefully as they are highly context-, user- and even
topic-sensitive entities. In order to outline the most important pitfalls and in-
sights for such an analysis and to summarize the final results of this investigation,
the research questions presented in Chapter 1 will serve as a guideline:
1. What are the technological and social prerequisites and mechanisms of

communication in online message boards like The Student Room (TSR)?
How are they made use of?
As could be shown in Chapter 2, users have a lot of template-based and textual

options at their disposal, through which they can convey propositional as well as
interpersonal contents in and outside of their posts. Message boards try to recre-
ate mechanisms usually available in face-to-face communication – at least to a
certain degree by means of compensatory mechanisms. For that reason, partici-
pants do have (an equivalent of) para- and nonverbal clues at hand and do have
access to contextual input automatically disclosed by the message board system
and individually by their interlocutors. In this sense, the oft-cited “dramaturgical

weakness” of a “faceless” form of communication can indeed be reduced.
The analysis of 50 threads revealed that message board participants made
regular use of some of said compensatory mechanisms, while neglecting others.
Although their usage surely depends on highly idiosyncratic choices, all posts re-
sorted to one mechanism or the other. Profiles and signatures, to give two exam-
ples for template-based compensatory mechanisms, were sometimes crammed
with personal details, information about likes and dislikes and instructions for
interlocutors among many others. In other cases, however, they were practically
non-existent. Entries, on the other hand, saw the change of font sizes and colors
for the expression of emotional states and attitudes quite regularly, while emotes
almost seemed to have gone out of style. For this purpose, smileys presented
themselves as ubiquitous, multifunctional components of message board entries.
Even the multimodal nature of message boards was exploited quite frequently to
make a statement with links and embedded objects instead of phrasing sentences.
All of this goes to show that although the means may be slightly different when
compared to face-to-face contexts, users are, in fact, given strategies which they
use to communicate their emotions, their relations and their face claims – in a
word, to be virtually “co-present”.
Owed to the fragmentary display of interlocutors’ personal backgrounds, in-
terpersonal roles need to be redefined and renegotiated constantly in message
board exchanges (see Chapter 3). Although some experienced regulars have taken
over responsibilities within this community of practice (for example as moderators
and PS helpers), the analysis has exposed them to behave just as (in)conspicuous
as any other member. Only in some cases did their behavior mirror their elevated
status within the group.
2. How can key (as well as marginal) concepts of interpersonal relations be de-
fined and clustered adequately, especially in view of analyzing online com-
munication in message boards?
Basically, users’ expectations and aims when participating in a message board

such as TSR can be broken down to sharing and being part of a group. It became
obvious that authors of posts do not set aside these basic human needs just be-
cause they decided to communicate in a mediated context. Thus, borrowing from
theories that were originally designed for face-to-face encounters in order to ex-
plain mediated communication was only the next logical step in this study.
Based on critical reviews of classical and postmodern approaches to polite-
ness and impoliteness, two modified frameworks could be developed: the com-
bined model of face and facework (following Goffman 1967 and Brown/Levinson
www.ebook777.com
Chapter 9. Conclusion 261
1978/1987) as well as the revised model of relational work (based on Locher/Watts

2005). The advantage of the first model, in comparison to its two predecessors, lies
in the combination of both readings of the notion of face, which are in my opinion
equally valuable: face as a conglomerate of basic human needs (association and
dissociation) and face as a discursive process of negotiation. The second model
needed to be extended slightly in order for it to account for the entire panoply of
relational work: unmarked/appropriate behavior, politeness, impoliteness (includ-
ing rudeness), but above that also mock-impoliteness and mock-politeness. Locher/
Watts’ integrative perspective was insofar advantageous as it allowed for the direct
comparison of and differentiation between all these types of relational work. In
this way, their model also proved to be helpful for the definition of its notoriously
fuzzy components, with politeness leading the way. After all, every one of the
above notions is an unstable and evaluative construct, which lies in the eyes of the
participating and/or observing beholders. Both frameworks set the agenda for the
empirical analysis and could be applied successfully to actual data.
3. Which contextual factors need to be included when evaluating users’ online

behavior? Where can we find them in the message board system of The Stu-
dent Room (TSR)?
In the evaluation of (online) behavior, contextual factors cannot be bracketed out.

For this reason, Chapter 6 summarized (personal and interpersonal) contextual
as well as (extra-)medial environmental factors. Knowing where to look for these
clues in message boards can thus be very profitable, also with regard to users’ face
claims, which can be read out of a whole range of templates and can sometimes be
traced within entire online appearances. Accordingly, checking signatures, profile
information, the number of posts, labels and most of all the reputation system
(including the “warnings levels”) has proven to be extremely insightful in order to
find out how members want to be perceived by others. Above that, they may also
reveal the outcome of preceding encounters, i.e. earlier attempts at facework and
relational work. In this regard, contextual factors in the broadest sense can help
explain interlocutors’ assessments of the situation and can come in handy in cases
of ambiguous evaluations.
4. How are interpersonal relations formally expressed and interactively nego-

tiated by experienced and new message board members? How many inci-
dences of (the various types of) positively and negatively marked behavior
can be found?
The last of the research questions was answered in the analytical part of this study.
In successfully avoiding mistakes of previous studies, the present analysis
– worked empirically on the problem;

