Loading metrics
Open Access
Peer-reviewed
Research Article
- Kevin Lewis
The elementary forms of digital communication
- Lauren S. Brown,
- Kevin Lewis
x
- Published: September 2, 2022
- //doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273726
Figures
Abstract
Although a tremendous amount of modern interaction is electronic, our understanding of everyday digital communications—including what they look like and how their properties vary by medium and relationship type—is still growing. In this paper, we examine digital exchange in two of its simplest forms: email and SMS. Specifically, our data consist of 2,004 messages provided by a diverse sample of college students, supplemented by in-depth interviews with their authors. These data were collected in 2010—a time when both mediums were widespread but devoid of most of their modern complexity. Based on these data, we make two contributions: First, we develop an empirically grounded typology of the basic properties of text-based digital communication; second, we document the distribution of these properties across five common relationship types. Respectively, these findings provide a starting point to understanding the substance of digital exchange in all its many forms and an empirical benchmark for comparison.
Citation: Brown LS, Lewis K [2022] The elementary forms of digital communication. PLoS ONE 17[9]: e0273726. //doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273726
Editor: Olivier Morin, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany, HUNGARY
Received: March 9, 2022; Accepted: August 13, 2022; Published: September 2, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Brown, Lewis. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Due to the extraordinarily personal and sensitive nature of our data- and given that we did not anticipate pursuing publication when the data were collected in 2010, as part of the first author's senior thesis- all data [text messages, emails, and interview recordings and transcripts] were destroyed in 2011 following the submission of the thesis and in accordance with our agreement with the Harvard University IRB. Consequently, the results reported in this article constitute the entirety of the data that still exist; all other data have been destroyed. Please direct all questions to the Harvard University Committee on the Use of Human Subjects at [617-496-2847].
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Digital communication is now central to everyday life. 90% of American adults go online and 96% own a cellphone of some kind [1, 2]. And though digital technology is used for a staggering variety of ends—from reading news to buying products, watching videos to booking travel—for many, its core functions are social. We email colleagues, text romantic partners, and connect with friends, family, and strangers using a diverse array of social media [3].
Nevertheless, scientific understanding of everyday digital interaction has lagged behind its prevalence. Activity records contain data on the patterning of behavior on certain platforms [4–7]; surveys and interviews shed light on who uses them, how, and with whom [8–11]; and an enormous interdisciplinary literature considers how mediation impacts social exchange. Yet aside from public content, the substance of naturalistic digital interaction remains challenging to document: first, because findings from one platform may not generalize to others; second, because changing features and interfaces create constantly moving targets; and third, because examining private communications entails obvious practical and ethical concerns.
To help address this gap, we draw on previously unused data consisting of over 2,000 text messages and emails sent by a diverse sample of college students and supplemented by in-depth interviews with their authors—data that were collected a 12 years ago. Each of these decisions was carefully motivated. Email and short message service [SMS] messages are not only staples of everyday use, but exemplars of textual digital communication in its most basic technological and social form [i.e. alphanumeric, asynchronous, dyadic, and non-anonymous]. Yet they also present variation in terms of ease [full keyboard vs. keypad], accessibility [computer vs. cell phone], and length [unlimited vs. 160 characters]. College is a time when social networks may be especially diverse [12, 13] and the students in our sample were among the first generation of “digital natives,” or people born into a digital world [14]. And in 2010, both email and SMS were widely used by young adults [15, 16], but still devoid of their modern-day embellishments. [For instance, our data predate the availability of emojis on standard U.S. operating systems, as well as many other features—including the ease of sending photos, videos, and animations—now integrated into smartphones.] In other words, our data feature naturalistic digital interaction, at a time when it was ubiquitous but still uncomplicated, among a sample highly comfortable with its use.
