The Trouble with Cyberpragmatics

References (41)

1. I'll put the link at the bottom and we can't wait to find out more about you, your university and Mexico [9+]. Hope to hear from you soon! [10+] [1+] on record, positive politeness; informal salutation 'Hey', and the marker 'Guys' as an address form to convey in-group membership [2+] on record, positive politeness; hedging opinion and exaggeration/ overstatement [3+] on record, positive politeness; exaggeration/ overstatement by using intensifying modifiers and hedging opinion [4+] on record, positive politeness; seeking agreement by using verbal hedge 'think' to express a hedging opinion/ inclusiveness by using 'we' [5+] on record, positive politeness; verbal hedge 'looks' to express a hedging opinion/ exaggeration and overstatement by using intensifiers 'so much fun' [6+] on record, positive politeness; hedging opinion 'we felt like'/ exaggeration 'really cool' [7+] on record, positive politeness; stressing inclusiveness, in-group membership and cooperativeness by using 'for us all' and providing a reason 'to talk on' as to why they want the addressee to join the Facebook page which is also another aspect of inclusiveness [8-] on record, negative politeness; tentative grammatical constructions that minimize imposition over the addressee; not assuming that the addressee is willing to join the Facebook group by using the if-clause [8+] on record, positive politeness; exaggeration/ overstatement [9+] on record, positive politeness; exaggeration/ overstatement [10+] on record, positive politeness; assuming cooperation by using an optimistic expression of response anticipation. Sample Exchange 1 udEMS Hi X [1+], I am Y! It's nice to meet you [2-], We really don't know why you can't hear the sound in our video [3-], we tried in different computers and we all can hear it well [4-] Did you try watching it in a different computer as well? [5-]If it still doesn't work, let us know so we can send it to you another way [6-]
2. on record, positive politeness; informal salutation, and the name of the addressee (X) as an address form to reflect inclusiveness [2-] on record, negative politeness; showing difference and being respectful [3-] on record, negative politeness; the use of the first person plural pronoun 'we' to avoid personal responsibility and the hedging expression 'really don't know' [4-] on record, negative politeness; pluralisation as a negative strategy of dissociation from the Face-threatening act and which in turn threatens the addressee's negative face [5-] on record, negative politeness; conventional indirectness by indirectly requesting the addressee to watch the video on another computer/ assuming that the addressee is not cooperative, giving an indirect suggestion. [6-] on record, negative politeness; if-clause, the speaker is not willing to accept that the sound in the video is not working, and is not making positive assumptions about the addressee. Sample 2 CUS Hey X, Y and Z Me gusta la entrada:) [1+] It's very nice to meet you all! Your video looks very good, I look forward to working with you, la Universidad es muy moderna, me encanta! [1+] [1+] on record, positive politeness; use of in-group language: code-switching from English to Spanish/ Use of emoticon to introduce a humorous or playful atmosphere. UDEMS British Representation in 'Hooligans' [1-] REFEREnCES
3. Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2), 198-217. doi:10.3138/cmlr.54.2.198
4. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child's talk: learning to use language. London, England: WW Norton.
6. Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. New York, NY: Routledge.
7. Byram, M., Gribkova, B., & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the Intercultural Dimension in Language Teaching: A Practical Introduction for Teachers. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
8. Coventry University. (2014 November). Module information directory: 100DEL Introduction to studying English and languages at university (Unpublished internal document).
9. Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511487002
10. Ennegadi, A. (2015). Developing intercultural communicative competence with telecollaboration: An analysis of cyberpragmatics in the MexCo project [Unpublished master's thesis]. Coventry University, Coventry, England.
11. Flanagan, M. (2016, October 1). Threshold concepts: Undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training and professional development -A short introduction and bibliography. Retrieved from http://www.ee.ucl. ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html
12. Fraser, N. (1996). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, and participation (PDF document). Tanner Lectures in Human Values Online. Retrieved from http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_ documents/a-to-z/f/Fraser98.pdf
13. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South Hadly, MA: Bergin and Garvey.
14. Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The CULTURA project. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 55-102.
15. Godwin-Jones, R. (2013). Integrating intercultural competence into language learning through technology. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 1-11.
16. Hafner, C. A., Chick, A., & Jones, R. H. (2013). Engaging with digital literacies in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 812-815. doi:10.1002/tesq.136
17. Helm, F., & Guth, S. (2010). The multifarious goals of telecollaboration 2.0: Theoretical and practical implications.
