# Wordplay as a tool of online community construction on
X

Haoran Liu

► To cite this version:

Haoran Liu. Wordplay as a tool of online community construction on X. Wordplay and Exclusion, 2025, pp.93-134. 10.1515/9783111553498-005. halshs-05450969

HAL Id: halshs-05450969

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-05450969v1

Submitted on 5 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Haoran Liu

# Wordplay as a tool of online community construction on X

**Abstract:** This paper focuses on use of wordplay on social media X (formerly Twitter) as a tool of establishing an online community by analyzing conversational interaction in tweets. It will be shown that wordplay can be used to create an online community for two reasons. First, wordplay can only be decoded and understood by users who share the same knowledge with producers. Second, wordplay can reflect producers' state of mind and opinion. Thus, the members of an online community can, on the one hand, strengthen the in-group relation by producing a series of wordplay in the way of competition and cooperation, on the other hand, exclude users by producing allusion, ambiguity, and double meaning, even by attacking them with irony, mockery, and insult. Moreover, the hybrid forms (*formes composites*, cf. Paveau 2017) that constitute a tweet suggest that the sharing of knowledge and state of mind can be approached from the perspective of context and connivance research. On the one hand, photographs, videos, GIFs, iconic forms, hyperlinks, hashtags, and usernames marked by @ can play a contextual role in the decoding, understanding, and interpretation of wordplay. On the other hand, likes, retweets, and comments on a tweet – whether containing purely linguistic forms or hybrid forms – can indicate whether connivance has been established between interlocutors.

**Keywords:** connivance, context, digital discourse, online community, X

## 1 Introduction

Wordplay can fulfill a social function (Winter-Froemel 2016: 14). On the one hand, it enables speakers to showcase their self-image (such as linguistic mastery, creativity, and intelligence, opinions about certain subjects, etc.). On the other hand, wordplay allows speakers to include and / or exclude their hearers. Because of these

Haoran Liu, Île du Saulcy, Bâtiment D – Espace Rabelais, F-57000 Metz, haoran.liu@univ-lorraine.fr

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
two social functions, interlocutors can construct an online community on X (formerly Twitter) by using wordplay.

The creation of such community is based on shared knowledge (the concept of “shared knowledge” can be refer to Chiaro [1992] 1996: 10 and also to *savoirs partagés* by Charaudeau 2016) among interlocutors. On one side, the interlocutors must have some common knowledge to decode the wordplay produced by speakers. In this case, a successful interpretation determines the inclusion in the community. On the other side, the interlocutors can showcase their opinions by using wordplay. A community can be established when speakers and their interlocutors share the same opinion.

Shared knowledge that determines the creation of a community can be explained through the concept of connivance (*connivence*, cf. Priego-Valverde 1999; Rabatel 2015; Garnier-Mathez 2006). Thus, community creation can be justified by the presence of signs of connivance (*signes de connivence*, cf. Priego-Valverde 1999: 170) or marks of connivance (*marques de connivence*, cf. Rabatel 2015: 189). Since technology is involved in the production of discourse on X, these signs can have various forms: some are purely linguistic (e.g., the text of a tweet), while others are hybrid forms (*formes composites*, cf. Paveau 2013, 2017) that combine linguistic and technological elements (e.g., hashtags, GIFs, videos, images, hyperlinks, clickable usernames, interactional operations such as retweets, comments, and likes, etc.).

Moreover, the knowledge required for establishing connivance can be visible and “searchable”, which means that communities based on successful interpretation may be accessible to anyone capable of finding the necessary information from the digital environment.

This hypothesis has been proved in my research based on a corpus of wordplay in interaction on X. The corpus is constituted by 502 screenshots of tweets containing wordplay. To build my corpus, I've followed 700 accounts on X, observed their tweets and saved the tweets containing wordplay by making screenshots. The followed accounts were selected in a semi-random way: I followed 20 accounts that posted tweets mentioning the first topic of *Trend: France (Tendance: France)* on the 1st and 16th of the month from 01.03.2020 until 01.08.2021, in other words, I selected 40 accounts every month until I was following 700 accounts.

This paper is based on the analysis of all the wordplay examples in my corpus. These instances of wordplay can be in different parts of a tweet: wordplay in the original tweets, wordplay in comments, and wordplay in retweets. The instances of wordplay in the corpus can be constituted by different forms: purely textual wordplay and wordplay accompanied by non-purely linguistic elements (i.e., photographs, videos, GIFs, hyperlinks, hashtags, and iconic forms such as emojis). These two characteristics of examples in the corpus allow me to work on the following
aspects: do instances of wordplay in different parts of a tweet have the same function? What are the roles of these non-purely linguistic forms in the production and interpretation of wordplay? How do users of X react to the use of wordplay? How to judge whether an instance of wordplay is understood and if it is appreciated?

In this paper, I will first clarify the characteristics of wordplay that allow it to be used as a tool for inclusion. Next, I will present my reflection on the concept of connivance based on the research of Priego-Valverde (1999), Rabatel (2015), Garnier-Mathez (2006), Bensimon-Choukroun (1991), and Rastier (2006). Furthermore, I will analyze and categorize the contextual functions of technolinguistic forms (*formes technolangagières*) (Paveau 2017). Finally, I will demonstrate the three specific types of shared values on which the construction of an online community can be based.

# 2 Characteristics of wordplay linked to exclusion and inclusion

## 2.1 Specific characteristics of wordplay

The two social functions of wordplay that determine the inclusion and exclusion of members within a community are closely linked to its following specific characteristics.

On the one hand, wordplay often has two meanings, and the success of its interpretation determines the inclusion of hearers. This involves the co-presence of double scripts<fnref n="1" /> in wordplay: there are two scripts in an utterance containing a case of wordplay, which may lead to a semantic confrontation (e.g., in example (1)), there are two scripts in the play on *arbre généalogique* 'genealogical tree', one is linked to medicine and social work, and the other is linked to the botanical domain). This confrontation allows wordplay to function as a form of ambiguity, double meaning, misunderstanding or allusion. To create an instance of wordplay involving a semantic confrontation, the speakers need to have a certain level of semiolinguistic competence (*competence sémiolinguistique*, cf. Charaureau 2016) (see 6.1). To understand and interpret wordplay in the way intended by the speakers, hearers are required to have enough information, and this information can be based on the shared knowledge between speakers and interlocutors.

<footnote n="1">1 Raskin (1985: 81) describes “script” as “a large chunk of semantic information surrounding the word or evoked by it”.</footnote>
On the other hand, speakers can showcase their mindset (état d'esprit, cf. Priego-Valverde 1999) by using wordplay. Once hearers have shared the same mindset with speakers, the community can be founded. The mindset expressed through wordplay can have several aspects.

First, wordplay reflects speakers' intelligence. It is because producing wordplay involves some codified procedure which reflects speakers' epilinguistic conscience (conscience épilinguistique, cf. Lecolle 2015: 221; Auroux 1994: 24), and this conscience relies on a certain level of speakers' linguistic mastery such as 'phoneme recognition, (...), segmentation of the spoken chain into syllables, recognition of morphemes, etc.' ("reconnaissance de phonèmes, (...), une segmentation de la chaine parlée en syllabes, reconnaissance des morphèmes, etc.", cf. Lecolle 2015: 221, translation HL).

Additionally, these procedures of manipulating linguistic elements to produce certain effects (double meaning, rhyme, allusion, etc.) can generate pleasure for the producers of the wordplay, and it can be explained by Cléro's concept of "intellec-tual enjoyment" (jouissance intellectuelle, cf. Cléro 2009: 116). This pleasure may also be linked to the speaker's aesthetic taste (Thaler 2016: 51).

Furthermore, the production of wordplay can be a non-serious activity, which expresses the speakers' attitude of distance from the language (attitude de distan-ciation envers la langue, cf. Priego-Valverde 1999: 139): a desire to transgress lin-guistic norms. Our language constitutes a rigid code with a specific syntax, some rules of grammar to follow if we want to speak our language "correctly", and an orthography imposed by dictionary (cf. Priego-Valverde 1999: 140). However, the use of wordplay reflects that breaking linguistic rules is a deliberate choice made by producers to showcase their linguistic competence, which enables them to play with language.

Moreover, wordplay is often considered as a classic form of humor, and the humor production by wordplay can result from what I mentioned earlier: the confrontation of two semantic planes. This semantic confrontation can produce incongruity, which refers to an unexpected contrast (contraste inattendu, cf. Priego-Valverde 1999: 77). It can also be explained by "script opposition", as described by Raskin (1985: 99): "The text is compatible, fully or in part, with two different scripts, and the two scripts with which the text is compatible are opposite in a special sense". This concept resonates with Koestler's concept of bisociation: 'The percep-tion of event L is located at the intersection of the two reference planes M1 and M2, each with its internal logic, but which are usually incompatible. [...] L is not simply linked to an associative context but bisociated to two contexts' ("La perception d'une situation ou d'une idée L, sur deux plans de référence M1 et M2 dont chacun a sa logique interne mais qui sont habituellement incompatibles (...) L n'est pas
simplement lié à un contexte d'association; il est bisocié à deux contextes.⁹, cf. Koestler [1964] 2011: 18, translation HL). For example, a joke based on the interruption of the “principle of cooperation” (*principe de cooperation*, cf. Grice 1979) involves the confrontation of semantic planes. Here is an example based on the interruption of the maxim of relation (*maxime de relation*, cf. Grice 1979; i.e., the interaction must have a thematic coherence): in my corpus: an X user posts a tweet saying: “Si vous avez fermez accidentellement un **onglet** sur Internet, faites ‘ctrl+shift+t’ et les onglets reviendrons.” ‘If you accidentally closed a **tab** on internet, do ctrl+shift+t and the tabs will be back.’ Commenting on this tweet, another user says “Bah moi pour faire revenir un **onglet**, je prends une poêle bien chaude avec un peu de matière grasse! Mais chacun son truc hein.” ‘Well, me, to bring back a **sirloin steak**, I use a hot pan with a bit of fat! But everyone’s got their own way, right.’ (All the examples are reproduced with their original spelling and typographical errors as found in the sources.) As we can see, even though the interlocutors both talk about *onglet*, the first user talks about it in the meaning of ‘web tab’ and the second user talks about ‘sirloin steak’, which is totally different from the first *onglet*.

## 2.2 Wordplay and humor

However, humor itself can also serve an exclusionary function due to its specific characteristics, which means that wordplay used to produce a humorous effect may also fulfill this function. Priego-Valverde outlines six characteristics of humor in her thesis, i.e., *distance* ‘distance’, *bienveillance* ‘goodwill’, *ludisme* ‘ludism’, *connivence* ‘connivance’, *incongruité* ‘incongruity’, *ambiguïté* ‘ambiguity’ (cf. Priego-Valverde 1999), and I will elaborate on the reasons why humor contributes to inclusion.

Humor is associated with an attitude of distancing from certain objects. As previously mentioned, this distancing can be directed toward language, but also toward other norms—social, cultural, religious, or political (Priego-Valverde 1999: 115). For instance, dark humor is often based on a form of detachment from subjects that are typically not considered laughable, such as death or racism. Thus, interlocutors who share the same sense of humor can have the same attitude toward certain subjects and that’s why humor can often reflect speakers’ cultural background, ideologies, and political opinions.

Humor can also function as a tool of aggression, such as mockery or irony (Priego-Valverde 1999: 182). In this case, it draws a clear distinction between the group engaging in the mockery and the group being targeted.

The production of a humorous effect is based on connivance between locutors and interlocutors, and the nature of connivance is shared common reference (“un
partage d'un référentiel commun", Priego-Valverde 1999: 168). I will elaborate on
the concept of connivance in greater detail in section 3.

Ambiguity is a general strategy for producing humor by creating semantic con-
frontation (Priego-Valverde 1999: 30). This explains why wordplay that contains
double meaning is frequently linked to humor. In this case, the successful inter-
pretation is the key for the inclusion in a community.

Humor is also a playful activity because ‘to engage in humor is to seek amusement with others’ (“faire de l’humour c’est donc vouloir s’amuser avec l’autre”, Priego-Valverde 1999: 186, translation HL). In this sense, the production of humor is a reciprocal activity between speakers and their hearers. Here, humor includes hearers who are willing to laugh.

In summary, the inclusion achieved by using wordplay relies on the common
ground shared between speakers and their interlocutors. This commonality in-
volves, on the one hand, encyclopedic knowledge that determines the success of
decoding, and on the other, a shared mindset. The nature of this shared ground can
be understood through the concept of connivance.

3 Wordplay and connivance

3.1 Reflection on connivance

The concept of connivance has been studied by several French researchers across different contexts, and they generally agree on its fundamental nature: an implicit sharing of common ground (un partage de commun implicite). Priego-Valverde (1999: 85) indicates that interlocutors sharing a connivance should be on the same wavelength (onde de longueur). So, connivance can be based on the elements that form the wavelength: encyclopedic knowledge and mindset.

3.1.1 Encyclopedic knowledge

Encyclopedic knowledge may include both linguistic and extralinguistic elements, such as cultural, historical, or religious knowledge (Priego-Valverde 1999: 175). Such knowledge provides hearers with sufficient information for ‘making explicit what is merely implicit’ (“explicite ce qui n’est qu’implicite”, Priego-Valverde 1999: 173, translation HL).

A specific case of this kind of connivance involves the transgression of norms.
This can manifest as ‘secret understandings’ (*des ententes secrètes*), which Rabatel
refers to as ‘connivance-collusion-transgression’ (*connivence-collusion-transgression*) (2015: 200). In situations where interlocutors cannot express themselves freely due to social or institutional constraints, they may find ways to circumvent censorship. This gives rise to what Garnier-Mathez (2006: 784) calls ‘secret intelligence’ (*intelligence secrète*) which allows transgressive content to remain implicit but still comprehensible among those who share the connivance.

‘Conniving individuals’ (*connivents*) may *play* with words to produce these secret understandings. According to Garnier-Mathez (2006: 789), connivance may involve playing with lexical items through various strategies such as repetition. Moreover, Rastier identifies three strategies for playing with words to create connivance: use of euphemism (*euphémisation*, e.g., the word *ethnic* is used to replace *Arabic* or *Black*, cf. Garnier-Mathez 2006: 82), allusion (e.g., in the expression *tourne des Gauloises* ‘the roll of Gauloises Cigarette’, *Gauloises* which is a brand of cigarette in France is used to represent French people, and the modified expression *tourne des Gauloises* can mean ‘the rape of French’, cf. 2006: 82), and encryption (*cryptage*, e.g., *caille* as the abbreviation for *racaille* ‘scum’, cf. 2006: 82). Such linguistic forms often serve cryptological functions and may be considered transgressive registers used by specific communities.

### 3.1.2 Mindset

The mindset encompasses various types of values, and sharing the same mindset is the basis of what Rabatel (2015: 195) calls ‘connivance-complicity’ (*connivence-complicité*). One example is the sharing of aesthetic values.

Conniving individuals may also share moral values. When it comes to wordplay, this often includes a shared desire to transgress linguistic norms through playful, non-serious production. In some cases, particularly in the use of slang, conniving individuals share ‘the spirit of being original’ (“un trait d’esprit qui se veut original”, cf. Bensimon-Choukroun 1991: 90), and the slang fulfils an affective and ludic function rather than a cryptic function (“moins crypto qu’affectoludique”, cf. Bensimon-Choukroun 1991: 87).

Shared values can also be ideological or political. This dimension of common ground is apparent in Rastier’s (2006) research where users of site employ the three aforementioned strategies (*éuphémisation*, *allusion*, and *cryptage*) to produce racist discourse while circumventing censorship.
Another key element, especially in the case of wordplay, is the shared sense of humor among conniving individuals. A detailed discussion of humor's characteristics is provided in 2.2.

In conclusion, connivance as implicit sharing forms the foundation for community building. The relationships among interlocutors who share connivance remain implicit to those outside the community. Therefore, to be included in such a community, hearers must either possess the necessary knowledge to decode the content, or they must share the same values as the members of the community.

## 3.2 Signs of connivance

Connivance sometimes requires markers. For conniving individuals, these markers allow them to show that they have understood each other, and they can often be used by analysts outside of the connivance to justify its existence. The term *connivance markers (marques de connivance)* is used by Rabatel (2015), and it has the same nature as the term *signs of connivance*: 'indicators that can signal (but do not necessarily signal) a situation of connivance' ("les marques de la connivence sont plutôt des indices qui peuvent signaler (mais ne signalent pas nécessairement) une situation de connivence", Rabatel 2015: 189. translation HL).

These signs may be 'visible or narratable' ("visibles ou racontés"), such as 'gestures, facial expressions, and actions' ("des gestes, des mimiques, des actions", cf. Rabatel 2015: 191). In the case of humor, the signs of connivance might include laughter, which indicates that the humor has 'not only been perceived but also appreciated' ("être non seulement perçu, mais également apprécié", Priego-Valverde 1999: 169). In the case of connivance-collusion-transgression, the signs are no longer words or actions, but the presence of an 'outsider' ("tiers", cf. Rabatel 2015: 193) as the victim of connivance, which serves to justify the connivance. Rastier notes that in the case of wordplay used in interaction, the outsider who does not understand the wordplay can actually 'intensify the pleasure of connivance' ("intensifier le plaisir de connivence") between conniving individuals (2006: 198).

## 3.3 Aligned wordplay as signs of connivance

Wordplay can be a specific variant of signs of connivance. A speaker produces an instance of wordplay (W), and the recipient then produces another instance of wordplay (W') after having understood the speaker's wordplay. In this case, W' is created by using the same techniques as W, employing the same words as those in W or words from the same lexical fields. W' signals that the recipient has
understood the speaker's wordplay. I name the set of W and W' as "aligned wordplay" Here is an example:

(1) Instances of wordplay based on two meanings of the word “tree”

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

In example (1), W is *arbre généalogique* 'genealogical tree' in which the word *arbre*
'tree' can have two meanings: 'woody plant' and 'a figure that branches from a
single root'; W' includes *cèdres* 'cedar' < *cèdes* 'you surrender', *à Logique* 'at a place
named Logique' < *alogique* 'illogical', *trouver des racines* (*racine* as a botanic term
and *racine* 'origine'), *la forêt cachée par l'arbre* 'you can't see the tree for the forest'
< *l'arbre qui cache la forêt* 'you can't see the forest for the tree', *bouleau* 'birch'
< *boulot* 'work', *chêne* 'oak' < *chaîne* 'chain'.

In addition, the joke *il est au fin fond de la forêt d'aokigahara* 'it is in the depths
of the aokigahara forest' is not a case of wordplay, but it also plays on the idea ma-
nifested in W, which is that a genealogical tree can be considered as a real tree in
the forest. We can interpret the joke in this way: @Equipe1erDegre says he had vis-
ited so many forests, but he has not found his genealogical tree, so @Moonriver47
answers that his genealogical tree is in the depths of Aokigahara Forest which has
a reputation as a suicide forest.

Moreover, this collective production within a community can also be seen as a
form of competition in language mastery, showcasing participants' creativity. This
form of creation, related to ‘collective intelligence’ (*intelligence collective*, cf. Pereira 2020; Jenkins 2006: 27; Lévy 1997) (see section 4), within an online community, helps strengthen the bonds among its members (the images below the examples aim to give an impression of how the tweets are arranged; transcriptions and translations of the relevant tweets can be found in the appendix of this paper).

## 4 Online community construction based on connivance

According to Pereira (2020), an online community is a group of individuals with shared interests who interact with each other around a particular activity, through sociotechnical devices connected via the internet network. The members within an online community form ‘a group of individuals who possess a set of expectations based on shared knowledge’ (“un groupe d’individus possédant un ensemble d’attentes qui se reposent sur un ensemble de savoirs partagés”, cf. Esquenazi 2009: 113). By relying on shared knowledge, members of an online community can form a connivance that excludes those who do not share it.

Charaudeau (2006) specifies the notion of shared knowledge and categorizes the subtypes of knowledge (see 5.2) that guarantee the success of interpretation in situational interaction. In the case of an online community, a specific type of shared knowledge can be perceived: collective creativity (*créativité collective*, cf. Pereira 2020). According to Pereira (2020), this term ‘encompasses forms of creativity that emerge naturally and spontaneously from members of an online community’ (“[La créativité collective] porte la notion de formes de créativité qui émergent de manière naturelle et spontanée, à partir de membres d’une communauté en ligne”). The production of collective intelligence, as Lévy (2003: 116) explains, can weave connections between community members through both competition and cooperation. Its nature can be illustrated by the production of aligned wordplay (see section 3.3).

Pereira (2020) highlights the importance of sharing values or interests in the construction of an online community: ‘In these online communities, the sharing of common values or interests among people is not only the condition of their existence but also the primary element of distinction between them’ (“Dans ces communities en ligne, le partage de valeurs ou d’intérêts communs entre les personnes n’est pas seulement la condition de leur existence, mais aussi l’élément premier de distinction entre elles.”).
However, this sharing of common values is conditional on the successful un-
derstanding determined by the sharing of knowledge among interlocutors. The
priority of decoding can be observed in example (2).

(2) Instances of wordplay based on French political background

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

This is a case of wordplay based on the phonetic similarity between *barder là* and *Bardella*, and this wordplay expresses the political opinion of the user. The literal meaning of this utterance is 'I believe this is going to be serious', and the situational information hidden in the user's profile and the dating of the tweet allows hearers to interpret this utterance in a special way. As shown in the tweet, it was posted on June 30th, 2024. On that day, *Rassemblement National*, the far-right party in France, of which Jordan Bardella is the president, received the most votes in the first round of the legislative election.<fnref n="2" /> Moreover, this account is a parody account of Sandrine Rousseau, a French left-wing member of parliament. Based on these two pieces of information, we can "probably" interpret that the user of this account is pleased with the election result and, therefore, the user is right-wing.

<footnote n="2">2 https://www.archives-resultats-elections.interieur.gouv.fr/resultats/legislatives2024/ensemble_
geographique/index.php.</footnote>
In conclusion, the creation of an online community is based on the sharing of common knowledge that enables members to have connivance. Exclusion and inclusion within a community are determined by the sharing of the same opinions, while the manifestation of these opinions is ensured by successful decoding. Decoding requires interlocutors to share certain knowledge with speakers. However, interlocutors can acquire the necessary information to ensure successful decoding through contextual elements. Yet, the characteristics of X as a type of social media network allow users to acquire this information in a searchable way (e.g., X users can acquire the information by clicking hyperlinks and technowords such as user-names, hashtags, etc., see example (8)), which means that connivance, as an implicit sharing, can become explicit.

# 5 Wordplay production and interpretation on X

## 5.1 Theory selection

Successful interpretation is closely tied to contextual elements, which “complete or ensure the overall interpretation of an utterance” (Kleiber 1994: 14). Adam, in his interview (Adam et al. 2006: 24) further clarifies this view by distinguishing between two categories of context: “immediate linguistic environmental data (co-textual) and situational extralinguistic data.” A more precise categorization of the competencies that allow interlocutors to access these contextual elements can be found in Charaudeau (2006): contextual elements are linked not only to semiolinguistic competence but also to situational and semantic competences, which are extralinguistic.

Nevertheless, discourse on digital social networks has specific features due to the involvement of technology in the production of discourse. Paveau emphasizes this in her book: ‘Technology is not merely a support, and even less a tool, but rather a structural component of discourse’ (“La technique n’est pas un simple support et encore moins un outil mais bien un composant structurel des discours”, cf. Paveau 2017: 165-166, translation HL). Her theory on digital discourse analysis and technodiscursivity on X offers a specific analytical framework known as the ecology of discourse (écologie du discours, cf. Paveau 2015) (see 3.3). This approach allows for the analysis of hybrid forms that mix linguistic material with technological structures in discourse on X.

Although Paveau offers valuable insight into conversational interaction within digital discourse, the issue of interpretation remains relatively underexplored in her work. Therefore, I propose to combine Paveau’s theory of discursive technology
with Charaudeau's model of three types of inferences in the communicative situation to better understand the role of composite forms in interpretation on X.

## 5.2 Contextual elements by Charaudeau: Three types of inferences in the communicative situation

Charaudeau (2006) published an article on interdiscursivity in which he clarifies meaning production as the result of multiple inferences by using an excerpt from the French literary television program *Apostrophes* as a case study. I summarize Charaudeau's three types of inferences and their definitions in Table 1. Charaudeau describes and categorizes these inferences from a socio-communicational perspective: his communication model is 'not limited to the transmission of intention but instead focuses on meaning production and interpretation within interactional situations' ('Il s'agit d'un modèle de communication sociale qui n'est pas seulement de transmission d'intention, mais de production de sens et d'interprétation dans des situations d'interaction', cf. Charaudeau 2006). This model involves three core questions: Who is speaking? In the name of what do they speak? How is their right to speak legitimized? The answers correspond to three types of activity performed by the speaking subject.

<table><caption>**Table 1:** Types of inferences</caption><thead><tr><td>Notion</td><td>Definition of inference</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Contextual inferences</td><td>Linking an utterance to other utterances in the linguistic context</td></tr><tr><td>Situational inferences</td><td>Linking an utterance to certain elements of the communication situation</td></tr><tr><td>Interdiscursive inferences</td><td>Linking various discourses that carry knowledge about the world, presumed to be embedded in collective memory</td></tr></tbody></table>

First, the activity of “semiologization” (*sémiologisation*, cf. Charaudeau 2001 and 2006) consists of ‘articulating meaningful categories with the categories of language and discourse’ (“[L’activité de sémiologisation (au sens de Saussure)] consiste pour le sujet à articuler ces catégories de signification avec des catégories de langue et de discours [...]”, cf. Charaudeau 2006, translation HL). This activity requires semiolinguistic competence defined as ‘the ability to recognize and manipulate the form of
signs, their combination rules, and their meaning' ("reconnaître et manipuler la
forme des signes, leurs règles de combinaison et leur sens [...]", cf. Charaudeau
2001: 346, translation HL), since this activity involves 'memory, trace, and the po-
tential of the former (meaningful categories) in a game of morphological, syntactic,
and discursive combinations, everything linked to the meanings' ("la mémoire, la
trace et la possibilité des premières dans un jeu de combinaisons à la fois morpho-
logique, syntaxique et discursif, le tout lié au sens", cf. Charaudeau 2006, translation
HL). It is this semiolinguistic competence that enables contextual inferences.

Second, the activity of ‘relation to the other’ (*relation à l’autre*, cf. Charaudeau 2006) highlights the intersubjective relationship with the other in communication: a *You* and / or a *He / She*. According to the author, within the framework of this activity, communication involves both the ‘situational condition of communication’ (*conditions situationnelles de la communication*, cf. Charaudeau 2006) which are the constraints of the discursive environment and ‘the discursive strategies’ (*les stratégies discursives*, cf. Charaudeau 2006) through which the subjects I, You, and He/She – even within the same communicative situation – differentiate themselves from one another.<fnref n="3" /> This activity requires ‘situational competence’ (*competence situationnelle*, cf. Charaudeau 2006 and 2001: 344) which is the ability to recognize the identities of exchange partners, the communicative purpose, and the specific material circumstances of the interaction (2006). This competence enables situational inferences.

