Back to Vol. 2, No. 4 Table of Contents
[Conversation]
Collaborative U CMC Play E-Commerce Symposium Net Law InfoSpaces


Telelogue Conversations

Alexander E. Voiskounsky

Department of Psychology
Moscow University

Table of Contents

Abstract

Mediation processes form the basis of human psychological development. Speech signs play a crucial role in the internalization of mediating means. In the computer-mediated communication (CMC) field, speech has its own peculiarity, thus modifying the possible directions of the internalization process. The analysis in this chapter shows the specifics of CMC speech, i.e. telelogue speech. In particular, features and attributes inherent in oral and written forms of speech are found in dialogues, monologues, and polylogues (telelogues). Analysing English usage by those netters for whom it is not the mother-tongue, one could find a peculiar kind of pidginized 'network English' being formed.

Introduction

Human psychological development is strongly based on the mediation and remediation of actions performed. New technologies give birth to (or at least transform) accompanying sign systems needed to administer or to use new complicated products. This is especially evident if we take into consideration emerging telecommunication technologies, as they transform human-to-human contacts and connections. Of all mediation tools, speech signs are the most natural and significant, promoting mental transformations and development. The description of specific attributes inherent in the new ways of adapting to new technologies precedes the purely psychological research of human mental development. The aim of this chapter is to explore the attributes of computer-mediated speech usage.

The new media influence sign systems, even quite traditional ones, used to generate and comprehend messages. These systematic influences are being thoroughly analyzed by communication researchers. Computers mediate human communication and at the same time influence it. Mediated communication via computer networks has been called telelog (Ball-Rokeach and Reardon, 1988). Telelog (or telelogue) is an apt term since it refers to both 'distant' and to 'communication', and it was originally a new term for denoting communication processes. The term is therefore adopted in this chapter to refer to computer-mediated communication.

Mediation Problem In Psychology

Computer-mediated communication research is in the same tradition as the cultural and historical lines of psychological investigation, formulated first by Vygotsky (1962). Complex psychological processes and functions might be represented as mediated mental acts, and the development of mental processes means that they are mediated and remediated. The mediation process consists of using and acquiring tools, instruments and (mostly) signs, as well as semiotic systems. The signs were taken to represent internal tools mediating human behavior.

Vygotsky described rather primitive ways of mediation, such as the use of knotted ropes as a mnemonic device practiced by the Incas (South American Indians), and the use of ritual sticks discovered among the Australian aborigines. These external tools lead to the functioning of an internalization process, which is a means of forming higher mental functions. Thus the process of acquisition of new tools (being performed in inner or external activity processes) is taken as a major factor of psychological development. External tools (both material objects and ideal signs) being internalized make the core of inner mental mechanisms.

Quite new (and modernized old as well) mediator tools are vying for individual and/or group forms of activity. Restricting oneself to communication processes, these tools include audio and video conferences, email, voice mail, Usenet newsgroups, videotex service, and interactive media. All external tools and sign systems modify the behavior and, more broadly, the activity a person performs changes (in a way, enriches) underlying mental mechanisms. Working in the sociocultural paradigm, Griffin, King, Diaz and Cole (1989) investigated the remediation process, which consists of changing the way a mediator regulates the coordination of individuals with their environment.

Remediation is rapidly escalating, thus giving rise to a kind of "futurological" research in cognitive and developmental psychology. The internalized features and sign systems characteristic of some special samples (i.e. users of high technology systems) will be quite common for the majority of future generations. It should be noted, though, that the potential is highly indirect; "the power of mediational means in organizing action is often not consciously recognized by those who use them" (Wertsch, 1991: 37).

Mediation Analysis In The Telecommunications Field

In the communication theory field, Cathcart and Gumpert (1983: 270) proposed that "each new technology not only extended the reach of human communication, it also altered the ways in which humans related to information and to each other". Being interested in describing new communicative effects, Cathcart and Gumpert analyzed 'media simulated interpersonal communication' (the so-called parasocial interactions, broadcast and teleparticipatory communication), 'human-computer interpersonal communication', and 'unicommunication' (the utilization of artifacts like T-shirts or bumper stickers for interpersonal interaction), along with 'interpersonal mediated communication'.

