Paper accepted for publication in Learning, Media & Technology (Nov.

2011)
The rhetoric of the implicit and the politics of representation in the
age of copy-and-paste
Elisabetta Adami
Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Verona, Italy
elisabetta.adami@univr.it
The paper discusses the effects of cop!and!paste on the rhetoric and politics of
communication in di"ital environments# b e$aminin" direct and indirect
(mis)%uotation and referencin" in &ouTube video!e$chan"es and b providin"
further e$amples in one!to!one communication via 'aceboo( and email. The
for)ardin" of (snippets of) artefacts in ne) conte$ts reshapes patterns of
coherence and cohesion# producin" interte$tualit and implicitness. A rhetoric
of the implicit shapes the politics of communication in elitist terms# assi"nin"
meanin"!ma(ers the responsibilit for communicative success*failure )hile
dischar"in" si"n!ma(ers from obli"ations of bein" clear# cohesive# coherent
and e$plicit. +ommon in informal conte$ts# such rhetoric ma effect also more
formal ones# )ith more or less successful results# hence the usefulness of meta!
reflection in raisin" si"n! and meanin"!ma(ers, a)areness on the varied effects
of these practices in different conte$ts.
-e)ords. social semiotics/ &ouTube/ 'aceboo(/ email/ interte$tualit/
%uotation/ remi$/ multimodalit/ cop!and!paste/ implicitness
Introduction
0n di"ital environments# visual and audio artefacts!as!te$ts can be selected and
assembled as ne) te$ts and re!conte$tuali1ed in ne) conte$ts. 2ultimodal te$t!
production throu"h cop!and!paste is an affordance of the di"ital medium that has
profound conse%uences in the )as te$ts are composed.
0n all modes available# cop!and!paste ma(es direct %uotin" easier than
indirect %uotin" or paraphrasin"/ it is easier to for)ard an di"ital te$t than to
reproduce its content )ith ne) resources (e.".# b narratin"*describin" it in )ritin").
This impacts the composition of te$ts and e$chan"es in di"ital environments and# it is
ar"ued here# has stron" implications on communicative conventions.
3ithin a social semiotic multimodal perspective (-ress# 2010)# the present
paper e$amines e$emplar instances of online e$chan"es )ith the aim of hi"hli"htin"
the effects of the afore!cited affordance on the rhetoric and politics of communication
in di"ital environments. The discussion starts b focusin" on the use of direct and
indirect %uotations and interte$tual references in video!e$chan"es on &ouTube. 4ere
the en5oment of interte$tualit combines )ith the implicitness often produced
throu"h cop!and!paste (throu"h the selection of videos previousl produced for
different conte$ts and later re!conte$tuali1ed in ne) e$chan"es). This comple$
rhetoric of the implicit reshapes the politics of communication in elitist terms. Po)er
relations in communicative roles shift/ authors are dischar"ed of the responsibilit for
successful communication )hile vie)ers are re%uired a "reat effort for retrievin" the
implied*interte$tual meanin"/ the re)ard to this effort resides in feelin" insiders# i.e.#
part of an elite. The use of cop!and!paste produces similar patterns of implicitness
also in social net)or(s such as 'aceboo(# )here artefacts are often for)arded )ith
little conte$tual information. Afforded b cop!and!paste# the practice of implicitness
is easil e$tended from man!to!man to one!to!one communication# e.". emails# and
from informal to more formal conte$ts# e.".# education.
The e$amples discussed here are ta(en both from the )riter,s )or( on
&ouTube video!interaction (Adami# 2010a) and from private communications )ithin
her net)or( on 'aceboo(. 6esides# emails sent b "raduate students to the )riter as
their teacher are here e$amined and used as data.
1
The forcefull selective cases
discussed here are meant to dra) attention on the possible articulations of a
phenomenon# the e$act impact of )hich in )ider conte$ts re%uires thorou"h
investi"ation to be ascertained. 0t is hoped that the ar"uments raised here can prompt
it in the future.
1
The producers of the private e$chan"es analsed here have "iven consent both to analsis and to
anonmi1ed publication of their te$ts. The discussed &ouTube video!e$chan"es are publicl available/
for the author,s ethical position on covert observation of these data# cf. Adami (2010a).
YouTube and the rhetoric of the implicit
Direct quotations
7n &ouTube# not onl can videos embed snippets of other videos# but previousl
uploaded video!clips can be re!posted as such as responses to an "iven video. This is
e$emplified b a video!response to the video Where Do YouTue!. As su""ested in its
title# the latter as(s vie)ers to post video!responses representin" )here the
upload*)atch &ouTube videos from. A respondent replies )ith an e$cerpt of The
Si"#sons T8 series/ the video!response# titled Maye Shelyville# portras 4omer
9impson )anderin" in a ni"htmarish )aste land and as(in" himself :)hat place is
this; is this 9helbville;,. 0n the T8 series# 9helbville is the anta"onist nei"hbourin"
to)n of 9prin"field# the 9impsons, one. The "eo"raphical location of the t)o fictional
to)ns# homonmous to man <9 to)ns# remains un(no)n throu"hout the episodes of
the pro"ramme. 0n reason of the bitter rivalr bet)een the t)o to)ns# 9prin"fieldians
consider 9helbville as a fri"htenin" place. 4ence# b postin" the e$cerpt as a
response# the respondent provides simultaneousl
a. a location (9helbville)# as an ans)er to the %uestion :)here do ou tube;,/
b. a miti"ation of the truth value of the ans)er# b virtue of the uncertaint
modalit mar(er in the title ("aye) and the non!identifiabilit of the fictional
to)n )ith an e$istin" one# indicatin" the respondent,s un)illin"ness to
disclose personal information on the actual location/
c. a ne"ative evaluation of the respondent,s o)n to)n# throu"h interte$tual
reference to the value of :hellish )asteland, (9mith# 200=) associated to
9helbville in The Si"#sons.
