298 Chapter Twelve

disease is under-diagnosed and under-treated in women, the discourse of

physicians should show more support to enhance women’s ability to
describe the kind and course of symptoms, for it is the patients rather than
physicians who “are experts for describing their pain” (2006:150).
All the studies named above concentrate on the area of doctor-patient
communication, and therefore their focus is on spoken discourse. The
other area on which the medical language literature has tended to
concentrate is the area of the language of particular genres of medical
discourse, whose focus is mainly written discourse. The written genre that
has been given the most attention is the case history4.
Other interesting studies have focused on the lexicon, the syntax and
the semantics of medicine. Johnson & Murray (1985) for example,
explore the role of euphemisms in medical language, which are used in
many cultures, especially when the diagnosis is “bad”. Staiano (1986)
delves into the grammar of illness and disease and sheds light on the
contrast between the construction “I am” (e.g. I am a diabetic) and “I
have” (e.g. I have or I suffer from diabetes). The former expression
displays an identification of the speaker with the pathology, while the
latter (genitive construction) identifies the illness as an external object.
Ross (1989) explores the use of metaphors in medical discourse and
argues that the fact that disease is viewed as an outrage lays the
groundwork for the undoubtedly dominant metaphor of biomedicine, i.e.
“Medicine is war” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).

12.1.2.3. Computer-mediated discourse

Interpersonal communication via computer networks is a recent

phenomenon in the history of humanity, and consequently the analysis of
the language used in such type of communication is also recent. This
communication type has been called Computer-mediated discourse
(henceforth CMD), and is defined by Herring as follows:

Computer-mediated discourse is the communication produced when

human beings interact with one another by transmitting messages via
networked computers. The study of computer-mediated discourse […] is a
specialization within the broader interdisciplinary study of computer-
mediated communication (CMC), distinguished by its focus on language
and language use in computer networked environments, and by its use of
methods of discourse analysis to address that focus. (2001: 612)

4
For a detailed description of the characteristics of this genre, see Fleischman
(2001).
 Perspectives on Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice 299

According to medium, computer-mediated communication is classified in

two main modes:

A) Synchronous: a mode that requires that both sender and

addressee(s) be logged-on simultaneously (e.g. chat, MUDs and
MOOs5).

B) Asynchronous: a mode that does not require that users be

logged-on at the same time (e.g. e-mail, usenet newsgroups,
listserv discussion lists, etc.).

CMD is considered distinct from writing and speaking due to a

number of reasons, among which are:

1. CMD exchanges are normally faster than written exchanges (e.g.

letters), but slower than spoken exchanges.
2. CMD allows multiple participants to communicate

5
MUD stands for Multi-User Domain, which was originally designed as a variation
of the Dungeons and Dragons game, developed for multi-users on the Internet.
MOO stands for MUD, Object-Oriented. MUDs and MOOs have proliferated and
found a comfortable home in education.
300 Chapter Twelve

simultaneously in a manner that is unknown and impossible to

attain through other media.
3. It is a ‘private’ and public medium at the same time, since it
creates the impression of direct and even private exchange of
messages, but it also may involve the distribution to an unseen
(and frequently unknown) audience.
4. Information is available through the visual channel, and it is
typically limited to typed text. Modern systems of
communication, however, allow the chats to be accompanied by
video-images and sound, in which case it becomes very close to
face-to-face communication.

These and other reasons have led participants to think of CMD as a blend
of both speaking and writing, albeit still having its own and distinctive
features, constraints and potentialities. Precisely this blending of speaking
and writing is what causes CMD to be perceived as less correct, complex
and coherent than standard written language. In effect, CMD often
contains non-standard features which are generally deliberate choices
made by the users to economize on typing effort or to mimic spoken
language in a creative way (Herring, 2001). Thus, Murray (1990) observes
that computer science professionals using CMD delete subject pronouns,
determiners and auxiliaries, avoid mixed case (e.g. by not using capital
letters), and use abbreviations very frequently. In this respect, some of the
main strategies adopted by CMD users are:

• Use of a ‘mixed’ style (formal/informal – written/spoken).

• Use of acronyms and abbreviations (e.g.: ASAP, FYI, btw, etc.).
• Use of the so-called electronic utterance (Sotillo, 2000), i.e. a
single clause with complements and adjuncts.
• Use of symbols or emoticons to compensate for the lack of facial
expressions, sound, or body language (e.g.: ☺, $$, capital letters
to mimic shouting or a higher pitch of the voice: GREAT!!!).
• Use of abridged, concise language.
• Use of Netiquette rules6: Politeness on the web.

Some authors have described CMD as an interactionally incoherent

6
Netiquette is network etiquette, i.e. the dos and don'ts of online communication. It
covers both common courtesy online and the informal "rules of the road" of
cyberspace. An example of these rules can be found at:
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/
 Perspectives on Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice 301

type of discourse, considering the limitations of computer messaging

systems of turn-taking. Herring (2001: 618) explains that the two
properties of the computer medium that create obstacles to interaction
management are: “1) disrupted turn adjacency caused by the fact that
messages are posted in the order received by the system, without regard
for what they are responding to, and 2) lack of simultaneous feedback
caused by reduced audiovisual cues.”
In spite of the above-mentioned common characteristics of CMD, we
cannot say that it is a uniform medium of communication. Language can
vary widely in computer-mediated environments depending on different
factors, such as situational context or participant demographics (e.g.
variables such as gender, age, social class, geographical location, etc.).
This variation leads us to the conclusion that, despite being mediated by
impersonal machines, CMD reflects the social and personal circumstances
and realities of its users. As Herring (2001) points out, CMD constitutes
social practice in and of itself: participants negotiate, intimidate, joke, flirt
(and even have sex or get married) on the Internet.
Scholars studying CMD have focused on different aspects of this type
of discourse, such as power asymmetries (e.g. the dominance of the
United States as the leading source of computer network technology
(Yates, 1996)), gender asymmetries (e.g. female participants in
discussion groups are disproportionately disfavored (Herring, 1996; 1998;
1999)) or the dominance of the English language on the Internet
(Mattelart, 1996; Yates, 1996).
As regards methodology, Androutsopoulos & Beißwenger (2008) point
out that language-focused research on CMD has drawn on methods and
key concepts from a variety of research traditions in linguistics, including
pragmatics, conversation analysis, sociolinguistics, genre analysis, and the
ethnography of communication. These methodologies have been applied
fruitfully to study how individuals use linguistic resources to establish
contacts, manage interactions, and construct identities within computer
networks.
All in all, the discursive negotiation and expression of social relations
in cyberspace provide an extremely rich source of data for the study of
discourse and social practice. As has already been suggested, different
electronic interactions may vary greatly in pragmatic aspects such as level
of formality, use of speech acts, discourse topic and topical coherence.
This last aspect, coherence, is another of the important issues that –
together with cohesion– has been widely studied by discourse analysts.
The next section in this chapter touches upon this topic.