Using these data, we pursue two objectives. First, we develop a detailed, inductive typology of the properties of text-based exchange. This framework—an interpretive guidebook of sorts—provides a thorough, if necessarily inexhaustive starting point for future research interested in categorizing, organizing, and comparing digital interaction in all of its many forms. Although prior work has generated such typologies, their scope tends to be much more limited. For instance, Boneva et al. [17] describe three types of emails that sustain relationships; Thurlow [18] identifies nine functional orientations of SMS messages; and many other authors address specific communicative properties in detail [discussed below]. Our aim is at once to replicate, synthesize, and extend this research.
Second, we document the distribution of these properties across five common relationship types [peers, friends, family, authority figures, and romantic partners] and the two mediums [SMS and email]. Beyond their utility as interesting and [to our knowledge] novel findings in their own right, these patterns provide an empirical benchmark for a variety of possible replications and comparisons: with other populations, relationships, and communication technologies and to understand how email and text message use have changed over time. Importantly—given the vast, variegated universe comprising modern digital life and the sheer volume of studies examining its many corners—we also hope they will help illuminate what interactional dynamics may be unique to certain platforms or potentially generic to text-based exchange. In other words, we seek to exploit the simplicity of our data to understand modern digital communication in all of its complexity—a counterintuitive but familiar strategy to most sociologists [19].
This paper is organized as follows: We begin with a targeted review of relevant research, emphasizing how our approach compares to past scholarship on digital exchange. Next, we discuss our data and methods. Results are presented in two sections: one documenting the multitude of ways email and SMS are used and one demonstrating how usage varies by medium and relationship type. We then consider the larger implications of our results and conclude by returning to the modern digital context.
Context
Scholarship on computer-mediated communication [CMC] is immense and ever-growing, encompassing entire subdisciplines and scholarly journals. Here, we briefly review our overarching analytic orientation, immediately relevant prior research, and some limitations of this work.
Orientation
Three general analytic traditions are relevant to this study. First, we situate our work within the broad field of mediated intimacy. As summarized by Petersen et al. [20:2–3], mediation is “an active process of doing and becoming, in and through media technologies.” In other words, it is a reciprocal and ongoing co-constitution between humans and technology [21]. “Mediated intimacies” refer specifically to the use of digital platforms to sustain a broad range of personal ties, from platonic to romantic to familial [22–24]. It is somewhat ironic that a lens of mediated intimacy is most commonly applied to social media—platforms known for their “public displays of connection” [25]—while private “intimate” communication has received less attention.
Second, we draw on Walther’s foundational work on the relational consequences of CMC [26, 27]. In contrast to a prior generation of “cues-filtered-out theories” [28] emphasizing the presumed richness of face-to-face [vis-à-vis text-only] exchange [29–31], Walther’s social information processing theory argues that when nonverbal cues are unavailable, interactants creatively adapt to the medium—instead employing verbal cues and alternative interaction strategies to achieve comparable levels of intimacy [27, 32, 33]. In fact, the unique benefits of digital interaction [e.g. selective self-presentation; editing capabilities; reallocation of cognitive resources] may even enable “hyperpersonal” or improved relational outcomes relative to offline communication [26, 34, 35].
Third, given that the substance of our research consists of everyday digital micro-interactions, we turn naturally to Goffman’s theory of dramaturgy [36]. Although premised on face-to-face exchange, it has been no less influential in the field of CMC; in many ways, it is because of its offline focus that his work provides such illuminating comparisons [37–39]. However, many applications of Goffman focus on the curation of online “exhibitions” such as personal homepages [40, 41], profiles on social media or dating websites [42–44], or “broadcasts” like posts or tweets [45, 46] as opposed to everyday digital encounters. Other research on digital self-representation takes a more institutional approach [47] or focuses on avatars in virtual environments [48]—work that is less relevant here.
Our aim is not to provide a study in applied dramaturgy or to “update” Goffman for digital life. Rather, we draw on his rich set of tools to aid our discussion of results. The following concepts are especially central: face, or the self-image one promotes [and works to maintain] through performances intended for a distinct audience [49]; front, or “expressive equipment” consisting of the setting [i.e. scenery] and the personal front [i.e. appearance and manner] [36]; line, or “a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which [an actor] expresses his view of the situation” [49:5]; and the division of physical space into frontstage and backstage regions [respectively, where performances are given and where “illusions and impressions are openly constructed”] [36:112].