This comple$ set of meanin"s can be made onl if vie)ers are habitual )atchers of
the T8 series and can thus infer all the semantic associations implied in the response
throu"h interte$tual reference.
Even before activatin" this series of inferences# vie)ers have to assume that
the response is to be interpreted as an ade%uate repl# i.e.# as an ans)er to the %uestion
:)here do ou tube;,. 0ndeed# more cohesive responses to the video film a participant
sho)in" a hand)ritten :0 tube from >to)n*countr?, or movin" the camera around the
place introduced b a spo(en*)ritten :this is )here 0 tube,. 0n contrast# the
representation of the 9impsons response does not ans)er the :)here do ou tube,
%uestion e$plicitl and cohesivel# similarl to the follo)in" verbal e$chan"e.
(1) @. 3here do ou tube;
A. 4omer 9impson )anders around and sas :3hat is this; 0s this
9helbville;,
To interpret the response as ans)erin" the %uestion# the follo)in" inferences have to
be made.
a. the cartoon character 4omer 9impson needs to be interpreted as the avatar
of*spea(in" for the respondent# to establish correspondence in the sstem of
reference bet)een the a"ent uploadin" the video and the a"ent represented in
the video/
b. the uploadin" of the video has to be considered as a speech act si"nifin" the
action of (&ou)Tubin" as(ed in the video!re%uest# since the action represented
in the video is 4omer,s )anderin" and spea(in" )hile his spo(en predicate is
e$istential (Is this Shelyville!)/
c. the mar(ed position of the location needs to be disre"arded in order to
interpret it as an ans)er/ indeed here 9helbville is mentioned as an
hpothetical "uessin" in a series of %uestions# rather than as ne) information
in a statement.
0n sum# a series of inferences needs to be made firstl to consider the e$chan"e as
coherent# i.e.# that the response is intended to ans)er the %uestion of the responded!
video# possibl prompted b the title of the response (:2abe 9helbville,). Then#
another series of inferences needs to be made to "rasp the meanin" of the video
implied in the value of the si"n :9helbville, )ithin the semiotics of the T8 series/
this needs to be further related to the speech act in the e$chan"e# thus referrin" to the
respondent,s intended meanin" the non!identifiabilit of the location and its ne"ative
value.
The "reat e$tent of implicitness has been created in the response :simpl, b
means of direct %uotation# i.e.# b copin"*selectin" somebod,s te$t and pastin"*re!
conte$tuali1in" it into a ne) e$chan"e# )ith no further editin" or cohesive re!
ad5ustment. 9ince the te$t )as not made purposefull for the interaction# cohesive ties
(4allida A 4asan# 1BCD) are re!shaped and implicitness is created. Non!cohesion and
implicitness create ambi"uit# thus multiple interpretative possibilities/ so# here# the
response mi"ht also be interpreted metaphoricall# somethin" li(e :0 (&ou)Tube in a
ni"htmarish place li(e the one that 4omer associates )ith 9helbville in this e$cerpt
of The Si"#sons,.
The re!use of previousl made te$ts in ne) conte$ts produces a scatterin" of
cohesive devices/ this creates implicitness and the need for meanin"!ma(ers to
activate a certain amount of inferences to establish coherence and ma(e hpotheses on
the ran"e of meanin"s that the te$t is intended to have in the ne) conte$t. 0nferential
)or( needs to be done interte$tuall# b retrievin" all possible meanin"s in the
relation bet)een the ne) and the ori"inal conte$t of the copied!and!pasted te$t.
The te$t,s interte$tual implicitness shapes the politics of communication in
elitist terms/ the response,s deeper meanin" can be "rasped onl b insiders# i.e.#
vie)ers )ho share a "iven "round of (no)led"e. Euties (and hence po)er) are
differentl distributed bet)een communicative roles/ )hile the si"n!ma(er does not
bother to ma(e the te$t clear and e$plicit (or even en5os ma(in" it implicit)# vie)ers
are as(ed to un)rap the messa"e to understand the e$chan"e. 9uccess or failure in
communication is assi"ned to vie)ers/ if the fail to understand the e$chan"e# the
are e$cluded not onl from en5oin" its meanin"# but also from the affective re)ard of
feelin" part of the elite )ho shares that interte$ual sstem of reference.
Direct misquotations
9ometimes copied!and!pasted e$cerpts can be meant to disre"ard the meanin" the
had in their ori"inal conte$t# thus functionin" as overt mis%uotations. This happens for
e$ample in :mashups, (Eedman A Paul# 200D)# a "enre remi$in" shots of different
videos throu"h assembla"e. Femi$es can create fictional dialo"ues bet)een t)o or
more characters b alternatin" shots ta(en from the characters, previous videos. 0n a
patch)or( ensemble# snapshots are selected from several different videos and
se%uenced so as to create a ne) dialo"ue. The reconte$tuali1ed se%uencin" of the
shots constructs a ne) coherent te$t )ith parodin" effects. The assembled e$cerpts
construct a different meanin" from the one the had in their ori"inal te$ts/ the are
overtl mis%uoted as in the techni%ue of d$tourne"ent (anonmous# 1B=D). As in
colla"es# coherence in the mashup is established disre"ardin" non!matchin" si"ns# i.e.#
si"nifiers si"nallin" disconnection or non!cohesion# such as the succeedin" shots,
different li"htnin"# camera an"le# settin" and bac("round# and their characters,
different clothin" each time the appear# let alone the incoherent intonation patterns of
the se%uence in the dialo"ue (since each character,s utterance is ta(en from a different
conte$t). <nli(e in filmic conventions )here :reverse an"le shots >G? have to be
matched carefull, (-ress A van Heeu)en# 200D# p. 2=B)# here it is understood that
the dialo"ue is a patch)or( creation and vie)ers re!connect the disconnected
snta"ms b inference# thus re!establishin" the sstem of reference bet)een the t)o
characters as "a1in" and tal(in" to each other. The non!matchin" si"ns are interpreted
as si"nifiers of the "enre (the mashup) and their remi$in" shifts are "iven creative
value# as mar(ers of the creativeness of the te$t. As in all interte$tual te$ts# vie)ers
can en5o further the creation b reco"ni1in" the ori"inal te$ts from )hich the
assembled snapshots )ere ta(en# this time not to retrieve the meanin" of the te$t (as
in the 9impsons response) but precisel to appreciate the mis%uotation# i.e.# the
chan"e in meanin" produced b the reconte$tuali1ation.
Indirect quotations
Hi(e copied!and!pasted (mis)citations# also indirect %uotations# i.e.# made throu"h
ori"inal material# establish interte$tualit and can construct implicitness# thus
re%uirin" inferential )or( for interpretation. 7n &ouTube this is e$emplified b
enacted parodies# )hich# as humorous transformations of other te$ts# are inherentl
interte$tual.
8ideos can combine the spoof )ith )ell!(no)n &ouTube :memes,
(6lac(more# 1BBB/ Ea)(ins# 1BCD)# i.e.# )idel circulated to#oi of all (inds ("enres#
conventions# phrases# characters etc.) )hich spread virall throu"h different media.
Thus parodies can produce an amusin" double!laered interte$tual reference b
insertin" the spoofed character in another popular "enre. An e$ample of this is a
video!response to the four second!lon" %est Video &V&'(# featurin" +hris +roc(er# a
popular (&ou)Tuber# silentl starin" the camera at a close!shot )hile blin(in". The
response is titled ) girls * cu# reaction fro" +hris +roc,er. :2 "irls 1 cup, is the
populari1ed name of a trailer featurin" a coprophilic scene of the porno"raphic film
-ungry %itches/ on &ouTube# hundreds of videos are posted filmin" various reactions
of dis"ust enacted b all sorts of characters )hile )atchin" a screen emanatin" noises
and si"hs characteristic of porn films (thus implin" that ) girls * cu# is plain")I
this )a# the also scorn &ouTube,s ban of porno"raphic content/ indeed# reactions
never depict anthin" porno"raphic# not)ithstandin" the scabrous se$ual habit
indirectl referred to in them. The response ) girls * cu# reaction fro" +hris +roc,er
portras a bo )earin" a blond )i" and ma(e up# thus personifin" +hris +roc(er#
)ho has bleached blond hair and )ears ma(e up )hen vlo""in". Heaned on a )hitish
duvet (an indirect %uote of the blan(et used as bac("round in +hris +roc(er,s video)#
he )atches )ith an attentive "a1e a pc screen emanatin" noises of se$ual intercourse#
)hile eatin" a chocolate ice cream bar# puttin" it in and out of his mouth )ith clear
se$ual reference/ then he sas :oh "ive me a close up,# )hile lau"hin" )ith his mouth
smeared of ice cream.
0ndirectl contrastin" the character,s reaction )ith the dis"ust usuall
e$pressed in :reaction, videos# the response implies that +hris +roc(er,s se$ual
preferences are so e$treme as to as( for a close!shot on a coprophilic scene ()hile
eatin" somethin" similarl associated in colour). The :reaction, meme is used here to
parod +hris +roc(er b hin"in" on the controversial se$ual semiotics surroundin"
the character# )hose aesthetics recalls the dra" %ueen movement and )ho often vlo"s
on se$!related issues usin" a provocative rhetoric and se$uall!e$plicit lan"ua"e.
2
8ie)ers, understandin" of the interte$tual comple$ of the parod is vital to its
en5oment/ a lar"e amount of inferential )or( and bac("round (no)led"e are needed
to
2
An introductor tpe!)ritten :not )ith the idea of dissin" chris croc(er, hed"es the
interpersonal function of the video/ for an analsis of the blurr boundar bet)een homa"e
and criticism of &ouTube parodies cf. 3illett (200B).
a. ascribe the video to the :reaction, "enre# )hich in turn means (no)in" )hat
these reactions enact )ith reference to )hat tpe of film :2 "irls 1 cup, is/
b. interpret the character )earin" a blond )i" as a parod of +hris +roc(er
(prompted b the video title and its response lin( to +hris +roc(er,s video)/
c. contrast the character,s pleased reaction to the usual dis"ust represented in the
:reaction, "enre/
d. associate the pleased reaction to +hris +roc(er,s controversial se$ual
aesthetics and thus understand the fitness of that particular parod to salient
elements of the parodied.
The retrieval of this )hole set of implicit meanin"s is accessible onl to insiders# i.e.#
e$perienced vie)ers of a certain "enre of &ouTube videos# hence an added re)ard of
recoverin" the comple$ of interte$tual references lies in feelin" part of the elite
addressed b the video.
3hile vie)ers need to activate inferences to en5o the video# the need to
discard an assumption of coherence bet)een the response and the responded!video/
indeed# unli(e the 9impsons response above# here the response is not coherent )ith
the topic of the %est Video &V&'(# bein" related merel b virtue of the presence of
its featured character.
Referencing
0mplicitness is not onl produced throu"h direct*indirect (mis)%uotation# but also
throu"h referencin"# i.e.# b mentionin" the authors to refer to their te$ts. 9o# a further
response to the %est Video &V&'( features a Ju 'a)(es!mas(ed (&ou)Tuber sain".
(2) 0 am not "oin" to 5ud"e but ou are not no 21!ear!old Kapanese "irl
named 2a"ibond ou,ll never be 2a"ibond
2a"ibond is a %uite popular &ouTube vlo""er )hose characteristic videos portra her
starin" silentl the camera at a close!shot. +itin" 2a"ibond# the respondent contrasts
+hris +roc(er,s silent starin" in the %est video &V&'( )ith hers# implicitl
underminin" the :bestness, asserted in the title of +hris +roc(er,s video. Throu"h
interte$tual reference# the response implies somethin" li(e :since ou are copin"
2a"ibond,s short silent starin" videos# there is nothin" innovative here# so ours
cannot be the best video ever,. The underlin" interpretation of the response is
possible onl for vie)ers )ho
a. assume that the response is a coherent repl to the responded video (unli(e the
parod discussed above)/
b. interpret the :ou, uttered b the respondent as addressed to +hris +roc(er/
c. (no) 2a"ibond and her characteristic videoblo""in" stle/
d. associate the silent starin" of her stle to +hris +roc(er,s/
e. contrast this association )ith the e$ceptional %ualit of +hris +roc(er,s video
asserted in its title.
4ere a"ain implicitness is used in elitist terms. 2eanin"!ma(ers are assi"ned the
responsibilit*effort of inferrin" the implicit reference and re!constructin" the
meanin" to be able to understand and en5o the e$chan"e. Po)er roles in
communication are reshaped/ throu"h referencin"# the te$t in (2) is made purposefull
implicit# )hile vie)ers are challen"ed to "rasp its meanin" and thus feel part of the
elite sharin" that (no)led"e bac("round.
0n sum# rather than authors# it is vie)ers )ho are "iven responsibilit for
communicative success*failure. This )a# the politics of communication shifts
considerabl/ compare# for e$ample# educational conte$ts# )here readers*listeners
e$pect )riters*spea(ers to be ma$imall clear# cohesive and e$plicitl coherent
(althou"h conse%uences ma differ# this applies to both students and teachers as either
si"n!ma(ers or meanin"!ma(ers).
The rhetoric of the implicit and the elitist politics of communication
7bviousl# the fact that interte$tual reference re%uires inferential )or( to be "rasped
is not ne)# nor is its use e$clusive to di"ital communication/ it has been lon"
emploed in art and# ultimatel# :an te$t is constructed as a mosaic of %uotations/ an
te$t is the absorption and transformation of another, (-risteva# 1BL0# p. DD). 4o)ever
di"ital communication ma(es available to a much )ider population of si"n!ma(ers the
possibilit of both bein" e$posed to and creatin" overt interte$tualit in a variet of
conte$ts and modes# throu"h a variet of sources and to an e$tent that has probabl no
precedents.
0nterte$tual reference concurs and combines )ith the cop!and!paste
affordance to create semiotic spaces characteri1ed b a hi"h implicitness potential.
Not onl do vie)ers have to retrieve interte$tual references to en5o full the
:reaction, parod discussed above# the also have to ma(e hpotheses on the
relatedness of the parod to the %est video &V&'(. As mentioned# it constructs an
incoherent e$chan"e )ith its responded!video# bein" related to it onl in its parodied
character# +hris +roc(er. This incoherence is e$plained b the fact that the parod )as
created in a previous time and onl later lin(ed as a response to the %est Video &V&'(#
in a cop!and!paste )a. As often happens )hen rearran"in" the files in the folders on
a pc or the pieces of furniture in the rooms accordin" to ne) criteria and purposes#
participants often rearran"e the lin(s of their videos b lin(in" them as responses to
ne) videos for various purposes# such as to "et more vie)s# or to ma(e ne) meanin"s
out of the reconte$tuali1ations. This practice reshapes conventions in video!
respondin"# b loosenin" cohesive and coherence patterns.
The fre%uent practice of lin(in" videos onl mar"inall!related bet)een them
decreases vie)ers, e$pectations for coherent e$chan"es. 'aced )ith an apparentl
incoherent e$chan"e such as the ones 5ust discussed# vie)ers are opened a t)o!)a
interpretin" possibilit.
a. either the assume that coherence is implicit and activate all possible
inferences to restore it#
b. or the assume that the response is incoherent and en5o it in itself# a"ain# b
activatin" all necessar inferences to understand its meanin".
9o# on the one hand# facin" the 9helbville and 2a"ibond responses# vie)ers need to
assume that the e$chan"e is coherent and activate all inferences necessar to retrieve
the interte$tual reference and understand its meanin". 7n the other hand# facin" the
:reaction, response# the have to discard an assumption of coherence and interpret
the response as disre"ardin" the topic*meanin" of the responded!video# )hile
activatin" inferences to "rasp the interte$tual reference of the parod in relation to the
parodied character (rather than to the character,s actions in the responded!video).
The coherence vs. incoherence dilemma is stron"er here than in other forms of
communication/ as Jrice,s +ooperative Principle (1BC=) has thorou"hl e$plained# in
interpretin" an e$chan"e such as in face!to!face conversation# )e normall assume
that our interlocutor cooperates# and activate all possible inferences to retrieve the
coherence of his*her repl. A famous e$ample# adapted from 3iddo)son (1BCL# p.
2B)# is often used in pra"matics to e$plain this phenomenon.
(M) A. That,s the telephone.
6. 0,m in the bath.
0n absence of cohesive ties bet)een the t)o utterances# )e assume that the e$chan"e
ma(es sense and hence activate all inferences needed to interpret A,s statement (in
itself an identification) as an implicit re%uest to 6 to ans)er the phone# and 6,s
statement (a description of a state) as a refusal# implied in the e$pression of )hat can
be inferred as the cause of the impossibilit of fulfillin" the re%uest. 0n 4allida and
4asan,s terms# :)e insist on interpretin" an passa"e as te$t if there is the remotest
possibilit of doin" so. 3e assume# in other )ords# that this is )hat lan"ua"e is for,
(1BCD. 2M). 7nl if )e cannot find this :remotest possibilit, )e have to conclude that
the te$t is incoherent.
Eifferentl# the on"oin" practice on &ouTube of movin" video!responses from
one e$chan"e to another accordin" to their uploaders, diversified interests# combines
and conflicts )ith the "reat e$tent of implicitness also characteri1in" this semiotic
space/ thus incoherence is an as much valid option as coherence/ the t)o alternative
assumptions have e%ual stren"th. 4ere# the rhetoric of the implicit combines )ith
contrastin" individuali1ed practices in reshapin" the politics of communication/ si"n!
ma(ers are less bound to cohesive and coherent te$ts# )hile meanin"!ma(ers are
assi"ned a "reater interpretative tas(# if the are interested to do so# of course. 0ndeed
meanin"!ma(ers are potential si"n!ma(ers in their turn and# in the cop!and!paste
a"e# the mi"ht be more interested in re!usin" a te$t to their purposes (selectin" and
re!conte$tuali1in" it in further conte$ts) than in understandin" its authors, intended
meanin" (Adami# 2010b).
Everyday copied-and-pasted implicitness
&ouTube is a man!to!man communicative conte$t# i.e.# a semiotic space )here
meanin"!ma(ers can encounter a variet of te$ts produced and shared publicl for
different purposes. Not all instances of communication produced here are copied!and!
pasted# non!cohesive*incoherent# implicit and*or interte$tual/ ho)ever the fact that
this rhetorical comple$ is indeed in place re!shapes inevitabl the politics of
communication in man!to!man conte$ts. Even more# implicitness produced as a
result of cop!and!paste can affect also one!to!one conte$ts. The follo)in" sections
discuss some e$amples ta(en from the )riter,s personal e$perience# both in informal
and formal one!to!one conte$ts.
Implicitness in informal contexts
The follo)in" one!to!one messa"e )as sent on 'aceboo( b (A) to the )riter
(henceforth 6).
M
(N) A. 4i# 6. 0 need that famous citation on societ based on
outhsG b an chance do ou remember it or remember )ho
said it;
6 could not recall an such citation# ho)ever# since she often )rites citations in her
'aceboo( status# she first searched amon" the various posts on her 'aceboo( profile.
