Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Reporting from the Field: The Narrative Reconstruction of Experience in Pick-up Artist Online Communities

Daria Dayter / Sofia Rüdiger
Published Online: 2016-09-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2016-0016

Abstract

This study focuses on the reconstruction of experience in the online environment of the Pick-up Artist (PUA) community forums and aims to uncover yet another facet of personal narrative, namely the role and performance of framing in the reporting of events. Discursive psychologists have often pointed out that a narrative is not a precise reflection of reality but a device that itself shapes the social world because reality always under-determines the verbal representation of events. In this study, we show how the verbalisation of narrative guides the reader towards the intended understanding by establishing the shared knowledge schema in the community of practice. Utilising data from a specific genre in the PUA forums, the “field reports” (i.e. narrative reconstructions of encounters between the PUAs and women), we describe three pertinent layers of frames, how they are evoked linguistically and how they interact with each other. Our investigation of the hierarchical framing of the interaction as [pua training], [personal narrative] and [success report] shows that they are based on group-specific knowledge schemas but, at the same time, draw on conventionalised narrative structures.

Keywords: frames; narrativity online; pick-up artists; knowledge schemas; narrative structure

References

  • Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar

  • Anthony, Lawrence. 2014. AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/ Google Scholar

  • Arendholz, Jenny. 2010. Neeed to put this out there (My Story) – Narratives in message boards. In Christian Hoffmann (ed.), Narrative revisited. Telling a story in the age of new media, 109-142. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar

  • Bartlett, Frederic. 1932. Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Google Scholar

  • BBC News. “Julien Blanc: UK denies visa to ‘pick-up artist’”. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30119100 (accessed 30 March 2016). Google Scholar

  • Bednarek, Monika. 2005. Frames revised - the coherence-inducing function of frames. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 685-705. Google Scholar

  • Berlin, Brent & Paul Kay. 1969. Basic colour terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar

  • Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Google Scholar

  • Chafe, Wallace. 1977. The recall and verbalization of past experience. In R.W. Cole (ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory, 215-246. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Google Scholar

  • Channell, Joanna. 1994. Vague language. Oxford: Oxford UP. Google Scholar

  • Dayter, Daria & Sofia Rüdiger. 2014. Speak your mind, but watch your mouth: Complaints in Couchsurfing references. In Kristina Bedijs, Gudrun Held and Christiane Maaß (eds.), Face work and social media, 193-212. Berlin: LIT. Google Scholar

  • Eckert, Penelope & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1992. Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21. 461-490. Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In Proceeding of the first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Institute of Human Learning, 123-131. Berkeley: University of California. Google Scholar

  • Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. 2007. Small stories, interaction and identities. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis – An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar

  • Graham, Sage Lambert, 2007. Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 742-759. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Günthner, Susanne. 2000. Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagskommunikation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar

  • Hambling-Jones, Oliver & Andrew John Merrison. 2012. Inequity in the pursuit of intimacy: An analysis of British pick-up artist interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 44(9). 1115-1127. CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hoffmann, Christian (ed.). 2010. Narrative revisited. Telling a story in the age of new media. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar

  • Holleman, Bregje C. & Henk L. W. Pander Maat. 2009. The pragmatics of profiling: Framing effects in text interpretation and text production. Journal of Pragmatics 41. 2204-2221. Google Scholar

  • Hössjer, Amelie. 2013. Small talk, politeness, and email communication in the workplace. In Susan Herring, Dieter Stein & Tuija Virtanen (eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication, 613-638. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar

  • Hymes, Dell. 1974. Ways of speaking. In Richard Bauman & Joel Scherzer (eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking, 433-451. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Google Scholar

  • IMDb - The Pickup Artist. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1083958/ (accessed 4 August 2016). Google Scholar

  • Jefferson, Gail. 1978. Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In Jim Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organisation of conversational interaction, 219-248. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar

  • Kamoen, Naomi, Maria B.J. Mos & Willem F.S. Dekker (Robbin). 2015. A hotel that is not bad isn’t good. The effects of valence framing and expectation in online reviews on text, reviewer and product appreciation. Journal of Pragmatics 75. 28-43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kuypers, Jim. 2009. Framing analysis. In Jim Kuypers (ed.), Rhetorical criticism: Perspectives in action, 181-204. Plymouth: Lexington Press. Google Scholar

  • Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky. 1967. Narrative analysis. Oral versions of personal experience. In June Helm (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts. Proceedings of the 1966 annual spring meeting, 12-44. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Google Scholar

  • Labov, William. 1977. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black Vernacular English. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Google Scholar

  • Leech, Geoffrey. 1971. Meaning and the English verb. London: Longman. Google Scholar

  • Levin, Irwin P., Sandra L. Schneider & Gary J. Gaeth. 1998. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76 (2). 149–188. Google Scholar

  • McKenzie, Craig & Jonathan Nelson. 2003. What a speaker’s choice of frame reveals: reference points, frame selection, and framing effects. Psychological Bulletin Review 10(3). 596-602. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Palmer, Frank. 1965. A linguistic study of the English verb. London: Longman. Google Scholar

  • Perelmutter, Renee. 2013. The flamewar as a genre in Russian blogosphere. Journal of Pragmatics 45. 74-89. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Ross, Robert. 1975. Ellipsis and the structure of expectation. San Jose State Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1. 183-191. Google Scholar

  • Rüdiger, Sofia & Daria Dayter. forthcoming. The ethics of researching unlikeable subjects: Language in an online community. Applied Linguistics Review. Google Scholar

  • Rumelhart, David. 1975. Notes on a schema for stories. In Daniel Bobrow & Allan Collins (eds.), Representation and understanding, 211-236. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar

  • Schank, Roger & Robert Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emmanuel. 1992. In another context. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context, 191-227. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Google Scholar

  • Schiffrin, Deborah. 1981. Tense variation in narrative. Linguistic Society of America 57(1). 45-62. Google Scholar

  • Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis: An introduction. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar

  • Tannen, Deborah. 1978. The effect of expectations on conversation. Discourse Processes 1(2). 203-209. Google Scholar

  • Tannen, Deborah. 1993. What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Framing in discourse, 14-56. Oxford: Oxford UP. Google Scholar

  • Taylor, Richard. 1951. The problem of future contingencies. Philosophical Review 66(1). 1-28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • The Game – Neil Strauss. https://www.neilstrauss.com/books/the-game/ (accessed 4 August 2016). Google Scholar

  • Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jörg Schmid. 1996. An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Longman. Google Scholar

  • Virtanen, Tuija. 1992. Temporal adverbials in text structuring: On temporal text strategy. Nordic Research on Text and Discourse. NORDTEXT Symposium (Espoo, Finland, May 10-13, 1990). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED359761.pdf (accessed 29 March 2016). Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-05-31

Accepted: 2016-08-19

Published Online: 2016-09-30


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 2, Issue 1, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2016-0016.

Export Citation

© 2016 Daria Dayter, Sofia Rüdiger. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in