Monday, 5 May 2014

History of Discourse Analysis




Discourse Analysis was emerged in 1970s. In the first full decade of its existence, a number of key studies were published: Brown and Yule (1983), de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981), Stubbs (1983) and van Dijk (1986). Moreover, two journals have published; Discourse Process (from 1970s) and Texts (from 1980). This field of study is still new as it contributes to the systematic linguistic analysis of spoken and written form. This field of study requires systematic analysis of both spoken and written discourse.

However, despite of this, there was a writing published in France in 1964 (Communication 4): a new critical analysis of Propp by Bremond, an application of modern linguistics and semantics to literature by Todorov, the well-known extension to the analysis of film by Metz, the famous rhetorical analysis of publicity pictures by Barthes, and finally the first introduction to new discipline of semiotics semiologie which was also by Barthes. Furthermore, during that period, it was also other few writings and publications produced on structuralism and its theory in text analysis.

In the early 1970s, there was several publication on systematic discourse analysis. The discovery in linguistics on speech acts contributes to the development of discourse analysis during this time. This development includes the social context, defining speaker's attentions, beliefs and relate them to the relationship of speaker and listener. This new dimension as added a pragmatic orientation in discourse analysis.

The development continues on its grammatical framework itself. This includes the study of pronouns, cohesion markers, semantic coherence, presupposition, topic and also the comments. It led for a broader study of textlinguistics and discourse.

Meanwhile, in the early 1970s, there was development of sociology on the analysis of everyday conversation. The conversational analysis included the early structure and formal approaches to the structure of sentences and it was then provide first elements of grammar of verbal interaction.


Reference:

Sunday, 4 May 2014

Gender and Discourse



Do men and women produce different linguistic forms and functions?
Do they have a different way of interacting when they talk?
Do women speak differently when men are around?
Do men speak differently when women are around?

Gender differences in language

1)      Traditional terms of address : Mr. (men) –no term for marital status of men
                                                  : Mrs (married women) and Miss (unmarried women)
2)      Pronoun ‘He’ : used to identify when sex is unknown
3)      Terms for both sexes: Actor and author can be applied to both sexes but actress/authoress cannot.

Linguistics differences

1)      Pronunciation: dialect, prestige forms, vocabulary choice, variation of pitch and swearing.
2)      Vocabulary: Women use more precise color terms, more affective adjectives, more markers of politeness (and euphemisms), more hedges (well, kind of) and more tag questions (isn’t it, don’t you) compared to men.



Interactional differences

Men
1)      Tell fewer stories,
2)      Topics: sports, cars, technology, travel, their achievements
3)      More technical language, swearing, taboo language, comical incidents
4)      Pay less attention to details and avoid personal talk
5)      Competitive  

Women:
1)      Tell more stories with eye contact
2)      Topic: family, personal information, emotional issues such as fear and embarrassment, gossip
3)      Talk about men and women
4)      Non-competitive

Mixed talk

Men: Longer turns, more expressive, different topics and less taboo language

Women: More taboo language.

Source taken from: 
http://aggslanguage.wordpress.com/gender-interaction-theory-%E2%80%93-holmes-tannen-cameron-defrancisco/





 

Bits and Pieces of Discourse Analysis


Salam folks!
Thank you for staying tune with this blog! In this section of blog, we intend to let you venture yourselves more into the Discourse Analysis course module, in depth, insha Allah.



Talking about Discourse Analysis.... Ah, discourse! What an elude term to be defined and captured. Or, rather, it inspires a whole mess of varying definitions -- most of which serve only to make it even more mysterious, more elusive!

However, in discourse analysis it is essential to acknowledge the difference between spoken words, painted pictures, tuned music, written sentences (and many more), thus different means of communication hold different ways of influence. It is also essential to acknowledge that texts are not meaningful individually: it is interconnected with other texts (Phillips N & Hardy C, 2002).

Discourse analysis is a qualitative method, which is more concentrating on meaning of data than to the generality of the data. The word discourse was first used in 1950’s Zellig Harris, but it became scientifically accepted in Europe through the writings of Michel Foucault in his book “The Archaeology of Knowledge” in 1969. There goes a 'lil bit of History there!


Discourse Again and Again!

Why is it so important for us to first, understand the nature of discourse? Because discourse can be anything from a grunt or single expletive, through short conversations and scribbled notes right up to novels or a lengthy legal case.

Discourse Analysis is the study of discourse, or language used by members of a speech community, it looks at both language form and function, and includes the study of both spoken interaction and written texts. Well.. To sound very intact, it is a cross-disciplinary field, originally developing from Sociolinguistics, Anthropology, Sociology and Social Psychology. Much language study and most of language teaching has always been devoted to sentences.

However, it is obvious that there is more to using language, and communicating successfully with other people, than being able to produce correct sentences.

We provide some illustrations below to give a clearer picture of what the whole idea of discourse is all about..!