After failin" to find a citation similar to the one mentioned# 6 as(ed for further details
and received A,s repl# as follo)s.
(=) 6. 3a11;;; 3hich citation; 0 don,t remember reall I are
ou as(in" me because 0 posted it; 3here; 0n 0talian or
En"lish; Jive me more info# pls. $$
A. The sense of the citation )as that if societ is not based on
ouths# it )ill die out or somethin" li(e that. No# it )asn,t ou
)ho %uoted it# 0,ve heard it sain"# mabe on tv.. 0 don,t
remember e$actl but 0 can onl recall its overall meanin". 0,ve
been as(in" everbodG
As A later e$plained )hen as(ed for consent to use this e$ample# she had a re%uest#
)hich she first )rote in her 'aceboo( status/ from there she copied!and!pasted it into
M
E$cerpts in this section are translated from 0talian.
several 'aceboo( chats and messa"es addressed to selected friends# editin" onl the
name of the addressee in the openin" "reetin"s# cf. :4i# 6, in (N). +learl# the
for)ardin" of the same te$t to multiple addressees lac(s of e$plicit clues referrin" to
the specific conte$t*addressee of the re%uest# )hile personali1in" the copied!and!
pasted messa"e to each addressee )ould cost effort and time# constrainin" the
potential reach of the re%uest (the number of sent messa"es). 0n brief# an affordance of
di"ital te$t!production# cop!and!paste# has facilitated communicative implicitness.
0n another case# the )riter )as herself the una)are author of implicit
communication. A )omen,s demonstration scheduled for 1M 'ebruar 2011 in several
to)ns in 0tal )as bein" or"ani1ed and )idel promoted on 'aceboo(. 3hen 6
for)arded in 'aceboo( an online document callin" for the rall# et critical to)ards
its or"ani1ers, platform# a 'aceboo( friend (+) commented the post# "ivin" )a to the
follo)in" e$chan"e bet)een 6 and +.
(D) +. ehi# but on 1M
th
are ou in to)n;
6. 0 don,t (no) et# 0,m not convinced of the platform launchin"
it
+. 0,m "oin" an)a# as lon" as 0 can protestO .E 0 couldn,t "et if
the,re doin" somethin" in to)n or notG
6. 0 thin( there,s somethin" bein" or"ani1ed# as soon as 0 find out
0,ll let ou (no) $$
After a couple of das# 6 sa) she had received a 'aceboo( invitation to a preparator
meetin" for the local demonstration. The meetin" date had passed# but the event
lin(ed to the or"ani1ers, official blo" detailin" the to)n,s pro"ramme of the da. 6
si"nalled the event pa"e to +# b invitin" her to it/ + later posted on 6,s )all# "ivin"
)a to the follo)in" e$chan"e.
(C) +. than(s for the inviteO 6utG 0 read the meetin" )as the
da before esterda .E
6. eah but on the pa"e there,s the lin( to the )ebsite )here
there,s the pro"rammeO $$
+. aho# 0,m reall smart# eh; /)
As e$emplified here# implicitness is easil produced )hen artefacts are for)arded. 0n
its essential elements# the mechanism in this e$chan"e is similar to the 9impsons
response# in that a previousl made te$t (the T8 e$cerpt and an e$pired event) is
reposted as a repl intended to fulfil indirectl a re%uest for information. 0n both
cases# the receiver is meant to search for the information disre"ardin" the non!
cohesion of the repl. As )itnessed b +,s last ironical repl ()hich means somethin"
li(e :0 should have "ot it,)# it seems that an understood convention re%uires receivers
to search for relevance# rather than producers to ma(e it e$plicit.
'aceboo( is an informal semiotic space# )here :friendship, is the si"n used to
represent relations amon" si"n!ma(ers. A lot of the activit on 'aceboo( deals )ith
sharin" and for)ardin" artefacts )ith little or no conte$tuali1ation added/ it is
understood that# (no)in" each other# friends )ill infer the meanin" that the
for)ardin" is intended to have I)hether# for e$ample# it has to be intended as
supportin" or criticisin" the content for)arded. 0n an informal conte$t amon" friends#
implicitness# as in private 5o(es# can be a si"nifier of closeness amon" participants# of
intimate (no)led"e of each other/ et the )idespread use of cop!and!paste is "ivin"
)a to a rhetoric of the implicit also in more formal conte$ts.
Implicitness in formal contexts
'or)ardin" facilitates implicitness in that# %uite simpl# less effort is re%uired to
for)ard a te$t as is# than to add e$plicit conte$tual information/ this impacts all forms
of communication# even in less informal*intimate conte$ts. 4ere is an e$ample ta(en
from first!ear "raduate students, emails to the )riter as their teacher of 9cientific
En"lish at the 'acult of 2edicine and 9ur"er (de"rees in Phsical Therap#
Eentist# and Pschiatric Fehabilitation). As part of their mid!term assi"nment#
students are re%uired to )rite in "roup a medical revie) abstract and article. Abstracts
and revie)s have to be submitted to the teacher,s email at "iven deadlines. 4ere the
data "ather the student,s submission emails in si$ classes# three held in 200B!2010#
three in 2010!2011. 7ut of LM submission emails# si$ contained onl an attached file#
)ithout an sub5ect# bod te$t# or even a si"nature/ M1 had a sub5ect (either
mentionin" the tpe of attachment# :Abstract*Article,# or its title e.".# :"in"ivitis,) and
an attached file# but no bod te$t/ seven had no sub5ect but had a bod te$t referrin"
to the attached file/ MB had both sub5ect and bod te$t. 3hen present# the bod te$t
could either have or lac( an of the elements of the conventional introduction to an
attachment# such as openin"*closin" formulae# si"nature and reference to the
attachment# of the tpe :Eear P# (indl find here!attached the abstract of our "roup.
