تحلیل واکنش‌های بی‌ادبانۀ کاربران به قرمزپوشی بازار سهام از دیدگاه نیوروترـ‌کسلز و بوسفیلد

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسنده

گروه زبان‌شناسی، دانشکده ادبیات و زبان‌های خارجی دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران.

10.30465/ls.2021.6242

چکیده

     با ورود بسیاری از افراد ناآشنا به بازار سرمایه­گذاری، علی­رغم هشدار کارشناسان، بورس هموارهِ سبز­پوش از اواخر اسفند 98 تا مرداد 99 به یک­باره سقوط کرد و عده­ای را به­ورطۀ نابودی کشاند؛ این، واکنش بعضاً شدید و هرازگاهی بی­ادبانۀ برخی از کاربران را در وبسایت تجارت نیوز به دنبال داشت. پژوهش حاضر با بررسی تهدید­ وجهه بر اساس مدل نیوروترـ­کسلز (2011)، و بی­ادبی­ بر اساس مدل بوسفیلد (2008)، در پی پاسخ به پرسش­های 1ـ در بخش نظرات کاربران وبسایت تجارت نیوز چه نوع حمله­ای به وجهه بیشتر صورت­گرفته است؟ و 2ـ کدام نوع بی­ادبی دارای بیشترین فراوانی است؟ و 3ـ مخاطبی که وجهه­اش مورد تهدید قرارگرفته است، با چه واکنشی به مقابله با تهدید وجهه می­پردازد؟، است. نتایج پژوهش حاکی از آن است که بیشترین حمله به وجهه، مربوط به عدم ثبات سرمایه­گذاران بازار سهام است؛ رایجترین نوع بی­ادبی، بی­ادبی مستقیم است و واکنش به تهدید وجهه، اغلب تهاجمی است. اهمیت این پژوهش در این است که به بررسی وجهه و بی­ادبی در سایۀ پیشرفت­های نوین در گفتگوهای مجازی که کمتر مورد کاوش قرار گرفته است، می­پردازد؛ بعلاوه، بی­ادبی از نظر شنونده مورد ارزیابی قرار می­گیرد و نه با تمرکز بر هدف گوینده، آن­چنان که تابحال مرسوم بوده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analyzing Users' Impolite Reactions to the Red-Stock Market from Neurauter-Kessels’ and Bousfield 's Views

نویسنده [English]

  • حسین رحمانی
Department of Linguistics, faculty of Humanities and Foreign Languages, University of Payam-e-Noor, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

