Discourse, Context and Media 2 (2013) 94–102

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Discourse, Context and Media

2211-69http://d

n CorrE-m

mikechu1 In

Univers2 In

Ping Ro

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dcm

Colleagues' talk and power after work hours: A community of practicein Facebook Status Updates?

Bernie Chun Nam Mak a,n,1, Hin Leung Chui b,2

a Department of English, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kongb Department of Mathematics and Information Technology, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 20 December 2012Received in revised form24 March 2013Accepted 13 April 2013Available online 21 April 2013

Keywords:FacebookStatus UpdatesWorkplaceDiscoursePowerCommunities of Practice

58/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Ax.doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2013.04.002

esponding author. Tel.: +852 3943 5711.ail addresses: bcnmak@gmail.com (B.C.N. Maki@ied.edu.hk (H.L. Chui).stitutional address: Room 304C, 3/F, Fung Kinity of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong.stitutional address: B4-1/F-03, The Hong Kongad, Tai Po, N.T., Hong Kong.

a b s t r a c t

Workplace discourse analysis (WDA) has gathered momentum to researching how people interact andmanipulate power in face-to-face workplace talk under the Communities of Practice (CofP) framework.However, WDA studies have seldom touched on how colleagues talk after work and outside theworkplace; nor have these studies questioned whether the CofP framework can conceptualize such anemergent form of workplace talk. Drawing on empirical data collected from one Hong Kong branch of anItalian restaurant, this study aims to (1) explore how its employees communicate workplace issues andnegotiate power in Facebook Status Updates after work and (2) examine use of the CofP framework intheir talk which takes place outside the workplace. Adopting methods of discourse analysis, we find thatcolleagues individualize their talk in Status Updates for highlighting professionality, suggesting admin-istrative changes, managing colleague relationships, and releasing work-oriented tension. In theseprocesses involving Netspeak, institutional authority, official hierarchy and predetermined status arelargely fluctuating or collapsing. Simultaneously, there are often ambiguity or invisibility in relation tothe indispensable substances in a CofP, namely the strength of joint enterprises, form of mutualengagements and use of shared repertoire. We conclude by arguing that (1) Status Updates can bestrategically used after work, usually in a more casual and personal manner, to attain workplace-orientedgoals and re/negotiate power among colleagues, and that (2) it remains questionable whether the onlineworkplace talk by a group of colleagues after work can be appropriately conceptualized by the existinguse of CofP framework in WDA.

& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

This paper touches on an underexplored area across the fieldsof workplace discourse analysis (WDA) and computer-mediateddiscourse analysis (CMDA), namely how members of a workplacecommunity communicate and enact power after work on theInternet. Existing studies have articulated the fact that colleagues'face-to-face talk at work is usually based on locally-shared norms(Holmes, 2000), aimed at joint business and/or relational goals,and constitutive to the relative power among them (Holmes andMarra, 2004; Holmes and Schnurr, 2005). Simultaneously, therehave been also different genres of computer-mediated commu-nication (CMC), such as social-network sites (Ellison et al., 2011),

ll rights reserved.

),

g Hey Building, The Chinese

Institute of Education, 10 Lo

which enable colleagues to have business communication throughdesktop or portable digital devices (Herring, 2010) after work.While CMC shares some similarities with face-to-face talk, practi-tioners and scholars are increasingly concerned about their differ-ences (Baron, 2005; Herring, 2004; Lee, 2007). But still, perhapsbecause of its nature of being outside the workplace, WDAresearch has rarely investigated its role in a real-world workplacecommunity.

Research of face-to-face discourse strategies at work, such theNew Zealand Language in the Workplace Project led by JanetHolmes, has largely adopted Wenger's (1998) Communities ofPractice (CofP) as the theoretical framework, in order to concep-tualize the link among the joint enterprise, mutual engagementand shared repertoire of a workplace community (Holmes andMeyerhoff, 1999). Whereas the three elements are considered tobe indispensable for colleagues to form and extend a CofP, scholarsseem to have different views on the definition of these elements(e.g., Davies, 2005; Eckert and Wenger, 2005). Issues even becomemore controversial when it comes to colleagues' online interactionoutside their workplace, a setting in which the joint enterprise isunclear and the mutual engagement is non-physical (Gee, 2005).

B.C.N. Mak, H.L. Chui / Discourse, Context and Media 2 (2013) 94–102 95

In view of the above situation, we aim to explore the role ofFacebook Status Updates (Status Updates) in an informal commu-nity of an international catering group. We concentrate on how itsmembers talk in Status Updates after work. While we start withfocusing on what workplace-oriented goals are accomplished andwhat kinds of power are negotiated (adhering to the trend ofWDA) in their Status Updates (the practical dimension of thisstudy), we intend to demonstrate how the emergence of theseonline exchanges draws scholars' attention to reconsidering whatis counted as the joint enterprise, mutual engagement and sharedrepertoire of a CofP in such a century of Web 2.0 (the theoreticaldimension of this study).

2. Workplace talk, discourse strategies and Communities ofPractice

2.1. Workplace discourse analysis and workplace talk

This study is within the broad frame of discourse analysis.Despite the difficulty in defining it, we employ Gee's (2011) view,seeing discourse analysis as the study of language in use, namelyusing language as a lens to uncover the interlinked workings oflinguistic symbols and intended actions in a community. Asworkplace discourse analysts, we concentrate on how meaning isconstructed and how asymmetries are negotiated in the situatedcontext of each Status Update with regard to business transactionsand interpersonal relationship. Simultaneously, while the maintrend of WDA implicitly considers workplace talk as face-to-facecommunication among colleagues in the workplace, we propose(and will demonstrate) that workplace talk should also includeonline interactions, such as in Status Updates, after work andoutside the workplace. Following this definition, the situatedoutcome of workplace talk, power (Thornborrow, 2002), can beconstructed when colleagues are off duty but still communicate onthe Internet as well.

2.2. Reconsidering Communities of Practice as a theoreticalframework for workplace discourse analysis

The CofP framework was introduced into organizational studiesby Lave and Wenger (1991) which focused on learning. It was mainlyrefined by Wenger (1998) as a scholarly work. Wenger (1998)proposes that a workplace CofP needs to be formed and maintainedby three ongoing, mutually-constitutive substances, which are

●

A joint enterprise, taken for a meaning-making process throughwhich colleagues achieve their shared short- or long-termgoals;

●

A mutual engagement, typically in the form of face-to-faceinteraction, attributed to the joint enterprise; and

●

A shared repertoire, such as humor, as an outcome of mutualengagement, a toolkit for proving membership, and a means ofpositioning to the institutional hierarchy.

