Jones, Rodney. 2004. '''TIle Problem of ... Jones, Rodney. 2010. âCyberspace and ... âBut 1 Don't Want to Be Rude: On Learning How to. Express Anger in the L2 ...
CHAPTER 2
Swearing and instant messaging Changing norms of social interaction in the Hong Kong workplace context Bernie Chun Nam Mak & Erika Darics Hong Kong Baptist University / Aston University
1.
Introduction
百lÌs
chapter demonstrates how the affordances of computer-mediated cOlnmunication (CMC) techno1ogies can frame and reframe swearing in the workp1ace. 1n particu1ar, we provide evidence that communicating via digita1 techno1ogies 1eads to nove1 cOlnn1unicative situations - situations that might be he1d accountab1e for the spread of swearing at work. 1his is because colleagues exchanging written digita1 messages can use the channel to perfonn swearing in a light -hearted , p1ayfu1 way, and thus avoid face- to-face confrontation and being accused of verba1 aggression in professiona1 contexts. Although the use of exp1etives is considered to be a deviant act across many cultures regard1ess of the intention (Liang & Hsieh 2007; Stone et al.之 010; Wang 2013) , as we will see in the extract be1ow, CMC has made the deviant act lnore possib1e and 1ess visib1e in the “ backroom;' construing an unprecedented form of swearing experience in the workp1ace contex t. 1n the interaction , which occurs between two colleagues in an administrative unit of a tertiary institution in Hong Kong , Leslie was teased by a more superior colleague of that department due to his limited Cantonese abilityl. His subordinate , Terence , recalls the scenario in Facebook Chat (an instant messaging too1) after they are back in their own 0品ces. Leslie seelns not to take it seriously; see Example 1, lines 1-3.
1.
In all examples , all names are pseudonyms.
I(L107s/pbns.282.o3mak 2017 John Benjarnins Publishing Company
DOI @
44
Bernie Chun Nam Mak & Erika Darics 唔，EA
' ，'，、、
、、''，
1234
Leslie
--)
--) --)
dodt lose our head you know he's overbearing to everyone this is his personality Terence his alien style indeed 56789 a poor guy Leslie why? Terence poor guy ~=~ bastard hk eng slang Leslie haha be careful
Terence keys in the equa1 sign p1us two wave dashes to delineate that the pronunciation of the English phrase “ poor guy" is congruent with the pronunciation of the Cantonese expletive “仆街)) (“ bastard") (lines 5-7). The swearing here , which aSSU111eS ünagery based on pronunciation , homophones , and literal meanings , is intended to both curse workplace enenlies and distance the insiders from the out-group lnembers hUlnorous1y (cf. Cook 2013; Nelson 2014). The extract displays the potentia1 of swearing beyond the geographical distance between two co1leagues using the instantmessenger. Additionally, it implicates the emerging ro1e of computer-nlediated discourse in swearing at work. This chapter sets out to exp10re this emerging role , by exp10ring through close linguistic ana1yses the communicative functions of digita1 swearing. To do this , first we discuss how swearing is perceived in the digita1 age. Then we scrutinise naturally occurring data , and expose swearing behaviour that is typical of digita1 contexts and unlike1y to happen in face-to-face interactions. We propose that swearing between colleagues via instant lnessaging be considered and investigated beyond the understanding of traditional workp1ace context for swearing , and that the digita1 communication channels provide colleagues , especially non-native English speakers , with a virtual arena where swearing could be tailor-made using the second or foreign 1anguage.
2.
Swearing as a discursive strategy
There seenlS to be no conlmon definition of swearing across academic studies Oohnson & Lewis 2010) , but one consensus is that swearing typically uses the excretory, sexua l, and profanity meanings of an exp1etive to communicate (Stapleton 2010; see a1so Ljung 2011; Stone et al. 2010). This chapter elnp10ys the definition suggested by Mak and Lee (2015: 126) to see swearing as the behaviours of: Using an exp1etive in which the denotative meanings are 1arge1y omitted (e.g.,
you are fucking lucky!);
。 201 7-
John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved
56
Bernie Chun Nam Mak & Erika Darics messenger but utilise these functions to their own communicative goals: in our example above to signa1 an emotiona1 state prior to delivering undesirab1e news.
6.