The always green stock market of the first half of the 2020, despite the precaution of the experts, caught the eyes of many unfamiliar investors to invest in the stock market whose final and fatal downfall left a lot of such people bereft of almost all what they had; this subject, discussed in https://tejaratnews.com led to sometimes impolite behavior of the readers. The study adopts Neurauter-Kessels’ framework (2011) to identify the types of FTAs and Bousfield (2008) model of impoliteness as well as his taxonomy of addressee’s reaction to face attacks and impolite behaviors that are targeting other users to answer 1. Which kind of FTAs is the most prevalent? 2. Which type of impoliteness is mostly used by the users and 3. What kind of reactions did the addressees show in facing with these FTAs? The findings show that lack of consistency and direct impoliteness are the most widely used FTA and impoliteness. Facing FTAs and impoliteness, the addressees react offensively most of the time, though they sometimes react defensively as well. The research is of importance because it investigates the FTAs and impolite behaviors in the online interactions and uses some new research findings as its theoretical basis.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • impoliteness
  • Online interaction
  • stock market
  • face. Tejarat News Website
صدر، عماد (3 شهریور، 1399). واکنش توئیتری مردم به ریزش‌های اخیر بازار سهام/ بی‌اعتمادی مردم به بورس. تجارت نیوز. https://tejaratnews.com.
صدر، عماد (22 مرداد، 1399). تحلیل سهامداران از علت ریزش بورس / مقصر کیست؟ تجارت نیوز. https://tejaratnews.com.
تجارت نیوز. (21 مرداد، 1399). نگرانی‌های مردم از وضعیت بازار سهام / ریزش بورس ادامه دارد؟https://tejaratnews.com.
Angouri, J. and Tseliga, T. (2010). “you HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!” From e-disagreement to e-impoliteness in two online fora. Journal of Politeness Research 6, 57-82.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Beyers, H. (2004). Interactivity and online newspapers: A case study on discussion boards, Convergence, 10(4). PP: 11-20.
Biber, D. (1991). On the Exploitation of Computerized Corpora in Variation Studies. In K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.) English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honor of Jan Svartvik. London and New York: Longman. PP: 204-220.
----- (1992). On the Complexity of Discourse Complexity: A Multidimensional Analysis. Discourse Processes, 15. 133-163. 
Binns, A. (2012). Don’t Feed the Trolls! Journalism Practice 6 (4): 547–562. doi:10.1080/17512786.2011.648988.
Bou-Franch, P. and Blitvitch, P.G. (2014). Conflict Management in Massive Polylogues: A Case Study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, PP: 19-36.  
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Bousfield D. and Locher, M. (2008).Impoliteness in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cathcart, R., and Gumpert, G. (1983). Mediated Interpersonal Communication: Toward a New Typology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69. 267-277.
Chesebro, J. W. (1985). Computer Mediated Interpersonal Communication. In Roben , B.D. (ed.) Information and Behavior. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. PP: 202-222.
Chung, D.S. (2008). Interactive features of online newspapers: Identifying patterns and predicting use of engaged readers, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13. PP: 658 - 679.
Collot, M and Belmore N (1996). Electronic Language. In Herring S. C. (Ed.). Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. PP: 13-28.
Condon, S, L. and Cech, C. G. (1996). Functional Comparisons of Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Decision Making Interactions. In Herring S. C. (Ed.). Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. PP: 65-80.
Cooper, M. M., Selfe, C. L. (1990). Computer Conferences and Learning: Authority, Resistance, and Internally Persuasive Discourse. College English, 52: 847-869.
Dahlberg, L. (2007). The Internet, Deliberative Democracy, and Power: Radicalizing the Public Sphere. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 3 (1): 47–64. doi:10.1386/macp.3.1.47/1
Daiker D, and Morenberg, M. (1990). The Wring Teacher Researcher. Portsmouth: Cook Publishing.
Deuze, M., Bruns, A., & Neuberger, C. (2007). Preparing for an age of participatory news. Journalism Practice, 1(3), 322–338.
Domingo, D., Quandt, T., Heinonen, A., Paulussen, S., Singer, J. B., & Vujnovic, M. (2008). Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond: An international comparative study of initiatives in online newspapers. Journalism Practice, 2(3), 326–342.
Faigley, L. (1990). Subverting the Electronic Workbook: Teaching Writing Using Nerworked Computers. In Daiker D, and Morenberg, M. (Eds.). The Wring Teacher Researcher. Portsmouth: Cook Publishing. PP: 290-311. 
Fetzer, A. (2013). The Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across cultures. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hermida, A., & Thurman, N. (2008). A clash of cultures: The integration of user-generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper Web sites. Journalism Practice, 2(3), 343–356.
Herring S. C. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Herring, Susan C. 2007. A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet. https://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/761 (accessed August, 8th, 2020).
