Cover not available
Part of
The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns
Edited by Laure Gardelle and Sandrine Sorlin
[Studies in Language Companion Series 171] 2015
► pp. 215–238

Chapter 11. Referring to oneself in the third person

A novel construction in text-based computer-mediated communication

 | Åbo Akademi University
This chapter examines the increasingly popular practice in text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC) of users referring to themselves in the third person, e.g. *runs to the kitchen*. Originating in game environments, the zero subject construction has in recent years spread to other modes of CMC such as discussion forums, microblogging and texting. In these contexts, users take the trouble of typing in asterisks and other signals mimicking the screen view of early chat. Based on data from recreational discussion board threads and microblogging, the chapter focuses on the emergent grammar of the typographically marked, self-referential third-person construction and its pragmatic constraints. Special attention is paid to the variation between pronominal forms and other means of referring to oneself. It is argued that the construction is grammatically and pragmatically innovative in English.
Published online: 10 November 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.171.11vir
References (64)
References
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baron, Naomi S. 2013. Instant Messaging. In Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication [Handbooks of Pragmatics 9], Susan C. Herring, Dieter Stein & Tuija Virtanen (eds), 135-161. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Barton, David & Lee, Carmen. 2013. Language Online: Investigating Digital Texts and Practices. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barton, Ellen L. 1998. The grammar of telegraphic structures. Journal of English Linguistics 26: 37-67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1966. De la subjectivité dans le langage. In Problèmes de linguistique générale, Vol. 1: 258-266. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cherny, Lynn. 1994. Gender differences in text-based virtual reality. In Cultural Performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference, Mary Bucholtz, Anita C. Liang, Laurel Sutton & Caitlin Hines (eds), 102-115. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
. 1995. The modal complexity of speech events in a social mud. Electronic Journal of Communication 5. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Danet, Brenda. 2001. Cyberpl@y: Communicating Online. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Danet, Brenda, Ruedenberg-Wright, Lucia & Rosenbaum-Tamari, Yehudit. 1997. “Hmmm... where’s that smoke coming from?” Writing, play and performance on Internet Relay Chat. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2(4).Google Scholar
Dayter, Daria. 2014. Self-praise in microblogging. Journal of Pragmatics 61: 91-102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enkvist, Nils Erik. 1981. Experiential iconicism in text strategy. Text 1(1): 97-111.Google Scholar
. 1989. Connexity, interpretability, universes of discourse, and text worlds. In Possible Worlds in Humanities, Arts and Sciences: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 65, Sture Allén (ed.), 162-186. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gardelle, Laure. 2012. “Anaphora”, “anaphor” and “antecedent” in nominal anaphora: definitions and theoretical implications. Cercles 22: 25-40.Google Scholar
Gill, Martin. 2011. Authenticity. In Pragmatics in Practice: Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 9, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds), 46-65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3], Talmy Givón (ed), 1-42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Helmut. 2013. Mailing list communication. In Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication [Handbooks of Pragmatics 9], Susan C. Herring, Dieter Stein & Tuija Virtanen (eds), 55-82. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2013. The syntax of registers: Diary subject omission and the privilege of the root. Lingua 130: 88-110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Ihsane, Tabea. 1999. Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 3(1): 117-145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 2001. Computer-mediated discourse. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi Hamilton (eds), 612-634. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2004. Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, Sasha A. Barab, Rob Kling & James H. Gray (eds.), 338-376. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Grammar and electronic communication. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Carol A. Chapelle (ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. Relevance in computer-mediated conversation. In Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication [Handbooks of Pragmatics 9], Susan C. Herring, Dieter Stein & Tuija Virtanen (eds), 245-268. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent. In Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media, Deborah Tannen & Anna Marie Trester (eds), 1-25. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C., Stein, Dieter & Virtanen, Tuija. 2013. Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. In Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication [Handbooks of Pragmatics 9], Susan C. Herring, Dieter Stein & Tuija Virtanen (eds), 3-32. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honeycutt, Courtenay & Herring, Susan C. 2009. Beyond microblogging: conversation and collaboration via Twitter. Proceedings of the Forty-second Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42) . Los Alamitos CA: IEEE Press.
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected Writings Vol. 2, Roman Jakobson (ed.), 130-147. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. 1985. Note-taking English as a simplified register. Discourse Processes 8(4): 437-454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2013. First-person reference in discourse: Aims and strategies. Journal of Pragmatics 48: 57-70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolko, Beth. 1995. Building a world with words: the narrative reality of virtual communities. Works and Days 13(1-2): 105-126. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Lazaraton, Anne. 2014. Aaaaack! The active voice was used! Language play, technology, and repair in the Daily Kos weblog. Journal of Pragmatics 64: 102-116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Carmen. 2011. Texts and practices of micro-blogging: status updates on Facebook. In Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media, Crispin Thurlow & Kristine Mroczek (eds), 110-128. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindholm, Loukia. 2013. The maxims of online nicknames. In Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication [Handbooks of Pragmatics 9], Susan C. Herring, Dieter Stein & Tuija Virtanen (eds), 437-461. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Markham, Annette N. & Baym, Nancy K. 2009. Internet Inquiry: Conversations about Method. New York NY: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marwick, Alice E. & boyd, danah. 2010. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 3: 4-33.Google Scholar