SMS and email
Although analyses of textual interaction are often integral to studies of social media [50, 51], on one hand, and to broad treatments of digital communication in select contexts [52–54], on the other, we focus here on research specifically targeted at SMS and email.
Previous work has explored the patterns and motivations of teenagers’ and young adults’ SMS use, for whom it is the preferred means of communication [55–57]. Texting is used to maintain relationships, fostering feelings of closeness and intimacy [58]—especially through mutual disclosure [59–61]. Other scholarship examines the lexical properties of SMS [18, 62, 63], including emoticons [64] and emojis [65], and code switching and language choice among bilingual users [66, 67]. Some of this research is part of a critical debate surrounding youth and technology use—for example, showing that texting detracts from learning [68] and sleep [69] and fosters anxiety [70] and alienation [71] or instead arguing that concerns about children’s texting habits are misplaced [72].
Research on email shares many of the same emphases. These include studies of how email is used to maintain ties [17, 73, 74]—especially over long distances, as with migrants [75]—and examinations of its linguistic features [76, 77] or general content and purpose [78]. Earlier work focused on email in the workplace [79]. Other notable strands of research compare email communication with phone calls or voicemails [80, 81]; examine gender differences in message content, recipients, and perceptions of usefulness [17, 82, 83]; and use patterns of email exchange to learn how social networks form and evolve [5, 84, 85].
Limitations
Although certainly not true of all studies, we offer the following broad comments on the preceding body of work. First, much prior research takes textual communications at face value without exploring their subjective meaning to authors and audiences. On the other hand, relying solely on self-report presents an equally incomplete portrait of human behavior. Comparatively few studies [38, 58, 78, 86] examine the content people produce together with their understandings of why they produced it.
Second, past research on the content of texts and emails commonly focuses on one aspect of messages, such as their “semiotic tactics” [86], degree of cultural fit [87], nonverbal cues [88], or use of relational management strategies [73] rather than exploring messages more holistically and considering substantive, stylistic, and functional dimensions in tandem.
Third, due to data access and privacy concerns—and notwithstanding a number of important exceptions [18, 58, 73, 88]—it is still difficult to examine naturalistic exchanges, i.e. the everyday messages people send and receive outside the confines of the laboratory or workplace. Fourth and relatedly, past research frequently focuses on a particular kind of interaction [89], such as among coworkers [31, 90], romantic partners [91, 92], or strangers [86] or else includes a broad set of relationships but does not systematically distinguish among them [38, 58, 62]. Respectively, these tendencies obscure the breadth and versatility of modern digital communication and ignore the basic insight that a core determinant of any performance is the audience to whom it is tailored [36, 73, 93].
As Baym [94:59] suggests, “Instead of asking what mediation does to communication, we can also ask what people do with mediated communication” [italics in original]. We pursue this guidance in the remainder of this paper. Specifically, we shed light on the digital encounters of college students, using 1] a mixed-methods investigation of 2] a variety of features of 3] naturalistic text messages and emails, including 4] systematic comparisons by relationship type—identifying the distinct opportunities for connection afforded by text-based digital technology.
Materials and methods
Our methods consist of content analysis and in-depth interviews. In late 2010 and early 2011, we requested a total of 150 text messages and emails from each of 15 research subjects, yielding 2,004 distinct communications [some subjects could not provide some types of messages; see below]. We coded these communications for a variety of properties and interviewed all subjects about their perceptions and usage patterns of SMS and email. Our study was approved by the Harvard University Committee on the Use of Human Subjects [where both authors were affiliated at the time] and informed written consent was obtained from all participants. Here, we describe the details and motivation of each step in our research design.
