Current Frontiers in Computer-Mediated Communication

Susan C. HerringCenter for Social Informatics

School of Library and Information Science

Indiana University

Bloomington, Indiana USA

Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)

Definition:Human-human communication by means of messages transmitted via computer

networks.

Genres of CMC

> E-mail> Distribution lists> Usenet newsgroups> Internet Relay Chat> Social MUDs> Web pages> ICQ> Video chat> Graphical VR environments> SMS via mobile phones> etc.

A brief history of computer networking and CMC

ARPANET

INTERNET

USENET

1st e-mail

1st distributionlists 1st IRC

1st socialMUD

1st gameMUD

Packetswitchinginvented

Research & Development Popularization

Commercial- ization

video chatvideo chat

WWW

audio chat

graphical VR

The basic question

How does computer mediation affect human communication?

A two-level perspective

1st level effects: efficiency, group process, decision quality, task appropriateness, etc.

2nd level effects:social equality vs. hierarchy, interpersonal relations, community, etc.

(Sproull & Kiesler 1991)

Early claims …

Technological determinism:features of the computer medium lead to breakdown of hierarchy, disinhibition (self-disclosure, “flaming”), limited expressiveness, etc. (e.g. Kiesler et al. 1984; cf. Markus 1994)

Homogeneity:CMC is a single genre, characterized by reduction of structural complexity, typographic innovation, etc. (e.g. Baron 1984; Ferrara et al. 1991)

… since modified

User adaptations to the medium:

people use CMC to meet their needs; create means to circumvent limitations (e.g. Cherny 1999; Herring 1999)

Variability:CMC is variable according to system features, genre, and social context of use (e.g. Baym 1995; Herring, In press)

Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis (CMDA)

Definition:A specialization within the broader trans-disciplinary study of CMC, distinguished by its focus on language and language use in computer networked environments, and by its use of methods of discourse analysis.

(Herring, In press)

Historical overview of CMDAMid-1980’s: • Case studies: Murray (1985), Severinsen-Eklundh (1986)

Early to mid-1990’s:• CMC as an “emergent genre”: Ferrara, Whittemore & Brunner (1991)• Panel at 5th International Pragmatics Conference organized by

Danet and Herring (July 1993) • Name first used for pre-session of the Georgetown University Round

Table on Languages and Linguistics (GURT) organized by Herring (March 1995)

Mid-1990’s to present:• Growing international research community

CMDA is interdisciplinary

• Anthropology• Cognitive Science• Communication • Cultural Studies• Discourse Studies• Education• Information Science• Journalism

• Languages• Linguistics• Political Science• Psychology• Rhetoric• Sociology• Women’s Studies• etc.

Goals of CMDA

1. To classify and describe new discursive forms as they arise through CMC systems

2. To understand the effects of computer mediation on human language and communication in a variety of contexts

3. To study computer-mediated discourse as a window into other phenomena, e.g. cognition, learning, identity, addiction, group dynamics, community, culture, language change, etc.

CMC classification

• Medium variables Technological properties of computer communication systems, including interface design

• Situational variablesProperties of the social context in which the

communication is embedded

Medium variables

• synchronicity• unit of transmission (character, message)• size of message buffer• persistence of transcript• channels of communication• anonymous messaging• filtering• quoting• etc.

Situational variables• participation structure• participant characteristics• setting• purpose• topic• tone• norms• linguistic code• etc.

(cf. Hymes 1974)

Example: an e-mail message

Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:03:13 -0500To: HERRING SUSAN <herring@uta.edu>From: Nancy Baym <nbaym@ukans.edu>Subject: Re: keynote scheduling

HI Susan, the last day is Sunday and we're having no keynoters atall, so not to worry about that. Appreciate your flexibility, andexpect we'll be able to work within such lax parameters! Plenarytopic and title sound great, as does the workshop idea (you mightwant to call that one gender and the internet, just to hit thebroader population a bit). Look forward to meeting you f2f and willstay in touch as things progress,