Telecommunications gave rise to numerous types of mediated communication. The research in this field deals with the exteriorization process. The earlier research in mediated communication was concerned mostly with assessing groupware and moderating strategies, working out the procedures for efficient discussions, measuring attitudes towards conferencing devices and equipment, comparing discussions mediated by different communicative tools, and so forth. Working conditions were, for example, frequently analyzed from the perspective of sociology and management theory in the research field of computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW) (Schmidt and Bannon, 1992). Rather little attention was paid to sign systems which turned out to be specific for mediated communication. Recently this line of research has been given more attention by researchers.

An analysis of speech patterns made by CMC adepts supported the conclusion that the CMC speech resembles mostly a telelogue style of communicating (Ball-Rokeach and Reardon, 1988). The reference to distant communication surely differentiates telelogues from the somewhat more familiar (although not intensively investigated) polylogues. The use of graphic accents, for example, indicates the difference between teleologues and polylogues is quite substantial; surely, many other distinctive features differentiating polylogues and telematic polylogues (i.e. telelogues) might be investigated.

Forms Of Speech

In recent research (Griffin et al., 1989), a hybrid form of speech patterns was observed which included features and attributes common to both oral and written forms of speech. The oral speech features were colloquial forms of speech, incorrect syntax, attempts to interrupt the partner, and sometimes (in children's verbal exchanges) rhyming, which is close to a 'rap', i.e. spoken (more correctly, sung) genre of speech. The written speech features included sophisticated phrases, use of passive and causal verbal constructions, corrections of drawbacks, and efforts to disambiguate partners' word choices.

The distinction between oral (or spoken) and written speech is obvious. Written speech is devoid of extralinguistic cues (e.g. gestures, mimics, facial expressions, intonations, etc). Spoken speech, on the other hand, can be elliptical and rich in extralinguistic cues. "The differences between spoken and written speech are of considerable psychological interest..." (Luria, 1976: 36-37). The psychological mechanisms of acquiring these two types of speech are entirely different. As a rule, written speech is taught to articulate children. Moreover, these children are not always motivated to learn written speech (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978).

Taking these research data into consideration, it must be assumed that an investigation of the speech specifics of CMC is of the utmost importance. Speech is the most significant sign system that mediates human mental processes. Quite often, new signs and sign systems are formed on the basis of natural languages; thus, acquiring a new semiotic system means that the inner mediation and internalization processes have been somehow changed and altered.

The distinction between monological and dialogical forms of speech is as important as the distinction between written and oral forms of speech. The real inherent nature of human communication is in the dialogical exchange of views and messages; monologues, on the other hand, are a taught and thus rather artificial (in a sense nonnatural) way of communicating (Bakhtin, 1984; Wertsch, 1991). Dialogical and monological forms of speech are widely investigated. In most instances, dialogues are associated with democracy, and monologues are associated with an authoritarian style of management and ruling. The distinction is not entirely strict, though, as there are significant exceptions.

Polylogue speech usually attracts less attention than monologue or dialogue speech. In analyzes of group discussions and group decision-making processes, researchers are primarily interested in specifics of forming and changing opinions, in channels of information exchange, in the safeness and reliability of group decisions, in the bias to extreme and risky decisions, and to the 'groupthink' phenomena. The speech structure of polylogical discussions is rarely analyzed. In the CMC field, polylogues take place in discussion groups (newsgroups, lists), echo-conferences, forums, and teleconferences. As complete transcripts of group discussions are easily saved in computer files and archived, a content analysis of the typology and inner structure of polylogues is possibly the most feasible methodology. Research of this nature has already been performed by members of the ProjectH research group (Rafaeli et al., 1994; Sudweeks and Rafaeli, 1996).