Sampling
College students are a common focus of prior research, due to both their accessibility and high rates of technology adoption. College students in 2010 also came of age during the rise of SMS and mainstream [as opposed to merely work-related] email use and so helped establish many of the nuanced social rules surrounding these technologies. To identify potential subjects, we began by contacting acquaintances of the first author [who was then a senior in college], who in turn connected us with friends they believed would be interested in participating. Potential subjects received a series of three emails prior to participation [see S1 File]. We sent the first email to 23 contacts, the second to 19, and the third to 17—two of whom dropped out—amounting to a final sample of 15 or a response rate of 65%.
Given the nature of our study, we took for granted that any type of random sampling would be impossible [insofar as very few people would be willing to share such private material with strangers and set aside time to be interviewed]. We hoped that by targeting contacts removed by two degrees, we would harness the trust benefits of a shared acquaintance [95] while slightly reducing the biases of convenience sampling. Still, we attempted to recruit a sample that was as socio-demographically diverse as possible. Participants represented a range of racial identities [including black, white, Hispanic, and Asian] and socio-economic backgrounds [from lower-middle to upper class] and grew up in a variety of American cities and towns. They attended many different four-year colleges and had an average age of 21. Eight were male and seven were female.
Text and email collection
We requested 55 emails and 95 text messages from each participant, sent to five categories of recipients: authority figures, close friends [same- and opposite-sex], immediate family members, romantic partners, and peers who were not close friends [see overview in Table 1]. These categories build on prior research [17, 73, 89, 96, 97] and represent a diversity of expected age differences, intimacy levels, and power dynamics. Securing a random sample of messages seemed as unlikely as a random sample of respondents. In our best effort to maximize data representativeness while following IRB guidelines, we clearly communicated our research goals and asked generally for “a sample” of messages. [While participants were repeatedly reassured of the confidentiality of their data, they were also clearly instructed not to provide messages that they were uncomfortable sharing; see S1 File].
Though we requested messages from the past month, in some cases older communications were unavoidable [for example, many students only interacted with a boss during the summer]. Participants also reported difficulty finding 20 communications to non-friend peers, so we lowered this requirement to ten. Subjects typically copied and pasted emails into a formatted checklist we provided, but submitted text messages in a variety of ways depending on the kind of phone they used [e.g. some with iPhones uploaded conversations to their computer and sent us PDFs; some with Blackberries emailed themselves conversations and forwarded excerpts; others manually transcribed their own messages]. We permitted emails addressed to multiple recipients but not to a formal listserv. [Texting multiple recipients was not yet widespread.] If subjects accidentally submitted messages they had received as well, we immediately deleted them; we examined outgoing messages only.
Inductive coding
We followed a constructivist grounded theory approach [98] to interpret the messages through textual analysis. We let concepts emerge from the data [99] and first used open coding to develop codes inductively [100]. We then used focused coding to distill these codes in tandem with data analysis to ultimately develop four data-driven code categories: A] the intended purpose of the communication; B] the substantive and C] discursive techniques the author used; and D] the social function of the message. Respectively, these categories address the following questions: A] What is the reason for the communication, or what is the message doing? How does the author communicate that purpose, in terms of B] the information she includes and C] the way she expresses it? And D] what is the plausible impact of the communication on the relationship between its sender and recipient? To account for differences in message length and enable meaningful reporting of the distribution of codes across communications, we applied codes to entire messages as opposed to particular words or sentences. The same message could receive multiple codes within and across categories. We performed all coding using ATLAS.ti.
Interviews
The first author also conducted semi-structured, open-ended interviews with each of the 15 participants. These lasted approximately half an hour to 45 minutes and took place either in the home of the respondent or at a neutral location, like a café. Most interviews were conducted in Boston, MA, though some took place in Middlebury, VT and Chicago, IL—each of which represented the city where the respondent either attended college or grew up [and so returned for breaks]. All interviews were digitally recorded and later transcribed. The interviews were intended to gauge subjects’ general impressions of SMS and email exchange and understand their subjective experiences communicating through these mediated forms. Specifically, respondents were asked how frequently they used SMS and email, to whom they sent messages, and in what situations they preferred each medium. They were also asked about their perceptions of authenticity and privacy in digital exchange; their beliefs about and experiences with collaboration in message composition; their motivations for the creation of different fronts and techniques employed to do so; the impact of spatial distance from the recipient on presentation of self and teamwork; and norms surrounding digital exchange, such as meanings ascribed to response times, expectations regarding situation-dependent use of SMS versus email, and the relative formality of each. The interview guide and consent form are presented as S1 File.