Nancy

Medium variables (of e-mail)• asynchronous• message-by-message transmission• unlimited message buffer• persistent (must be deleted or will remain)• text only• anonymous messaging not readily available• filtering not readily available (depends on mail

system)• previous message may be quoted by default

(depends on mail system)

Situational variables• One-to-one; private; real identities• Sender and receiver are white, female, 35-45; native speakers of

U.S. English; experienced with e-mail; professors and CMC researchers; S is senior to N; S and N have e-mailed before but never met F2F

• Setting is academic• Purpose is communication re: upcoming conference to which S is

an invited speaker• Topics are scheduling S’s presentation and title of workshop S

has agreed to give before the conference• Tone is professional yet friendly• Norms (of professional e-mail) are semi-formal, polite• Code is written U.S. English, telegraphic register

Variables suggest ways in which this message may differ predictably from other samples of CMC, e.g.:

• a synchronous chat message from N to S (synchronicity)

• a public message posted by N to a listserv to which S is a subscriber (public vs. private)

• private e-mail between teenage female acquaintances, or between academic male acquaintances (age, gender)

• an e-mail with a different purpose, e.g. N rejecting a paper written by S for publication (purpose)

• an e-mail about the conference from N to S in which personal topics are discussed (topic)

A linguistic approach to CMDA

• Linguistic structure typography, spelling, word choice, sentence structure, message organization, etc.

• Meaningof symbols, words, utterances, exchanges, etc.

• Interactional coherenceturn-taking, back-channels, repairs, topic decay, etc.

• Social functionsignaling identity, group membership, humor and play, managing face, conflict, negotiating power, etc.

Example: Linguistic structure

Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:03:13 -0500To: HERRING SUSAN <herring@uta.edu>From: Nancy Baym <nbaym@ukans.edu>Subject: Re: keynote scheduling

HI Susan, the last day is Sunday and we're having no keynoters atall, so not to worry about that. Appreciate your flexibility, andexpect we'll be able to work within such lax parameters! Plenarytopic and title sound great, as does the workshop idea (you mightwant to call that one gender and the internet, just to hit thebroader population a bit). Look forward to meeting you f2f and willstay in touch as things progress,

Nancy learned vocabularylearned vocabulary

GREETINGGREETING

MESSAGE BODY

MESSAGE BODY

CLOSECLOSE

abbreviation(CMC jargon)

abbreviation(CMC jargon)

ellipsis of subject,

definite article

ellipsis of subject,

definite article

typotypono cap; no line breakno cap; no line break

no line

break

no line

break

The analysis reveals

• Educational level of the sender: N is an educated writer, probably a native speaker, of English (accurate spelling; grammatically well-formed sentences; sophisticated and varied vocabulary)

• Style of the message: somewhat informal (‘HI’; ellipsis; ‘f2f’)

• Organization of the message: follows basic e-mail message schema: Greeting-Message Body-Closing (Herring 1996)

• Sender’s state of mind: N appears to have been in a hurry (uncorrected typo; all parts of message run together)

Example: Meaning

Speech Acts

1. HI Susan, Greeting OPENING

2a. the last day… Explanation

2b. so not to worry… Reassurance ACCEPTANCE OF

3a. Appreciate your flexibility… Thanks S’s PROPOSALS

3b. and expect we’ll be able to… Promise (mitigated)

4a. Plenary topic and title… Evaluation

4b. you might want to call that… Suggestion REQUEST FOR

FUTURE ACTION

5a. Look forward to meeting you… Assertion (formulaic)

5b. and will stay in touch... Promise (formulaic) CLOSING

6. Nancy Signature

The analysis reveals

• Overall content of the message: task focus; negotiation

• The meaning of each utterance in context:e.g., 3b functions as a promise

• How direct the sender is in communicating her meanings:

somewhat indirect (promise must be inferred; uses conventionally indirect speech acts such as politeness formulas)

Example: Interactional coherence

Exchange Structure

N (30 May 20:35) Initiation [Request time preferences]

S (1 Jun 2:19) Response [Suggest preferred times]