Swearing between colleagues in instant messaging: reframing the workplace context
Our study set out to explore the functions of swearing among the bilingua1 co1leagues in the instant lnessenger and the way such swearing reframes the workp1ace contex t. Whi1e swearing is deemed to be unsociab1e , uneducated , and impetuous in folk theories Oohnson 2012) , it is a common speech event in everyday interaction in Hong Kong (Peng 2007). Our participants , high1y educated, white-collar professionals , were found to swear purposefully in the instant lnessenger. Th is n1ight surprise laynlen because white-collar practitioners are perceived to be civil or well-behaved in the workplace. Th eir intentions to swear were barely offensive; many of then1 were n1erely appreciative. 立lUS ， we agree with Jay and Janschewitz's (2008) stance that swearing can be just another strategy for achieving normal conversational goals. The focus on instant messaging reveals creative play enabled by the synchronicity (or 1ack of it) and interface affordances that foster swearing behaviour, especially the use of non-verbal signals. 6.1
Th e potential of swearing in workplace instant messaging
Swearing between colleagues in instant messaging is a multifunctional and multicultura1 construct that is work-driven or rapport-oriented. From Example 1 through Example 8 , we found that the participants' swearing behaviours cou1d distance oneself froln outsiders. contextualise social talk in advance. serve as a reply to hU1110Ur, highlight the shared identity as Hong Kong locals , refine solidarity between male colleagues , amuse a new colleague , manifest devaluation , express rigorous anger, and foretell an unpleasant business development. Th e emergent phenon1enon of swearing in workplace instant messaging originates from the characteristics of CMC and instant n1essaging , and from bilingual employees themsel、res. Anti -social groups swear online to challenge the dominant communities without any direct attack (Tang & Yang 2011). Because of the perceived invisibilit弘 CMC ， in itself, fosters the socially-forbidden ac t. When CMC is used in the workp1ace , it similarly generates a cOlnfort zone for allowing a nonpolitic behaviour but retaining professionality on the surface. The concealment of conversation from outsiders and senior management also enables and facilitates swearing in the instant messaging as opposed to phone calls or face- to-face talk. Specifically, the instant Inessenger is not normally considered a means of CMC for officia1 talk (Mak 汝 Lee 2015) , which allows more individuality and freedom in (Ç) 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved
Chapter 2. Swearing and instant messaging swearing. This is even likely to be the case when one swears in a second or foreign language. Expletives in the fonn of another language usually sound less offensive than the same expression in the first language (Danet 2013). Consequentl弘 using foreign language expletives to swear may cause the participants less guilt or discomfort , and free themselves from punishment (Fägersten 2014; see also Dewaele 2010) , as suggested in Exan1ples 1 and 5. By and large , as we have seen in the analyses above, the emergence of swearing in workplace instant messaging is the product of technology and people,s perception of it. One should not exaggerate, however, the potential benefits of swearing across workplace contexts, especially in a multicultural society with various prescriptive expectations about swearing and gender. Interpretations of swearing may differ due to variations in exposure to discourses of swearing (Christie 2013) or dissimi1ar cultures. For exalnple , the thumb-forefinger circle with ren1aining three fingers extended upwards means “okay" nonverbally in America , but the gesture may be interpreted as ((vagina" (i.e. pussy) in the Middle East (Safadi & Valentine 1990). According to Peng (2007) , the Hong Kong government does not have a clear definition of what expletives are , but people and organisations occasionally stand accused of misconduct when they are judged to have sworn or distributed lnaterials that contain expletives (even when they swore for good-will or rhetorical purposes). The same risk is applicable to the workplace. The traditiona l, essentialist belief that swearing is always hostile and intended to convey verbal abuse against colleagues still circulates in society (e.g. , Infante et a1. 1994; Keashly 20(1). It is worth relnembering, therefore, that CMC in fact leaves a trail and makes swearing retrievable. This is why we should elnphasise the double-edged nature of workplace swearing in the instant messenger. 6.2