The properties of text-based digital communication
We present our results in two sections. The current section documents the codes that emerged from our data, organized by the four communication properties [code families] identified above. For each code, we explain its features and provide ideal-typical illustrations. The following section of results then assesses the empirical distribution of these codes by medium and relationship type.
For reference, a list of all major codes is presented in Table 2. Messages are copied verbatim [except for names, which have been replaced with pseudonyms throughout], so apparent typos reflect the original message. When helpful, we cite interview data supporting claims about intent. Because our aim is to generate a broadly applicable framework [rather than examine how these features are patterned, as in the next section], we present SMS and email together. Codes are introduced in each sub-section in rough order of increasing intimacy—a central distinction that arose inductively, as in past research [18].
Intended purpose
Email and SMS communications tend to serve one of seven purposes. Young adults use text messages and email for the most impersonal relays of information to the most private confessions, demonstrating the broad role of these communications in everyday interaction. Thurlow’s study of SMS [18] produced similar categories; we identified these purposes in SMS and email alike.
Practical information
These communications deal with the exchange of pragmatic details, specific requests for information, or answers to such requests. Reading a text or email in this category, it may be difficult to discern the nature of the relationship. These messages most frequently deal with events or actions already in progress or with plans for or questions about the future, i.e. “logistics.”
IP.1. I will have the first one for you by this Friday, and the next two by December 8 at the latest [M email to authority]
IP.2. I am charging your phone and I haven’t seen your wallet yet but I’m sure it’s here [F email to romantic]
IP.3. Should I email Caroline to let her know? [F text to friend]
IP.4. What shud [should] masta [master] J get? Burr [beer] and some vod [vodka]? [F email to friend]
IP.5. 10 rows up next to the entrance: Where are you? [M text to friend]
IP.6. Leaving now. Are you guys still eating? [F email to friend]
IP.1 and IP.2 are expressions of practical information; IP.3 and IP.4 are questions about such information; and IP.5 and IP.6 are mixtures of both.
Practical arrangement.
These messages also exchange functional information. However, while practical information deals with established or projected facts, practical arrangements are not yet fixed—they require coordination between sender and recipient. They are thus “arrangements” in the traditional sense: agreement on the specifics of future plans. They ask or answer the questions “Where?” [IP.7], “When?” [IP.8], or both [IP.9].
IP.7. Let’s do starbucks yea!!!! [F text to friend]
IP.8. so i should get there 5:45ish yea? [M email to family]
IP.9. I think lunch at 12 is just fine time wise. Sound Bites sounds great. [M email to authority]
Non-social arrangement.
This category [along with the more intimate “social arrangement,” below] also refers to arrangements but surpasses logistics. This includes the initial expression of a desire to meet, discussion regarding the purpose of a gathering, and any non-recreational plan-making; arrangements in this category serve a functional purpose in the lives of their senders.
IP.10. I wanted to talk to you about potentially interviewing you for my thesis. [F email to authority]
IP.11. Do you think we could set up a time to meet briefly next week to go over what I will have missed? [M email to authority]
Both IP.10 and IP.11 are about plans for formal meetings. In many instances [e.g. IP.11], this purpose is expressed in conjunction with a practical arrangement. This may occur between individuals who do not interact frequently and thus engage in economical exchange, meaning they include multiple elements of plan-making to eliminate unnecessary dialogue.
Corrective face-work.
These communications attempt to repair a lapse in performance on the part of the sender—either by conveying explicit remorse [IP.14] and/or attempting to absolve the sender of any accountability for a past, present, or predicted behavior [IP.12, IP.13].