– concentrated on one form of communication within CMC in order not to
measure all of them with the same yardstick;
– worked beyond the sentence level, i.e. focused on complete utterances or even
series of moves and counter-moves;
– distinguished more carefully among different users, the relationship of group
members, the personalities of individual members and other contextual
factors;
– allocated user perceptions a central position in the evaluation of behavior;
– investigated interaction from a participant observer’s perspective also, as in-
terlocutors’ reactions, explicit ones in particular, were not always available.
Chapter 7 put special emphasis on the first posts and their authors, the thread
starters, as they were suspected to set the course for the entire thread – formally as
well as interpersonally. This turned out to be a correct estimation: Once a certain
topic was proposed, be it in an aggressive or altruistic manner, reactions mirrored
the underlying emotional stance and interpersonal attitude in most cases reli-
ably. Even thread starters showed awareness for the importance of their opening
posts, which is why some of these initial contributions were rephrased by their
originators almost immediately after their first publication to avoid anticipated
misunderstandings and friction.
Both Chapters 7 and 8 examined facework qualitatively and listed members’
strategies, always adorned with a selection of illustrative examples. Not only did
they exhibit the full range of participants’ creativity to make their feelings and
attitudes towards fellow-users and their opinions known. Above that, we could
also detect message board specific strategies to accomplish this purpose, such as
giving reputation to others by “repping” them or by joining “societies” in order to
signal association, to name but two.
Chapter 8 also saw the quantitative analysis of relational work for all 50
threads, which proved that the lion’s share of behavior is indeed appropriate.
Comparatively few instances of inappropriate behavior, with some flames far and
few between showed that in most cases, interlocutors do not go online to pick a
fight but to find like-minded others and to enjoy their company. What is more, the
classification of threads according to their communicative purpose also supports
the conclusion that interpersonal behavior is not only dependent on the context
and the users but also largely topic-driven. At times, purely phatic communica-
tion could be witnessed, even containing passages of mutual flattering. With a
view to these results, at least this particular message board has proven definitely
suitable for interpersonal purposes. To this end, the category of appropriate/un-
marked behavior was necessary and useful to represent online behavior in a much
www.ebook777.com
Chapter 9. Conclusion 263
more nuanced and realistic way. The same holds true for another novelty in the
course of action of the empirical analysis, namely the functional differentiation of
posts depending on whether they are evaluated by interlocutors’ subsequent posts
or not (type A and type B posts) and the separation of those posts which do not
refer to any particular, preceding post at all (type C posts).
More often than not, the conversational flow runs smoothly and does not
exhibit any amplitudes to either side, be it in the form of positively or negatively
marked behavior. Yet still message boards and related types of CMC have a bad
record (see above). How is this possible, especially in the light of these results?
As most of the functional behavior in this corpus is clearly “unmarked”, it usu-
ally drifts by almost unnoticed. Consequently, the conversation seems uneventful
in terms of relational work, although it should be labeled “appropriate” instead.
More noticeable, however, are those communicative events which are positively
marked and – to an even higher degree – those which are strikingly negatively
marked and thus dysfunctional (see the high percentages scored for rudeness in
general and for flames in particular). In this context, it should also be added that
marked behavior, be it positively or negatively, shows the tendency to be carried
to the extremes in message boards, which is why politeness always seems more
heartfelt and abundant, impoliteness, on the other hand, extremely outspoken
and drastic. Those are the ones to clearly stand out against the rest, which makes
counting them so much easier. I argue that it is due to this misperception that on-
line communication, including message board interaction, has wrongfully earned
labels such as “uninhibited”, “unfriendly” and “rude”. Although the figures of this
analysis support this hypothesis, they certainly cannot confirm it for good. For
that reason, I would like to make a case for more qualitative and, wherever pos-
sible, also quantitative research on a diversified range of message boards. Even
if this course of action brings to light limited snapshots of interpersonal micro-
spheres, we can still gain more insights into this intriguing field of research by
adopting a comparative perspective.
www.ebook777.com
Bibliography
Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Societies: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of national-
ism. London: Verso.
Androutsopoulos, Jannis K. 2006. “Introduction: Sociolinguistics and Computer-Mediated
Communication”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10 (4): 419–438.
Androutsopoulos, Jannis K., Runkehl, Jens, Schlobinski, Peter and Siever, Torsten (eds). 2006.
Neuere Entwicklungen in der linguistischen Internetforschung. Hildesheim: Olms.
Arndt, Horst and Janney, Richard. 22005, 1992. “Intracultural Tact versus Intercultural Tact”. In
Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, Richard J. Watts, Sachiko
Ide and Konrad Ehlich (eds), 21–41. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Arundale, Robert B. 2006. “Face as Relational and Interactional: A Communication Frame-
work for Research on Face, Facework, and Politeness”. Journal of Politeness Research 2:
193–216.
Arundale, Robert B. 2010. “Constituting Face in Conversation: Face, Facework and Interac-
tional Achievement”. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2078–2105.
Asteroff, Janet F. 1987. Paralanguage in Electronic Mail: A Case Study. Columbia University/NY:
PhD Thesis.
Auer, Peter. 1995. “Context and Contextualization”. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Jef Verschueren
et al. (eds), 1–19. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Austin, Paddy. 1990. “Politeness Revisited – the Dark Side”. In New Zealand Ways of Speaking
English, Allan Bell and Janet Holmes (eds), 277–293. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters
Ldt.
Avgerinakou, Anthi. 2003. “‘Flaming’ in Computer-Mediated Interaction”. In Rethinking Com-
municative Interaction, Colin B. Grant (ed.), 273–293. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Baker, Paul. 2001. “Moral Panic and Alternative Identity Construction in Usenet”. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 7 (1). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue1/baker.
html, July 5th 2012.
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca. 2003. “Face and Politeness: New (Insights) for Old (Concepts)”.
Journal of Pragmatics 35 (10, 11): 1453–1469.
Baron, Naomi. 1984. “Computer Mediated Communication as a Force in Language Change”.
Visible Language 32: 118–141.
Baym, Nancy K. 1995. “The Emergence of Community in Computer-Mediated Communicati-
on”. In CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community, Steven G. Jones
(ed.), 138–163. Thousand Oaks/CA: Sage.
Baym, Nancy K. 1997. “Interpreting Soap Operas and Creating Community: Inside an Elec-
tronic Fan Culture”. In Culture of the Internet, Sara Kiesler (ed.), 103–120. Mahwah/NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baym, Nancy K. 1998. “The Emergence of Online Community”. In CyberSociety 2.0: Revisiting
Computer-Mediated Communication and Community, Steven G. Jones (ed.), 35–68. Thou-
sand Oaks/CA: Sage.
Baym, Nancy K. 2000. Tune In, Log On: Soaps, Fandom, and Online Community. Thousand
Oaks/CA: Sage.
Bazzanella, Carla. 2002. “The Significance of Context in Comprehension: The We Case”. In
Contact in Context: Special Issue of Foundations of Science 7 (3), Bruce Edmonds and Varol
Akman (eds), 239–254. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Beebe, Leslie M. 1995. “Polite Fictions: Instrumental Rudeness as Pragmatic Competence”. In
Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics 1995. Linguistics and the
Education of Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic, Psycholinguistic, and Sociolinguistics As-
pects, James E. Alatis, Carolyn A. Straehle, Brent Gallenberger and Maggie Ronkin (eds),
154–168. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Beißwenger, Michael. 2002. “Das Knistern zwischen den Zeilen: Inszenierungspotenziale in
der schriftbasierten Chat-Kommunikation”. http://dichtung-digital.mewi.unibas.ch/2002/
modemfieber/beisswenger.htm, July 5th 2012.
Beißwenger, Michael. 2003. “Sprachhandlungskoordination im Chat”. Zeitschrift für germani-
stische Linguistik 31 (2): 198–231.
Beißwenger, Michael. 2010. “Chattern unter die Finger geschaut: Formulieren und Revidieren
bei der schriftlichen Verbalisierung in synchroner internetbasierter Kommunikation”. In
Nähe und Distanz im Kontext variationslinguistischer Forschung, Vilmos Ágel and Mathil-
de Hennig (eds), 247–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Beißwenger, Michael, Hoffmann, Ludger and Storrer, Angelika (eds). 2004. Internetbasierte
Kommunikation. Oldenburg: OBST 68.
Bell, David 2000. “Cybercultures Reader. A User’s Guide”. In The Cybercultures Reader, David
Bell and Barbara M. Kennedy (eds), 1–12. London: Routledge.
Benwell, Bethan and Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2006. Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
Press.
Bins, Elmar and Piwinger, Boris-A. 1997. Newsgroups. Weltweit diskutieren. Bonn: Internat.
Thomson Publ.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1985. “Modifiers as Indicating Devices: The Case of Requests”. Theore-
tical Linguistics 12 (2–3): 213–229.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 22005, 1992. “The Metapragmatics of Politeness in Israeli Society”. In
Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, Richard J. Watts, Sashiko
Ide and Konrad Ehlich (eds), 255–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bolter, Jay D. 1991. Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing. Hills-
dale/NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bolter, Jay D. 2001. Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print.
Mahwah/NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brown, Penelope. 2001. “Politeness and Language”. In The International Encyclopedia of the
Social and Behavioral Sciences 17, Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes (eds), 11620–11624.
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1978. “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness
Phenomena”. In Questions and Politeness, Esther N. Goody (ed.), 56–289. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
www.ebook777.com
Bibliography 267
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Us-
age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Roger and Gilman, Albert. 1972. “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity”. In Language
and Social Context, Pier P. Giglioli (ed.), 252–282. New York: Penguin.
Brown, Gillian and Yule, George. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bublitz, Wolfram. 2003. “Emotive Prosody: How Attitudinal Frames Help Construct Context”.
In Anglistentag 2002 Bayreuth, Proceedings, Ewald Mengel, Hans-Jörg Schmid and Michael
Steppat (eds), 381–391. Trier: WVT.
Bublitz, Wolfram. 2005. “The User as ‘Cyberego’: Text, Hypertext and Coherence”. In Angli-
stentag 2004 Aachen, Proceedings, Lilo Moessner and Christa M. Schmidt (eds), 311–324.
Trier: WVT.
Bublitz, Wolfram. 2008. “‘Sailing the Islands or Watching from the Dock’: The Treacherous Sim-
plicity of a Metaphor. How We Handle ‘New (Electronic) Hypertext’ versus ‘Old (Printed)
Text’”. In Language, People, Numbers: Corpus Linguistics and Society, Andrea Gerbig and
Oliver Mason (eds), 249–273. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Bublitz, Wolfram. 22009. Englische Pragmatik: Eine Einführung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Burger, Harald. 2005. Mediensprache: Eine Einführung in Sprache und Kommunikationsformen
der Massenmedien. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Burnett, Robert and Marshall, P. David. 2003. Web Theory: An Introduction. London:
Routledge.
Bush, Vannevar. 1945. “As We May Think”. Atlantic Monthly. http://www.theatlantic.com/
magazine/archive/1969/12/as-we-may-think/3881/, July 5th 2012.
Caffi, Claudia. 1993. “Metapragmatics”. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Ro-
nald E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson (eds), 2461–2466. Oxford: Pergamon.
Chandler, Daniel. 1995. “Technological or Media Determinism”. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/
Documents/tecdet/, July 5th 2012.
Chandler, Daniel. 1998. “Writing Oneself in Cyberspace”. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/
Documents/short/homepgid.html, July 5th 2012.
Cherny, Lynn. 1999. Conversation and Community: Chat in a Virtual World. Stanford/CA:
Center for the study of language and information.
Claridge, Claudia. 2007. “Constructing a Corpus from the Web: Message Boards”. In Corpus
Linguistics and the Web, Marianne Hundt, Nadja Nesselhauf and Carolin Biewer (eds),
87–108. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Clark, Herbert H. 1982. “The Relevance of Common Ground: Comments on Sperber and Wil-
son’s Paper”. In Mutual Knowledge, Neilson V. Smith (ed.), 124–127. London: Academic
Press.
Clark, Herbert H. 2006. “Context and Common Ground”. In Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics, Edward K. Brown (ed.), 105–108. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Clyne, Michael. 1994. Intercultural Communication at Work: Cultural Values in Discourse. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, Mauri P. 1992. “Flaming: The Relationship between Social Context Cues and Uninhibi-
ted Verbal Behaviour in Computer-Mediated Communication”. http://www.medienspra-
che.net/archiv/pubs/2842.htm, July 5th 2012.
Constantin, Corina, Kalyanaraman, Sriram, Stavrositu, Carmen and Wagoner, Nathan. 2002.
“To Be or not to Be Emotional”. Paper presented at the Communication Technology and Po-
licy Division at the 85th Annual Convention of the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication (AEJMC), Miami, Florida.
Coupland, Nikolas and Jaworski, Adam. 2004. “Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Metalanguage:
Reflexivity, Evaluation and Ideology”. In Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives,
Adam Jaworski, Nikolas Coupland and Dariusz Galasinski (eds), 15–52. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Crystal, David. 2001. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culnan, Mary J. and Markus, M. Lynne. 1987. “Information Technologies”. In Handbook of
Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Frederic M. Jablin, Linda
L. Putnam, Karlene H. Roberts and Lyman W. Porter (eds), 420–443. Newbury Park/CA:
Sage.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”. Journal of Pragmatics 25 (3):
349–367.
Culpeper, Jonathan, Bousfield, Derek and Wichmann, Anne. 2003. “Impoliteness Revisited:
with Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects”. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (10,
11): 1545–1579.
Cupach, William R. and Metts, Sandra. 1994. Facework. Thousand Oaks/CA: Sage.
Darics, Erika. 2010. “Politeness in Computer-Mediated Discourse of a Virtual Team”. Journal of
Politeness Research 6: 129–150.
de Beaugrande, Robert-Alain and Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1981. Einführung in die Textlinguistik.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
December, John. 1997. “Notes on Defining Computer-Mediated Communication”. CMC Maga-
zine. http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/jan/december.html, July 5th 2012.
Derks, Daantje, Fischer, Agneta H. and Bos, Arjan E. R. 2008. “The role of emotion in compu-
ter-mediated communication: A review”. Computers in Human Behavior 24 (3): 766–785.
Derlega, Valerian J. and Chaikin, Alan. L. 1977. “Privacy and Self-Disclosure in Social Relati-
onships”. Journal of Social Issues 33 (3): 102–115.
Döring, Nicola. 1999. “Zwischenmenschliche Nähe im Internet”. In Konnekt: Das Medienpaket,
Dieter Glaap and Jürgen Ertelt (eds), 37–45. Remscheid: Akademie Remscheid.
Donath, Judith S. 1999. “Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community”. In Communities in
Cyberspace, Marc A. Smith and Peter Kollock (eds), 29–59. London: Routledge.
Donnerhacke, Lutz. 1996. “Usenet: Die Einrichtung von Diskussionsforen”. In Die Netz-Re-
volution: Auf dem Weg in die Weltgesellschaft, Martin Rost (ed.), 70–75. Frankfurt/Main:
Eichborn.
Douglas, Karen M. and McGarty, Craig. 2001. “Identifiability and Self-Presentation: Computer-
Mediated Communication and Intergroup Interaction”. British Journal of Social Psychology
40 (3): 399–416.
Dürscheid, Christa. 1999. “Zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit: die Kommunikation im
Internet”. Papiere zur Linguistik 60 (1): 17–30.
Dürscheid, Christa. 2003. “Medienkommunikation im Kontinuum zwischen Mündlichkeit
und Schriftlichkeit: Theoretische und empirische Probleme”. Zeitschrift für Angewandte
Linguistik 38: 37–56.
Dürscheid, Christa. 2006. Einführung in die Schriftlinguistik: Ergänzt um ein Kapitel zur Typo-
graphie von Jürgen Spitzmüller. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
www.ebook777.com
Bibliography 269
Durkheim, Emile. 1915. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. London: George Allen and
Unwin Ltd.
Eckert, Penelope. 2006. “Communities of Practice”. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics,
Edward K. Brown (ed.), 683–685. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Eckert, Penelope and McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1998. “Communities of Practice: Where Lan-
guage, Gender and Power all Live”. In Language and Gender, Jennifer Coates (ed.), 484–
494. Oxford: Blackwell.
Edinger, Joyce A. and Patterson, Miles L. 1983. “Nonverbal Involvement and Social Control”.
Psychological Bulletin 93: 30–56.
Eelen, Gino. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publ.
Ehlich, Konrad. 22005, 1992. “On the Historicity of Politeness”. In Politeness in Language: Stud-
ies in its History, Theory and Practice, Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich
(eds), 71–107. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Eisenlauer, Volker and Hoffmann, Christian. 2008. “The Metapragmatics of Remediated Text
Design”. Information Design Journal 16(1): 1–18.
Erickson, Thomas. 1996. “The World Wide Web as Social Hypertext”. http://www.pliant.org/
personal/Tom_Erickson/SocialHypertext.html, July 5th 2012.
Fabrot, Bernard. 2001. Newsgroups: The.little.Internet.guide. London: Cassell Illustrated.
Feldman, Martha S. 1987. “Electronic Mail and Weak Ties in Organizations”. Office: Technology
and People 3: 83–101.
Fernback, Jan and Thompson, Brad. 1995. “Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?”.
http://www.well.com/user/hlr/texts/VCcivil.html, July 5th 2012.
Ferrara, Kathleen, Brunner, Hans and Whittemore, Greg. 1991. “Interactive Written Discourse
as an Emergent Register”. Written Communication 8: 8–34.
Firth, John R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.
Foster, Derek. 1997. “Community and Identity in the Electronic Village”. In Internet Culture,
David Porter (ed.), 23–37. London: Routledge.
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. 1972–1977.
Brighton: Harvester Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1988. “Technologies of the Self ”. In Technologies of the Self, Luther H. Martin,
Huck Gutman and Patrick H. Hutton (eds), 16–49. Amherst: University of Massachusetts
Press.
Fraser, Bruce. 1980. “Conversational Mitigation”. Journal of Pragmatics 4: 341–350.
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. “Perspectives on Politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics 14 (2): 219–236.
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. “Whither Politeness?”. Paper presented at the International Symposium on
Linguistic Politeness: Theoretical Approaches and Intercultural Perspective, Chulalongkorn
University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gimenez, Martha E. 1997. “The Dialectics between the Real and the Virtual”. In Mapping Cy-
berspace: Social Research on the Electronic Frontier, Joseph E. Behar (ed.), 79–91. Oakdale/
NY: Dawling College Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1955. “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction”.
Psychiatry 18: 213–231.
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books.
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.

