1.1Key concepts and definitions

In the context of the discussion of communication in the new media and of computer-mediated communication (CMC; for a detailed theoretical discussion of the concept cf. Thurlow/Lengel/Tomic 2004), a variety of terms and designations is used, each of them highlighting different methodological aspects and theoretical approaches. This terminological multiplicity starts with the question whether linguists should speak of text types when analyzing SMS or tweets or whether the designation forms of communication is more appropriate. In linguistic studies on CMC, both terms and their corresponding analytical approaches can be found. While both designations refer to subsets of texts that can be classified in terms of the similarity of communicative parameters, forms of communication are characterized by their functional multiplicity (e. g., private and informal SMS vs. business SMS vs. SMS for the sake of advertising; newsgroups centered on legal questions vs. newsgroups dealing with fertility problems). In contrast, there is one central communicative function attributed to text types. Forms of communication are multifunctional and not determined with regard to their communicative function while text types are always linked to one dominant text function (cf. Ziegler 2007, 21). The classification of text types is closely interrelated to the question of the text function, and in contrastive oriented linguistic analyses, the comparison is based on the text function as “tertium comparationis” (cf. Spillner 1997). When taking into account both the thematic and functional variety of forms of CMC on the one hand, and functional constants that apply to messages realized in different forms of CMC on the other hand, it becomes clear that the function is not essential for the description of this type of communication. The classification of text types in the new media has to be based on a combination of communicative criteria. We therefore propose to denominate texts in the new media as forms of communication and to understand these as virtual constellations of structural and semiotic features that belong, with reference to text linguistics, to the external dimension of a text type (for more details cf. Dürscheid 2005, 7ss.).

The definition of the terms new media and computer-mediated communication is also subject to a variety of approaches. With Thurlow/Poff (2011), computer-mediated communication (CMC) is considered as a form of communication in the new media that is realized via the intermittence of a medium (computer, tablet computer, smartphone, mobile phone, etc.). The technical conditions and the resulting constraints determine the communicative context of forms of communication in the new media and have also an impact on their function. Furthermore, the terminological discussion shows that the terms new media and computer-mediated communication and their underlying concepts are strongly interwoven.

1.2Formal and functional criteria for the description of forms of communication in the new media

Texts (or forms of communication) in the new media consist of both verbal and of non-verbal (visual, auditive…) items of content. When describing those texts (or forms of communication), research has to take into account their semiotic complexity, more precisely the numerous interdependencies that exist between the different semiotic codes that are used. Therefore, linguists need a methodological framework that combines “classical” (e. g., text linguistics) as well as more recent or “innovative” perspectives. This need concerning multimodal texts was already apparent to linguists in the early 1980s (e. g., to Spillner 1982, focusing on advertisements), highlighting the fact that the meaning of semiotically complex texts cannot be deduced without the extension of the notion of “text”. The discussion about this theoretical key concept of text linguistics, which reflects itself as well on the level of designation (e. g., visual and verbal text, visual and verbal parts of text), has been conducted in a very controversial way among linguists, but nowadays, most researchers agree that a limitation on verbal text elements cannot lead to valid research results. In contrast to those multimodal, visual-verbal texts for which a large number of empirical studies have been carried out (cf. Schmitz 2007; Stöckl 1998; 2004), the combination of semiotic codes goes beyond verbal and visual elements concerning texts in the new media that, in addition to “text” and “image”, often comprise auditive elements (e. g., speech or music).

The central question in the context of analyses of CMC is how far the methodological framework of traditional text linguistics can be applied and extended to the description of communication processes in the new media. In other words: to which degree can text linguistic approaches contribute to a better understanding of the form(s) and the function(s) of texts in the new media? It is also important to ask which internal and external criteria of the linguistic description of texts are relevant for the analysis of new forms of communication, and, on the other hand, to point out where the limits of a linguistic analysis model are.