           Illustration 1

A.
Chicken marmalade. That’s a funny looking dress. Inconsistent. Come here honey. Discourse may be composed of one or more well-formed sentences which are grammatically correct. I hate that man! My toes hurt. Revenge. Who’s your great uncle?

B.
Zidane stood and waited to see what would happen, but he pulled off his captain’s armband, indicating that he knew he was going to be expelled. Argentine referee Horacio Elizondo consulted the assistant, then ran over to Zidane, reached into his back pocket for the red card and brandished it at the player. Zidane’s World Cup, and his career, were over. He trudged to the sideline, stripping the bandage off his wrist while doing so. He did not argue the call.



Now.. which of the above texts is more cohesive? Which is coherent? Which one is discourse?

A piece of language is said to be coherent (therefore discourse) if it has a discernible, unified meaning. A piece of discourse is said to be cohesive if its components (ie. sentences/phrases/words) are bound together through linguistic and non-linguistic features to form a unified whole.
To make it more understandable.. We must also know some components of discourse devices which enable us to identify meanings in discourse and to also be participative in a particular discourse, mentally and verbally. So.. Obviously, it is safe to say that Illustration B is more cohesive, coherent and can be called a discourse due to all the criteria mentioned!

Important Tools!
In Discourse Analysis, there are few important elements (or aspects) that are coming into picture upon completing the task of analysis and they are;
Cohesion and Cohesive Devices
A stretch of language becomes discourse when it has unity and coherence.
Coherence is achieved in discourse by contextual features outside the language as well as formal links within the discourse. Such formal links within text that links sentences/clauses are known as cohesive devices. The purpose of cohesive devices is to hold parts of the discourse together in order to achieve overall unity.
Among the most common cohesive devices are:

            i.    verb formii. parallelism
iii. referring expressions
iv. repetition and lexical chains
v. substitution
vi. ellipsis
vii. Conjunction

i. Verb form
Cohesion is attained in a piece of discourse by the forms of the verbs used. The form of the verb in one sentence limits the choice of verbs form in the next. Depending on the time frame to which the piece of discourse alludes, the verbs used in it need to conform to the particular tense.

e.g.
Speaker 1: Right, who’s going to arrange the transport?
                 Well, someone’s gotta do it.
Speaker 2: I’m not going to.
Speaker 1: Come on, will you?

All the verbs are in the present. There is an apparent degree of formal connection between them, a way in which the first tense conditions all the others.
It would be quite strange if the conversation had been:

Speaker 1: Right, who’s going to arrange the transport?
                 Well, someone had gotta do it.
Speaker 2: I shan’t have been going to.
Speaker 2: Don’t! Come on, will you?

ii. Parallelism
Another link in discourse is created by parallelism, a device which effects a connection simply by repeating the form of the sentences/clauses

e.g.
Pregnant women get emotional very easily. They get emotional if you raise your voice at them. They get emotional if you do something romantic. They get emotional if you notice they are eating a lot. They get emotional if you tell them they look beautiful. They get emotional if you are too protective. They get emotional if you are not protective enough.

What links the sentences in the above discourse?
Parallelism is often used in speeches, prayers, poetry and advertisements. It can have a powerful emotional effect, and it is also very useful as a memory aid.
Parallelism, which achieves cohesion by an echo of form, is not restricted to grammatical form.

e.g.
A.
Georgie Porgie pudding and pie
Kissed the girls and made them cry
When the boys came out to play
Georgie Porgie ran away

B.
Speaker 1: We would like to take this opportunity to wish you the best of luck
Speaker 2: Go break a leg man!

iii. Referring expressions
The meanings of some words can be decoded only by referring to other words or elements of the context which are clear to both the speaker and listener.
The most obvious example of this are third person pronouns – she/her/hers/herself , he/him/his/himself, it/its/itself
Sometimes, more than a knowledge of the meaning of the word is necessary to decipher the meanings of referring expressions

e.g.
Then they burnt it.
Referring expressions can be anaphoric, cataphoric or exophoric

Anaphoric references are those that refer back to elements mentioned earlier in the discourse. (ana means “upwards” and phor means “to carry.”)

e.g.
The passengers presented themselves for checking before boarding the plane.
Cataphoric references are those that refer to elements that are mentioned after them. (cata means ‘downwards’)

e.g.
This is what she said – our teacher is a raving lunatic!

Exophoric references are those that refer to elements outside the text. (exo means ‘outside’)

e.g.
Finally, on 7 May 1945, Germany surrendered to the Allied Forces

iv. Repetition and lexical chains
The same sort of link as pronouns can be created by the repetition of words.
Native speakers are, however, often discouraged from repeating the same word as it is considered ‘bad style’. What is encouraged is ‘elegant repetition’ where synonyms or more general words/phrases are used.

e.g.
Dice the mangoes into large cubes. Arrange the diced mango cubes on a plate, in any pattern you like. Pour whipped cream over the diced mango cubes.

