Vertex Position Reconstructions

Computer mediated language has structural features which are influenced by different factors ranging from limitation of time, technical limits on message length, and the need for speed in Short Message Service (SMS) for example, to time, professional consideration and formality in other asynchronous platforms such as emails which allow for more editing. At the sentence level, Doring (2014: 9) notes that ―SMS communication allows for a reasonable use of syntactic and lexical short forms, which save character space or touches of the handset keys, as compared with using the full forms of words‖. It has been observed that language users prefer simple sentence structures in SMS communication. A common feature of language in SMS is the use of written sound of words and code mixing. Sometimes, the SMS syntactic and lexical choices are similar to a child language. Indeed, some scholars have observed that the discourse produced on this

platform appears like the child‘s. For example, a child expresses her/his feelings through simple sentence structures for example, daddy home for ‗daddy is home‘; want biscuits for ‗I want biscuits‘, etc. See a similar characteristic in a chat drawn from a social media platform:

Speaker A: Evening. How?

Speaker B: Great. Good God

Speaker A: Meeting tomorrow. See you then Speaker B: Noted. Thanks

The synchronous platforms of CMC sometimes offer opportunities for users to be creative in the use of typography, spelling, word formation processes and syntax among others. Therefore, CMC users sometimes produce sentences which show deviations from standard sentence structures in form of elided elements, incorrect capitalization and punctuation, sentence fragments, etc. In addition, language users in synchronous CMD such as Facebook, Whatsapp and Twitter chats, often break up single-utterance messages into multiple messages sometimes to avoid exceeding imposed message length and sometimes to approximate a faster, more speech-like pace or in order to hold the floor. In contrast, asynchronous messages tend to be made up of more than one utterance and so there is possibility that they will have internal structure. The examples below demonstrate the differences which could be easily seen in synchronous and asynchronous discourse structures. The first example is drawn from a synchronous Whatsapp chat while the second example is drawn from an asynchronous email communication.

1. Kenneth: Good afternoon Tolu Tolu: Hello Kenneth

Tolu: For our discussion Tolu: let‘s do it tomorrow Tolu: still trying to think thru 2. Dear Ada,

With research communication so disrupted by the pandemic, we have seen extraordinary uptake of Kajekayo promo, with over 5,000 participants signing up for free access.

We have therefore extended our free upgrades to help more participants continue to communicate their work and maximize impact potential.

You can sign up in less than one minute.

The email shows a two-move schema of promo messages posted to customer mailing lists. Thus, (1) it expresses views and (2) serves as invitation to potential participants. In some other emails such as those found in academic environments, the discourse structure could show a three-way schema of (1) link to earlier message (2) express views and (3) appeal to other participants. The example below demonstrates this:

Dear Prof Israel,

Sorry it took so long to respond to your mail. I have had challenges accessing my yahoo mail for some time now and I only discovered yesterday that you have made efforts to contact me on editing matters. I have promised Helen that I will get the proofs ready by this new week. I do hope other writers will be able to submit their contributions by the end of the month. I will talk to you on Friday next week to now the progress on the book publication.

Sincerely, Adetoun

We are however not saying that synchronous interactions totally lack structure. Indeed, Herring (2006) proposed a jointly constructed, seven-move schema for real time instant messaging, particularly for familiar interactants:

1. Greeting – greeting 2. Formulaic inquiry – reply

3. Question/topic initiation 1 – response 1

4. Question/topic initiation 2…n – response 2 …n 5. Closing initiation – (response)

6. Arrange to talk later – (response) 7. Leave-taking – leave-taking 3.6 Self-Assessment Exercise

Briefly explain the nature of discourse commonly produced on synchronous platforms of CMD.

4.0 Conclusion

The discourse produced on computer mediated communication platforms reflects different types of constraints such as time and speed. These and other factors influence the ways in which language is used in this space. In additions, other factors such as whether the CMC is synchronous or asynchronous also influence the way language is used.

5.0 Summary

In this Unit, we discussed Computer Mediated Discourse. In addition, we examined Computer mediated Discourse Analysis. Finally, we also looked at the discourse structure and meaning-making activities in computer mediated discourse platform. From the discussions, it could be observed that computer mediated discourse demonstrates influences of its technologically based domain of production and use.

6.0 Tutor-marked Assignment

Discuss the characteristics of CMD as speech and writing 7.0 References/Further Reading

Crystal, D. (2004). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tannen, D., Hamilton, H.E. & Schiffrin, D. (Eds.). (2015). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis.

UK: Wiley Blackwell.

MODULE 4: CURRENT TRENDS IN THE ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE 2: MEDIATED