人们错误地纠正他人:重新)更正的语用学及其在 Facebook 群组中的协商

IF 2.3 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Karina Frick , Dimitrios Meletis
{"title":"人们错误地纠正他人:重新)更正的语用学及其在 Facebook 群组中的协商","authors":"Karina Frick ,&nbsp;Dimitrios Meletis","doi":"10.1016/j.dcm.2024.100804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In highly standardized literate cultures, orthographic norms are perceived as socially binding, giving rise to negative evaluations of ‘incorrect’ writing, i.e., writing that deviates from the norm. This is evident in prescriptive practices in interactions on social media including direct corrections of a deviance (*you’re) or comments more or less implicitly referring to it (“would be great if you knew how to spell”). In this study, we focus on a special type of corrections and the reactions to them: incorrect corrections. They are often corrected in so-called re-corrections, which frequently give rise to entire chains of corrections and comments that reflect diverse practices and attitudes both shaped by and towards normativity. By conducting an exploratory case study, we investigate (meta-)pragmatic strategies of stancetaking – such as mocking or doing being an expert – as well as their negotiation in (re-)corrections. Specifically, we focus on three posts taken from the public Facebook group <em>People Incorrectly Correcting Other People</em> consisting of, on the one hand, decontextualized screenshots showing an incorrect correction and ensuing re-corrections framed by the reaction of the poster posting them to the group. On the other hand, given the large number of group members, they include a myriad of additional comments discussing (re-)corrections at a meta-level. Our analysis suggests that re-correcting serves to criticize not a mistake but the positioning of correctors as superior. Thus, it implicitly challenges the normativity of standard language ideologies by exposing the hypocrisy of prescriptive practices.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46649,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Context & Media","volume":"61 ","pages":"Article 100804"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211695824000503/pdfft?md5=87a794a9c9bc5c8d30ea20d4f2624791&pid=1-s2.0-S2211695824000503-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"People incorrectly correcting other people: The pragmatics of (re-)corrections and their negotiation in a Facebook group\",\"authors\":\"Karina Frick ,&nbsp;Dimitrios Meletis\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.dcm.2024.100804\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In highly standardized literate cultures, orthographic norms are perceived as socially binding, giving rise to negative evaluations of ‘incorrect’ writing, i.e., writing that deviates from the norm. This is evident in prescriptive practices in interactions on social media including direct corrections of a deviance (*you’re) or comments more or less implicitly referring to it (“would be great if you knew how to spell”). In this study, we focus on a special type of corrections and the reactions to them: incorrect corrections. They are often corrected in so-called re-corrections, which frequently give rise to entire chains of corrections and comments that reflect diverse practices and attitudes both shaped by and towards normativity. By conducting an exploratory case study, we investigate (meta-)pragmatic strategies of stancetaking – such as mocking or doing being an expert – as well as their negotiation in (re-)corrections. Specifically, we focus on three posts taken from the public Facebook group <em>People Incorrectly Correcting Other People</em> consisting of, on the one hand, decontextualized screenshots showing an incorrect correction and ensuing re-corrections framed by the reaction of the poster posting them to the group. On the other hand, given the large number of group members, they include a myriad of additional comments discussing (re-)corrections at a meta-level. Our analysis suggests that re-correcting serves to criticize not a mistake but the positioning of correctors as superior. Thus, it implicitly challenges the normativity of standard language ideologies by exposing the hypocrisy of prescriptive practices.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46649,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Discourse Context & Media\",\"volume\":\"61 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100804\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211695824000503/pdfft?md5=87a794a9c9bc5c8d30ea20d4f2624791&pid=1-s2.0-S2211695824000503-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Discourse Context & Media\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211695824000503\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse Context & Media","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211695824000503","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在高度标准化的识字文化中,正字法规范被视为具有社会约束力,从而导致对 "不正确 "的书写(即偏离规范的书写)的负面评价。这在社交媒体互动中的规范性做法中显而易见,包括直接纠正偏差(*you're)或或多或少暗指偏差的评论("如果你知道如何拼写就好了")。在本研究中,我们将重点关注一种特殊类型的更正以及对它们的反应:错误更正。错误更正通常是在所谓的重新更正中进行的,而重新更正往往会引起一连串的更正和评论,这些更正和评论反映了由规范性形成的以及对规范性的不同做法和态度。通过进行探索性案例研究,我们调查了(元)表态的实用策略--如嘲讽或做专家--以及它们在(再)更正中的协商。具体来说,我们重点研究了来自 Facebook 公共群组 "错误地纠正他人的人 "的三篇帖子,这些帖子一方面是去语境化的截图,显示了错误的纠正,以及随后以发帖人在群组中的反应为框架的重新纠正。另一方面,由于群组成员众多,这些截图还包含了大量在元层面上讨论(重新)更正的附加评论。我们的分析表明,重新更正的目的不是批评错误,而是将更正者定位为优越者。因此,通过揭露规范性做法的虚伪性,它暗含着对标准语言意识形态规范性的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
People incorrectly correcting other people: The pragmatics of (re-)corrections and their negotiation in a Facebook group

In highly standardized literate cultures, orthographic norms are perceived as socially binding, giving rise to negative evaluations of ‘incorrect’ writing, i.e., writing that deviates from the norm. This is evident in prescriptive practices in interactions on social media including direct corrections of a deviance (*you’re) or comments more or less implicitly referring to it (“would be great if you knew how to spell”). In this study, we focus on a special type of corrections and the reactions to them: incorrect corrections. They are often corrected in so-called re-corrections, which frequently give rise to entire chains of corrections and comments that reflect diverse practices and attitudes both shaped by and towards normativity. By conducting an exploratory case study, we investigate (meta-)pragmatic strategies of stancetaking – such as mocking or doing being an expert – as well as their negotiation in (re-)corrections. Specifically, we focus on three posts taken from the public Facebook group People Incorrectly Correcting Other People consisting of, on the one hand, decontextualized screenshots showing an incorrect correction and ensuing re-corrections framed by the reaction of the poster posting them to the group. On the other hand, given the large number of group members, they include a myriad of additional comments discussing (re-)corrections at a meta-level. Our analysis suggests that re-correcting serves to criticize not a mistake but the positioning of correctors as superior. Thus, it implicitly challenges the normativity of standard language ideologies by exposing the hypocrisy of prescriptive practices.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Discourse Context & Media
Discourse Context & Media COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
55 days
×
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