Pidginized Speech

In CMC, English is widely used and thus it functions as a world esperanto. Unlike esperanto, which is an artificial language, computer-mediated English takes some attributes of a lingua franca, or a pidgin or creolized language. The distinctions between them, their formation and acquisition, are intensively investigated in the field of sociolinguistics (e.g. Bell, 1976; Trudgill, 1983). "A pidgin language, then, is a lingua franca which has no native speakers. Chronologically speaking, it is derived from a "normal" language through simplification: most often reduction in vocabulary and grammar, and elimination of complexities and irregularities" (Trudgill, 1983: 179). Pidgin languages traditionally are a prerogative of spoken, or oral communication.

There are several ways that pidgin languages develop. The most common principle in pidgin formation is a situation in which there are speakers of three languages and there is a need to form a lingua franca. Trudgill (1983) gives an example of two children - Dutch and Swedish - who have learned English at school for a short period, suddenly finding themselves on a deserted island. In this case, only one of the three languages - English - is common so a nonnative form of English will develop in order for the two children to communicate. Another way that pidgins are formed is when two languages come into contact. These two languages might be cognate ones, and the linguistic communities share some geographical area. As a typical example, the pidginized/crealized versions of the Bantu languages in Central and Southern Africa (e.g. Swahili) include a reduced number of verbal forms and noun classes, and phonological (tone) simplification. Finally, pidgins are formed when two noncognate languages come to contact on a permanent basis. The two languages are usually a local and a European one and the pidgin that is developed includes features and characteristics of each.

Rather similar to the mechanisms by which pidgin/creole languages are formed is the English language usage of nonnative speakers in computer networking. Speakers of different languages, and even different language groups, usually communicate in English. By simplification and by mistakenly introducing some features of their native languages (different word order, for example), Internet users could be considered to be actively developing a new form of English. This would-be form is a pidgin, not a creole, as there certainly will never emerge native speakers of 'network English'.

The process is, in some ways, analogous to the adaptation of English as a means of professional communication in numerous technical fields but with radical differences. First, millions of netters cannot be treated as representing any single profession and, second, for the first time an entirely written version of a pidgin has a chance to emerge. The differences mentioned are strong enough to consider the adaptation of English to the CMC field as unique. This kind of uniqueness is somewhat close to Wertsch's (1991: 124) notion of 'privileging':

Privileging refers to the fact that one mediational means, such as a social language, is viewed as being more appropriate or efficacious than others in a particular sociocultural setting.

One must admit that privileging leads to changes in the internalization process, and is thus worthy of being analyzed.

Research Aims And Methodology

The experimental data analyzed in this chapter are excerpts from several Usenet newsgroup discussions and from several Russian-language teleconferences. The excerpts to be analyzed were singled out while participating in different newsgroups and teleconferences, or while reading actual messages of the participants. Additionally, Russian network users were interviewed, participants of mediated discussions were consulted (both face to face and via computer networks), and questionnaires were administered (both paper-and-pencil and computer-mediated).

The aim of this research is to define basic characteristics of the telelogue form of speech. The typology of characteristics common to telelogue speech and other existing sign systems is analyzed.

Results

The research results are presented in terms of commonality between attributes of CMC and known speech forms. The known speech forms include written and oral speech, dialogical and monological speech, and polylogue (telelogue). The features of self-communication and pidgin forms of language usage are also analyzed.

Attributes of the written form of speech

The attributes of written forms of speech in common with CMC that are worthy of mention are as follows. First, message senders control text composition while recipients are unable to intervene. Second, messages often have complicated syntax structure, e.g. subordinate clauses. Third, messages characteristically define the reason(s) for addressing the recipient. Fourth, authors can use rough notes and have the advantage of pre-editing and post-editing. Fifth, in written communication, senders have multiple opportunities to check misspellings and to correct the errors.

