Ways of communicating emotional stance in online disagreements

Online disagreements constitute a particularly interesting and relevant testing ground to explore different ways of communicating emotional stance (Mateosian, 2005). Our qualitative and quantitative analysis of 120 English postings from the MailOnline has revealed the notable presence of emotional stance through conceptual implication, explicit expression, and emotional description. While this quantitative survey can neither be regarded as comprehensive nor conclusive, we consider it as a first step towards detecting and categorizing different ways of expressing emotion in online and offline linguistic data. We suggest that a quantitative survey is complemented with a qualitative discussion to account for the complex and dynamic interaction between conceptual, relational and affective meaning. This speaks for a discursive approach for studying emotional stance in conflict and disagreements.

[1]  N. Baym.  Agreements and Disagreements in a Computer-Mediated Discussion , 1996 .

[2]  Reinhard Fiehler,et al.  How to Do Emotions With Words: Emotionality in Conversations , 2002 .

[3]  W. Turnbull,et al.  Conversational structure and facework in arguing , 1998 .

[4]  Andreas H. Jucker.  Social Stylistics: Syntactic Variation in British Newspapers , 1992 .

[5]  Jonathan Culpeper.  Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence , 2011 .

[6]  Miriam A. Locher,et al.  Politeness Theory and Relational Work , 2005 .

[7]  M. Schwarz-Friesel.  Sprache und Emotion , 2013 .

[8]  Bambi B. Schieffelin,et al.  Language has a heart , 1989 .

[9]  T. Jones.  Emotional Communication in Conflict: Essence and Impact , 2001 .

[10]  Brook Bolander.  Disagreements and agreements in personal/diary blogs: A closer look at responsiveness , 2012 .

[11]  S. Fiske,et al.  Social Psychology , 2019, Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences.

[12]  Helen Spencer-Oatey,et al.  Theories of identity and the analysis of face , 2007 .

[13]  J. Wilce.  Language and Emotion , 2009 .

[14]  W. Kempf.  Constructive conflict coverage : a social psychological approach , 2003 .

[15]  A. Avramides.  Studies in the Way of Words , 1992 .

[16]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage , 1989 .

[17]  Steven G. Jones,et al.  Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee , 2004 .

[18]  Shiv R. Upadhyay.  Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses , 2010 .

[19]  J. Haidt,et al.  The Moral Emotions , 2009 .

[20]  James A. Russell,et al.  In defense of a prototype approach to emotion concepts. , 1991 .

[21]  P. Brown,et al.  Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena , 1978 .

[22]  E. Goffman.  Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-To-Face Behavior , 1967 .

[23]  Miriam A. Locher,et al.  Relational work: at the intersection of cognition, interaction and emotion , 2008 .

[24]  D. Over,et al.  Studies in the Way of Words. , 1989 .

[25]  J. Angouri.  Managing disagreement in problem solving meeting talk , 2012 .

[26]  Struck by speech revisited: Embodied stance in jurisdictional discourse1 , 2005 .

[27]  Maria Sifianou.  Disagreements, face and politeness , 2012 .

[28]  Miriam A. Locher,et al.  Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics , 2010 .