Goodwin, Charles and Duranti, Alessandro. 1992. “Rethinking Context: an Introduction”. In
Rethink Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Alessandro Duranti and Charles
Goodwin (eds), 1–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Graham, Sage L. 2008. “A Manual for (Im)Politeness?: The Impact of the FAQ in an Electronic
Community of Practice”. In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power
in Theory and Practice, Miriam A. Locher and Derek Bousfield (eds), 281–304. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Graham, Sage L. 2010. “THAT’S HOW WE ROLE: The Establishment of Functional Roles vs.
Idealized Identities in an Online Community of Practice”. Paper presented at the 5th Inter-
national Symposium on Politeness, Basel/Swiss.
Grice, Herbert P. 1975. “Logic and conversation”. In Syntax and Semantics 3, Peter Cole and
Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 41–58. Speech Acts. New York et al.: Academic Press.
Grimshaw, Allen D. 1990. Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversa-
tions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, John J. 1992. “Contextualization and Understanding”. In Rethink Context: Language
as an Interactive Phenomenon, Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin (eds), 229–251.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haferland, Harald and Paul, Ingwer. 1996. “Eine Theorie der Höflichkeit”. Oldenburg: OBST
52: 7–69.
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language
and Meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Harrison, Sandra. 2000. “Maintaining the Virtual Community: Use of Politeness Strategies in
an Email Discussion Group”. In Words on the Web: Computer Mediated Communication,
Lyn Pemberton and Simon Shurville (eds), 69–78. Exeter/Portland: Intellect Books.
Hatipoglu, Çiler. 2007. “(Im)Politeness, National and Professional Identities and Context: Some
Evidence from E-mailed ‘Call for Papers’”. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (4): 759–773.
Haugh, Michael. 2007. “The Discursive Challenge to Politeness Research: An Interactional Al-
ternative”. Journal of Politeness Research 3: 295–317.
Held, Gudrun. 1995. Verbale Höflichkeit: Studien zur linguistischen Theoriebildung und empiri-
sche Untersuchung zum Sprachverhalten französischer und italienischer Jugendlicher in Bitt-
und Dankessituationen. Tübingen: Narr.
Held, Gudrun. 22005, 1992. “Politeness in Linguistic Research”. In Politeness in Langua-
ge, Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich (eds), 131–153. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Herring, Susan. 1995. “Politeness in Computer Culture: Why Women Thank and Men Flame”.
In Communicating in, through, and across Cultures: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Wo-
men and Language Conference, Mary Bucholtz, A. C. Liang, Laurel A. Sutton and Caitlin
Hines (eds), 278–294. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
Herring, Susan (ed.). 1996. Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-
Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Herring, Susan. 1999. “Interactional Coherence in CMC”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Com-
munication 4 (4) (Special Issue on Persistent Conversation). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/
issue4/herring.html, July 5th 2012.
Herring, Susan. 2001. “Computer-Mediated Discourse”. In The Handbook of Discourse Analy-
sis, Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), 612–634. Oxford:
Blackwell.
www.ebook777.com
Bibliography 271
Herring, Susan. 2004. “Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis: An Approach to Researching