Despite its origin with workplace learning, scholars in WDAusually adapt the framework in a more general sense of workplaceinteraction from a social-constructionist perspective (see Section3.1 below). Along the process in which these three substancesconstitute each other, discourse strategies are considered asshared repertoires aimed at getting something done in face-to-face settings (i.e. mutual engagement) in the workplace (i.e. jointenterprises), and the ways of using these repertoires are seen asindicators of membership within the CofP (e.g., Holmes andStubbe, 2003). Workplace talk, then, takes place in the process ofcolleagues' participation adhering to CofP norms at a collective

level, plus their reification to symbolize such participation at anindividual level.

The CofP framework stresses that membership is mainly gainedand negotiated via understanding and performing shared reper-toires for common workplace-oriented goals with the face-to-faceworkplace context. Nevertheless, while later works suggest thatworkplace CofPs can be developed or extended to the Internet (e.g., Wenger and Snyder, 2000; also see Castro, 2009), there aremany features of CMC which pose controversies to the use of CofPas a theoretical framework (Gee, 2005). When workplace talk isperformed after work, it is difficult to conceive what counts (not)as a joint enterprise in such a setting outside the workplace(Holmes and Meyerhoff, 1999). Additionally, it is difficult to definewhat kinds of online interactions are (not) mutual engagement(Davies, 2005). Does “liking” a status update count a mutualengagement? Following these two problems, shared repertoires,cannot avoid collapsing at a theoretical level. Furthermore, in anenvironment like Status Updates where the line between thepersonal and the collective blurs, one will have difficulty consider-ing the notions of participation and reification.

The CofP framework is conducive to WDA, but it clearlyrequires more re/exploration with empirical data collected froma workplace community whose members interact online. Whilewe employ the CofP framework as our theoretical background, weaim to reconsider its use in WDA in relation to CMC. Before wediscuss our participants, we foreground the social-constructionistapproach to WDA, and generally discuss Facebook and StatusUpdates in relation to our research focus.

3. The social-constructionist approach to discourse studies

3.1. The social-constructionist view of linguistic communication andpower

Adaptation of the CofP framework in WDA is closely associatedwith the social-constructionist approach to discourse (Holmes andMeyerhoff, 1999), which “emphasize[s] the dynamic aspects ofsuch interaction, and the constantly changing and developingnature of social identities, social categories and group boundaries,a process in which talk clearly plays an essential part” (Holmes2005, pp. 672–673). This approach aligns itself with the CofPframework which sees discourse practices, namely the threeindispensable substances, plus the resulted identities and power,as always shifting, multiple and fluctuating (Eckert and Wenger,2005; cf. Davies, 2005). In this approach, any workplace discoursepractices, such as humor (Holmes, 2007), small talk (Mak andChui, in press) and swearing (Daly et al., 2004), are fluidlyperformed when colleagues move along a continuum of talk withone end of “core-business needs” and another end of “relationalpurposes” (see the continuum in Holmes, 2000).

The social-constructionist approach to discourse furtherimplies a dynamic view of power (Eckert and Wenger, 2005)among colleagues. As transactional and relational endeavors oftencoexist and fluctuate in workplace talk (Mullany, 2007), its out-comes, especially power and identities, are usually versatile,relative, changing and open to negotiate as well when the talkproceeds (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005; Holmes, 2005). With change oftopic within a conversation, for example, the powerful can becomepowerless, and the powerless can regain powerfulness later(Thornborrow, 2002; Vine, 2004). In this paper, thus, power isnot something statically contained inside institutional authority(the static degree of control) or predetermined titles (the staticproperty of a role) in the absence of context (Mullany, 2004).Instead, it is an asymmetrical construct resulting from variousdifferences in communication (Wodak et al., 2012; see Section 4.3).

B.C.N. Mak, H.L. Chui / Discourse, Context and Media 2 (2013) 94–10296

The fluidity may be even more obvious when it comes to social-network sites like Facebook.

3.2. Social-network sites and Facebook Status Updates

Social-network sites (SNS) are multidimensional platforms(Papacharissi, 2009) which integrate instant messengers, email,blogs and personal homepages to enable people to communicatefor different social purposes using multimedia (see Ellison et al.,2011, p. 875 for a more detailed definition). Participation in theseplatforms is largely dependent on self-initiatives (DeAndrea et al.,2010; Smith and Kidder, 2010). As the leading SNS, Facebook alsoallows its users to interact with their “friends” in many ways. Inthis paper we only focus on its function of Status Updates.

Status Updates are similar to microblogging in Twitter throughwhich users share what they do and/or think “at the moment”through short messages (for a detailed description of microbloggingand Status Updates, see Lee, 2011, pp. 111–112). Such short messageswith or without embedded multimedia3 typed in by a user will bepublished as a “News Feed” on the first page of his or her friends(when they login Facebook). Subsequently, friends or specifiedfriends who are subscribed to participate can read, respond, share,and/or “like” these “updates of status”. When responses appear and/or the number of “like” increases, the overall contents and inter-pretation of an update will accumulate and change (Page, 2010).

In the literature, exchanges in Status Updates are found to beless public but more direct, casual, concise and emotional thantraditional blogs (e.g., Jansen et al., 2009). They keep “friendship”in Facebook alive by motivating internal prompt discussions(Morris et al., 2010), exchanging opinions, seeking information(Jansen et al., 2009), reading “gossip” (Debatin et al., 2009), andtracking past activities (DeAndrea et al., 2010). Nevertheless, thereare only a handful of scholarly works which have slightly touchedon the role of Status Updates in workplace communication (e.g.,Zywica and Danowski, 2008). These works usually do not draw onempirical data; nor do they analyze their findings using WDA orbased on the CofP framework. This is exactly why we put forwardthis study to provide new insights into the literature.

4. Methodology

4.1. Background of research participant

Our participants were from the branch store of an internationalItalian restaurant in Hong Kong (hereafter DIY) where 19 collea-gues, Hong Kong citizens, were working ir/regularly on differentshifts. Over half of them were part-time employees but full-timeuniversity students (during the data collection period). All of themwould work together in the store on or across some shifts.According to our informal consultations before data collection,they appeared to have added each other in Facebook and haveformed a kind of community (hereafter DIY-S) in which English wasintentionally used in Status Updates to exclude other DIY collea-gues who had limited proficiency in English. A full-time assistantmanager, a college graduate, joined in their English talk as well.

DIY-S colleagues seldom talked in Status Updates during officehours, but usually after work and at midnight4 . Sometimes they

3 In earlier versions of Facebook, there was a system question “What are youdoing right now” for users to respond. The current version of Facebook prompt onmobile devices retains this feature, but the question has become “What is onyour mind”.