Referring expressions, repetitions and elegant repetitions all establish cohesion by creating ‘chains’ of connected words/clauses. Such lexical chains can also consist of words that associate with each other by virtue of some formal semantic connection.

e.g.
Four legs good. Two legs bad.

v. Substitution
Another type of cohesive device is the substitution of one word with another.

e.g.
Speaker 1: Which shirt shall I wear today?
Speaker 2: The maroon one.
Speaker 2: You also like that one then?
Speaker 1: Yes, I do! I think It suits you better.
Speaker 2: I think so too.

vi. Ellipsis
Sometimes, it is not necessary to provide a substitution for a word/phrase which has already been mentioned. It is simply omitted, but can be reconstructed quite successfully.
Omitting part of a sentence on the assumption that an earlier sentence or context will make the meaning clear is known as ellipsis. Ellipsis is also referred to as ‘substitution by zero’.

e.g.
Speaker 1: Have you been shopping girls? What did you buy on your [shopping] spree?
Speaker 2: I bought jewelry and Zee [bought] clothes,
Speaker 3: Clothes? You already have more than enough [clothes], and you bought more [clothes]?

vii. Conjunction
Conjunctions are another type of cohesive device. They draw explicit attention to the type of relation which exists between one sentence/clause and another.

e.g.

First, peel and clean the potatoes. Then bake them. A conventional oven is best. However, a microwave oven will also do. Potatoes burn easily, so make sure you keep a close watch on the timer!




All of the elements/aspects mentioned are also the ones that we learnt in our Discourse Analysis course (ENGL 4635) under the tutelage of Dr. Haja Mohideen, few semesters back. Hence, we think that it is important to include in this section.

We hope you are enlightened by what we share here, stay tune with the next entries for more info rmation on Discourse Analysis module.

Till then,
Wassalam. 



Source taken from: 
http://www.azlifa.com/discourse-and-pragmatics-lecture-1/

Sunday, 27 April 2014

Computer Mediated Communication (Task 1)

Title : Impact of Task Types and CMC Technology on Exchange Quality: An Empirical Investigation
Author : Payal Mehra
Journal : Research, volume 32, number 1, January – March 2010
Purpose of study :
The purposes of this study are to:-
• examine the perceived satisfaction of employees with respect to new media, in particular, e-mail and instant messaging (IM) on these exchange dimensions
• compare media choices for information-related tasks which are information generation, information exchange and decision making.
• report trends relating to communication in a computer-mediated environment.

Statement of problem : Some questions arise when people doubt about the capability of  CMC in improving exchange quality which is the quality of relationship and interaction between members.

Research Questions :
1)      What is the perceived satisfaction of employees with respect to new media specificallt Email and Instant Messaging (IM) on these exchange dimensions?
2)      What is the choice of media for the information-related task?
3)       What are the trends relating to communication in a computer-mediated environment

Methodology :
1)      In this research, the first method chose was by using E-mail and Instant Messaging to investigate on the relationship of those two variables in which the independent variable comprise frequency of use of media, media familiarity, media choice for task performance on relational and economic dimensions, strength of the relational ties among group members, and quality of information sharing while dependent variable is the quality of exchange.  there are two types of CMC are used which are E-mail and Instant Messaging (IM)
2)      The second method used was questionnaire which functions to measure perceptions of managers related to each of them.

Sampling/population/participants
The participants of this research were the knowledgeable workers who were working in a computer-enabled organization and who had regular access to e-mail. The subjects were junior, middle, and senior level employees who worked in teams in organizations of repute.

Finding & Discussion
1)      Information generation task and exchange quality
-          Majority of the participants (225) chose to use face-to face (FtF) communication for tasks that involved ideas generation and information discovery while for online brainstorming was preferred only by 118 respondents
2)      Information sharing and exchange quality
-          CMC was preferred by most of the respondents (282) as for information exchange. Meanwhile, FtF was only preferred by only 74 respondents.
3)      Decision making and exchange quality
-          Most respondents (255) preferred the CMC media for decision making; those preferring FtF were 84 in number
4)      There is a positive and significant association between frequent e-mail communication and exchange quality on idea generation, information sharing, and decision-making tasks.
Frequent use of e-mail may lead to devise newer ways to stay in touch (such as social networking) in which it leads to clarification of thought and ideas. Frequent e-mail communication leads to media familiarity which in turn improves social interaction at the workplace
5)      Frequent IM communication has no significant association with information generation and exchange tasks but it is positively associated with the decision-making task.
6)      Majority of the respondents chose FtF communication rather than CMC mode to generate ideas and brainstorm tasks. However, for task that involves routine exchange and decision-making, CMC is preferred over the FtF.

