Language Identity Online and Running 1St Edition Nur Kurtoglu Hooton Full Chapter

Language, Identity Online and Running
1st Edition Nur Kurto■lu-Hooton

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/language-identity-online-and-running-1st-edition-nur-
kurtoglu-hooton/
Language,
Identity Online
and Running
Nur Kurtoğlu-Hooton
Language, Identity Online and Running
“This is a beautifully written book presenting intertwined studies on digital

identities among runners. It combines fine-grained research and personal
insight to reveal how running identity is communicated in these vibrant
online communities. While these revelations are addressed to those interested
in understanding identity in digital contexts, I wouldn’t be surprised if some
readers felt like lacing up a pair of running shoes and joining them, after
reading this book.”
—Patrick Kiernan, Meiji University, Japan
Nur Kurtoğlu-Hooton
Language, Identity
Online and Running
Nur Kurtoğlu-Hooton
School of Social Sciences and Humanities
College of Business and Social Sciences
Aston University
Birmingham, UK
ISBN 978-3-030-81830-2 ISBN 978-3-030-81831-9 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81831-9
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting,
reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical
way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,
or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover credit: Luca Sage/Getty
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
There are many people I would like to thank. I have greatly bene-
fited from discussing my initial ideas for this book with my colleagues
Krzysztof Kredens and Julian Edge whose encouragement and support
were priceless. I am also truly grateful to my colleagues Urszula Clark,
Erika Darics, Sue Garton, Marcello Giovanelli, Carol Marley, Muna
Morris-Adams, Ria Perkins and Gertrud Reershemius, who have believed
in me and supported me throughout the process in their various ways. I
would like to thank Erika also for providing me with valuable feedback
on previous drafts of some of the chapters. Any shortcomings remain my
own.
I have been lucky enough to have presented aspects of my research
during research seminars at Aston University. I have greatly benefited
from the questions that were asked and the comments that were made
by colleagues during these sessions as they have all allowed me to reflect
as I researched and wrote this book.
I am also truly indebted to my friend Caroline Radcliffe. Not only has
she been a moral support throughout my journey in writing this book,
but she has also introduced me to countless sources that I never knew
v
vi Acknowledgements
existed. With her speciality in Drama and Theatre Arts, she has opened
so many paths I could follow.
Special thanks go to my sisters Deniz and Demet. I thank Deniz
Kurtoğlu-Eken for her continuous support and encouragement as well
as for her comments and suggestions on the drafts of various chapters. I
thank Demet Kurtoğlu-Taşdelen whose speciality in teaching and writing
about Philosophy has been invaluable for me. Our conversations about
Existentialism and Merleau Ponty have been priceless.
I would also like to express my thanks to Ali Nihat Eken for all the
conversations we have had about running over the last few years. These
conversations have always been inspirational and helped further fuel my
passion for running and researching runners’ lived experiences.
My thanks also to my friend Akgün Özsoy for introducing me to the
world of ultrarunning, allowing me to gain an insider’s perspective into
this sport.
I am deeply indebted to my son, Cam, for his moral support
throughout my journey and, in particular, during the final stages of
the writing when he, himself, was working on his final year project at
university. Our conversations have kept us both motivated.
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my husband, Tim,
for his unfailing support throughout the four years, whether it is to be
crewing me at running events or crewing me on the book, as it were,
supporting me in every way he can to allow me to dedicate time to my
book.
Last but not least, I am extremely grateful to every participant who
has given their permission for me to use their social media posts in my
book. They had written those posts on social media for a very different
audience. They might have never envisaged that one day their posts
would appear in a book. Without their permission, this book would have
never materialised. I am grateful for the guidance and the kind support
I received from Palgrave Macmillan and Springer Nature at all stages of
my book project.
Contents
1 Exploring Runners’ Digital Lives: An Introduction 1

2 Researching Online Discourses in an Ultrarunning
Group 29
3 ‘Ways of Being’ Online: The Case of an Ultrarunning
Group 53
4 “In Doing This Research, I Find My Runner Identity
Is Compromised”: Researching the Instarunning
Community 89
5 Exploring Lived Experiences and Runnerblogging
on Instagram 111
6 On Motivational Currents and Becoming a Runner 147
7 From Running a Mile or Two to Running Ultras:
An Autoethnographic Study 179
Epilogue 207
Index 211
vii
List of Figures
Fig. 4.1 In-vivo coding example 102

Fig. 4.2 Questions used in the digital surveys 106
Fig. 6.1 Concordance: love 172
Fig. 6.2 Concordance: feel/felt/feeling 173
Fig. 7.1 The screenshot of my ‘spectacle’ page 184
Fig. 7.2 Accompanying image for my instarunnerpost [7.1] 190
Fig. 7.3 Look after your running shoes 192
Fig. 7.4 My barefoot experience 195
ix
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Principles of digital ethnography and my research 14

Table 2.1 Phases in the research project 41
Table 2.2 Conceptual framework (adapted from Darics & Gatti,
2019) 47
Table 3.1 The ‘what’ and the ‘which’: Asking
for recommendations 56
Table 3.2 The ‘how to’?: Asking for practical tips and /
or reassurance 61
Table 3.3 Views on a particular issue 64
Table 3.4 Promoting a company, a product, services, events 75
Table 3.5 Sharing and commenting on weblinks 76
Table 4.1 Case study information 98
Table 7.1 A list of hashtags I commonly used 187
xi
1
Exploring Runners’ Digital Lives:
An Introduction
Introduction
If you have a hobby you are particularly passionate about, it is more
than likely that you will want to talk about it whenever the opportunity
arises. It is more than likely, too, that you would create that opportunity
yourself, for example, by steering the conversation towards this hobby. If
you are a runner, you will almost certainly enjoy talking about running
at every opportune moment, especially if you consider running to be a
major part of your life and perceive running as a contributor to defining
who you are. For many different reasons, however, those at the receiving
end may not be so enthusiastic in hearing about how you as a runner
have, for example, “smashed” your goals; achieved a personal best beating
your previous time by a few seconds, minutes or hours; received a medal;
increased your running distance; reached your monthly training distance
target; or found a nutrition or hydration strategy that works for you.
As one of the participants in my research noted:
Interesting fact that almost everybody else glazes over once we runners
start talking running. I think the average conversation attention span of
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2021
N. Kurtoğlu-Hooton, Language, Identity Online and Running,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81831-9_1
2 N. Kurtoğlu-Hooton
my family must be around 10 seconds, so if your study could extend this,

that would be a result in its own right.
(personal communication with an informant in my research)
Their comment highlights how non-runners lose interest quickly once

they realise that the focus of the topic of talk is that of running. There
may, of course, be countless reasons why someone might, as they point
out, “glaze over”. It might be, for example, that they might find running
to be a boring activity. They may be uninterested in the sport of running
itself and may not know how to relate to the topic especially if they do
not consider themselves to be runners. They may not even know how to
engage with the conversation, finding it too detailed or too specialised.
There will be countless other reasons.
Digital world has provided an environment where communities can
connect and thrive. People come together to interact with others virtually
via social network sites (SNSs) such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter
or other new media such as online discussion forums including Strava
(for runners’ training logs), and contemporary media environments such
as blogs, online magazines and newspapers. The creation of these “user-
friendly platforms has met a rising need for self-expression, individual
creativity and connection between like-minded people” (Siapera, 2018,
p. 33).
In this book, as is indicated in its title, I focus on language and iden-
tity online within the context of running. I do not promote a dichotomy
between online and offline but instead show, using empirical evidence,
that as we write online, “contemporary social practices seamlessly inter-
twine online and offline activities” (Barton & Lee, 2013, p. 7) and
“the traditional boundary between the online and the offline is blurred”
(Barton & Lee, 2013, p. 84). Identity online is interwoven with iden-
tity offline. Web 2.0 enables community formation that was not possible
before. In some running groups on Facebook, many of the members may
have never met and will never meet the other members of the group. In
others, many of the members may, actually, know one another quite well
offline be it as part of a running club or as runners who participate in
organised races.
Running is an activity that involves people of all ages, all shapes and
sizes, all over the world. It has continued to grow as a sport and leisure
activity globally over recent decades as many people take up the sport for
a variety of reasons. Even as I type these words, it would be fair to note
that as recently as in 2020, there was a continued rise in people taking up
the sport of running. This rise was due mainly to the pandemic, as people
used running for mental health, fitness, relaxation and stress relief.
The evolving online media through which people make sense of who
they are and which groups they belong to are enabling new ways of real-
ising identities and relationships. I see value in investigating runners’
discourse on social network sites (SNSs) to explore what interests such a
large community of people from all over the world when they commu-
nicate online, how running identities are created online, what runners
choose to share online and what their posts reveal about identity. As
Humberstone (2011) notes, “shared experiences and values of people
engaged in nature-based sport and leisure in different spaces across the
globe can provide a realisation of common values, through the use
of World Wide Web spaces” (p. 506). The interdisciplinary research I
present is likely to be of interest to many different audiences and at
the very least to social media researchers, digital ethnographers, digital
sociologists, phenomenologists, applied linguists and runners.
Language, identity and identity online are often studied in broader
social contexts such as education, culture and politics. Running is inti-
mately related to key issues in contemporary society, such as health and
exercise, sport and nationalism, embracing a variety of discourse types,
and having implications more generally for our identity as human beings.
In this chapter, I will first present a brief history of running as a
sport and leisure activity. This will be followed with existing literature
on running, sporting embodiment, social media and the discourse of
runners. I will then present my research and provide an overview of the
theoretical underpinnings and the methodological considerations in my
research. I will finish the chapter with an outline of each chapter in the
book.
A Brief History of Running

A brief history of running is essential to contextualise some of the
discussion that takes place in various chapters. Any reader who may
be interested in a comprehensive history of running would find Sears
(2015) a useful source, as this particular book presents the history of
running and human evolution covering the period from the Ancient
World through to running in the twenty-first century. Sears (2015) notes
that about 10,000 years ago, with the beginning of agriculture,
humans found new uses for running besides hunting or escaping preda-
tors. These included religious ceremonies, delivering messages, military
purposes, and sport. The earliest written accounts of running are from
ancient Egypt. After ruling for 30 years, Egyptian kings were required
to take part in the “Sed Festival” to display their physical ability to rule.
During these festivals, the king made a ritual run to renew his claim to
his domain and prove he was fit to rule. Since he had no equals, he ran
alone. If he completed the run, he stayed in power but still had to repeat
the ritual every three years after that. The earliest depiction of a king
running in the Sed Festival is from King Abydos, dated about 3,000 BC.
A wood carving shows the king seated on his throne as well as running
in his Heb Sed Festival. (Sears, 2015, p. 15)
Sears (2015) explains how, as is seen in the citation above, running has
been used as evidence of physical activity since the ancient times. He
provides a historical overview of running and the role this sport played
in people’s lives over the centuries.
In Scheerder et al.’s (2015) edited collection Running across Europe,
we gain a social science perspective into the scope of running within
a country or region. The editors first provide a historical background
to running, explaining how there have been ‘two waves of running’,
with the first wave starting in the late 1960s originating mainly in the
US when running became an independent sporting activity withdrawn
from club-organised settings. During the 1980s, mass running became
popular, with recreational long distance running providing popular
leisure-time pursuit to large numbers (Scheerder et al., 2015; Vanreusel,
1984). Bridel et al., (2016, p. 7) note that “already in the 1970s and
1980s, the jogging boom both reflected and reproduced running as a

healthy endeavor”. Running has been studied in the context of neolib-
eral politics of health as a result of the promotion of running ‘put on a
pair of running shoes and “just do it”’ to address, for example, obesity
(Bridel et al., 2016, p. 8). At the end of the 1990s, running participa-
tion rose not only in North America and Europe but on a global scale
paving the way to the second wave of running. The editors note that the
first wave of running “could be considered a product of the cultural and
fitness revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s, the second boom of runners
can no longer be defined from a cultural or health perspective only”
(Scheerder et al., 2015, p. 6) and that “as a dominant part of our daily
lifestyles, the running phenomenon is a multifaceted picture, including
social, health-oriented as well as economic dimensions” (Scheerder et al.,
2015, p. 6).
Literature on Running
There exist a considerable number of books written by runners specifi-
cally for and about runners. It would not be possible nor needed for
the purposes of this chapter to list all these sources. However, it is
useful to exemplify what is available. Many books have been written by
runners themselves providing training tips for runners taking up various
distances (Çelikbaş, 2017; Hilditch, 2014; Macy, 2015; Radcliffe, 2011,
to name a few), detailing mental immersion techniques (Czikszentmi-
halyi et al., 2017; Fitzgerald, 2016; Goggins, 2018), explaining ways
of maximising performance (Anderson, 2013; Koop, 2016) and sharing
running journeys (Anderson, 2017; Finn, 2015; Finn, 2019; Forsberg,
2018; Goggins, 2018; Jornet, 2018). Such sources endorse the popu-
larity of running as a mass phenomenon (Scheerder et al., 2015) and
are useful for researchers interested in the sport of running as they can
provide useful insight into runners’ biographies, stories and their lived
experiences.
There are many empirical studies into the world of running, too.
For example, ethnographic studies into physical culture (Giardina &
Newman, 2018; Olive & Thorpe, 2018), sociological studies to explore
lived experiences of running communities (Bridel et al., 2016; Giardina