18. In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacy and intercultural learning in the 21st century (pp. 69-106). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
19. Helm, F., Guth, S., & Farrah, M. (2012). Promoting dialogue or hegemonic practice? Power issues in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 16(2), 103-127.
20. Joint Information Systems Committee. (2016, month #). Developing digital literacies. Retrieved from http:// www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/digital-literacies/
21. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University.
22. Land, R., Meyer, J. H. F., & Baillie, C. (2010). Threshold concepts and transformational learning. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
23. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York, NY: Longman Group Ltd.
24. Liddicoat, A. J., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. Chichester, England: Wiley Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118482070
25. Maricic, I. (2001). Cyberpoliteness: Requesting strategies on the linguist list. In E. Németh (Ed.), Pragmatics in 2000: Selected papers from the 7th international pragmatics conference (Vol. 2, pp. 409-416). Antwerp, Belgium: IprA.
26. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5
27. O'Dowd, R. (2013). The competences of the telecollaborative teacher. Language Learning Journal. doi:10.10 80/09571736.2013.853374
28. O'Dowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with 'failed communication' in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO, 23(3), 623-642. doi:10.1558/cj.v23i3
29. ODowd, R. (2015). The competences of the telecollaborative teacher. Language Learning Journal, 2(43), 194-207. doi:10.1080/09571736.2013.853374
30. Orsini-Jones, M. (2010). Troublesome grammar knowledge and action research-led assessment design: Learning from liminality. In R. Land, J. H. Meyer, & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 281-299). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
31. Orsini-Jones, M. (2013). Towards a role-reversal model of threshold concept pedagogy. In C. O'Mahony, A. Buchanan, M. O'Rourke & B. Higgs (Eds.), Proceedings of the National Academy for Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning's Sixth Annual Conference and the Fourth Biennial Threshold Concepts Conference [E-publication], Threshold concepts: From personal practice to communities of practice. Trinity College, Dublin: NAIRTL. Retrieved from http://www.nairtl.ie/documents/EPub_2012Proceedings.pdf#page=88
32. Orsini-Jones, M. (2015). A reflective e-learning journey from the dawn of CALL to web 2.0 intercultural communicative competence (ICC). In K. Borthwick, E. Corradini, & A. Dickens (Eds.), 10 years of the LLAS elearning symposium: Case studies in good practice (pp. 43-56). doi:10.14705/rpnet.2015.000266
33. Orsini-Jones, M., Brick, B., & Pibworth, L. (2013). Practising language interaction via social networking sites: The expert student's perspective on personalized language learning. In B. Zou, M. Xing, Y. Wang, M. Sun, & C. H. Xiang (Eds.), Computer-assisted foreign language teaching and learning: Technological advances (pp. 40-53). Philadelphia, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2821-2.ch003
34. Orsini-Jones, M., Gazeley-Eke, Z., & Leinster, H. (in press). A corpus-based study of the use of pronouns in the asynchronous discussion forums in the online intercultural exchange MexCo. In S. Jager & M. Kurek (Eds.), New directions in telecollaborative research and practice: Selected papers from the second conference on telecollaboration in higher education.
35. Orsini-Jones, M., Lloyd, E., Gazeley-Eke, Z., Vera López, B., Pibworth, L., & Bescond, G. (2015). Student-driven intercultural awareness raising with MexCo: Agency, autonomy and threshold concepts in a telecollaborative project between the UK and Mexico. In N. Tcherepashenets (Ed.), Globalizing on-line: Telecollaboration, internationalization and social justice (pp. 199-239). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
36. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
37. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1996). Fodors frame problem and relevance theory: A reply to Chiappe & Kukla. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 530-532. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00082030
38. Stroińska, M., & Cecchetto, V. (2013). Facework in intercultural e-mail communication in the academic environment. In F. Sharifian & M. Jamarani (Eds.), Language and intercultural communication in the new era (pp. 160-180). New York, NY: Routledge.
39. Wallace, P. (2004). The Internet in the workplace. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40. Wendt, M. (2003). Context, culture and construction: Research implications of theory formation in foreign language methodology. In M. Byram & P. Grundy (Eds.), Context and culture in language teaching and learning (pp. 92-105). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
41. Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/pbns.213