 Comments :
From this research, it is clearly shows the demanding of CMC in the workforce is raising up from time to time. In fact, it also shows that people in this multipolar world are now growing up with the advancement of technology. Thus, they become fully aware on the usage of CMC in their working field especially in the usage of E-mail.



Wednesday, 23 April 2014

Computer Mediated Communication (Task 2) 
Speech Acts in Email Communication: How English Speakers Negotiate Meanings and Develop Understanding

 
Introduction
 Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) has emerged as a powerful, helpful and assistive medium in facilitating communication and interaction, globally. Many researches have proved that CMC has been enhancive in terms of interaction quality and efficacy.  Although few concerns were raised in regards to its efficiency to be compared to ‘natural conversation’ or face-to-face communication, CMC stands tall as a medium of communication with its own merits. Rodriquez and Robina (1992) have justified the need for scholars within the discipline of communication to study computer-mediated communication when they argue, "Communication science studies the relationship between messages and people. More and more of these messages are being transmitted by computer networks; and more and more people are finding themselves caught up in the global network of networks" (p. 1).
This paper aims to explore the quality of communication exchanges with respect to one of the CMC mode which fall under the asynchronous category, Email. Relying on the corpus (Email) as a material of analysis, this paper uses a component of Discourse Analysis course which is speech acts to analyse the Email conversation (see Appendix).  This paper also aims to see the relationship built between the Email correspondents based on their conversation and to further explore the significance of CMC and its relation towards daily communication and message conveyance effectiveness.  
Meanwhile, the objectives of this paper are as the following:
  1. To explore the quality of information exchanges by using CMC medium (mode: Email)
  2. To identify types of speech acts used by the correspondents in their Emails conversation.
  3. To investigate the correspondents’ dogmatic  status and level of authoritativeness

Thus, the research question of this study are:
  1. What is the quality information exchanges by using CMC medium (mode: Email)?
  2. what are the types of speech acts used by correspondents in the Emails conversation?
  3. What is the correspondents' dogmatic status and their level of authoritativeness?

This research used Email which is the most popular Internet tool as the mode of the study. It is used to exchange messages between individuals such as employers, employees, students and teachers in any organizations and schools. The nine pages long Email that has been analysed was on the conversation between the former employee and the public editor from New York Times. The former employee demanded for correction on the article that has been written about four years ago on NYTimes.com. The article claimed that he has been fired from Microsoft when in fact he was quit.
The corpus which is an Email between the former employee and the public editor from New York Times has been analysed based on the speech acts framework. According to Green (2007), speech acts are part of Discourse Analysis that is the staple of everyday communicative life and the phenomenon of importance for students of language and communication. They are the act of communications to express certain attitudes and the types of speech acts being performed corresponds to the type of attitudes being expressed.
 The corpus was analysed based on the illocutionary speech acts. According to Bach, “the levels of action beyond the act of utterance distinguished based on what one does in saying something”. In other words, illocutionary acts are the social function beyond the utterance. Based on the Levinson’s explanation, illocutionary acts have been divided into five major categories which are Representatives, Directives, Commissives, Expressives and Declaration (Justova, 2006).
1) Representatives are utterances which commit the hearer to the truth of the expressed proposition such as asserting and concluding.
2) Directives are attempts by the speaker to get the addressee to do something such as ordering and requesting.
3)   Commissives commit the speaker to some future course of action such as promising and offering.
4)   Expressives express a psychological state such as thanking and congratulating.
5)  Declarations effect immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs and which tend to rely on elaborate extra-linguistic institutions.

 
Methodology
This research is a quantitative research analysis where it focusses on analysing nine pages email transcript as the corpus. The corpus was selected from an email conversation between Mr. Arthur Bovino, Office of Public Editor, New York Times and Mr. Bennett Heselton.
This corpus is categorized on the speech acts specifically on the Illocutionary Acts. The Illocutionary Acts consist of five types. They are Representative, Directive, Commissive, Expressive and Declarative. The number of each category is counted on their frequencies and percentages. It is then put into the table and presented in the Finding section.

 
Literature Review
            In today’s world where the advancement of technology is growing up so fast, people tend to use all this kind of technologies to ease up their interaction with other people form different place at different times. There are various works and research concern on the relationship of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and people interactions. For instance, there is one study done by Payal Mehra which investigates on the effect of CMC on the quality of organizational communication at the workplace. She used Email and Instant Messaging (IM) as the modes of investigation and the aspects that were being investigated were information generation, information exchange and decision making. According to Mehra (2010), “frequent use of e-mail may lead to devise newer ways to stay in touch (such as social networking), thereby improving the quality of group exchange in the long run. Frequent e-mail communication leads to media familiarity which in turn improves social interaction at the workplace”. The recipients are becoming more motivated to know about the sender which eventually leads to the establishments of better group relations due to a reduced cues environment offered by CMC.
            From CMC, the speech acts from the conversationalists can also be observed. Speech acts do not only occurs through face-to-face interaction but they also happen through Email, Social Networking Sites, Instant Messaging, etc. Speech act as defined by Johnstone (2002) as the language that people use either in spoken or written form to mean of doing thins or actions such as apologizing, promising, threatening, and requesting. Speech acts is also used to interpret the meaning of the conversation and manage the relationships between the communicators (Johnstone, 2002).


