新右派网络团体中的Ergoic框架

IF 0.9 Q2 LINGUISTICS
Ondřej Procházka, J. Blommaert
{"title":"新右派网络团体中的Ergoic框架","authors":"Ondřej Procházka, J. Blommaert","doi":"10.1075/aral.19033.pro","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Conspiracy theories are often disqualified as inadequate and deliberate forms of misinformation. In this analysis,\n we engage with a specific case, the conspiracy theory developed on an online New Right forum called Q about the so-called “MAGA\n Kid incident” with focus on its circulation and uptake on Facebook. Drawing on ethnomethodological principles, the analysis shows\n how ergoic argumentation is systematically being deployed as a means of debunking rational-factual discourses about such\n incidents. While rationality itself is being rejected, conspiracy theorists deploy “reasonable” knowledge tactics. The paper shows\n how conspiracy theorists skillfully mobilize social media affordances, particularly Internet memes, to promote conspiracism as a\n form of inclusive political activism as well as a legitimate and “critical” mode of reasoning.","PeriodicalId":43911,"journal":{"name":"Australian Review of Applied Linguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ergoic framing in New Right online groups\",\"authors\":\"Ondřej Procházka, J. Blommaert\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/aral.19033.pro\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Conspiracy theories are often disqualified as inadequate and deliberate forms of misinformation. In this analysis,\\n we engage with a specific case, the conspiracy theory developed on an online New Right forum called Q about the so-called “MAGA\\n Kid incident” with focus on its circulation and uptake on Facebook. Drawing on ethnomethodological principles, the analysis shows\\n how ergoic argumentation is systematically being deployed as a means of debunking rational-factual discourses about such\\n incidents. While rationality itself is being rejected, conspiracy theorists deploy “reasonable” knowledge tactics. The paper shows\\n how conspiracy theorists skillfully mobilize social media affordances, particularly Internet memes, to promote conspiracism as a\\n form of inclusive political activism as well as a legitimate and “critical” mode of reasoning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43911,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Review of Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Review of Applied Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.19033.pro\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Review of Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.19033.pro","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

阴谋论常常被认为是不充分的、蓄意的错误信息。在这个分析中,我们研究了一个具体的案例,一个名为Q的在线新右翼论坛上关于所谓的“MAGA Kid事件”的阴谋论,重点是它在Facebook上的传播和吸收。利用民族方法学的原则,分析显示了如何系统地利用能言善辩作为揭穿关于此类事件的理性-事实话语的手段。正当理性本身遭到拒绝时,阴谋论者却采用“合理”的知识策略。这篇论文展示了阴谋论者如何巧妙地调动社交媒体的支持,特别是网络模因,以促进阴谋论作为一种包容性的政治行动主义形式,以及一种合法和“批判性”的推理模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ergoic framing in New Right online groups
Conspiracy theories are often disqualified as inadequate and deliberate forms of misinformation. In this analysis, we engage with a specific case, the conspiracy theory developed on an online New Right forum called Q about the so-called “MAGA Kid incident” with focus on its circulation and uptake on Facebook. Drawing on ethnomethodological principles, the analysis shows how ergoic argumentation is systematically being deployed as a means of debunking rational-factual discourses about such incidents. While rationality itself is being rejected, conspiracy theorists deploy “reasonable” knowledge tactics. The paper shows how conspiracy theorists skillfully mobilize social media affordances, particularly Internet memes, to promote conspiracism as a form of inclusive political activism as well as a legitimate and “critical” mode of reasoning.
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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Australian Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL) is the preeminent journal of the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (ALAA). ARAL is a peer reviewed journal that promotes scholarly discussion and contemporary understandings of language-related matters with a view to impacting on real-world problems and debates. The journal publishes empirical and theoretical research on language/s in educational, professional, institutional and community settings. ARAL welcomes national and international submissions presenting research related to any of the major sub-disciplines of Applied Linguistics as well as transdisciplinary studies. Areas of particular interest include but are not limited to: · Analysis of discourse and interaction · Assessment and evaluation · Bi/multilingualism and bi/multilingual education · Corpus linguistics · Cognitive linguistics · Language, culture and identity · Language maintenance and revitalization · Language planning and policy · Language teaching and learning, including specific languages and TESOL · Pragmatics · Research design and methodology · Second language acquisition · Sociolinguistics · Language and technology · Translating and interpreting.
×
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