Linguistic Characteristics of Online Communication: A Cohesive Analysis
Point-B: Linguistic Characterization
Beyond a pragmatic approach, this analysis examines the linguistic elements that underpin the fundamental characteristics of text as an act of communication: cohesion and alignment.
A. Policy
At the morphological level, the text demonstrates correct use of alignment morphemes between various elements at the phrase and sentence levels. There’s also proper use of coordinated and subordinated bonds (e.g., “a computer thing,” line 1; “email and Internet,” line 3).
Cohesion is intensified by discourse organizers or connectors, which emphasize consistency. These vary in type: “as if” (line 3) signifies modal character; “at first” (line 4) denotes temporality; “but” (line 7) introduces counterarguments; “even” (line 5) is summative; and “but perhaps” (line 7) introduces doubt, while “de facto” (line 11) and “certainly” (line 11) offer confirmation.
Semantically, lexical elements reinforce links between discourse units through deixis. Textual deixis is present in nouns like “thing” (line 1), an example of pro forma. However, the most common deixis relies on pronouns, particularly those in an anaphoric relation (e.g., “when which,” line 4). The indefinite pronoun “any” also plays this role cataphorically, as does the neutral “what” (“what lies…,” line 7).
Importantly, deixis establishes a relationship between the text and the extra-textual communicative situation. The use of “one” suggests a stable relationship between sender and receiver, given the impersonal nature of the semantics. Similarly, “our” (line 23) implies involvement of both sender and receiver.
Spatial deixis is evident in terms like “Babel” and references to smaller spaces like “airport” and “bathroom.” “Babel” also carries a temporal reference, contrasted with the recent era of computing.
Personal-collective deixis, signaling the receiver, is present in terms like “people-mail” and “God.” The latter refers to an entity monitoring humanity, carrying social connotations.
Lexical relationships, in form and content, are crucial for textual cohesion. Enumerations are present (e.g., the list in line 2, lacking accents, capitalization, and proper formatting), recurring throughout the text with deictic value. There are instances of derivation (“think-thought,” “syntax-syntactic”), hierarchical relationships (e.g., the hypernym “misuse” and its hyponyms in line 20), synonymy (“bathroom, toilet,” lines 10-11), and antonymy (“know-confused,” line 13).
The relationship between real and imaginary terms, established through tropes or lexical substitutions, is significant. While not overly poetic, these resources are effective: “Dadaist rant” (line 17), “seem aphasics” (line 3), and “God strikes again” (line 24) all carry irony. The phrase “Our Babel is the computer” (line 23) offers broad interpretative possibilities, highlighting the real-imaginary relationship.
In conclusion, keywords like “computing” and “linguistic improprieties” encapsulate the text’s focus. The analysis demonstrates clear textual cohesion achieved through various linguistic devices.