Speech Behavior and Multimodality in Online Communication among Teenagers
Abstract
The article presents an analysis of online interactions among teenagers. The development of online communication is an important factor in the process of formation and reproduction of new social ties and relationships. Continuous online communication is becoming an important feature of everyday life. Online communication affects communication in general, developing its new requirements and standards. The polymetodic research consists of a questionnaire survey method and a content analysis method. The questionnaire was conducted among 50 teenagers aged 13-15, studying in schools of Ekaterinburg and regularly using the Internet to communicate with peers. A content analysis of online dialogs (n = 40) presented by the survey participants was also conducted. The research data proclaims social networks to be the most efficient tool of communication among modern teenagers. The most popular one is Vkontakte, which is used to chat and learn modern vocabulary. The daily routine, including the learning process, is the main topic of communication. Teenagers hardly change their speech behavior, since online and offline communication occurs mainly in the same reference groups. Teenagers also use audio-visual materials, emojis, stickers, etc., to complete their messages and express their emotional state.
Keywords: online communication, teenagers, speech behavior, multimodality
References
[1] Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 1. On the Horizon, vol. 9(5), pp.1-6. URL: DOI: 10.1108/10748120110424816
[2] Bennett, S., Maton, K., Kervin, L. (2008). The ’digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 39(5), pp. 775–786. URL: DOI: 10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2007.00793.x
[3] Wakefield, M. A. (2008). Rice Cynthia J. The Impact of Cyber-Communication on Today’s Youth. Professional Counseling Digest.
[4] Soleymani, M.R., Garivani, A., Zare-Farashbandi, F. (2016). The Effect of the Internet Addiction on the Information-Seeking Behavior of the Postgraduate Students. Mater Sociomed, vol. 28(3), pp. 191–195.
[5] Baruah, T. D. (2012). Effectiveness of social media as a tool of communication and its potential for technology enabled connections: A micro level study. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publication, vol. 2(5), pp. 1–10.
[6] Gernsbacher, M. A. (2014). Internet-based communication. Discourse Processes, vol. 51, pp. 359–373. URL: doi:10.1080/0163853X.2014.916174
[7] Lyddy, F., Farina, F., Hanney, J., Farrell, L., Kelly O’Neill, N. (2014). An Analysis of Language in University Students’ Text Messages. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 19(3), pp. 546–561. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12045
[8] Gómez Camacho, A., Hunt-Gómez, C., Valdeverde-Macía, A. (2018). Textisms, texting, and spelling in Spanish. Lingua, vol. 201, pp. 92–101.
[9] Davis, B. H., Brewer, J. (1997). Electronic discourse: Linguistic individuals in virtual space. Suny Press, Computer Mediated Communication.
[10] Macfadyen, L. P., Roche, J., Doff, S. (2004). Communicating across cultures in cyberspace (Vol. 2). New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.
[11] Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University. URL: http: //dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487002
[12] Romero Forteza, F., Carrió Pastor, M. L. (2014). Virtual language learning environments: The standarization of evaluation. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, in Social and Technological Sciences, vol. 1(1), pp. 135–152.
[13] Guzikova, М. (2019). Multilingualism in motion: evolution of the phenomenon. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, vol. 49, pp. 114–123. URL: https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863Х/49/12
[14] Wolfson, N. (1988). The bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. In Fine, J. (Ed.), Second language discourse: A textbook of current research. Norwood: Ablex.
[15] Muniandy, A. V. (2002). Electronic discourse (E-discourse): Spoken, written or a new hybrid? PROSPECTADELAIDE, vol. 17(3), pp. 45–68.
[16] Lee, L. (2002). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on non-native discourse interaction. System, vol. 30, pp. 275–288. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00015-5
[17] Averianova, I. (2012). The language of electronic communication and its implications for TEFL. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 34, pp. 14–19. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.004
[18] Crystal, D. (2008). Txting: The gr8 db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[19] Russmann, U., Svensson, J. (2017). Introduction to Visual Communication in the Age of Social Media: Conceptual, Theoretical and Methodological Challenges. Media and Communication, vol. 5(4), pp. 1–5. URL: doi: 10.17645/mac.v5i4.1263
[20] Feng, D. (2017). Basic Questions of Multimodal Discourse Analysis. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, vol. 39 (3), pp. 1–11. URL: DOI: 10.12002/j.bisu.095
[21] Kress, G. (2009). What Is Mode? A Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. N. Y.: Routledge.
[22] Voroshilova, A. (2016). Content analysis of parenting image on a social network, in 10th international days of statistics and economics. Prague: Melandrium.
[23] Sychova, E., Plotnikova, A. (2018). Communicative and Pragmatic Specificity of Self-Presentation Models (by Example of Stephen Fry’s Microblog ”Twitter”). Nauchnyi dialog, vol. 12, pp. 166–178. URL: DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2018-12-166-178