N (1 Jun 10:03) Follow-up/ [Approve times; request

Initiation modification to workshop title]

N (17 Jul 15:07) Re-initiation [Request workshop title + abstract]

CohesionLinks to previous message: ‘that’; ‘your flexibility’; ‘such lax

parameters’; ‘the workshop’

Links to future message: implicit (‘you might want…’)

The analyses reveal

• The function of the message in a longer sequence of messages:

as a follow-up to a previous response, and as an initiation of a new exchange

• Adherence to (or breakdown of) the expected exchange structure:

S doesn’t respond to N’s 2nd initiation, so N re-initiates her request

• The extent to which the message explicitly references other messages in the sequence:

minimal linkage, especially to the expected future reply

Example: Social functions

• Identity:as conference organizer (topic); Internet-savvy (‘f2f’)

• Group membership:academic (displays knowledge of conference conventions); female (see below)

• Face management:positive politeness (‘appreciate’, ‘sound great’, ‘look forward to meeting you’, ‘will stay in touch’); negative politeness (‘not to worry’; ‘you might want’; ‘a bit’)

• Power:backgrounded. S is senior to N (S > N); N is inviting S as keynote speaker (S > N; N > S); N is conference organizer (N > S), but N addresses S as her equal

Some CMDA studies• Abbreviations as community markers in a social MUD (Cherny 1999)• Interjections in Catalan chat (Torres 2000)• Schematic organization of e-mail messages posted to academic

listservs (Herring 1996)• Structural features of private e-mail compared with written

memoranda in a workplace setting (Cho, Forthcoming)• Structure of exchanges in recreational and pedagogical IRC

(Herring & Nix 1997) • Effects of medium, task complexity, and number of participants on

turn-taking strategies (Condon & Cech)• Agreements and disagreements in a television soap opera fan

newsgroup (Baym 1996)• Language choice as a marker of ethnic identity among diasporic

South Asians on Usenet (Paolillo 1996)• Gender differences in politeness in listservs (Herring 1994) • Expressive use of emoticons in IRC play (Danet et al. 1997)• The rhetorical mechanisms of online harassment (Herring 1999)

A challenge for CMDA: Multimodality

• Text

• Graphics

• Audio

• Video

The World Wide Web

• Broadcast format (1-to-many)

• Limited interactivity

• Multimodal

• Hypertextual

• Links to other CMC modes

• E-commerce

Levels of Web Analysis

• Users

• Page presentation

• Linkage

• Navigation

• Uses

Example

• The Internet Learning Forum (ILF)http://ilf.crlt.indiana.edu/

Analysis of ILF page (Bud’s physics class)

• UsersProducers=researchers at Indiana University School of Education. Consumers=mathematics and science teachers, grades 7-12. P. have higher status than C. P. hope to create a supportive professional “community” for C. (to improve C.’s teaching).

• Page presentationtext (lesson overview; written by Bud) + video w/ audio (classroom) + limited graphics (ILF logo; video control bar)

• Linkagelink density=medium-high; “vertical” links within ILF site only

• Navigationnavigational trajectories=intended to lead to discussion; actual users often don’t go to discussion page (embedded at 4 levels)

• Usessee and discuss how other teachers teach (professional development); participation

is required for pre-service teachers

Graphical virtual reality (VR)

• Graphical spatial representation

• Navigable geography

• Avatars

• Manipulable objects and props

• Multimodal (graphics + text + sound + WWW)

• Recreational use

Levels of Visual Analysis of Graphical VR

• Text

• Graphics

• Perspective

• Movement

• Location and distance (Krikorian et al. 2000)

Example

The Palacehttp://www.thepalace.com/

Future directions

• New and emergent CMC technologies

• CMC in languages other than English

• One-to-one CMC

• Comparison of CMC with communication in other media, especially by the same people

End

Contact Information:Contact Information:

Dr. Susan Herring

School of Library and Information Science

Indiana University

Bloomington, Indiana 47405 USA

herring@indiana.edu