Attributes of the oral form of speech

People who use CMC frequently acquire a nonofficial style of conversation including attributes such as using first names, treating colleagues in an unceremonious manner, adopting specific kinds of slang expressions and various types of jokes (verbal and graphical). Interestingly, network users do their best to devise some email equivalent of interrupting, perhaps due to the necessity to reduce traffic (in Russia it is necessary to pay for both received and sent messages). Lengthy messages may be returned to offending authors with a comment that half (or even less than half) of the message would have been sufficient to be understood. Certainly this kind of behavior is not equivalent to easily observed interruptions in face-to-face communication. The reasons for attempting to perform 'CMC interruptions' are, though, quite similar and have the desired effect of stopping the message attaining process, and expressing dissatisfaction.

Oral speech is usually more emotional than written speech. Although in written speech there are quite effective means of expressing nuances of human affect and feeling, not many people are sufficiently skilled to use these means adequately. Many users engaged in CMC are not native speakers of English so they find themselves incapable of expressing affects in the foreign language. So, to make CMC closer to speech, users have agreed on and use, where necessary, the 'smiley' symbol system.

Attributes of the dialogical form of speech

A quick response factor is one of the main attributes of dialogues. The short lag time and the question-answering procedure lead to a kind of alternating between composing a message and waiting for a reaction of the recipient. The only real obstacle is the diversity of time zones throughout the globe.

Another attribute relates to users expressing opinions on a particular topic and each new argument bringing new reactions generated by those newsgroup and/or teleconference members who did not participate in earlier discussions. This is characteristic both for chained dialogues and polylogues. The latter might be spontaneous or might be voluntarily initiated by participants. Both processes are inherent to a dialogical form of speech. The initiations usually take the form of addressing special questions to those who were not participating in the discussion. Questioning, of course, is highly characteristic of dialogues, not monologues.

A third attribute might be referred to as a dialogical attitude of CMC users. For example, participants of a computer conference expressed their willingness to answer short auxiliary texts which were automatically printed on their screens and which had nothing to do with the content of the conference (these texts were just citations, changing each day). When the technical moderator explained how to switch off the auxiliary texts, the users argued that their aim was to answer them, not to get rid of them. Taking these facts into consideration, we may conclude that users@ dominant attitudes are dialogical.

Attributes of the monological form of speech

The monological style of computer-mediated discussions may be revealed sometimes in an authoritative attitude of some participants. Although this style is not common, there were some instances of orders being given. This style of CMC may be characteristic of newcomers to the networks, as netters traditionally alter their communicative style for a more democratic one as they gain competence. Computer-mediated discussions also lack the nonverbal cues inherent in oral dialogical speech. Obviously, turn-taking hints and holding-the-floor signals have no equivalents in written speech.

When discussing attributes of the dialogic form of speech, it was mentioned that not only frequent questions, but also the question-answering process characterizes CMC dialogues. However, in some types of newsgroups (e.g. educational and research-oriented groups), the lack of responses to questions is characteristic of a monological form of speech. The reasons for not answering might be as follows. First of all, some questions are poorly formulated, incomprehensible, rhetorical, irrelevant or ask for information no one knows. Second, to give answers to certain know-how questions sometimes requires an explanation of an entire project. Surely a small proportion of these unrealistic questions have a dialogical status: the most courteous users replied that they needed additional time to give a full answer to the question. Third, certain questions are so specific that no newsgroup participant is capable of answering them.

Another class of monological messages is represented by verbal components of combined nonverbal-verbal dialogues. That is, the content of these verbal components is devoted to giving orders and consultations, asking for a copy of an article, or asking to pass on best wishes and regards to coworkers who are not online. The nonverbal part of these dialogues is outside the realm of the exchange of computer-mediated messages. Lastly, another factor for not answering some messages is the carelessness and unpunctuality of users, their operational mistakes (incorrect replies), or problems with their telecommunication equipment. Sometimes this mode of communicative behavior is induced by a sensitivity to rank, where netters answer messages from higher-ranking colleagues swiftly and ignore messages from lower-ranking ones. Obviously, this manner of communicative behavior might be regarded as undemocratic, even though CMC is considered by some participants as having an equalizing effect.