The resources for swearing in workplace instant messaging
Colleagues who swear in the instant messenger tend to draw on their own linguistic knowledge and competence as well as their falniliarity with the technical affordances provided by hardware such as computers. Swearing is not always impulsive , in particular in digital writing where messages need to be composed on screen. This kind of swearing , referred to as propositional swearing (J ay & Janschewitz 2008) , was common in our datase t. Colleagues used various meth ods to swear beyond the traditional boundaries of instant n1essaging. They used the sYlnbols on the keyboard innovatively, borrowed emoticons to mitigate the force of expletives , exploited elnoticons to denote an expletive , made use of the tolerance of time lag between instant messages , and echoed a distant preceding turn of swearing. Sünultaneously, our participants delTIOnstrated creativity in language use when they swore: They played around with a pseudo-bilingual pun , abused the shape of a Chinese character, blended the Chinese pronunciation of a 。 201 立 John
Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved
57
58
Bernie Chun Naln Mak & Erika Darics nUJnber with the pronunciation of an English word , and invoked a foreign -language expression. We thus propose that swearing in instant messaging is creative and lnultifaceted by nature. Colleagues' participation in swearing in instant n1essaging requires appropriate encoding and decoding of the contextual input, especially the non -verbal clues that are consciously keyed in for transn1ission of interpersonal meanings. As stated in the analysis , the playful but deliberate manipulation of the colleagues' performance of swearing would be compromised or not possible in face-to-face workplace talk.立le biggest lesson to learn from this observation therefore is that our knowledge of swearing 0丘line may not apply to the Interne t. For instance , when colleagues svvear at an “away" or “offiine" receiver, they have to forecast what will be happening on the screen when the receiver comes “available" 的“online" (again). While the (creative) use of the keyboard and emoticons for non-verbal cues is a丘Drded on the sender's screen , the sender needs an extra prediction about how the receiver will behave digitally or physically upon receipt of the instant message. ]bis is not an easy task because instant-messenger users in workforces rarely reply immediately upon the receipt of the aler t. We suggest that swearing in instant lnessaging could happen not just through the verbal use of expletives , but through all non-verbal input , such as emoticons and punctuations , and other computer-related interactions.
7.
Conclusion
We have explored swearing in workplace instant lnessaging and the unique CMC processes involved. Th e speech event , which is different froln its counterpart in face-to-face workplace interaction , has a subtle impact on the broader workplace context.立le impact could be inferred from three perspectives: the intersection of online and offiine workplace interactions , the integration of CMC cues into workplace discourse, and the evolution of swearing in the workplace itself. Swearing in workplace instant messaging connects online and 。在line workplace interactions. Every speech event online does not lin1it itself at the screen edge , because the online and the offiine worlds are never separate (J ones 2004). Th ey are seldom exactly the salne or completely distinct , and neither totally inclusive or con1pletely exclusive. Swearing as a speech event in itself is influenced by and influential to relations between interlocutors , gender, or the intended identity and power to be constructed , to name a few (J ay 1981; see also Dewaele (2004a) for additional factors for swearing in L2). Swearing in workplace instant messaging has con1plex interactions and overlaps with the physical reality and other online behaviours. For example , our participants swore due to past offline incidents in
。 201 7-
John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved
Chapter 2. Swearing and instant messaging the workplace , and some swearing related to digital photos or online news forums. Analysis indicated that the colleagues expressed a high degree of awareness of the contents of and reasons for swearing. Th e reasons for and influences on swearing operate in different timelines and spaces , resulting in a link between online and o丘line workplace cOlnmunication in a state of flux. The workplace context hence becomes a dual construct of online and 0丘1ine (swearing) tal k. Swearing in workplace instant messaging integrates CMC cues into workplace discourse. Any type of CMC is not limited to the online reality surround ing the text , but includes what people will build up mentally and what acts will be taken when they see the information (J ones 2004). Swearing in workplace instant messaging is no exception. Our participants employed various CMC cues , especially emoticons and deviant punctuations , to provide non-verbal cues in the swearing conversations. Encoding and decoding these cues req l1 ire a shi丘 in perception and application of prior CMC experiences (J ones 2010). Considering the novel connection between online and offiine workplace COlnn1unication , the use of CMC cues and their multivariable nature will enter into the broader workplace discourse , interacting with other linguistic elen1ents in the workplace contex t. Swearing in workplace instant messaging mitigates deviant behaviour, rendering it lnore con1mon and acceptable in the workplace than it used to be. From a scholarly perspective , there are both positive and negative consequences of swearing (Davis 1989). Th e general public tends to dwell on the latter and neglect the former , which attributes swearing to a social stigma in the workplace. Nevertheless , the CMC environn1ent and instant messenger provide an alternative platform for swearing in the physical workplace. Our participants showed that swearing in workplace instant messaging frequently received neutral or positive responses , and that it involved digitally-rhetorical experiences. The platform not only affords various possibilities to overCOlne physical constraint , but also is perceived to be less fonnal and perhaps lnore capable of withstanding deviant behaviour. Ordinary people are empowered by the Internet thanks to the space for creativity and perceived freedoln of speech (Tang & Yang 2011). Swearing in the CMC environlnent becomes unpredict abl
。 201 7- John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved
59
60
Bernie Chun Nam Mak & Erika Darics face-to-face settings (Dewaele 2004b). Despite the unfavourable offiine reality, the use of CMC and instant messengers has formed a venue where non-native English speakers can swear in English creatively. Owing to the interplay with the offiine world , strategic use of CMC cues and f1 exibility of C l\在C ， instant messengers render the arousal of an expletive versatile , externalised , and far-reaching. Just like politicians who swear on their blogs to attract voters (Cavazza & Cuidetti 2014) , our participants seemed not to swear impulsively. They appeared to have thought about what cues could e在ectively enhance the timing and convey the overtones of swεaring. The extra architecture makes the workplace context more favourable than before for swearing in English.τhe unprecedented avenue open to nonnative speakers of Englìsh will reform the old context for swearing at work , if not in other social settings. 立lis chapter has dìscussed swearing through instant messaging in a bilingual workplace. Colleagues nowadays can stay closely-connected through CMC devices even when they are not in the same office or not online at exac t1y the san1e time. Instant messengers and access to the Internet provide colleagues with various possibilities of swearing in a digital environment bound to the workplace; simultaneously, they elnploy letters , numbers , sYlnbols , emoticons , and first and second language resources innovatively to enrich the swearing exchanges. 立le combìnation of technical affordances and hUlnan creativity allows for a novel realm of swearing behaviour, yielding fonns of comlnunication not previously employed in the traditional workplace context. Owing to associations with aggression , hostility, abuse , or discrimination , the general public and mass n1edia may still take a prescriptive view of swearing , decrying it as a categorìcally negative behaviour. Th e increasing use of CMC and digital devices in day-to-day life , but particularly in the more formal context of the workplace , is sure to result in n10re tolerance for and comfort with swearing in the long run. Such changes may bring about revolutions in the functional and cultural roles of swearing. Both practitioners and researchers , therefore , should adopt an open and positive attitude towards understanding swearing at work and in other contexts.
