Metapragmatics and genre: Connecting the strands

IF 1.5 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
E. Molodychenko, J. Spitzmüller
{"title":"Metapragmatics and genre: Connecting the strands","authors":"E. Molodychenko, J. Spitzmüller","doi":"10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-1-89-104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Genre analysis involves at least a ‘foray’ into the social/contextual dimension framing genre-exemplars. One way to explore this dimension is drawing on the concept of metapragmatics, which is primarily associated with (American) linguistic anthropology. However, with a few exceptions, genre studies have not consistently operationalized metapragmatics, either theoretically or practically. The purpose of this article is, therefore, to explore one possible angle of such operationalization by means of studying discourse fragments reflecting on fragments of (these very or other) discourses (so-called metapragmatic discourses) vis-a-vis any generic properties of the reflected discourse. Specifically, we analyzed comments sections for a number of YouTube videos exemplifying several lifestyle genres. The results indicate that generic references can range from simply using a generic label to refer to the discourse in question (as a token of a certain type/genre) to actually discussing the generic characteristics of the genre it instantiates, as well as projecting certain (generic) metapragmatic stances. Another observation is that different wordings used by the discourse community to refer to generic models can be, as it were, ‘proper’ generic labels, but they can also be words and phrases that would hardly qualify as proper names of genres from an analyst’s point of view. Both these ‘proper’ and other - ‘genre-like’ - labels are also often used in conjunction with or are replaced by other ways of metapragmatically referring to what the speaker ‘does’ or even what they ‘are’ in/by dint of using the discourse in question. This suggests that any generic labels or cues are just part of a large pool of other possible metapragmatic meanings, knowledge, and ideologies circulating in discourse communities. More broadly, the results may indicate that genre studies should see genre as an even less ‘stabilized’ entity because what a genre is depends on what people who actually use it ‘make of it’, as well as augment their standard toolkits with methods aimed at exploring metapragmatic discourse.","PeriodicalId":53426,"journal":{"name":"Russian Journal of Linguistics","volume":"7 1","pages":"89-104"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Russian Journal of Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-1-89-104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Genre analysis involves at least a ‘foray’ into the social/contextual dimension framing genre-exemplars. One way to explore this dimension is drawing on the concept of metapragmatics, which is primarily associated with (American) linguistic anthropology. However, with a few exceptions, genre studies have not consistently operationalized metapragmatics, either theoretically or practically. The purpose of this article is, therefore, to explore one possible angle of such operationalization by means of studying discourse fragments reflecting on fragments of (these very or other) discourses (so-called metapragmatic discourses) vis-a-vis any generic properties of the reflected discourse. Specifically, we analyzed comments sections for a number of YouTube videos exemplifying several lifestyle genres. The results indicate that generic references can range from simply using a generic label to refer to the discourse in question (as a token of a certain type/genre) to actually discussing the generic characteristics of the genre it instantiates, as well as projecting certain (generic) metapragmatic stances. Another observation is that different wordings used by the discourse community to refer to generic models can be, as it were, ‘proper’ generic labels, but they can also be words and phrases that would hardly qualify as proper names of genres from an analyst’s point of view. Both these ‘proper’ and other - ‘genre-like’ - labels are also often used in conjunction with or are replaced by other ways of metapragmatically referring to what the speaker ‘does’ or even what they ‘are’ in/by dint of using the discourse in question. This suggests that any generic labels or cues are just part of a large pool of other possible metapragmatic meanings, knowledge, and ideologies circulating in discourse communities. More broadly, the results may indicate that genre studies should see genre as an even less ‘stabilized’ entity because what a genre is depends on what people who actually use it ‘make of it’, as well as augment their standard toolkits with methods aimed at exploring metapragmatic discourse.
元语用学与体裁:二者的联系
类型分析至少涉及到社会/情境维度框架类型范例的“尝试”。探索这一维度的一种方法是借鉴元语用学的概念,它主要与(美国)语言人类学有关。然而,除了少数例外,体裁研究并没有始终如一地将元语用学应用于理论和实践中。因此,本文的目的是通过研究话语片段对(这些或其他)话语片段(所谓的元语用话语)的反思,以及所反映话语的任何一般属性,来探索这种操作化的一个可能角度。具体来说,我们分析了一些YouTube视频的评论部分,这些视频代表了几种生活方式类型。结果表明,一般引用可以从简单地使用一般标签来指代有问题的话语(作为某种类型/类型的标记)到实际讨论它实例化的类型的一般特征,以及投射某些(一般的)元语用立场。另一个观察结果是,话语社区用来指代通用模型的不同措辞可以说是“适当的”通用标签,但从分析师的角度来看,它们也可能是几乎不符合流派专有名称的单词和短语。这两种“适当的”和“类似体裁的”标签也经常与其他元语用方式结合使用,或者被其他元语用方式所取代,这些元语用方式指的是说话者“做了什么”,甚至是他们在使用所讨论的话语中“是什么”。这表明,任何通用标签或线索都只是话语社区中流传的大量其他可能的元语用意义、知识和意识形态的一部分。更广泛地说,结果可能表明,体裁研究应该将体裁视为一个更不“稳定”的实体,因为体裁是什么取决于实际使用它的人如何“利用它”,以及用旨在探索元语用话语的方法来增加他们的标准工具包。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Russian Journal of Linguistics
Russian Journal of Linguistics Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
33.30%
发文量
43
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信