In this paper, I will attempt an investigation of the rules of communication that count for web logs. To be more specific, I will concentrate on how face-deconstruction is organized within web logs.
To facilitate cognition, research project and paper are organized along the following lines:
First, I will set up a framework for the research project. In other words, I will provide a suitable definition for the object of investigation. Furthermore, I will state on which web log I concentrate on. I will also describe this particular web log and clarify whether this web log is fit for investigation or not. Moreover, I will determine time range and the scope of investigation.
Secondly, I will provide the necessary concepts, ideas and define the relevant key-words.
Thirdly, I will develop a line of thought and a taxonomy which allows the classification of different types of
face-deconstruction.
Step four consists of an application of this taxonomy to the corpus of data.
Finally, I will conclude this paper with a short summary of my findings.
The appendix I intend to provide contains the examples that were relevant to this research project and which thus show how face-deconstruction is organized within web logs.
Table of Contents
1) Introduction
2) Setting Up the Framework
2.1) A Definition of “Web Log”
2.2) The Object of Investigation
2.3) Scope of Investigation
2.4) Time Range of Investigation
2.5) Verification of Democracy in America
3) Provision of Concepts, Ideas and Key-words
3.1) Computer-Mediated Communication
3.2) Politeness
3.3) Linguistic (Im)politeness
3.4) Face
3.5) Hedge
4) The Development of a Line of Thought
4.1) The Line of Thought
4.2) The Taxonomy
4.2.1) The Maxim of Tact
4.2.2) The Maxim of Generosity
4.2.3) The Maxim of Approbation
4.2.4) The Maxim of Modesty
5) Application to the Set of Data
5.1) Violations of the Tact Maxim
5.2) Violations of the Generosity Maxim
5.3) Violations of the Approbation Maxim
5.4) Violations of the Modesty Maxim
6) Conclusion
7) References
8) Endnotes
9) Appendix
9.1) Reproduction of The Palin effect
9.1.1) Comments on The Palin effect
9.2) Reproduction of How not to repair the economy
9.2.1) Comments on How not to repair the economy
9.3) Reproduction of First we take Salt Lake City
9.3.1) Comments on First we take Salt Lake City
9.4) Reproduction of Art for art’s sake
9.4.1) Comments on Art for art’s sake
Research Objective and Core Topics
The primary objective of this paper is to investigate the rules of communication within web logs, specifically focusing on how face-deconstruction is organized and executed in user comments. The research examines how participants in digital spaces use language to reject arguments and devaluate the face of the individuals behind those arguments.
- Mechanisms of face-deconstruction in Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC).
- Application of Leech’s Politeness Principle and its maxims to digital discourse.
- Argumentative patterns in electronic message schemas.
- Analysis of user comments regarding political and economic issues.
- Classification of face-devaluation strategies based on linguistic maxims.
Excerpt from the Work
4.2) The Taxonomy:
Now, that we know there are two argumentative patterns with which we organize our electronic texts and now, that we know that the argumentative pattern used to voice opposition and criticism is the footing on which face–deconstruction may be attempted, we have to ask what are the strategies applied in attempts of face–deconstruction ?
The taxonomy with which this paper intends to classify such attempts of face-deconstruction is a derivative of the different maxims that, according to Leech, contribute to the “Politeness Principle” (Leech 1991:149).
The reasoning behind is that the maintenance of those maxims contributes positively to the maintenance of face by upholding the “Politeness Principle” (Leech 1991:149).
Conversely, the disregard for these maxims disallows the maintenance of face because there is no contribution to Leech’s “Politeness Principle” (Leech 1991:149). The maxims that are of importance are the maxims of tact, of generosity, of approbation and of modesty.
Summary of Chapters
1) Introduction: Outlines the scope of the research project, the definition of the object of investigation, and the methodological approach used to analyze face-deconstruction in web logs.
2) Setting Up the Framework: Establishes definitions for web logs and identifies the specific blog ('Democracy in America') and time period used as the basis for the data collection.
3) Provision of Concepts, Ideas and Key-words: Defines fundamental linguistic and communication concepts such as computer-mediated communication, politeness, face, and hedges, which are essential for the analysis.
4) The Development of a Line of Thought: Develops the theoretical framework, identifying argumentative patterns and presenting the taxonomy derived from Leech’s maxims of politeness.
5) Application to the Set of Data: Analyzes the collected comments by applying the developed taxonomy to determine how different maxims are violated to facilitate face-deconstruction.
6) Conclusion: Summarizes the research findings, noting the frequency of different face-deconstruction strategies across the examined data set.
Keywords
Face-deconstruction, Politeness, Web logs, Computer-Mediated Communication, Argumentation, Leech, Tact Maxim, Generosity Maxim, Approbation Maxim, Modesty Maxim, Linguistic impoliteness, Digital discourse, Internet comment sections, Speech acts.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research?
The paper examines the communication rules within web logs, specifically exploring how users engage in "face-deconstruction" when responding to entries.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The study covers Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC), politeness theories, the analysis of argumentative structures, and the application of linguistic maxims to digital comment sections.
What is the central research question?
The paper seeks to identify the strategies used by web log users to deconstruct the "face" of other participants and how these strategies relate to established politeness maxims.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a qualitative analysis approach, applying Leech’s taxonomy of politeness maxims to a corpus of 124 user comments from the 'Democracy in America' blog.
What topics are discussed in the main section?
The main section covers the definition of the research object, the introduction of linguistic concepts, the development of a taxonomic framework, and the application of this taxonomy to specific data sets regarding politics and economics.
What are the characterizing keywords of this work?
Key terms include face-deconstruction, politeness, web logs, CMC, linguistic maxims (tact, generosity, approbation, modesty), and digital discourse analysis.
How does the author define "face-deconstruction" within this specific context?
Face-deconstruction is defined as a deliberate effort to reject an argument by devaluating the social status or "face" of the author behind that argument, rather than just refuting the content of the argument itself.
What does the empirical analysis show regarding the frequency of different maxims?
The analysis reveals that violations of the Approbation Maxim are the most frequent, followed by the Tact Maxim, while violations of the Modesty Maxim occur sporadically and the Generosity Maxim is not violated at all in the observed data.
- Citar trabajo
- Jens Pfundstein (Autor), 2009, Face - Deconstruction in Web Logs, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/136386