In order to elaborate a theoretical framework allowing linguists to classify forms of communication in the new media, the question of the criteria the model is composed of has to be taken as the starting point. As the external criteria of a type of communication are essential for the (verbal and non-verbal) form of a text, reflecting themselves on the level of its structure and concerning the choice of linguistic (and of other semiotic codes) means, the analysis should start with the determination of the core communicative parameters of CMC. As there is no methodological approach designed especially for communication processes in the new media, linguists orient themselves to the criteria offered by classical text linguistic models.

The core criteria aiming at describing the communicative setting are the following (cf. Spillner 2009): the semiotic code (verbal vs. non-verbal), the medium (computer, mobile phone, third party device, …), the dimension of time (synchronicity or asynchronicity) and space (distance or proximity), the dialogic character, and the number of persons that are involved (one-to-one-communication, one-to-many-communication, …). Given the number of different forms of communication in the new media, it is impossible to determine, on the list of external criteria, the characteristics that are valid for their totality. In this context, a tweet differs from a text message or a message posted on Facebook. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify some central characteristics that seem to be constitutive for most CMC texts.

Concerning the semiotic code, the messages are in general realized in the written medium, often complemented by non-verbal elements (e. g., posted photos on Facebook). In those messages, users have to face a restriction of non- and paraverbal resources. The use of smileys can compensate for the absence of gesture and facial expression, but can never substitute them entirely.

The medium in which the messages are realized are the computer, the mobile or smartphone and third party devices. In contrast to face-to-face-communication, the computer (or another) medium is interposed in the communication process (CMC). In times of growing user rates of the mobile Internet, the boundaries between the different devices are about to dissolve: a status update on Facebook can be made from a computer or by using a smartphone, and an e-mail cannot only be sent from the computer, but also with the help of a smartphone. Internet services are available for different media, and it is therefore no longer only the medium that determines the form and the function of the communication. In communication science, this development is designated as medium convergence (cf. Jenkins 2006). The question whether the formal characteristics change due to the possibilities offered by the medium has not yet been explored in depth.

Considering the dimensions of time and space of communication processes in the new media, the most important difference between forms of communication such as text messaging, Twitter, etc. on the one hand and face-to-face-communication on the other hand is the temporal asynchronicity that characterizes CMC. Nevertheless, the criterion of asynchronicity can be discussed controversially as different constellations may occur in CMC. Due to the fact that a medium is interposed in the communication process, and due to the technical restrictions resulting from this, CMC will never reach the degree of complete temporal synchronicity as is the case in face-to-face communication. For the different forms of CMC, there are gradations concerning asynchronicity, mostly caused by the functions of the texts and the mutual expectations of the users concerning reactiveness. For example, a chat communication can reach a degree of quasi synchronicity, as the users can observe the composition of the messages on the screen, whereas the interval between text messages, tweets or Facebook messages can be very short, but never completely synchronous. Nevertheless, concerning SMS communication, users expect the other to reply immediately; long intervals between the messages will be commented and sanctioned verbally (cf. Laursen 2005). As for the spatial distance in CMC, the users are in general separated from each other, but it may also occur that two persons sitting in the same room send each other text messages or have a look at a status update on Twitter.

For many forms of communication in the new media, linguists highlight their dialogic character. While the traditional website is conceived by the sender, not allowing the receiver to comment on the content or to change it, Web 2.0 applications, especially communication in the social media (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, …), are in general characterized by a high degree of interactivity. Depending on the degree of familiarity of the users and on the number of persons taking part in the communication process, the degree of dialogicity can be situated on a scale, ranging from a very high degree in text messages (where an immediate reply is expected, and, in the case of its absence, sanctioned; cf. above) to a lower degree (e. g., the possibility to comment on a message in a public newsgroup, where interactivity is not an obligation). The time that may elapse between a message and a reply depends strongly on social expectations and, for communication in the social media, on what is common in a community of practice.