4 Our database reveals a few updates which were posted by DIY-S colleaguesusing smartphones during short breaks within work hours, but the majoritycollected (over 80%) were posted after work hours outside the store (usuallyaround 11 pm to 1 am).

used Chinese to encompass all DIY colleagues in the talk, but thisdid not happen frequently. While DIY had a more official Facebookgroup, they usually accessed the page for announcements only. Inaddition, while we are interested in DIY-S colleagues' use of StatusUpdates, many of them in the consultations reported that owing tothe general occupational culture of catering, communication in thestore/kitchen was quite centralized and transactional-based. Theyalso declared that, to the face of customers, subordinates werestrictly not allowed to talk to their superiors impolitely or in anyindecent way.

4.2. Collection of Status Updates, selection of excerpts and follow-upinterviews

DIY-S colleagues' Status Updates were collected in the form ofcomputer-generated files. Participants were invited to either usethe print-screen method to capture their Status Updates as jpgfiles or run Adobe Acrobat Professional to save them as pdf files5 .Afterwards, we selected some excerpts for in-depth analysis withthe following criteria:

●

speretapar

There was at least one short- or long-term goal which wasassociated with DIY,

●

There was at least one DIY-S colleague who had responded tothe update, and

●

Some discourse strategies and/or Netspeak features wereinvolved in the exchange, if possible.

These criteria were conceived more or less in response to thethree substances for a CofP to exist. After the selection process, weconducted interviews, in Cantonese or English, with the involvedcolleagues. These interviews consisting of open questions focusedon providing contexts for the selected excerpts; they enhance thevalidity of our inferences, especially regarding power (Holmes andStubbe, 2003) and real-world activities. In follow-up interviewswe particularly asked (1) what had motivated the participants towrite and/or reply in a way in the update, and (2) how theparticipants thought about its contents or development. Finally,we screened out the excerpts which did not have sufficientinterview data for discourse analysis.

4.3. Analytical framework for analyzing Status Updates

We examine the CofP framework as our theoretical base, butWDA usually requires a more language-oriented framework foranalysis of empirical data (Stubbe et al., 2003). In this paper, weemploy Gee's (2011) model of discourse analysis. Gee (2011)proposes that language use will construct the reality in sevenareas which can be analyzed by six tools. Here we mainly focus onthe areas of “significance”, “politics” and “practice” in his model.The former two are more associated with asymmetries, impor-tance and appropriateness of objects, which constitute to negotia-tion of power. Practice is more related to getting things done,including both transactional and relational aspects at work. Fortools, we mainly use “discourses”, “figure worlds” and “situatedmeanings”. The former two address the language use developed bysocial-cultural practices and other taken-for-granted assumptionsin the community or catering field. Situated meanings address thecontextual, meaning-making in the exact Status Updates. Althoughthese areas and tools are separately discussed in Gee's framework,

5 Because of the methods, all emoticons, unconventional punctuation use,cial capitalization, “likes”, trailing dots, typos and grammatical mistakes wereined. However, all photos were removed in our coding stage, and eachticipant was invited to select his or her pseudonym in publication.

B.C.N. Mak, H.L. Chui / Discourse, Context and Media 2 (2013) 94–102 97

they actually mix with each other when we interpret and analyzeour excerpts, and they weigh differently in different analyses.

Since Gee (2011) does not suggest specific tools toanalyze power, we additionally adapt the three mechanisms ofenacting workplace power as proposed by Wodak et al. (2012) inanalysis. Power is a dynamic, relative, asymmetrical outcomeresulting from symbolic goal-oriented interactions in whichparticipants

●

Deal with different transmission and interpretations of mean-ing (mechanism 1),

●

Take part in inclusion and exclusion (mechanism 2), and/or ● Experience different rules, values, status, and convention to

control or influence others (mechanism 3).

We believe that this adaptation embraces both the relativelyfixed asymmetrical resources in the background of workplace talkand the different possibilities of power negotiation in real com-munication (Shi-xu, 2005). In a conversation, colleagues gainingmore privileged access to any mechanisms above are consideredrelatively more powerful (and vice versa) in that aspect.

5. Data analysis

5.1. General findings, presentation and analysis of representativeexcerpts

We documented around 200 analyzable Status Updates fromDIY-S colleagues over a period of seven months. Most of themwere coded with “demonstration of business skills”, “challenges ofduty roster”, “management of relationship” and “release of worktension”. After interviews, we screened out about 50 of them dueto confidentiality or lack of supplementary interview data. Theexcerpts in this paper were collected within the period October2011 to February 2012. Since the majority of them were posted inEnglish, and we did not intend to analyze code choices asvariationists did, we decided to tentatively ignore the Chineseones in this paper.

In presentation of Status Updates, we retain their physicallayout in Facebook. In presentation of interview data, we reporttheir original or translated wordings within direct quotationmarks; square brackets in direct quotations indicate additionalnotes or grammatical correction from the authors. In analysis, weinvestigate the process of getting things done in each StatusUpdates step by step, and state the mechanisms of powernegotiation in round brackets.

5.2. Foregrounding work-related competency in Status Updates

5.2.1. Excerpt 1Situated context: Edmund is supposed to work in the manager

room. Because of a shortage of front-line employees, recently heoften temporarily takes over the cashier to help subordinates atthe front-line. Since he is good at “fast-trade” (persuading custo-mers to buy extra food after they order what they initially want),his move leads to an increase of business.

1

[photo] Edmund 2 my colleagues about to refuse to work 3 with me la 4 Friday at 0:21 5 [You, Emily, Wilson and 4 others like this!] 6 [photo] Wilson absolutely, i will be 7 the 1st! u try not to go to the 8 cashier! everytime u go bills

9

q up 10 Friday at 0:22 [1 person likes this] 11 [photo] Martin so serious 12 Friday at 1:04 13 [photo] Edmund they said everytime 14 I work the biz will be better 15 Friday at 1:10 [1 person likes this] 16 [photo] Wilson this is the proof 1718 from my work experience with u!Friday

at 1:10

19 [photo] Jeff then you need think urself! 20 cashier will explode 21 Friday at 1:35 22 [photo] Derek haha� morning shift with 23 u biz really very gd 24 Friday at 1:36

