Introduction
It is a general observation by many that spoken discourse contains more informal and fragmented speech as opposed to written discourse. This is due to the fact that spoken discourse is more fluid, fast and allows little room for thought pertaining to correct grammar rules or proper syntax. With written discourse, on the other hand, one would have the opportunity to review and edit one’s writings, correcting any forms of mistake.
However, with computer-mediated communication (CMC), we can observe the nature of spoken discourse in written discourse when using synchronous CMC, like in chatrooms and such, as it is done in real time, almost or sometimes with the pace of a spoken discourse. This type of written discourse, although it allows some room for reviewing and editing of one’s grammar and syntax, is fluid and fast-paced, resulting in many typos or unintentional mistakes in any form.
The corpus that we have chosen for our research is from a forum, which is an asynchronous CMC, which does not happen in real time, hence, fitting the nature of a written discourse. It is not fast paced, does not expect immediate replies and therefore allows a wide breadth of breathing space in terms of reviewing one’s sentences and grammar. The forum that we have analyzed from, however, does not fit this description. Sentences are generally fragmented, with missing pronouns, nouns and so on.
Due to some limitations, we have limited our findings to reference terms. Reference terms, according to Yule (1996), constitutes pronouns, proper nouns, definite noun phrases and indefinite noun phrases. When reference terms are omitted, as found in our corpus, then the reader must resort to implicatures in order to understand what the speaker is referring to in their lack of reference terms. Implicature, which is also known as conversational implicature, is defined by George Yule (1996) in his book Pragmatics as ‘an additional unstated meaning that has to be assumed in order to maintain the cooperative principle’. This is done subconsciously by participants in spoken discourse with the help of the environment, body language and facial expressions. However, in an asynchronous CMC, the only clues available to infer to the meaning of an unstated reference term is the familiarity to the topic discussed, previous discussions and so on. Since the clues are limited, misunderstandings can occur.
The corpus is taken from a forum called the ‘Low-Yat Forum’. Low-Yat is an IT shopping mall in Kuala Lumpur. The online website and forum is meant to be an extension of it, with many information pertaining to the latest technology and gadgets. The forum have since grown including a very varied amount of topics, ranging from gadgets, food, education, work, to even men’s fashion. On the forum itself, users can find sellers, traders or buyers of a variety of gadgets and even clothes and so on. Hence, the forum is very much alive and moving in a fast-paced manner. From the many topics available, we have narrowed down our corpus of analysis to the subheading, ‘Cupid’s Corner’ under the general subject titled ‘Lifestyle’.
Objectives of Research
The objective of our research is to find if the nature of written discourse on Low-Yat Forum is similar to the nature of spoken discourse, in terms of its lack of reference terms. If the result is as we expected, in which there is a pattern of fragmented speech with the omission of reference terms, the second objective of our research comes in where we analyze the reason behind its similarity to spoken discourse, when it is not meant to be so, as forums are an asynchronous computer-mediated device.
Methodology
The corpus for this analysis was taken from Low-Yat forum, where it was narrowed down to two pages of two topics under the subheading ‘Cupid’s Corner’. This corpus was then scanned for the omission of reference terms, hedges which is used in the place of another noun, or indirect reference terms which is used in place of another noun which needs to be inferred. The results were then tabulated with the possible reason behind each lack of a proper reference terms and the number of each category was totaled up. The findings were then analyzed.
Findings
Part One: Spoken Discourse and Written Discourse in Asynchronous CMC
The findings from the analysis of the corpus have shown that the written discourse in the asynchronous CMC, that is the Low-Yat Forum, contains the characteristics of spoken discourse, which usually includes the omission of reference terms in its sentences. The example below is from a transcription of a live-recorded conversation between two close friends about general topics like career and so on to portray spoken discourse and compare it to the data found in the corpus chosen.
(1) B: Uh, as of now, no. I do not see that in my near future. (laughs) I’m more
interested in doing my chambering, getting that over and done with, and going
to pursue my…
(2) A: Not rela um, friends… or…
Example (1) and (2) shows how, in spoken discourse, the participants tend to omit the nouns or reference terms as the conversation is moving in a fast-paced manner. In example (1), the speaker omitted the noun ‘masters degree’ but this can be inferred due to the knowledge of the listener about the speaker, in which she is an undergraduate, and the next level of studies to be pursued would naturally be the masters degree. In the second example, the noun that was cut off midway can be inferred as ‘relatives’, which can be deduced due to the context of the conversation.
In spoken discourse, the information, which is not stated, can be inferred due to context, familiarity and so on, but it is more difficult to do so with asynchronous CMC. However, it is interesting to note that the Low-Yat forum, which is a form of asynchronous CMC, practices the omission of reference terms or replacing it with hedges or more general reference terms as can be seen below:
(3) Thanks for all the opinion and comments... i think i should do the do...
