A Critical Review of Linguistic Features in Computer-Mediated Communication

The revolution of technology in communication has created popular avenue of Social

Networking Sites (SNS) for discussion of various issues. These technologies have
opened up extraordinary avenues for human online interaction. SNS has created
new platforms for online communication discourse to occur. The language
phenomenon in computer-mediated discourse is a vital linguistic aspect which
bridges the gap between interlocutors. Computer-mediated discourse focuses on
language and language used in computer networked environment, whereby methods
of discourse analysis are used to address the focus (Herring, 2001). This critical
review will examine two different articles on the issues and evaluate the content of
linguistic features used in computer-mediated communication (CMC). Both the
articles which have been published discusses on the language used in computermediated discourse, but one article failed to provide a concrete explanation of CMC
and the classification of errors.
The background of the issues focuses on CMC. The internet, online communication,
SMS, SNS and CMC provide real-world scenario and authentic discourse for
researcher and linguists to study and develop research interest in studies involving
online discourse. SNSs are communication platform where interlocutors interact with
one another by transmitting messages via networked gadgets. Due to the revolution
of technology in the computer arena, a unique form of communication has emerged
introducing new forms, words and sentence structure in the language. Furthermore,
CMC allow users to communicate with friends and acquaintances even in distant
location, putting everyone we know in our own pockets.
The objectives of both the studies are to examine the linguistic features used in
social networking sites. Another similar objective which can be highlighted in both the
studies is the investigation of the language used by Malaysians in the online
community particularly online discussion forums and Facebook.
The first author raised issue regarding the phenomenon which appears in online
discussion forums among the e-distance learning students which is the use of
paralinguistic features and code-switching in the online discussion forums. Here the
author is addressing the gap by examining the linguistic features used in online

discussion forums. The author in the second article arouse with the issue on how
technologies are affecting language and language used in online platform such as
Facebook. In this issue, the author fills in the gap investigating linguistic features
used by interlocutors such as abbreviations, punctuations, emoticons and others.
Both these articles contain similar content about language used in CMC. First, the
authors believe that language is influenced by a new platform which is online
communication which has created creativity in online discourse. First each author
briefly discusses on the revolution of technology which has brought changes to the
arena of CMC. Then the authors continue to explore the CMC arena as stated by
Crystal, 2001; Crystal 2006 interactions in SNSs takes place in various forms in
online discourse. Kadir and Idris agree with Crystal, 2001; Crystal 2006 statement,
but there is a much comprehensive statement which both the authors failed to look
which is the backbone of this theory.
One famous linguist in CMC is Herring.S who states that CMC is communication
that takes place between human beings via the instrumentality of computers. It has
come to the attention that the second author Kadir failed to provide the gist of what
CMC is in his writing, but he focuses mainly on SNSs looking into facebook and
online discussion forums in particular. On the other hand, the first author Maros has
provided adequate information on the CMC theory weaving SNSs and linguistic
features in online discourse. This author has managed to provide the gist of the
theory by quoting from Herring.S, 2001; Crystal.D, 2001; Crystal.D, 2006 stating
online discussion forum is a type of asynchronous mode of communication which
enables members of the group to see their contribution appear on screen waiting for
a response.
Both the authors have used different methods in analysing the linguistic features in
online discourse. The first author used the discourse analysis method to address the
focus as he looks at homophones, eccentric spelling or accent stylization, capital
letters and other linguistic features. Discourse analysis method is a more applicable
method in analysing the linguistic features of a written or spoken form of
communication. Barton (2008) refers discourse analysis studies as a method for
analysing the ways that specific features of language contribute to the interpretation
of texts in various contexts. Meanwhile, the second author has used the content

analysis method to analyse the data. Content analysis method is another commonly
used method to analyse data in the CMC. Content analysis is a method which
studies human recorded communication, such as books, websites and others. It can
be said that both these methods contributes the results and findings of the studies.
The data were collected from online discussion forums and Facebook. A total of 110
postings from online discussion forums and 15 Facebook postings were analysed.
The data from online discussion forums were collected over a period of three
months, this is to ensure that the author is able to analyse the data collected. The
author might face difficulty in managing large samples of data. In the second study,
postings which were collected from Facebook were from the authors Facebook
profile which consists of individuals postings and comments on Facebook wall. The
data which are collected from both the studies were segregated into several broad
categories mainly abbreviation, homophones, eccentric spelling / accent stylization,
emoticons and others. Based on the categories which have been segregated, the
authors initiated the discussion discussing the linguistic features.
The discussion which was carried out by the first author is comprehensive, whereby
the author has provided a handful of explanation on the linguistic features which
were analysed with adequate definition, examples and followed by explanation to
support the examples provided. Meanwhile, the second author carried out the
discussion which provided insufficient amount of explanation to support the
examples provided. Basically the author is merely providing examples collected from
the data without providing a justification of the phenomenon. In conducting
discussions, authors should justify the results with sufficient justification by relating
the work of other researchers in the same field.
In conclusion this critical review has considered two different articles examining on
the linguistic features used in SNSs. Kadir and Idris looked at the linguistic research
aspects analysing the language which is used by interlocutors. The first author has
tied the journal in a way that it covers aspects such as suggestions for further
researches, benefits of the discussions and others. This shows that the author is
able to summarize the aspects which have been covered from the very beginning till
the end. The second author has also managed to provide a comprehensive

conclusion stating suggestions for further researches to be done in the field. Both the
studies have provided sufficient information in concluding the studies.
The significance of both the studies in the aspect of language plays an important
role. As both the articles examine on the linguistic features used in online discussion
forums and facebook it is relatively important for the readers to take into
consideration of the language which is used in the SNSs. The aims of these studies
are designed to help interlocutors to take serious measures when communicating in
SNSs, furthermore it provides an insight of how language used may lead to a
significance role to a person in their daily lives.

Works Cited
D. Crystal, (2001) Language and the Internet, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, ch.1.

D. Crystal, (2006) Language and the Internet, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, ch.1.
S. Herring, (2001) Computer-mediated discourse, in Handbook of Discourse
Analysis, D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, and H. Hamilton, Eds. Oxford: Blackwell, pp
612-634.

Additional Source
Barton, E. (2008). Linguistic discourse analysis: How the language in texts works. In
Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior (Ed.), What writing does and how it does: An
introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. (pp. 57-82). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.