By
Obododimma Oha
It is now known that readers' comments on updates on Facebook walls are important fields that can expand the discourse. Facebook itself has been idealised as a classroom. It is not only that teachers can use update fields as virtual classrooms, creating groups for courses they teach, but comments on updates can throw more light on issues and educate readers. Thus, there are classroom comments that are group dealings and there are classroom comments that are merely imagined.
Although comments on Facebook, which are sometimes visualised, are means of helping resdership, we know that some people comment just to run others down and to advertise themselves. That means that they are not just there to help. They are there to kill!
More on visual comments. These may be stereotypical, being used in the same form in another update.
Nothing new added. It may be giggle, clapping, laughing, etc.
Thus, they could reveal attitude to people, issue at stake, the update, a comment, etc.
Also, comments represent the idea of free participation in public debate. But they are subject to censorship. Wall owners can delete comments or even block commenters! But it is not always good to act in anger and delete comments. In making comments we can expose ourselves. Our wisdom and foolishness would show. Our enlightenment and ignorance would be exposed. Just like the update itself that exposes the updater.
Types of comments we can find are worth noting:
(1) Comments on other comments;
(2) Comments that have no direct relevance to the update;
(3) Commenting as a routine to boost the ego of the person who has made the update;
(4) Comments that extend the discourse in the update.
Some comments focus on other comments. This is not necessarily bad or diversionary. It is an attempt to extend or expand the discourse. Actually, comments expand and extend the discourse. It is natural that a comment that invites another is treated as an extension.
Comments on other comments are follow-up moves in the discourse. The Initiation move is actually the update. It is what has prompted a reaction or response.
One problem is that making comments on comments without first reading the update may lead to another error of diversion.
This brings me to a class of comments that I find interesting: comments that have no direct relevance to ongoing discourse. The commenters seem to leave them to fulfill all righteousness. It's as if commenting is a must and so people commenting have complied as required.
This reminds me of some people not waiting for the typing of the update to be completed before making their comments. Why the rush? The author of the update may still have some editing to do!
What else do we expect of discourse in the public space? Some contributions would merely cause confusion or try to disrupt a coherent and ongoing one.
Commenters may also show an awareness of the need to avoid infringement on other's wants as in normal conversation, wants like includedness, abilities, and pursuits. Interestingly, Facebook has been developed to help readers clearly indicate whom the comment is addressing. Specificity is ensured through the mentioning of linked names, not just through the normal flow of the discussion.
We expect a comment to extend the discourse. A comment can extend the discourse by
(1) Citing another case that could throw more light on the issue at stake, make a refutation, etc. Such extensions provide useful inroads to intertertextuality or cohabitation of texts. Indeed, updates invite other texts, making intertextuality unavoidable.
(2) A comment can extend the discourse by addressing another aspect of the theme that is not given attention. Readers may be interested in this trajectory.
Indeed, we may be educated through comments. That is one reason we should not treat them as something unimportant.
No comments:
Post a Comment