The last criterion to be discussed in order to describe communication in the new media is the number of people involved in the communication process. Whereas forms of communication such as text messages are strictly intimate, individual and personal, with in general two persons involved that know each other well (one-to-one communication), sharing the same context of knowledge (cf. Anis 2007, 94), messages in the social media are addressed to a multiple audience (cf. Marwick/Boyd 2010, 1), with the sender intending a certain group of receivers while not knowing who will finally read the text, e. g., on Twitter (one-to-many communication). In newsgroups that are only accessible via a password, the number of receivers of a message is limited (one-to-few-communication). Status updates on Facebook can be open to the public or spread in a restrictive way, only accessible for a small group of friends. The degree of familiarity may have an impact on the verbal (and non-verbal) form of the message, and it also influences the topics discussed.

This leads us to the discussion of the function(s) of communication in the new media. What is/are the communicative aim(s) of the users? What motivates them to communicate via Twitter, Facebook or to send an SMS instead of approaching someone directly? And which topics do users discuss? The communicative purpose of CMC varies along its different forms. Studies show that SMS communication is mainly used for socio-coordinative and affective purposes (cf. Thurlow/Poff 2011, 4), and it occurs also in the context of phatic communication. As the number of people communicating is strongly limited, personal and intimate topics are discussed in text messages, with the users being honest concerning their feelings and emotions. In contrast to SMS communication, the functions of self-promotion, self-commodification and personal branding (cf. Marwick/Boyd 2011) play a crucial role in social media such as Twitter or Facebook, which can affect the form and the content of the messages. In the social media, identity is constructed through communication and in a permanent exchange with others. This can lead to the result that a user’s identity in the real world can be quite different from his or her virtual one:

“In other words, self-presentation is collaborative. Individuals work together to uphold preferred self-images of themselves and their conversation partners, through strategies like maintaining (or “saving”) face, collectively encouraging social norms, or negotiating power differentials and disagreements” (Marwick/Boyd 2010, 10).

In newsgroups giving advice on certain issues, users want to be perceived as competent and as an expert in their domain. On Facebook, users are interested to post creative status updates; on Twitter, Twitterers with a public account want to be followed by as many people as possible, drawing conclusions concerning their degree of popularity depending on the number of their followers, while those Twitterers who operate in the private mode aim at selecting their followers. Furthermore, the users in social media aim at community building, adapting their messages to the expectations of their community of practice.

The communicative criteria and the functions described above have an impact both on the content and on the formal characteristics of CMC. As to the formal peculiarities of the language that is used in texts in the new media, one has to state the fact that they depend on the specific function of each form of communication, but what seems to be common in all cases is a certain influence of spoken communication (cf. Koch/Oesterreicher 1990). This can be explained by technical restrictions (e. g., the limitation to 140 characters for a tweet) and the need to be short, but also by the attempt of the users to use their language in a creative way (for a detailed discussion of creative language use in e-mails, SMS, and MMS, cf. Frehner 2008). The context of producing a message may also enhance traces of orality, because users do not pay special attention to a high degree of planning of their texts. The conscious use of orality (or the imitation of certain characteristics) can furthermore reduce the distance between users and strengthen social cohesion. It is therefore not surprising that elements of spoken language manifest themselves in texts produced in the context of social closeness (for a detailed discussion of the relationship between orality and literacy in online communication and SMS cf. ↗8 Orality and Literacy of Telephony and SMS).