Online Behavior”. In Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, Sasha
A. Barab, Rob Kling and James H. Gray (eds), 338–376. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Herring, Susan. 2007. “A Faceted Classification Scheme for Computer-Mediated Discourse”.
Language@Internet 4/2007. http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/761, July 5th
2012.
Herring, Susan, Job-Sluder, Kirk, Scheckler, Rebecca and Barab, Sasha. 2002. “Searching for
Safety Online: Managing ‘Trolling’ in a Feminist Forum”. The Information Society 18 (5):
371–384.
Hiltz, Starr R., Johnson, Kenneth and Turoff, Murray. 1986. “Experiments in Group Decisi-
on Making: Communication Process and Outcome in Face-to-face versus Computerized
Conferences”. Human Communication Research 13: 225–252.
Hiltz, Starr R. and Turoff, Murray. 1981. “The Evolution of User Behavior in a Computerized
Conferencing System”. Communications of the ACM 24: 739–762.
Ho, David Y. 1994. “Face Dynamics: From Conceptualization to Measurement”. In The Chal-
lenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and Interpersonal Issues, Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.), 3–13.
Albany/NY: State University of New York Press.
Hobbs, Pamela. 2003. “The Medium is the Message: Politeness Strategies in Men’s and Women’s
Voice Mail Messages”. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 243–262.
Hoffmann, Christian. 2012. Cohesive Profiling: Meaning and Interaction in Personal Weblogs.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Holly, Werner. 1979. Imagearbeit in Gesprächen: Zur linguistischen Beschreibung des Beziehungs
aspekts. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Holly, Werner. 1997. “Zur Rolle von Sprache in Medien: Semiotische und kommunikations-
strukturelle Grundlagen”. Muttersprache 1: 64–75.
Holmberg, Anna. 2008. The Power of Insults: A Study of Condescending Linguistic Strategies in
four English Online Discussions. Växjö Univeristet: B.A. Thesis.
Holmes, Janet. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
Holmes, Janet. 2006. “Politeness Strategies As Linguistic Variables”. In Encyclopedia of Language
and Linguistics, Edward K. Brown (ed.), 684–697. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Holtgraves, Thomas. 2005. “Social Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, and Linguistic Polite-
ness”. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 73–93.
Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 2007. “‘Don’t Blame me for Criticizing you …’: A Study of Metaprag-
matic Comments in Thai”. In Metapragmatics in Use, Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler
(eds), 29–47. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hu, Hsien C. 1944. “The Chinese Concepts of ‘Face’”. American Anthropologist 46: 45–64.
Huber, Oliver. 2000. Hyper-Text-Linguistik: TAH: Ein textlinguistisches Analysemodell für Hy-
pertexte. Theoretisch und praktisch exemplifiziert am Problemfeld der typisierten Links von
Hypertexten im World Wide Web. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München: PhD Thesis.
http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/921/1/Huber_Oliver.pdf, July 5th 2012.
Humboldt, Wilhelm v. 1820, 1946. Über das vergleichende Sprachstudium in Beziehung auf die
verschiedenen Epochen der Sprachentwicklung. Leipzig: Meiner.
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hymes, Dell. 1986. “Models of Interaction of Language and Social Life”. In Directions in Socio-
linguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds),
35–71. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jasper, Dirk. 1997. Internet Newsgroups: Suchen, Anzapfen, Nutzen, Diskutieren. Düsseldorf:
Econ Tb.
Johansen, Robert, Vallee, Jacques and Spangler, Kathleen. 1988. “Teleconferencing: Electronic
Group Communication”. In Small Group Communication: A Reader, Robert S. Cathcart
and Larry A. Samovar (eds), 140–154. Dubuque/IA: William C. Brown.
Johnstone, Barbara and Bean, Judith M. 1997. “Self Expression and Linguistic Variation”. Lan-
guage in Society 26 (2): 221–246.
Joinson, Adam. 1998. “Causes and Implications of Disinhibited Behavior on the Internet”. In
Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal and Transpersonal Implications,
Jane Gackenbach (ed.), 43–58. San Diego: Academic Press.
Jones, Rodney H. 2002. “The Problem of Context in Computer Mediated Communication”. Pa-
per presented at the Georgetown Roundtable on Language and Linguistics, March 7–9 2002.
http://personal.cityu.edu.hk/~enrodney/Research/ContextCMC.doc, July 5th 2012.
Jones, Steven G. 1995. “Understanding Community in the Information Age”. In CyberSociety,
Computer-Mediated Communication and Community, Steven G. Jones (ed.), 10–35. Thou-
sand Oaks/CA: Sage.
Jones, Steven G. 2002. “The Internet Goes to College: How Students are Living in the Futu-
re with Today’s Technology”. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2002/
PIP_College_Report.pdf.pdf, July 5th 2012.
Kang, Jerry. 2000. “Cyber-Race”. Harvard Law Review 113: 1130–1208.
Kasper, Gabriele. 1990. “Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues”. Journal of Pragmatics
14 (2): 193–218.
Kasper, Gabriele. 1997. “Linguistic Etiquette”. In The Handbook of Sociolinguistics, Florian
Coulmas (ed.), 374–385. Oxford: Blackwell.
Katz, James E., Rice, Ronald E. and Aspden, Philip. 2001. “The Internet”. American Behavioral
Scientist 45: 405–419.
Kendall, Lori. 1999. “Recontextualizing ‘Cyberspace’: Methodological Considerations for Onli-
ne Research”. In Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net,
Steven G. Jones (ed.), 57–74. Thousand Oaks/CA: Sage.
Kienpointner, Manfred. 1997. “Varieties of Rudeness: Types and Functions of Impolite Utteran-
ces”. Functions of Language 4 (2): 251–287.
Kiesler, Sara, Siegel, Jane and McGuire, Timothy W. 1984. “Social Psychological Aspects of
Computer-mediated Communication”. American Psychologist 39: 1123–1134.
Kollock, Peter and Smith, Marc A. 1996. “Managing the Virtual Commons: Cooperation and
Conflict in Computer Communities”. In Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic,
Social and Cross-cultural Perspectives, Susan Herring (ed.), 109–128. Amsterdam/Philadel-
phia: John Benjamins.
Kollock, Peter and Smith, Marc A. 1999. “Communities in Cyberspace”. In Communities in
Cyberspace, Marc A. Smith and Peter Kollock (eds), 3–25. London: Routledge.
Kuhlen, Rainer. 1991. Hypertext. Berlin: Springer.
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City: Studies in Black English Vernacular. Philadel-
phia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lachenicht, Lance G. 1980. “Aggravating Language: A Study of Abusive and Insulting Language”.
Papers in Linguistics: International Journal in Human Communication 13 (4): 607–687.
www.ebook777.com
Bibliography 273
Lakoff, Robin T. 1973. “The Logic of Politeness, or Minding your p’s and q’s.”. In Papers from
the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Claudia Corum et al. (eds),
292–305. Chicago: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.
Lakoff, Robin. T. 1979. “Stylistic Strategies within a Grammar of Style”. In Language, Sex, and
Gender: Does la Différence Make a Difference?, Judith Orasanu et al. (eds), 53–78. New
York: The New York Academy of Sciences New York.
Lakoff, Robin T. and Ide, Sachiko. 2005. Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. Am-
sterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Landow, George. 1992. Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Tech-
nology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Launspach, Sonja. 2000. “Literal or Loose Talk: the Negotiation of Meaning on an Internet Dis-
cussion List”. In Words on the Web: Computer Mediated Communication, Lyn Pemberton
and Simon Shurville (eds), 87–95. Exeter/Portland: Intellect Books.
Lave, Jean and Wenger, Etienne. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lea, Martin and Spears, Russell. 1995. “Love at first Byte? Building Personal Relationships over
Computer Networks”. In Understudied Relationships: Off the Beaten Track, Julia T. Wood
and Steve Duck (eds), 197–233. Newbury Park/CA: Sage.
Lea, Martin, O’Shea, Tim, Fung, Pat and Spears, Russell. 1992. “’Flaming’ in Computer-Mediated
Communication: Observations, Explanations and Implications”. In Contexts of Computer-
Mediated Communication, Martin Lea (ed.), 89–112. New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Lee, Hangwoo. 2005. “Behavioral Strategies for Dealing with Flaming in an Online Forum”. The
Sociological Quarterly 46 (2): 385–403.
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Locher, Miriam A. 2006a. Advice Online. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Locher, Miriam A. 2006b. “Polite Behavior within Relational Work: The Discursive Approach
to Politeness”. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 25
(3): 249–267.
Locher, Miriam A. 2011. “Situated Impoliteness: The Interface between Identity Work and Re-
lational Construction”. In Situated Politeness, Bethan Davies, Michael Haugh and Andrew
J. Merrison (eds), 187–208. London: Continuum.
Locher, Miriam A. and Bousfield, Derek (eds). 2010. Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its
Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Locher, Miriam A. and Watts, Richard J. 2005. “Politeness Theory and Relational Work”. Journal
of Politeness Research 1 (1): 9–33.
Locher, Miriam A. and Watts, Richard J. 2008. “Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating
Norms of Linguistic Behavior”. In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with
Power in Theory and Practice, Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds), 77–99. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Garces-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar and Bou-Franch, Patricia. 2011. “On-line
Polylogues and Impoliteness: The Case of Postings Sent in Response to the Obama Reg-
gaeton YouTube Video”. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2578–2593.
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge.
Marcoccia, Michael. 2004. “On-line Polylogues: Conversation Structure and Participation
Frameworks in Internet Newsgroups”. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 115–145.
Maricic, Ibolya. 2001. “Cyberpoliteness: Requesting Strategies on the Linguist List”. In Prag-
matics in 2000. Selected papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference. Vol. 2.
Enikö T. Németh (ed.), 409–416. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association (IPrA).
Maricic, Ibolya. 2005. Face in Cyberspace: Facework, (Im)Politeness and Conflict in English Dis-
cussion Groups. Växjö: Växjö University Press.
McCormick, Naomi B. and McCormick, John W. 1992. “Computer Friends and Foes: Content
of Undergratuates’ Electronic Mail”. Computers in Human Behavior 8: 379–405.
McKenna, Katelyn Y. A. and Bargh, John A. 1999. “Causes and Consequences of Social Interac-
tion on the Internet: A Conceptual Framework”. Media Psychology 1: 249–269.
McKenna, Katelyn Y. A. and Bargh, John A. 2000. “Plan 9 from Cyberspace: The Implications
of the Internet for Personality and Social Psychology”. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 4: 57–75.
McKenna, Katelyn Y. A., Green, Amie S. and Gleason, Marci E. J. 2002. “Relationship Forma-
tion on the Internet: What’s the Big Attraction?”. Journal of Social Issues 58: 9–31.
McLaughlin, Margaret L., Osborne, Kerry K. and Smith, Christine B. 1995. “Standards of Con-
duct on Usenet”. In CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community,
Steven G. Jones (ed.), 90–111. Thousand Oaks/CA: Sage.
McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: Mentor.
Meier, Ardith J. 1995. “Defining Politeness: Universality In Appropriateness”. Language Science
17 (4): 345–356.
Meier, Ardith J. 2004. “Has ‘Politeness’ Outlived its Usefulness?”. Vienna English Working Papers
13 (1): 5–22. http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/views/O4_1/0401ALL.PDF, July 5th 2012.
Mercer, Neil. 2000. Words and Minds: How we Use Language to Think Together. London:
Routledge.
Meyrowitz, Joshua. 1985. No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mills, Sara. 2002. “Rethinking Politeness, Impoliteness and Gender Identity”. In Gender Identity
and Discourse Analysis, Lia Litosseliti and Jane Sunderland (eds), 69–89. Amsterdam/Phil-
adelphia: John Benjamins.
Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mills, Sara. 2005. “Gender and Impoliteness”. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 263–280.
Morand, David A. and Ocker, Rosalie J. 2003. “Politeness Theory and Computer-Mediated
Communication: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Analyzing Relational Messages”. HICCS
’03, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. http://www2.com-
puter.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2003.1173660, July 5th 2012.
Münz, Stefan. 2002. “Foren und Boards”. http://aktuell.de.selfhtml.org/artikel/gedanken/
foren-boards/, July 5th 2012.
Murray, Denise E. 1988. “The Context of Oral and Written Language: A Framework for Mode
and Medium Switching”. Language in Society 17: 351–373.
Nelson, Theodor H. 1972. “As We Will Think”. Reprint in From Memex to Hypertext: Vannevar
Bush and the mind‘s machine, James M. Nyce and Paul Kahn (eds), 245–259. Boston: Aca-
demic Press.
Nelson, Theodor H. 1974. Computer Lib/Dream Machines. South Bend/IN: The Distributors.
Nelson, Theodor. 1981. Literary Machines. Sausalito/CA: Mindful Press.
Neurauter-Kessels, Manuela. 2011. “Im/polite Reader Responses on British Online News Sites”.
Journal of Politeness Research 7: 187–214.
www.ebook777.com
Bibliography 275
O’Driscoll, Jim. 1996. “About Face: A Defence and Elaboration of Universal Dualism”. Journal
of Pragmatics 25: 1–32.
O’Driscoll, Jim. 2001. “A Face Model of Language Choice”. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cul-
tural and Interlanguage Communication 20 (3): 245–268.
O’Driscoll, Jim. 2011. “Some Issues with the Concept of Face: When, what, how and how
much?”. In Politeness across Cultures, Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini and Dániel Z. Kádár
(eds), 17–41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ord, Jacqueline G. 1989. “Who’s Joking? The Information System at Play”. Interacting with Com-
puters 1: 118–128.
O’Sullivan, Patrick B. 2000. “What You Don’t Know Won’t Hurt Me: Impression Management
Functions of Communication Channels in Relationships”. Human Communication Re-
search 26: 403–431.
O’Sullivan, Patrick B. and Flanagin, Andrew J. 2003. “An Interactional Reconceptualization
‘Flaming’ and Other Problematic Communication”. New Media and Society 5 (1): 67–93.
Parks, Malcolm R. and Floyd, Kory. 1996. “Making Friends in Cyberspace”. Journal of Commu-
nication 46: 80–97. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol1/issue4/parks.html, July 5th 2012.
Pinkal, Manfred. 1985. “Kontextabhängigkeit, Vagheit, Mehrdeutigkeit”. In Handbuch der Lexi-
kologie, Christoph Schwarze and Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 27–63. Königstein: Athenäum
Verlag.
Pizziconi, Barbara. 2006. “Politeness”. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Edward K.
Brown (ed.), 679–697. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Quasthoff, Uta M. 1994. “Context”. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Ronald E. Ash-
er (ed.), 730–737. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Reddy, Michael J. 1979. “The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in our Language
about Language”. In Metaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony (ed.), 284–297. Cambridge:
Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.
Reading/MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rice, Ronald E. and Love, Gail. 1987. “Electronic Emotion: Socioemotional Content in a Com-
puter-Mediated Communication Network”. Communication Research 14 (1): 85–108.
Rumelhart, David E. and Norman, Donald A. 1981. “Analogical Processes in Learning”. In
Cognitive Skills and their Acquisition, John R. Anderson (ed.), 335–359. Hillsdale/NJ:
Erlbaum.
Sandig, Barbara. 2000. “Text als prototypisches Konzept”. In Prototypentheorie in der Linguistik:
Anwendungsbeispiele – Methodenreflexion – Perspektiven, Martina Mangasser-Wahl (ed.),
93–112. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Savas, Perihan. 2011. “A Case Study of Contextual and Individual Factors that Shape Linguis-
tic Variation in Synchronous Text-based Computer-mediated Communication”. Journal of
Pragmatics 43: 298–313.
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2002. “An Outline of the Role of Context in Comprehension”. In Anglisten-
tag 2002 Bayreuth. Proceedings, Ewald Mengel, Hans-Jörg Schmid and Michael Steppat
(eds), 435–445. Trier: WVT.
Schmidt, Richard. 1980. “Review of Esther Goody, ed., Questions and Politeness: Strategies in
Social Interaction”. Regional English Language Centre Journal 11: 100–114.
Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1851. Parerga and Paralipomena. Berlin: s.n.
Schütte, Wilfried. 2000. “Sprache und Kommunikationsformen in Newsgroups und Mailingli-

