Social_media_discourse 2016书本内容介绍ppt

social media

discourse

D r M a r i z a G e o r g a l o u

D i s c o u r s e A n a l y s i s?8t h S e m e s t e r?S p r i n g2016

D e p a r t m e n t o f L a n g u a g e a n d L i n g u i s t i c s,F a c u l t y o f

E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e a n d L i t e r a t u r e

N a t i o n a l a n d K a p o d i s t r i a n U n i v e r s i t y o f A t h e n s

·Discourse analysis

·Social media discourse analysis

–T ext

OVERVIEW –Context

–Actions + interactions –Power

·Why study social media

·Examples from Facebook

DISCOURSE ANALYSISTexts: written texts but also conversations (written, spoken), videos, photographs, drawings, paintings, street signs, websites, software interfaces, video games – any aggregate of semiotic elements that can function as a tool for people to take social action. Contexts: social + material situations in which texts are constructed, consumed, exchanged and appropriated. Actions and interactions: what people do with texts + what they do with and to each other. Power and ideology: how people use texts to dominate + control others + to create certain ‘versions of reality’.(Jones, Chik & Hafner 2015)

SOCIAL MEDIA

Social media are internet-

based sites + services which

promote social interaction between

participants through the exchange

+ sharing of user-produced content.

?wersm

Examples: blogs, microblogging (Twitter), social network sites (Facebook), content-sharing sites (YouTube, Instagram), wikis, podcasting, discussion forums, chatrooms,virtual worlds (World of Warcraft), livecasting(Skype)

H O W D O S O C I A L M E D I A

M A K E U S R E T H I N K (1)T E X T,(2)C O N T E X T,

(3)A C T I O N,

(4)I N T E R A C T I O N&

(5)P O W E R?

1.Q U A L I T I E S O F

D I G I T A L LY M

E D I AT E D

T E X T S

a.T e x t u r e

b.I n t e r t e x t u a l i t y

c.D i a l o g i c c h a r a c t e r

d.M u l t i m o d a l i t y

e.M a t e r i a l i t y

(Jones, Chik& Hafner2015: 1-17)

Textureproperty of connectedness
Cohesionhow different parts of text are held together using syntactic + semantic resources
Coherencehow different parts of text are ordered sequentially logical + meaningful

LOOSE

TEXTURE

Connections

between parts are

less explicit,

depending more

on readers’ active

efforts to hold

them together. Data from Flickr(Barton 2015))

TIGHT TEXTURE

·Little choice in how

elements are connected /

sequenced.

·Choices by computer

programmes–

‘algorithmically

imposed’ textures

·Constraints on how to

take action + interact.

·Confusion in reading texts. Data from Withings

Health Mate app

(Jones 2015)

INTERTEXTUALITY ?T races of preceding texts (e.g. alluding, quoting, echoing,

paraphrasing or linking)Digital technology

(M y e r s 2010)?allows hypertextual linking , embedding,

copying-pasting,

combining, curating.?Easier to connect, mix

+ mash texts.

INTER-

TEXTUALITY II

·Purely linguistic

resources

to create Context: Underneath a picture depicting Gabriel

(Greek, 22 years old, student) preparing a seminar

with another friend, two female FB friends started

writing comments relating to hotel rooms during

their pending trip abroad for a conference.

Gabriel

intertextuality

in digitally

mediated texts.

·References to

popular culture Greek ice-cream commercial

Data from Facebook(Georgalou 2014)

DIALOGIC

CHARACTER

·

Reading and writing

like a

conversation

.

·

Readers ‘write back’

Data from 101 Cookbooks

blog (Myers 2010)

to writers and

writers shape their

texts in anticipation

of immediate

response from

readers.

MULTIMODALITY

·Rich combinations

of semiotic modes

(writing, visuals, sound)

Meanings

Data from Instagram

(Zappavigna forthcoming)

·travel across

modes + combinations

of modes in ways that

alter them:

resemiotisation

(Lepp?nen et al. 2014;

Georgakopoulou2015)

Data from Facebook

(Georgalou 2014; forthcoming)

M AT E R I A L I T Y · Web pages different from newspapers textually + physically. · Tablets vs books · Access to texts, contexts, ways we physically manipulate texts (e.g. clicking, tapping, dragging, swiping, pinching).? GETTY/HPMG, Huffpost

2. CONTEXTparticipants
(Page et al. 2014: 33)
? people who take part in the interaction and their relationship to others in the group.
imagined context? projected contexts created cognitively by participants on the basis of their world knowledge and the cues provided in CMC.
extra-situational context? participants’ offline social practices, cultural values, demographics (age, gender, ethnic or national identity), values related to their involvement in particular communities (e.g. friendship/educational cohorts, hobby or interest groups, colleagues, fan communities).

2. CONTEXT IIbehavioural context
(Page et al. 2014: 33)
? physical situation in which participants interact via social media (e.g. place and time of interaction, devices).
textual context (co-text)? surrounding interactions (text published in preceding / subsequent posts or comments); semi-automated info (e.g. timestamps), location-based info (e.g. ‘check ins’); screen layout and resources.
generic context? social media site in which communication takes place, site’s stated purpose, rules and norms for conduct (netiquette).

3. ACTIONS

Affordances:the particular ways social media make certain

Interactivity Synchronicity –asynchronicity Replicability

Storage capacity

kinds of action possible.Persistence of content / durability

Searchability

Mobility

Reach

Social cues (visual, vocal) Private/public nature (boyd 2010; Madianou & Miller 2013)NB: T echnology does

not determine uses.

4. INTERACTIONSDigital technologies have challenged the ways discourse analysts approach the analysis of interaction. turn-taking, adjacency, topic management
(Jones, Chik & Hafner 2015)
monitoring + contextualisation; new forms of phatic communication (e.g. ‘liking’)
new participation frameworks

WHAT CONSTITUTES AN INTERACTION IN SOCIAL MEDIA?

1.how technologies

interact with

humans

2.how technologies

facilitate human-

to-human

interaction

(Rafaeli& Ariel 2007)

5. IDEOLOGY & POWERDigital technologies affect· ·
(Jones, Chik & Hafner 2015)
how people understand the world + treat one another how this affects how social goods (material + symbolic) get distributed
Creating, learning, and self-improvement vs commercial practices + promotion of dominant values of competition and consumption as in ‘old media’. Not so much expressed in texts but in the more subtle ways software + web interfaces channel users into certain (inter)actions (i.e. what kind of info we have access to, what kind of behaviour is rewarded + reinforced, what sort of people are considered normal)

CELEBRITY PROMOTION ·Social media provide

users opportunities

to produce + share

Context: In December 2015, AB Βασιλ?πουλο? supermarket organised the photo competition

#LoveBakeShare. Participants had to bake a Christmas dessert, take a photo of it and post it on Instagram and/or T witter. Five photos would be balloted for

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/udwq.html