IP.12. sorry didnt respond earlier absolute crazay week here [F text to peer]
IP.13. I really didn’t want to just email you like this… I have tried to stop by your office several times this week, but you haven’t been there. [F email to authority]
IP.14. Hey, so sorry to not have texted earlier [M text to friend]
Corrective face-work can occur on its own or with other purposes. When recoveries were embedded in messages with other purposes, closer inspection often suggested that these purposes were superficial vehicles for the deeper objective of corrective face-work.
IP.15. Hi Professor Cohen,
I hope that the week has been treating you well! I am so sorry for not stopping by today as I had said I would. I ended up shopping a seminar last minute that just let out [italics added]. I will be taking the WGS class that I was telling you about, as well as an English class this semester.
I am off to meet Sam now—once again thanks so much for putting me in touch with her!
Talk to you soon,
Stephanie [F email to authority]
IP.15, for example, relays non-practical information [see below] by keeping the participant’s professor updated on her plans for the semester. However, recovery was the driving motivation behind this communication; Stephanie included the other details to obfuscate her aim of corrective face work “because otherwise it would seem like I was just writing to cover my ass” [Interview 6].
Non-practical information.
Communications in this category convey inessential facts or details. These range from gossip to jokes to personal details irrelevant to the recipient [like Stephanie’s class selection, above]. These messages do not have a practical objective and typically contain jovial, sociable qualities indicating the exchange of information for the mere pleasure of exchange.
IP.16. nah bro. sshit was delicious [M text to friend]
IP.17. So the Woman of the Year parade was yesterday, and there are some
HILARIOUS pictures on boston.com [picture included] [F email to family]
Social arrangement.
Social arrangement messages discuss recreational plans, such as getting meals, going out, or what to do over the weekend. Such communications include a wide range of intentions and levels of specificity. They could convey a general desire to have plans in the future:
IP.18. Yay! I’m so glad they liked it. I loove Cragie on Main [a local restaurant]. Speaking of which, we should have dinner soon. I have been sick/insanely busy lately, but should be able to make time soon. When would be good for you? [F email to friend]
Or ask about availability for specific, unconfirmed plans:
IP.19. yooo
my moms is in town this weekend. would you be free for an early dinner on saturday? lemme know. [M email to friend]
Or describe thoughts regarding already established plans:
IP.20. still down for sat? you’re my only plans;] lets maybs [maybe] have a chill smoking sesh [session]? [F text to friend]
Or exchange information about current activities:
IP.21. Hello dudettes,
I am at Kong [local bar]. One of the only girls but it’s getting better. Any interest in coming? Feel like I can’t leave but want to make it more interesting. [F email to friends]
Relationship work.
These messages help maintain existing relationships—showing interest in the location, activities, and wellbeing of their recipients.
IP.22. Omg omg [Oh my god oh my god] please come home! My bday was a blast, totally understated and classy. Except for me vomiting uncontrollably for 10 minutes. My sibs came out for the weekend and that was fun as hell. We… drank expensive wine [text omitted]. Really ridic [ridiculous]. I’m about to go to the gym and read the new People about that girl that was kidnapped for 18 years. So excited. Love you!!!! [F email to friend]
IP.23. hows your paper going? [M text to friend]
IP.24. Hi dad,
Haven’t spoken in a few days and thinking of you. How are things going? Are you excited for Sarasota? Want to speak tonight around 9 30 or ten?
Love you
Stephanie
P.S. No, nothing is wrong, and no, I’m not asking you for anything. Genuinely just saying hi [F email to family]
IP.25. Oh nice! Got one tomorrow too, at 2pm. Good luck madre, I’m sure you’ll crush it.” [M text to family]
IP.26. oh my god!!! im about to go to my last day of classes. And my dad is coming this afternoon. Cant wait.
I got your postcard. It made me the happiest ever.
Hows America?
Love you miss you.