To analyze practice (in Gee's sense) of excerpt 1, we interpretwhat and how work is done in this talk. Edmund starts the updateby saying that his subordinates almost refuse to work with him(lines 2–3). While this is a statement of self-depreciation, his use ofthe Cantonese sentence-final particle “la” indicates a change from aprevious state (Kwok, 1984) in an informal situation (Matthewsand Yip, 1994). Then, Wilson acknowledges his being the firstsubordinate to refuse, “criticizing” for Edmund's takeover of thecashier which causes a sudden increase of orders (lines 6–9).While Wilson's response is (superficially) impolite, he imitates afriendly tone with exclamation marks (Waseleski, 2006). He alsoimplies Edmund's fast-trade skills, which are normally valued incatering business. Contrary to Wilson, Martin only responds withtwo words (line 11), which suggest an uncaring attitude. Subse-quently, Edmund quotes other colleagues' compliments to expli-citly boost his fast-trade skills (lines 13–14). Following this, Wilsonacknowledges Edmund's skills again (lines 16–17); Jeff impolitelytells Edmund to reflect on his takeover, joking that the cashier willexplode (lines 19–20). Both Wilson and Jeff employ the exclama-tion marks which suggest a friendly tone. This is further con-solidated by Derek who explicitly compliments Edmund's fast-trade skills (lines 22–23). All in all, this excerpt delineates how amanager foregrounds his fast-trade skills by self-depreciatinghumor, and how his subordinates jointly acknowledge him bymock impoliteness (Culpeper, 1996). Netspeak features, such asabbreviation, wave dashes and punctuation (Crystal, 2010), areused from time to time.

To analyze significance and politics (in Gee's sense), weillustrate how and in what way power is enacted with regard tothe mechanisms in Wodak et al. (2012). When Edmund self-depreciates himself, he downplays his predetermined title to aninferior, close position in which subordinates can refuse to workwith him (mechanism 3). While this inferiority is consolidated byWilson's first response, he actually acknowledges the implicationof such refusal (i.e. good fast-trade skills), to interpret Edmund'supdate as a highlighter of fast-trade skills (mechanism 1). WhenEdmund boosts his fast-trade skills by quoting others' compli-ments, he transmits and foregrounds the importance of fast-tradeskills indirectly (mechanism 1). This is consolidated by Wilson'ssecond response, Jeff's humor and Derek's direct comment, whichsuggests that they share the similar understanding of fast-tradeskills (mechanisms 1 and 3). By and large, Edmund first transfershis power to his subordinates by downplaying his status; hissubordinates superficially subvert this power by mock impolite-ness, then returning this power to Edmund by implicitly orhumorously emphasizing his fast-trade skills.

B.C.N. Mak, H.L. Chui / Discourse, Context and Media 2 (2013) 94–10298

In our database, using Status Updates after work as a means toforeground professional catering skills is common. Theseexchanges are often superficially confrontational, and DIY-S col-leagues typically end their Facebook talk by shaping a similarattitude (Zhao and Rosson, 2009) towards competencies in rela-tion to cutting pizza, mixing pasta into ingredients, frying spa-ghetti, etc. However, other than catering skills, they also make useof Status Updates for administrative purposes, as our followingexcerpt indicates.

5.3. Proposing changes of duty roster in Status Updates

5.3.1. Excerpt 2Situated context: Sam is a new employee with little working

experience in Italian fast food; he is still learning different kinds ofposition in the store. Kerry is a senior crew member with officialresponsibility for duty arrangement.

1

[photo] Sam 2 recently stay on the frying post, 3 startto miss flour, why feel so? Want 4 to ask… anyone tells me? 5 9 November 2011 at 23:31 6 [photo] Kerry uncle lets u flour tmr�� 7 9 November 2011 at 23:55 8 [photo] Sam thank you… learn other 9 posts 10 10 November 2011 at 0:40 11 [photo] Sam learn spaghetti…cook at 12 home… 13 10 November 2011 at 0:41 [1 person likes

this!]

14 [photo] Sam finally not flour, not 15 spaghetti,also not frying, but 16 cleaning… 17 11 November 2011 at 0:06 [1 person likes

this!]

Sam initiates this update by implying he is bored with theposition of frying, performing humor that he misses flour (i.e.pasta-making), and then asking someone to tell him why (lines 2–4). This way of initiative is responsive to the “small narrative”nature of Status Updates (Bolander and Locher, 2010; Page, 2010).In his mini narrative, he establishes an online context by setting upa topic about duty arrangement, questioning the existing assign-ment, and then revealing his internal attributes, namely his feelingtowards the frying position. The update, implicitly, invites other(targeted) colleagues to participate. In the interview, Sammade hisattempt clear, “I wanted to change my position. It was very boringif you kept doing the same food every day”. After 20 min, Kerry,the key senior crew member who is responsible for manpower,responds to Sam by making a promise that he will allocate Sam totakeover pasta-making in the day after (line 6). Kerry's promise isended with two wave dashes, which imitates a singsong tone; andhe positions himself as “uncle”, which creates an imagined super-ior (powerful) identity in contrast to Sam. Subsequently, Samthanks Kerry's promise (lines 8–9), and points to his desiredposition, namely spaghetti (lines 11–12). Nonetheless, after a day,Sam goes back to this update to imply that Kerry has not kept hispromise (lines 14–16). He evidenced this in the interview, “finally Iwas assigned to cleaning. I felt a bit irritated so I replied to my postto let more colleagues know this”. His final act, interpretatively, isto make use of the broadcasting nature of Status Updates whichenable tracking updated messages (Zhao and Rosson, 2009).

Simultaneously, he closes his “small narrative” by describe theending (of his attempt to duty change) (Page, 2010). All in all, thisexcerpt describes how a subordinate initiates a status update forintervening into the duty roster, and how he discloses the brokenpromise later. Trailing dots are commonly used by Sam in theprocess.

Although this update is responded to mostly by Sam, there areseveral important points of power enactment. When Sam usesFacebook to articulate his voice as a newcomer (Grasmuck et al.,2009), he gains active access to shape the topic of exchange(mechanism 1). While Kerry makes a promise to change in a cutietone, there is a (superficial) release of control of his institutionalauthority (mechanism 3). Then, Sam further pinpoints his desiredrole, and further raises his voice (mechanism 1) and ignores thehierarchy in the real world (mechanism 3). While his attemptoverall turns out to be unsuccessful, his final self-response to thisupdate will appear on the first page after DIY-S colleagues' logginginto Facebook (Debatin et al., 2009). This is a potentially powerfultransmission of his message about the broken promise (mechan-ism 1). By and large, Sam first struggles to gain power to changehis assigned duty by humor (i.e. he misses flour); his superiorsuperficially transfers this power to Sam by making a tentativepromise. Afterwards, that Kerry has broken his promise (in the realworld) implies that he has not actually transferred that power toSam, which may be why Sam goes back to this update to (attemptto) regain it.

Our database contains a lot of Status Updates which areinitiated for duty matters, such as shift changes, additional shifts,personal leaves, etc. Sometimes even Edmund, the assistantmanager, will inspect his subordinates' responses to his proposedholidays. These exchanges are often funny and superficially con-frontational as well. But still, DIY-S colleagues participate in StatusUpdates not only for work or administrative reasons, but alsointerpersonal purposes. The next excerpt will demonstrate this.

5.4. Diffusing working stress in Status Updates

5.4.1. Excerpt 3Situated context: because of a shortage of colleagues in early

December, many members have been overloaded, and many ofthem are prone to making mistakes. The assistant manager,Edmund, is annoyed about the current manpower and workambience in the store.

1

[photo] Edmund 2 exploding arrr……(shouting) 3 Monday at 9:19 4 [Wilson, Derek and 7 others like this!] 5 [photo] John EM, red X’MAS coming! 6 add oil…MERRY X’MAS 7 Monday at 12:20 8 [photo] Alfred sing a song lo! xmas 9 hasnt come but u alreadly 10 Monday at 14:24

Edmund's initiative of this update is emotional rather thantransactional. He uses the progressive form of “explode”, plus theprolonged Cantonese sentence-final particle “ar” (i.e. “a”) whichstresses certainty in strong emotions (Kwok, 1984), to manifest hiscontinually bad temper (line 2) in Facebook. The extension of “r”further enlarges his emotion, and he even brackets the word“shouting” to consolidate the paralinguistic cue. In the interview,both Edmund and his subordinates agreed with the emotionalnature of this update. Edmund added, “let subordinates [be] alert

B.C.N. Mak, H.L. Chui / Discourse, Context and Media 2 (2013) 94–102 99

[of] the serious problems in our store”. Yet, John and Alfredperform very different participation from Edmund. John callsEdmund's nickname “EM” (pseudonym), encourages him to “addoil”6 , and greets him with capitalized “MERRY X'MAS” (lines 5–6).The encouragement and blessing are contrastive to the negativeemotion or feeling shouted out by Edmund. Following John, Alfredridicules Edmund's bad temper by suggesting he “sing a song”, plusthe Cantonese sentence-final particle “lo” imitating an uncaringattitude towards something which is too obvious to restate (Kwok,1984) (line 8). Alfred even lectures Edmund by saying that heshould not have become “explosive” as Christmas has not come yet(lines 8–9). Alfred explained this in the interview, “because thecustomer flow will be even far higher than usual during theChristmas period”. All in all, excerpt 3 demonstrates how a super-ior treats Status Updates as a stress-releasing platform (Zhao andRosson, 2009), and how his subordinates avoid taking himseriously. Netspeak features like incomplete sentences and con-secutive capitalization are involved.

While this status update is largely relational in nature, it stillinvolves fluctuation of workplace power. That Edmund launchesthis update to express a moment of stressing out is an impositionof negative feeling on other DIY-S colleagues (mechanism 1).Nonetheless, John's positive encouragement and blessing, plusAlfred's ridicule and lecture, imply their exclusion from Edmundand his stress (mechanism 2). Alfred even retains and expresseshis own view of the peak season before Christmas (mechanism 1).By and large, Edmund first gains the power to diffuse his stressand emotion; John implicitly compete for the power by refusing toshare the same feeling, while Alfred even do so by subverting thepredetermined status and lecturing Edmund in an indecent tone.

We find a number of Status Updates in which the initiator and/or the respondents transmit emotional messages after work;typical examples are complaints about work, swearing againstcustomers, enthusiasm for holidays, unhappiness due to on-siteconflicts, etc. DIY-S colleagues tend to ignore their predeterminedtitles, but reconstruct their desired identities in these updates(Papacharissi, 2009). Our final excerpt, on the other hand, displaysanother portrait of Status Updates for interpersonal purposes.

5.5. Lecturing on subordinates' relationship in Status Updates

5.5.1. Excerpt 4Situated context: Fred is a senior crew member. He is discon-

tented with and agonized about the pair-up cooperation between/among some of his subordinates. Details of the problem were notrevealed in the excerpt or interview, however.

6

for it”.

“Add oil” is a slang o

1

[photo] Fred 2 1 colleague dislike u, no problem, let 3 it be… 4 2 colleagues dislike u, u can say they 5 exclude u 6 3 colleagues dislike u, u can say they 7 boycott u 8 4 colleagues or above dislike you, plz 9 reflect urself carefully!! 10 17 October 2011 at 22:07 11 [You, Emily, Wilson and 8 others like this!] 12 [photo] Wilson i must be disliked ¼ ¼ 13 17 October 2011 at 22:27 [1 person likes

this!]

14 [photo] Sam I also need to raise my

f Hong Kong English which means “go ahead” or “go

15

hand here 16 17 October 2011 at 22:31 17 [photo] Fred the point is not who! 18 17 October 2011 at 22:32 19 [photo] Fred can't say here 20 17 October 2011 at 22:39

The goal of this update is obvious. Fred step by step simulatesfour increasingly serious situations in which a colleague is dislikedby other members, then affirmatively suggesting how that collea-gue could or should do in each situation (lines 2–9). Thispressurizes his target by embodying the deterioration of his orher relationship with colleagues. Given this online context, hisconsecutive use of exclamation mark in the last situation furtherimitates the tone of (mild) argument (cf. Waseleski, 2006). In theinterview, Fred also made it clear that he had “intended to lecturesome troublemakers who create a bad work mood”. Although hehas not revealed the names of those troublemakers, according tointerviews, the 11 members who have “liked” and supported thisupdate (Papacharissi, 2009) understands whom Fred means. Onthe other hand, Wilson and Sam do not take his lecture serious,but provide humorous responses. Wilson surrenders himself withan emoticon “¼ ¼” (line 12), which means tiredness and helpless;Sam says that he should raise his hand (lines 14–15), which is aself-confessing gesture. In the interviews, both Wilson and Samsaid they “wanted to make [Fred] less angry”. Despite theirintention, Fred critically stresses that his point is not who thetroublemakers are (line 17), but that he cannot lecture in theupdate (line 19). All in all, excerpt 4 illustrates how a superioremploys Status Updates as a lecturing medium, and how hissubordinates respond in a playful sense.