Results

            Based on Table 1, it is clearly shown that Representatives speech act is the most frequently used by both of the interlocutors with 44 times. Next, the second higher speech act is Directives with 17 times of occurrences. Expressives speech act fall under the third rank of occurrences which is 10 times followed by Commissives speech acts which take place only 5 times. Nevertheless, there is no occurrence on Declarative speech act by both interlocutors.

            Graph 1 represents the percentage on the usage of speech acts by both interlocutors. For Representatives speech act, Bovino shows higher percentage of usage with 59% compared to Haselton which is only 41%. Secondly, Directives speech act is used more by Haselton with 81% while Bovino only used 12%.  There is equal usage of Expressive speech act used by both Bovino and Haselton with 50% each. In Commissives speech act, Bovino is the only one who used it. However, both interlocutors did not use declarative speech act throughout their communication. 

 

Discussion

In answering the research questions mentioned in the introduction, the graph is made as presented in the Appendix. For research question 1:  what is the quality information exchanges by using CMC medium (mode: Email)? Based on the Email conversation between Mr. Bennet Heselton and Mr. Arthur Bovino, it has achieved its information exchange. Mr. Heselton managed to make an inquiry by sending emails to the New York Times and he managed to get responses for his inquiry. However, in this case, he still did not achieve its goal, that is to correct the statement published in New York Times’s article. Thus, the information exchange took place in the email conversation. However, it is still did not achieved the goal of making an inquiry to correct the statements published in the article.

On the other hand, for the research question 2: What are the types of speech acts used by correspondents in the Emails conversation? Based on the result gained from the corpus analysis, it is found that Mr.Bennet Haselton had used several relevant speech acts; 18 times Representative, 15 times Directives, 5 times Expressives, and both 0 time for Commissives and Declarations. As the email suggests, Mr. Bennet is inquiring on his concerns about getting a correction for an online piece that was written four years ago, hence, based on the Email, we can see that many times Mr. Haselton imposes questions, claims statements and clarifies issues.

Specifically, for representative speech acts, Mr. Haselton uses the acts of affirming, claiming, denying, disagreeing, informing, insisting and stating in his Email contents. This shows that Mr. Haselton wants to stand for his rights and tries to provide clarity for Mr. Bovino as well as seeks to settle the issues. For example, in one of Mr. Haselton’s Email to Mr. Bovino dated Nov 5 2004, “The discussion we've been having ever since then, was whether you would correct the online copy of the article”, Mr. Haselton here is using the representatives speech act, which is stating. Other than that, most of the time, Mr. Haselton, as a person who wants to know the progress and status of the issue, does a lot of inquiring and questioning, directly falls under the speech act category of directives, i.e, on Mr. Haselton’s Email dated Oct 19 2004; “I'm sorry, but I never heard back from him after we talked on the phone.  Did he send me an email after July 22nd?  If he did, it must have been blocked or lost somehow; if you still have a copy, can you re-send it?”

Finally, based on the analysis, the frequency of expressive speech act used is the same for both correspondents, Mr. Haselton and Mr. Bovino where thanking act is involved. Taken from the Email excerpt dated Jul 22 2004; “Thanks for the follow-up and feel free to contact me any time you need technical information for any pieces about security or Internet technology in general”, here, Mr. Haselton, the person who initiate the conversation and the person who is in need of information and clarification is still practicing virtues by thanking the Email receiver.

Overall, the whole Email correspondence shows to the reader that the conversation was done successfully by the correct use of language and speech acts practiced by the correspondents. It implies that the conversation, although through Email and not face-to-face conversation, is still working and successful by having both parties understood the message conveyance and deliverance. By the usage of few speech acts by Mr. Haselton (as mentioned before), it adds up to the relevance of the discourse and it implies certain level or mood of formality and integrity. Hence, it can be said that, Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) is in a par excellent of real life communication and it acts as a mode of successful interaction or communication exchanges.

On the other hand, Mr. Arthur Bovino has higher percentage of Representative speech acts than Mr. Bennett Haselton. Mr Bovino has 26 times of making Representative speech acts whereas Mr. Heselton made only 18 times. This is because Mr. Bovino has to answer the Mr. Heselton questions and informing the progress of the Mr. Heselton’s request on his problem. Example of Mr. Bovino’s answer to Mr. Heselton is “Yes, this is most certainly a monitored e-mail address account.

In contrast, Mr. Bovino rarely made Directive speech acts in the Email conversation compared to Mr. Heselton (15 times). As Mr. Bovino is more simply fulfilling and answering Mr. Heselton’s requests and questions, only two times he made the directive type of speech acts. Example of Mr. Arthur’s Directive speech acts is “You’ll have to explain to me why you’re writing us again”.

