Painting Minis and Self-Praise. Communicative Practices of Tabletop Wargamers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34864/heteroglossia.issn.2084-1302.nr17.art11Słowa kluczowe:
tabletop wargaming, discourse practices, self-praise, boastingAbstrakt
Tabletop wargames provide a rich background for analysing social and linguistic practices. Among the various practices, there are several that players enjoy performing. These include the modelling and hobbyist aspects, such as painting miniatures or building dioramas. While being a pastime based on craftsmanship and practice, painting and modelling incorporate a multitude of actions, performances and activities, whereas the modelling aspect itself provides a rich discourse for players to interact, exchange ideas, boast or construct visual narratives in the form of dioramas. A.L. Strauss (1964) proposes the term social world to denote a group that possesses a certain level of engagement in a common cause. Participation in a social world evades distinguishing specific boundaries in terms of belonging but is heavily embedded within activity in social tasks. Moreover, social worlds contain multiple sub-worlds, in which participants can but do not have to engage. The level as well as the scale of engagement differs depending on the member. For a wargamer, participation in the social world encompasses not only collecting, assembling and painting miniature models but also taking part in various means of organised play and engaging in activities outside of the scope of the game (i.e. socialising).The boundaries of effective communication constitute the cultural area of a social world rather than formal participation or territory. The communication of social actors and the subsequent spread of views and values is achieved using face-to-face communication, publishing on social media and reading relevant literature. At the same time, the present trend shifts the wargaming discussions from face-to-face meetings into the online world utilising Facebook groups, discussion forums, Twitch or Discord channels. This study aims to establish the types of practices involved in the modelling aspect of the tabletop wargames and provide an overview of linguistic means and discourse practices that embody the process of communication, be it by face-to-face or online means. This can be achieved by taking a closer look at some aspects of visual literacy, which revolves around deciding what constitutes “good” and “bad” modelling work. The usual spectrum of comments varies from appraisal and congratulations, or revolve around discussions on modelling techniques, as well as seeking or providing suggestions concerning painting.
Bibliografia
Archer D., Speech acts. [In:] A. Jucker, I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Historical Pragmatics, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 2010, pp. 379–417.
Barry A. M., Visual Intelligence: Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1997.
Becker H., Art Worlds. 25th Anniversary Edition Updated and Expanded, Berkeley–Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2008.
Braden R., Hortin J., Identifying the Theoretical Foundations of Visual Literacy, “Journal of Visual/Verbal Languaging,” 1982, 2, pp. 37–51.
Cammaerts B., Protest Logics and the Mediation Opportunity Structure, “European Journal of Communication,” 2012, 27 (2), pp. 117–134.
Castells M., The Rise of the Network Society, West Sussex, Wiley-Blackwell, 2015.
Conner J., Facebook, the Image, and the Virtual Cedar Bar, “Afterimage,” 2009, vol. 37, (2), pp. 11–14.
Crouch C., Afterword, [In:] J. Elkins (ed.) Visual Literacy, New York–Oxon, Routledge, 2009, pp. 195–204.
Dallow P., The Visual Complex. Mapping Some Interdisciplinary Dimensions of Visual Literacy, [In:] J. Elkins (ed.), Visual Literacy, New York–Oxon, Routledge, 2009, pp. 91–104.
Dayter D., Self-praise in microblogging, “Journal of Pragmatics,” 2014, 61, pp. 91–102.
Decapua A., Boxer D., Bragging, boasting and bravado, “Women and Language,” 22 (1), 1999, pp. 5–22.
DeRogatis J., Sheperd Paine: the Life and Work of a Master Modeler and Military Historian, Schiffer Publishing Ltd, 2008.
van Dijck J., Social Media Platforms as Producers, [In:] T. Olsson (ed.), Producing the Internet. Critical Perspectives of Social Media, Göteborg, Nordicom, 2013, pp. 45–62.
Eckert P., McConnell-Ginet S., Language and gender as community-based practice. “Annual Review of Anthropology,” 21, 1999, pp. 461–490.
Fontaine J. J .R., Scherer K. R., Emotion is for Doing: The Action Tendency Component [In:] J. J. R. Fontaine, K. R. Scherer, C. Soriano (eds.) Components of Emotional Meaning. A Sourcebook, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 170-185.
Fontaine J. J .R., Scherer K. R., Driving the emotion process: The Appraisal component [In:] J. J. R. Fontaine, K. R. Scherer, C. Soriano (eds.) Components of Emotional Meaning. A Sourcebook, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 186-209.
Gauntlett D., Using New Creative Visual Research Methods to Understand the Place of Popular Media in People’s Lives, paper presented at the International Association for Media and Communication Research [IAMCR] conference, Porto Alegre, Brazil, July 25–30, 2004, www.artlab.org.uk/iamcr2004.htm.
