The problem of knowledge dissemination in social network discussions

This paper adopts an Austin-based speech-act theoretical framework to examine how, and to what extent, public social network discussions can contribute to the dissemination of knowledge. We focus on the role of Verdictives, the group of illocutionary acts which consist in the issuing of a judgment, and argue that the knowledge resulting from a Verdictive depends on its bringing about its characteristic conventional effect. Against this background, and working from a corpus consisting of comments on two Facebook posts discussing the highly debated issue of vaccinations, we analyze how knowledge dissemination can take place in social network discussions through the performance of Verdictives and other moves aimed at supporting, rejecting or challenging them. Particular attention is paid to moves aimed at legitimizing or delegitimizing participants as addressers of Verdictives and their sources of information. We conclude from our analyses that Facebook users have their implicit folk-epistemology, but that certain ‘bad habits’ in their communicative behavior and some limitations in their attitude towards inquiry, as well as the negative influence of their search for affiliative relations, significantly limit their possibilities of exchanging and disseminating genuine knowledge.