Analyzing Interaction Patterns on Dating Sites: A Generic Structure Potential Approach
https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2024-6-3-60-79
Abstract
Online dating has become a popular stage to find a romantic partner. In such context, interlocutors must employ language carefully to reveal their intentions, attract attention and as well sustain intimacy with their potential partners. While previous studies have explored aspects such as self-disclosure and linguistic strategies in impression formation, there remains a gap in understanding the structured interactions that occur between potential partners on dating sites. This study, therefore, investigated the linguistic elements and interactional structures characterizing online dating discourse, focusing on two popular platforms, Tinder and Tagged. Adopting Halliday and Hasan’s Generic Structure Potential framework, the study examined conversations of thirty participants (potential partners) whose relationship ranges between two weeks to three months. Findings revealed seven key stages: Discourse Initiation (DI), Introduction (INTR), Question and Response (QAR), Request (RQ), Admiration (AD), Declaration of Dating Intention (DDI), and Topic Formation for Conversation (TF). Each stage is marked by specific linguistic features and serves unique functions within the communication process. DI involves friendly greetings and endearments to initiate conversation and signal interest. INTR often includes declarative statements that provide personal information, establishing familiarity and a good first impression. QAR facilitates information exchange through questions and responses. RQ, predominantly by males, involves polite modal verb constructions to move the conversation to more personal platforms or obtain further information. AD includes compliments and positive affirmations to express appreciation and create a positive interaction tone. DDI features direct and indirect questions about relationship status to clarify the intent behind the interaction and define the nature of the potential relationship. Finally, TF sustains conversation with statements and questions about daily activities and interests. This study contributes to the broader understanding of professional discourse by analyzing the structured linguistic strategies and interactional patterns employed in online dating, demonstrating how individuals strategically use language to manage impressions, negotiate intentions, and build relationships – skills also crucial in professional communication.
About the Author
O. E. Olawe
University of Ibadan
Nigeria
Nigeria
Opeyemi E. Olawe holds a master’s degree in English Language. He specializes in sociolinguistics, discourse, and metapragmatics and has published work in these areas in reputable journals. With prior experience teaching English at the primary and secondary school levels, he currently applies his skills as a Data Analyst and Research Assistant at Kayster Global Consult in Ikere-Ekiti, Bouesti
Ibadan, Oyo State
References
1. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Derlega, V.J., Winstead, B.A., Mathews, A., & Braitman, A.L. (2008). Why does someone reveal highly personal information?Attributions for and against self-disclosure in close relationships. Communication Research Reports, 25(2), 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090802021756
3. Ellison, N.B., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415-441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
4. Finkel, E.J., Eastwick, P.W., Karney, B.R., Reis, H.T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3-66.
5. Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria: Deakin University.
6. Hancock, J.T., Toma, C.L., & Ellison, N.B. (2007). The truth about lying in online dating profiles. In SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2007, San Jose, California, USA, April 28 – May 3, 2007: proceedings (449-452). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240697
7. Huang, H.Y. (2016). Examining the beneficial effects of individual’s self-disclosure on the social network site. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 122-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.030
8. Ireland, M.E., Slatcher, R.B., Eastwick, P.W., Scissors, L.E., Finkel, E.J., & Pennebaker, J.W. (2011). Language Style Matching Predicts Relationship Initiation and Stability. Psychological Science, 22(1), 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610392928
9. Jacobson, D. (2007). Interpreting Instant Messaging: Context and Meaning in Computer-Mediated Communication. Journal of Anthropological Research, 63(3), 359-381. https://doi.org/10.3998/jar.0521004.0063.303
10. Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
11. Larson, G., & Asbury, T. (2018). Online Interactions: Comparing Self-Disclosure and Self-Presentation between Friendship and Dating. Psychology and Behavioral Science International Journal, 9(8), 1-8. doi:10.19080/PBSIJ.2018.09.555761
12. Lee, J., Gillath, O., & Miller, A. (2019). Effects of selfand partner’s online disclosure on relationship intimacy and satisfaction. PLoS ONE, 14(3), 1-35, Article e0212186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212186
13. Lin, J., Li, Z., Wang, D., Salamatian, K., & Xie, G. (2012). Analysis and Comparison of Interaction Patterns in Online Social Network and Social Media [Conference paper]. The 21st International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN 2012), Munich, Germany. doi:10.1109/ICCCN.2012.6289250
14. Lindh, E. (2019). Social Psychology: Attraction and Love. Retrieved November 12, 2021, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/waymaker-psychology/chapter/prosocial-behavior/
15. Ma, X., Hancock, J., & Naaman, M. (2016). Anonymity, Intimacy and Self-Disclosure in Social Media [Conference paper]. The 2016 CHI Conference (3857-3869). doi: 10.1145/2858036.2858414
16. McLaughlin, C., & Vitak, J. (2012). Norm evolution and violation on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14(2), 299-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811412712
17. Meijer, S. (2014). Perceived Attraction on Online Dating Sites: the Effect of Photos and Language Errors [Master’s Thesis, Tilburg University], Tilburg. https://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=135368
18. Melefa, O.M., Amoniyan, O.M., & Adike, M.I. (2020). Generic Structure Potential Analysis of Classroom Interactions in a Nigerian University. Journal of English and Communication in Africa, 3(1&2), 146-158.
