Introduction to Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions

  • Pilar Garcés-Conejos BlitvichEmail author
  • Patricia Bou-Franch


In the introduction, we have embedded our overview of the contributions to this volume within a narrative that reviews past and extant research on language and digital communication. We have taken special care to highlight the ways in which each chapter advances the field. In order to do so, we have carefully identified new methodological and empirical insights put forth by the different authors. Specifically, we have highlighted the steps contributors to this volume have taken to help establish the so-called third wave of research, and these steps point to future directions in which to expand the field of language and digital communication.


  1. Androutsopoulos, A. (2014). Languaging when contexts collapse: Audience design in social networking. Discourse, Context and Media, 4–5, 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Androutsopoulos, J. (2006). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 419–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Androutsopoulos, J. (2011). From variation to heteroglossia in the study of computer-mediated discourse. In C. Thurlow & K. Mroczek (Eds.), Digital discourse: Language in the new media (pp. 277–298). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Towards a ‘third wave’ of digital discourse studies: Audience practices on Twitter. Unpublished Plenary talk delivered at the 1st International Conference Approaches to Digital Discourse Analysis – ADDA, Valencia, 18–10 November, 2015.Google Scholar
  5. Bateman, J. A., & Wildfeuer, J. (2014). A multimodal discourse theory of visual narrative. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 180–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackledge, A. (2002). The discursive construction of national identity in multilingual Britain. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 1(1), 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolander, B., & Locher, M. (2015). ‘Peter is a dumb nut’: Status updates and reactions to them as ‘acts of positioning’ in Facebook. Pragmatics, 25(1), 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bou-Franch, P. (2013). Domestic violence and public participation in the media: The case of citizen journalism. Gender and Language, 3(3), 275–302.Google Scholar
  9. Bou-Franch, P., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2014a). Gender ideology and social identity processes in online language aggression against women. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 2(2), 226–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bou-Franch, P., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2014b). Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bou-Franch, P., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2018). Relational work in multimodal networked interactions on Facebook. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1), 134–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brock, A. (2016). Critical technocultural discourse analysis. New Media and Society, 20(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
  13. Bucholtz, M. (2003). Theories of discourse as theories of gender: Discourse analysis in language and gender studies. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 43–68). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A socio-cultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies., 7(4/5), 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Castells, M. (2000). Toward a sociology of the network society. Contemporary Sociology, 29(5), 693–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D., & Bamberg, M. (Eds.). (2006). Discourse and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Eelen, G. (1999). Politeness and ideology: A critical review. Pragmatics, 9(1), 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
  19. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010). The YouTubification of politics, impoliteness and polarization. In R. Taiwo (Ed.), Handbook of research on discourse behavior and digital communication: Language structures and social interaction (pp. 540–563). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Bou-Franch, P., & Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2013). ‘Despierten, Latinos’ (‘wake up, Latinos’): Latino identity, US politics and YouTube. Journal of Language and Politics, 12(4), 558–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Gee, J. P. (2014). Unified discourse analysis: Language, reality, virtual worlds and video games. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Georgakopoulou, A. (2006). Postcript: Computer-mediated communication in sociolinguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 548–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Georgakopoulou, A. (2013). Small stories and identities analysis as a framework for the study of im/politeness in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research, 9(11), 55–74.Google Scholar
  26. Georgakopoulou, A., & Spiliotti, T. (2016). Introduction. In A. Georgakopoulou & T. Spilioti (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication (pp. 1–16). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Georgalou, M. (2016). ‘I make the rules on my wall’: Privacy and identity management practices on Facebook. Discourse & Communication, 10(1), 40–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  29. Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18(3), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herring, S. C. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4.Google Scholar
  32. Herring, S. C., & Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Computer-mediated 2.0. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 128–151). Chichester: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Jewitt, C. (2016). Multimodal analysis. In A. Georgakopoulou & T. Spilioti (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication (pp. 69–84). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Jones, R. H. (2016). Surveillance. In A. Georgakopoulou & T. Spilioti (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication (pp. 408–411). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, R. H., Chik, A., & Hafner, C. A. (2015). Introduction: Discourse analysis and digital practices. In R. H. Jones, A. Chik, & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), Discourse analysis and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kress, G. R., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Kress, G. R., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  38. Lemke, J. L. (2012). Multimedia and discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 79–89). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Lorenzo-Dus, N., Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., & Bou-Franch, P. (2011). On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2578–2593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Machin, D. (2013). What is multimodal critical discourse studies? Critical Discourse Studies, 10(4), 347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d.m. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCloud, S. (1994). Understanding comics: The invisible art. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  43. Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moschini, I. (2014). Critical multimodal analysis of digital discourse preliminary remarks. LEA – Lingue e letterature d’Oriente e d’Occidente, 3, 197–201.Google Scholar
  45. Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Halloran, K. (2013). Multimodal analysis and digital technology. In F. Montagna (Ed.), Readings in intersemiosis and multimedia (pp. 35–53). Israel: IBIS Editions.Google Scholar
  47. O’Halloran, K., & Smith, B. A. (Eds.). (2011). Multimodal studies: Exploring issues and domain. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Page, R. E. (2012). Stories and social media: Identities and interaction. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2011). A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Penman, R. (1990). Facework & politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(1/2), 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seargeant, P., & Tagg, C. (2014). Introduction: The language of social media. In P. Seargeant & C. Tagg (Eds.), The language of social media: Identity and community on the internet (pp. 1–20). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spilioti, T. (2016). Digital discourses: A critical perspective. In A. Georgakopoulou & T. Spilioti (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication (pp. 133–145). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Spilioti, T., & Tagg, C. (2017). The ethics of online research methods in applied linguistics: Challenges, opportunities, and directions in ethical decision-making. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(2/3), 163–168.Google Scholar
  54. Tagg, C., & Seargeant, P. (2014). Audience design and language choice in the construction and maintenance of translocal communities on social network sites. In P. Seargeant & C. Tagg (Eds.), The language of social media: Identity and community on the internet (pp. 161–185). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tagg, C., & Seargeant, P. (2016). Facebook and the discursive construction of the social network. In A. Georgakopoulou & T. Spilioti (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication (pp. 339–353). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Thurlow, C. (2006). From statistical panic to moral panic: The metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11(3), 667–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thurlow, C. (2014). Disciplining youth: Language ideologies and new technologies. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (3rd ed., pp. 481–496). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Thurlow, C. (2017a). Digital discourse: Locating language in new/social media. In J. Burgess, T. Poell, & A. Marwick (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Thurlow, C. (2017b). “Forget about the words”? Tracking the language, media and semiotic ideologies of digital discourse: The case of sexting. Discourse, Context & Media, 20, 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thurlow, C., & Bell, K. (2009). Against technologization: Young people’s new media discourse as creative cultural practice. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 1038–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thurlow, C., & Mroczek, K. (Eds.). (2011). Digital discourse: Language in the new media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Turner, G. (2010). Ordinary people and the media: The demotic turn. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. van Dijk, T. A. (1989). Structures of discourse and structures of power. Communication Yearbook, 12, 18–59.Google Scholar
  64. van Leeuwen, T. (2013). Critical analysis of multimodal discourse. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–6). London and New York: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  65. Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Yus, F. (2016). Humour and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zappavigna, M. (2011). Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media & Society, 13(5), 788–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patricia Bou-Franch
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EnglishUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.Department of English and German PhilologyUniversitat de ValènciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations