Relational work in Airbnb reviews

This is revealing in that the dichotomy closeness-distance, or friendliness (which implies informality) - formality (which implies distancing from the addressee) needs not refer to two poles of politeness, but two different attitudes. Given that friendliness is the expected norm in this VCoP, moving away from said friendliness creates the implicature that the experience did not run smoothly. Lack of compensation strategies, but also lack of illocutionary enhancers such as `thank you', illustrates how users neglect the relational component in order to show their frustration, for instance, in the face of what they had experienced. It is in this group of reviews that users try to save their own face (by demonstrating credibility, for instance), while the others' face is either disregarded or attacked.

Finally, those reviews that are ambivalent (i.e., those expressing fault but with mitigation and compensation strategies) seem to respond to two purposes: being honest with the other members in the same CoP and trying not to damage the relational component with the host in a way that more relational work is needed. Guests seem to engage in face-maintaining or face-enhancing relational work. These are cases in which the relationship was not bad, but users felt the moral obligation of expressing that there were some minor faults. Again, users wanted to express dissatisfaction while being politic and polite, in a way that self and other face are saved.

Something that these findings suggest is that, in a global environment such as Airbnb, the dichotomies closeness-distance and involvement-independence, are not only cultural orientations necessarily, as stated in previous studies (cf., e.g., Barros Garcia and Terkourafi 2014), but are also subject to the users' milieu. Thus, each orientation will serve specific purposes: friendliness would be at the polite/politic end, while formality would be at the impolite, or face-aggravating, end of the continuum. In this sense, the tone and style of the reviews are likely to be the continuation of the relational work established during the offline stage of the experience. As a VCoP, the relationship comes first, and this is reflected in the positivity bias of these reviews as a genre.

The above-mentioned ideas are summarized in Figure.

airbnb online review

The relationship between polite/politic/impolite and satisfaction/dissatisfaction

The analysis developed in the previous section may bring about consequences in terms of what is considered to be polite, politic or impolite. While impoliteness/ rudeness may be present in reviews with a clearly negative bias, the boundaries between polite and politic are blurred, given that what is expected, the norm, is being polite in the form of effusive friendliness and closeness, echoing a letter structure that is more typical among friends than among almost strangers in an accommodation website. In turn, those that express some kind of fault but try to compensate for what is being said attempt to be polite with the host. They show concern about the relational component, despite minor faults. This form of politeness, however, is more related to routine formulae, formality and distance, a kind of depersonalisation or objectification, as it were. While delighted and satisfied users seek direct contact with the host as continuity of previous experience, (moderately) dissatisfied users seek the provision of information in a way that credibility does not become an issue, and therefore, their self-image is not jeopardised. Finally, very dissatisfied users prioritize in showing displays of frustration through messages that might be rude or offensive, but useful for their fellow travellers.

Conclusions

Despite the multicultural background that a globalised platform such as Airbnb involves, the reviews under examination present stable pragmalinguistic features that may be, in a way, conditioned by two constraints: first, as a genre, there is a stylistic pattern that is well-known by its users (experienced reviewers and travellers) that they want to follow. This is due to the fact that any deviation from the norm may have an impact on the users' role and identity in this community of practice (travellers who engage with peers). And second, the way the reviews are drafted greatly depends on the offline component of the experience, the relational work developed therein, and the importance given to faults, vis-а-vis the nature of host-guest relationship engaged.

In a review system with a strong positivity bias such as Airbnb, the norm, being politic, is in fact being polite, and more specifically, it is being friendly, informal in tone and lively in the way the experience is recalled. Thus, while it is true that this review genre includes the type of descriptions found in other reviews (e.g. TripAdvisor), the social awareness of this particular CoP has an impact on the way information is drafted, the importance given to im/politeness and the tone chosen. This may bring about consequences not only to shape the pragmatic features of this relatively new platform in the sharing economy (vis-а-vis business-to-peer platforms such as TripAdvisor), but also to be able to identify the meanings that lie behind what is (and is not) said.

References

1. Angouri, Jo & Miriam A. Locher (2012).Theorising disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 44 (12), 1549-1553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.011.

2. Arundale, Robert (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119-153.

3. Arundale, Robert (2006). Face as relational and interactional: a communication framework for research on face, facework and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2, 193-217.

4. Barros Garda, Maria Jesыs & Marina Terkourafi (2014). First-order politeness in rapprochement and distancing cultures: Understandings and uses of politeness by Spanish native speakers from Spain and Spanish nonnative speakers from the U.S. Pragmatics, 24 (1), 1-34.

5. Botsman, Rachel & Roo Rogers (2011). What's Mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption. New York: Harper Business.

6. Bridges, Judith & Camilla Vasquez (2016). If Nearly all Airbnb Reviews are Positive, Does that Make them Meaningless? Current Issues in Tourism, 19, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13683500.2016.1267113.

7. Bulchand-Gidumal, Jacques & Santiago Melian-Gonzalez (2019). Why are ratings so high in the sharing economy? Evidence based on guest perspectives. Current Issues in Tourism, 22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1602597.

8. Burt, Ronald (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345-423.

9. Cansoy, Mehmet & Juliet Schor (2016). Who gets to share in the sharing economy? Understanding patterns of participation and exchange on Airbnb. Retrieved from https://www.bc.edu/content/ dam/ files/schools/cas_sites/sociology/pdf/SharingEconomy.pdf.

10. Chairunnisa, Sabrina & A.S. Benedictus (2017). Analysis of Emoji and Emoticon Usage in Interpersonal Communication of Blackberry Messenger and WhatsApp Application. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management, 4 (2), 120-126.

11. Dayter, Daria & Sofia Rьdiger (2014). Speak your Mind, but Watch your Mouth: Objectification Strategies in Negative References in CouchSurfing. In Bedijs, Kristina Held, Gudrun & Maab, Christiane (eds.) Face Work and Social Media. Berlin: LIT Verlag, 193-212.

12. Dubй, Line, Anne Bourhis & Rйal Jacob (2005). The impact of structuring characteristics on the launching of virtual communities of practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18 (2), 145-166. doi: 10.1108/09534810510589570.

13. Eckert, Penelope & Sally McConnell-Ginet (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21 (1), 461-488.

14. Edwards, Derek (2000). Extreme case formulations: softeners, investment, and doing non-literal. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33 (4), 347-373. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15327973RLSI3304_01.

15. Ert Eyal, Aliza Fleischer & Nathan Magen (2016). Trust and Reputation in the Sharing Economy: the Role of Personal Photos in Airbnb. Tourism Management, 55, 62-73.

16. Fraser, Bruce (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236.

17. Garces-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar (2010). A genre approach to the study of im-politeness. International Review of Pragmatics, 2, 46-94.

18. Garces-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar & Maria Sifianou (2019). Im/politeness in discursive pragmatics. Discursive politeness. Special issue of the Journal of Pragmatics: Recent developments in the field of pragmatics, guest edited by M. Haugh & M. Terkourafi, 145: 91-101.

19. Guttentag, Daniel, Stephen Smith, Luke Potwarka & Mark Havitz (2018). Why Tourists Choose Airbnb: A Motivation-Based Segmentation Study. Journal of Travel Research, 57 (3), 342-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517696980.

20. Haugh, Michael (2019). The metapragmatics of consideration in (Australian and New Zealand) English. In: Ogiermann, E., Garces-Conejos Blitvich, P. (eds.), From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 201-225.

21. Hernandez-Lopez, Maria de la O (2019). What makes a positive experience? Offline/online communication and rapport enhancement in Airbnb positive reviews. Pragmatics & Society, 10 (2), 180-206. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.16060.ohe.

22. Hernandez-Lopez, Maria de la O & Luda Fernandez-Amaya (2019). What makes (im) politeness for travellers? Spanish tourists' perceptions at national and international hotels. Journal of Politeness Research, 15 (2), 195-222. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2016-0060.

23. Herring, Susan (2004). Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis: An Approach to Researching Online Behavior. In S. Barab, R. Kling & J.H. Gray (eds.) Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 338-76.

24. Ho, Victor (2017). Giving offense and making amends: How hotel management attempts to manage rapport with dissatisfied customers. Journal of Pragmatics, 109, 1-11.

25. Kamoen Naomi, Maria Mos & Robbin Dekker (2015). A hotel that is not Bad isn't Good. The Effects of Valence Framing and Expectation in Online Reviews on Text, Reviewer and Product Appreciation. Journal of Pragmatics, 75, 28-43.

26. Levin, Irvin P., Sara K. Schnittjer & Shannon L. Thee (1998). Information Framing Effects in Social and Personal Decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24 (6), 520-529.

27. Locher, Miriam A. (2006). Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua, 25, 249-267.

28. Locher, Miriam A. & Watts, Richard J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1 (1), 9-33.

29. Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In Dereck Bousfield and Miriam A. Locher (eds.) Impoliteness in Language. Studies in its interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 77-99.

30. Mills, Sara (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

31. Pizam, Abraham (2014). Peer-to-peer travel: Blessing or blight? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 38, 118-119. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.02.013.

32. Rosen, Devan, Pascale R. Lafontaine & Blake Hendrickson (2011). CouchSurfing: Belonging and Trust in a Globally Cooperative Online Social Network. New Media & Society, 13 (6), 981-998.

33. Spencer-Oatey, Helen (2000). Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures (1st ed.). London: Continuum.

34. Spencer-Oatey, Helen (2008). Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory (2^nd ed.) London & New York: Continuum.

35. Sthapit, Erose & Jano Jimenez-Barreto (2019). You never know what you will get in an Airbnb: poor communication destroys value for guests. Current Issues in Tourism, 22 (19), 2315-2318. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1475469.

36. Torres, Edwin & Sheryl Kline (2013). From customer satisfaction to customer delight. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25 (5), 642-659. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJCHM-Dec-2011-0228.

37. Tussyadiah, Lis P. & Pesonen, Juho (2015). Impacts of Peer-to-Peer Accommodation Use on Travel Patterns. Journal of Travel Research, 12, 1-19.

38. Vasquez, Camilla (2011). Complaints Online: The Case of TripAdvisor. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (6), 1707-1717. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.pragma.2010.11.007.

39. Vasquez, Camilla (2014). `Usually Not one to Complain but…': Constructing Identities in UserGenerated Online Reviews. In Seargeant, P. and Tagg, C. (eds.) The Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/9781137029317_4.

40. Virtanen, Tuija (2017). Adaptability in online consumer reviews: Exploring genre dynamics and interactional choices. Journal Pragmatics, 116, 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.pragma.2017.03.009.

41. Watts, Richard J. (1989). Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8 (2-3), 131-166.

42. Wong, Siu-Iun & Janet Salaff (1998). Network capital: emigration from Hong-Kong. The British Journal of Sociology, 49 (3), 358-374.

Размещено на Allbest.ru