Attributes of self-communication

Self-communication is understood as a process of addressing messages to one's own account, not as saving a copy as outgoing mail. The self-communication type of CMC is characteristic primarily of LAN users. For example, in an analysis of email system usage in the Institute of Mechanics and Computing, Russian Academy of Science (Voiskounsky, 1985), of a mean number of 62 messages per month, 10 were self-addressed. These self-addressed messages remained in mailboxes from 1 to 48 days (mean 8.6 days) and were read many times.

Possible motivations for self-addressing are many: (i) a procedure for self-learning; (ii) a mnemonic operation; (iii) an act of communication with coworkers, when a group of colleagues uses the same account; (iv) a component of managerial role functioning, e.g. systematically collecting information and placing portions of the information into email boxes in order to summarize and generalize on a regular basis. Thus self-communication processes constitute an essential part of both communicative and noncommunicative actions.

Self-communication might be characteristic not only for LAN or WAN users, but for global network users as well. A professional who works in different geographical regions, for example, may prefer not to carry hard copies of necessary documentation between locations, but to telecommunicate it addressing their own email boxes. This version of self-communication is considered to be useful and efficient.

Attributes of the pidginized form of speech

Two kinds of communicative situations that seem to be quite common for CMC give perspectives of pidgin English formation. First, native English speakers have to simplify speech constructions when emailing nonnative English speakers. This is also the case when nonnative English speakers of different ethnic backgrounds communicate in English. We expect that quite analogous processes might take place in other sites where netters speak different languages. It is argued, therefore, that computer networking has all the characteristics for forming a pidgin "network English": nonnative English speakers born in diverse geographical regions and under diverse sociolinguistic settings, communicating in a simplified version of English.

The possibility of a network pidgin English seems unprecedented given sociolinguistic data. The selective process of pidgin formation begins with an English vocabulary layer of expressions used in computer programming and computer networking. This layer of computing terms is contradictory to the usual layers of pidgin formation, namely, trading and daily life. Still more unusual is that it began in a written, not oral form of communication. The network pidgin English still requires many years to be developed.

Interestingly enough, English influences language usage even when netters communicate in national languages. Let us restrict ourselves with the influence of English on Russian language usage in the CMC field. In Russian-language teleconferences, Latin and cyrillic alphabets are intermixed. Foreign names, for example, are usually inserted in the Latin alphabet. The same might occur with certain terms which have no optimal Russian equivalents, or with citations that were produced originally in Latin alphabet.

The intermixed alphabets are also used in other contexts, such as making messages more elaborative and argumentative, or more humorous. An example of the latter is the signature which very often includes maxims and/or witty phrases in foreign languages (mostly in English) functioning as a kind of motto/logotype that characterizes the networker who choses the phrases.

Perhaps the most difficult style for nonnative English speakers to master is laconic, metaphorical speech. Quite often, nonnatives produce lengthier messages than native English speakers. These lengthy messages are composed according to the rules of a written, high-school textbook style and they lack metaphorical expressions. Curiously enough, English phrases and words are used in national-language computer conferences in order to shorten the messages. Two ways of shortening might be noted. First, foreign phrases are inserted into Russian messages, sometimes as abbreviations. For example, a popular foreign abbreviation is IMHO (in my humble opinion), used mostly in Latin notation but sometimes in cyrillics as well).

Second, English words, in cyrillic notation, are used as a kind of stem. Combined with adequate Russian prefixes and endings, the following English terms were used in a teleconference during a two-week period in June 1994: message, link, PC, mail, crosspost, hub, signature, origin, voice, routing, host, source, node, sysop, login, telnet, direct, flame, user, programmer, and point. It is interesting to note that "postmaster" was the only correct English term used in Russian in the computer networking field, though there is an adequate and familiar Russian term which denotes a person in charge of a mailing service. In fact, few of the terms mentioned have no adequate Russian language equivalents. The insertion of English words, phrases and abbreviations into cyrillic messages, in cyrillics or in Latin, is a step towards an adaptation of pidgin English for regular usage by Russian networkers.

