EDO-CS-98-2 Sep 1998
Computer networks are changing the way we think and interact. They are redefining the spatial and temporal parameters of the interaction they mediate so that online discourse is taking new directions, particularly in the way people write. One important observation made by a number of researchers is that new conventions are evolving and ãblurring the past distinctions between writing and talkingä (Tornow, 1997, p.1). Tornow describes the written interaction that occurs in electronic mail and on-line courses, for example, as a kind of ãwritten talk," while Davis and Brewer (1997) use the term electronic discourse to refer to written talk - ãwriting that stands in place of voicesä (p. 2).
Electronic discourse is a relatively new form of discourse with its own peculiarities. On one hand, it is like conversation in that it ãpresents a number of performance features generally characteristic of in process or in situ [italics added] communicative events and behaviors, such as repetition, direct address, disfluencies, and markers of personal involvement,ä including syntactic and lexical items (Davis and Brewer, 1997). However, because turn taking occurs differently in computer-mediated communication (CMC), the ãinterruptions and overlaps so characteristic of conversationä do not occur (p. 3). There is also an absence of the fillers (e.g., uh, er, mmm) so often seen in oral conversations (Brown & Yule, 1983).
Sims (1996) also observed the presence of linguistic features of both written and oral discourse in her study of the social context, formal cues, and linguistic features of electronic mail. Electronic mail, she notes, is deliberate in that the writer has the opportunity to plan and organize the discourse. Yet, it has some of the spontaneity of oral discourse in that most of the users reported spending little time planning and revising electronic mail messages. This spontaneity may be what leads to misspellings and the use of unconventional punctuation, diction, and capitalization in electronic discourse.
In a corpus-based examination of CMC in the United Kingdom, Yates (1996) compared a large corpus of CMC text to speech and writing corpora for several aspects of language use. He found that in terms of vocabulary use based on type/token ratios, CMC was more similar to written than spoken language. Chafe and Danielewicz (1987, p. 88) claim that speakers, in contrast to writers, produce language ãon the flyä and therefore tend to use the first words that occur to them, the result being that the vocabulary of spoken language is more limited in variety. Secondly, CMC was also more like written than spoken language in terms of lexical density. According to Yates, CMC users ãpackage information in text in ways that are more written- than speech-likeä because they may be exhibiting what Zuboff calls the ãtextualization of socialityä, where they bring their "literate production practices to an interactive, social and orally-oriented interactionä (Yates, 1996, p. 39). Another feature Yates studied was first, second, and third person pronoun use. In terms of overall frequency of pronoun use, his CMC sample was more similar to written language than it was to spoken, much higher levels of such pronoun use being observed in spoken discourse than in the other two. However, the CMC sample was quite different from writing in the way pronouns of each type were distributed, there being greater similarity between CMC and speech in first and second person pronoun use. Finally, Yates' study looked at the use of modal auxiliaries in the three corpora. The results showed that the usage of modals on CMC was significantly higher than that of speech and writing, with writing having the lowest usage of all three. In addition, CMC differed significantly from both speech and writing in all cases of modals except epistemic possibility (e.g. may, might), but the overall relative frequencies of modal usage are most similar between speech and CMC.
Further research could examine how other features of electronic discourse resemble those of oral and written language, such as those pointed out by Brown & Yule. Examples are incomplete sentences (often sequences of phrases), and little subordination like that found in spoken language, compared to the high number of what Walters (in Farr, 1993) calls "hypotactic," heavily subordinated sentences in academic writing. There is a strong tendency to structure short chunks of speech so that only one predicate is attached to a referent at a time, whereas in written language, information related to a particular referent can be concentrated in heavily modified noun phrases. There are also more active declaration forms in spoken language vs. passives, it-clefts or wh-clefts.
Besides examining linguistic features, studies could also compare the construction of reasoning and argument in electronic discourse and conventional writing. While written talk often seems to represent sporadic and incoherent attempts at engaging in intellectual academic discussion, Resnick, et.al. (1993, p.363) point out that such an impression may be ãconditioned by textbook norms of elegant, carefully structured arguments.ä
Electronic discourse has also brought about new conventions in the use of graphic features. The functions performed by voice quality, intonation and pauses in speech have traditionally been performed by capitalization, punctuation, italicization, and paragraphing in written language (Brown & Yule, 1983, p. 10-11). In addition to these, writers of e-mail and other forms of electronic discourse not only utilize punctuation and all-capital letters to signal humor, irony, or intimacy, but have also created emoticons (e.g., :-) and (:-p ) for those purposes (Wilkins, 1991; Davis & Brewer, 1997).