In the example above, the speaker had replaced the noun phrase, ‘the action I have to do” with ‘the do’. This is done possibly due to subtlety, or the unwillingness of the speaker to bluntly state the action in which he or she has to perform. The indirect reference term, however, can only be inferred if one is familiar with the topic and previous posts leading to this particular statement.
With the examples above, we can safely state that the corpus, taken from an asynchronous CMC, which is the Low-Yat Forum, contains the same characteristic of spoken discourse, in which the participants tend to omit or replace reference terms.
Part Two: Possible Reasons behind Omission or Replacements of Reference Terms in an Asynchronous CMC
After scrutinizing the corpus and picking out sentences that omit or replace reference terms, each sentence was given a possible reason behind its omission or replacement. The data was then tabulated and analyzed.
Reason
Categories
|
Familiarity
|
Solidarity
|
Subtlety
|
|
Number
|
Percentage
|
Number
|
Percentage
|
Number
|
Percentage
|
Lack of reference term
|
19
|
57.58%
|
7
|
21.21%
|
-
|
|
Indirect reference term
|
-
|
-
|
4
|
12.12%
|
-
|
-
|
Hedges
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
3
|
9.09%
|
Total
|
19
|
57.58%
|
11
|
33.33%
|
3
|
9.09%
|
Table 1.0: Pattern of the Categories of the Omission of Reference Terms and its Reason
The table above shows that the users of the Low-Yat forum mainly omit reference terms for the reason of familiarity. Familiarity here refers to the familiarity to the topic, participants and forum itself. This is not a common trait of all forums. As forums fall under the category of asynchronous CMC, the trait of familiarity is usually absent from the users towards other users and the forum itself, resulting in stiff and formal sentences as opposed to the ones found in the Low-Yat forum. This is probably due to the nature of the forum, users and the variety of topics available for discussion. Although forums generally work in the same manner, how it is run determines the nature of its discussion. The administrators of the forum have set the informal and relaxed mood of the discussions of the forum, making its users comfortable to post informally.
The replacement of hedges in the place of a reference term with the motivation of subtlety has the least number, possibly due to the open nature of the forum which allows the users to post freely. The existence of hedges in the place of a reference term is probably due to the topic of the posts, in which it is related to matters of the heart.
Solidarity is also a possible reason behind the lack of reference terms and the use of indirect reference terms in the place of the specific noun or pronoun. This is due to the nature of the forum itself in which it is a highly active forum running for more than five years. Hence, their active users are more or less acquainted with each other virtually, leaving a sense of solidarity amongst each other. This solidarity is similar to that found between friends or colleagues or people with a common ground, resulting in an easy-going conversation with fragmented sentences.
Conclusion
The analysis of the study goes to show that discourse is fluid, depending on its participants and not solely on its structure. The asynchronous CMC, although stated as containing proper written discourse and not in real-time, can contain discourse similar to that of spoken discourse, due to its participants.
On the same note, however, the study also shows that the level of assumptions in the attempt of understanding the implicature of the omission or replacement of reference terms may lead to a miscommunication, especially in asynchronous CMC. This is due to the lack of context, body language, facial expressions or other clues that could help the reader infer to what has been written. The problems arise when implicature fails to convey the actual message. There is a huge ambiguity in the possible reference that could be deduced using implicature and with that, the possibility of miscommunication.
This is a reminder of the importance of finishing one’s sentences. Though it may be tacit and subconscious, we are still liable for our words, whether in spoken or written discourse. Conversations happen in a fast-paced manner, but we must play a role in being aware of the words or sentences we produce which may be understood in a totally different manner.
Language is a double-edged sword. It can be used to bring upon solidarity or divide people. It is up to us to use it wisely and properly. We need to fully understand the meaning and possible implicatures of our sentences, or fragmented sentences, before we produce them. WAllahualam.
Reflection
Language is a powerful weapon that can be used either for the good or for the bad. If one has the full understanding of language and what one can do with it, it can be a very useful tool to help enhance one’s life. However, we must remember that we are responsible for the things that we say. Throughout the process of doing the task, we realize how strong language is and how easy it would be to simply include or exclude certain elements of language, words or expressions in order to persuade or influence other people. Words, if chosen wisely, can influence the perceptions, thoughts or ideas of others. We must, as Muslims, learn the art of using language to its fullest extent, and use it to our benefit; to propagate Islam to the world and eradicate misunderstandings. We must learn to recognize when other people are trying to influence us and maintain our principles. Researches like this where we analyze discourses of the general public makes you realize the strong weapon of language and its implication to the world. WAllahualam.
References
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Great Clarendon Street.