Finally, the activity of ‘categorization of knowledge’ (*catégorisation du savoir*,
cf. Charaudeau 2006) is based on the shared ‘knowledge’ (*connaissances*, cf.
Charaudeau 2006) and ‘belief’ (*croyance*, cf. Charaudeau 2006) systems<fnref n="4" /> circulating
among speaker groups which are activated more or less spontaneously. This activ-

<footnote n="3">3 ‘Situational condition of communication’ (*condition situationnelle de la communication*) and ‘discursive strategies’ (*stratégies discursives*) are linked to ‘communication contract’ (*contrat de communication*): ‘communication partners find themselves in the position of having to subscribe, prior to any specific intention or strategy, to a contract recognizing the conditions under which the particular type of linguistic exchange they are engaged in is carried out’ ("Ils [les partenaires de l’échange langagier] se trouvent en quelque sorte dans la situation d’avoir à souscrire, préalablement à toute intention et stratégie particulière, à un contrat de reconnaissance des conditions de réalisation du type d’échange langagier dans lequel ils sont engagés", cf. Charaudeau 2011: 52, translation HL).</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 According to Charaudeau (2001: 345), knowledge corresponds to perceptions and definitions of the world that are more or less objective. They stem either from our shared experiences (for example, we say that the sun rises and sets) or from knowledge acquired through learning (we have learned that it is the Earth that revolves around the sun). Belief corresponds to value systems, more or less standardized, that circulate within a social group. These beliefs shape the judgments of its members and, at the same time, provide the group with its sense of identity.</footnote>
ity involves constructing worldviews within discursive universes, and thus requires that the subject possess ‘semantic competence’ (*compétence sémantique*, cf. Charaudeau 2006 and 2001: 345), an ability to recall common knowledge presumed to be shared by the discourse participants. This competence enables interdiscursive inferences and also contributes to the interpretation of contextual and situational inferences. I have summarized the relationships among the activities, competences, and inferences in Figure 1. Charaudeau himself summarizes this mapping of competences and inferences as shown in Figure 2.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1: Relationships among activities, competences, and inferences</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2: Relationships competences and inferences by Charaudeau (2006)</figcaption></figure>
## 5.3 Technodiscursivity on X

Paveau (2017) identifies six specific features of digital discourse (2017: 28–30). She indicates that these traits have triggered an epistemological and theoretical modification in science of language, because ‘the object of linguistic analysis is no longer homogeneous, linear language matter, produced by human enunciation, segmentable into discrete and formally objective units’ (‘l’objet de l’analyse linguistique n’est plus la matière langagière homogène, linéaire, produit d’une énonciation humaine, découpable en unites discrètes et formellement objectives’, cf. Paveau 2017: 337, translation HL). These traits of technodiscourse are summarized in Table 2.

<table><caption>**Table 2:** Specific traits of technodiscourse</caption><thead><tr><td>Trait</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Composition</td><td>Technodiscourses are composite: co-constructed by linguistic and technological elements</td></tr><tr><td>Delinearization</td><td>Technodiscourses are delinearized through the use of hyperlinks</td></tr><tr><td>Augmentation</td><td>Refers to the enhancement of human writing capacities: technological devices and digital writing ecosystems enable expressions and actions that handwriting and pen cannot, thus opening new expressive and communicative possibilities</td></tr><tr><td>Relationality</td><td>Every online utterance is connected to other utterances, devices, and users</td></tr><tr><td>Unpredictability</td><td>A consequence of relationality and compositionality</td></tr><tr><td>Searchability</td><td>A consequence of relationality and the web's algorithmic structure</td></tr></tbody></table>

The reason why writing on X is composite is because of ‘discursive technology’ (technologie discursive, cf. Paveau 2017: 335) defined as ‘the set of processes involved in putting language into discourse within a technological environment’ (‘l’ensemble des processus de mise en discours de la langue dans un environnement numérique’, cf. Paveau 2017: 335, translation HL). The production of language and discourse within this framework is intrinsically linked to technological tools. Thus, discourse on X is not made up solely of written forms but of composite forms which are a mixture of linguistic and technolinguistic elements. Tweets incorporate various categories of forms (2015: 346): iconic forms (e.g., emojis), clickable technowords (technomots) (hashtags, usernames marked with @), action commands (des mots de consignes cliquables) (like, share, mute), hyperlinks, images, GIFs, and videos (cf. Paveau 2017: 346).
A tweet may contain several composite forms (in example (7), a tweet includes purely linguistic text, two images, and two clickable technowords), and they can play a distinct role in the production and interpretation of wordplay as well as in the establishment of connivance.

First, the speaker employs these composite forms in place of purely linguistic elements to structure wordplay. Iconic forms such as emojis and images are the most used. The type of wordplay most clearly marked by this process in my corpus is the rebus. In example (3), the speaker constructs a rebus whose solution is *opinion* by using an image. To decode it, interlocutors must find out the signifier corresponding to the referent represented in the image, i.e., the image is a combination of an onion, which in French is *oignon*, and the mathematical sign $\pi$, whose pronunciation in French is /pi/.

### (3) Wordplay based on mathematical knowledge

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Additionally, this example illustrates that shared background knowledge is essential for successful interpretation of composite forms. In example (3), basic mathematical knowledge is crucial – not only to recognize the symbol $\pi$, but also to appreciate the follow-up joke in the comments, where an image shows an impos-
sible hypotenuse triangle with sides of lengths 1, i, and 0 plotted in a coordinate system. Understanding the joke requires familiarity with complex numbers, geometry, and the concept of mathematical absurdity.

Then, these forms may also relate to context. These composite forms combining linguistic and technological elements constitute what Paveau calls a 'symmetric linguistics' (*linguistique symétrique*, cf. Paveau 2013: 3): 'the observable elements are not purely linguistic but hybrid, mixed with something other than linguistic elements' ('Les observables ne sont plus seulement des matières purement langagières, mais des matières composites, métissées d'autre chose que du langagier', cf. Paveau 2013: 3) Therefore, discourse analysis on X requires an approach that 'targets not only linguistic elements but the entire environment in which they are embedded' ('une approche d'analyse du discours qui prend pour objet non plus les éléments langagiers mais l'ensemble de l'environnement dans lesquels [sic] ils s'inscrivent', cf. Paveau 2017: 129, translation HL). Paveau refers to this as the 'ecology of discourse' (*l'écologie du discours*, cf. Paveau 2017: 129).

It is within the concept of ‘environment’ (*environnement*).cf. Paveau 2013: 3 and 2017: 165) that we find its connection to the notion of context. According to Paveau, the environment refers to ‘the totality of human and non-human data within which discourses are developed’ (‘l’ensemble des données humaines et non humaines au sein desquelles les discours sont élaborés’, cf. Paveau 2013: 3, translation HL). It is proposed as a critical alternative to the traditional concept of context in discourse analysis. While context generally emphasizes social, historical, and political parameters, the environment includes not only linguistic, social, cultural, political, and historical materials, but also technological ones.

Thus, we may consider the environment as a specific form of context that can provide necessary information to complete the interpretation of utterances on X. I have categorized these composite forms according to their contextual role in word-play interpretation by drawing on both discursive technology theory and the three inference types in communicative situations. A detailed presentation of this classification will follow in section 6. To summarize, these composite forms function as a non-purely linguistic co-text and / or situational context, and the decoding of word-play relies on the successful retrieval of information conveyed through these forms.

Furthermore, composite forms contribute to the justification of connivance. Some of these forms enable X users to express opinions in response to specific tweets. This is due to the ‘post-dualist approach’ (*approche postdualiste*, cf. Paveau 2013: 1 and 2017: 65) of discourse on X. Paveau (2013:1) defines this approach as an externalist framework in which human consciousness manifests outside the mind, particularly through objects and technology. Given this characteristic, composite forms can often serve as signs of connivance.
On one hand, users can employ these forms to express emotions and attitudes (e.g., emojis). On the other, instructional words are directly tied to interactional operations that reflect the speaker's conscience. For instance, users agree with the content by liking or retweeting the message (Lahuerta-Otero, Cordero-Gutiérrez, and Prieta-Pintado 2019). When a user retweets a message, they give it veracity; this shows that after having processed the information they make a conscious decision to share it (Liu, Liu, & Li 2012).

In addition to these composite forms, of course, purely linguistic forms also contribute to expressing both successful interpretation and speaker opinions. Here is an example.

### (4) Wordplay based on historical reference

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

In example (4), we can identify two types of composite forms that demonstrate the creation of connivance. On the one hand, there are two interactive features: like and retweet. This tweet received 51 likes and was shared 18 times, which may be interpreted as an indication that the users who interacted with the tweet understood and appreciated the wordplay. On the other hand, the use of emojis such as 😂 (commonly interpreted as “crying with laughter”) and 👄 (a thumbs-up symbol) shows that the users who posted them understood and enjoyed the wordplay. Furthermore, the text “Bien le montage. Drôle!” ‘Nice editing. Funny!’ also serves as evidence that the interlocutors appreciate the speaker’s sense of humor.
# 6 Connivance creation based on successful interpretation: Composite forms as contextual resources

In this section, I will clarify how composite forms can provide information that facilitates successful interpretation. To summarize: iconic forms, GIFs, photographs, videos, and hyperlinks which vary in their level of explicitness often function as a specific type of co-text. Technowords and dating, which represent searchability of digital discourse on X can offer situational information. A tweet may sometimes incorporate several of these forms, but in certain cases, the information provided by these forms is not essential for interpreting the wordplay.

## 6.1 Iconic forms, GIFs, photographs, and videos

Iconic forms, GIFs, photographs, and videos often function as a type of co-text. In the case of wordplay, these forms can either attribute a second meaning to an utterance (e.g., in (5), the image on which two bottles of Corona Beer are used to build a bridge allows for the medical expression *pontage coronarien* 'coronary bypass' to be interpreted as 'bridging of Corona Beer') or highlight one of its possible interpretations (e.g., in (6), the literal meaning of expression *ça coûte un bras* 'cost an arm and a leg' is highlighted because of the use of an image on which the swimmer has only one arm).

(5) Images as contextual elements in the interpretation of wordplay

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>H de Boisgrollier @Hilaire2B - 7 mai 2014</figcaption></figure>

@_Francois blague de docteur "@inestor661: Pontage coronarien "

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Steph @SteMaillard - 31 juil. 2015</figcaption></figure>

@fmrfij @princedeffort83 excellent, mais attention il manque des globules blanches!

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>
To successfully interpret utterances accompanied by such elements, interlocutors must possess a certain level of semiolinguistic competence. This enables them to interpret the non-linguistic forms so that they can use the information acquired from the interpretation of non-linguistic forms to complete wordplay interpretation.

