Cover not available
Article published In:
Internet Pragmatics
Vol. 1:1 (2018) ► pp.161–183

Commenting on in-memoriam columns

Juggling with deliberative and epidictic norms

| Bar-Ilan University
The discussion in this paper proposes to shed light on a hitherto under-researched area: commenting on in-memoriam columns. Borrowing the basic notions of deliberative and epidictic genres from classical rhetoric and accommodating them to a pragmatic study of online interaction between commenters and columnists, readers’ comments are conceived as follow-ups, which necessarily re-contextualize the initiating column. The mixed character of the initiating columns, which combine deliberative and epidictic features, encourages the commenters to choose between different readings of the columns in context, and exercise their discursive power in re-contextualizing the commenting/column interaction. The analysis suggests that in the data discussed here, commenters manifest clear preference for the epidictic. By so doing, they depart from norms of deliberation manifest in habitual political commenting. On a more general level, the analysis supports the initial claim, namely that by choosing between different readings of the initiating columns and following-up on them, commenters have the discursive power to shape and re-shape the interaction through preferred commenting strategies.
Keywords: online commenting, epidictic, deliberative, follow-ups, genres
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Commenting in online journalism
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Background
    • 3.2Data
  • 4.Deliberative and epidictic genres
  • 5.Enhancing deliberation: Ad-rem and ad-hominem commenting
  • 6.Enhancing the epidictic
    • 6.1Eulogistic formulae
    • 6.2Emotional expressions
    • 6.3Praising comments
  • 7.Between deliberation and epidictic: The mixed type
  • 8.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 28 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00008.wei
References (37)
References
Amossy, Ruth. 2000. L’argumentation dans le Discours: Discours Politique, Littérature d’Idées. Nathan: Paris.Google Scholar
Amossy, Ruth, and Roselyne Koren. 2010. “La <diabolisation>: Un avatar du discours polémique au prisme des présidentielles de 2007.” In Au Corps du Texte: Hommage à Georges Molinié, ed. by Delphine Denis, Mireille Huchon, Anna Jaubert, Michael Rinn, and Olivier Soutet, 219–236. Champion: Paris.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1954. Rhetoric (transl. by W. Rhys Roberts, Ingram Bywater, and Friedrich Solmsen). New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
Atkin, Hila. 2016. Readers’ Comments on Op-Eds – Evaluation and Response to Irony. M. A. thesis, Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar
Benziman, Uzzi. 2011. Aharey Mot, Ha’ayin hashvi’it (after death, The Seventh Eye) 351, 01.11.2011. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
Bohman, James. 2004. “Expanding dialogue: the Internet, the public sphere and prospects for transnational democracy.” In After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphere, ed. by Nick Crossley, and John Michael Roberts, 131–155. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dori-Haohen, Gonen, and Nimrod Shavit. 2013. “The cultural meanings of Israeli Tokbek (Talk-Back Online Commenting) and their relevance to the online democratic public sphere.” International Journal of Electronic Governance 6 (4): 361–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Elda Weizman. 2015. “Introduction.” In Follow-Ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across Contexts and Discourse Domains, ed. by Elda Weizman, and Anita Fetzer, IX–XIX. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, Elda Weizman, and Larry N. Berlin (eds.). 2015. The Dynamics of Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1978. “Further notes on logic and conversation.” In Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantic 9), ed. by Peter Cole, 113–127. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1992. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Haverkate, Henk. 1990. “A speech act analysis of irony.” Journal of Pragmatics 14(1): 77–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansson, Marjut. 2015. “Bravo for this editorial: writer’s opinions in comment sections.” In Follow-Ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across contexts and discourse domains, ed. by Elda Weizman, and Anita Fetzer, 219–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansson, Marjut, Sonja Kleinke, and Lotta Lehti. 2017. “The digital agora of social media: Introduction.” Discourse shulxan arux Context & Media 191:1–4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karo, Yossef. 1563. “Shulchan Arux, yore dea.” [Set Table, Will Teach Knowledge] 3441:2. Torat emet online. [URL]. Acc. May 2017. (in Hebrew)
Kleinke, Sonia. 2010. “Interactive aspects of computer-mediated communication: ‘Disagreement’ in an English and German public news group.” In Discourses in Interaction, ed. by Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, Marjut Johansson, and Mia Raitaniemi, 195–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohn, Ayelet, and Motti Neiger. 2007. “To talk and talkback: Analyzing the rhetoric of talkbacks in online journalism.” Online Newspapers in Israel, ed. by Tehila Shwattz-Altshuler, 321–350. Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
Laërtius, Diogenes. (3rd century AD. tr. 1959). Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, Book 1(transl. by Robert Drew Hicks). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Manosevitch, Idit. 2011. “User generated content in the Israeli online journalism Landscape.” Israel Affairs 1731: 422–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papacharissi, Zizi. 2014. Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (transl. by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver). Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Quintillian, Institutio Oratoria Book III (transl. by H. E. Butler). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. [URL], acc. May 15, 2017.
Richardson, John E., and James Stanyer. 2011. “Reader opinion in the digital age: tabloid and broadsheet newspaper websites and the exercise of political voice.” Journalism 12(8): 983–1003. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roeh, Itzhak. 1982. The Rhetoric of News in the Israel Radio: Some Implications of Language and Style for Newstelling. Bochum: Studienverlag N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1981. “Irony and the use-mention distinction.” In Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 295–318. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sterling, Christopher H. (ed.). 2009. Encyclopedia of Journalism. Thousand Oaks: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Upadhyay, Shiv R. 2010. “Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses.” Journal of Politeness Research 6 (1): 105–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda. 2011. “Conveying indirect reservations through discursive redundancy.” Language Sciences 33(2): 295–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Negotiating irony through follow-ups: Readers’ comments on op-eds in the daily press.” In Proceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-ups across Discourse Domains: A Cross-cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May-2 June 2012, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Elizabeth Reber. [URL]
. 2015. “Irony in and through follow-ups: talk and meta-talk in online commenting.” In The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-ups, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman, and Lawrence N. Berlin, 173–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Ironic commenting on op-eds: Obstructing discussion.” Israel Studies in Language and Society 9 (1–2):184–208. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
Weizman, Elda, and Anita Fetzer (eds.). 2015. Follow-Ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across Contexts and Discourse Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, Elda, and Gonen Dori-Hacohen. 2017. “Commenting on opinion editorials in online journals: A cross-cultural examination of face-work in the Washington Post (USA) and NRG (ISRAEL).” Discourse, Context & Media 191: 39–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirder, and Dan Sperber. 1992. “On verbal irony.” Lingua 871: 77–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Weizman, Elda
2023. Recontextualization practices: A scale of directness. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo
Weizman, Elda & Zohar Livnat
2022. Dialogic meaning-making in political settings. Pragmatics and Society 13:5 ► pp. 731 ff. DOI logo
Xie, Chaoqun, Francisco Yus & Hartmut Haberland
2021. Introduction. In Approaches to Internet Pragmatics [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 318], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Marmorstein, Michal & Jennifer Sclafani
2019. The talkback genre: Practice and the cultural construal of online commenting in Israel. Discourse, Context & Media 31 ► pp. 100321 ff. DOI logo
Marcoccia, Michel
2018. Les commentaires d’articles nécrologiques en ligne publiés dans Le Monde.fr : entre éloge funèbre, journalisme profane et polémique. Semen :45 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.