Besides that, Mr. Bovino has made five times of Commissive speech acts, whereas it is found that Mr. Heselton did not make any Commissive speech acts. This significance number of percentage gained is because Mr. Bovino made many times of promising and agreeing to the request of Mr. Heselton upon his request to correct the statement in the article published in New York Times.com. Example of Mr. Arthur’s promise is “I have e-mailed Mr. Apcar about your concern and hope to have an answer for you toward the end of that week.”

Moreover, both of the person involve in this Email conversation has the same number of percentage of Expressive speech acts (50%). This similarity is due to both person did the apologizing and thanking among them as to show respect and neutralize the situation. ”Sorry for the delayed response.” is an example of Mr. Bovino’s apologize to Mr. Heselton in the Email conversation. Furthermore, another similarity is both individual did not perform any kind of declarative type of speech acts because they did not perform any act of declaration which caused the immediate effect in this Email conversation.

          For the research question 3: What are the correspondents' dogmatic status and their level of authoritativeness? Based on the findings presented above, Mr. Bovino has higher dogmatic status because he has more facts in answering the inquiry made by Mr. Heselton. However, he answered negatively to the inquiry as he kept delaying making responses and refused to fulfill the Mr. Heselton’s inquiry. Meanwhile, Mr. Heseltion has higher authoritativeness as he made inquiry to the New York Times to correct statements in the article which was published in the New York Times website as it nearly cost him a job for the false statement made. He has right to request for the correction for the article published.


 
Conclusion
            As a conclusion, Computer-Mediated Communication has become a part of everyday life as it can influence communication patterns and social networks. It is proven that Email is an effective tool of communication between people in various contexts. This is because both interlocutors did not have to arrange for any appointments to settle the problem that has occurred since computer-mediated communication is as effective as face-to-face communication. The usage of speech acts are still being observed by communicators even though it is only computer-mediated communication.

References

 
Bach, K. (n.d.). Speech Acts. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy : http://online.sfsu.edu/kbach/spchacts.html
Green, M. (2007, July 3). Speech Acts. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/
Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell
Justova, V 2006, Direct and indirect speech acts in English. Ph. D thesis, Masaryk University in Brno
Mehra, P. (2010). The impact of Task Types and CMC Technology on Exchange Quality: An Empirical Investigation. Research , 31-52.
Rodriquez, G. & Robina S. (1992). Communications, computers and networks. Communication Research Trends, 13, 1-32.
  