## 6.2 Hyperlinks

According to Saemmer (2015: 10), a hyperlink can 'be inserted into a text and point to another generally more invisible text' ("inséré dans un texte et renvoie vers un texte généralement encore invisible', cf. Saemmer 2015: 10, translation HL). For instance, in example (6), the hyperlink l.leparisien.fr/Cumw provided in the original tweet brings users who click on it to the website of *Le Parisien*. Users can find out that the text in the original tweet is the title of the article on the website connected to the hyperlink and they can read the entire article there.

(6) The role of hyperlinks in the interpretation of wordplay

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

These texts can therefore also be considered a special form of co-text. This acquisition of information through hyperlinks falls under the concept of searchability because hyperlinks act as a “trace” that allows users to acquire additional
information. However, such information is provided less directly than in the pre-
vious cases. On the one hand, hyperlinks often ‘lead to another ecosystem’ outside
of X (i.e., to a different website) (Paveau 2015: 346); on the other hand, readers need
not only technological knowledge about how hyperlinks function, but also a willing-
ness to explore. Thus, sharing this willingness that reflects a state of mind between
speakers and their interlocutors enables the creation of connivance.

6.3 Technowords

The information necessary for interpretation can be accessed by clicking on techno-
words. Because of relationality and searchability, readers can find information
about speakers' identity and evaluation of discussion by clicking on their username
and hashtag, which enables the ‘redocumentarization of a topic or event’<fnref n="5" /> (la “re-
documentarisation d'un thème ou d'un événement”, Paveau 2015: 346) – the subject
of the conversation, the participants involved, and their opinions or evaluations.
Thus, this information about speakers' identity, the purpose of communication, and
the evolution of discussion that users can acquire in the searchable way can be
considered as a type of situational context.

In (7), two essential pieces of information necessary for interpreting the utter-
ance in the first screenshot can be obtained by clicking on the account's username
and the two hashtags, #FreePalestine and #StadedeFrance. First, the username
leads to the account profile where we find information about the speaker's identity:
this account belongs to Louis Boyard, a Member of Parliament for Val-de-Marne,
affiliated with La France Insoumise and the Nouveau Front Populaire. Second, the
two hashtags provide additional contextual clues that can be interpreted even
without clicking: the tweet refers to the Free Palestine movement and relates to an
event that took place at the Stade de France.

<footnote n="5">5 Paveau (2017) describes the term redocumentarization by using Yahiaoui, Prié, and Boufaida's definition (2008: 198): ‘the reuse, within a new document, of content from traces automatically generated through the user's interaction with the computer system’ (“la reprise au sein d'un nouveau document du contenu des traces générées de façon automatique suite à l'interaction de l'utilisateur avec le système informatique”, cf. Yahiaoui, Prié, and Boufaida 2008: 198; Paveau 2017: 246) It is further stated that this redocumentarization is ‘a form of recollection, the construction of a memory from a scattering of digital traces’ (“une forme de rémémoration, d'élaboration d'une mémoire à partir d'un éparpillement de traces numériques”, cf. Paveau 2017: 246, translation HL).</footnote>
(7) The role of searchable information in the interpretation of wordplay

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

When readers explore other tweets posted within the same “ timeline ” and con-
taining either of these hashtags, more information is revealed: on November 14th,
2024, a football match between France and Israel was held at the Stade de France,
and users expressed dissatisfaction with Israel and also with the ban on Palestinian
flags in the stadium.

Ultimately, the successful interpretation of the utterance from the original tweet depends on readers' ability to connect the situational information acquired through these composite forms with their background knowledge of French politics – Louis Boyard is a left-wing member of parliament who supports the Free Palestine movement, and his political views contrast with those of President Macron who appears in the photo included in the tweet.

**6.4 Provisional conclusion**

The elements that constitute a tweet can function as contextual elements. First, purely linguistic forms, iconic forms, GIFs, photographs, videos, and hyperlinks can provide the key information that helps users understand wordplay in a visible and direct way. The first five elements are typically located in close visual proximity to the wordplay itself, enhancing their interpretive function. Although hyperlinks
offer context in a less immediate manner, they often lead to full texts that provide background necessary for interpreting the wordplay. For instance, the hyperlink in example (6) directs users to an entire article that expands upon the news mentioned in the tweet. These elements can thus be considered a special form of linguistic context (i.e., co-text). Understanding the wordplay in such cases requires linking this co-text to the utterance containing the wordplay, which involves con-textual inferences.

Second, hashtags and usernames marked by @ provide users with access to the speakers' identity, the evolution of the discussion and the purpose or topic of the communicative exchange in a searchable way. Thus, the information provided by the two elements serves as a type of situational context. The interpretation of wordplay based on this situational context involves situational inferences.

Third, successful interpretation of wordplay requires that both locutors and interlocutors share certain types of knowledge. This includes, semiolinguistic knowledge, which is the basis of contextual inferences, situational information which supports situational inferences, and broader forms of common knowledge (e.g., social norms, culture, history, religion, etc.). The common knowledge can be involved in both contextual inferences and situational inferences.

Figure 3 provides a schematic summary of the relationship between elements that constitutes a tweet and the three types of inferences.

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3: Relationship between elements that constitute a tweet and three types of inferences of communication</figcaption></figure>

Thanks to searchability, interlocutors can retrieve the necessary information that ensures the successful interpretation of the speaker's utterance. In addition to the clickable technowords and hyperlinks identified by Paveau, I would add that dating also falls under the category of searchability. As a chronological form, dating reveals the tweet's timeline, and thus can provide interlocutors with situational in-
formation – what is happening or what happened in real time. Example (8) illustrates this point.

In this utterance, the successful interpretation of the wordplay *en saignant* ('bleeding') / *enseignant* ('teacher') relies on situational information provided by the dating: on October 18th, 2020, demonstrations took place in France in tribute to Samuel Paty, a teacher who was beheaded on October 16th, 2020, for having shown some of his students caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

(8) The role of dating in the interpretation of wordplay

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

Jérôme Vallet

@La_Fuly

« Je suis en saignant. »

(aussi)

8:13 PM · 18 oct. 2020

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

However, in some cases, the relationship between technolinguistic forms and the three types of inferences may differ from the schematic model when certain types of searchable information are no longer necessary for interpreting the tweet.
Firstly, hyperlinks that point readers to a specific article are not always crucial for interpretation because tweets containing such hyperlinks often include the article's headline or summary which already provides sufficient information to interpret the utterance (e.g., in example (6), the text in the original tweet, which is the title of the article connected to the hyperlink, can already provide enough information to interpret the wordplay. Thus, it is not necessary for users to read the entire article to understand the wordplay).

Secondly, situational information retrievable through hashtag redocumentation is not always essential for interpretation. For instance, in example (9), @sainteselection comments on the tweet posted by @CerfiaFR with the wordplay *cat-astrophique* 'cat-astrophic' < catastrophique 'catastrophic'. The user also adds the comment *j'ai besoin d'aide* 'I need help' on his wordplay, which can *probably* be interpreted in this way: @sainteselection thinks the wordplay is not good enough and the user needs someone to support him or help him produce a better wordplay. The text of the tweet posted by @CerfiaFR has provided enough information to understand the wordplay. Even the hashtags #cats, #UnitedKingdom, and #COVID19 may offer further insight into the event's evaluation, but such information is not necessary for understanding the meaning of the wordplay.
Because of these composite (i.e., hyperlinks, clickable usernames, photographs, videos, GIFs, hashtags, iconic forms, and dates) forms which function as visible or searchable contextual elements, the successful interpretation of utterances becomes more accessible to readers. As a result, connivance based on successful decoding can become more explicit. This success can be justified by various types of signs of connivance.

## (9) Hashtags in the interpretation of wordplay

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

First, connivance can be indicated through composite forms themselves (see the comment above in 5.3). Second, commentary utterances structured by purely linguistic elements in retweet or comments (such as *J'ai compris* 'I got it' in example (3)) can signal understanding and shared interpretation. Moreover, successful decoding can also be justified by aligned wordplay production (see the comment above in 3.3).

However, these composite forms can't always provide essential information for wordplay interpretation, especially for interpreting wordplay based on cultural or historical references. When the reference is only shared by a group of users and the information hidden in the composite forms is too implicit, it will be difficult for interlocutors to interpret and understand speakers' wordplay. In this case, interlocutors who share the reference with speakers can have connivance, and those who can't find the reference will become the “outsider” of community. It is in this situation that my identity as a researcher who comes from a non-francophone country but lives in France gives me an advantage for analyzing contextual elements in French wordplay interpretation, since this experience allows me to
learn some cultural and historical knowledge that can be crucial to understand some wordplay based on cultural and historical references.

For instance, in example (4), the original form of wordplay *la pelle du 18 juin*
'the shovel of June 18th' is *l'appel du 18 juin* 'appeal of June 18th' referred to the first
speech of Charles De Gaulle after his arrival in London in 1940 following the French
Battle. This historical reference, well-known to the French, has become the basis of
the connivance so that the interlocutors who share this knowledge can easily
understand the wordplay event though the speaker didn't mention the reference in
any composite forms.

7 Community construction based on shared
mindset

The sharing of a similar mindset manifested by using wordplay helps to distinguish
between different communities. In this section, I will present the various types of
mindsets that can be observed in interactions on X.