& Donnelly, 2018; Wellard, 2016), the study of sporting embodiments
(Allen-Collinson, 2019), critical studies of the body with respect to
social theory (Shilling, 1993), feelings associated with the sensations and
practices of running (Hockey, 2006) and last but not least, sociocul-
tural examination, for example, of endurance running (e.g. Bridel et al.,
2016).
There are also country and/or region-specific studies into the sport of
running (see Scheerder et al., 2015). Borgers et al. (2015) focus on the
case study of Flanders using the Leuven running survey (Scheerder &
Boen, 2009; Vos & Scheerder, 2009) via a cluster analysis of motives
and attitudes towards running. They identify five types of runners:
the individual runner (41%), the social-competitive runner (26%), the
social-community runner (18%), the health-and-fitness runner (9%) and
the performance runner (7%). Forsberg (2012) examines the case study
of Denmark, also identifying five types of runners: the traditional runner
(20%), the social runner (79%), the challenge-seeking runner (16%),
the self-organised runner (36%) and the health conscious runner (15%).
Using a typology to label runners encourages assigning fixed categories
to runners, which in turn could be seen to essentialise runner identity
as it does not take a performance perspective—one which would entail a
focus on “identity as a form of socially meaningful practice” (Blommaert,
2005, p. 208).
Atkinson (2016) explores “the sociology of pleasurable suffering; espe-
cially with respect to the performance of voluntary suffering and physical
ordeals” (p 47) in the context of the loneliness of the fell runner. The
connection between running and existential pleasure through suffering
and the potential for self-discovery that solitary recreational running can
bring with it are useful both in terms of researching runners’ identity and
the role embodiment plays in pursuit of my research.
Studies have identified neoliberal discourse in running (see, for
example, Egan-Wyer, 2019). Bridel et al., (2016, p. 8) note that there
is an expectation that individuals should be “autonomous, self-governing
and act morally responsible in all aspects of one’s life including physical
and mental health” (Bridel et al., 2016, p. 8) adding that failure to take
care of one’s health is construed as a failure to live up to expectations
of what constitutes a good citizen (Bridel et al., 2016, p. 8). More often
than may be expected, however, neoliberalism is not what centres around
running discourses. In my research, community aspect of running, for
example, was very much at the fore. Simpson et al. (2014) conducted a
phenomenological study into the motivations of ultramarathon running
(i.e. where running consists of distances longer than a marathon) with
a group of 26 ultrarunners. Their findings show that the most promi-
nent theme was ‘community’. The runners identified personal bonds and
camaraderie as integral to their experience. Many other discourses emerge
when we study runners’ lived experiences which will be the focus of the
remaining chapters of this book.
Sporting Embodiment
It became apparent during my research study into runners’ discourses
and their identity construction and enactment that the research itself was
affording me with insight into runners’ sporting embodiment. There is a
wealth of literature on the study of sporting embodiment within philo-
sophical and sociological contexts (see, for example Allen-Collinson,
2008, 2009; Humberstone, 2011; Wellard, 2016, for an edited collec-
tion of studies). These research studies have been influential in shedding
light on sporting embodiment. However, the role language plays in
creating and enacting identity and in social interaction is not explored in
these studies. Neither does sporting embodiment as displayed in social
network sites form the focus of any of them.
Embodiment as a term encompasses ‘the body’ as a natural, physical
entity, acknowledging that it is “shaped by and through cultural experi-
ences” (Wellard, 2016, p. 1). As a concept, it is in tune with existential
and phenomenological philosophy drawing heavily on Merleau-Ponty
(1969) whose work was influential in distinguishing between the biolog-
ical body and the experiencing body. Wellard’s (2016) edited collection of
15 chapters explores embodied sport and moving cultures. In this collec-
tion, it is seen that each author / researcher has embraced embodiment
as a central aspect of their research. For example, in her chapter, Wood-
ward (2017) investigates the idea of ‘being in the zone’, conceptualising
the zone as a social and cultural phenomenon and arguing for the affec-
tive aspects of experience, using the term ‘enfleshed’. She notes that the
enfleshed body “needs to be accommodated not only in terms of the
individual experiencing the zone, but also the possible ways in which
spectators share the experience or affect” (Woodward, 2017, p. 27).
Social Media and the Discourse of Runners

A considerable number of sources exists on the discourse of social and new
media and the analysis of digital forms of language. Barton and Lee (2013),
Darics (2015), Deumert (2014), Jones and Haffner (2012), Jones et al.
(2015), Kiernan (2018), Leaver et al. (2020), Lee (2014), Myers (2010),
Page (2012), Page et al. (2014), Page (2018), Seargeant and Tagg (2014),
Tagg et al. (2017), and Zappavigna (2012) are among many researchers
who have written widely within these areas.
Research specifically on runners’ discourse practices and in digital
contexts, however, is scarce. A particularly relevant research for my study
is one conducted by McGannon et al. (2016). In their research, the
authors explored the discourses in self-identity construction in an online
community of recreational mother athletes. They used critical discourse
analysis of 30 stories and 177 reader comments from a North Amer-
ican online running community of mothers. Their study identified two
primary discourses—that of transformation and empowerment and disrup-
tion and resolution. The subject positions that arose from the discourse
were role mother/advocate and resilient mother runner. I discuss these
discourses among others in particular in Chapter 5 of this book, with
respect to the blogosphere of Instagram.
Siapera (2018) notes that the technical affordances of social media
platforms, “the ability to shift between modes of address (to readers, to
friends, to oneself ), the discretion enjoyed by the poster over what they
post” (p. 191), involve the construction of a subjectivity that is different
from “the one cultivated by letters, confessionals, novels and mass media
[and the] kind of autonomy that is a collaborative one” (Siapera, 2018,
p. 191). Studies into the discourse of runners on social media are, there-
fore, valuable additions to literature. As Silk et al. (2016) have noted in
a garden metaphor, “our everyday leisured lives are so interconnected –

in a series of crabgrass-like entanglements – to digital cultural forms,
products, services and economies that it has thus become impossible
to understand leisure without considering digital culture” (p. 213). A
detailed exploration into the world of runners on social media and how
runners construct and enact identities online will address gaps in the
research within these areas.
My Research
In this book, I explore the lived experiences of runners as they perform
identity online. I tease out some of the discourses that help us understand
how identities are enacted within running communities online. I explore
the ways in which language is used in evoking and negotiating identity.
The following were some questions that interested and guided me at the
start of my research:
What are the ways in which some SNSs function as an example of a

community of practice (CofP)?
What do runners talk about as they interact with others online?
How do these acts of communication help shape their identities individu-
ally (as the narrative construction of the self ) and collectively (as a shared
identity)?
How do runners build and enact their identities in narratives of personal
experience and how do they display their sense of self through narrative?
What identities are created and enacted discursively?
What relational strategies do runners use online?
In the book, I share my findings from two pieces of research I conducted

into the world of runners online, exploring the digital practices of (a) a
Facebook community of runners and (b) the Instagram running commu-
nity. I study how runners create and enact identity on these digital
platforms as they interact with others.
Identity and Researching Identity

As the late Blommaert (2005, p. 203) noted, identity is who we are
and what we are and this is all dependent on context, occasion and
purpose, and involves “a semiotic process of representation: symbols,
narratives, textual genres” (Blommaert, 2005, p. 203). Identity is not a
fixed attribute; it is a sociocultural and discursive construct that emerges
only through interaction. Identities are constructed discursively and
semiotically and are performed dialogically in interaction (Seargeant
& Tagg, 2014), in identity rituals (Blommaert, 2005). According to
Goffman (1959), some identity cues can be ‘given’, involving deliberate
and conscious management while some ‘given off ’. These apply to social
media, too, where identity cues can show how they have been deliber-
ately constructed and are managed by an individual, and they can also be
revealed in interaction (i.e. ‘given off ’) but can be identified via language
choices made by the individual as well as the visual resources they opt to
use.
Defining identity as the social positioning of self and other, Bucholtz
and Hall (2005) address the traditional views of identity by proposing
five principles: emergence, positionality, indexicality, relationality and
partialness. The emergence principle challenges the traditional view that
identity is static and that it is housed within an individual mind. The
authors assert that contrary to such views, identity is a social and cultural
phenomenon and a discursive construct that emerges in interaction.
They challenge the perspectives often inherent in quantitative social
sciences where social behaviour may be correlated with macro-identity
categories such as age, gender and social class. Instead, they offer their
positionality principle which encompasses local identity categories and
interactionally specific stances and participant roles as well as macro-
level demographic categories—i.e. more widely recognised constructs of
social subjectivity. The emergence and the positionality principles are
concerned with the ontological status of identity. The third principle—
that of indexicality—helps us understand how linguistic forms are used
to construct identity positions. An index is a linguistic form that depends
on the interactional context for its meaning and serves as a useful term
in the exploration of identity as exhibited through runners’ discourses.
Semiotic links are created between linguistic forms and their social mean-
ings (Ochs, 1992). Identity relations emerge through indexical processes,
e.g. through implicatures and presuppositions regarding one’s own as well
as others’ identity position. Non-linguistic signs may also denote indices
(plural form of index) or indexical signs (as understood, for example, by
Peirce, the father of Semiotics).
Bucholtz and Hall’s (2005) fourth principle, relationality, emphasizes
how identity will always take social meaning in relation to any avail-
able identity positions and is, therefore, not autonomous or independent.
It suggests that identities are intersubjectively constructed through rela-
tions that are often overlapping and complementary. It is mainly this
principle that I have used throughout my research, adopting their
terms ‘adequation’ and ‘distinction’, as two kinds of relationality. For
groups or individuals to be positioned as alike, they must merely be
understood as sufficiently similar for current interactional purposes and
“differences irrelevant or damaging to ongoing efforts to adequate two
people or groups will be downplayed, and similarities viewed as salient
to and supportive of the immediate project of identity work will be
foregrounded” (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p. 599). The construction of
distinction depends on the suppression of similarities. As will be seen,
runners use specific linguistic markers and indeed non-linguistic signs
in their interactions with other runners to enact identity. Finally, as
Bucholtz and Hall (2005) posit with reference to their fifth principle
(that of partialness), identity is always partial, “produced through contex-
tually situated and ideologically informed configurations of self and
other” (p. 605). In this book, the discourses that emerge from the inter-
actions are discussed with empirical evidence. Bucholtz and Hall’s (2005)
framework for analysing identity helps shed light to the discursive and
semiotic construction of identities, providing a useful tool in studying
the dialogical performance of people, in this case of runners, on social
media.
On social media, “people have relative freedom to choose how they
wish to present themselves, have the opportunity to address new, diverse
and potentially global audiences, and have at their disposal a novel set of
resources for doing so” (Seargeant & Tagg, 2014, p. 9). There is, however,
no ‘true’ self at the core that can be unmasked (see Heddon, 2008, p. 27)
because the ‘self ’ is a “hypothetical place or space of storytelling” (Smith,

1993, p. 56) constantly created and enacted. Identities are “constructed
in active processes of identification and self-understanding, seeking or
eschewing commonality, connectedness and groupness” (Leppänen et al.,
2014, p. 114).
Theory and Methods

The research I present in this book draws on digital ethnography
(Pink et al., 2016), embodied practice (Wellard, 2016) and existential
phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty, 1962). It also calls upon Interpreta-
tive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) (Smith et al., 2009) and Dewey’s
(1938) emphasis on the role of reflexivity and sensory activity. Below, I
explain these concepts and their relevance to my research.
Digital Ethnography
Doing ethnography on the Internet is a multifaceted trend (Androut-

sopoulos, 2008) involving a plethora of terms ranging from “vir-
tual ethnography” (Hine, 2000) to “netnography” (Kozinets, 2002),
“cyberethnography” (Domínguez et al., 2007) and “digital ethnography”
(Pink et al., 2016), all of which transfer principles as well as tech-
niques of ethnography to computer-mediated communication (CMC)
settings. An ‘ethnographic perspective’ (Greene & Bloome, 1997) enables
the researcher “to study particular aspects of everyday life and cultural
practices of a social group” (ibid., p. 193). Ethnography is “iterative-
inductive research […] that acknowledges the role of theory as well as the
researcher’s own role and that views humans as part object/part subject”
(O’Reilly, 2005, p. 3). Ethnographic practices shift as new technolo-
gies offer new ways of engaging with research environments (Pink et al.,
2016, p. 3).
Digital Ethnography affords us with mediated contact with research
participants whereby we can digitally track their lives through their social
media practices (Lupton, 2014; Orton-Johnson & Prior, 2013; Pink

et al., 2016; Robinson & Halle, 2002).
Lupton (2014, pp. 15–18) highlights the ways in which digital
sociologists engage in digital ethnographic practices by discussing a
fourfold typology that summarises digital sociology: professional digital
practice which involves using digital tools to build networks and conver-
sations; analyses of digital technology use involving the researching of how
“people’s use of digital technologies configures their sense of self, their
embodiment and their social relations” (Lupton, 2014, p. 16); digital
data analysis and engaging in critical digital sociology through a reflexive
analysis of digital technologies. Reflexivity in digital ethnography can be
defined as “the ways in which we, as ethnographers, produce knowledge
through our encounters with other people and things” (Pink et al., 2016,
p. 12).
Five key principles of Digital Ethnography are discussed by Pink et al.
(2016). I list them below, in Table 1.1, with an explanation of how each
principle relates to my research.
Embodied Practice, Sensuous Scholarship

and Phenomenology
Unlike many forms of earlier computer-mediated practices which tended

to be mostly text-based often with limited physical contextual cues,
newer practices, for example, interaction on Facebook and Instagram,
provide a variety of affordances that help their users to create and
perform identity.
To be a runner, one needs to use one’s body to perform the act
of running. “‘Full-bodied’, corporeally textured, sensuously detailed
descriptions are of particular salience within accounts of sporting embod-
iment” (Allen-Collinson, 2009, p. 294), and indeed, running is no
exception to such embodiment or the lived sporting body, and posts
shared online by runners can be usefully analysed from this perspective.
As Kim (2001, p. 69) aptly notes, “we are beings who live with and
through our bodies”.
Table 1.1 Principles of digital ethnography and my research