1.3Leading theories and models (general)

Both in linguistics and in communication science, there is a general lack of theory-oriented studies. To my knowledge, there is no (text linguistic) framework able to categorize different forms of communication in the new media. Some theoretically-oriented studies focus on the question of how to classify the variety of textual manifestations, and some theoretical-methodological analyses highlight the need for an analysis model, by describing, for example, the functions of Twitter communication (cf. Moraldo 2009; Overbeck 2014; Zappavigna 2011), chat communication (cf. Thaler 2003) or the characteristics of hypertext communication (cf. Schröder 2012; Storrer 2008), but the findings do not go beyond single forms of communication (expect, e. g., Moraldo, illustrating the interdependency of Twitter and SMS communication). As mentioned above, the difficulty of classifying texts in the new media results from their functional multiplicity as well as from the complexity of some texts, e. g., hypertexts, which are non-linear and multimodal (cf. Storrer 2008, 318). On the other hand, some empirical studies have been carried out that shed some light on the language use in selected forms of communication (SMS, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.), without proposing a comprehensive classification model.

Apart from the more theoretical-methodological studies on the one hand, and the empirical analyses on the other hand, a number of linguists put the question of corpus building in the center of their research. They focus on the possibilities of how to collect authentic data and of how to analyze large corpora automatically.

The most influential researchers and research groups for the theoretical-methodological discussion in the context of CMC and the communication in the new media are, for the German-speaking domain (but with a strong influence on the general discussion in the scientific community), Androutsopoulos/Schmidt (2002), Androutsopoulos (2007), Dürscheid (2005), Storrer (2008), Hauser/Luginbühl (2012). These authors describe not only single forms of communication (e. g., text messaging, Dürscheid, or hypertext communication, Storrer), but they also discuss communication models and classification approaches. Dürscheid (2002) reflects on the influence of SMS communication on everyday language use. The debate concerning linguistic competence reemerges in the studies of different forms of CMC. E-mail as one of the first forms of communication in the context of CMC has often been described in contrast to traditional letters (cf. Frehner 2008; Höflich/Gebhardt 2005). The focus on the research of Hauser and Luginbühl is put on the contrastive analysis of the communication in the new media while Luginbühl, analyzing television broadcasts, takes as well dialectal varieties of media communication into consideration. In his earlier studies, Androutsopoulos provides a systematic analysis of the typographic resources of new forms of communication (e. g., the use of emoticons and abbreviations) while his newer publications take into account the pragmatics of selected forms of communication. Furthermore, the author sheds some light on language varieties when describing youth language. The dialogic and interactional character of CMC is illustrated by means of text messaging in the studies of Günthner (2011). The author analyzes dialogue sequences and the linguistic form of messages (e. g., anaphoric messages) related to each other.

For the English-speaking world, the most important theoretical studies are those of Herring et al. (2005) and Thurlow/Poff (2011). In addition to the elaboration of theoretical models and methodological studies on CMC in general, these authors focus their research on selected forms of communication (Herring: weblogs; Thurlow/Poff: text messaging). Cosh (2008) proposes to base the classification of forms of CMC on the analysis of content.

The newest research on Twitter communication has been conducted by Zappavigna (2011). The microblogging service and blogging in general are the topic of numerous linguists in this domain (cf. Java et al. 2007; Puschmann 2010; Schmidt 2011 for a functional oriented discussion of blogs; Stefanone/Jang 2007; Tremayne 2007). The authors come to the result that microblogging platforms allow their users, on the one hand, to cooperate (cf. Honeycutt/Herring 2009) and to strengthen social cohesion, while, on the other hand, the crucial aim consists in privacy management. Concerning the linguistic form and the content of weblogs, Messner/DiStaso (2008) underline a high degree of intertextuality, as traditional media and weblogs use each other as source.

As to text messaging, anglophone studies do not only describe their formal characteristics, as was the case in the earliest works, but they adopt a more discourse-analytic perspective (cf. Laursen 2005) when describing the reciprocity of SMS communication and the resulting mutual expectancy of an immediate reply. Hillebrand (2010) poses the interesting question of the origin of text messaging, which was closely related to its technical supplies. One can consider text messaging as the precursor of communication in the social media, although the service was created, at that time, for informing customers about a missed call or a message on the mailbox on their mobile phone. The interpersonal character, and the functions linguists and sociolinguists (e. g., Hård af Segerstad 2005) are discussing nowadays, developed later.

