untitled1.JPG

According to a survey by Marketing Week in London (2001), respondents, who were customers, revealed that they spent nine hours on the internet, and e-mails were the key to this activity; indicated by 95 percent of them. In addition, the respondents were willing to have mutiple communication channels, like e-mails and chat. But, when they don’t go online, 29 percent admitted that they sent SMS messages per day. The above-mentioned machine-assisted offerings or commonly termed as computer-mediated communications (CMC) are some of the myriads of technological advancements worldwide, not to mention videoconferencing, teleconferencing and so forth. But the question lies; how do the language of CMC; in particular to SMSes, online-chatting and e-mails,  are similar and different to each other?

 First of all, let’s just clarify the reasons why CMC are used- is it because there is a dire and urgent need, or a thing or two that bother us so much that the statistics prevail?  Or a desire for a virtual companion? Well, based on Ylva (2003), factors influencing CMC language-using: a) text-input technique, b) limited message size, c) relationship between communicators and d) goals of interaction.

 Next, let’s talk about their similarities, shall we? CMC in terms of SMSes, online-chatting and e-mails which are sought after when they allow dialogues and lead virtual discussions, permit users the time for users to select, craft and edit language preference for self-personality and presentation (freedom of expression) (Reid & Reid 2004). In addition, CMCs can be a ‘medicine’ to loners to overcome insecurity and anxiousness as CMC cultivates the language of budding relationships (McKenna et.al 2002). The usage of the CMC has reduced time, effort and space by reducing syntax and lexis, reflecting language awareness (Ylva 2003). Not only that, the use of employing CMC has yielded the production of unconventional and yet to be established abbreviations, unconventional punctuations and the use of non-alphabetical graphical (emoticons, asterisks).

After the discussions on the similarities, let’s just turn to another page, their differences. I will divide this discussion according to sequential order: SMSes, online-chatting, and e-mails. Let’s face it, I believe in the notion that employing SMSes means we have more time to text and this is supported by Reid & Reid (2004), compared to the conventional e-mails which require users to edit and rewrite messages. Not only that, Reid & Reid (2004) discovered that the use of language in SMS provides opportunity for intimate personal contacts to take place, especially for self-presentation. Because of the language of SMS is straightforward and I believe, of minimal information content, Thurlows (2004) highlighted that two thirds of SMSes sent contains not functional or other goals, but rather that of friendship maintenance, romantic and social roles.

Not only does the language of SMS differ, but chatting on the net has its own story. Chatting, as in the synchronous communication method, proposes, ‘a high level of difficulty in communication, that hindered students’ engagement in the task and failed to assist them with the organisation of the ideas’ (Kate 2007), even though it generates a lot of ideas to us. Chatting is also regarded as different to the other three CMC as chatting language brings about ’pragmatic informational sharing and social communication functions; occurrences of abbrevatiations or acronyms and contractions’ (Baron 2005); such as IMHO (In my humble opinion), BRB (Be right back) and LOL (laugh out loud). As a result, chatting makes instructors at some of the top-ranked US universities to place heavy emphasis over content than the mechanics.

Contrariwise, asynchronous CMC with regards to e-mails provide ‘grammatical & lexical framework that supported idea generation and organisation’ (Kate 2007).

 Thus, the use of CMC can be twofold; mainly in its language functions. On the positive side, CMC can be used rationally by those who understands the way how language of the CMC works, so things can work out and as a drawback, CMC can easily multiply negative behavioral aspects, especially to those who have difficulty to deal directly to each other.

 References 

Baron N. S., 2005. Instant Messaging & the Future of Language. Association for Computing Machinery: Communication of the ACM. July 2005, Vol. 48, Issue 7, p. 29. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=908017481&sid=30&Fmt=2&cli8entId=28403& RQT=309&VName=PQD. [1 March 2007]

 Hein F.M. 2006. Communication report: Making the Best Use of Electronic Media.  ABI, INFORM Global, Nov/Dec 52006, 23, 6, p.20. http://www.iabc.com/cw [1 March 2007]

Kate S. 2007. ESL Students’ Perceptions of web-based prewriting activities. Feb 2007. Brock University (Canada). http://proquest.umi.com/pdqweb?did=1203584361&sid=30&Fmt=2&clientID=28403&RQT=309&YName=PQDreid

Reid F.F.M. & Reid D. J. 2004. Text Appeal: the Psychology of SMS Texting & Its Implications for the Design of Mobile Phone Interface. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

Ylva H. O. S. 2003. Use and Adaptation of Written Language to the Conditions of Computer-mediated Communication. Goteborgs Universitet (Sweden). http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=76462574&sid=19&Fmt=2&clientId=28403&RQT=309&VName=PQD