When conversing through computer-mediated channels, it appears that individuals are motivated to find ways to express sentiment and emotion that would be comparable to what can be done in face-to-face (FtF) communication. It is important to understand that the processes people engage in online are not new, but adaptations of the processes that occur in FtF interactions. Herring and Androutsopoulos (2015) distinguish between phenomena familiar, reconfigured, or emergent in CMD modes. These terminology choices were important because even though there are constantly new modes of communication being developed, the ways individuals will choose to communicate through them will be based in what they do in existing modes. As Herring and Androutsopoulos describe, people may rely more on “utterances” than complete sentences and send multiple texts with related content instead of a large paragraph to distinguish pauses imitating intonation units in speech.
Although not mentioned in Herring and Androutsopoulos (2015), I also believe that the purpose of some features offered through platforms such as Facebook and iMessage is to fill in the gaps left behind by the lack of nonverbal cues offered on computer-mediated platforms. Specifically, Facebook and iMessage reactions that allow one to “like”, “haha”, “???”, etc. to a message mirror what happens in FtF interactions. Sometimes we only respond to others with nonverbal responses such as a head nod (a “like”), a laugh (a “haha”), or a puzzled expression (a “???”). Luddites may argue that the act of liking messages is more dismissive and downgrading our communication, but I would advocate for the opposite. These reactions are truer to our experiences, particularly when no particular verbal response feels appropriate or sufficient for the context.
Individuals can also improve the transmission of information about mood and intentions through text manipulations, word selection, and paralinguistic cues (emoticons, exclamation points, etc.). Text manipulations include adding additional letters to accentuate emotional expression (e.g., “That’s soooooo great” to emphasize excitement), using onomatopoeic words (e.g., “hmm” for thoughtfulness), and using capital letters to increase impact, (e.g., “HOW COULD YOU?” to insinuate anger). Swineheart (2017) describes examples of using some of these text manipulations like the all caps used in CrazyQueen1916’s comment to indicate passion and praise as a fan of the music.
I was also fascinated by the polyphonous graphemic representations of Spanish words that follow English spelling discussed in Cutler (2017). Particularly in my own experiences on Facebook, I wondered if this was done to circumvent Facebook’s Google translate feature and to isolate the conversation to only those familiar with the language. Yet it appears that this can indicate the blending of language and culture. I also had not previously considered how using graphemes such as for que could be used as a symbol of non-conformity and to disturb sociolinguistic standards. One of the most fascinating aspects of computer-mediated discourse is that, unlike some of our nonverbal behaviors, our text manipulations are almost always intentional. Thus, word choices, manipulations, reactions, etc. can be even more meaningful and powerful in CMD than FtF.
Sources:
Cutler, C. (2017) “Pink chess gring gous”: discursive and orthographic resistance among Mexican-American rap fans on YouTube.
Herring, S. C., & Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Computer-mediated discourse 2.0. The handbook of discourse analysis, 2, 127-151.
Swineheart, K. (2017). Footing and role alignment online: mediatized indigeneity and Andean hip hop.