sten”. In Sprache und neue Medien, Werner Kallenmeyer (ed.), 142–178. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Schütte, Wilfried. 2002. “Normen und Leitvorstellungen im Internet: Wie Teilnehmer/-innen
in Newsgroups und Mailinglisten den angemessenen Stil aushandeln”. In Soziale Welten
und kommunikative Stile: Festschrift für Werner Kallmeyer zum 60. Geburtstag, Inken Keim
and Wilfried Schütte (eds), 339–362. Tübingen: Narr.
Schulze, Rainer. 1985. Höflichkeit im Englischen: Zur linguistischen Beschreibung und Analyse
von Alltagsgesprächen. Tübingen: Narr.
Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Ad-
vances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries”. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
25, Mark P. Zanna (ed.), 1–65. San Diego: Academic Press.
Schwartz, Shalom H., Melech, Gila, Lehmann, Arielle, Burgess, Steven, Harris, Mari and Ow-
ens, Vicki. 2001. “Extending the Cross-cultural Validity of the Theory of Basic Human
Values with a Different Method of Measurement”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32
(5): 519–542.
Scollon, Ron and Scollon, Suzanne W. 1995. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Analy-
sis. Oxford/England: Blackwell.
Selfe, Cynthia L. and Meyer, Paul R. 1991. “Testing Claims for On-line Conferences”. Written
Communication 8: 163–192.
Sell, Roger D. 22005, 1992. “Literary Texts and Diachronic Aspects of Politeness”. In Politeness
in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and
Konrad Ehlich (eds), 109–129. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Severinson Eklundh, Kerstin. 1986. Dialogue Processes in Computer-Mediated Communication:
A Study of Letters in the COM system. University of Linköping: PhD Thesis.
Shea, Virginia. 1994. Netiquette. San Francisco: Albion Books. http://www.albion.com/book
Netiquette/, July 5th 2012.
Short, John, Williams, Ederyn and Christie, Bruce. 1976. The Social Psychology of Telecommu-
nication. London: John Wiley.
Siegel, Jane, Dubrovsky, Vitaly, Kiesler, Sara and McGuire, Timothy W. 1986. “Group Processes
in Computer-Mediated Communication”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 37: 157–187.
Simmons, Thomas L. 1999. “Face Threats in a Faceless Medium: Negotiating Ideological Param-
eters in Computer-Mediated Communication”. In Language and Ideology: Selected Papers
from 6th International Pragamtics Conference, Jef Verschueren (ed.), 514–543. Antwerp:
International Pragmatics Association.
Smolowe, Jill. 1995. “Intimate Strangers”. Time 145. Special Issue (Welcome to Cyberspace):
20–21.
Spears, Russell and Lea, Martin. 1994. “Panacea or Panopticon? The Hidden Power in Compu-
ter-Mediated Communication”. Communication Research 21: 427–459.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 1993. “Conceptions of Social Relations and Pragmatic Research”. Journal
of Pragmatics 20: 27–47.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000a. “Introduction: Language, Culture and Rapport Management”. In
Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, Helen Spencer-Oatey
(ed.), 1–8. London/New York: Continuum.
www.ebook777.com
Bibliography 277
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000b. “Rapport Management: A Framework for Analysis”. In: Cultur-
ally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.),
11–46. London/New York: Continuum.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2002. “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to
Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations”. Journal of
Pragmatics 34: 529–545.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2005. “(Im)Politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging
their Bases and Interrelationships”. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 95–118.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2007. “Theories of Identity and the Analysis of Face”. Journal of Pragmat-
ics 39: 639–656.
Sproull, Lee and Kiesler, Sara. 1986. “Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organi-
zational Communication”. Management Science 32 (11): 1492–1512.
Steele, Guy L. 1983. The Hacker’s Dictionary: A Guide to the World of Computer Wizards. Cam-
bridge et al.: Harper and Row.
Stein, Dieter. 2005. “Distanz und Nähe in interaktiver Internetkommunikation”. In Chat-Kom-
munikation in Beruf, Bildung und Medien: Konzepte – Werkzeuge – Anwendungsfelder,
Michael Beißwenger and Angelika Storrer (eds), 339–348. Stuttgart: ibidem.
Stephen, Timothy. 1991. “Computer Mediated Communication: Human Relationships in a
Computerized World”. Quarterly Journal of Speech 77: 234–236.
Stöckl, Hartmut. 2004. “In between Modes: Language and Image in Printed Media”. In Perspec-
tives on Multimodality, Eija Ventola, Charles Cassily and Martin Kaltenbacher (eds), 9–30.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stöckl, Hartmut. 2006. “Zeichen, Text und Sinn – Theorie und Praxis der multimodalen Tex-
tanalyse”. In Textsemiotik: Studien zu multimodalen Medientexten (=Sprache im Kontext),
Eva M. Eckkrammer and Gudrun Held (eds), 11–26. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.
Stone, Allucquère R. 1995. The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Storrer, Angelika. 2001. “Getippte Gespräche oder dialogische Texte? Zur kommunikations-
theoretischen Einordnung der Chat-Kommunikation”. In Sprache im Alltag. Beiträge zu
neuen Perspektiven in der Linguistik. Herbert Ernst Wiegand zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet,
Andrea Lehr et al. (eds), 439–465. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Storrer, Angelika. 2008. “Hypertextlinguistik”. In Textlinguistik. 15 Einführungen, Nina Janich
(ed.), 211–227. Tübingen: Narr.
Stowasser, Joseph M., Petschenig, Michael and Skutsch, Franz (eds). 2003. Stowasser. Latei-
nisch-deutsches Schulwörterbuch. München: Oldenbourg Schulbuchverlag.
Strangelove, Michael. 1994. “The Internet, Electric Gaia and the Rise of the Uncensored Self ”.
Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine 1 (5). http://www.ibiblio.org/cmc/mag/
1994/sep/self.html, July 5th 2012.
Suler, John R. 2004. “The Online Disinhibition Effect”. http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/
disinhibit.html#anonymity, July 5th 2012.
Suler, John R. 2005. “The Basic Psychological Features of Cyberspace. Elements of a Cyberpsy-
chology Model”. http://www-usr.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/basicfeat.html, July 5th 2012.
Svenning, Lynne L. and Ruchinskas, John E. 1984. “Organizational Teleconferencing”. In The
New Media: Communication, Research, and Technology, Ronald E. Rice et al. (eds), 217–
248. Beverly Hills/CA: Sage.
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:
Tannen, Deborah. 1992. That’s not what I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks
your Relations with Others. London: Virago Press.
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. 2007. “Metapragamtic Utterances in Computer-Mediated Interac-
tion”. In Metapragmatics in Use, Wolfram Bublitz and Axel Hübler (eds), 87–106. Amster-
dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Taylor, Jacqueline. 2000. “Electronic Mail, Communication and Social Identity: A Social Psy-
chological Analysis of Computer-Mediated Group Interaction”. In Words on the Web:
Computer Mediated Communication, Lyn Pemberton and Simon Shurville (eds), 96–105.
Exeter/Portland: Intellect Books.
Terkourafi, Marina. 2008. “Towards a Unified Theory of Politeness, Impoliteness, and Rude-
ness”. In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Prac-
tice, Derek Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds), 45–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thomas, Jenny. 1983. “Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure”. Applied Linguistics 4 (2): 91–112.
Thomas, Jenny. 1995. “Theories of Politeness”. In Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to
Pragmatics, Jenny Thomas (ed.), 149–181. Harlow: Longman.
Thurlow, Crispin, Lengel, Laura and Tomic, Alice. 2004. Computer-Mediated Communication:
Social Interaction and the Internet. Los Angeles et al.: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 1988. “Intercultural Conflict Styles: A Face Negotiation Theory”. In Theo-
ries in Intercultural Communication, Young Y. Kim and William B. Gudykunst (eds), 213–
235. Newbury Park/CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, Stella. 1994. “Face and Facework: An Introduction”. In The Challenge of Face
Work: Cross-cultural and Interpersonal Issues, Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.), 1–5. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press.
Tracy, Karen. 1990. “The Many Faces of Facework”. In Handbook of Language and Social Psy-
chology, Howard Giles and W. Peter Robinson (eds), 209–226. Chichester: John Wiley.
Tulving, Endel. 1972. “Episodic and Semantic Memory”. In Organization of Memory, Endel
Tulving and Wayne Donaldson (eds), 381–402. New York: Academic Press.
Tulving, Endel. 1983. Elements of Episodic Memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Turkle, Sherry. 1995. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York:
Touchstone.
Turnage, Anna K. 2007. “Email Flaming Behaviors and Organizational Conflict”. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 13 (1). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/turnage.
html, July 5th 2012.
Vater, Heinz. 1992. Einführung in die Textlinguistik: Struktur, Thema und Referenz in Texten.
München: Fink.
Vilkki, Liisa. 2006. “Politeness, Face and Facework: Current Issues”. SKY Journal of Linguis-
tics 19 (special supplement): A Man of Measure: Festschrift in Honour of Fred Karlsson on
his 60th Birthday): 322–332. http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/julkaisut/SKY2006_1/1.4.7.%
20VILKKI.pdf, July 5th 2012.
Walther, Joseph B. 1992. “Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction: A Rela-
tional Perspective”. Communication Research 19 (1): 52–90.
www.ebook777.com
Bibliography 279
Walther, Joseph B. 1996. “Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal,

