Se x arabchat
With chatrooms, language itself may be going through new and rapid development – or, on the other hand, enthusiasts may be taking advantage of a brief experimental moment, acquiring expertise in communicative techniques which prove to be short-lived.
It is thought that the first humans may have exchanged information through both aural articulation and gesture: crude grunts and hand signals.In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries there were several proposals with labels which tended to signal the desperation of their authors: ‘ding-dong’, ‘bow-wow’ and ‘yo-he-ho’ theories (Barber, 1972), each attempting to explain in general social terms the origin of language.While such conjecture must always remain unresolved, the rapid changes in communicative technologies in the late twentieth century, together with their markedly social or participatory bias, allows us to glimpse once again the intriguing degree to which ordinary people are willing to push the limits of communicative systems.Certainly, chatroom communication (and its more recent take-up in mobile telephony’s SMSing) very obviously separates from traditional language through regulated processes of word corruption and its compensatory use of abbreviations and emoticons. What does it mean that such innovation can arise in such a short time span?(I explore emoticons in Case Study Three and abbreviations and other language parts in Case Study Seven). And are these limited, or generalisable, features of modern language use?
Beginning with an understanding of the following linguistic theories: Semiotic Analysis, Speech Act Theory (SA), Discourse Analysis (DA), Conversational Analysis (CA); several schools of text analysis theory, including Reading-response Theory, and techniques of technology analysis, especially Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC), this thesis discusses how conversation in the text-based chatroom milieu differs from every day ‘casual’ conversation in a number of respects.