2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Nederlandse Taalkunde
  4. Volume 26, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 26, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines the online spread of non-standard Dutch in an unexplored communicative setting, i.e. complaint management on corporate Facebook pages. Based on a self-compiled corpus of consumer-company interactions taken from 6 corporate Facebook pages, we investigate to what extent typical features of informal social media communication spill over into more sensitive contexts of complaint management. We do so by mapping the presence and frequency of 27 Flemish old vernacular and 13 new vernacular features (cf. Androutsopoulos 2011) in consumer-initiated posts, company replies and consumer-to-consumer interactions. The results show that some, though not all, new vernacular features occur relatively frequently in both consumer and company messages. Consumers predominantly use new vernacular features for expressive compensation, while companies appear to incorporate them in their webcare (especially emoji and English insertions) as functional operationalisations of conversational human voice (Kelleher 2009) and to support their desired brand identity. In contrast, old vernacular features rarely occur in the dataset. This suggests a different status of old and new vernacular features, where the former are deemed less appropriate or more limited in terms of functionality in this communicative setting. Despite the often informal register of the consumer messages, Standard Dutch still seems the preferred or safer option for company-addressed posts while companies, too, cling to Standard Dutch as the benchmark for professional written communication in this online context.

© Mathias Seghers, Bernard De Clerck & Chloé Lybaert
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.3.003.SEGH
2021-12-01
2024-11-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13845845/26/3/NEDTAA2021.3.003.SEGH.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.3.003.SEGH&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Absillis, K., J.Jaspers & S.Van Hoof (2012). Inleiding. In: K.Absillis, J.Jaspers & S.Van Hoof (eds.), De manke usurpator. Over Verkavelingsvlaams. Gent: Academia Press, 3-35.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmed, S., M.Haag & U. K.Luton (2017). Emoji–What is Their Purpose? A Study of Effective Communication on Facebook. In: ECSM 2017 4th European Conference on Social Media. Academic Conferences and publishing limited, 335.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Androutsopoulos, J. (2011). Language change and digital media: a review of conceptions and evidence. Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe1, 145-159.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Auer, P. (2017). The neo-standard of Italy and elsewhere in Europe: Theoretical and empirical studies on the restandardization of Italian. In: M.Cerruti, C.Crocco & S.Marzo (eds.), Towards a New Standard. Theoretical and empirical studies on the restandardization of Italian. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Carlson, J. & R.W.Zmud (1994). Channel expansion theory: A dynamic view of media and information richness perceptions. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings1994, 280-284.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Coster, M. (2017). Zeg het met emoji. Amsterdam: Boom.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. De Decker, B. (2014). De chattaal van Vlaamse tieners: een taalgeografische analyse van Vlaamse (sub)standaardiseringsprocessen tegen de achtergrond van de internationale chatcultuur. Doctoral dissertation University of Antwerp.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. De Decker, B. & R.Vandekerckhove (2017). Global features of online communication in local Flemish: social and medium-related determinants. Folia Linguistica, 253-281.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Grondelaers, S. & C.Lybaert (2017). Bepaalt wat we denken en voelen over taal ook wat we doen in taal? Percepties, attitudes, evaluaties en hun omkaderende ideologieën in het Belgisch-Nederlands. In: G.De Sutter (ed.), De vele gezichten van het Nederlands in Vlaanderen. Een inleiding tot de variatietaalkunde. Leuven: Acco, 163-181.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Grondelaers, S., D.Speelman, C.Lybaert & P.van Gent (2020). Getting a (big) data-based grip on ideological change. Evidence from Belgian Dutch. Journal of Linguistic Geography8(1), 1-17
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Grondelaers, S., H.Van Aken, D.Speelman & D.Geeraerts. (2001). Inhoudswoorden en preposities als standaardiseringsindicatoren. De diachrone en synchrone status van het Belgische Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde6, 179-202.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Grondelaers, S., R.van Hout & P.van Gent. (2016). Destandardization is not de-standardization: Revising standardness criteria in order to revisit standard language typologies in the Low Countries. In: C.Lybaert, S.Delaerue,A.-S.Ghyselen & J.Van Keymeulen (eds.), (De)standardisation in Europe – qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thematic issue Taal & Tongval68(2), 119-149.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Hennig-Thurau, T., K.P.Gwinner, G.Walsh, & D.D.Gremler (2004). Electronic word-of- mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet?Journal of interactive marketing18 (1), 38-52.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Hilte, L., R.Vandekerckhove & W.Daelemans (2017). Modeling non-standard language use in adolescents’ CMC: the impact and interaction of age, gender and education. In: E.W.Stemle (ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Conference on CMC and Social Media Corpora for the Humanities. Bolzano, Eurac Research, 11-15.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hilte, L. (2019). The social in social media writing. Doctoral dissertation University of Antwerp.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hong, J. Y., & W.N.Lee (2005). Consumer complaint behavior in the online environment. In: Y.Gao (ed.), Web Systems Design and Online Consumer Behavior. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 90-105.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Jakic, A., M.O.Wagner & A.Meyer (2017). The impact of language style accommodation during social media interactions on brand trust. Journal of Service Management28(3), 418-441.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Kacmárová, A. (2005). Internet chatting inside out. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics2, 55-83.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of Communication59, 172-188.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Lo, S. K. (2008). The nonverbal communication functions of emoticons in computer-mediated communication. CyberPsychology & Behavior11, 595-597.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lybaert, C. (2017). A direct discourse-based approach to the study of language attitudes: The case of tussentaal in Flanders. Language Sciences59, 93-116.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lybaert, C. & S.Delarue (2017). ’k Spreek ekik ver altijd zo: over de opmars van tussentaal in Vlaanderen. In G.De Sutter (ed.), 142-162.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Maesschalck, V. (2015). ‘Wat een schitterent hotel!’ Een experimenteel onderzoek naar de impact van spelfouten in online reviews. Masterproef Universiteit Gent.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Nederlandse Taalunie (2018). De standaardtaal maken we allemaal. <http://taalunieversum.org/nieuws/7045/de_standaardtaal_maken_we_allemaal>
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Nederlandse Taalunie (2019). Da’s / dat is. <https://taaladvies.net/taal/advies/vraag/1553/das_dat_is/>
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Orsingher, C., S.Valentini & M.de Angelis. (2010). A meta-analysis of satisfaction with complaint handling in services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science38(2), 169-186.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. van Noort, G. & L. M.Willemsen (2012). Online damage control: the effects of proactive versus reactive webcare interventions in consumer-generated and brand-generated platforms. Journal of Interactive Marketing26(3), 131-140.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. van Noort, G., Willemsen, L., Kerkhof, P. & J.Verhoeven (2014). Webcare as an integrative tool for customer care, reputation management, and online marketing: A literature review. In: P.J.Kitchen & E.Uzunoglu (eds.), Integrated Communications in the Post-Modern Era. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 77-99.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Plevoets, K. (2008). Tussen spreek- en standaardtaal. Een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfosyntactische verschij selen uit het gesproken Belgisch-Nederlands. Doctoral dissertation KULeuven.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Rys, K. & J.Taeldeman (2007). Fonologische ingrediënten van Vlaamse tussentaal. In D.Sandra, R.Rymenans, P.Cuvelier & P.Van Petegem (eds.), Tussen taal, spelling en onderwijs. Essays bij het emeritaat van Frans Daems. Gent: Academia Press, 1-9.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Searls, D. & D.Weinberger (2000). Markets are conversations. In R.Levine, C. Locke, D.Searls & D.Weinberger (eds.), The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual. New York: Perseus, 75-114.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Skovholt, K., Grønning, A. & Kankaanranta, A. (2014). The communicative functions of emoticons in workplace e-mails: :-). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(4), 780-797.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Statbel (2019). Voornamen van mannen en vrouwen. <https://statbel.fgov.be/nl/themas/bevolking/namen-en-voornamen/voornamen-van-vrouwen-en-mannen#figures>
  36. Taeldeman, J. (2008). Zich stabiliserende grammaticale kenmerken in Vlaamse tussentaal. Taal en Tongval60, 26-50.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Vandekerckhove, R. (2017). Dees is egt zooo nice! Oude en nieuwe vormen van substandaardtaal in online communicatie. In: G.De Sutter (ed.), 290-310.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Vandendriessche, K. & L.De Marez. (2019). Imec Digimeter 2019: Digitale mediatrends in Vlaanderen. <https://www.imec.be/nl/expertises/imec-digimeter/digimeter-2019>
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Verheijen, L. (2018). Orthographic principles in computer-mediated communication: The SUPER-functions of textisms and their interaction with age and medium. Written Language & Literacy21(1), 111-145.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Ward, J.C., & A.L.Ostrom (2006). Complaining to the masses: The role of protest framing in customer-created complaint websites. Journal of Consumer Research33(2), 220-230.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. De Werdt, M. (2017). Emoji in de zakelijke wereld: of ? <https://factortachtig.nl/blog/emoji-in-de-zakelijke-wereld>.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Van Wijngaarden, M. (2011). Het vermogen van de spelfoudt. Een experimenteel onderzoek naarde invloed van spelfouten in sollicitatiebrieven en sponsorbrieven op de tekst-waardering, overtuigingskracht en het imago van de zender. Dissertation University of Utrecht.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.3.003.SEGH
Loading
Mapping the spread of Dutch non-standard language use on corporate Facebook pages
NedTaal 26, 363 (2021); https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.3.003.SEGH
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.3.003.SEGH
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.3.003.SEGH
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): computer-mediated communication; eWOM; non-standard language variation; old and new vernacular features; webcare

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error