This article contextualizes the special issue of the journal by discussing the importance of language variables in the study of communication technology. It asserts three reasons to study technology: to see how technology changes language use, to see how social actors adapt to technology limitations and thereby bring into sharp focus basic social processes in human interaction, and to inform the design of technologies based on theories of language and the requirements of communication dynamics. Computer-mediated communication offers special opportunities for examining language and communication theory, in that online discourse is immune to many nonverbal communication elements that may confound language effects in speech. The role of language in communication technology research has been cyclical, with recent research refocusing on language data as evidence of human-computer interaction effects. Future research directions are suggested.
Bolter, J. D. (1991). Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing. Norwood, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
Cappella, J. N., & Palmer, M. Y. (1990). The structure and organization of verbal and non-verbal behavior: Data for models of production. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 141-161). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
3.
Colley, A., & Todd, Z. (2002). Gender-linked differences in the style and content of e-mails to friends. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 380-392.
4.
Dennis, A.R.,& Kinney, S.T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9, 256-274.
5.
Eveland, W. P. (2003). A “mix of attributes” approach to the study of media effects and new communication technologies. Journal of Communication, 53, 395-410.
6.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
7.
Guéguen, N., & Jacob, C. (2001). Fund-raising on the web: The effect of an electronic foot-in-the-door on donation. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 4, 705-709.
8.
Guéguen, N. (2003). Fund-raising on the Web: The effect of an electronic door-in-the-face technique on compliance to a request. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 6, 189-193.
9.
Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: Multitasking in wireless learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15, 46-65.
10.
Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision-making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225-252.
11.
Hinds, P. (1999). Some cognitive costs of video?Media Psychology, 1, 283-311.
12.
Howard, T. W. (1997). A rhetoric of electronic communities. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
13.
Jones, S. E., & LeBaron, C. D. (2002). Guest editors’ introduction. Journal of Communication, 52, 499-521.
14.
Kendon, A. (1983). Gesture and speech: How they interact. In J.M. Wiemann & R. Harrison (Eds.), Nonverbal interaction (pp. 13-46). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological-aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
16.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 49-74.
17.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031.
18.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, deindividuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283-301.
19.
Marvin, C. (1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about communication in the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
Marvin, L. (1995). Spoof, spam, lurk and lag: The aesthetics of text-based virtual realities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(2). Retrieved May 21, 2004, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol1/issue2/marvin.html
21.
McGrath, J. E. (1990). Time matters in groups. In J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technical foundations of cooperative work (pp. 23-61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1976). A relational approach to interpersonal communication. In G. R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 87-104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
Nardi, B. A., & Whittaker, S. (2002). The place of face-to-face communication in distributed work. In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 83-112). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
24.
Nowak, K. L., Watt, J., & Walther, J. B. (2004). Contrasting time mode and sensory modality in the performance of computer mediated groups using asynchronous video-conferencing. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2004/2056/01/205610029a.pdf
25.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341-371.
26.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M., & Reicher, S. (Eds.). (2000). SIDE-issues centre-stage: Recent developments in studies of de-individuation in groups. Amsterdam: KNAW.
27.
Rudner, R. S. (1966). Philosophy of social science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
28.
Short, J., Williams, E.,& Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.
29.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & Mcguire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187.
30.
Slovacek, C. L. (2003). Desktop video-conferencing tasks: The effects of telepresence and teledata on cognitive load, conversational repair, and satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
31.
Spears, R., Lea, M., & Postmes, T. (2001). Social psychological theories of computer-mediated communication: Social pain or social gain. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp.601-623). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
32.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social-context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
33.
Thomson, R., Murachver, T., & Green, J. (2001). Where is the gender in gendered language?Psychological Science, 12, 171-175.
34.
Thurlow, C., & McKay, S. (2002). Adolescents and new technologies of communication. In A. Williams, J. Drury, P. Eckert, J. Fortman, M. Mastronardi, S. McKay, & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Draft report of the task force on language, social psychology and adolescence. Retrieved June 1, 2004, from http://faculty.washington.edu/thurlow/ialsp/reports/Task%2520Force%2520Report%2520(July%25202002).doc
35.
Thurlow, C., & McKay, S. (2003). Profiling “new” communication technologies in adolescence. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 94-103.
36.
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317-348.
37.
Turner, J. W., Grube, J. A., & Meyers, J. (2001). Developing an optimal match within online communities: An exploration of CMC support communities and traditional support. Journal of Communication, 51, 231-251.
38.
Walker, M. B., & Trimboli, A. (1989). Communicating affect: The role of verbal and non-verbal content. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8, 229-248.
39.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
40.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
41.
Walther, J. B., & Boyd, S. (2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In C. A. Lin & D. Atkin (Eds.), Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses (pp. 153-188). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
42.
Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (in press). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology.
43.
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
Weisband, S. P., Schneider, S. K., & Connolly, T. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1124-1151.
45.
Weiser, M. (1991, September). The computer for the twenty-first century. Scientific American, pp. 94-104.
46.
Williams, A. (2003). Introduction to the colloquy. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 47-49.