Hiltz, S. R. and Turoff, M. (1993). The Network Nation: Human Communication via Computer (2nd. ed.) Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Hlavach, L. and Freivogel W. H. (2011). Ethical Implications of Anonymous Comments Posted to Online News Stories. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 26 (1): 21–37. doi:10.1080/08900523.2011.525190.
Hodkinson, P. (2007). Interactive online journals and individualization, New Media and Society, 9(4), PP: 625 - 649.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. and McGuire, T. (1984). Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
Larsson, A. O. (2012). Understanding Nonuse of Interactivity in Online Newspapers: Insights from Structuration Theory. The Information Society, 28 (4): 253–263. doi:10.1080/01972243.2012.689272.
Li, J. J. Seu, M. Evans, J. Michael and A. Rovick (1992). Computer Dialogue System (CDS): A System for Capturing Computer-Mediated Dialogue in Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 24. 535-540.
Licklider, J.C. R., Taylor R. W., Herbert, E. (1968). The Computer as a Communication Device. Science and Technology: For the Technical Men in Management, April, 21-31.
Livnat, Z. and Dori-Hacohen, G. (2013). The effect of irony in radio talk-back programs in Israel. In Fetzer, A. (ed.). The Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across cultures. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. PP. 193-218.
Newhagen, J. & Levy, M. (1998). The future of journalism in a distributed communication architecture, in D.L. Borden & K. Harvey (eds). The Electronic Grapevine: Rumor, Reputation, and Reporting in the New On-line Environment, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, PP: 9-21.
Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ong, W. (1982). Orality and Literacy: the Technologizing of the World. New York: Methuen.
Paskin, D. (2010). Say What?An Analysis of Reader Comments in Bestselling American Newspapers. The Journal of International Communication, 16:2, 67-83.
Peyton, J. K. (1989). Computer Networks for Real-Time Interaction in Writing Classroom: An Annotated Bibliography in Computer and Composition 6(3). 105-122.
Reich, Zvi. 2011. User Comments. In Jane Singer, Alfred Hermida, David Domingo, Ari Heinonen, Steve Paulussen, Thorsten Quandt, Zvi Reich, and Marina Vujnovic. (Eds.) Participatory journalism: Guarding open gates at online newspapers. 96–117. UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Rice, R. E. (1984). The New Media: Communication, Research, and Technology. London: Sage Publication. 
Roben , B.D. (1985). Information and Behavior. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Robinson, S. (2007) Someone's gotta be in control here: The institutionalization of online news and the creation of a shared journalistic authority, Journalism Practice 1(3), PP: 305-321.
Ruiz, C., Domingo, D. Mico, J. L., Diaz-Noci, Javier, Meso, K., and Masip, P. (2011). Public Sphere 2.0? the Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers. International Journal of Press/Politics, 16 (4): 463–487. doi:10.1177/1940161211415849.
Santana, Arthur. 2014. Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online
newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice 8(1). 18–33. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/17512786.2013.813194.
Seu, J., R. Change, J. Li, M. Evans, J. Michael and A. Rovick (1991). Language Differences in Face-to-Face and Keyboard-to-Keyboard Tutoring Sessions in Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Conference. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, 576-580.
Singer, Jane & Ian Ashman. 2009. “Comment is free, but facts are sacred”: User-generated content and ethical constructs at the Guardian, Journal of Mass Media Ethics 24. 3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08900520802644345.
Sproull, L. and Kiesler S. (1986). Connections: New Ways of Working in the Network Organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Tannen, D. (1982). Spoken and Written language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood, Nj: Ablex.
Thurlow, Crispin, Laura Lengel & Alice Tomic. 2004. Computer mediated communication. London: Sage Publishers.
Thurman, N. (2008). Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content initiatives by online news media. New Media & Society, 10(1), 139–157.
Werry, C. C. (1996) Linguistic and Interactional Features of Internet Relay Chat. In Herring S. C. (Ed.). Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. PP: 47-64.
Woo-Young C (2005). Online civic participation, and political empowerment: Online media and public opinion formation in Korea, Media, Culture & Society, 27(6), PP: 925-935
Yates. S. J. (1996). Oral and Written Linguistic Aspects of Computer Conferencing. In Herring S. C. (Ed.). Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. PP: 29-46.
Zeng, Q. & Li, X. (2006). Factors influencing interactivity of internet newspapers: A content analysis of 106 U.S. newspapers' web sites, in X. Li (ed) Internet Newspapers: The Making of a Mainstream Medium, NewYork, NY: Routledge, PP: 139-58.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. New York: Basic Books.
Henrich, N. and Holmes, B. (2013). Web news readers’ comments: Towards developing a methodology for using on-line comments in social inquiry. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, Vol. 5(1), pp. 1-4.
Zamith, R. and Lewis, S. C. (2014). From public spaces to public sphere: Rethinking systems for reader comments on online news sites. Digital Journalism, 2(4), PP: 558-574. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2014.882066