Appendix

 
Corpus

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:59:42 -0800 To: public@nytimes.com From: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org Subject: to ombudsman re: correction from 2000
Dear Ombudsman, I got this email address from John Schwartz at the New York Times, when I asked where I should write to request a correction. I'm trying to get an online piece corrected that was written about four yeras ago.  In May 2000, Michael Brick wrote an article for TheStreet.com, picked up by NYTimes.com, about an Internet Explorer cookie hole that I found: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/16tsc-soft.html. The article claims at the end that I was fired from Microsoft, when in fact I quit.  The author claims he got that impression from talking to me, and refused to change it after the article was published.  I tried following up with other people I knew at NYTimes.com but kept hitting dead ends, so eventually I gave up. Anyway, recently it *almost* cost me a job when someone looked up my name and found the article claiming I'd been fired from Microsoft, so I wanted to make a renewed attempt to get the article corrected. -Bennett
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 03:46:50 -0800 To: public@nytimes.com From: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org Subject: Re: to ombudsman re: correction from 2000
Is this a monitored email address?  I sent the email below six weeks ago and never received a response. -Bennett
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 14:19:49 -0400 To: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org From: Public public@nytimes.com Subject: Re: to ombudsman re: correction from 2000
Dear Mr. Haselton, yes, this is most certainly a monitored e-mail address account. I send your concern to the senior editor in charge of corrections, Bill Borders who informed me that the article you mention never actually appeared in the paper but only on NYTimes.com. The matter has thus been relayed to Len Apcar, the editor of NYTimes.com who unfortunately will be away through April 14th. I have e-mailed Mr. Apcar about your concern and hope to have an answer for you toward the end of that week.
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino, Office of the Public Editor
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:59:02 -0700 To: Public public@nytimes.com From: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org Subject: Re: to ombudsman re: correction from 2000
Hi, Thanks for letting me know about the status. I assume Mr. Apcar is back now -- have you heard anything back from him? –Bennett
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 20:45:12 -0400 To: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org From: Public public@nytimes.com Subject: Re: to ombudsman re: correction from 2000
Dear Mr. Haselton, I'm checking in with Mr. Apcar and hope to have a response next week. Sorry for the delayed response.
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino, Office of the Public Editor, The New York Times (212)556-7652
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 15:00:01 -0400 To: bennett@peacefire.org From: Public public@nytimes.com Subject: to ombudsman re: correction from 2000
Dear Mr. Haselton, Thank you for your patience. I include a response from Mr. Apcar regarding your concern: I reached Michael Brick, the staff writer on the story several years ago involving Mr. Haselton. Michael says this has come up before and that Michael is fully confident of the accuracy of the story.  In his view he stands by the characterization of Mr. Haselton's departure from Microsoft and there is absolutely nothing to correct.
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino, Office of the Public Editor 
From: "Bennett Haselton" bhas@speakeasy.net To: "Public" public@nytimes.com Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 20:41:28 +0000 Subject: Re: to ombudsman re: correction from 2000
Huh -- is that all they do, is just go back and ask the original reporter, and if the reporter says it's OK, then they leave it?  But of course the reporter is always going to say that. Is there any way to get somebody to actually fact-check it, independent of the reporter? -Bennett
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:53:14 -0400 To: bennett@peacefire.org From: Public public@nytimes.com Subject: to ombudsman re: correction from 2000
Dear Mr. Haselton, I noted your concern to Mr. Okrent. I am sorry, we would like to be helpful, but this matter has come down to your word against Mr. Brick's and Microsoft will not comment because this is a personnel issue.
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino, Office of the Public Editor
From: "Bennett Haselton" bhas@speakeasy.net To: "Public" public@nytimes.com Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:38:32 +0000 Subject: Re: to ombudsman re: correction from 2000
I talked to Microsoft and they also have an alumni division, which I'm a member of -- if you quit of your own accord, you can join the alumni association, but if you're fired, you can't.  So since I'm a member, the alumni association can vouch for the fact that I resigned voluntarily.  If you put me in touch with a fact-checker, can I put them in touch with the Microsoft Alumni Association? -Bennett
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:53:27 -0700 To: "Public" public@nytimes.com From: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org Subject: Re: to ombudsman re: correction from 2000
Hi, I didn't hear back about this -- I'd still like to know, if I put the fact-checkerin touch with the Microsoft Alumni division so they can confirm their records show that I left voluntarily? –Bennett
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:54:45 -0400 To: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org From: Public public@nytimes.com Subject: Re: to ombudsman re: correction from 2000
Dear Mr. Haselton, I'll follow up once again.
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino, Office of the Public Editor
From: "Bennett Haselton" bhas@speakeasy.net To: "Public" public@nytimes.com Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:09:28 +0000 Subject: Re:  to ombudsman re: correction from 2000
Thanks, I appreciate your time.
From: "Bennett Haselton" bhas@speakeasy.net To: borders@nytimes.com, public@nytimes.com Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 18:52:29 +0000 Subject: just heard from Nicole; thanks
Hi Bill and Arthur, Just heard from Nicole and she said you did call and confirm that I had left MS in good standing; thanks. I think the article did tend to make me sound like a disgrunted fired employee who got revenge by taking proprietary company secrets and publicizing them.  One other thing he didn't mention is that I found the Internet Explorer security hole several months after quitting Microsoft, on my own time.  It wasn't based on anything proprietary that I learned while I worked there. Publicizing proprietary company information is grossly unethical, and not something I would ever consider -- not to mention the fact that I would be virtually guaranteed to be sued by Microsoft for everything I owned. Thanks for the follow-up and feel free to contact me any time you need technical information for any pieces about security or Internet technology in general, even if you decide not to quote me :) –Bennett
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:06:08 -0400 To: bennett@peacefire.org From: Public public@nytimes.com Subject: Re: just heard from Nicole; thanks
Dear Mr. Haselton, Thanks for the note.
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino, Office of the Public Editor
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:29:19 -0700 To: borders@nytimes.com, public@nytimes.com From: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org Subject: Re: just heard from Nicole; thanks