Acknowledgements Th e research conducted and data used in this chapter were mainly funded from the Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme (2011 /1 2, Re f.: PF10-13915) received from the Research Grants Coun -
cil of Hong Kong. We would like to express our appreciation to a11 those allowed their workplace instant messaging interactions to be archived and used in the study. We also thank the core particìpants who agreed to be interviewed throughout the data collection period.
。 201 工 John
Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved
Chapter 2. Swearing and instant messaging
References Baron, Naom i. 2004. “ See You Online: Gender Issues in College Student Use ofInstant Messaging:' Journal OfLanguage And Social Psychology 23 (4): 397-423. doi:10.1177/0261927X04269585 Baruch , Yehu白， and Stuart Jenkins. 2007. “ Swearing at Work and Permissive Leadership Cul ture:' Leade的hip and Organization Development Journa128 (6): 492- 507. doi: 10.1108/01437730710780958 Beers F說gersten ， Kristy. 2014. “The Use of English Swearwords in Swedish Media:' 1n Swearing in the Nordic Countries , ed. by Marianne Rathje ，的一 82. Copenhagen: Dansk Sprognævns Konferenceserie 2. Bentahila, Abdelâli. 1983. “Motivations for Code-Switching among Arabic- French Bilinguals in Morocco." Language and Communication 3 (3): 233-243. doi: 10.1016/0271-5309(83)90003-4 Cameron , Ann Frances , and Jane Webster. 2005. “ Unintended consequences of emerging com munication technologies: lnstant messaging in the workplace:' Computers in Human Behavior 21: 85-103. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2003.12.001 Carter, Kimberly. 20∞03. “"Ty 沖 pe Me How Yc油 Ol 沁 u Feel: Quω1μ 泊 沁 a1站s位 沁 叫i Comml 叫叫 山 u1江 lni此 ca 刮tiωon.刊 ETC: A Review of General Semantics 60 (1): 29-39 Cavazza , Nicolet峙， and Margherita Guidetti. 2014. “Swearing in Political Discourse: Why VulgarityWorks:' Journal of Language and Social Psychology 33 (5): 537-547. doi: 10.117710261927X14533198 Chinasmack. 2015. Popular Chinese Internet Memes , Slang, Expressions , Acronyms. Retrieved From: http://www.chinasmack.com/glossary Christie , Christine. 2013. I11e Relevance ofTaboo Language: An Analysis of the lndexical Val ues of Swearwords:' Journal of Pragmatics 58: 152 一 169. doi:10.1016成 pragma.2013.06.009 Chung, Donghun, and Chang Soo Nam. 2007. “An analysis of the variables predicting instant messenger use:' New Media and Society 9 (2): 212-234. d0 i:1 0.1177 /1 461444807072217 Clifton , Jonathan. 2012. (((Doing' Trust in Workplace lnteraction:' 1n Professional Communication Across Languages and Cultures , ed. by Stanca Mãda and Razvan Sãftoiu , 107 一 134. Amsterdan1: John Be吋 amins . doi: 10.1075/ds.17.07c1 i Cook, Tim. 2013. “ Fighting Words: Canadian Soldiers' Slang and Swearing in the Great War." War in History 20 (3): 323- 344. doi: 10.1177/0968344513483229 Crystal, David. 2006. Language and the Internet , 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/C809780511487002 Daly, Nicola , Janet Holmes , Jonathan Newton , and Maria Stubbe. 2004. “Expletives as Solidarity Signals in FTAs on the Factory Floor:' Journal of Pragmatics , 36 (5) : 945-964. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.12.004 Danet , Brenda. 2013. “Flami時 a叫 Linguistic 1mpoliteness on a Li stserv:' 1叫)ragmati cs 01 Computer-Mediated Communication , ed. by Susan Herring, Dieter Stein ( lr
@
2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
61
62
Bernie Chun Nam Mak & Erika Darics
Darics , Erika. 2016. “ Digital Media in Workplace lnteractions:' ln 1he Routledge Handbook Of Language And Digital Communication , ed. by Alexandra Georgakopoulou and Tereza Spiliotti , 197-21 1. London: Routledge. Davis , Hayle下 1989. “ What Makes Bad Language Bad?" Language & Communication 9 (1): 1-9. doi: 10.1016/0271-5309(89)90002-5 Dewaele , 知 J ean 仟 1卜-Ma 盯rc. 2004a 扎. Sp咒 缸侃叫 e 叫 alk吋ers: 刊 e Ef陡 先 1 ~ct臼s of Prolìciency and Pe τ閃sona 叫lity.乎rλ:' ln Learning Vocabularγ In A Second Language: Selection , Acquisition And Testing , ed. by Paul Bogaards and Batia Laufer, 127 一 153. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/111 t. 10.10dew Dewaele , Jean-Mar c. 2004b. “官1e Emotional Force of Swearwords and Taboo Words in the Speech of Multilinguals:' Journal of Multilingω 1 and Multicultural Development 25 (2-3): 204-222. doi: 10.1080101434630408666529 Dewaele , Jean-Marc. 2010. Emotions in Multiple Languages. Basingstoke , UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230289505 Drange , Eli-Maria , lngrid Kristine Hasund , and Anna-Brita Stenstr的m. 