19. Nabila, R.A. (2019). Social Interaction Among Adolescents Who Use Social Media. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 395, 112-117. 10.2991/assehr.k.200120.025
20. Okpeadua, S.O. (2016). Discourse Conditioning Acts in Alms Begging in Lagos State, Nigeria. Ibadan Journal of English Studies, 11, 158-167.
21. Omoniyi, A.M., & Akinseye, T. (2020). Generic Structure Potential and Discourse Features in Selected Banking Discourses in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 8(4), 59-93.
22. Pei, J., & Jurgens, D. (2020). Quantifying Intimacy in Language. In B. Webber, T. Cohn, Y. He & Y. Liu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (pp. 5307–5326). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.428
23. Pillet-Shore, D. (2008). Coming together: Creating and maintaining social relationships through the openings of face-to-face interactions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(3), 236-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802237909
24. Qaisar, A.R., Shahid, M., & Ali, S. (2020). Usage of Social Media Applications and Social Interaction Patterns among Teenagers. Global Mass Communication Review, 5(4), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.31703/gmcr.2020(V-IV).11
25. Robinson, M.D., Persich, M.R., Sjoblom-Schmidt, S., & Penzel, I.B. (2020). Love Stories: How Language Use Patterns Vary by Relationship Quality. Discourse Processes, 57(1), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1627158
26. Rosen, L.D., Cheever, N.A., Cummings, C., & Felt, J. (2008). The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2124-2157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.10.003
27. Rosenfeld, K., & Thomas, K. (2017). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(36), 17753-17758. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908630116
28. Sharabi, L.L., & Caughlin, J.P. (2017). The role of communication channel and predictive uncertainty in romantic partners’ perceptions of understanding. Personal Relationships, 24(1), 117-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12168
29. Stasiuk, L. (2021). Gender Marked Intimate Conversational Interaction of Spouses in Modern English. In COLINS-2021: 5th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Systems, April 22–23, 2021, Kharkiv, Ukraine.
30. Sunday, A.B., & Fagunleka, O.O. (2017). Generic Structure Potential Analysis of Feature Articles in Nigerian Newspapers. UJAH: Unizik Journal of Arts and Humanities, 18(1), 108-130. http://dx.doi./org/10.4314/ujah.v18i1.6
31. Thoen, I. (2006). Strategic Affection?: Gift Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Holland . Amsterdam University Press.
32. Toma, C.L., & Hancock, J. T. (2012). What Lies Beneath: The Linguistic Traces of Deception in Online Dating Profiles. Journal of Communication, 62, 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01619.x
33. Tu, T., Ribeiro, D., Jiang, D., Wang, S., Chen, D., Liu, L., & Towsley, H. (2014). Online dating recommendations: matching markets and learning preferences. In WWW ‘14 Companion: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 787-792). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2567948.2579240
34. Whitty, M.T. (2008). Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Presentations of self on an Internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1707-1723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.07.002
35. Zanden, T.V., Schouten, A., Mos, M., & Krahmer, E. (2019). Impression formation on online dating sites: Effects of language errors in profile texts on perceptions of profile owners’ attractiveness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(3), 1-21. doi: 10.1177/0265407519878787
36. Zanden, T.V., Schouten, A., Mos, M., Lee, C.V., & Krahmer, E. (2019). Effects of Relationship Goal on Linguistic Behavior in Online Dating Profiles: A Multi-Method Approach. Frontiers in Communication, 4, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00022
Review
For citations:
Olawe O.E. Analyzing Interaction Patterns on Dating Sites: A Generic Structure Potential Approach. Professional Discourse & Communication. 2024;6(3):60-79. https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2024-6-3-60-79
Email this article 