and Hyperpersonal Interaction”. Communication Research 23 (1): 3–43.
Walther, Joseph B., Anderson, Jeffrey F. and Park, David W. 1994. “Interpersonal Effects in
Computer-Mediated Interaction: A Meta-Analysis of Social and Antisocial Communica-
tion”. Communication Research 21: 460–487.
Walther, Joseph B. and Burgoon, Judee K. 1992. “Relational Communication in Computer-Me-
diated Interaction”. Human Communication Research 19: 50–88.
Walther, Joseph B. and Parks, Malcolm R. 2002. “Cues Filtered in, Cues Filtered out – Com-
puter-Mediated Communication and Relationships”. In Handbook of Interpersonal Com-
munication, Mark L. Knapp and John A. Daly (eds), 529–563. Thousand Oaks/CA: Sage.
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watts, Richard J. 2005. “Linguistic Politeness Research: Quo vadis?”. In Politeness in Language:
Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich
(eds), xi–xlvii. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Watts, Richard J., Ide, Sachiko and Ehlich, Konrad (eds). 22005, 1992. Politeness in Language:
Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Watzlawick, Paul, Bavelas, Janet B. and Jackson, Don D. 1967. Pragmatics of Human Communi-
cation: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: Norton.
Weedman, Judith. 1991. “Task and Non-task Functions of a Computer Conference Used in
Professional Education: A Measure of Flexibility”. International Journal of Man-Machine
Studies 34: 303–318.
Werkhofer, Konrad T. 22005, 1992. “Traditional and Modern Views: The Social Constitution
and Power of Politeness”. In Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Prac-
tice, Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich (eds), 155–199. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Werry, Chris. 1996. “Linguistic and Interactional Features of Internet Relay Chat”. In Computer-
Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Crosscultural Perspectives, Susan Herring
(ed.), 47–63. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Werry, Chris and Mowbray, Miranda (eds). 2001. Online Communities: Commerce, Community
Action, and the Virtual University. Upper Saddle River/N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Widdowson, Henry G. 2007. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilbur, Shawn P. 1997. “An Archaeology of Cyberspaces: Virtuality, Community, Identity”. In
Internet Culture, David Porter (ed.), 5–22. New York: Routledge.
Wilkins, Harriet. 1991. “Computer Talk: Long-Distance Conversations by Computer”. Written
Communication 8: 56–78.
Wolfson, Nessa. 1988. “The Bulge: A Theory of Speech Behaviour and Social Distance”. In
Second Language Discourse: A Textbook of Current Research, Jonathan Fine (ed.), 21–38.
Norwood/N.J.: Ablex.
Yule, George. 1996. “Politeness and Interaction”. In Pragmatics, George Yule (ed.), 59–69. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Yum, Young-ok and Hara, Kazuya. 2005. “Computer-Mediated Relationship Development: A
Cross-cultural Comparison”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11 (1). http://
jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/yum.html, July 5th 2012.
Further electronic sources
URL 1: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,709694,00.html, July 5th 2012.