Tornow points out two other features that may eventually characterize written talk. The first is the possible occurrence of new metaphors related to computer-mediated language use, based on her assumption that computer mediation introduces new metaphors into our thinking. The second feature is the possible borrowing of terms from different disciplines, occurring as conversations across disciplines becomes more accessible through networking.
As online environments increasingly become channels for interaction
in educational situations, academic discussion is characteristically taking
on the features of written talk. Although ideas and arguments are still
being presented in written form, the discourse takes on an informal, conversational
tone quite different from that of traditional academic prose or essayist
literacy as defined by Scollon & Scollon (1981) and Farr (1993). The
following is an example of a message posted by a graduate student in response
to an on-line discussion on the definition of Reading: ãthe example I gave
of my son reading oratory is of course not reading. Not really. Because
there is no or little comprehension. Comprehension is a necessary ingerdient.
At least a certain amount of comprehension...the gist of the thing at least.ä
(Personal communication, March 1998)
The use of lower case at the start of the first sentence, the short
phrases, the incomplete sentence, the uncorrected spelling mistake, and
the informal tone are more representative of a chunk of oral conversation
than it is part of a written exchange of academic ideas. Yet, as conversations
with online course instructors indicate, such postings are considered evidence
of studentsâ critical reasoning, intellectual growth and thoughtful contribution
to a topic of discussion, and assessed as such. Geisler (1994) suggests
that two kinds of knowledge make up academic expertise: ãknowledge of the
content domain of [a] discipline and knowledge of the disciplineâs rhetorical
processesä (p. 144). Online instructors are thus, in effect, judging how
effectively students can communicate meaning using the situational rhetoric
of written talk, the conventions of which differ noticeably from those
of traditional academic writing.
As online interaction becomes more widely used in formal academic situations, and as more students of all age levels participate in electronic discourse, language educators may have to consider how to respond to such unconventional language use and structuring of ideas. Should those changes be met with acceptance or should they be redressed? A manual entitled Wired Style: Principles of English Usage in the Digital Age edited by Hale (1996) confronts this concern, addressing questions such as "When does jargon end and vernacular begin?", "Where's the line between neologism and hype?", and "What's the language of the global village?". In addition to examining the language itself, and perhaps more importantly, we need to understand how these changing conventions may be contributing to the construction of online learning communities and the development of online academic discourse. With more educational institutions using CMC as an alternative or sole means of interaction, the time has come for language educators to make this effort.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. Berkeley, CA: University of California Pittsburgh, PA. [ED282230]
Davis, B.H. & Brewer, J. P. (1997). Electronic discourse: linguistic individuals in virtual space. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Farr, M. (1993). Essayist Literacy and Other Verbal Performances. Written-Communication, 10 (1) pp.4-38 Jan 1993. [EJ455615]
Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hale, C. (1996). Wired Style: Principles of English Usage in the Digital Age. San Francisco: HardWired.
Resnick, L.B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C.M., Wathen, S.H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3&4), 347-364.
Sims, B.R. (1996). Electronic mail in two corporate workplaces. In P. Sullivan and J. Dautermann (Eds.), Electronic literacies in the workplace: Technologies of writing. pp. 41-64. Urbana, IL:NCTE.
Tornow, J. (1997). Link/age: Composing in the on-line classroom. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Wilkins, H. (1991). Long distance conversations by computer. Written Communication, 8, pp. 56-98.
Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus-based study. In Susan C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Digest #129 is EDO-CS-98-2 and was published in September 1998 by
the ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English and Communication, 2805 E 10th Street,
Bloomington, IN 47408-2698, Telephone (812) 855-5847 or (800) 759-4723. ERIC Digests are
in the public domain and may be freely reproduced. Additional copies may be ordered by
contacting the ERIC Document Reproduction Service at (800) 443-3742. This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department
of
Education under contract number RR93002011. The content of this publication does not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention
of
trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
| NEWS ABOUT READING
| ONLINE EDUCATION
| WEB RESOURCES
| BOOKS & BULLETINS
| DIGESTS & BIBLIOS
| FAMILY INFO CENTER
| LESSON PLANS
| Q & A ARCHIVE
| DATABASE SEARCH
| CHARACTER ED CENTER
|
The Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication is an information repository of the Indiana University School of Education.
Dr. Carl B. Smith, Professor