Principles of Digital Ethnography How these principles apply to my
( Pink et al., 2016, pp. 8–14) research
Multiplicity:There is more than one In my research, I explored the social
way to engage with the digital media practices of the members of
“Digital ethnography is often guided (a) a particular running group on
by specific theoretical frameworks Facebook and (b) the running
connected to academic disciplines, community on Instagram.
as well as by the needs and These social network sites are
interests of different research available for members to use on an
partners, stakeholders and app (on smartphones) and are
participants.” (p.8) available via a web-based platform,
“Digital media have to be powered too.
by a reliable energy source [and]
need to be able to be used by the
research participants.” (p. 8)
Non-digital-centred-ness: The digital The geographical distances between
is de-centred in digital ethnography me and the research participants
“even when they are conducted required a digital stance. However,
primarily online, relationships this was not seen as a disadvantage
cannot be purely digital. We given the focus of the research was
therefore need to look beyond the on the informants’ identity
digital to understand how they are enactment on social media
played out.” (p. 10) platforms.
“digital ethnography research Sensory ethnography together with
methods should be my embodied practice throughout
non-digital-centric.” (p. 10) the research enabled a non-digital
centric stance.
Openness: Digital ethnography is an The informed consent I sought from
open event the participants explained my
Open and flexible research design research in detail, enabling the
which signifies digital ethnography participants to reflect on their
as a collaborative process practices and interactions online.
(pp.11–12) The digital surveys (used in my
“creative commons and other forms research within the Instagram
of digital sharing and collaboration community) enabled co-production
become ways of being and relating of knowledge.
to others in relation to digital
media.” (p. 11)
“digital forms of collaboration […]
invites different collaborative ways
of co-producing knowledge with
research partners and participants”
(p. 12)
Reflexivity: digital ethnography I used reflexive practice in exploring
involves reflexive practice runners’ sensory experiences as
“digital ethnographers theorise and expressed in their digital
encounter the world as a interactions (i.e. on Facebook and,
digital-material-sensory in particular, Instagram) via my role
environment” (p. 12) as embodied researcher.
(continued)
Table 1.1 (continued)

Principles of Digital Ethnography How these principles apply to my
( Pink et al., 2016, pp. 8–14) research
Unorthodox: Digital ethnography Images, photos and emoji used
requires attention to alternative within the social network sites
forms of communicating enabled me to use digital visual
e.g. call for a digital visual ethnography.
ethnography practice
According to Wellard (2016, p. 1), the recognition of ‘the body’ is a

significant focus for academic thinking, pointing out that such a recogni-
tion has emerged within the sociology of the body through discussions,
for example, by Bourdieu (1981) and Foucault (1981). The body, as
an expression, is now recognised “as more than ‘just’ a natural, physical
entity, but one that is shaped by and through cultural practices” (Wellard,
2016, p. 1). It has, therefore, been replaced by the term “embodiment”—
a term used in phenomenology and sociology. It draws heavily mainly on
the work of Merleau-Ponty (1962) whose writings distinguished between
the biological body and the experiencing body.
Embodiment in running can be explored through the study of
runners’ lived sporting experiences. Approaching the study of running
from an embodied perspective, I explore the lived experience of runners
through my own lived experience—in other words, as an embodied
researcher. This involves a practice-based methodology, outdoor peda-
gogies and body pedagogics (Mellor & Shilling, 2010), researching
embodiment through embodied practice, that is, “corporeal awareness
and intelligence” (Taiwo, 2012, p. 51). Being ‘an embodied researcher’
and analysing runners’ lived experiences through “digital practice –
analytical and critical intelligence” (Taiwo, 2012, p. 51) helps shed
further light into the study of runners’ lived experiences and embodi-
ment. Through embodied practice, we can “experience what it is to ‘be’
in and be affected by the ‘natural’ situated context” (Humberstone, 2011,
p. 499).
There is growing sociological interest in the body pedagogics of
sporting cultures with a focus on running (Hockey, 2006; Nettleton,
2013), boxing and martial arts (Spencer, 2009), nature-based sports, e.g.
wind surfing (Humberstone, 2011), and many researchers have used the
philosopher Merleau-Ponty’s existential phenomenology in their studies

but have been less interested in the significance of thought and reflex-
ivity in connection with the processes with which they are concerned
(Shilling, 2017). Highlighting the embodied importance of cognition,
Shilling (2017) builds on Dewey’s work proposing “an approach to body
pedagogics sympathetic to the prioritization of physical experience [but
one] that recognizes the distinctive properties and capacities of thought
and reflexivity in these processes” (Shilling, 2017, p. 1205). Dewey,
whose work also emphasised the role of sensory activity in learning,
maintained that “no creature lives within the confines of its skin: our
senses are a ‘means of connection’ with ‘what lies beyond [our] bodily
frame’” (Dewey, 1938, p. 13).
Phenomenology, “the philosophical approach to the study of expe-
rience” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 11), concerns itself with the experience
of being human as well as our experiences of the world, in terms of
what matters to us and what constitutes our lived experience. The
philosophers behind this movement were Husserl (the founder of this
philosophy), Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and Sartre. Husserl believed that
we should step outside our everyday experience, which he called our
natural attitude, so as to examine everyday experience by adopting a
phenomenological attitude which involves a reflexive move.
Phenomenology focuses on the experiential and the ontological
(Humberstone, 2011, p. 497) and ‘the here and now of bodily exis-
tence and presence’ (Münch, 1994, p. 151). Researchers studying
sporting experiences have called upon phenomenology. Sparkes (2002),
for example, focused on a qualitative study of ‘tales’ in sport. Hockey
(2006) investigated feelings associated with the sensations of running
and Humberstone (2011) explored “the ways in which the senses are
engaging with natural elements” (p. 495) in the context of water-based
physical activity, and her own experiences as a windsurfer.
General principles of phenomenology are based upon the view that
“participants are the experts in the phenomenon/a under investigation”
(Allen-Collinson, 2008). It is recognised by contemporary phenomeno-
logical researchers that complete epochē, a term used to denote the
suspension or bracketing of our taken-for-granted assumptions and
beliefs about the phenomena under exploration, may not be possible and
that researcher interpretation is inevitable. However, as Allen-Collinson

(2008) notes, a more self-critical and reflexive approach can be taken in
sports studies research “by making the familiar strange, explicitly ques-
tioning and recording our own conceptualisations of the phenomenon”.
Any assumptions one may hold about the communicative practices being
investigated must be challenged and empirically investigated with careful
attention to the linguistic sign.
Richards (2003) notes that research methods used in phenomenology
are designed to penetrate the meaning of experience itself. This
means that researchers must set aside any speculation “concerning the
phenomenon itself so that the data can reveal themselves naturally as
meant by the actor” (p.18). In other words, as is cited by Richards (2003)
and as Mason (2001) maintains:
the starting point of the phenomenological approach is to consider every

phenomenon, including known ones, as if they are presenting themselves
for the very first time to consciousness. In this way we can (again) become
aware of the fullness and richness of these phenomena.
(Mason, 2001, p. 138)
This is reminiscent of the ethnographic tradition of Erickson (1990)

which is based on making the familiar strange. In my role as an embodied
researcher, this in fact presented a problem. It was essential that I
followed a rigorous process to free myself of any preconceived ideas
about the experiences of runners and penetrate the meaning of runners’
lived experiences and capture the essence of these experiences. However,
this is not a straightforward process and requires “a sensitive attune-
ment to opening up the meaning of experience both as discourse and
as text” (Ray, 1994, p. 129) which will “produce a thematically descrip-
tive account” (Richards, 2003, p. 19). It must be noted, too, that the role
of an embodied researcher becomes even more critical in the process.
Paradoxically, when phenomenological research is carried out by
researchers with insider experiential knowledge, the researchers are less
likely to impose their own meanings and constructs upon the informants’
accounts. It is not uncommon and in fact quite a frequent occurrence
in research studies to see researchers immersing themselves into a field,

for the sake of research, to get insight into the lived experiences of
the individuals or groups they are studying. While this is undoubt-
edly useful in gaining insight into the lives that is being explored, it
can also be somewhat artificial. My participation in running events
was not planned so as to conduct research. In other words, I did not
launch myself into running to conduct research. I was already a runner
and had run distances of varying lengths including having done several
endurance races of marathon and ultramarathon lengths. Inevitably,
however, the experiences I gained from training for and participating
in each event afforded me an embodied stance in analysing the data.
Although I was not collecting data while I was running, through having
studied phenomenology and embodiment I was running in a “more
‘mindful’, reflexively more conscious and sensitive manner that opens
up the body to the experiential dynamics of this corporeal movement
through time, space, and place” (Sparkes, 2018, p. 175). Being in the
field and in the action helped me develop “sensory imagination and
re-sensing the process of participant observation” (Pink, 2009), which
in part entailed “moving from a sensory bias to a sensory subjectivity
involving a reflective appreciation of my own sensorium” (see Pink,
2009).
Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) helps examine how
people make sense of their everyday flow of experience (Smith et al.,
2009) and involves what Smith and Osborn (2008) call “a double
hermeneutic”; that is, “the researcher is making sense of the partici-
pant, who is making sense of x” (opcit. 35) and is employing the same
mental and personal skills and capacities as the participant. This double
hermeneutic is relevant to my study, perhaps not in the way it might
be understood within IPA itself but in its broader understanding of it
stretching to digital platforms. In my research, I have used a combina-
tion of embodied practice (as explained above) and where possible was
in contact with the informants.
Methodologically, I have narrowed the gap between philosophical
views on identity and the ways in which the discourse of runners
can display identity. Adopting a “phenomenological attitude” (Husserl,
1927) in discussing data extracts from the viewpoint of runners has been
useful in the process.
Throughout my research, I used participant-observation fieldwork.
Lincoln and Denzin (2003) note that as ethnography’s distinctive
research method, fieldwork “privileges the body as a site of knowing”
(p. 352) and that “the obligatory rite-of-passage for all ethnographers
– doing fieldwork – requires getting one’s body immersed in the field
for a period of time sufficient to enable one to participate inside that
culture” (p. 353) making ethnography an embodied practice which is an
intensely sensuous way of knowing. This is reminiscent of Goffman’s
(1989, p. 125) emphasis on the corporeal nature of fieldwork.
Selection of the Time Period for the Research Projects
To make the two research projects feasible and to be able to provide

“thick description” (Geertz, 1973) of the selected SNSs (Facebook and
Instagram) that I used in my research, I identified a time period of
13 months. This time period was from the beginning of April 2017 to
the end of April 2018, thereby covering the period just before London
Marathon 2017 and also including London Marathon 2018 (April
2017–April 2018). This international event was chosen as a reference
point as it is in many runners’ “bucket list” because it is one of the major
city marathon events in the world, listed alongside Boston, Paris, Berlin
and others. It is an international spectacle run by thousands of runners
every year. It was reported in the media that in 2017 alone approximately
40,000 runners crossed the finish line at the event and that “A record
number of 414,168 hopefuls applied to take part” (VLM Ballot result
email) with as many as approximately 43,000 taking part and completing
the event in 2019. Selecting a time period helped address potential issues
surrounding the management of large data. This is an area I discuss in
some depth in Chapters 2 and 4 of this book.
Ethical Considerations
The research I present involved doing Internet research. This posed
many ethical issues that needed to be considered and addressed. It is
easy to fall into the trap of thinking that social media is a public
space and when people post online they know that their postings
become public knowledge especially when posts are on SNSs that are
public. However, as Kozinets (2015, p. 131) notes, “the fact that people
know that their postings are public does not automatically lead to
the conclusion that they also grant automatic unspoken consent” for
this data to be used by academics and other scholarly researchers in
any way that they please. To address this issue, full informed consent
was sought from the informants. Interestingly, as I was about to start
collecting data, the Cambridge Analytica incident occurred leading all
online communication providers (including those of SNSs) to revisit
their terms and conditions. In designing the research and addressing
ethical issues surrounding the research, I have used guidelines set by
the Association of Internet Research (AoIR) and The British Associa-
tion for Applied Linguists (BAAL). BAAL released updated guidance
in March 2021 (see https://www.baal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/
03/BAAL-Good-Practice-Guidelines-2021.pdf) on recommendations on
good practice in Applied Linguistics. My research meets these recom-
mendations.
Full ethical approval was received from my university prior to
conducting the research. Participants were informed about the details of
the research study including the research questions and the time period
I had selected for the collection of data for the purposes of the study. As
the details of the research were shared with each potential participant,
I ensured that no new posts that may be shared by them were used. In
other words, the posts that were used in the study were ones that the
informants had shared prior to my contacting them. This meant that
if they wished to do so, they would have the freedom to delete or edit
posts they did not want to be used. More importantly, it also meant that
I would be using raw data.
Map of the Book