2014. “ Your Mum!' Teenagers' Swearing by Mother in English , Spanish and Norwegian:' International Journal ofCoψω Unguistics 19 (1): 29-59. doi:10.1075/ij cl. 19.1.02dra Gee , James Pau l. 2011. An Introduction to Discourse A 仰伊 is: Th eory and Method , 3rd ed. London: Routledge. Goddard , Cli 正 2015. “‘Swear Words' and ‘Curse Words' in Australian (and American) English:' Intercultural Pragmatics 12 (2): 189-218. doi:10.1515/ip-2015-0010 Hamilton , M. A. 1989. “ Reactions to Obscene Language." Communication Research Repor的 6: 67 -69. doi: 10.1080108824098909359835 Hobbs , Pamela. 2013. “ Fuck as a Metaphor for Male Sexual Aggression." Gender and Language 7 (2): 149 一 176. doi: 10.1558/gen l. v7i2.149 Holmes , Jane t. 2012. "Leadership and lntercultural Competence at Work:' ln Professíonal Com 唱 munication Across Languages and Cultures , ed. by Stanca Mãda and Razvan 泌的 iu， 21-4 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.17.03hol Holmes , Janet. 2014. “ Doing Discourse Analysis in Sociolinguistics." ln Research Methods in Sociolinguistics , ed. by Janet Holmes and Kirk Hazen , 177-193. Hoboken , NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Huang , Hong -Xu ,Gui-Sen Tian and . 1990. “'A Sociolinguistic Review of Li nguistic Taboo in Chinese." lnternatíonal Journal of the Sociology of Langtωge 81: 63-85. Hughes , Susan. 1992. “ Exp
。 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Chapter 2. Swearing and instant messaging
Johnson , Danet妞， and Nicole Lewis. 2010. "Perceptions of Swearing in the Work Setting: An Expectancy Violations τheory Perspective." Communication Rψ orts 23 (2): 106-118. doi: 10.1080108934215.2010 .511401 Jones , Rodney. 2004. '''TIle Problem of Context in Computer Mediated Communication:' In Discourse and Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analys 的， ed. by Philip Levine and Ron Sco11on , 20-33. Washington , DC: Georgetown University Press. Jones , Rodney. 2010. “ Cyberspace and Physical Space: Attention Structures in Computer Mediated Communication." ln Serniotic Landscapes: Language, Image , Space , ed. by Adam Jaworski and Crispin rTIlurlow, 151-167. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Keash峙， Loraleigh. 2001. “ Interpersonal and Systelnic Aspects of Emotional Abuse at Work: η咒 Targe t's Perspective:' Violence and Victims 16 (3): 233-268. Lantto , Hanna. 2014. “ Code-Switching , Swearing and Slang: TIle Colloquial Register of Basque in Greater Bilbao." International Journal of Bilingualism 18 (6): 633-648. doi: 10.1177/1 367006912457274 Liang , Su-Chiun , and An-Tien Hsieh. 2007. “Burnout and Workplace Oeviance Among Flight Attendants in Taiwan:' Psychological Reports 10 1: 457-468. Lju峙， Magnus. 2011. Swearing: A Cross-Cultural Li nguistic Study. Houndmills , Basingstoke , UK: Palgrave Macnü11an. Mal屯 , Bernie C. N. 20 ∞ 09. μ Lα n 哼 gωge ω 仰1d C、O 仰?仰1叫ica 叫tio 陀 AS 臼 飢盯cω: O c的 y何 '5' 臼 S ocωiω al仿 i挖 Zα 叫叫 tio 仰 n 的 i nt的 o 1h e Workplace. Unpublished Master's Th esis. School of English , τl1e University of Hong Kong. doi: 10.5353/th_b4322420 M此， Bernie C. 扎， Hin Leung Chui , and Yiqi Liu. 2012. “ Instant Messaging and Microblogging: Situated-Learning Platforms for Educationists and Workplace Mentors:' Social and Behavioural Sciences 51 (1): 392-399. Mak , Bernie C. N. , and Carmen Lee. 2015. “ Swearing Is E- Business: Expletives in lnstant Messaging in Hong Kong Workplaces." ln Digital Business Discourse , ed. by Erika Darics , 124-143. London: Palgrave. Moore , Rober t. 2012. “ On Swearwords and Slang:' American Speech 87 (2): 170 一 189. doi: 10.1215/00031283-1668199 Nardi , B. A. , S. Whittaker, and E. Bradner. 2000. “ lnteraction and Outeraction: lnstant Messaging in Action:' In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work , 79-88. New York: ACM. Nelson , Marie. 2014. “‘ You Need Help as Usu祉， Do You?': Joking and Swearin
。立的工 John Benjamins Publishing C Olnpany
All rights reserved
63
64
Bernie Chun N aJn Mak & Erika Darics
Stapleton , Karyn. 2010. “ Swearing:' 1n Interpersonal Pragmatics , ed. by Miriam Locher and Sage Graham , 289-305. New York: Walter De Gruyter. Stone , T.且， M. Mcmillan , and M. Hazelton. 2010. “ Swearing: Its Prevalence in Healthcare Set仰act ∞ 0 n N ursing Practice.汀O 仰wlofPs. 吵 :yd 仇 hiω at什例 r叫ic 仰 a仰 ndMet 仰1t叫 alHe缸 ω 正alt.的 hNi昕sin 吟 g17: tings and 1mp 528 一 534. doi: 10.1111 扎 1365-28so.2010 . 01554.X Stubbe , M. , C. Lane , J. Hilder, E. Vine , B. Vine , M. Marra , ]. Holmes , and A. Weatherall. 2003. “ ~