Self-reflection is expected in business communication teaching, but e-learning has been argued to create an illusion of direct experience as social presence. This study explores how participants’ negotiation of personal agency is constructed in a digital, asynchronic context. Using data collected from a digital classroom of a European business university, I show how participants enact specific strategies in their presentation of self. My aim is twofold: first, to explore how participants negotiate their social identities in a virtual community, and second, to better understand what both educators and enterprise can do to encourage successful dialogue and further humanize digital context.
AbuzyarovaD.TakhtarovaS. (2018). Mitigation in the scientific discourse. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 7(4), 223-229.
2.
AhearnL. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109-137.
3.
AhearnL. M. (2010). Agency and language. In JaspersJ.ÖstmanJ.-O.VerschuerenJ. (Eds.), Society and language use (Vol. 7, pp. 28-48). John Benjamins.
4.
AhearnL. M. (2021). Living language: An introduction to linguistic anthropology. John Wiley & Sons.
5.
AldosariA. M.AlramthiS. M.EidH. F. (2022). Improving social presence in online higher education: Using live virtual classroom to confront learning challenges during COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 994403.
6.
BanduraA. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164-180.
7.
BelzJ. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68-99.
8.
BelzJ. A.ThorneS. L. (2006). Introduction: Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education and the intercultural speaker. In BelzJ. A.ThorneS. L. (Eds.), AAUSC 2005: Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. ix-xxv). Thomson Heinle.
9.
BlythC. S. (2015). Exploring the complex nature of language and culture through intercultural dialogue. In KoikeD. A.BlythC. S. (Eds.), Dialogue in multilingual and multimodal communities (Vol. 10, pp. 139-165). John Benjamins.
10.
DurantiA.GoodwinC. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (Vol. 11). Cambridge University Press.
11.
GreerT. (2013). Word search sequences in bilingual interaction: Codeswitching and embodied orientation toward shifting participant constellations. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 100-117.
12.
GudykunstW. B. (2003). Cross-cultural and intercultural communication. Sage.
13.
HollandD.LachicotteW.SkinnerD.CainC. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard University Press.
14.
HylandK. (2002). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351-358.
15.
JacobyS.OchsE. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 171-183.
16.
JungE.HechtM. L. (2004). Elaborating the communication theory of identity: Identity gaps and communication outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 52(3), 265-283.
17.
KehrwaldB. (2010). Being online: Social presence as subjectivity in online learning. London Review of Education, 8(1), 39-50.
18.
KhammariH. (2021). Strategies and mitigation devices in the speech act disagreement in American English. Studies in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis, 2(1), 26-39.
19.
LaskovaK. (2021). 21st century teaching and learning with technology: A critical commentary. Academia Letters, (Vol.2), Article 2090.
20.
LowenthalP. R. (2010). Social presence. In DasguptaS. (Ed.), Social computing: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 129-136). IGI Global.
21.
LowenthalP. R.DunlapJ. C. (2020). Social presence and online discussions: A mixed method investigation. Distance Education, 41(4), 490-514.
22.
LowenthalP. R.SnelsonC. (2020). In search of a better understanding of social presence: An investigation into how researchers define social presence. In LowenthalP. R.DennenV. P. (Eds.), Social presence and identity in online learning (pp. 5-23). Routledge.
23.
MartinJ. N.NakayamaT. K. (2013). Intercultural communication in contexts (Vol. 6). McGraw-Hill.
24.
MollM. (2000). Negotiating power in international business meetings [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC].
25.
MollM. (2012). The quintessence of intercultural business communication. Springer Science & Business Media.
MollM. (2023). Mediating group agency in the online classroom [Conference presentation]. International Pragmatics Association 2023, Brussels, Belgium.
28.
MorganaV.Kukulska-HulmeA. (Eds.). (2021). Mobile assisted language learning across educational contexts. Routledge.
29.
O’DowdR. (Ed.). (2007). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers (Vol. 15). Multilingual Matters.
30.
PeetersW. (2015). Metacognitive awareness in foreign language learning through Facebook: A case study on peer collaboration. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 174-192.
31.
PetersonM. (2009). Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: A sociocultural perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 303-321.
32.
RushP. (2015). Isolation and connection: The experience of distance education. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 30(2), 1-25.
33.
ShortJ.WilliamsE.ChristieB. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley.
34.
TakahashiJ. (2018). Practices of self-selection in the graduate classroom: Extension, redirection, and disjunction. Linguistics and Education, 46, 70-81.
35.
ThorneS. L. (2010). The ‘intercultural turn’ and language learning in the crucible of new media. In GuthS.HelmF. (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century (Vol. 1, pp. 139-164). Peter Lang.
36.
Ting-ToomeyS. (2017). Facework and face negotiation theory. In KimY. Y. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication (pp. 1-5). Wiley-Blackwell.
37.
WojenskiC. P. (2021). Internationalization disrupted: Collaborative Online International Learning as a stop-gap and a solution. Academia Letters, 2, 1-4.