Hi Bill and Arthur, I hadn't heard anything since we talked on the phone a month ago -- did you get the information you needed from Nicole with the Microsoft Alumni group? -Bennett
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:34:28 -0400 To: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org From: Public public@nytimes.com Subject: Re: just heard from Nicole; thanks
Dear Bennett, It was my understanding that Mr. Borders had spoken with you and resolved this issue. Mr. Borders is away on vacation until Thursday. You are welcome to contact us then when I might speak with him.
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino, Office of the Public Editor, The New York Times
From: "Bennett Haselton" bhas@speakeasy.net To: "Public" public@nytimes.com Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:05:13 +0000 Subject: Re:  just heard from Nicole; thanks
He called me on the phone and he sounded like he was thinking about making the correction, or at least looking into it further, but after that I hadn't heard back from him yet. –Bennett
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:09:14 -0400 To: bennett@peacefire.org From: Public public@nytimes.com Subject: Re:  just heard from Nicole; thanks
Dear Bennett, As I said, Mr. Borders is on vacation. You're welcome to drop us a line on Thursday.
Sincerely, Arthur Bovino, Office of the Public Editor, The New York Times
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:51:06 -0700 To: borders@nytimes.com, public@nytimes.com From: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org Subject: after confirmation from Nicole?
Hi Bill and Arthur, A few weeks ago I heard from Nicole at the Microsoft alumni org, and she said she had confirmed with you on the phone that I had left Microsoft in good standing and wasn't fired.  Was there any other information I can provide?  (This is in reference to the article at http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/16tsc-soft.html which has says I was sacked at Microsoft...) -Bennett
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:36:18 -0400 To: Bennett Haselton <bennett@peacefire.org>
From: Public public@nytimes.com Subject: Re: after confirmation from Nicole?
Dear Mr. Haselton, Mr. Borders informed me that he had settled this issue with you quite some time ago so you'll have to explain to me why you're writing us again.
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino, Office of the Public Editor, The New York Times
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:25:53 -0700 To: Public public@nytimes.com From: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org Subject: Re: after confirmation from Nicole?
I'm sorry, but I never heard back from him after we talked on the phone.  Did he send me an email after July 22nd?  If he did, it must have been blocked or lost somehow; if you still have a copy, can you re-send it? The last I heard was that he had contacted Nicole and she confirmed that I left Microsoft in good standing.  So I was under the impression they were in the process of correcting the article at http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/16tsc-soft.html which says I was fired.  But then I never heard anything after that.  If he sent me an email it must not have been delivered somehow. –Bennett
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:35:15 -0400 To: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org From: Public public@nytimes.com Subject: Re: after confirmation from Nicole?
Dear Mr. Haselton, My understanding was that the phone conversation resolved the issue but I checked with Mr. Borders again today. Mr. Borders said that after quite a bit of investigation involving Mr. Brick and editors at the paper and at NYTimes.com, he is satisfied that the piece that offended you those years ago never appeared in The New York Times and that a correction is not warranted. As far as this office is concerned this matter is resolved.
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino, Office of the Public Editor, The New York Times
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:17:05 -0700 To: Public public@nytimes.com From: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org Subject: Re: after confirmation from Nicole?
I didn't get a response; can you confirm:  Are you saying that the Office of the Public Editor do NOT make corrections to content that was published on the Web site, they only handle corrections to stories that appeared in print? -Bennett
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:57:23 -0500 To: bennett@peacefire.org From: Public public@nytimes.com Subject: 10/20 Reader Concern
Dear Mr. Haselton, I checked in with Mr. Okrent and he indicated that we've said all we have to say on this subject.
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino, Office of the Public Editor, The New York Times
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:06:06 -0800 To: Public public@nytimes.com From: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org Subject: Re: 10/20 Reader Concern
You're not even going to give me a Yes or No answer to the question: "Do you handle corrections to the Web site in addition to the print edition?"  That's getting a bit silly, don't you think? –Bennett
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 01:13:39 -0500 To: Bennett Haselton <bennett@peacefire.org>
From: Public public@nytimes.com Subject: Re: 10/20 Reader Concern
Dear Mr. Haselton,
I don't think any of our repeated answers to you over these past months have given you any indication that we handle any matters in a "silly" manner. We have been responsive and followed up on your concern despite the fact that as we have indicated your concern is with coverage which occurred before the tenure of this office. While we are not in charge of corrections, relaying readers' concerns about corrections in print or on NYTimes.com has certainly become a part of what we do. As we have told you we contacted Len Apcar from the website and noted to you that he and Bill Borders do not believe a correction is warranted.
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino, Office of the Public Editor, The New York Times
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:58:40 -0800 To: Public public@nytimes.com From: Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org Subject: Re: 10/20 Reader Concern
I didn't think it was "silly" until after you and Bill Borders called Nicole on July 22 and she confirmed that I quit Microsoft in good standing.  Once you knew firsthand that the article was wrong, that's when things got really bizarre. First, I didn't hear anything until I wrote again on 10/16.  (That's fine, thatcould have been an oversight.) But then when I wrote to ask what happened, you said "this matter is resolved" because that the article "never appeared in the New York Times".  We had already established that in our emails back on April 5th!  The discussion we've been having ever since then, was whether you would correct the online copy of the article. Does Len Apcar even know that you and Bill Borders called Nicole and confirmed that I quit voluntarily?  I know he didn't want to do anything when he thought it was just my word against Michael Brick's, but now that you've called and verified firsthand that I wasn't fired, does he know that call took place?  If he does know, then how can he possibly say a correction to the web article is not warranted, when his own editors called and confirmed that it was wrong?
-Bennett


Analyzed Data


Mr. Bennett Haselton

Mr. Arthur Bovino
Total
Representative
18
26
44
Directives
15
2
17
Commissives
0
5
5
Expressives
5
5
10
Declarations
0
0
0

76
Table 1


 

 
 Graph 1