Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
The coloring criteria used for the charts in Figs.
9.2
and
9.3
are the same: the two
main contrasting stances are also evident from the discrepancy both in quantity and
in quality of the emotive devices and markers respectively employed.
9.7
Conclusions
To give interpretations often remain conjectural, probabilistic, abductive, and of
exploratory nature, in particular for the humble and circumscribed goal and the sake
of brevity of this work. Although it is not possible to generalize, I briefly resubmit
below the results I obtained and thus try to give some concluding remarks.
In the online conflict talk I took into account, the user Calcolatore83's emotive
stance (confused, repetitive, and ambiguous) obtains a second contrasting stance
from his interlocutors in the message board, who act as completely detached from
his concerns. Calcolatore83's
emotive stance
seems built through illocutionary,
structural, semantic, sequential, stylistic, and rhetorical means characterized by
insecurity, a low level of assertiveness, and contradictory evaluations, while the
emotive stance
of his interlocutors seem to display an opposite opinion, charac-
terized by epistemic certainty, assertiveness, and a considerable distance from the
semantic contents of Calcolatore83's disclosures. This divergence is evident in the
distribution of the emotive devices present in the interlocutor's outcomes, very often
characterized by devices presenting negative polarities opposite to those emerging
from Calcolatore83's posts (e.g., devices of negative evaluation and distance,
whereas Calcolatore83 expresses, despite his insecurity, positive evaluations of his
own story and displays of proximity). The user's outcomes also present devices
with positive polarities (in particular, devices of assertiveness, evidentiality, and
quantity), these last representing indexes of a second, divergent, and internally
cohesive emotive stance: this aspect of internal cohesion is inferable, for example,
from the markers of social proximity referred to as the interlocutors themselves.
While waiting for further and more deepened research results, the resource of the
emotive devices by Caffi and Janney (
1994
), possibly joined with the analytical tools
of integrated pragmatics (Caffi
2001
,
2007
) and to those of conversation analysis
relating to affectivity in storytelling (e.g., Selting
2010
; Fox et al.
2013
; Peräkylä
and Ruusuvuori
2013
; inter alia), is a potentially fruitful heuristic for the prospects
of research on emotive communication and also a potential way to connect different
methodologies on communicative research all together.
Nevertheless, numerous explanations and more insights on the theoretical front
are yet much needed: for example, it would be relevant to see if speakers use
boosters and reinforcing devices opposite to the three more broadly known types
of mitigators (i.e., bushes, hedges, and shields) and in what interactional contexts
or for what purposes they are mainly employed. Also, the connection between
the idea of emotive stance and that of the emotive devices should be further
clarified. The objects, types, and objectives of the emotive devices should be
more specifically investigated, too. Moreover, the analysis of the emotive activities
of co-orientation in talk-in-interaction should be deepened by means of more
Search WWH ::
Custom Search