Goodwin C., Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction, “Journal of Pragmatics,” 2000, 32, pp. 1489–1522.
Graham S. L., Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. “Journal of Pragmatics,” 39, 2007, 742–759.
Habermas J., The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One. Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. T. McCarthy, Boston, Beacon Press, 1984.
Habermas J., The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, trans. T. McCarthy, Boston, Beacon Press, 1989.
Habermas, J., The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. T. Burger, F. Lawrence, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1989a.
Historical Perspective, “The Chicago Sun-Times,” Oct. 9, 2005.
Hössjer A., Small Talk, Politeness and Email Communication in the Workplace. [In:] S. Herring, D. Stein, T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2013, pp. 613–638.
Jucker A., Taavitsainen, I., Diachronic speech act analysis, “Journal of Historical Pragmatics,” 1 (1), 2000, pp. 67–95.
Locher M., Advice Online, Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2006.
Manes J., Compliments: a mirror of cultural values, [In:] N. Wolfson, E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, Rowley, MA, Newbury House, 1983, pp. 96–102.
Miller L., Cooke L., Tsang J., Morgan F., Should I brag? Nature and impact of positive and boastful self-disclosures for women and men, “Human Communication Research,” 1992, 18 (3), pp. 364–399.
Mitchell W. J. T., Visual Literacy or Literary Visualcy?, [In:] J. Elkins (ed.), Visual Literacy, New York–Oxon, Routledge, 2009, pp. 13–17.
Nichols B., Ideology and the Image: Social Representation in the Cinema and Other Media, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981.
Ong W., Orality and Literacy, London, New York, Routledge, 2002.
Ochs E., Schieffelin B., Language has a heart, “Text,” 1989, 9 (1), pp. 7–25.
Paine S., How to Build Dioramas: Your Complete How-to-do-it Guide to Diorama Planning, Construction and Detailing for All Types of Models, Airlife Publishing Ltd, 1980.
Paine S., Building and Painting Scale Figures, Airlife Publishing Ltd, 1994.
Paine S., Shep Paine’s Armor Modeler Guide, Kalmbach Media, 2016.
Pavlenko A., Bilingualism and emotions, “Multilingua,” 2002, 21, pp. 45–78.
Perelmutter R., The flamewar as a genre in Russian blogosphere, “Journal of Pragmatics,” 2013, 45, pp. 74–89.
Salomäenpää I., Art Life as Communicative Action on Facebook (PhD dissertation), University of Jyväskylä, JYU Dissertations, 53, 2022.
Scalemates Model Database, https://www.scalemates.com/kits/tamiya-32407-lrdg-commandcar--211434.
Scolari, C. A., Introduction: from Media Literacy to Transmedia Literacy, [In:] C. A. Scolari (ed.), Teens, Media and Collaborative Cultures. Exploiting Teens’ Transmedia Skills in the Classroom, Barcelona, Transliteracy, 2018, pp. 12–20, https://repositori.upf.edu/handle/10230/34245.
Sharifian F., Cultural Linguistics: The State of the Art, [In:] F. Sharifian (ed.) Advances in Cultural Linguistics, Singapore, Springer, 2017, pp. 1–28.
Sherwin R. K., Visual Literacy in Action ‘Law in the Age of Images’, [In:] J. Elkins (ed.), Visual Literacy, New York–Oxon, Routledge, 2009, pp. 179–194.
Shibutani T., Reference Groups as Perspectives, [In:] N. J. Herman, L. T. Reynolds, D. Hills (eds.), Symbolic Interaction. An Introduction to Social Psychology, New York, General Hall, 1994, pp. 267–677.
Stanford, B. M., The Remaining 10 Percent. The Role of Sensory Knowledge in the Age of the Self-Organizing Brain, [In:] J. Elkins (ed.), Visual Literacy, New York–Oxon, Routledge, 2009, pp. 31–58.
Strauss A. L., Schatzman L., Bucher R., Ehrlich D., Sabshin M., Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions, New York, Free Press of Glencoe, 1964.
Sturken M., Cartwright L., Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001.
Villi M., Matikainen J., Participation in Social Media: Studying Explicit and Implicit Forms of Participation in Communicative Social Networks, “Media and Communication,” 2016, 4 (4), pp. 109–117, https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i4.578.
Wierzbicka A., Emotions Across Languages and Cultures: Diversity and Universals, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Wilce J. M., Language and Emotion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Wu R.-J. R., A conversation analysis of self-praising in everyday Mandarin interaction, “Journal of Pragmatics,” 2011, 43 (13), pp. 3152–3176.
Wu R.-J.R., Self-Praising Through Reporting: Strategic Use of Two Reporting Practices in Mandarin Conversation, “Discourse Processes,” 2012, 49, pp. 622–659.