MM [M email to romantic]
IP.27. Dammnnn 7 pg? Impressive. Keep goin, ill have alc [alcohol]/sex waiting for you wen you reach 11. Kkkkk?? [M text to romantic]
Whether sent to a friend [IP.22, IP.23], family member [IP.24, IP.25], or romantic partner [IP.26, IP.27], participants expressed enough intimate knowledge of the daily goings-on of their interactants to show unprompted sympathy, affection, and genuine curiosity about their lives.
Substantive techniques
While some scholars have argued that basic textual communication lacks social and emotional cues, our data revealed quite the contrary. In emails and text messages, implicit information is paralinguistic, rather than non-verbal [as in face-to-face interaction]. In the absence of facial and tonal cues, body language, and physical props, individuals compensate with purposeful choices in writing style, composition, and expression [27]. This sub-section deals with four substantive techniques regarding what kind of information is communicated. The next, on discursive techniques, discusses how.
Qualify relationship status.
Codes in this category situate the relationship between sender and recipient. While not all communications—particularly those that were part of an ongoing exchange—contained such statements, those that did took one of three forms:
First, in messages establishing contact with a previously unknown person, participants engaged in an introduction. Unlike some polite face-to-face introductions that occur when individuals happen to find themselves together, text and email introductions are motivated by specific functional purposes such as a job hunt or class enrollment. [Otherwise, the message wouldn’t have been sent].
ST.28. My name is Penelope Miller and I am a junior undergraduate studying computer science at Harvard University. [F email to authority]
Second, when communicants already know one another but are not in frequent contact, a reference to a past encounter, either digital or face-to-face, may be used.
ST.29. To put a face to a name, we briefly met during a book signing at Harvard in October, when you came to speak about Half the Sky [book title] [although considering the number of people who were there, I’m not sure that this will trigger much of anything!] [F email to authority]
Third, participants made reference to a future encounter. Such messages contain explicit expressions of hope for continuing the relationship and/or interest in the recipient’s response.
ST.3o. Looking forward to hearing back from you. [M email to authority]
ST.31. Can’t WAIT to see you on Friday! [M text to friend]
Each of these techniques situates the communication for the recipient in terms of a [nascent, ongoing, or projected] narrative with its sender.
Manner of address.
These codes refer to how subjects addressed recipients. Often, there was no address at all; but if there was, its nature helped establish the tone of the message.
If a participant addressed a recipient by title [e.g. Mr., Professor, Dr.], we considered it a formal address. Subjects used “Hi,” “Hello,” and “Dear” interchangeably and, on occasion, excluded a greeting and merely began with the recipient’s name. In all such cases, the communication structure was formal as well, including a traditional sign off such as “Best,” “Sincerely,” or “Thank you.”
ST.32. Dear Professor Rosen,
…
Best,
Christine [F email to authority]
Unlike formal addresses, nicknames or terms of endearment were often present throughout messages, acting as tokens of intimacy rather than respectful salutations [58]. Although nicknames [ST.33, ST.34] are individualized while terms of endearment [ST.35, ST.36] may be generic, we group them together given their functional equivalence. In some relationships, otherwise insulting names take on positive meaning [ST.37]; in the privacy of light-spirited digital rapport, they are markers of closeness and affection [by highlighting the fact that the relationship is close enough to permit such words in jest].
ST.33. Neensypoo where ah youu [F text to friend]
ST.34. will let teddmeister know [M text to friend]
ST.35. Hey puffin bear… [M email to romantic]
ST.36. hi lovely!… [F text to friend]
ST.37. hussy! I miss you slut [F text to friend]
In sum, distinct forms of address convey the sender’s perception of their relationship with the recipient to the recipient: one establishing social distance and one fostering closeness. One participant categorized all digital interactions based solely on this distinction, asserting “There’s two kinds of things: dear so and so and then you sign your name. And then there are the ones that are one line or whatever without the formality” [Interview 6].
Emotional expression.
Without tonal cues, facial expressions, and body language, text-based digital interactions rely heavily on the explicit verbal expression of information taken for granted in person. Subjects expressed this information through purposive diction and overt articulation of feelings [33, 101]. These tools are among the most important for digital interactants because, more than any other substantive technique, they influence how cointeractants interpret their words.