This lecture in Facebook is full of enactment of power, especiallyfrom Fred. When he initiates his lecture step by step, he actuallycontrols his subjectivity to the solution to each situation of beingdislike, and affirms what could or should be done in each situation(mechanism 1). He imposes a severe atmosphere which is generallynot valued by Facebook users (Whitte, 2009) on DIY-S colleagues(mechanism 3). Additionally, although he is at the similar age withother DIY-S colleagues (except Edmund), in this update he projectshimself to an abstract position with sufficient life experience tolecture on people's interpersonal relationships (mechanism 3). Thepower created by these mechanisms may be further strengthenedwith the increase of “likes”. Interestingly, when Wilson and Samtake a playful attitude towards Edmund's lecture, they includethemselves in Fred's lecture (mechanism 2) but remain unin-fluenced by Fred's seriousness (mechanism 3). But still, Fred'simplication that they fail to see his main point underscores hiscontrol of the whole interpretation (mechanism 1). Finally, Fredexcludes all DIY-S colleagues by withholding his own view on thetroublemakers in his team (mechanism 2). By and large, Fred gainspower by controlling information and judgments in the manner of asuperior at a more general level (Park et al., 2009). While Wilsonand Sam partly acknowledge this power, they ridicule it by beingnon-serious. Afterward, Fred enhances this power by further con-trolling his judgment and refusing to communicate more. Theresulted asymmetries of power become more influential whenthere are more members read and/or like this update.

Serious lectures like in excerpt 4 are not always found in ourdatabase, yet they are remarkable because catering professionalstend to avoid informal discourse strategies like humor when theydiscipline subordinates (Brown and Keegan, 1999). However,discussions about cooperation, store ambience, gossip of relation-ships, etc. are quite common. These updates are usually groundedin the workplace (cf. Lewis and West, 2009), namely in the store,

B.C.N. Mak, H.L. Chui / Discourse, Context and Media 2 (2013) 94–102100

but take place online or outside the workplace (Gee, 2005). In thefollowing section, we discuss how these Status Updates, whichtake place after work and outside the workplace, can refine ourunderstanding workplace talk and power, and how they can giveinsights into reconsideration of using the CofP framework in WDA.

6. Discussion

The practical dimension of this paper is to explore the role ofStatus Updates in workplace talk and power; the theoreticaldimension is to re/examine use of the CofP framework to theorizeworkplace talk and power. Our selected excerpts demonstratedthat DIY-S colleagues could employ Status Updates, albeit afterwork and outside the workplace, to communicate work-based(excerpts 1 and 2) and/or relation-oriented issues (excerpts 3 and4) (cf. Debatin et al., 2009) which were grounded in the physicalworkplace. We urge that Status Updates, and perhaps other CMCgenres, should be seen as more than a social-networking toolwhen it comes to workplace talk.

6.1. The role of Status Updates in workplace talk

While Status Updates interact with workplace talk, they differ-entiate themselves from the real-world counterpart. We illustratedin analysis that DIY-S colleagues reiterated work-related skills(excerpt 1), suggested duty and position changes (excerpt 2),expressed work-oriented emotions (excerpt 3), and lectured onsubordinates' relationships (excerpt 4) in Status Updates. Whereasthey exchanged in these excerpts on some common ground(DiMicco et al., 2008), their ways of talking were diversified.Examples were self-depreciation, mock impoliteness strategies(excerpt 1), small narratives (excerpt 2), symbolized exclamatives(excerpt 3), and solemn lectures (excerpt 4). Netspeak features likesentence-final particles, consecutive exclamation marks, wavedashes, verbalized laughter, emoticons, trailing dots, all capitalsand incomplete sentences were used differently for creatinginformal conversational atmosphere. Consequently, we proposethat Status Updates can be an alternative, potential tool to getthings done outside the workplace, and that the online processinvolved can be intertwined with face-to-face communication inthe workplace (cf. Zywica and Danowski, 2008). However, asStatus Updates allow large space for personalized language use(Page, 2010) and casual talk (Morris et al., 2010), informal (or evenemotional) discourse strategies are used inconsistently even forfull members of a work community.

6.2. The role of Status Updates in workplace power

Colleagues' talk in Status Updates usually constitutes power inrelation to theworkplace. Being off duty, outside theworkplace and onthe Internet will not lead to the disappearance of political constructs(Gee, 2011). Instead, DIY-S colleagues downplayed the superior statusduring self-compliments (excerpt 1), articulate voices to intervene intoor struggle for officially-made decisions (excerpt 2), subverted theofficial hierarchy to ridicule or lecture superiors (excerpt 3), created anauthoritative image to discipline others (excerpt 4). The powerinvolved in these Status Updates were fluctuating (e.g., when Johnand Alfred ridiculed Edmund's stress), invisible (e.g., when Wilson andJeff acknowledged Edmund's fast-trade skills), and sometimes less co-constructed (e.g., when Sam reported the broken promise and Fredwithheld his judgment). Therefore, we argue that Status Updates canprovide an alternative, de/centralized, (Efimova and Grudin, 2007),and individualized channel (DeAndrea et al., 2010) for colleagues to re/manipulate authority and status in the physical workplace. Since anytop-down, bottom-up or peer exchanges in Status Updates outside the

workplace are more open to negotiation than their real-world counter-parts, the institutional authority, official hierarchy and predeterminedstatus involved will become fluid and open to reconstruct as well. Inturn, the process of doing power in Status Updates will affect work-place talk in the (physical) workplace.

6.3. Communities of Practice, WDA and CMDA

WDA has tended to employ CofP as the theoretical frameworksince the past decade. Under the framework, continual use ofdiscourse strategies is “practice”. Nevertheless, the conceptualiza-tion is to a large extent based on face-to-face workplace talk, plusthe identities and situated power created (Eckert and Wenger2005). When it comes to workplace talk through CMC, the notionsof joint enterprise, mutual engagement and shared repertoire maychange. DIY-S colleagues in the interview declared that theyformed an online community in which English was preferred inFacebook. While the majority of our excerpts demonstrated differ-ent workplace-oriented goals, it remained unclear whether themeaning-making processes took place largely in Status Updates orwith many contextual connections with existing offline events. Insome excerpts which had been screened out, we found that theinitiator only performed an expressive speech act by typing aswearword, but without any responses from colleagues. Then, areinteractions like this in Status Updates sufficient enough to form“joint enterprises”? Additionally, our excerpts showed an interest-ing phenomenon that there were often some DIY-S colleagues whoonly “liked” the updates without responding anything. But still,clicking on the “like” button was nothing more than a note ofrecognition or support. Also, it was possible for some colleagues toread the updates without “liking” it, or to selectively “like” someresponses (Carr et al., 2012). Then, do these kinds of ambiguous orinvisible behavior count as “mutual engagements”? Simultaneously,our excerpts displayed a lot of diversity in language use amongDIY-S colleagues, and such diversity would reconstruct their officialhierarchy and predetermined status very differently. It was alsopossible that their norms of doing humor in Status Updates (e.g.,excerpts 3 and 4) were largely transferred from the kitchen (cf.Brown and Keegan, 1999). Then, in this situation, are there anyconcrete “shared repertoires” which allow colleagues to dis/provetheir membership in Facebook? It is suggested that identityconstruction in Facebook is frequently implicit and grounded inoffline life (Bolander and Locher, 2010). Then, what is online“participation” at a collective level, and what is online “reification”at an individual level?