URL 2: http://eetiquette.de/, July 5th 2012.
URL 3: h
ttp://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=enandanswer=46461,
July 5th 2012.
URL 4: http://www.network54.com/Forum/358339/, July 5th 2012.
URL 5: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/forums, July 5th 2012.
URL 6: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=89, July 5th 2012.
URL 7: h
ttp://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=20270280#post20270280,
July 5th 2012.
URL 8: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/faq.php?faq=rep, July 5th 2012.
URL 9: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/faq.php?faq=rules, July 5th 2012.
www.ebook777.com
Name index
A D K
Androutsopoulos, Jannis K. Derks, Daantje 20, 26, 28, 34 Kasper, Gabriele 74, 81, 86, 93,
13, 35 Donath, Judith S. 111, 121 96, 106
Arndt, Horst 100, 108, 110, 122 Douglas, Karen M. 7, 21, 35 Kendall, Lori 40, 114
Arundale, Robert B. 50, 77, Duranti, Alessandro 105–106 Kienpointner, Manfred 89, 93,
79, 113 95–99
Austin, Paddy 79, 89, 91, 122 E Kiesler, Sara 19–20, 22, 24, 48
Avgerinakou, Anthi 21–22, 24, Eelen, Gino 54, 79–80, 90, 94 Kollock, Peter 2, 31, 46–48
35, 42–43, 100, 124 Erickson, Thomas 37, 129 Kuhlen, Rainer 9, 13
B F L
Baker, Paul 101, 129 Floyd, Kory 39, 42 Lachenicht, Lance 89–91, 97
Bargh, John A. 20, 34 Foucault, Michel 47, 114 Lakoff, Robin T. 54–55, 57–60,
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca Fraser, Bruce 54–58, 64–65, 75 75, 94
60, 67, 70, 74 Lea, Martin 21–22, 24, 26, 28,
Baron, Naomi 19, 28 G 35, 42, 111
Baym, Nancy 19, 21, 35, 40–41, Goffman, Erving 44, 46–47, 54, Leech, Geoffrey N. 55, 57–60,
47 66–73, 75–76, 84, 113, 115, 117, 75, 93, 96–98
Beißwenger, Michael 11, 13, 164, 260 Locher, Miriam A. 54, 74, 76,
28, 128 Goodwin, Charles 105–106 79–81, 83–87, 89, 93–94, 97,
Benwell, Bethan 27, 39, 42, 129 Graham, Sage L. 28, 50, 130 101–102, 114, 128, 261
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana 55, 65 Grice, Herbert P. 47, 57–59,
Bolter, Jay 6, 8–9 75, 100 M
Brown, Penelope 54, 58–66, Maricic, Ibolya 129, 131
71–77, 84, 86, 89–94, 115, 123, H Markus, M. Lynne 11, 20, 22, 25
129, 164, 260 Held, Gudrun 55–56 McCormick, John W. 24, 29
Brown, Roger 123–124 Herring, Susan 3, 93,10–13, 22, McCormick, Naomi B. 24, 29
Bublitz, Wolfram 1, 8–9, 79, 27–28, 34, 39–40, 45–47, 107, McGarty, Craig 7, 21, 35
106–107 111, 121, 124, 127–139, 131 McKenna, Katelyn Y. A. 20, 34
Bush, Vannevar 5–7 Hiltz, Starr 22, 26 McLuhan, Marshall 9, 18
Hoffmann, Christian 8–9 Meier, Ardith J. 58, 88
C Holly, Werner 9, 66, 128 Meyrowitz, Joshua 18–19,
Chandler, Daniel 18–19, 114 Holmes, Janet 65–66, 98 42–43, 115
Claridge, Claudia 130–131 Mills, Sara 54, 89, 99
Clark, Herbert H. 106, 110 J Murray, Denise E. 9, 12, 28, 107
Collins, Mauri 20–21 Janney, Richard 100, 108, 110,
Coupland, Nikolas 68, 115 122 N
Crystal, David 13, 26, 28, 114 Jaworski, Adam 68, 115 Nelson, Theodor 6, 8–9
Culnan, Mary 11, 20, 22, 25 Jones, Rodney H. 105, 110, 125
Culpeper, Jonathan 89–90, Jones, Steven G. 39, 130
92–95, 97–99
O Short, John 21, 26 Thurlow, Crispin 7, 13, 18,

O’Driscoll, Jim 60, 71, 75–76, Siegel, Jane 21, 24 21–23, 27–28, 34, 37–39, 100,
79, 84, 117 Smith, Marc A. 2, 31, 46–48 113
O’Sullivan, Patrick 34, 100 Spears, Russell 21–22, 26, 28, Ting-Toomey, Stella 74, 113
35, 42, 111 Tracy, Karen 66, 113
P Spencer-Oatey, Helen 79, 87, Tulving, Endel 109–110
Parks, Malcolm 25, 39, 42 108, 113, 123
Stephen, Timothy 10, 58 W
R Stokoe, Elisabeth 27, 39, 42, 129 Walther, Joseph B. 20, 22–27
Rheingold, Howard 2, 7, 25, 29, Storrer, Angelika 6, 8–10 Watts, Richard J. 53–54, 57–59,
38–39, 47 Suler, John R. 17, 34, 37, 45, 126 69, 71–74, 79–87, 89, 93–94,
97, 101–102, 108, 123, 261
S T Werkhofer, Konrad 55, 65,
Savas, Perihan 106, 129 Tannen, Deborah 1–2, 60, 109 72, 88
Schmid, Hans-Jörg 65, 106 Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa 17, 130 Werry, Chris 35, 39
Schütte, Wilfried 13, 28, 37, Taylor, Jacqueline 23–24, 129
42–43 Terkourafi, Marina 95, 97 Y
Sell, Roger 53, 80 Thomas, Jenny 19, 55, 63, 95 Yule, George 1, 61, 63
Shea, Virginia 47, 101
www.ebook777.com
Subject index
A positively marked ~ 85, 102, conversational contract view

acronym 26–27, 152 250, 255 56, 75
aggravating language 90 unmarked ~ 85, 171, 173, conversational maxim view
aggravation 254–255, 262 55–57
negative ~ 90–91 cooperation 10, 47, 59, 69,
positive ~ 90–91 C 84, 90
animator CMC see computer-mediated (Grice’s) cooperative principle
see production format communication (CP) 57–58, 75
anonymity 21, 34 common ground 73, 87, 110, corpus compilation 130
ARPANET 7 123, 126, 149, 181, 248 cues-filtered in approach
AUGMENT 7 communication see cues-filtered out
author see production format computer-mediated (CMC) ~ approaches
avatar 29, 111, 114–115 4–6, 10–13, 16–17, 19–28, cues-filtered out approaches 6,
32–37, 39, 44–45, 49, 89, 17, 19–20, 23, 35
B 100–101, 106, 108–109, 114, cultural background 108–109,
bald-on-record impoliteness 122, 128–129, 139, 141, 152, 111, 126
92 259, 262–263 culture 18–19, 64–65, 72, 81, 89,
bald-on-record strategy 91 face-to-face (Ftf) ~ 20, 95, 97, 99, 108–109
banter (principle) 93, 96–100, 23–24, 45, 109
102 online ~ 10, 13, 259–260, D
basic human need 263 deficit approaches
~ for association 60, 75, communicative purpose 137– see cues-filtered out
87, 115, 158, 164, 202, 247, 138, 153, 262 approaches
251, 261 community de-individuation theory 21
~ for dissociation 60, 75, discourse ~ 40 demographic variable 20
115–116, 164, 202, 247, 249, online ~ 39, 43, 50 directive 139, 150, 152, 154,
251, 261 speech ~ 127 159
behavior virtual ~ 39, 46 discourse 14, 21, 47, 49, 81, 89,
appropriate ~ 53, 74, 85–87, ~ of practice 40–42, 46, 50, 127, 131, 164
97, 102–103, 110, 171–173, 87, 260
252, 256–257, 261 computer-mediated discourse E
inappropriate ~ 89, 92–96, (CMD) 11–12 email 30, 34, 37, 102, 240, 259
99–103, 173, 252, 256–257, computer-mediated discourse emoticon 24, 26, 28, 47, 111, 150
262 analysis (CMDA) 5, 10–12 (first) entry 14, 31, 33, 44, 47,
interpersonal ~ 70, 87, 159, context 131, 148–154, 157, 159–161, 168,
171, 262 dimensions of ~ 107 255–256
marked ~ 85, 102, 255 emergent ~ 107 environment (extra–medial ~ /
negatively marked ~ 85, 89, interpersonal ~ 107, static ~) 107
94, 103, 253, 255, 261, 263 122–126, 261 ethnography of speaking 107
non-polite ~ 85–86 personal ~ 107, 123, 125–126, expressive 150, 154
261
F I mock-impoliteness 93, 96–102,