Because we identified so many distinct emotional expressions—as with subject matter, below—we summarize them in Table 3. This category encompassed the following 12 codes: deference; personal detail; gratitude; relatability; well wishes; enthusiasm; empathy; check-in; support; for you…; “love”; and romantic expression.
Subject matter.
Unlike emotional expressions, which involve explicitly voicing feelings, subject matter refers to the focal content of a message—not unlike “what people talk about” offline [102]. This category encompassed the following 11 codes, summarized in Table 4: confirmation or agreement; apology; excuse; humor; banter; micro-coordination; link; gossip; collusion and secrets; sexual matter; and derision.
Discursive techniques
As scholars have long noted, the lack of sound or graphical content even in exclusively text-based CMC has not prevented users from finding other creative ways to increase its richness and illocutionary force [27, 58, 103]. Discursive techniques are paralinguistic elements of textual communications used to modify meaning and convey emotion [101, 104]. Traditionally associated with personal style, they can also indicate a purposeful change in register or tone. Some, however, are borne of mere convenience [18]. Discursive techniques almost always represent informality; exemplary of this is one participant’s confession that if anyone besides a friend or close family member saw her typical digital writing style, “they would think I’m not good at English” [Interview 7]. We identified five such techniques in our data.
Abbreviations.
Abbreviations are common in text messages and emails—as on the internet at large [105]. They convey a sense of casualness, depend on the subject’s writing style rather than an intention to alter meaning, may be specific to a particular in-group, and result most likely out of ease [18, 58]. They include contractions [“wk” for “week”], acronyms [“omg” for “oh my god”] and shortenings [“bro” for “brother”].
DT.82. see you this wknd [weekend]? [M email to family]
DT.83. be back in chi [chicago] dec [december] 12 [M email to family]
DT.84. perf [perfect] just got here [F text to friend]
Subjects emphasized the informality of abbreviations, as in the following quotation: “If you’re in an academic setting, you don’t want them to think you’re dumb, so obviously you proofread and use real words like a grown up” [Interview 2]. They are interpreted as a sign of “speed” [Interview 13] and indicate the message is “unofficial” [Interview 6].
Intentional misspelling.
Participants use misspellings [58] to convey personal registers and make the tone of a message more representative of their own speaking. The presence of such choices is user-dependent and, unlike other discursive techniques, they are more a tool for personalization than for emphasizing certain details or expressing specific emotions. Examples include eliminating letters [“hav” for “have”], atypical spellings [“shud” for “should”], and accent representation [“sumfin” for “something”].
DT.85. lez [let’s] do sumfin [something]! [M email to friend]
DT.86. spanks spanks [thanks thanks]! [F text to friend]
Extra letters.
Some messages contain words with extra letters that stretch out traditional spellings. This technique is used to emphasize specific words or sounds or the authenticity of a communication’s expressed emotions and also to convey friendliness, informality, and intimacy [58, 106, 107].
DT.87. Saaaaaaddnesssss [M text to friend]
DT.88. hayyyyyy pretttttyy lady! [F email to friend]
All capital letters.
Typically, this technique is applied to specific words, but on occasion subjects wrote entire messages in capital letters—creating emphasis or expressing enthusiasm [58, 107].
DT.89. Don’t tell mom EVER. [M email to family]
DT.90. Yayayayayayayay OMG OMG [oh my god oh my god] I LOVE YOUUUU [F text to friend]
Emoticons or symbols.
Emoticons are facial representations created by sequences of punctuation, such as “:]” [a smile], and symbols are sequences of letters and numbers that represent a gesture or emotion, such as “xoxo” [hugs and kisses]. A precursor to emojis, they are generally employed to communicate, clarify, or emphasize sentiment, often by mimicking physical expressions or objects [103, 108–111].
DT.91. Ok when im done with this chap [chapter] maybs [maybe]. I think im going to have to work tonight: [[sad face] [M text to romantic]
DT.92. love you miss you