Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 14:3 (2023) ► pp.442–460

Parentheses used as pragmatic strategies in Chinese online socialization

ORCID logo | Jinan University
| Uppsala University
This paper details the use of parentheses as pragmatic strategies in Chinese network socialization. The data were collected from Weibo, Wechat, QQ and other online social platforms, and analyzed from the perspective of Cyberpragmatics. We consider the pragmatic features and functions of parentheses as an indivisible part of the whole unit in relation to emojis or graphicons. As pragmatic strategies, parentheses aid speakers in indirectly performing various pragmatic intentions, like adding supplementary information to the interaction, isolating different topics, and contrasting content between the text outside and within parentheses. Further pragmatic functions realized by parentheses include indirectly conveying intention, relieving communicative awkwardness and adjusting interlocutors expectations. We conclude that using parentheses as pragmatic strategies in network socialization is the result of the evolution of the Internet language, and varies from the use of other emojis, which directly convey intentions and meaning.
Keywords: Cyberpragmatics, parentheses, evolution, pragmatic strategy, pragmatic functions, indirectness, network socialization, Internet language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Parentheses used in network socialization
  • 3.Research methods
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Research approach
  • 4.Textual features and functions of parentheses
    • 4.1Textual features of parentheses
      • 4.1.1Major use of state verbal phrases
      • 4.1.2Frequent use of concise phrases
      • 4.1.3Less frequent use of complete utterances
    • 4.2Textual functions of parentheses
      • 4.2.1Offering supplementary information
      • 4.2.2Isolating different topics
      • 4.2.3Contrasting content between outside and in parentheses
  • 5.Parentheses as pragmatic strategies
    • 5.1Strategy for indirectly conveying intention
    • 5.2Strategy for relieving awkwardness
      • 5.2.1Generating self-deprecation
      • 5.2.2Creating humorous effects
    • 5.3Strategy for adjusting interlocutor expectations
      • 5.3.1Increasing speaker expectations
      • 5.3.2Lowering speaker expectations
  • 6.Discussion and concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 3 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.20058.li
References (40)
References
Aslan, Erhan. 2017. “The impact of face systems on the pragmalinguistic features of academic e-mail requests.” Pragmatics and Society 8(1): 61–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bajcar, Beata and Jolanta Babiak. 2020. “Neuroticism and cyberchondria: The mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty and defensive pessimism.” Personality and Individual Differences 1621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Wei-Lin Melody and Michael Haugh. 2011. “Strategic embarrassment and face threatening in business interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 2948–2963. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dainas, Ashley R. and Susan C. Herring. 2021. Interpreting emoji pragmatics. In Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and practice. Eds. by Chaoqun Xie, Francisco Yus and Hartmut Haberland, 107–144. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenchlas, Susana A. 2011. “On-line interactions as a resource to raise pragmatic awareness.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 51–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feng, Hairong. 2015. “Understanding cultural variations in giving advice among Americans and Chinese.” Communication Research 42 (8): 143–1167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Doubleday and Company.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1975. Logic and conversation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. “Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics 14(2): 237–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2016. “‘Just kidding’: Teasing and claims to non-serious intent.” Journal of Pragmatics 951: 120–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael and Derek Bousfield. 2012. “Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English.” Journal of Pragmatics 441: 1099–1114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael and Wei-Lin Melody Chang. 2019. “The apology seemed (in)sincere”: Variability in perceptions of (im)politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 1421: 207–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet, Meredith Marra and Bernadette Vine. 2012. Politeness and impoliteness in New Zealand English workplace discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 441: 1063–1076. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. and Elka G. Johnson. 2010. “Four forms of interactional indirection.” Journal of Pragmatics 421: 292–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman, 1983.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey and Mick Short. 2007. Style in Fiction-A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose (2nd Edition). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2020. “Culture-driven emotional profiles and online discourse extremism.” Pragmatics and Society 11(2): 262–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. and Richard J. Watts. 2005. “Politeness theory and relational work.” Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 9–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luo, Luxin. 2018. “Variations of Online Punctuation: Bracket+.” Journal of Shenyang University (Social Science) 20(04): 472–476.Google Scholar
Mak, Bernie Chun Nam. 2020. “Doing business and constructing identities through small talk in workplace instant messaging.” Pragmatics and Society 10(4): 559–583. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction (second edition). Oxford: Blackwell [1993].Google Scholar
2021. Expanding pragmatics: Values, goals, ranking, and internet adaptability. In Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and practice, ed. by Chaoqun Xie, Francisco Yus and Hartmut Haberland: 27–45. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Elizabeth R. 2013. “Positioning selves, doing relational work and constructing identities in interview talk.” Journal of Politeness Research 9(1): 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morini, Massimiliano. 2013. The Pragmatic Translator: An Integral Theory of Translation. London, New Delhi, New York, N.Y. and Sydney: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Norem, Julie K. 2008. “Defensive pessimism, anxiety, and the complexity of evaluating self-regulation.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2(1): 121–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Placencia, Maria Elena, Amanda Lower and Hebe Powell Birkbeck. 2016. “Complimenting behaviour on Facebook Responding to compliments in American English.” Pragmatics and Society 7(3): 339–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Robert, and Lenore Jacobson. 1968. Pygmalion in the classroom: teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1975. “Indirect speech acts.” In Syntax and Semantics. Speech Acts, ed. By Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 59–82. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shen, Jiaxuan. 2016. Nouns and Verbs. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xie, Chaoqun, Francisco Yus, and Hartmut Haberland eds. 2021. Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and practice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yip, Jesse W.C. 2020. “Directness of advice giving in traditional Chinese medicine consultations.” Journal of Pragmatics 1661: 28–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 2005. Attitudes and emotions through written text: the case of textual deformation in Internet chat rooms. Pragmalingua 131: 147–176.Google Scholar
. 2011. Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Not All Emoticons Are Created Equal.” Linguagem em (dis)curso 14 (3): 511–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Contextual constraints and non-propositional effects in Whats App communication.” Journal of Pragmatics 1141: 66–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Identity-related issues in meme communication.” Internet Pragmatics 1(1): 113–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Zhang, Yi, Luoxiangyu Zhang, Wei Ren & Yuanbo Liu
2024. “(scream)(wriggle)(dismally crawl)” – parentheses as semiotic resources for translanguaging and trans-semiotic practices on Chinese micro-blogging. Social Semiotics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.