Chapter One
In this chapter, I presented a brief history of running and focused on

existing literature on running, sporting embodiment, social media and
the discourse of runners. I then presented my research and provided
an overview of the theoretical underpinnings and the methodological
considerations in the two research projects I discuss in the book.
Chapter Two
This chapter introduces a digital ethnographic study conducted within

an ultrarunning group on Facebook. I explain the methodological proce-
dures undertaken during the research and present the analytical frame-
works used in the research. I explore the ways in which the group
function as a Community of Practice (CofP) as I discuss the findings
from Phase One of the study. The chapter is intended to form the back-
ground for Chapter 3 where I present my findings from Phase Two of
the study.
Chapter Three
This chapter is based on the research procedures presented and discussed

in Chapter 2. In this chapter, I present my findings from Phase Two
of the research. I explore the topics and themes that are of interest
to the members of the ultrarunning group. I discuss the role language
plays in the discussions that take place among its members. I offer
some general insights into the digital communication that is character-
istic of the group. I exemplify and discuss the discourses that emerge as
the members interact online. I show how identities are intersubjectively
constructed through relational work.
Chapter Four
In this chapter, I present my research within the Instarunning commu-

nity. I discuss the methodological principles that have guided my
research and outline some of the features of Instagram with reference
to the running community. The chapter is intended to form the back-
ground for Chapters 5 and 6 where I present and discuss my findings
with empirical evidence.
Chapter Five
In this chapter, I focus on the findings from my research within the

Instarunning community and the discourses that emerge on this social
network platform. I explore the embodied nature of 5 runners’ experi-
ences through analysing their discourse. I explore how they do relational
work as they communicate with others online.
Chapter Six
Countless accounts (self-reports) of running and how transformational

it can be are shared on social media each day. This chapter focuses on
the self-reported transformation of one runner. It presents an analysis of
her self-reported transformation as can be made apparent through the
discourse she used in her runnerblogs. The chapter also examines how
she constructs and performs identity on Instagram, how she bonds with
her audience revealing her individual struggles and pursuits during her
journey from being a non-runner to becoming a runner.
Chapter Seven
This chapter is autoethnographic. In it, I share my insights into how my

runner identity is shaped by running and the way I use social media to
share my running. I detail my running trajectory while also providing
insight into my discursive practices on Instagram. I aim to make my

personal and interpersonal experiences meaningful by producing thick
descriptions of these experiences through empirical evidence.
Epilogue
In the Epilogue, I summarise the research and consider future directions.
References
Allen-Collinson, J. (2008). Running the routes together: Corunning and
knowledge in action. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 37 (1), 38–61.
Allen-Collinson, J. (2009). Sporting embodiment: Sports studies and the
(continuing) promise of phenomenology. In Qualitative research in sport and
exercise (pp. 279–296). Taylor & Francis.
Allen-Collinson, J. (2019). Reflexivity and bracketing in sociological
phenomenological research: Researching the competitive swimming life-
world. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(1), 138–151.
Anderson, M. (2017). Beyond impossible. Summersdale.
Anderson, O. (2013). Running science. Human Kinetics.
Androutsopoulos, J. (2008). Potentials and limitations of discourse-centred
online ethnography. Language@internet. Vol 5. Available at https://www.lan
guageatinternet.org/articles/2008/1610.
Association of Internet Researchers AoIR. (2017). http://aoir.org/. Accessed
February 2017.
Atkinson, M. (2016). The loneliness of the fell runner. In I. Wellard (Ed.),
Researching embodied sport (pp. 47–62). Routledge.
Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013). Language online: Investigating digital texts and
practices. Routledge.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge University
Press.
Borgers, J., Vos, S., & Scheerder, J. (2015). Belgium (Flanders): Trends and
governance in running. In J. Scheerder, K. Breedveld, & J. Borgers (Eds.),
Running across Europe: The rise and size of one of the largest sport markets.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Bridel, W., Markula, P., & Denison, J. (Eds.). (2016). Endurance running: A
sociocultural examination. Routledge.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural
linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7 (4–5), 585–614.
Czikszentmihalyi, M., Layter, P., & Weinkauff Duranso, C. (2017). Running
flow: Mental immersion techniques for better running. Human Kinetics.
Çelikbaş, A. (2017). Ultra Kitap. Uzun Mesafe Koşu Kılavuzu. Ömür
Matbaacılık A.Ş.
Darics, E. (Ed.). (2015). Digital business discourse. Palgrave Macmillan.
Deumert, A. (2014). The performance of a ludic self on social network(ing)
sites. In P. Seargeant, & C. Tagg (Eds.), The language of social media: Identity
and community on the internet. Palgrave Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.
Domínguez Figaredo, D., Beaulieu, A., Estalella, A., Cruz, E., Schetner, B.,
& Read, R. (2007). Virtual ethnography. Forum: Qualitative Social Research,
8(3).
Egan-Wyer, C. (2019). The sellable self: Exploring endurance running as an
extraordinary consumption experience. Published doctoral dissertation, Lund
University.
Erickson, F. (1990). Qualitative methods. In R. L. Linn & F. Erickson (Eds.),
Research in teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 77–194). Macmillan.
Fitzgerald, M. (2016). How bad do you want it?: Mastering the psychology of
Mind over muscle. Aurum Press.
Finn, A. (2015). The way of the runner: A journey into the obsessive world of
Japanese running. Faber & Faber.
Finn, A. (2019). The rise of ultrarunners: A journey to the edge of human
endurance. Guardian Faber.
Forsberg, P. (2012). Denmark: Running for the sake of running? A profile of
segmentation of Danish runners. In J. Scheerder, K. Breedveld, & J. Borgers
(Eds.), Running across Europe: The rise and size of one of the largest sport
markets. Palgrave Macmillan.
Forsberg, E. (2018). Sky runners: Finding strength, happiness, and balance in your
running. Blue Star Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). On thick description. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation
of culture. New York: Basic Books.
Giardina, M. D., & Newman, J. I. (2018). What is this “physical” in physical
cultural studies? In M. D. Giardina, & M. K. Donnelly (Eds.), Physical
culture, ethnography and the body: Theory, Method and praxis. Routledge.
Giardina, M. D., & Donnelly, M. K. (Eds.). (2018). Physical culture, ethnog-

raphy and the body: Theory, method and praxis. Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Penguin Books.
Goffman, E. (1989). On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,
18(2), 123–132. Transcribed and edited by L. H. Lofland.
Goggins, D. (2018). You can’t hurt me. Lioncrest Publishing.
Greene, J., & Bloome, D. (1997). Ethnography and Ethnographers of and
in education: A situated perspective. In Flood, Brice Heath and Lapp (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual
arts. Macmillan.
Heddon, D. (2008). Autobiography and performance. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hilditch, G. (2014). Marathon and half marathon: A training guide (2nd Ed.).
The Crowood Press.
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Sage.
Hockey, J. (2006). Sensing the run: The senses and distance running. Senses
and Society, 1(2), 183–202.
Humberstone, B. (2011). Embodiment and social environmental action in
nature-based sport: Spiritual spaces. Journal of Leisure Studies, 30 (4), 495–
512.
Husserl, E. (1927). Phenomenology. For Encyclopaedia Britannica (R. Palmer,
Trans. and revised). Available at https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/%
22-Phenomenology-%2C-%22-Edmund-Husserl-%27-s-Article-for-Pal
mer/9fa4d0a52737669e8907b0ff2834a9db39edbad6.
Jones, R. H., & Haffner, C. A. (2012). Understanding digital literacies: A
practical introduction. Routledge
Jones, H. J., Chick, A., & Hafner, C. A. (2015). Discourse and digital practices:
Doing discourse analysis in the digital age. Routledge.
Jornet, K. (2018). Summits of my life: Daring adventures on the world’s greatest
peaks.
Kiernan, P. (2018). Language, identity and cycling in the new media age:
Exploring interpersonal semiotics in multimodal media and online texts.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Kim, H. W. (2001). Phenomenology of the body and its impliocations for
humanistic ethics and politics. Human Studies, 24, 69–85.
Koop, J. (2016). Training essentials for ultrarunning. Colorado.
Kozinets, R. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for
marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research,
39, 61–72.
Kozinets, R. (2015). Netnography: Redefined . Sage.
Leaver, T., Highfield, T., & Abidin, C. (2020). Instagram: visual social media
cultures. Polity.
Lee, C. (2014). Language choice and self-presentation in social media: the case
of university students in Hing King. In P. Seargeant, & C. Tagg (Eds.), The
language of social media: Identity and community on the internet. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Leppänen, S., Kytölä, S., Jousmäki, H., Peuronen, S., & Westinen, E. (2014).
Entextualization and resemiotization as resources for identification in social
media. In P. Seargeant, & C. Tagg (Eds.), The language of social media:
Identity and community on the internet. Palgrave Macmillan.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (2003). Turning points in qualitative research:
Tying knots in a handkerchief . Altamira Press.
Lupton, D. (2014). Digital sociology. Routledge.
Macy, T. (2015). The ultra mindset: An Endurance champion’s 8 core principles
for success in business, sports, and life. De Capo Life Long.
Mason, J. (2001). Phenomenology and ethnography. In Atkinson, P., Coffey,
A., & Delamont, S. (Eds.) Handbook of ethnography (pp. 136–144). Sage.
Mellor, P. A., & Shilling, C. (2010). Body pedagogics and the religious habitus:
A new direction for the sociological study of religion. Religion, 40, 27–38.
McGannon, K. R., McMahon, J., & Gonsalves, C. A. (2016). Mother runners
in the blogosphere: A discursive psychological analysis of online recreational
athlete identities. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 28, 125–135.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1969) The visible and the invisible (Trans. A. Lingis).
Northwestern University Press.
Myers, G. (2010). The discourse of blogs and wikis. Continuum.
Münch, R. (1994). Sociological theory: From the 1920s to the 1960s. Nelson
Hall.
Nettleton, S. (2013). Cementing Relations within a Sporting Field: Fell Running
in the English Lake District and the Acquisition of Existential Capital, 7 (2),
196–210.
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti, & C. Goodwin (Eds.),
Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge
University Press.
Olive, R., & Thorpe, H. (2018). Feminist ethnography and physical culture:
Towards reflexive, political, and collaborative methods. In M. D. Giardina,
& M. K. Donnelly (Eds.), Physical culture, ethnography and the body: Theory,
method and praxis. Routledge.
O’Reilly, K. (2005). Ethnographic methods. Routledge.
Orton-Johnson, K., & Prior, N. (Eds.) (2013). Digital sociology: Critical

perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.
Page, R. (2012). Stories and social media: Identities and interaction. Routledge.
Page, R. (2018). Narratives online: Shared stories in Social media. Cambridge
University Press.
Page, R., Barton, D., Unger, J. W., & Zappavigna, M. (2014). Researching social
media: A student guide. Routledge.
Pink, S. (2009). Doing sensory ethnography. Sage.
Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2016).
Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. Sage.
Radcliffe, P. (2011). How to run. Simon and Schuster.
Ray, M. A. (1994). The richness of phenomenology: Philosophic, theoretic,
and methodologic concern. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative
research methods (pp. 117–133). Sage.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Palgrave Macmillan.
Robinson, L., & Halle, D. (2002). Digitization, the internet, and the arts:
EBay, Napster, SAG, and e-Books. Qualitative Sociology, 25 (3), 359–383.
Seargeant, P., & Tagg, C. (Eds.) 2014. The language of social media: Identity
and community on the internet. Palgrave Macmillan.
Sears, E. S. (2015). Running through the ages (2rd Ed.). McFarland &
Company.
Scheerder, J., & Boen, F. (Eds.) (2009). Vlaanderen loopt! Sociaal-
wetenschappeljik onderzoek naar de loopsportmarkt [Running in Flanders. The
running market from a social science approach] Academia Press.
Scheerder, J., Breedveld, K., & Borgers, J. (Eds.). (2015). Running across
Europe: The rise and size of one of the largest sport markets. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Shilling, C. (1993). The body in social theory. Sage.
Shilling, C. (2017). Body pedagogics: Embodiment, cognition and cultural
transmission. Sociology, 51(6), 1205–1220.
Siapera, E. (2018). Understanding new media (2nd Ed.). Sage.
Silk, M., Millington, B., Rich, E., & Bush, A. (2016). (Re-)thinking digital
leisure. Leisure Studies, 35 (6), 712–723.
Simpson, D., Post, P. G., Young, G., & Jensen, P. R. (2014). “It’s not about
taking the easy road”: The experiences of ultramarathon runners. The Sport
Psychologist, 28, 176–185.
Smith, S. (1993). Subjectivity, identity and the body: Women’s autobiographical
practices in the twentieth century. Indiana University Press.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological

analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage.
Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis.
In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to methods. 2nd
Edition. Sage.
Sparkes, A. (2002). Telling tales in sport and physical activity: A qualitative
journey. Human Kinetics.
Sparkes, A. C. (2018). Researching the senses in physical culture and producing
sensuous scholarship: Methodological challenges and possibilities. In A. C.
Sparkes (Ed.), Seeking the senses in physical culture: Sensuous scholarship in
action. Routledge.
Spencer, D. C. (2009). Habit(us), body techniques and body callusing: An
ethnography of mixed martial arts. Body and Society, 15 (4), 119–143.
Tagg, C., Seargeant, P., & Brown, A. A. (2017). Taking offence on social media:
Conviviality and communication on Facebook. Palgrave Macmillan.
Taiwo, O. (2012). Art as Eudaimonia: Embodied identities and the return beat.
In S. Broadhurst, & J. Machon (Eds.), Identity, performance and technology:
Practices of empowerment, embodiment and technicity. Palgrave Macmillan.
The British Association for Applied Linguistics. BAAL. https://www.baal.org.
uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BAAL-Good-Practice-Guidelines-2021.
pdf. Accessed in March 2021.
Vanreusel, B. (1984). Running as a mass movement. In Société Française de
Sociologie du Sport (Eds.). Sport et Société contemporaines (pp. 601–608)
(Symposium de l’ICSS 8, Paris).
Vos, S., & Scheerder, J. (2009). Loopsport in velvood. Naar een typologie van
loop-sporters [The rich spectrum of running. Towards a typology of runners].
In J. Scherdeer, & F. Boen (Eds.),Vlaanderen loopt! Sociaal-wetenschappeljik
onderzoek naar de loopsportmarkt [Running in Flanders. The running market
from a social science approach] (pp. 267–287).Academia Press.
Wellard, I. (Ed.). (2016). Researching embodied sport. Routledge.
Woodward, K. (2017). Bodies in the zone. Routledge.
Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use
language to create affiliation on the Web. Bloomsbury.
2
Researching Online Discourses
in an Ultrarunning Group
Introduction
This chapter introduces a digital ethnographic study conducted within
an ultrarunning group on Facebook. The group is an online community
of runners who are interested in all matters concerning long distance
running and the world of ultrarunning—that is, running distances
longer than the traditional race length of a marathon. I explain the
methodological procedures undertaken during the research and present
the analytical frameworks used in the research. I present the ways in
which the group function as a Community of Practice (CofP) as I focus
on Phase One of the research findings. The chapter is intended to form
the background for the next chapter (Chapter 3) where I present my
findings from Phase Two of the study.
Studying Communities Online

According to Rheingold (1994), an online, or ‘virtual community’, “is
a group of people who may or may not meet one another face to
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 29
Switzerland AG 2021
N. Kurtoğlu-Hooton, Language, Identity Online and Running,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81831-9_2
face, and who exchange words and ideas through the mediation of
computer bulletin boards and networks” (Rheingold, 1994, pp. 57–58).
Online communities are “social aggregations that emerge from the Net
when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough,
with sufficient human feelings, to form webs of personal relationships
in cyberspace” (ibid.). They are computer-mediated spaces where there
is a potential communication, relationship building and an integra-
tion of content with an emphasis on member-generated content (Hagel
& Armstrong, 1997; Lee et al., 2003). Herring (2004, pp. 351–352)
attempts to synthesise the literature on online communities under six
criteria, with each criterion needing its own method of analysis:
1) Active, self-sustaining participation; a core of regular participants;

2) Shared history, purpose, culture, norms and values;
3) Solidarity, support, reciprocity;
4) Criticism, conflict, means of conflict resolution;
5) Self-awareness of group as an entity distinct from other groups;
6) Emergence of roles, hierarchy, governance, rituals.
I would argue that that these criteria are all interrelated and can be
explored together ethnographically. In my research, I have used the
construct of Community of Practice (CofP), to explore the ways in
which an online group may exhibit characteristics of a CofP. I believe
such a construct demonstrates a sense of cohesion within a group and
therefore is useful for exploration. Proposed by Lave and Wenger in
1991, and further developed by Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1992)
and Wenger (1998), a CofP refers to a group of people who engage in
some common endeavour on an ongoing basis. In other words, they
are “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something
they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger
& Wenger-Trayner, 2015, p. 1) entering into the participants’ experience
“through their very engagement” (Wenger, 1998, p. 84). People “come
together around mutual engagement in some common endeavor” (Eckert
& McConnell-Ginet, 1992, p. 96) and practices emerge through “joint
activity around that particular endeavor” (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet,
2 Researching Online Discourses in an Ultrarunning Group 31
1992, p. 96). The practices of the community and its members’ partic-
ipation in these practices structure the community socially, making it a
community of practice and a social construct different from the tradi-
tional notion of community (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1992). As far
back as in 1998, Wenger noted that communities of practice are integral
part of our daily lives. This fact has not changed and, on the contrary,
they have grown to be a way of life for many who are members of a
variety of SNSs and therefore potentially members of various Communi-
ties of Practice. People still congregate in virtual spaces to develop shared
ways of pursuing common interests and as Wenger has argued, mutual
engagement, a joint enterprise and a shared repertoire are all essential
concepts for a Community of Practice to have any coherence (Wenger,
1998).
Not all SNSs can be defined or characterised as a CofP. The Facebook
group that forms the research reported in this chapter, however, is an
example of one, as will become clear in this chapter and in Chapter 3
where I present further analysis. Within the group, there are mutual
engagement, joint enterprise (common interests and collective goals) and
a shared repertoire, i.e. shared discourse (Wenger, 1998). In a CofP,
social groupings are not identified by their members’ age, class or gender
but through their shared practice and a commitment to shared under-
standing (Eckert, 2006) where the participants collaborate in placing
themselves as a group with respect to the world around them.
Rather than organise this chapter or the next (Chapter 3) into sections
where I discuss each of these concepts with exemplification, one by one,
I have opted to explain the findings that emerged during the research
in such a way so as to reflect the iterative nature of the study itself. In
other words, the discussion of the concepts are interwoven throughout
the chapter. This organisational decision is also intended to address the
complex nature of the intricacies of a CofP. It will be seen that the two
chapters (this chapter and Chapter 3) together highlight the ways in
which, a particular running group on Facebook, is a CofP.
Running Communities on Facebook and FCFU

There are countless running communities on Facebook and each one has
its own specific focus with respect to running. As members interact with
one another, new acquaintances are made, new relationships are built
and identities enacted in the process. Some of these sites are specific to
a running club, where club members have the opportunity to socialise
and share running and running-related information with the rest of
the group. Some group members on such running communities, which
usually have a membership of a few hundred runners, may also be inter-
acting with one another mostly offline but using the online medium, for
example, to make arrangements to meet for regular training and social
running events, to share running experiences and to discuss upcoming
races.
There are also countless running communities online with their
membership ranging from a couple of thousand members to 100k
+ members. On all these large groups, members are geographically
dispersed, do not necessarily know other members in person apart
from maybe a few (e.g. via participation in running events) and come
together online to engage in conversations about running. Depending
on the purpose of the group, these conversations can range from running
matters that involve “parkruns” (organised 5-km timed events that take
place every Saturday morning in parks across the world) such as in
parkrun community groups on Facebook, to marathon and beyond
marathon-related contexts in the UK and worldwide, and to trail
running involving all distances, short, mid-distance and long distance
running, including distances classified as ultramarathons. There are
hundreds and thousands of ultramarathon events all over the world and
the majority of these events even have their own affiliated community
on Facebook, too. Some of these groups are public and anyone can join
them provided they have an online account. The group home page will
have a “Join Group”, “Request to Join” or similar option which when
clicked is passed on to the admin of the group who can then grant access.
On some online platforms, admin requires any prospective member to
answer 2–3 short questions about their motivation to join the group
before their membership can be approved.
One ultrarunning community on Facebook (hereafter referred to

with the pseudonym, Facebook Community for Ultrarunners and the
acronym FCFU) forms the locus of the research reported in this chapter.
The site came into existence in 2012 and at the time of the study had a
membership of well over 25k. It is a public group for ultrarunners and
anyone interested in ultrarunning. As is noted on the site “anyone can
find the group, and see who’s in it and what they post”. It is a group for
all running abilities where members are encouraged to invite others who
may be interested in the group. Individuals can request to join the group
or an existing member can add them to the group via an online invita-
tion. While it is not possible to see the geographical distribution, it is
fair to note that the membership profile is international as is evidenced
by members’ profiles as well as by some posts which reveal where the
members live and/or run.
FCFU enables its users to communicate with individuals across the
world, providing a communication mechanism for individuals to fulfil
their needs. As well as being a meeting place for sharing knowledge
and experiences about matters concerning ultrarunning, FCFU is a
medium for participants to establish, negotiate, renegotiate and enact
individual and collective identities. Kiernan (2018, p. 131) observes that
the resources available for identity work are context-dependent as a face-
to-face chat about an issue related, for example, to particular sport is
very different from discussing the issue in a published article. In the
same vein, members on SNSs share and are free to initiate discussion
as they see fit. While doing this, they can choose to initiate interaction
with others who have the option to engage actively with their posts in
return, by providing written comments in response or even by simply
giving a ‘Like’ to the post. Members can also choose to be lurkers and
keep at the periphery by not engaging with the content of a post in any
way. Lurking, generally known as “visiting a community on a regular
basis, but not posting or posting very infrequently” (Ridings et al., 2006,
p. 331), is an acceptable as well as expected part of a virtual community.
Members who lurk will still have the opportunity to benefit from reading
the posts shared on the SNS if they choose to do so.
Members of FCFU can make use of the affordances that the site
provides through its built-in features. One such feature is the Like button
which “connects the ‘liker’ to the creator” of the post or the reply, thereby
promoting “a shared stance” and providing an “opportunity for bonding”
(Page, 2018, p. 96). The Facebook ‘Like’ button has a multitude of prag-
matic functions as has usefully been observed by Barton and Lee (2013,
p. 88):
• To express positive stance (i.e. literally like something) but not leave a
written comment;
• To express interest in the post or the content of it;
• To show support to the content poster;
• To agree or align with the stance of the status poster;
• To answer ‘yes’ to a question raised in the post;
• To indicate that the post has been read.
The Like button is of course no longer just a ‘like’ button but members
can express their emotions by choosing to love a post, show their
surprise with a wow emoji and express their sadness or anger with emoji
that corresponds to such feelings. Members have the option to provide
written comments as well (or instead) if they choose to do so. The
comments members write, the way they interact with other members
and take stance in the process all provide a rich environment to study
identity. Stance is used by Barton and Lee (2013) as a central concept
to frame the understanding of the way in which opinions are expressed
in online media. FCFU is, to use Barton and Lee’s (2013) terminology,
a “stance-rich” environment where stance is constantly created and rene-
gotiated collaboratively by a networked public” (p. 31). Stance-taking
is a situated practice as well as a linguistic act and exploring it helps
us understand how identities are constructed (Barton & Lee, 2013,
pp. 31–32).
I was added to FCFU in August 2016 by a friend who runs ultras.
He wanted to encourage me to discover the realms of running distances
further than a marathon and for me to get insight into the world of
long distance running and, in particular, ultrarunning. This encouraged
me to join many other running groups online as I realised that running
as a sport and leisure activity had become a passion for me and that
there would be so much for me to learn from the experiences of others.
As a runner also interested in language interaction and communica-