## 7.1 Sharing the same intellectual enjoyment, aesthetic pleasure, and sense of humor

In the analysis of the examples in my corpus, it is sometimes difficult to determine
which values – intellectual enjoyment, aesthetic pleasure, or a sense of humor – are
actually shared, even though the three notions differ in nature (see section 2). As
mentioned earlier, wordplay can sometimes express all three values simultaneously, because the production of wordplay involves encoding the information that the
speaker wishes to convey by manipulating linguistic elements. This process of
'forging words to fix them' ("forger les mots pour les fixer", Cléro 2009: 116) is
determined by the producer's mastery of language which encompasses his aesthetic sensibility, and it can generate intellectual pleasure. This process is inherent in
the production of all types of wordplay, including humorous ones. However, the
creation of a humorous effect is often seen as the primary criterion for judging a
"good wordplay", while the fact that intellectual enjoyment and aesthetic pleasure
are also integral to humorous wordplay is frequently overlooked.

Thus, certain signs of connivance that help justify the success of a humorous
exchange also serve as evidence that, beyond a shared sense of humor, the inter-
locutors also appreciate the aesthetic value of the wordplay and speakers' linguistic
intelligence (e.g., "C'est bon, on le garde" 'That's good, let's keep it' and *Excellent*
‘Excellent’ in example (2), or “Bien le montage. Drôle!” ‘Nice editing. Funny!’ in example (4)). Furthermore, we can identify signs that indicate the failure of a humorous exchange, but the failure is sometimes the result of differing opinions (see section 7.3).

## 7.2 Competition of language mastery

The competition surrounding the production of wordplay is an effective way to establish an online community. This competition centered on creativity, aesthetic taste, and humor can bring together users who do not necessarily share the same interests, since the production and interpretation of these instances of wordplay often do not require interlocutors to have specific knowledge about particular events, topics, or domains. As such, this type of community can form quickly, but it is often ephemeral. Here is an example.

### (10) Competition of wordplay

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>
The original tweet is posted by @patricebite which is a non-professional account with, as of date of preparing this paper, 286 followers and 19 followings. The wordplay was produced and posted without any special context, but it became “viral” since the original tweet received 1.4 million views, 58.4 thousand likes, and was shared 5 thousand times, which indicates that this form of creativity-based connivance is shared by a large number of users. These instances of aligned wordplay are produced by different users but with the same process as the original wordplay in the tweet posted by @patricebite, which reflects the collective creativity of this community.

## 7.3 Sharing the same ideological value and political opinions

Haugh and Chang (this volume) point out that conversational humor, on the surface at least, appears to be a vehicle for shared amusement and enjoyment, but often also carries a more serious subtext. In the case of wordplay on X, this subtext can be connected to locutors and interlocutors' ideological value and political opinions. Wordplay allows the speaker to express their political opinions and ideological values in a humorous or non-humorous way (see section 4 and example (2)), and signs of connivance sometimes justify not only the success of the humorous exchange but also connivance based on shared opinions (see 7.1). In some cases, signs marking the failure of a humorous exchange indeed indicate that the speaker and their interlocutor do not share the same opinion, as humor production involves a desire for detachment from certain subjects: a non-serious attitude.

The relationship between humor and the manifestation of political opinions can be observed in example (2). The wordplay *Je crois que ça va barder là* can probably reflect a non-serious attitude towards the political situation – extreme right-wing parties received the most votes in the legislative elections, which *might* indicate that the speaker is right-wing. We can perceive that the interlocutors who respond with “excellent” and “that’s good” as well as the one who produces the wordplay *Et ça va faire de la Pen à certains / Et ça va faire de la peine à certains, probably* share the same political views as the speaker because they approve of the wordplay.

Similarly, humor also helps express the ideological values of the interlocutors. In example (11), the wordplay produced by @ArobaseTwenty reflects their cultural ideology regarding China and Taiwan – the inhabitants eat rice, and the wordplay by @LePopecpeur shows that he shares the same cultural ideology with @ArobaseTwenty.
(11) Instances of wordplay based on ideological values

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

However, wordplay is often used to produce racist remarks as a tool of attack. These remarks which should be seen as a transgression of social norms are becoming increasingly common. As mentioned in section 3.1, Rastier (2006: 82) indicates that website users can use allusion as a strategy of circumventing censorship to manifest their racist opinion on website. But wordplay which functions as allusion on X is losing its cryptic function but being more affective and ludic, e.g., as we can see, X users use the same wordplay *arbres* 'trees' < *arabes* 'Arabic', *noix* 'nuts' < *noirs* 'Black' in examples (12) and (13), but the participants and contexts of the two discussions differ significantly.

In example (12), the discussion revolves around a racist comment, containing wordplay that functions as an allusion, related to the murder of Philippine, whereas in example (13), the discussion concerns a non-serious survey as a form of joke: @Pediavenir launched a survey to understand if the French are for or against *les* 'the', and according to the chart, 49% of participants chose *pour* 'for' and 51% chose *contre* 'against'. Thus, the result of this survey is that the French are more against "the".
(12) Instances of racist wordplay as an allusion

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

The implicit meaning in these allusive forms have become more explicit since it is easy to decode these instances of wordplay, which has caused them to become conventional. The reason why they are easy to decode is because the modified form and the original form are quite similar, consist of few syllables and letters (e.g., arbres /ʌwɪ/ ‘tree’ <arabes /a.ʌab/ ‘Arabic’, noix /nwa/ ‘nuts’ <noirs /nwaɪ/ ‘Black’ and maigre /mɛɪ/ ‘skinny’ < Maghreb /ma. gkeb/ ‘Maghreb’), and these are basic vocabulary for the French.
(13) Instances of wordplay becoming conventional

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

8 Conclusion

Wordplay can be used to create an online community due to its characteristics. On one hand, wordplay as codified forms can have multiple meanings, and interlocutors must share certain types of knowledge with the speaker that allow them to decode and interpret the wordplay. This success in decoding is the key to inclusion in a community. On the other hand, wordplay helps to manifest the speakers' mindset: aesthetic pleasure, sense of humor, ideology, political opinions, etc. This shared state of mind distinguishes one community from another. Due to this shared commonality, members of a community may experience a connivance that helps to strengthen the bond between them in both competitive and cooperative ways.

Due to the characteristics of X, connivance shared by the members of a community may be less implicit. The production and interpretation of wordplay can involve composite forms that can be visible or searchable. First, these visible forms (such as emojis, photographs, etc.) allow for the explicitization of double meanings. Second, these visible and investigable forms can function as contextual elements that facilitate the decoding and propose more possibilities of wordplay interpre-
tation. Furthermore, these composite forms help, on the one hand, interlocutors to express emotions explicitly in the interactional exchange, and on the other hand, analysts to justify the exchange of connivance. Finally, the production of aligned wordplay as a form of collective creativity based on connivance between members in an online community can strengthen their connection.

However, sharing the same values is the first element that distinguishes a community from the others. In addition to sense of humor, intellectual enjoyment and aesthetic pleasure, wordplay is used to express speakers’ ideologies and political opinions. On X, wordplay can be used as an allusive form to manifest racist opinion in a less cryptic but more playful and affective way.

## References

Adam, Jean-Michel, Bernard Combettes, Dominique Maingueneau, Sophie Moirand & Guy Achard-Bayle. 2006. Textes / Discours et Co(n)textes. Entretiens avec Jean-Michel Adam, Bernard Combettes. *Pratiques: linguistique, littérature, didactique* n°129-130. 20-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/prati.2006.2094. URL: www.persee.fr/doc/prati_0338-2389_2006_num_129_1_2094.

Auroux, Sylvain. 1994. *La révolution technologique de la grammatisation*. Liège: Mardaga.

Bensimon-Choukroun, Georgette. 1991. Les mots de connivence des jeunes en institution scolaire: entre argot ubuesque et argot commun. *Langue française* 90. 80-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1991.6197. URL: www.persee.fr/doc/lfr_0023-8368_1991_num_90_1_6197.

Charaudeau, Patrick. 2001. Langue, discours et identité culturelle. *Éla. Études de linguistique appliquée* 3(123-124). 341-348. DOI: 10.3917/ela.123.0341. URL: https://shs.cairn.info/revue-ela-2001-3-page-341?lang=fr.

Charaudeau, Patrick. 2006. La situation de communication comme lieu de conditionnement du sur-gissement interdiscursif. *TRANEL: Interdiscours et intertextualité dans les médias* 44. Neuchâtel: Institut de linguistique de l'Université de Neuchâtel. Consulté le 7 octobre 2024 sur le site de Patrick Charaudeau - Livres, articles, publications. URL: http://www.patrick-charaudeau.com/La-situation-de-communication.html.

Charaudeau, Patrick. 2011. *Les médias et l'information. L'impossible transparence du discours*. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur. URL: https://shs.cairn-info.bases-doc.univ-lorraine.fr/les-medias-et-l-information--9782804166113?lang=fr.

Chiaro, Delia. [1992] 1996. *The language of jokes. Analyzing verbal play*. New York.

Cléro, Jean-Pierre. 2009. Jouissance intellectuelle et transgression. In Jacques Bouhsira, Sylvie Dreyfus-Asséo, Marie-Claire Durieux & Claude Janin (eds.), *Transgression*, 115-149. Paris: Presses Univers-sitaires de France. DOI: 10.3917/puf.boush.2009.01.0115. URL: https://shs.cairn.info/transgression--9782130575627-page-115?lang=fr.

Esquenazi, Jean-Pierre. 2009. *Sociologie des publics*. Paris: La Découverte. DOI: 10.3917/dec.esque.2009.01. URL: https://shs.cairn-info.bases-doc.univ-lorraine.fr/sociologie-des-publics--9782707159045?lang=fr.