When the line between WDA and CMDA blurs, use of the CofPframework to conceptualize workplace talk needs further refine-ment in relation to the three important substances for a CofP. Oneway to solve the problem may be to separate or weaken someconceptual links among them (see Gee, 2005). In this study,although the language use and manner of DIY-S colleagues' talkin Status Updates might be different from their real-world coun-terparts, whether their interactions in Facebook could form anonline CofP (which was different or extended from the CofP in thephysical workplace, namely the store) was slightly questionable. Inparticular, DIY-S colleagues claimed that they intended to excludesome colleagues who had limited English proficiency, but whethertheir Status Updates were once read or shared by “mass audiences”were unknown (cf. Carr et al., 2012). After all, their friend list notonly contained DIY-S colleagues, but also other people who mightbe interested in their updates, such as their former colleagues.Moreover, it is a consensus in CMDA that the Internet always lacksconcrete hierarchy and relationship (Davies, 2005), especially inSNSs like Facebook, there is often a collapsed context (Marwickand boyd, 2011) in which all added users are “friends”, and userscan do or undo this command anytime. Such an easily-formed and

Fig. 1

B.C.N. Mak, H.L. Chui / Discourse, Context and Media 2 (2013) 94–102 101

superficially-flatten relationship (Lewis and West, 2009), plus theunclear boundary between “insiders” and “outsiders”, will furthercompound the CofP framework when it is used as a theoreticalframework in WDA. When membership and relationships are so“indefinable”, the notions of full, peripheral and marginal partici-pation in a CofP also need to be reconsidered.

7. Conclusion

The practical goal of this paper is to examine the role of StatusUpdates in workplace talk and power. Although Facebook may bebanned in some business environments, our findings suggest thatFacebook Status Updates can be used after work and outside theworkplace, often in a more casual and personal manner, to helpachieve transactional and/or relational goals in the “real” work-place. They constitute a new genre of workplace talk withNetspeak. In the long run, they can be an alternative collocationof workplace discourse which is parallel to the real-world counter-part. In the online process, authority, hierarchy and statusgrounded in the real-world become largely open to negotiate,beyond time and space. The power constructed and the contentexchanged in the SNS are in no way negligible even when thecolleagues go back to their company to perform ratified workplacetalk. Therefore, more WDA (and CMDA) can be conducted toexplore the potential of CMC, in particular the images, hyperlinksand video clips embedded (van Leeuwen, 2004), to the workplace.If applicable, researchers can even investigate the mixed applica-tion of face-to-face workplace talk and computer-mediated work-place talk, in order to form a holistic picture of workplacecommunication in the era of Web 2.0.

The theoretical goal of this paper is to rethink about the use ofCofP in WDA when it overlaps CMDA. Our findings suggest thatCMC genres like Status Updates remain unclear about whatconstitutes the joint enterprises, mutual engagements and sharedrepertoires when colleagues talk on the Internet. Their associationwith or dissociation from offline practice are questionable; thenotions of participants are problematic when “outsiders” join inthe talk. Thus, we wonder whether the online workplace talk by agroup of colleagues regularly after work can be conceptualized bythe existing use of CofP framework in WDA. Likewise, we questionwhether a group of colleagues who regularly perform workplacetalk via CMC can be always termed as a new CofP (or a CofPextended from the real world) (Gee, 2005). More theoretical worksin relation to employing CofP as a theoretical framework in WDAare definitely needed; or else, scholars can examine whether thereare other frameworks (e.g., Affinity Spaces by Gee, 2004) whichcan conceptualize workplace talk embracing more settings.

Acknowledgment

We thank all participants who allowed their Status Updates tobe analyzed and agreed to be interviewed; we are particularlygrateful to the assistant manager of the store who supported ourstudy. We are also grateful to the editor and the anonymousreviews for all suggestions and/or comments on our work. Wefinally want to thank Miss April Liu Yiqi for recommending us anumber of readings on the CofP framework.

Appendix

A sample of Facebook Status Update

See Fig. 1.

Official titles and working tenure of participants

Name(pseudonym)

Position in thestore

Working tenure in thestore

Edmund

Assistant manager 5 years Kerry Team leader 4 years Martin Senior crew

member

2 years

Fred

Senior crewmember

3 years

John

Senior crewmember

2 years

Alfred

Crew member 2 years Derek Crew member Less than 1 year Jeff Crew member 3 years Sam Crew member Less than 1 year Wilson Crew member 3 years

References

Baron, N.S., 2005. Instant messaging and the future of language. Communications ofthe ACM 48 (7), 29–31.

Bolander, B., Locher, M.A., 2010. Constructing identity on Facebook: report on apilot studyIn: Junod, K., Maillat, D. (Eds.), Performing the Selfpp. 165–185.

Brown, R.B., Keegan, D., 1999. Humor in the hotel kitchen. Humor 12 (1), 47–70.Bucholtz, M., Hall, K., 2005. Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic

approach. Discourse Studies 7 (4–5), 585–614.Carr, C.T., Schrock, D.B., Dauterman, P., 2012. Speech acts within Facebook status

messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31 (2), 176–196.

B.C.N. Mak, H.L. Chui / Discourse, Context and Media 2 (2013) 94–102102

Castro, M., 2009. The use of microblogging in language education. In: Proceedingsof The Third International Wireless Ready Symposium pp. 8–11.

Crystal, D., 2010. Internet Linguistics. Routledge, New York.Culpeper, J., 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25

(3), 349–367.Daly, N., Holmes, J., Newton, J., Stubbe, M., 2004. Expletives as solidarity signals in

FTAs on the factory floor. Journal of Pragmatics 36 (5), 945–964.Davies, B., 2005. Communities of practice: legitimacy not choice. Journal of

Sociolinguistics 9 (4), 557–581.DeAndrea, D.C., Allison, S.S., Timothy, R.L., 2010. Online language: the role of culture

in self-expression and self-construal on Facebook. Journal of Language andSocial Psychology 29 (4), 425–442.