tion, I soon became fascinated by the interactions taking place between
members on these running communities. As Kiernan (2018, p. 131)
notes “online forums are an emerging discourse context offering a new
mode of communication that is written and not face-to-face but very
interpersonal”, offering a platform for member-generated content. My
membership of these communities remained mostly as one of a lurker
through my own choice which I explain further in the next section. As
a lurker, I was a bona fide member of these virtual communities and a
consumer of their knowledge (Ridings et al., 2006, p. 330).
At the time I became a member of the group, the furthest distance
I had run was a marathon. It was one of the many groups I started to
follow as a runner interested in running long distances and wanting to
find out more about what this sport involves. I was unaware that these
groups would interest me from a linguistic perspective and that one day
I would decide to use them for further exploration as a researcher. My
initial observations of FCFU were thus through participant observation,
but as a runner (not as a researcher) with the aim to benefit from other
runners’ experiences. As a newbie, in other words a new member in the
group, my participation mainly involved ‘liking’ a post. Half a year after
joining the group, I remember also making a modest contribution in
response to a post by suggesting a book I found to be particularly useful
in my training. I was not an active member of the group mainly because
the furthest distance I had run by then was a marathon distance—
and not even one on trails unlike many members within this particular
community. Anything beyond the marathon distance was completely
new territory for me. So were trail running and the meaning of “technical
terrain”, a term often used by trail runners to describe the type of running
terrains. I also had the impression that many of the members within
this particular running community were very experienced long distance
runners (with experience of running distances such as 50 miles, 100 miles
and much longer ones, including multi-stage races that involved several
days of running, too). I chose to read and learn from fellow runners’
experiences and hoped that one day I would contribute in a way that
would allow other runners to benefit from my own experiences. A year
and a half after joining FCFU, I decided to use it as the locus and
focus for my research as I noticed that despite the very large membership
profile the group seemed to be functioning as a community of practice.
This initial observation fascinated me and I wanted to conduct system-
atic analysis to explore it as a researcher not only as a runner. By the
time I started my research, I had participated in a trail marathon (North
York Moors, Coastal Trail Series), a road marathon (Birmingham Inter-
national Marathon, 2017) and completed my very first ultra—a 30-mile
race along Chesterfield Canal and Trent Valley Way (Waterway 30) in
the UK. I was living my own experiences, and the posts I was reading
on FCFU fascinated me linguistically as well. I found myself “subcon-
sciously” researching what interested this community of runners, how
the sport of ultrarunning was discussed and how the members interacted
with one another on the site. All this insider “involvement” brought with
it advantages in terms of gaining an emic perspective but also posed
ethical concerns that I needed to address. Additionally, there was a need
to make the familiar strange (see Chapter 1 for a discussion of this).
When I decided to explore FCFU in depth, I was already at an advan-
tage by having, in effect, carried out “participant observation” albeit
a non-methodical one prior to the start of the study. After all, I had
been a member of this group as a runner myself and had not joined it
for research purposes. This afforded me with insights into the world of
runners and in this case, ultrarunners. As a member of the group, I had
discovered that the in-built ‘Search function’ afforded me with access to
any information that I wished to check. For example, while reading posts
on various running communities I had become aware that long distance
runners may end up with black toenails and even lose a toenail or two.
This was unknown territory to me and I was curious! Typing ‘toenails’
into the Search function gave me a plethora of posts and comments
that I found intriguing. One example was a post by a runner stating
that they do not feel they can call themselves an ultrarunner because
they had not lost any toenails despite having done several ultras. “No
black toenails – am I not an ultra runner?” The runner was wondering if
they had been wearing wrong shoes. The comments written in response
indicated to me that many runners took pride in having black toenails
as they seemed to refer to them as a badge of honour. For example,
one runner explained how they were squeamish when they pulled off
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
—— with a Hawk (Northcote’s), ix. 55.
—— —— (Rembrandt’s), ix. 49.
—— in the Iron Mask, The, iii. 290.
—— was made to Mourn (Burns), v. 139.
—— of Mode, The (Etherege’s), viii. 68.
—— in Mourning for Himself, A (a play), viii. 323.
—— of Ten Thousand, The (Holcroft’s), ii. 159, 161, 201.
—— of the World, The (Macklin), viii. 318, 350;
also referred to in ii. 58; viii, 105, 166.
Manager in Distress, The (G. Colman, the elder), viii. 428.
Manchester, ii. 267; iv. 4; vi. 103, 203, 204 n., 346; vii. 28; ix. 290,
302; xii. 93.
—— Duke of, ii. 105.
Mandane (in Arne’s Artaxerxes), vi. 292; viii. 192, 194, 248, 320, 451,
453; xi. 304, 317.
Mandeville. See De Mandeville, Bernard.
—— (Godwin’s), iv. 209; viii. 131, 420; x. 399.
Mandrake (Farquhar’s Twin Rivals), viii. 22.
Manfred (Byron’s), iv. 258; viii. 421.
Manfrini, Signor, ix. 270.
Mangeon, Miss, viii. 372.
Manly (in Wycherley’s The Plain Dealer), viii. 14, 78.
Manner, On, i. 41.
Manners, Essay On, xi. 269.
Manners and Treatment of Animals, An Account of the
(D’Obsonville), ii. 107.
Mannheim (town), ix. 298, 299.
Manning, Thomas (M.), vi. 68.
Manoah (in Jephson’s The Italian Lover), viii. 338.
Mansfield, ii. 18, 19.
—— Lord, iii. 419; v. 77; vi. 414; xii. 31.
Mansion House, The, vii. 68.
Mantes (town), ix. 105.
Mantua (town), vii. 96; ix. 355; x. 73.
Manwaring, Dr, iii. 395, 400.
Mary Morison, Lines to (by Burns), v. 140.
Manzotti (an Italian), xi. 341.
Maquerella (in Marston’s Malcontent), v. 229.
Mar, Earl of, iii. 415.
Marall (in Massinger’s A New Way to Pay Old Debts), v. 269 n.; viii.
274, 304; x. 172.
Maratti, Carlo, vi. 124, 128; ix. 19, 21, 409, 482; xi. 211.
Marcella (Sackville’s Ferrex and Porrex), v. 195, 243.
—— (in Don Quixote), viii. 110; x. 30.
March, Lord, ii. 28, 31, 35, 48.
—— to Finchley (Hogarth’s), i. 31; viii. 138; ix. 81.
Marchant, Nathaniel, vi. 438.
Marchese Pallavicini and Walter Landor (Landor’s), x. 244.
Marconi, Madame, viii. 297.
Marcus Sextus, The Return of (Guérin’s), xi. 240.
Mardyn, Mrs, viii. 249, 252, 270, 278, 285, 316, 336, 361, 463, 465,
475, 524, 525, 531, 537.
Marengo (a town), iii. 112; ix. 290.
Maret, H. B., iii. 154.
Margaret of Anjou, i. 293.
—— (in Lamb’s John Woodvil), v. 346.
—— Street, ii. 163, 203.
Margaret’s Ghost (an old ballad), ii. 42.
Margate Hoy, A, viii. 435.
Marguerite (in Godwin’s St Leon), viii. 131; x. 389.
Maria (in Holcroft’s Alwyn), ii. 95.
—— (in Holcroft’s He’s much to Blame), ii. 162.
—— The tale of (Sterne’s), viii. 121; ix. 178, 179; x. 39.
—— (in Sheridan’s School for Scandal), viii. 251.
—— Heartley (in Leigh’s Where to Find a Friend), viii. 258, 259.
Maria-Louisa, Queen, ix. 199, 200, 203.
Mariage de Figaro (Beaumarchais), ii. 112, 114, 115.
—— Forcé (Molière), v. 228.
Marialva (Le Sage’s Gil Blas), x. 214.
Marian, ii. 224.
Marianne (Claude Prosper Jolyot de Marivaux), x. 16.
Marianne’s Dream (Shelley’s), x. 264.
Marie Antoinette, i. 71 n., 427; xii. 290.
Marina (in Shakespeare’s Pericles of Tyre), i. 357; ix. 27.
Mariner’s Glee, The (Pinkerton’s), ii. 185.
Marino (Italian poet), v. 315.
—— Faliero (Byron’s), xi. p. viii.
Maritorneses (Cervantes’ Don Quixote), ix. 176.
Marivaux, Pierre Carlet de Chamblain de, iv. 217; vii. 311; viii. 112,
369; x. 31.
Mark Antony (in Shakespeare’s Julius Cæsar). See Antony.
Marlborough, Duke of, i. 8, 44; iii. 415; viii. 96; ix. 74.
—— Duchess of, viii. 160; ix. 71.
Marlow (Goldsmith’s), viii. 507.
Marlowe (Christopher), v. 192;
also referred to in i. 356; iv. 309; v. 99, 176, 181, 189, 202, 229,
298; vi. 218 n., 243 n.; vii. 134, 224, 313, 320; x. 205, 274; xii.
34.
Marmion (Scott’s), iv. 242; v. 155.
Marmontel, Jean François, vii. 311; ix. 118.
Marmozet (in Smollett’s Peregrine Pickle), viii. 513.
Marmozette (Thompson’s Dumb Savoyard), xi. 364.
Marplot (in Mrs Centlivre’s Busy-Body), viii. 156, 270, 503.
Marriage of Cana (Paul Veronese’s), vi. 319; ix. 53, 113, 491; xi. 197.
—— of St Catherine (Caracci’s copy of Correggio’s), ix. 35.
—— of Figaro (Chalon’s), xi. 245.
—— à la Mode (Hogarth’s), i. 25 et seq.; vi. 453; viii. 133, 134, 136,
141, 143; ix. 15, 75, 389, 391, 392; xi. 212, 252 n.; xii. 24.
—— of Two Children, The (Northcote’s), vi. 296.
—— of the Virgin (Caminade’s), ix. 125.
Mars, v. 30; vii. 202; viii. 375; x. 6, 7.
—— Mademoiselle, vii. 324;
also referred to in ix. 147, 148, 151; xi. 354, 355, 366, 379; xii. 24,
146.
—— Subdued by Peace (Miss Jackson’s), xi. 245.
—— and Venus (Titian’s), ix. 74.
Marsac, Mr, ii. 89, 261.
Marsan, Madame, ix. 152.
Marsennus (Marin Mersenne), xi. 53.
Marshall, Mr, ii. 172, 181.
Marston, John, v. 176, 181, 193, 224, 234, 280; vi. 164.
—— Chapman, Deckar, and Webster, On, v. 223.
Martello Tower, iv. 257.
Martigny (town), ix. 283, 288, 290.
Martin (in Voltaire’s Candide), v. 114.
—— Jack (fighter), xii. 4.
—— John (a bookseller), vi. 490.
Martin, John (painter), vi. 397; ix. 109, 336, 337; xi. 381, 553.
—— Richard, xi. 344.
Martin’s Muir (in Lancashire), ii. 2, 167.
Martinet, Mr (an emigrant), ii. 217, 219.
Martinus Scriblerus, v. 104; xi. 288.
Martorell, Jean, x. 56.
Martyrs, Book of (Foxe’s), vii. 129, 320; xi. 443; xii. 384.
Martyrdom of Saint Damian and Saint Cosmas, The (Salvator’s), x.
305.
—— of St Lawrence (Titian’s), ix. 273.
—— of St Placide (Correggio’s), ix. 204.
—— of St Sebastian (Guido’s), ix. 26.
Marullus (in Shakespeare’s Julius Cæsar), i. 195.
Marveil, Arnaud de, x. 55.
Marvell, Andrew, iii. 277; iv. 61; v. 83, 258, 311, 313, 372; vii. 232; xi.
123, 282, 514; xii. 47.
Marville, Vignuel de, vi. 170 n.
Mary, Lines to (Cowper’s), v. 95; vi. 210.
—— the Cookmaid (Swift’s), v. 110.
—— the Maid of the Inn (Southey’s), viii. 362.
—— Magdalen Anointing the Feet of our Saviour (Hilton’s), xi. 190.
—— Queen of Scots, viii. 460; ix. 23, 66; xi. 320, 324.
—— Stuart (Schiller’s), viii. 391.
Marys with the Dead Body of Christ, The Three (L. Caracci’s), ix. 112.
Mary-le-bone Street, ii. 163, 242.
Masaccio (painter), iv. 217; vi. 45, 126, 346; ix. 409, 427; xi. 211.
Masetto (in Byron’s Don Juan), viii. 365, 366, 371; xi. 307.
Mask of Arthur and Emmeline, The (Dryden’s), v. 356.
Mask of Cupid, The (Spenser’s), v. 35, 38, 40; x. 74.
—— of Semele (Congreve’s), viii. 76.
Maskwell (Congreve’s Double Dealer), viii. 72.
Mason, William, i. 171; x. 164.
Massacre of Glencoe, Apology for the (Defoe’s), x. 378.
—— of the Innocents (Le Brun’s), ix. 25.
—— of the Mamelukes (Vernet’s), ix. 137.
—— in Piedmont (Milton), vi. 176, 178.
Massachusetts, x. 315.
Massaniello (Tommaso Aniello), x. 301.
Massena, André, ix. 146.
Massinger, Philip, v. 248;
also referred to in iv. 309, 310; v. 193, 265, 269 n., 345; viii. 272,
287, 290.
Massys, Quentin, ix. 40.
Master Baillie (in Still’s Gammer Gurton’s Needle), v. 286.
—— Barnardine (in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure), i. 241, 346,
347, 425; iv. 248; vi. 249; viii. 283.
—— Bobby (Sterne’s Tristram Shandy), xii. 152.
—— Edward Knowell (in Ben Jonson’s Every Man in His Humour),
viii. 312.
—— Froth (in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure), i. 391; viii. 283.
—— Kerneguy (in Scott’s Woodstock), vi. 410.
—— Matthew (in Ben Jonson’s Every Man in His Humour), viii. 45,
311.
—— Nicolas the Barber (in Cervantes’ Don Quixote), viii. 108.
—— Oliver the Barber (Scott’s), iv. 248.
—— Silence (Shakespeare’s 2nd Henry IV.), iv. 365.
Master Stephen (in Ben Jonson’s Every Man in His Humour), vi. 194
n.; viii. 45, 311.
—— Well-bred (Ben Jonson’s Every Man in His Humour), viii. 312.
Mater Dolorosa (Carlo Dolce’s), ix. 20, 41.
Matheo (in Dekker’s Honest Whore), v. 238, 239, 241, 247.
Matilda (General Burgoyne’s Richard Cœur de Lion), viii. 195.
Matsys, Quintin. See Massys, Quentin.
Matter and Manner (Hazlitt), i. 421; xi. p. x n.
Matthew (Wordsworth’s), xii. 57.
—— Bramble (Smollett’s Humphry Clinker), viii. 117, 165, 510; x. 35.
Matthews, Charles, vi. 273, 278, 350, 417, 418 n.; vii. 300, 508; viii.
177, 243, 281, 317, 412, 428, 430–5, 459, 484, 523; xi. p. viii, 367,
483, 554; xii. 6, 140 n., 353.
—— (John), viii. 497.
—— Miss, vi. 293; viii. 231, 235, 236, 275, 531; xi. 395.
—— (in Fielding’s Amelia), viii. 114; x. 33.
Matthias (Massinger’s The Picture), v. 266.
Matrimony (a Comedy), viii. 392.
Maturin, Rev. Robert Charles, viii. 308, 368, 416, 421, 478; xi. 418.
Maud the Milkmaid (in Walton’s The Complete Angler), i. 56; v. 98.
Maurice of Nassau, Prince, xi. 289.
Maurice’s Parrot, Prince, iii. 101.
Maurocordato, Prince, x. 232, 251.
Mawworm (in Bickerstaff’s Hypocrite), i. 59; ii. 84; viii. 163, 246,
392; xi. 396; xii. 366.
Maximilian of Bavaria, xi. 289.
Maxims on Love, xii. 354.
Maxwell, Mr, ii. 173.
May-Day (Chapman’s), v. 234.
May-Day Night (Shelley’s, from Goethe), x. 261, 271.
May Fair, xii. 132.
Mayence, ix. 298, 299.
Mayor of Garratt, The (Foote’s), viii. 166, 167, 168, 316; xi. 368.
Maywood (actor), viii. 374; xi. 397, 405, 406.
—— as Iago, viii. 513.
—— —— Shylock, viii. 374.
—— —— Zanga, xi. 397; also referred to in viii. 513.
Mazarin, Cardinal, vi. 238.
Mazeres, Baron, xii. 302, 303.
Mazzuola, Francesco. See Parmegiano.
Meadows, Mr (actor), xi. 373.
—— (in Bickerstaff’s Love in a Village), viii. 329.
—— (in Madame D’Arblay’s The Wanderer), viii. 123; x. 42.
—— (in Godwin’s Cloudesley), x. 392.
Means and Ends, On, xii. 184.
Measure for Measure (Shakespeare’s), i. 345; viii. 281;
also referred to, i. 241, 391; v. 226; vi. 249.
Mecca, x. 120.
Mechel (print-seller), ii. 185.
Medea, The (Euripides), x. 97.
Medecin malgré lui (Molière’s), viii. 28, 159, 558; x. 107.
Medici Family, ix. 212, 221, 225.
—— Cosmo de, vi. 353.
