Kerry Sluchinski is a pragmatics and deixis-based East Asian linguist and discourse analyst whose general body of research focuses on the (de/re/co-) construction of identity and the use of referential forms on the Internet in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese.

• List of FiguresList of TablesPreface and AcknowledgementsPART 1: From Deviation to Conventionalization: A Genealogy of ta and (Chinese) Gender Identities1. Introduction1.1 From Classical to Modern: Third-Person Pronoun Syntactic Behaviour and Orthography up to 2003 and Beyond1.1.1 Third-Person Pronoun Development1.1.2 Syntactic Behaviour of the Third-Person Pronoun in Written Chinese1.2 Early Beginnings: A Sample of Syntactic Structures of the ta Phenomenon in CMC1.2.1 A Quantitative Look at Conventionalization: Syntactic Constructions of ta1.2.2 A Quantitative Look at Conventionalization: Sentence Types1.3 Modern Investigations: Discursive and Psycholinguistic Evidence Towards Conventionalization2. Deviant or Conventional? Constructing Gender Identities in China and at Large 2.1 Homosociality vs Homosexuality2.2 Tongzhi: The Genderless Comrades of Communism and Sexuality2.3 X也 and 无也: ta’s Less Ubiquitous Counterpart and Most Recent Contender2.4 Pronouns and Pragmatics: The Problem2.4.1 Constructing Identity: Speaker, Addressee …Other?2.4.2 Constructing Identity: Third-Person Pronoun and Referential Form Use by the Other2.4.3 Constructing Identity: Third-Person Pronoun and Third-Person Noun Phrase Use for the Other2.5 Research QuestionsPART 2: Analytical Framework, Data, and Classification3. Theoretical Underpinnings3.1 Theories3.1.1 A Framing, Positioning, and Stance Theories Framework3.1.2 Adapted Appraisal Theory and Co-Reference Chains3.1.3 Membership Categorization and Indexicality3.2 Corpus3.2.1 Data Origin and Software3.2.2 Data Collection Procedure and Categorization3.2.3 Discourse Types and Texts4. Who is ta? A comparison of Pro- and Anti-LGBTQ Community Usage4.1 Ta Categorization Schema – Methodology and Layers 1-24.2 Layer 3 - Quantitative Referent Categorization4.2.1 Ta Categorization Schema in the Context of the Entire Corpus4.2.2 Ta Categorization Schema Community by Community4.3 Layer 3 - Qualitative Presentation of Quantitative Lexical Referents4.4 Interim SummaryPART 3: Othering5. Political Non-Belonging: ‘Othering’ and ‘Vagueness’ of ta in Anti- and Pro-LGBTQ Communities5.1 Negative Stance and Non-Belonging5.2 Explicit Othering: Analysis and Discussion5.2.1 Refusing to Recognize an LGBTQ Individual’s Self-Ascribed Identity5.2.2 Dehumanizing an LGBTQ Member5.2.3 Downgrading Social Integrity5.2.4 Co-Constructing ‘Other’ Identity5.3 Implicit Othering: Analysis and Discussion5.3.1 Implicit Othering: Pro-Community Usage5.3.2 Implicit Othering: Anti-Community Usage5.4 Explicit and Implicit Othering: Interim ConclusionPART 4: (A-)Political Belonging6. (A-)Political Belonging: What makes ta’s Belonging (A-)Political?6.1 Neutral/Positive vs. Negative Stance and (A-)Political Belonging6.2 Data Set Compositions6.3 ta Usage for LGBTQ Pronoun6.3.1 Apolitical Usage6.3.2 Political Usage6.4 ta Usage for Comprehensive Group Inclusion6.4.1 Apolitical Usage 6.4.2 Political Usage6.5 Interim Summary7. Apolitical Belonging: When ta’s Third-Person Attributes Don’t Matter7.1 Neutral/Positive Stance and Apolitical Belonging7.2 Data Set Compositions7.3 ta Usage for Unknown Circumstances via Information Seeking Discourse7.4 ta usage for General 3PP via Opinion Discourse7.5 ta Usage for Unknown Circumstances and General 3PP7.5.1 Guidebook/Advice Discourse7.5.2 Partner Advertisement Discourse7.6 Interim SummaryPART 5: Political Belonging8. Political Belonging: How ta Belongs in Relation to 'You'8.1 Positive Stance and Political Belonging8.2 Data Set Composition8.3 ta Usage for Open in Relation to ‘You’8.3.1 Essay Discourse8.3.2 Information Seeking Discourse 8.3.3 Guidebook/Advice Discourse8.4 ta Usage for Self- and Third-Person Identity Construction8.4.1 Narrative Discourse8.5 ta Usage for ‘You’ and Identity via Opinion Discourse8.6 Interim Summary9. Getting Back with ta, Your (Homosexual) Partner - Chain Post Discourse Discussion9.1 Positive Stance and Political Belonging9.2 Data Composition and Features9.3 Example 1: ta Usage for LGBT Pronoun and Identity Construction for Any ‘Homosexual’9.4 Example 2: ta Usage for LGBTQ Pronoun and Identity Construction for ‘Female Homosexual’9.5 Example 3: ta Usage for LGBTQ Pronoun and Identity Construction for ‘Male Homosexual’9.6 Summary and Implications for CorpusPART 6: Conclusion10. Synthesis and Conclusion10.1 Synthesis10.1.1 Discourse Distribution within Usage Type10.1.2 Usage Type Distribution within Community10.2 Implications for Readers and Further ResearchReferencesAppendix A: List of Omitted Categorizations Included in Ta Categorization SchemaAppendix B: Table of Third-Person Singular Pronouns (Brief ta-Focused Historical Summary)Index