face identity 176, 252, 261
~ attack act 89, 91 online ~ 114 mock-politeness 92–93, 252,
~ claim 84, 117–121, ~ construction 77, 112, 114, 261
140–143, 145–146, 153, 159, 129
163–164, 168, 260–261 impoliteness 53, 79–80, 83, N
~ constitution 112–115, 119, 89–90, 92–103, 252, 254, negative face see face
209 260–261, 263 neg rep see reputation
~ loss 62, 70 instant messaging 129 netiquette 28, 46–49, 153
~ maintaining / maintenance interaction quotient (IQ) 165– netlingo 25, 27–28, 114, 139,
74, 96, 98 166, 251, 257 152, 207
~ saving 73 interactivity 10, 164 netspeak see netlingo
~ saving view 55, 58 Internet 5–7, 22, 37, 39, 128–130, newbie 45–46, 50, 107, 110,
~ want 59–61, 63, 77, 92, 169 201 122, 250
negative ~ 60–61, 63, 72–73, interpersonal relations 20, 22, newsgroup see message board
76, 91–92 32, 53, 58, 75, 79–80, 83–85, nickname 21, 29, 111, 114–115,
positive ~ 60–61, 72–73, 92, 88, 105–106, 122–123, 128–130, 135, 142
158, 215 137, 159, 163, 167, 247, 251,
Facebook 29, 111 259–261 O
face threatening act (weightiness irony principle (IP) 93 observer’s paradox 128
of ~) 61–65, 74, 87, 90–93, off-record strategy 65, 91
96 K online persona 112, 118
facework knowledge outside observer 42, 125, 128,
negative ~ 147, 158, 161, 164, conceptual ~ 110 172
202, 234, 238 declarative ~ 109 over-politeness 83, 89, 94
positive ~ 170, 176–177, episodic ~ 109, 128
179, 181, 202, 212, 215, 238, factual ~ 109–110 P
246, 249 linguistic ~ 109 participant observation
flaming (pseudo- ~ / mock- ~) procedural ~ 109 (participant observer) 128,
21, 24, 49, 51, 89, 99–103, 254 semantic ~ 110 166, 172–173, 251, 254, 262
flame war 101, 147, 149, 235 personal attack 48–49, 51, 153
forum 11–12, 14, 42, 48, 131, 153, L politeness
208, 210–211 label 30, 45, 111 first-order ~ 80–81, 83
FTA see face threatening act linearity (compositional ~ / linguistic ~ 74
perceptive ~) 8 negative ~ 62–63, 65, 86,
G lurker see production format 91–92, 115
greeting 44, 139, 148, 159, 170 positive ~ 62–63, 65, 72–73,
Grice’s maxims 47, 57, 59, 100 M 86, 91–92, 115
group 12–13, 21, 30, 32, 37–41, media richness theory 21 rules of ~ 53, 57–58
47, 50, 69, 72, 108–109, 121– medium 9–10, 12, 18–19, 22, second-order ~ 81
123, 128–129, 248, 256–257, 28, 35, 43 withhold ~ 92–93
260 message board 12–17 ~ principle 57–58, 93
~ corpus 3, 130–135, 253 ~ strategy 59, 73, 92–93
H ~ member 3, 261 ~ theory 58, 64, 74
heading 13–16, 44, 49, 132, ~ moderator 12, 31, 46, positive face see face
137–140, 159, 250 179, 250 pos rep see reputation
hybridization 42, 45 ~ post (prototypical) 33 post
hyperlink 9, 125 ~ template 29, 111, 121, 125, erratic ~ 166
hypermedia 9 141 evaluated ~ 166
hypertext 5–10, 37 metapragmatic utterance 127– evaluating ~ 166
128, 149, 159, 217
www.ebook777.com
Subject index 285
postmodernism 55, 79, 87–88, reputation T

102, 260 positive ~ 142–144, 147 technological determinism 6,
pragmatics negative ~ 142–144, 147 17–19
interpersonal ~ 259 ritual insults see banter The Student Room (TSR) 5,
meta- ~ 127–128 rudeness 53, 89–91, 93–97, 14–17, 29–33, 38, 40–42,
pragmatic competence 57, 95 101–102, 261, 263 45–50, 109–110, 130–135, 165,
prepragmatic approach 55, 88 rules of conversation 57–58 249
principal see production thread
format S ~ starter 16, 30, 44, 139–141,
production format 44–45 sarcasm 59, 92–93 143–145, 152, 155
profile self-disclosure 21, 34–35 ~ title 132–134, 137–138
empty ~ 141 self-portrayal 110–112, 122 time stamp 16, 32
informative ~ 141 signature 31–32, 111, 157–158, troll(ing) 49, 51, 121–122, 141
260 TSR see The Student Room
R smiley 24, 26, 150–152, 159, 260
recipient social constructionism 18–19 U
ratified ~ 44 social network sites 35 universality 59, 64, 81
unratified ~ 44 social norm view 55–56, 75, 88 Usenet 13, 102
relational work (types of ~) social presence theory 20–21
83–86, 88–89, 97, 102, 108, social roles 42, 45, 50 W
136, 163–164, 247–248, 252– speech act 65, 75, 86 warnings level 144, 261
256, 261–263 surplus approach to politeness weblish see netlingo
representative 150, 154 see relational work 85–86, weblog 11, 13, 111
254

Appropriate Online Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appropriate Online Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appropriate Online Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.

(In)Appropriate Online Behavior

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series (P&BNS)

Editor Associate Editor

(In)Appropriate Online Behavior

John Benjamins Publishing Company

the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

© 2013 – John Benjamins B.V.

List of figures and tables xi

List of figures and tables

Figure 1. Structure of a typical forum homepage (URL 4) 14

Table 1. Types of message board recipients (Goffman 1981, modified) 44

Table 17. Thread starters as “do-gooders” and “trouble makers” 144

sides of communication may be foregrounded according to the purpose of inter-

A. The descriptive part

2. How can key (as well as marginal) concepts of interpersonal relations be

The raison d’être of this study is manifold: Recent developments in online

Communicating via networks I

skepticism which finds expression in two separate views, technological determin-

2.2 A short history of hypertext and the Internet

Another rather vivid description of hypertext is proposed by Bolter (2001: 35):

Claim 1: Hypertexts can be multi-linear

Claim 2: Hypertexts can be coded multimodally

Claim 3: Hypertexts can be dynamic

Claim 4: Hypertexts can be interactive

2.3 Scientific disciplines and hypertext: CMC & CMDA

These postulated new “social practices”, which are supposed to be observable

prerequisites of the medium (and of the form of communication) as well as the

2.4 In the spotlight: The ins and outs of message boards

Figure 1. Structure of a typical forum homepage (URL 4)

chains of contributions pertaining to one particular topic, the so-called threads,

temporal freedom puts users – at least theoretically – in the comfortable posi-

2.5 Reservations against the social potential of CMC

Despite the promising developments of the technical innovations described above,

2.5.1 Technological determinism vs. social constructionism

– reductionistic – reducing the relationship between technology and cultures to

A special subset of technological determinism is media determinism, its quin-

stance”.10 Subsequently, technological determinism has been reviewed more and

2.5.2 Cues-filtered-out approaches

identified a number of characteristics inherent in text-based CMC which they

Apparently, CMC lacked important qualities of FtF communication, making it

1. Social presence theory

2. De-individuation theory

3. Media richness theory

a lean form of communication, attesting it a reduced capacity to transmit mul-

2.6.1 Opposed findings of more recent approaches

– to work on the problem empirically;

– to distinguish more carefully among different types of tasks being worked

2.6.2 Compensatory mechanisms and netlingo

hinting at a rather emphatic way of conveying a message. Therefore, capitaliza-

netlingo, e-talk, tech-speak, wired-style, geek-speak17 and netspeak. Despite these

Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it is beyond question that emulated

Figure 8. Selection of signatures in TSR

2.7 Summary: Why CMC can be social after all

Communicating via networks II

3.2 Gathering online: In groups or communities?

to it, interaction in online fora should not be viewed as existing in an indepen-

– forms of expression (e.g. our talking about our communities)

is encouraged to “Join the UK’s largest student community”. This assessment is

the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence

List of figures and tables xi

Figure 1. Structure of a typical forum homepage (URL 4) 14

Table 1. Types of message board recipients (Goffman 1981, modified) 44

Table 17. Thread starters as “do-gooders” and “trouble makers” 144

(superfrankie, thread #1: post 1)