In two experiments, we investigated predictions of the collaborative theory of language use (Clark, 1996) as applied to instant messaging (IM). This theory describes how the presence and absence of different grounding constraints causes people to interact differently across different communicative media (Clark & Brennan, 1991). In Study 1, we document how IM changes as users increase in expertise. In Study 2, we compare adaptations across telephoning and IM with a focus on multitasking.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BavelasJ.GerwingJ.SuttonC.PrevostD. (2008). Gesturing on the telephone: Independent effects of dialogue and visibility. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 495–520.
2.
BortfeldH.LeonS. D.BloomJ. E.SchoberM. F.BrennanS. E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44(2), 123–147.
3.
CameronA. F.WebsterJ. (2005). Unintended consequence of emerging communication technologies: Instant messaging in the workplace. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 85–103.
4.
ChernyL. (1999). Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
5.
ClarkH. H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
ClarkH. H. (2002). Speaking in time. Speech Communication, 36, 5–13.
7.
ClarkH. H.BrennanS. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In ResnickL. B.LevineJ. M.TeasleyS. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8.
ClarkH. H.TreeJ. E. Fox (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111.
9.
ClarkH. H.Wilkes-GibbsD. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.
10.
CondonS.ČechC. (2001). Profiling turns in interaction: Discourse structure and function. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawai'i International Conference on Systems Sciences, 4. IEEE Computer Society Press.
11.
FerraraK.BrunnerH.WhittemoreG. (1991). Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication, 8(1), 8–34.
12.
TreeJ. E. Fox (1999). Listening in on monologues and dialogues. Discourse Processes, 27, 35–53.
13.
TreeJ. E. Fox (2000). Coordinating spontaneous talk. In WheeldonL. R. (Ed.), Aspects of language production (pp. 375–406). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
14.
TreeJ. E. Fox (2002). Interpretations of pauses and ums at turn exchanges. Discourse Processes, 34(1), 37–55.
15.
TreeJ. E. Fox (2006). Placing like in telling stories. Discourse Studies, 8(6), 749–770.
16.
TreeJ. E. Fox (2007). Folk notions of um and uh, like, and you know. Text & Talk, 27(3), 297–314.
17.
TreeJ. E. FoxMayerS. A. (2008). Overhearing single and multiple perspectives. Discourse Processes, 45, 160–179.
18.
TreeJ. E. FoxSchrockJ. C. (1999). Discourse markers in spontaneous speech: Oh what a difference an oh makes. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 280–295.
19.
TreeJ. E. FoxSchrockJ. C. (2002). Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 727–747.
20.
FraserB. (1999). What are discourse markers?Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931–952.
21.
GergleD.MillenD.KrautR. E.FussellS. R. (2004). Persistence matters: Making the most of chat in tightly-coupled work. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 431–438). New York: ACM Press.
22.
GibbsR. W.Jr. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 5–27.
23.
HancockJ. T.DunhamP. J. (2001). Language use in computer-mediated communication: The role of coordination devices. Discourse Processes, 31, 91–110.
24.
HandelM.HerbslebJ. D. (2002). What is Chat doing in the workplace?Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 1–10). New York: ACM Press.
25.
Hård af SegerstadY.LjungstrandP. (2002). IM'ing with WebWho. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56(1), 147–171.
26.
HerringS. C. (2004). Slouching toward the ordinary: Current trends in computer-mediated communication. New Media & Society, 6(1), 26–36.
27.
IsaacsE. A.ClarkH. H. (1987). References in conversations between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 116, 26–37.
28.
IsaacsE.WalendowskiA.WhittakerS.SchianoD. J.KammC. (2002). The character, functions, and styles of instant messaging in the workplace. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 11–20). New York: ACM Press.
29.
KieslerS.SiegelJ.McGuireT. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134.
30.
KieslerS.ZubrowD.MosesA. M.GellerV. (1985). Affect in computer-mediated communication: An experiment in synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion. Human Computer Interaction, 1, 77–104.
31.
LingR.BaronN. S. (2007). Text messaging and IM: Linguistic comparison of American college data. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(3), 291–298.
32.
McCarthyJ. C.MonkA. F. (1994). Measuring the quality of computer-mediated communication. Behaviour & Information Technology, 13(5), 311–319.
33.
McCarthyJ. C.WrightP. C.MonkA. F. (1992). Coherence in text-based electronic conferencing: Coupling text and context. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 11(4), 267–277.
34.
SimonA. F. (2006). Computer-mediated communication: Task performance and satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(3), 349–379.
35.
SmithV. L.ClarkH. H. (1993). On the course of answering questions. Journal of Memory & Language, 32, 25–38.
36.
SwertsM. (1998). Filled pauses are markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 485–496.
37.
WaltherJ. B.LohT.GrankaL. (2005). 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, 24, 36–65.
38.
WhalenJ. M.PexmanP. M.GillA. J. (2009). “Should be fun—not!” Incidence and marking of nonliteral language in e-mail. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28(3), 263–280.