Garnier-Mathez, Isabelle. 2006. Connivence et littérature: Une méthadone d'analyse textuelle pour lire entre les mots. *Histoire, littérature de la France* 106 (4). 771-790. URL: https://doi-org.bases-doc.univ-lorraine.fr/10.3917/rhlf.064.0771.
Grice H. Paul. 1979. Logique et conversation. *Communication* 30. 57–72.

Haugh, Michael & Wei-Lin Melody Chang. This volume. Epistemic exclusion and the paradoxical role of jocular wordplay in L1-L2 intercultural initial interactions.

Kleiber, Georges. 1994. Contexte, interprétation et mémoire: approche standard vs approche cognitive. *Langue française. Le lexique: construire l'interprétation* 103. 9–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1994.5722. URL: www.persee.fr/doc/lfr_0023-8368_1994_num_103_1_5722.

Koestler, Arthur. [1964] 2011. *Le cri d'Archimède*. Trad. française de *The Act of Creation* [1964, London: Hutchinson & Co.]. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Jenkins, Henry. 2006. *Convergence culture. Where old and new media collide*. New York & London: New York University Press.

Lahuerta-Otero, Eva, Rebeca Cordero-Gutiérrez & Fernando De la Prieta-Pintado. 2018. Retweet or like? That is the question. *Online Information Review* 42(5). 562–578. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2017-0135.

Lecolle, Michelle. 2015. Jeux de mots et motivation: une approche du sentiment linguistique. In Esme Winter-Froemel & Angelika Zirker (eds.), *Enjeux du jeu de mots: Perspectives linguistiques et littéraires* (The Dynamics of Wordplay 2), 217–244. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408348-010.

Lévy, Pierre. 2003. Le jeu de l'intelligence collective. *Sociétés* 1(79). 105–122. DOI: 10.3917/soc.079.0105. URL: https://shs.cairn.info/revue-societes-2003-1-page-105?lang=fr.

Lévy, Pierre. 1997. *L'intelligence collective pour une anthropologie du cyberspace*. Paris: La Découverte.

Liu, Zhiming, Lu Liu & Hong Li. 2012. Determinants of information retweeting in microblogging. *Internet Research* 22(4). 443–466.

Paveau, Marie-Anne. 2013. Technodiscursivités natives sur Twitter. Une écologie du discours numérique. *Epistémè* 9.139–176. hal-00859064.

Paveau, Marie-Anne. 2017. *L'analyse du discours numérique*. Paris: Hermann Éditeurs.

Pereira Gonçalves Kelber. 2020. Communauté en ligne. *Publicationnaire. Dictionnaire encyclopédique et critique des publics*. http://publicationnaire.huma-num.fr/notice/communaute-en-ligne/.

Priego-Valverde, Béatrice. 1999. *L'humour dans les interactions conversationnelles: jeux et enjeux*. Aix Marseille: Aix Marseille Université. https://hal.science/tel-01696163v1.

Rabatel, Alain. 2015. Analyse pragma-énonciative de la connivence représentée dans les récits. *Cahiers du GADGES* 13. 189–229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/gadge.2015.998. URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/gadge_1950-974x_2015_num_13_1_998.

Raskin, Victor. 1985. *Semantic mechanisms of humor*. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

Rastier, François. 2006. Sémiotiques des sites racistes. *Mots. Les langages du politique* 80(1). 73–85. https://doi.org/10.4000/mots.17113.

Saemmer, Alexandra. 2015. *Rhétorique du texte numérique. Figures de la lecture, anticipations de pratiques*. Villeurbanne: Presses de l'Enssib. DOI: 10.4000/books.pressesensib.3870.

Winter-Froemel, Esme. 2016. Approaching Wordplay. In Sebastian Knospe, Alexander Onysko & Maik Goth (eds.), *Crossing Languages to Play with Words: Multidisciplinary Perspectives* (The Dynamics of Wordplay 3), 11–46. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110465600-002.

Yahiaoui, Leila, Yannick Prié & Zizette Boufaida. 2008. Redocumentation des traces d'activité médiée informatiquement dans le cadre des transactions communicationnelles. Paper presented at 19es Journées Francophones d'Ingénierie des Connaissances (IC 2008), Juin 2008, Nancy, France. 197–209. hal-00416698.
# Appendix: Description of images in the paper

In example (1), user @Equipe1erDegre posted a tweet saying: “j’ai visité plein de forêts mais je n’ai pas encore trouvé mon arbre généalogique” ‘I’ve visited plenty of forests, but I still haven’t found my family tree’. In the comments under this tweet, there are six instances of wordplay (bold print added, HL):

1) Il ne faut pas que tu **cèdres** au découragement 'You must not **pine** to discouragement' < Il ne faut pas que tu **cèdes** au découragement 'You must not surrender to discouragement'

2) Bah ton arbre géné e[s]t à **Logique** tu viens de le dire 'Well, your family tree is at a **city named Logic**, you have said it.' < Bah ton arbre géné e[s]t **alogique** tu viens de le dire 'Well, your family tree is **illogical**, you have said it.'

3) C'est normal que tu ne le trouve[s] pas si tu ne fait [fais] que les visiter ! Il faut creuser pour trouver des **racines** 'It is normal that you cannot find it if you are just visiting! You must dig if you want to find your **root**'.

4) Il est peut-être dans la **forêt caché(e) par l'arbre**? 'Maybe it's in the forest hidden behind the tree?' < Il est peut-être l'arbre qui cache la **forêt** ? 'Maybe it's the tree that hides the **forest**'.

5) Trouver son arbre généalogique, c'est un sacré **bouleau** ! 'Finding your family tree, that's a real **birch**!' < Trouver son arbre généalogique, c'est un sacré **boulot** ! 'Finding your family tree, that's a real **work**!'.

6) Tu regardes peut[-]être pas la bonne **Chênes** 'Maybe you are not watching the right **oak**' < Tu regardes peut[-]être pas la bonne **chaîne** 'Maybe you are not watching the right **branch**'.

In addition to these six instances of wordplay, there is also a joke in the comments: "Il est au fond de la forêt d'aokigahara" 'It is in the middle of Aokigahara Forest'.

In example (2), user @sandruisseau posted a tweet on June 30th, 2024, saying: "Je crois que ça va barder là" 'I believe this is going to be serious'. Three users commented on the tweet.

1) @channasparkle says: "Et ça va faire de la Pen à certains !" 'And it's going to make the Pen for certain'. There is an instance of wordplay in this utterance: *faire de la Pen* 'to make the Pen' [*Pen* refers to the name of Marine Le Pen, French politician from right-wing party] < *faire de la peine* 'to hurt'.

2) @Smaloop750 comments: "Elle est bonne, on la garde" 'It is good, let's keep it' with a smiley emoji at the end of the utterance.

3) @Dahan_Ge comments: "Excellent" 'Excellent'.
In example (3), user @unmalgache posted a tweet with an image. The text of the tweet reads:

“Tout le monde : arrête avec tes vannes de matheux qu’on comprend jamais.

Moi : je m'en fiche de vos

'Everyone: stop with your math jokes that no one ever gets.

Me: I don't care about your'

Below the text is an image of an onion cut into two parts: a smaller piece on the left, a larger piece on the right, and the mathematical symbol π placed between the two onion halves. The elements from left to right are: smaller onion piece, π, then larger onion piece. The image is a visual wordplay on the French word *opinion* which sounds like *oignon* + π + *oignon*.

There are seven comments on the tweet.

1) @TheFirxcrackxr: “Mdrrrr j’suis un littéraire mais j’ai compris” ‘Lol I’m a literature person, but I have understood’.

2) @Aubher replies only with an image of a hypotenuse triangle where the sides measures are 1, i, and 0.

3) @AvrilFRLavigne: “Pour une fois que je comprends une blague de matheux” ‘For once, I finally understand a math joke’. There is the emoji of cry with laughter at the end of the utterance.

4) @MulticortYT: “J’ai lu « oignon pi oignon » “I have read “onion pi onion””.

5) @Rooss_23 tags user @MattCassez.

6) @ProLyfe: “Faut minimum bac + 5 en ingénierie pour comprendre la vanne” ‘You must have at least a master’s degree in engineering to understand the joke’.

7) @amelineckn: “@leslie_rsn celle du lambda elle est pas mal quand même” ‘@leslie_rsn the one from the average person is actually not bad’.

In example (4), @EddyBurier tweets: “Le dernier pour la route .... La pelle du 18 juin ....” ‘One last one for the road... The shovel of June 18th...’. Below the text, there is an image showing a man wearing a blue T-shirt and underwear, holding a shovel, standing behind French politician Jean Castex and staring at him.

There are five comments on this tweet:

1) @robertpatriot3: “J’ai un bon souvenir de mon année militaire en 1985... Le jour du 18 juin j’ai envoyé un mec la chercher cette pelle du 18 juin... il a tourné toute la journée” ‘I have a good memory of my military year in 1985... On June 18th, I sent a guy to find that June 18th shovel... He wandered around all day looking for it’. There are four emojis of cry of laughter at the end of this comment. Then,
The first image shows very few people remaining in a stadium. The second image shows several French politicians, including Emmanuel Macron and François Hollande, applauding inside a stadium.

Additionally, I present three screenshots to illustrate the importance of searchable information as a special type of situational context in interpretation of wordplay.

