PL EN
Quotation in Social Media: How Sharing Other People’s Words Could Increase Misinformation
 
Więcej
Ukryj
1
Department of Rhetoric, Pragmalinguistics and Journalism, Adam Mickiewicz University, Faculty of Polish and Classical Philology, Institute of Polish Philology, Polska
AUTOR DO KORESPONDENCJI
Agnieszka Maria Kula   

Department of Rhetoric, Pragmalinguistics and Journalism, Adam Mickiewicz University, Faculty of Polish and Classical Philology, Institute of Polish Philology, Fredry 10, 61-701, Poznań, Polska
Data nadesłania: 15-02-2022
Data ostatniej rewizji: 29-04-2022
Data akceptacji: 30-04-2022
Data publikacji: 30-06-2022
 
Studia Humanistyczne AGH 2022;21(2):81–98
 
SŁOWA KLUCZOWE
DZIEDZINY
STRESZCZENIE
According to the report “We Are Social” (2021), one of the most important reasons why Internet users take to social media platforms are: “stay up-to-date with news and current events”, “seeing what’s being talked about”, and “sharing and discussing opinions with others”. They are all focused on quoting. Our research helped us to confirm the dominance of posts with quotations in social media (the institutional broadcasters’ profiles). Quotation can take various forms to produce different results. Direct quotations include direct speech, text islets, and pseudo-quotations; indirect quotations include indirect speech and narrated speech. Direct quotations in the form of various direct references accounted for 73% of quotations on Twitter and 61% on Facebook. This confirms the tremendous popularity of quotations in direct speech  – senders avoid allegations of being partial; after all they show the facts that speak for themselves. It is strategies of the senders which increase misinformation.
 
REFERENCJE (19)
1.
Allan, S. (2010). News Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill, Open University Press.
 
2.
Authier, J. (1978). Les formes du discours rapporté. Remarques syntaxiques à partir des traitements proposes. Dokumentation et Recherche en Linguistque Allemande Vincennes, 17, 1–87.
 
3.
Banfield, A. (1973). Narrative Style and the Grammar of Direct and Indirect Speech. Foundations of Language, 1, 1–39.
 
4.
Boczkowski, P.J., Mitchelstein, E., Matassi, M. (2018). News Comes Across When I’m in a Moment of Leisure’: Understanding the Practices of Incidental News Consumption on Social Media. New Media and Society, 20(10), 3523–3539.
 
5.
Fiske, J. (1989). Reading the Popular. London: Routledge.
 
6.
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., Rao, J. (2016). Filterbubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 298–320.
 
7.
Gackowski, T., Brylska, K., Patera, M. et al. (2018). Ćwierkający Donald Trump. Czym jest Twitter dla użytkowników, dziennikarzy i prezydenta USA? Od analizy dyskursu po badania okulograficzne. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek.
 
8.
Grzelka, M., Kula, A. (2012). Przytoczenie w przekazie medialnym. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Rys.
 
9.
Haapanen, L., Perrin, D. (2020). Linguistic Recycling. The process of quoting in increasingly mediatized settings. AILA Review, 33.
 
10.
Harcup, T. (2021). Journalism: Principles and Practice. London: Sage.
 
11.
IAB Polska. (2018). Dezinformacja w sieci. Retrived from: https://www.iab.org.pl/wpconte... [20.02.2022].
 
12.
IMM. (2022). Najbardziej opiniotwórcze media 2021 roku. Retrieved from: https://www.imm.com.pl/imm-one... [2.02.2022].
 
13.
McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. New Delhi: Sage.
 
14.
Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You. UK: Penguin.
 
15.
Saka, P., Johnson, M. (2017). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Quotation. Berlin: Springer.
 
16.
Sindermann, C., Elhai, J.D., Moshagen, M., Montag, C. (2020). Age, gender, personality, ideological attitudes and individual differences in a person’s news spectrum: how many and who might be prone to “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers” online? Heliyon, 6, 1, January, 6:e03214. Doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03214.
 
17.
Tuchman, G. (1972). Objectivity as Strategic Ritual. An Examination of Newsmen’s Notions of Objectivity. American Journal of Sociology, 77, 4, 660–679.
 
18.
Zappavigna, M. (2022). Social media quotation practices and ambient affiliation: Weaponising ironic quotation for humorous ridicule in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 191, 98–112.
 
19.
Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Trilling, D., Moeller, J., Bodó, B., de Vreese, C.H., Helberger, N. (2016). Should we worry about filter bubbles? Internet Policy Review. Retrieved from: Journal on Internet Regulation, 5, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p..._ id=2758126 [2.02.2022].
 
ISSN:2084-3364