—— Hippolito de (Titian’s portrait of), ix. 345, 385; xi. 222.
—— Lorenzo de, The Chapel of, x. 354.
Meditations (Harvey’s), vii. 163.
Mediterranean, The, viii. 126; ix. 182.
Medoro (Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso), v. 3.
Medusa’s Head (Leonardo da Vinci’s), ix. 225; x. 261; xii. 195.
Medwin, Captain, vii. 313, 343.
Meeting of Abram and Melchisedec (Rubens’), ix. 52.
Meeting of Christ and St John (Raphael’s), ix. 30.
—— of Jacob and Laban (Murillo’s), ix. 54.
—— of Jacob and Rachel (Murillo’s), ix. 23.
—— between Louis XIV. and the Spanish Ambassador (Gérard’s), ix.
123.
Meggett, Mr (actor), viii. 239, 240, 241, 532.
Meg Merrilees (in Scott’s Heart of Midlothian), iv. 248; vii. 341, 343;
viii. 129, 146 n., 292; ix. 206; xi. 531.
Meggy Macgilpin (in O’Keeffe’s Highland Reel), xi. 364.
Méhul, Étienne Nicolas, viii. 325.
Meillerie (Rousseau’s Nouvelle Héloïse), i. 133; ii. 326; ix. 281; xii.
25.
Melancholy, Address to (in Beaumont and Fletcher’s Nice Valour), v.
295.
Melanchthon, Philip, iv. 228; x. 143.
Melaric (in L. Bonaparte’s Charlemagne), xi. 236.
Melchior, Friedrich. See Grimm, Baron.
Meleager and Atalanta (Wilson’s), xi. 200.
—— ix. 433; x. 208.
Melford (Cherry’s The Soldier’s Daughter), xi. 297.
Melissa (Holcroft’s), ii. 264, 265.
Mellida (in Marston’s Antonio and Mellida), v. 225.
Mellon, Miss, vii. 127.
Melmoth (Maturin’s), viii. 478.
—— Wm., i. 93.
Melrose Abbey, ix. 235.
Memnon (mythological), v. 60; ix. 108; x. 221, 337.
Memoirs of Anastasius the Greek (Thomas Hope’s), v. 363.
—— (Baron de Bausset), xii. 135.
Memoirs of De Tott (translated by Holcroft), ii. 107.
—— (Count Grammont’s), iii. 307; xi. 276.
—— (of Margravine of Bareuth), vi. 445.
—— (Cardinal Retz), vi. 238, 349; x. 301.
—— (Sir J. Reynolds), i. 442.
—— of Granville Sharp (by Prince Hoare), vii. 48 n., 49.
Memoires de Voltaire écrits par lui-même, ii. 267.
—— of a Cavalier, The (Defoe’s), x. 382.
—— on Chivalry, The (by M. de St Palaye), x. 20.
—— of an Heiress, or Cecilia. See Cecilia.
—— of Fanny Hill (Cleland’s), iv. 102 n.
—— of Lady Vane, The (in Smollett’s Peregrine Pickle), vii. 221.
Memorabilia of Mr Coleridge, xii. 346.
Memory (in Spenser), v. 38.
Menæchmi (Plautus), i. 351.
Menander, viii. 552; x. 100, 232.
Mendacio (in Brewer’s Lingua), v. 293.
Menenius, Agrippa (in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus), viii. 403.
Mengs, Anton Rafael, vi. 345, 431; ix. 203, 349, 409, 472 n., 482; xi.
230, 255.
Menjaud, Mlle., ix. 150.
Merchant of Bruges, The (Kinnaird’s), viii. 264.
—— of Venice (Shakespeare’s), i. 320;
also referred to in i. 391, 392; ii. 71; v. 210; viii. 249.
Merciers, The, ii. 107, 114, 168, 181, 195, 218, 219, 228, 230, 234, 272;
vii. 241.
Mercury, i. 33, 71; v. 83; vii. 203; x. 93, 350, 387.
—— The Elgin, ix. 340, 341.
Mercury teaching Cupid to Read (Correggio’s), xii. 356.
—— and Herse (Turner’s), xi. 191.
—— inventing the Lyre (Barry’s), ix. 419.
Mercutio (in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet), i. 257; viii. 32, 200.
Meredith, Sir W., iii. 422; vi. 88.
Mergées (Merger, Mr), ii. 280.
Mérimée, Madame (Madame M.), vi. 319, 503.
Merlin the Enchanter (early romance), x. 20, 21, 56.
Mermaid Inn, v. 297; xii. 207.
Merrimee, J. F. L., vii. 333.
Merry, Miss, viii. 323, 329.
—— England, xii. 15.
—— Robert, iv. 309 and n.
—— Devil of Edmonton, The, v. 289, 293.
—— Sherwood, xii. 15.
—— Wives of Windsor, The (Shakespeare’s), i. 349;
also referred to in viii. 31, 32, 43.
Mertoun, the elder (in Scott’s The Pirate), xi. 535.
Merveilleuses in Bedlam (Hogarth’s), vi. 167.
Meshech, iii. 265.
Message, The (in Liber Amoris), ii. 290.
Messalina, ix. 221.
Messiah (Handel’s), xi. 455.
Messora, M. (a painter), xi. 245.
Metamorphoses (Ovid), iii. 287.
Metastasio, x. 45; xii. 128.
Methodism, vii. 351; x. 158.
—— On the Causes of, i. 57.
Methuselah, xii. 263.
Metzu, Gabriel, ii. 225; ix. 35.
Meux, Mr, iii. 308.
Mexicans, xi. 319.
Mexico, iii. 290 n.; iv. 189.
Mezentius, ix. 132.
Mezzofanti, Prof. Joseph Caspar, ix. 205.
Michael, Poem of (Wordsworth’s), xii. 316.
Michael Angelo, i. 78, 85, 148, 161, 164; ii. 276; iv. 276; v. 18, 45, 247,
297; vi. 10, 74, 85, 127, 128, 132, 137–9, 145, 212, 297, 346, 347,
353, 363, 368, 392, 413; vii. 59, 61, 94, 96, 103, 107, 118, 157, 158,
199, 203; viii. 55, 284, 364, 470; ix. 11, 28, 42, 134, 165, 211, 219,
220, 232, 235, 236, 239, 240–1, 273, 274, 327, 360–4, 366, 369,
380–2, 394, 403, 409, 427, 491; x. 63, 77, 180, 181, 206–8, 279–
82, 336, 354; xi. 202, 212, 214, 215, 217, 227–9 n., 234 n., 424,
449, 482, 590; xii. 36.
—— Cassio (in Shakespeare’s Othello), vi. 195; viii. 189, 214, 339,
340, 473, 560; xi. 294.
Mickle, William Julius, v. 122.
Micklestane Moor, iv. 246; vii. 343.
Microcosmus (Nabbes’s), v. 289, 290, 292, 334.
Midas, v. 197, 199, 201; ix. 105.
Middle Passage, The, vii. 47; ix. 185.
—— Temple, The, x. 363.
Middlesex, iii. 423.
Middleton, Conyers, ii. 169, 173, 176, 190, 194; x. 249.
—— Thomas, v. 176, 181, 193, 214, 223, 224.
Midhurst, iii. 421.
Midsummer Night’s Dream (Shakespeare’s), i. 61, 244; viii. 274;
also referred to in i. 137, 178, 242, 244, 359; v. 190; viii. 305; x.
116; xi. 451; xii. 74 n.
Mieris (a family of painters), ix. 60, 92.
Mignet, François Auguste Marie, ix. 186.
Milan, vii. 169; viii. 291, 429; ix. 187 n., 198, 260, 264, 275, 277, 278,
419; x. 192.
Mile-end, ix. 480.
Milford (in Holcroft’s The Road to Ruin), ii. 124.
—— Haven, i. 182; xi. 292.
Milking (by John Burnett), xi. 247.
Mill, James, vii. 160, 183, 186, 495; xii. 131, 255.
Mill, John Stuart, xii. 255.
Millamant (Congreve’s Way of the World), i. 12; vi. 165; vii. 121; viii.
14, 37, 73, 74, 151, 152, 465, 555; xi. 346.
Millamour (in Murphy’s All in the Wrong), viii. 164.
Millar, Andrew, vii. 220.
Miller, Miss, viii. 128.
—— The (Chaucer), v. 24.
—— and his Men, The (Pocock’s), xi. 394.
Miller’s Wife (in Pocock’s Miller and His Men), viii. 292.
Millennium (in Cowper’s Task), v. 94.
Millisent (in Merry Devil of Edmonton), v. 293.
Millot, Claude François Xavier, x. 46.
Mills, Dr (Milles, Dr Jeremiah), v. 122.
Mills, Mr, Mrs and Miss (actors), ii. 70 n., 77, 78, 195.
Milman, Henry Hart, iv. 421; v. 379; viii. 416, 478.
Milner, Miss (in Mrs Inchbald’s Simple Story), vii. 304; ix. 237; xii.
65.
Miltiades, x. 232.
Milton, John, v. 44;
also referred to in i. 3, 22, 49, 79, 94, 138, 153, 156, 161, 164, 319,
381, 397–401, 425; ii. 79, 91, 166, 275, 358, 397 n., 436; iii. 1,
168, 258, 270, 299, 326, 336; iv. 45, 61, 190, 217, 229, 244, 275,
276, 355, 365; v. 11, 68, 70, 123, 125, 145–6, 148, 180, 183, 230,
247, 256, 316–8, 369, 371; vi. 42, 68, 73, 77, 85, 96, 100, 106,
110, 163, 169, 210, 218, 223–4, 316, 347, 350, 356, 362, 380,
392–3, 399, 401, 413, 423, 427, 433; vii. 8, 17, 36, 117, 119–20,
153, 158, 160, 169, 197, 203, 249, 268, 320, 322, 371; viii. 23, 43,
55, 58, 68, 101–2, 230, 232–3, 273, 298, 385, 478 n., 535, 561;
ix. 15, 159, 167, 186, 196, 211, 218, 232, 238, 243 n., 283, 320,
321, 427, 431, 483, 491; x. 13, 62–4, 71–2, 77, 116, 118, 155, 156,
200, 204, 232, 244, 324, 325, 327, 377, 399, 406, 416; xi. 215,
233, 235, 294, 431, 450–2, 457, 464, 486–7, 506, 514, 518, 546,
573; xii. 27, 39, 67, 116, 142, 192, 207–8, 273, 277, 341, 346, 372,
433.
Milton’s Eve, Character of, i. 105.
—— Lycidas, On, i. 31.
—— Sonnets, On, vi. 174;
also referred to in v. 371.
—— Versification, On, i. 36.
Milwood (in Lillo’s George Barnwell), viii. 269.
Mina, General, x. 250.
Mincing, Mrs (in Congreve’s Way of the World), viii. 465.
Mind and Motive, vi. 496; xi. p. x.
Mind, On the (Helvetius), xi. 173 n.
Minehead, xii. 272.
Mine Host (Ben Jonson’s New Inn), v. 263.
—— —— of the George (Merry Devil of Edmonton), v. 293.
—— —— of The Tabard (Chaucer), xii. 30.
Minerva (statue), ix. 341, 430, 466; x. 343, 350.
—— Sunias, Temple of the, ix. 325, 381.
—— Press, The, vii. 222; xi. 459.
Minna (in Scott’s The Pirate), xi. 532
Minor, The (Foote’s), ii. 170.
—— Theatres, viii. 403, 478.
Minstrel, The (Beattie’s), v. 100.
Minstrel’s Song in Ælla, The (Chatterton’s), v. 126.
Minucci (an Italian), x. 303.
Minuet de la Cour, The (a dance), xii. 122.
Minute Philosopher (Berkeley’s), vi. 198; xii. 397 n.
Mirabaud, J. Bapt. de, i. 408; vii. 430; xi. 579; xii. 116.
Mirabel (Farquhar’s The Inconstant), i. 154; viii. 73, 74, 75; xi. 367.
Miracles, Essay on (Hume’s), xii. 266.
Miracle of Bolseno (Raphael’s), vi. 340; ix. 240, 364.
Miracle of the Conversion (Raphael’s), ix. 380; xi. 227.
—— of St Mark (Tintoretto’s), ix. 274.
Miraculous Draught of Fishes (Raphael’s), vi. 220; viii. 147; ix. 47.
Miranda (in Mrs Centlivre’s The Busy-Body), viii. 270, 503.
—— (in Shakespeare’s The Tempest), i. 105, 238; x. 116; xi. 296, 417.
Mirandola (Barry Cornwall’s), vi. 96.
Mirror, The (a periodical), viii. 105.
Mirrour for Magistrates, The Induction to the (Thomas Sackville’s),
v. 196.
Misanthrope (Molière’s), viii. 28, 31, 554, 558; ix. 147–9; x. 107, 108;
xi. 354, 383; xii. 24.
Miscellaneous Poems, F. Beaumont, P. Fletcher, Drayton, Daniel,
etc., Sir P. Sidney’s Arcadia, and other works, v. 295
Miser, The (Molière’s), xi. 379, 380.
Miserere, The, ix. 235.
Misers (Massys’), ii. 417; ix. 40.
Misnah, The, iii. 274.
Miss Mactab (in The Poor Gentleman), xi. 376.
—— Prue (Congreve’s Love for Love), vii. 127, 226; viii. 14, 72, 77, 82,
152, 278, 555.
Mistress, Lines to his (Donne’s), xii. 28.
—— (Titian’s), vii. 282; ix. 33, 112, 121, 224, 270.
Mitre, The (an inn), vi. 193; viii. 103.
—— Court, vii. 37; xii. 35 n.
Mock Doctor, The (Fielding’s), viii. 159.
Modena (town), ix. 207.
Modern Comedy, On, i. 10; viii. 551
—— Midnight Conversation (Hogarth’s), viii. 142, 143.
—— Tory Delineated, xi. p. vii.
Mogul, The, ii. 224.
Mohun, Michael, viii. 160.
Moiano (a town), ix. 211.
Molesworth, Robert, Lord, iv. 93.
Molière, i. 81, 314; ii. 166, 229; v. 227, 228; vi. 49, 85, 86, 111, 196 n.,
417; vii. 311, 323; viii. 28, 29, 31, 42, 76–8, 122, 133, 159, 160, 162,
167, 193, 195, 244, 319, 554, 558; ix. 129, 146–50, 152, 166, 214,
242, 391; x. 40, 107, 108, 298; xi. 276, 288, 354, 358, 366, 371,
379, 383, 395, 452, 460; xii. 22, 37, 346.
Molineaux, Tom (pugilist), iv. 223.
Moll Flagon (in Burgoyne’s Lord of the Manor), xi. 316, 388.
—— Flanders (Defoe’s), x. 380; xii. 367.
Molly, Old, xi. 311.
—— Jollop (G. Colman the elder’s The Jealous Wife), viii. 168, 318,
392.
—— Seagrim (in Fielding’s Tom Jones), vii. 221; viii. 113.
Molteno’s print-shop, ix. 8.
Mombelli, Esther, ix. 174.
Momus, The Elgin, ix. 340.
Monaghan, Mr (in Amory’s John Buncle), i. 54; iii. 142.
Monarchy, On the Spirit of, xii. 241.
Monastery (Scott’s), vii. 201; viii. 439
Monasticon (Dugdale’s), v. 120; vii. 317.
Moneses (Congreve’s Bajazet), xi. 275.
Money, On the want of, xii. 136.
Monimia (in Otway’s Orphan), i. 157; v. 355; viii. 263, 310.
—— (in Smollett’s Count Fathom), xii. 64.
Moniteur, The (a newspaper), ix. 165.
Monk Lewis, xii. 271.
—— The (Lewis), viii. 127.
Monkeys, The (Gay’s Fable), v. 107.
Monmouth’s Rebellion, x. 357.
Monmouth Street, vi. 459; vii. 69; xii. 210.
Monrose (in Holcroft’s Knave or Not?), ii. 161, 162.
Monsieur Jourdain (in Molière), i. 81; viii. 160; xi. 355.
—— D’Olive (Chapman’s), v. 231.
—— Pourceaugnac (Molière’s), i. 81; viii. 28, 160; x. 107.
—— Thomas (Beaumont and Fletcher’s), v. 261.
Montagu, Mrs Basil, vii. 41, 132.
—— Edward Wortley, iv. 90 n.
—— Lady Mary Wortley, vii. 207; ix. 477; xii. 32, 134, 153 n.
Montaigne, Michael, Lord of, i. 7; ii. 410; iv. 195, 373; v. 334; vi. 86;
vii. 26, 28, 219 n., 230, 311, 313, 323; viii. 92, 93, 94, 95, 100; ix.
166; x. 72; xi. 383; xii. 37.
Mont-Mirail, The Battle of (Vernet’s), ix. 128.
Mont St Jean, The Battle of, ix. 128.
Montargis (a town), ix. 175, 176, 177.
Monte-Fiascone, ix. 231.
Monte Pincio, The, x. 303.
Monte-Pulciano, xi. 487.
Monte Rosa, ix. 279, 281, 296.
Montesquieu, Charles de St Bavon de, iv. 9 n.; vii. 40, 311; x. 184; xii.
247.
Montfort (actor), i. 440.
Montgomery, James, v. 378; vi. 156; vii. 14.
Monthly Magazine, The, ii. 175, 177, 192; iv. 9 n.; vii. 230; x. 221,
222; xii. 136, 150, 161, 173, 184, 198, 209, 230, 235.
—— Mirror, The, ii. 228.
—— Review, The, ii. 95, 163, 225; iv. 284, 311 n.; vi. 65, 216.
Montmartre, vii. 332; ix. 161; xii. 189.
Montmorenci, vii. 307; ix. 161.
Montpelier Tea Gardens, vi. 257.
Montroses, The, xii. 255.
Montrose (the town), ii. 308.
Monument, The, iii. 128; vi. 421; vii. 68; viii. 435; ix. 59.
—— of the Two Children (Chantrey’s), vi. 326.
Moody or Pinchwife (in Garrick’s adaptation of Wycherley’s Country
Wife), vi. 68; viii. 77; xi. 277.
Moonshine (in Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream), i. 248;
viii. 276.
Moor (Schiller’s), xii. 67.
—— The (in Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus), x. 117.
Moor of Venice, or Othello (Shakespeare’s). See Othello.
Moore, Edward, v. 6, 359; vi. 368.
—— Sir John, ii. 375.
—— Peter, viii. 413.
—— Dr, ii. 171, 198; vi. 360.
—— Thomas, iii. 122, 311, 312; iv. 9, 13, 213, 258, 312, 353; v. 151, 152,
153, 155, 369, 378; vi. 67, 334 n., 454, 495, 509; vii. 123, 153, 314,
319, 365–72, 378–82; viii. 10, 166, 284, 422; ix. 34 n., 73, 106, 160
n., 190, 218, 246, 257, 281, 283; x. 233, 314; xi. 372, 386; xii. 138,
155 n., 307, 323.
—— Sir Graham, vi. 385.
Moorish Alhambra, The, ix. 349.
Mopsa and Dorcas (Sir Philip Sidney’s), ix. 58.
Moral Epistles (Pope’s), v. 373.
Morals (Seneca’s), viii. 557.
Moral and Political Philosophy, Paley’s, iii. 224, 276; iv. 166 n.; vii.
49; xi. 336.
Morales, Luis de, ix. 26.
Morceaux, from Wat Tyler (Southey’s), iii. 194 et seq.
Mordaunt, Mertoun (in Scott’s The Pirate), xi. 532.
Mordent (Holcroft’s The Deserted Daughter), ii. 159.
More, Hannah, i. 66; v. 108, 147; vi. 363; viii. 194, 256, 257, 284.
Moreau, Jean Victor, iii. 53, 56.
Moredens, The (in Leigh’s Where to Find a Friend), viii. 258–260.
Morgan (in Holcroft’s Old Clothesman), ii. 173, 174, 176, 177.
—— (in Smollett’s Roderick Random), iii. 218; vii. 378.
—— Lady, iv. 308; vii. 220; ix. 226, 267; x. 233, 276 et seq., 305 n.
Morganti Maggiore (Pulci’s), x. 69.
Mori, Miss, viii. 341.
Morland, George, ii. 202; vii. 56.
Morn (Michael Angelo’s), ix. 363.
Morning (C. V. Fielding’s), xi. 248.
—— (Hogarth’s), viii. 144; ix. 80.
—— Chronicle, The, i. p. xxx., 415–6, 418, 425, 426, 434–5, 441–2; ii.
94, 204, 205, 207, 221, 222; iii. 47 et seq., 51, 101 n., 107, 205, 232,
339 n., 453–4; vi. 190, 292, 293; vii. 205; viii. 174, 241, 459, 502,
512 et seq., 522–3, 531, 551; ix. 84, 85, 186, 315, 462, 489; x. 213–
6; xi. p. ix., 162, 167, 172, 180, 187, 191, 195, 420, 447, 566, 567,
602; xii. 319.
—— Herald, The, ii. 106, 109, 224; iii. 97; vi. 190.