Thus, the reasons for the uniqueness of the pidgin English now being formed is that it is, first, in a written speech (as opposed to oral), and second, in the area of computer networking as opposed to the more usual field of market bargaining and trading.

Telelogue attributes of the polylogue form of speech

Due to the lack of special research procedures dedicated to telelogue and polylogue speech analysis, we are able to mention only some of characteristic features, and to refer to those relevant attributes mentioned above. Attributes of telelogue speech embrace all the abovementioned characteristics of the CMC contacts in addition to some special attributes.

First, in telelogue communication, no time zones are assumed; in other words, it might be argued that CMC never stops, it has no brakes. Next, as already mentioned, turn-taking is not assumed in CMC. In a sense, everybody holds the floor at any time. Alternations are characteristic for email communication, but for newsgroups, it might be hypothesized that all participants are producing messages independently and simultaneously. Unlike face-to-face communication, this kind of 'egocentric' speech, investigated in depth by Piaget (1929) and Vygotsky (1962), is a real way of communicating and is not considered an aspect of self-communication or internal speech. Telelogue speech supports the communicator's initiative both in sending messages (the ease of holding of floor) and in receiving. The latter process includes the willingness to receive, to read, and/or to ignore the message Subscribers to newsgroups and teleconferences, for example, usually browse headers to select messages for reading. Even when ignoring a portion of a message, a netter is aware of their existence and has some impression about content, interconnections, and relevance. Thus, awareness and initiative are characteristic of a telelogue way of communication.

Quotes from previous messages are highly characteristic of telelogue speech. Quotes are usually preceded by special auxiliary marks (e.g., >) and inserted into the corresponding response. This attribute is perhaps the most characteristic of CMC being a sort of 'social invention' of experienced users and is helpful when opposing views are being discussed. Thus, the unprecedented new culture of publicly debated statements is inherently telelogue speech.

Repeating opponent's views is not a feature of face-to-face discussions, and in discussions using other media. The careful quoting of opponents' statements are thought to be necessary for professional and specialized interactions (i.e. contract negotiations, legal applications to a court, thorough reviewing of articles). This professional style of communication is usually considered more argumentative than the familiar one, where the opposition's arguments are not repeated. The culture of quoting, which had almost disappeared, is now reappearing as a feature of CMC.

As mentioned above, chained dialogues and polylogues, and attempts to initiate polylogues, are telelogue attributes. A more subtle attribute concerns the formation of the group style of CMC. In different newsgroups, echo-conferences, forums, and teleconferences, the real elements of this style might differ a lot, but observation shows that in each of them the specific style is formed.

Conclusion

Telelogue messages generated in CMC sessions, including texts, voice, and graphics, have the attributes of written and oral speech, of dialogical and monological forms of speech, and they often serve the functions of self-communication. Telelogue messages form the basis of a new kind of pidgin English. As the newest and highly syncretic external tool of communication being internalized, telelogue communication will cause a profound evolutionary effect on human psychological development. The effect is similar to the effects caused by some other technological inventions but the artificial tools mediating human communication transform the existing and familiar semiotic systems that are in the core of the human mind.

References

About the Author

Alexander Voiskounsky (PhD in psychology, Moscow State University) is in the Faculty of the Psychology Department, Moscow State University and deputy head of the General psychology chair. His research interests and publications include psychology of human communication, psychology of thinking, and methods of psychological research. His main research interest is now in the field of CMC. He is the author of over 70 research publications, mostly in Russian.
Address: Department of Psychology, Moscow University, Mokhovaya str. 8, Moscow 103009, Russia.