Debatin, B., Jennette, P.L., Ann-Kathrin, H.M.A., Hughes, B.N., 2009. Facebook andonline privacy: attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication 15 (1), 83–108.

DiMicco, J., Millen, D.R., Geyer, W., Dugan, C., Brownholtz, B., Muller, M., 2008.Motivations for social networking at work. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACMConference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work pp. 711–120.

Eckert, P., Wenger, E., 2005. What is the role of power in sociolinguistic variation?Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (4), 582–589.

Efimova, L., Grudin, J., 2007. Crossing boundaries: a case study of employeeblogging. In: Proceedings of the Fortieth Hawaii International Conference onSystem Science pp. 86–95.

Ellison, N.B., Charles, S., Cliff, L., 2011. Connection strategies: social capital implica-tions of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media and Society 13(6), 873–892.

Gee, J.P., 2004. Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling.Routledge, London.

Gee, J.P., 2005. Meaning making, communities of practice, and analytical toolkits.Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (4), 590–594.

Gee, J.P., 2011. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method.Routledge, London.

Grasmuck, S., Martin, J., Zhao, S., 2009. Ethno-racial identity displays on Facebook.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15 (1), 158–188.

Herring, S.C., 2004. Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach toresearching online behavior. In: Barab, S.A., Kling, R., Gray, J.H. (Eds.), Designingfor Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. Cambridge University Press,Cambridgepp. 338–376.

Herring, S.C., 2010. Computer-Mediated Conversation: Introduction and Overview.Language@Internet, 7 ⟨http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2010-2801⟩(accessed 12.12).

Holmes, J., 2000. Doing collegiality and keeping control at work: small talk ingovernment departments. In: Coupland, J. (Ed.), Small Talk. Longman, Lon-donpp. 32–61.

Holmes, J., 2005. Story-telling at work: a complex discursive resource for integrat-ing personal, professional and social identities. Discourse Studies 7 (6),671–700.

Holmes, J., 2007. Making humor work: creativity on the job. Applied Linguistics 28(4), 518–537.

Holmes, J., Marra, M., 2004. Relational practice in the workplace: women's talk orgendered discourse? Language in Society 33 (3), 377–398.

Holmes, J., Meyerhoff, M., 1999. The community of practice: theories and meth-odologies in language and gender research. Language in Society 28 (2),173–183.

Holmes, J., Schnurr, S., 2005. Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace:negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research1 (1), 121–149.

Holmes, J., Stubbe, M., 2003. Power and Politeness in the Workplace: A Socio-linguistic Analysis of Talk at Work. Longman, London.

Jansen, B.J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., Chowdury, A., 2009. Micro-blogging as onlineworld of mouth branding. In: Proceeding of the 27th International ConferenceExtended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems pp. 3859–3864.

Kwok, H., 1984. Sentence Particles in Cantonese. Centre of Asian Studies. Universityof Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Lave, J., Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lee, C.K.M., 2007. Affordances and text-making practices in online instant messa-ging. Written Communication 24 (3), 223–249.

Lee, C.K.M., 2011. Microblogging and status updates on Facebook: texts andpractices. In: Thurlow, C., Mroczek, K. (Eds.), Digital Discourse: Language inthe New Media. Oxford University Press, New Yorkpp. 110–128.

Lewis, J., West, A., 2009. “Friending”: London-based undergraduates' experience ofFacebook. New Media and Society 11 (7), 1209–1229.

Mak, B.C.N., Chui, H.L., in press. A cultural approach to small talk: a double-edgedsword of sociocultural reality during socialization into the workplace. Journal ofMulticultural Discourses.

Marwick, A., boyd, d., 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users,context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society 13 (1),114–133.

Matthews, S., Yip, V., 1994. Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar. Routledge,London.

Morris, M.R., Teevan, J., Panovich, K., 2010. What do people ask their socialnetworks, and why? A survey study of status message Q&A behavior. In:Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors on Computing Systemspp. 1739–1748.

Mullany, L., 2004. Gender, politeness and institutional power roles: humour as atactic to gain compliance in workplace business meetings. Multilingua 23 (1–2),13–37.

Mullany, L., 2007. Gendered Discourse in the Professional Workplace. Macmillan,Palgrave.

Page, R., 2010. Re-examining narrativity: small stories in status updates. Text andTalk 30 (4), 423–444.

Papacharissi, Z., 2009. The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparativeanalysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media and Society 11(1–2), 199–220.

Park, N., Kee, K.F., Valenzuela, S., 2009. Being immersed in social networkingenvironment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes.Cyberpsychology and Behavior 12 (6), 729–733.

Shi-xu, 2005. A Cultural Approach to Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.Smith, W.P., Kidder, D.L., 2010. You've been tagged! (Then again, maybe not):

employers and Facebook. Business Horizons 53 (5), 491–499.Stubbe, M., Lane, C., Hilder, J., Vine, B., Marra, M., Holmes, J., Weatherall, A., 2003.

Multiple discourse analyses of workplace interaction. Discourse Studies 5 (3),351–388.

Thornborrow, J., 2002. Power Talk: Language and Interaction in InstitutionalDiscourse. Longman, London.

van Leeuwen, T., 2004. Ten reasons why linguists should pay attention to visualcommunication. In: LeVine, P., Scollon, R. (Eds.), Discourse and Technology:Multimodal Discourse Analysis. Georgetown University Press, Washingtonpp.7–19.

Vine, B., 2004. Getting Things Done at Work: the Discourse of Power in WorkplaceInteraction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Waseleski, C., 2006. Gender and the use of exclamation points in computer-mediated communication: an analysis of exclamations posted to two electronicdiscussion lists. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11 (4),1012–1024.

Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity.Cambridge University Press, New York.

Wenger, E., Snyder, W.M., 2000. Communities of practice: the organizationalfrontier. Harvard Business Review 78 (1), 139–145.

Whitte, K., 2009. Facebook Etiquette Tips. ⟨http://suite101.com/article/facebook-etiquette-tips-a101602⟩ (accessed 12.12).

Wodak, R., Krzyzanowski, M., Forchtner, B., 2012. The interplay of languageideologies and contextual cues in multilingual interactions: language choiceand code-switching in European Union institutions. Language in Society 41 (2),157–186.

Zhao, D., Rosson, M.B., 2009. How and why people Twitter: the role that micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work. In: Proceedings of the ACM2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work pp. 243–252.

Zywica, J., Danowski, J., 2008. The faces of Facebookers: investigating socialenhancement and social compensation hypotheses; predicting Facebook andoffline popularity, sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings ofpopularity with semantic networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commu-nication 14 (1), 1–34.