影响者之间的vape争议和权威话语以及Web 2.0上的机构话语

IF 0.3 N/A LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Argumentation et Analyse du Discours Pub Date : 2021-04-14 DOI:10.4000/AAD.5093
S. Vicari
{"title":"影响者之间的vape争议和权威话语以及Web 2.0上的机构话语","authors":"S. Vicari","doi":"10.4000/AAD.5093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On July 26, 2019 the WHO affirms in its annual report that the electronic cigarette is \"unquestionably harmful\" to health. The reactions in platforms 2.0 are immediate: institutional actors, scientists and consumers speak for or against the position of WHO and the debates soon turns into a real 2.0 polemical debate, involving different authorities who express an opinion on the issue. In this study, I will focus on the construction of the discourse of authority of the vape influencers and on the analysis of the debate that was triggered following the WHO's decision in different Web 2.0 platforms (Twitter, Facebook and the comment space of online newspapers) in order to show some specificities of the circulation of authority in these digital spaces and, in particular, that this polemic is based on conflicts of authority and the variety of technodiscursive tools used by Internet users to construct or deconstruct authority in discourse. Le 26 juillet 2019 l’OMS déclare que la cigarette électronique est « incontestablement nocive pour la santé » dans son rapport annuel. Les réactions dans les plateformes 2.0 sont immédiates : acteurs institutionnels, scientifiques et consommateurs prennent la parole pour ou contre la position de l’OMS et les débats se configurent tôt comme une véritable polémique 2.0, mettant en Polémique de la vape et discours d’autorité entre influenceurs et discours in... Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 26 | 2021 27","PeriodicalId":52023,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation et Analyse du Discours","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Polémique de la vape et discours d’autorité entre influenceurs et discours institutionnels sur le WEB 2.0\",\"authors\":\"S. Vicari\",\"doi\":\"10.4000/AAD.5093\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"On July 26, 2019 the WHO affirms in its annual report that the electronic cigarette is \\\"unquestionably harmful\\\" to health. The reactions in platforms 2.0 are immediate: institutional actors, scientists and consumers speak for or against the position of WHO and the debates soon turns into a real 2.0 polemical debate, involving different authorities who express an opinion on the issue. In this study, I will focus on the construction of the discourse of authority of the vape influencers and on the analysis of the debate that was triggered following the WHO's decision in different Web 2.0 platforms (Twitter, Facebook and the comment space of online newspapers) in order to show some specificities of the circulation of authority in these digital spaces and, in particular, that this polemic is based on conflicts of authority and the variety of technodiscursive tools used by Internet users to construct or deconstruct authority in discourse. Le 26 juillet 2019 l’OMS déclare que la cigarette électronique est « incontestablement nocive pour la santé » dans son rapport annuel. Les réactions dans les plateformes 2.0 sont immédiates : acteurs institutionnels, scientifiques et consommateurs prennent la parole pour ou contre la position de l’OMS et les débats se configurent tôt comme une véritable polémique 2.0, mettant en Polémique de la vape et discours d’autorité entre influenceurs et discours in... Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 26 | 2021 27\",\"PeriodicalId\":52023,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Argumentation et Analyse du Discours\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Argumentation et Analyse du Discours\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4000/AAD.5093\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation et Analyse du Discours","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/AAD.5093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

2019年7月26日,世界卫生组织在其年度报告中确认,电子烟对健康“无疑有害”。2.0平台中的反应是立竿见影的:机构行为者、科学家和消费者支持或反对世界卫生组织的立场,辩论很快就变成了一场真正的2.0辩论,涉及对这个问题发表意见的不同当局。在这项研究中,我将重点关注电子烟影响者权威话语的构建,并分析世界卫生组织在不同的Web 2.0平台(推特、脸书和在线报纸的评论空间)做出决定后引发的辩论,以显示这些数字空间中权威传播的一些特殊性,这场争论是基于权威冲突和互联网用户用来构建或解构话语中权威的各种技术话语工具。2019年7月26日,OMS宣布,电子烟是一种“无可辩驳的健康问题”。2.0版的行动是即时的:机构、科学界和合作者承诺假释,以控制OMS的地位,并将其配置为2.0版的可写政治,电子烟的政治和影响者和讨论者的讨论…讨论和分析,2021年26日27
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Polémique de la vape et discours d’autorité entre influenceurs et discours institutionnels sur le WEB 2.0
On July 26, 2019 the WHO affirms in its annual report that the electronic cigarette is "unquestionably harmful" to health. The reactions in platforms 2.0 are immediate: institutional actors, scientists and consumers speak for or against the position of WHO and the debates soon turns into a real 2.0 polemical debate, involving different authorities who express an opinion on the issue. In this study, I will focus on the construction of the discourse of authority of the vape influencers and on the analysis of the debate that was triggered following the WHO's decision in different Web 2.0 platforms (Twitter, Facebook and the comment space of online newspapers) in order to show some specificities of the circulation of authority in these digital spaces and, in particular, that this polemic is based on conflicts of authority and the variety of technodiscursive tools used by Internet users to construct or deconstruct authority in discourse. Le 26 juillet 2019 l’OMS déclare que la cigarette électronique est « incontestablement nocive pour la santé » dans son rapport annuel. Les réactions dans les plateformes 2.0 sont immédiates : acteurs institutionnels, scientifiques et consommateurs prennent la parole pour ou contre la position de l’OMS et les débats se configurent tôt comme une véritable polémique 2.0, mettant en Polémique de la vape et discours d’autorité entre influenceurs et discours in... Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 26 | 2021 27
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Argumentation et Analyse du Discours
Argumentation et Analyse du Discours LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
34 weeks
期刊最新文献
Steve Oswald: Pragmatics and rhetoric Emmanuelle Danblon: Rhetorical exercises, or the art of rediscovering “the taste for truth” Stuart A. Selber: What is Digital Rhetoric? Étude de la conflictualité : les apports des Prolégomènes à une sémantique des conflits sociaux d’Alfredo Lescano Christopher Tindale: Exploring the Cultural Foundations of Rhetoric and Reason
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1