6est# &,. Amon" the emails )ith no bod te$t# five had the default field :'3., in the
sub5ect# and )ere the for)ardin" of an email previousl sent# )ith no bod te$t either#
from one of the students to the other "roup members/ these previous emails )ere
selected and sent to the teacher )ith no further editin".
Amountin" to NN.DQ of all emails# the first t)o tpes of submission# )ith no
bod te$t )ith or )ithout sub5ect# are clearl the most implicit ones. 0n fact# an email
solel attachin" the file produces the least redundanc/ "iven that on the da of the
deadline the teacher )as e$pectin" precisel the students, te$t submissions# an
further bod!te$t )ould produce over!e$plicitness. &et# especiall in formal conte$ts#
such as universit student!teacher communication# conventions of politeness (6ro)n
A Hevinson# 1BCL) have it that some redundanc is produced# )ith a bod te$t
announcin" the abstract# to"ether )ith openin" and closin" formulae. 9eemin"l# here
some students applied the on"oin" conventions of informal di"ital conte$ts of
communication# characteri1ed b implicitness and minimal editin" effort# to a more
formal conte$t.
The distinction in a"e and interactive attitude in class bet)een the authors of
the most implicit vs. e$plicit emails seems si"nificant/ indeed# the most conventional
tpe of emails# presentin" a full structured bod te$t and sub5ect# )as sent
either*both b the elder students in the class (ran"in" M=!N= ears old# )hile most
students are 1B!21) and*or b the most :dili"ent, ones# i.e.# those the teacher perceived
as more positivel participatin"# interactin" )ith her and respondin" to her prompts
durin" classes. 'urther investi"ation on the participants, motivations is needed here#
but it seems that informal communicative conventions did not e$tend onto formal
conte$ts in students )ho had more e$perience )ith formal conventions of
asnchronous communication (of the letter!tpe or formal emails)# either because of
their a"e or because of their positive attitude to)ards formal learnin" conte$ts.
3ithout callin" forth the on"oin" debate on di"ital natives*immi"rants (for a
revie) cf. 6ennett# 2aton# A -ervin# 200L)# social semiotics sees conventions as the
selective result of po)er relationships amon" si"n!ma(ers, conflictin"
representational practices (-ress# 2010# p. 2=). 7ut of the man practices# those seein"
the da are the most presti"ious and*or fre%uent ones. 0f implicitness is )idel
practiced and accepted in informal conte$ts# even more so )hen afforded b cop!
and!paste# and if this is the predominantl e$perienced practice# si"n!ma(ers )ill be
more li(el to adopt it also in other conte$ts. 0n contrast# if si"n!ma(ers are used to
communicative e$plicitness# because of their e$perience of and )illin"ness to :fit in,
formal conte$ts and their lesser familiarit )ith informal implicit ones# the )ill be
more li(el to produce e$plicitness also in conte$ts )here implicitness is )idel
practiced and accepted. 0n both cases the application of a practice in a different
conte$t ma result ineffective.
Conclusions
+op!and!paste ma(es the re!use of previousl!made te$ts easier than the production
of te$ts from scratch. Editin" on purpose re%uires effort# )hich not all si"n!ma(ers
feel necessar or )orth doin". This creates implicitness in communication# )ith a
scatterin" of cohesive ties and coherence patterns and the establishment of intricate
net)or(s of interte$tual relations.
As a form of direct %uotation# cop!and!paste ma(es more readil available to
a lar"e number of si"n!ma(ers the use of interte$tual reference. The en5oment of
interte$tualit# )hich re)ards those "raspin" the source )ith an elitist feelin" of bein"
part of a shared semiotics# characteri1es alread man communities# includin" formal
conte$ts (e.". the academic use of in!5o(es 'illmore# 1BBN/ Hee# 200D). 0n di"ital
environments# it combines )ith cop!and!paste in loosenin" conventions and
e$pectations of cohesive and e$plicit te$ts and e$chan"es. The rhetoric of the implicit
redistributes ri"hts and duties bet)een communicative roles/ )hile si"n!ma(ers are
less bound to ma(e their intended meanin" clear and their te$ts cohesive and
coherent# meanin"!ma(ers are assi"ned the tas( of retrievin" the implicit meanin"/
communicative failure or success is their responsibilit and determines their inclusion
in or e$clusion from the elite sharin" a "iven sstem of reference. Althou"h limited in
their selection# so that further data are needed for "enerali1able results# the here!
e$amined e$chan"es su""est that a rhetoric of the implicit reshapes the politics of
communication both in man!to!man and in one!to!one conte$ts# impactin" both
informal and formal conte$ts.
