‘Husband, don’t push so hard’: stance and indexicality in C-pop address terms (20053)
This study examines the innovative objectification strategies employed by female fans of male Chinese pop singers, also known as C-pop idols, by drawing upon a plethora of Chinese social media posts from the popular platform Sina Weibo. It employs theoretical approaches of stance and indexicality to investigate fans’ addressing practices towards their idols in the fandom.
The fandom is sustained as a virtual community where fans post pictures and playful messages towards their idols. In these posts, fans typically address or refer to their male idols by appropriating diverse terms of endearment (referred to as address terms) based on imagined intimate relationships. Some address terms echo traditional heteronormative romantic paradigms between idols and fans (e.g., husband (idol)-wife (fan)). There also exist expressions of intimacy that assume the form of non-romantic familial bonds (e.g., son (idol)-mother (fan)). This proximity is also discernible in relationships with male idols in a female position (e.g., wife (idol)-husband (fan), daughter (idol)-mother (fan)), creating unorthodox and subverted gender roles. Overall, the data show that address terms index a cultural-specific close-knit nature of the imagined bonds with idols.
Analytically, this study complements Du Bois’ (2007) theorisation of stance by extending its application to unidirectional discourses as fans’ posts are not meant to be read by the idols. During fans’ stancetaking process of constructing an affiliative stance and aligning themselves intimately with their idols, the interlocutor (i.e., idols) is absent and less significant. Fans’ primary intention is to express their affections without necessitating a response. This unidirectional interaction, made possible by social media, sheds new light on our understanding of Du Bois’ stance theory, which was introduced two decades ago.
- Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du