Maybin, Janet & Swann, Joan. 2007. Everyday creativity in language: textuality, contextuality, and critique. Applied Linguistics 28(4): 497-517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter & Harré, Rom. 1990. Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
North, Sarah. 2007. “The voices, the voices”: Creativity in online conversation. Applied Linguistics 28(4): 538-555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Page, Ruth. 2012. Stories and Social Media: Identities and Interaction. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Robinson, Laura. 2007. The cyberself: The self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the digital era. New Media & Society 9(1): 93-110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Marie-Laure. 2001. Narrative as Virtual Reality. Baltimore MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Sanford, Anthony J. & Emmott, Catherine. 2012. Mind, Brain and Narrative. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 2007. How to read Austin. Pragmatics 17: 461-473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlobinski, Peter. 2001. *knuddelzurueckknuddeldichganzdollknuddel*: Inflektive und Inflektivkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 29(2):192-218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Kate. 2013. Pragmatically motivated null subjects in English: A relevance theory perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 53: 68-83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 2001. How performatives work. In Essays in Speech Act Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 77], Daniel Vanderveken & Susumu Kubo (eds), 85-107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004a. Person. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. On the discourse basis of person agreement. In Approaches to Cognition Through Text and Discourse, Tuija Virtanen (ed.), 33-48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Simpson, James. 2013. Conversational floor in computer-mediated discourse. In Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication [Handbooks of Pragmatics 9], Susan C. Herring, Dieter Stein & Tuija Virtanen (eds), 515-538. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Stirling, Lesley & Manderson, Lenore. 2011. About you: Empathy, objectivity and authority. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1581-1602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Travis, Catherine E. 2014. Prosody, priming and particular constructions: the patterning of English first-person singular subject expressions in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 63: 19-34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1995. The conceptual basis of performativity. In Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics: in Honour of Charles J. Fillmore [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 32], Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 299-321. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Virtanen, Tuija. 2004. Point of departure: cognitive aspects of sentence-initial adverbials. In Approaches to Cognition through Text and Discourse, Tuija Virtanen (ed.), 79-97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Adverbials of “manner” and “manner plus” in written English: Why initial placement? SKY Journal of Linguistics 21. <[URL]>Google Scholar
. 2013a. Performativity in computer-mediated communication. In Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication [Handbooks of Pragmatics 9], Susan C. Herring, Dieter Stein & Tuija Virtanen (eds), 269-290. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Mock performatives in online discussion boards: Toward a discourse-pragmatic model of computer-mediated communication. In Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media, Deborah Tannen & Anna Marie Trester (eds), 155-166. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Wales, Katie. 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Werry, Christopher C. 1996. Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 39], Susan C. Herring (ed.), 47-63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele. 2011. Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media & Society 13(5): 788-806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Lindholm, Loukia
2024. Temporality in reaction GIFs as multimodal virtual performatives. In Structures in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 345], ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Sorlin, Sandrine
2024. How pragmatically (in)definite are you and one?. In Structures in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 345], ► pp. 36 ff. DOI logo
Wårvik, Brita
2024. Structures in discourse. In Structures in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 345], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gardelle, Laure & Sandrine Sorlin
2018. Introduction. International Journal of Language and Culture 5:2 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Virtanen, Tuija
2018. *Sings myself happy birthday*. International Journal of Language and Culture 5:2 ► pp. 248 ff. DOI logo
Virtanen, Tuija
2021. Enhancing Social Presence Through Textual Action: Virtual Performatives as a Relatability Strategy. In Analyzing Digital Discourses, ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Virtanen, Tuija
2021. Fragments online: virtual performatives in recreational discourse. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 53:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Virtanen, Tuija
2024. Pretending to pretend. In The Pragmatics of Hypocrisy [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 343], ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
Montoro, Rocío
2016. The year’s work in stylistics 2015. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 25:4 ► pp. 376 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 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.