2eta!reflection on the on"oin" practices# their possibilities and effects in
different conte$ts could provide si"n!ma(ers )ith a )ider ran"e of rhetorical options
available. 'aced )ith different conte$ts# :rhetors, (-ress# 2010# p. 2D) need to be
a)are that implicitness can either be praised and en5oed as an in!"roup si"n# mar(in"
intimac and*or membership# or sti"mati1ed as a si"n of impoliteness or lac( of
literac# e.". in educational conte$ts. 2eta!reflection can enhance a)areness for
choosin" amon" different rhetorical practices accordin" to the purpose and conte$t at
issue# enablin" si"n!ma(ers to become successful rhetors in as man different
conte$ts as possible. 'urthermore# "iven the different de"rees of responsibilit for
successful communication assi"ned to meanin"!ma(ers in informal vs. formal
conte$ts of communication# meta!reflection seems useful not onl for te$t!production
but also# and possibl even more so# for te$t!interpretation.
'urther investi"ation on the sub5ect could not onl assess the implications of
the here!observed practices# rhetoric and politics for literac in different
conte$ts*"enres# but should also e$amine the %uestions the pose to notions of
implicitness*e$plicitness# coherence*cohesion and# overall# a possibl chan"ed nature
and function of communication )hen shaped b re!use.
Notes on contributors
Elisabetta Adami has a PhE in En"lish 9tudies and is currentl Ad5unct Professor of En"lish
Han"ua"e at the 'acult of 2edicine and 9ur"er# <niversit of 8erona# 0tal. 4er
publications and research interests focus mainl on communication# multimodal
representation and lan"ua"e in di"ital environments.
References
Adami# E. (2010a). +onte"#orary .atterns of +o""unication/ The case of video0
interaction on YouTue. 9aarbruc(en. Hambert Academic Publisher.
Adami# E. (2010b). 2obile 2edia# 2obile Te$ts. Assessin" the Abilities Needed to
+ommunicate and Fepresent in the +ontemporar 2edia Handscape.
International 1ournal of Moile and %lended Learning, )(M)# N2!=0.
anonmous. (1B=D). ERtournement as Ne"ation and Prelude. Internationale
Situationniste, 2# ==!=D.
6ennett# 9.# 2aton# -.# A -ervin# H. (200L). The :di"ital natives, debate. A critical
revie) of the evidence. %ritish 1ournal of &ducational Technology, 23(=)# CC=!
CLD.
6lac(more# 9. (1BBB). The Me"e Machine. 7$ford. 7$ford <niversit Press.
6ro)n# P.# A Hevinson# 9. +. (1BCL). .oliteness/ So"e Universals in Language
Usage. +ambrid"e. +ambrid"e <niversit Press.
Ea)(ins# F. (1BCD). The Selfish 4ene. 7$ford. 7$ford <niversit Press.
Eedman# K.# A Paul# K. (200D). Videologging. 0ndianapolis. 3ile Publishin".
'illmore# +. K. (1BBN). 4umor in academic discourse. 0n A. E. Jrimsha)# P. K. 6ur(e
A A. E. +icourel (Eds.)# What5s 4oing on -ere! +o"#le"entary Studies of
.rofessional Tal, (pp. 2C1!M10). Nor)ood. Able$.
Jrice# 4. P. (1BC=). Ho"ic and conversation. 0n P. +ole A K. H. 2or"an (Eds.)# Synta6
and Se"antics (8ol. M# pp. N1!=L). Ne) &or(. Academic Press.
4allida# 2. A. -.# A 4asan# F. (1BCD). +ohesion in &nglish. 4arlo). Hon"man.
-ress# J. (2010). Multi"odality7 8 social se"iotic a##roach to conte"#orary
co""unication. Hondon. Foutled"e.
-ress# J.# A van Heeu)en# T. (200D). 'eading I"ages7 The 4ra""ar of Visual
Design (2nd ed.). Hondon. Foutled"e.
-risteva# K. (1BL0). Desire in Language/ 8 Se"iotic 8##roach to Literature and 8rt
(H. 9. Foudie1# Trans.). 7$ford. 6lac()ell.
Hee# E. (200D). 4umor in spo(en academic discourse. 9U+% 1ournal of Language,
+ulture and +o""unication, :(M)# NB!DL.
9mith# K. A. (200=). The 10 6est Estopias. Wired, 2(12).
))).)ired.com*)ired*archive*1M.12*start.html;p"S= Fetrieved 2 'ebruar
2011.
3iddo)son# 4. J. (1BCL). Teaching language as co""unication. 7$ford. 7$ford
<niversit Press.
3illett# F. (200B). Parodic practices. Amateur spoofs on video!sharin" sites. 0n E.
6uc(in"ham A F. 3illett (Eds.)# Video +ultures/ Media Technology and
8"ateur +reativity (pp. 11=!1M2). 6asin"sto(e. Pal"rave 2acmillan.