- The first screenshot is the profile of @LouisBoyard, accessible by clicking the username or profile picture. In this screenshot, we see that the account @LouisBoyard belongs to the French politician Louis Boyard. His profile photo and another image of him giving a speech to an audience are visible. Below the username, a textual description reads: "Député du Val-de-Marne @FranceInsoumise #NouveauFrontPopulaire" 'Member of Parliament for Val-de-Marne @FranceInsoumise #NouveauFrontPopulaire'. Further details include: 2,769 accounts followed, 266.5k followers, location listed as Val-de-Marne, Île-de-France, and the usernames of accounts followed by him which are also followed by my account.

- The second screenshot shows a tweet posted by @BDSFranceParis on November 11th, 2024. This tweet was found by searching for tweets containing #StadedeFrance posted before November 14th, 2024. The tweet includes text with an iconic symbol, three hashtags, and an image. The text states: "Non au match de la honte #FranceIsraël au #StadedeFrance: On ne joue pas avec le génocide ! Saint Denis solidaire du peuple palestinien! #BDS" 'No to the shame match #FranceIsrael at #StadeDeFrance: We don't play with genocide! Saint Denis stands in solidarity with the Palestinian people! #BDS'. An iconic form of flag of Palestine is used at the beginning of the text. On the photo, a group of people stand in front of the Stadium of France holding a banner that reads "MATCH FRANCE ISRAEL ON NE JOUE PAS AVEC LE GENOCIDE" 'MATCH FRANCE ISRAEL WE DON'T PLAY WITH GENOCIDE'.

- The third screenshot is a retweet posted by @WinstonSmithFR on November 12th, 2024. It contains text with two hashtags and an iconic symbol, an image, and the original tweet posted by @realmarcel1 on November 10th, 2024. The original tweet by @realmarcel1 shows a photo of an audience in a stadium displaying the Palestinian flag, accompanied by the text: "Le drapeau de Palestine sera donc interdit pour France-Israël. Ça me donne envie de partager cette photo du Celtic Park de Glasgow." 'The Palestinian flag will be banned for France-Israel. It makes me want to share this photo from Celtic Park in Glasgow.' @WinstonSmithFR retweeted this tweet and added the image of Palestinian flag below the text "Tous ceux qui vont au #StadedeFrance pour le match @FranceIsraël, hésitez pas à imprimer ceci [iconic form of down arrow]"
sur une feuille A4 et le sortir au moment de l'hymne ! Pas besoin de siffler, au contraire, les images seront amplement suffisantes !" 'Everyone going to the #StadeDeFrance for the @FranceIsrael match, feel free to print this [iconic down arrow] on an A4 sheet and hold it up during the anthem! No need to boo - the visuals will speak for themselves!'

In example (8), the tweet posted by @La_Fuly only contains the text: "« Je suis en saignant. » (aussi)” “I’m bleeding.” (too)’. It is important to note that the date of the tweet, October 18th, 2020, is displayed in the tweet. This date may serve as a contextual hint to remind readers of events that occurred on that day, which can be crucial to fully understanding the wordplay involved.

In example (9), @CerfiaFR has posted a tweet on March 2nd, 2023, saying: “FLASH | En 2020, le gouvernement britannique avait songé à « exterminer » les chats du #RoyaumeUni afin de lutter contre le #COVID19.” ‘FLASH | In 2020, the British government had considered “exterminating” cats in the #UnitedKingdom to combat #COVID19.’

@sainteselection commented on this tweet: “Une idée cat-astrophique” ‘A cat-astrophic idea’. Then he adds a follow-up comment on his own message: “J’ai besoin d’aide” ‘I need help’.

In example (10), @patricebite has posted a tweet on March 19th, 2025, containing the text: “le mec qui a inventé le lit vous me le bordez celui-là” ‘The guy who invented the bed, someone tuck him in, please’.

It is shown in the screenshot that this tweet has received 1.4 million views, 5,000 retweets, and 58.4 thousand likes.

There are 9 comments visible on the tweet in the screenshot.

1) @jeancule67533: "Le mec qui a inventé les toilettes vous me le torchez celui-là" 'The guy who invented the toilet, someone wipe that man, please'.

2) @Mitroglouglou: "Le mec qui a inventé les caméras vous me le surveillez celui là" 'The guy who invented cameras, someone keep an eye on him'.

3) @pelopascontent: "Vous me le bordez très tendrement même" 'Tuck him in very gently, please'.

4) @Vinkegavaa: "Monsieur lee je crois" 'Mister lee, I think'.

5) @MeO_DuTA: "Venez on fait ça toute la journée plutôt que de lire les infos et les tweets gênants du gouvernement" 'Come on, let's do this all day instead of reading the news and the government's cringe tweets'. This comment also contains two images which are screenshots of different comments containing instances of wordplay on the tweet of @patricebite.
6) @Escaloz: "J'espère qu'il a une bonne couverture s'il veut dormir sur ses deux oreilles" 'I hope he's got a good blanket if he wants to sleep with both ears on the pillow'.

7) @DnBnt7: "Le mec qui a inventé l'ascenseur vous me le descendez celui-là. Ou me l'montez en l'air, à vous de voir, j'suis pas difficile" 'The guy who invented the elevator, someone bring him down, please. Or lift him up, up to you, I'm not picky'.

8) @AyahHanoune: "Le mec qui a inventé les bouillottes vous me le couvrez celui-là" 'The guy who invented hot water bottles, someone cover him up, please'.

9) @lascar75007: "Le mec qui a inventé les verres vous me le couler celui là" 'The guy who invented glasses, someone pour one out for him'.

In example (11), @AltertesInfos posted a tweet on October 14th, 2024, saying: "FLASH – La Chine annonce le lancement de manœuvres militaires autour de Taïwan. (AFP)" 'FLASH – China announces the launch of military exercises around Taiwan. (AFP)'. @ArobaseTwenty comments on this tweet with a wordplay: "Ça riz pas là bas" 'They don't rice over there'. Then @LePropecpeur commented on @ArobaseTwenty's wordplay: "C'est pas de bol" 'That's unlucky'.

In example (12), the tweet posted by @bouliboulibouli contains a short text and an image, which is a screenshot of a tweet originally posted by @emma_ducros. In the image, we can see that @emma_ducros retweeted a tweet from @LeParisien_75.

The original tweet by @LeParisien_75 includes three elements:

- a text: "Après le meurtre de Philippine, faut-il revoir la sécurité du bois de Boulogne ?" 'After the murder of Philippine, should the security of Bois de Boulogne be reassessed?'.

- a hyperlink: 1.leparisien.fr/JT5c,

- a photo showing policemen standing on a road in the forest, behind a police cordon. @emma_ducros retweets this tweet adding a text as a comment: "Trop d'arbres. Beaucoup trop d'arbres." 'Too many trees. Way too many trees.' Then, @bouliboulibouli posts this image in the company of the text "Elle sait." 'She knows.'.

There are 14 comments on the tweet posted by @bouliboulibouli.

1) @Cynorr: "Si on met un flic avec chaque arabe, c'est bon." 'If we put a cop for each Arabic, that will be good.'

2) @IvresseTurgeon: "Succulent à-peu-près dont la fine Emmanuelle Ducros est bien capable" 'A decent wordplay of à-peu-près, something the sharp Emmanuelle Ducros can definitely handle'.
3) @KlausRiant: “Les noix, les arbres... les gens en ont plein le cul de la végétation.” ‘Nuts, trees... people are totally fed up with all the vegetation.’

4) @MrCriticone: “Trop d’arbres et de noix !” ‘Too many trees and nuts!’

5) @TintinDebonnair: “Même les plus normies en ont ras le cul des arbres.” ‘Even the most basic folks are fed up with the trees.’

6) @intwx4: “Un vrai musulman n’aurait pas pu l’assassiner car il doit dire salam aleikum à chaque fois qu’il passe devant un arbre...” ‘A real Muslim should not have assassinated her because he should say salam aleikum, every time he walks by a tree...”

7) @RadioRoma_comments two emojis of cry of laughter.

8) @Lans_Fritz: “On ne dit pas ‘dealer’, on dit ‘arbre à cames’.” ‘We don’t say ‘dealer,’ we say ‘camshaft’.”

9) @Shuyaftw: “Arbres au lieu d’arabes, magnifique” ‘Trees instead of Arabic, brilliant’.

10) @FritscherFranz: “Oui beaucoup trop d’arbres... et de maigres aussi” ‘Yes, too many trees... and also too many skinny ones’.

11) @974Titus93702: “Trop d’arabres” ‘Too many trees’.

12) @bladabala: “Un arbre ça va ! Mais c’est quand il y en a plusieurs et que ça fait une forêt !” ‘One tree is fine! But when there are many, and it turns into a forest!’

13) @Adam e04: “honnêtement c’est bien joué” ‘Honestly, well played’. There is an emoji of applause at the end of the utterance.

14) @YannGoff97572: “Méchant les arbres” ‘Those trees are mean’.

In example (13), the tweet posted by @Pediavenir contains both a short text and an image, which is a screenshot of a survey tweet originally posted on November 11th, 2024. In the image, we can see that @Pediavenir launched a survey: “SONDAGE-Êtes-vous pour ou contre les ?” ‘SURVEY-Are you for or against the?’

According to the chart in the tweet, 49% of participants chose *pour* ‘for’ and 51% of chose *contre* ‘against’. This image is accompanied by the text: “FLASH – Selon un sondage, les français sont **CONTRE** les.” ‘FLASH – according to a survey, the French are **AGAINST** the.’ (upper case and bold print original).

There are two comments on this tweet.

1) @Vadri_16 comments only with a photo of a tree.

2) @Pessi_lechomeur comments with a video showing various kinds of nuts and adds the text: “Je préfère ça” ‘I prefer this’.
<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>