Language Identity Online and Running 1St Edition Nur Kurtoglu Hooton Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Identity Online and Running 1St Edition Nur Kurtoglu Hooton Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language, Identity Online and Running

1st Edition Nur Kurto■lu-Hooton

“This is a beautifully written book presenting intertwined studies on digital

ISBN 978-3-030-81830-2 ISBN 978-3-030-81831-9 (eBook)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021

Cover credit: Luca Sage/Getty

1 Exploring Runners’ Digital Lives: An Introduction 1

Fig. 4.1 In-vivo coding example 102

Table 1.1 Principles of digital ethnography and my research 14

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

my family must be around 10 seconds, so if your study could extend this,

Their comment highlights how non-runners lose interest quickly once

A Brief History of Running

1980s, the jogging boom both reflected and reproduced running as a

lived experiences of running communities (Bridel et al., 2016; Giardina

Social Media and the Discourse of Runners

a garden metaphor, “our everyday leisured lives are so interconnected –

What are the ways in which some SNSs function as an example of a

In the book, I share my findings from two pieces of research I conducted

Identity and Researching Identity

because the ‘self ’ is a “hypothetical place or space of storytelling” (Smith,

Theory and Methods

Doing ethnography on the Internet is a multifaceted trend (Androut-

media practices (Lupton, 2014; Orton-Johnson & Prior, 2013; Pink

Embodied Practice, Sensuous Scholarship

Unlike many forms of earlier computer-mediated practices which tended

Table 1.1 Principles of digital ethnography and my research

Table 1.1 (continued)

According to Wellard (2016, p. 1), the recognition of ‘the body’ is a

philosopher Merleau-Ponty’s existential phenomenology in their studies

that researcher interpretation is inevitable. However, as Allen-Collinson

the starting point of the phenomenological approach is to consider every

This is reminiscent of the ethnographic tradition of Erickson (1990)

in research studies to see researchers immersing themselves into a field,

Selection of the Time Period for the Research Projects

To make the two research projects feasible and to be able to provide

Map of the Book

In this chapter, I presented a brief history of running and focused on

This chapter introduces a digital ethnographic study conducted within

This chapter is based on the research procedures presented and discussed

In this chapter, I present my research within the Instarunning commu-

In this chapter, I focus on the findings from my research within the

Countless accounts (self-reports) of running and how transformational

This chapter is autoethnographic. In it, I share my insights into how my

insight into my discursive practices on Instagram. I aim to make my

In the Epilogue, I summarise the research and consider future directions.

Giardina, M. D., & Donnelly, M. K. (Eds.). (2018). Physical culture, ethnog-

Orton-Johnson, K., & Prior, N. (Eds.) (2013). Digital sociology: Critical

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological

Studying Communities Online

1) Active, self-sustaining participation; a core of regular participants;

Running Communities on Facebook and FCFU

One ultrarunning community on Facebook (hereafter referred to

As a runner also interested in language interaction and communica-

You might also like