2.1Trends and topics in research: Influential researchers/groups

In the Romance context, the most influential (both methodological and empirical) studies on newer forms of communication can be attributed to Eckkrammer/Eder (2000) and to Eckkrammer (2004; 2010) who mainly analyzes hypertext communication (with a focus on French), e. g., the characteristics of medical discussion boards, but as well the structure, the language use and the multimodal text structure of websites in general. Her research interest focuses furthermore on the attribution of textual function(s) to hypertexts, which is difficult to determine due to their structural complexity. Therefore, Eckkrammer proposes to rethink the notion of textual function and to adapt it to the specific needs of hypertexts. In her approach, it seems more realistic to attribute different functions to the different parts of hypertexts instead of trying to determine one central text function. In addition to Eckkrammer’s research, important studies on hypertext communication have been realized by Schröder (2012; 2014; 2015a; 2015b) who mainly focuses on the self-presentation of companies on their websites. Besides his strongly empirical approach, he contributes to the conception of methods and theories that should underlie further studies in the field. Schröder also considers the communication in the social web and adopts a contrastive perspective, with a focus on the Romance languages Spanish and French. Another important publication, combining both the development of a methodological approach as well as the empirical analysis of texts, is the monograph published by Sánchez Prieto in 2011. The author analyzes website communication of French, Spanish and German company websites, thus taking into account a Romance-German contrastive perspective.

The importance of a contrastive perspective is underlined in most of the numerous publications of Lüger/Lenk (e. g., 2008), who not only proposes a theoretical framework and points to the potential as well as the constraints of contrastive-oriented studies, but who illustrates his methodological thoughts by empirical analyses of texts in the traditional and new media in different Romance languages.

One important and influential author one has to mention in the context of research on communication in the new media for Romance languages is certainly Reutner. Among her numerous studies on CMC, covering the totality of the important Romance languages (Spanish, French and Italian), we just refer Reutner (2010; describing differences in e-mail communication of French and Spanish scholars), Reutner (2014a; investigating the linguistic structure of Italian entries in the digital encyclopedia Wikipedia), Reutner (2014b; a contrastive-oriented study of German and French websites of banks and automobile manufacturers) and Reutner (2015).

In her most recent publication on online communication, Reutner considers cultural differences on Spanish and German bank websites.

Further studies concerning theoretical reflections on the classification of texts in the new media in general and focusing furthermore on the forms and functions of French Twitter communication have been carried by Overbeck (2014). Overbeck adopts, in her empirical studies, a contrastive (French-German) perspective. In the center of her research stands the text linguistic classification and differentiation of polyfunctional forms of communication in the new media. Overbeck highlights the fact that existing classification approaches take into account the modeling of the use of spoken language in new forms of communication (Overbeck 2012) as well as the very specific and creative use of written language.

A second approach concerns the relationship between the real and the virtual sphere. The relationship between spoken and written language has also been described in studies on “older” forms of communication that are relatively well described in linguistics; Kailuweit (2009) compares the occurrence of conceptional orality in French, Italian and Spanish chat communication, while Thaler (2003) focuses on orality and literacy in chat communication. In a more recent study (2012), Thaler investigates politeness in CMC, connecting two fields of linguistic research that previously have been treated separately, namely politeness research on the one hand and CMC on the other hand. The author builds her theory based on French and German Chat communication, thereby integrating a contrastive, Romance-German perspective. Thaler (2014) has also carried out research on evaluation strategies in French and Italian online comments, taking into account the notion of face. Maaß (2012) has studied language use in French and Spanish discussion forums and has recently (2014) published a volume (with Bedijs and Held) on the notion of face and face work in social media, with a large number of the contributions concentrating on Romance languages. Helfrich (2014) has recently carried out research on face work in social media in general as well as on the characteristics of political discourse in Spanish Twitter communication.

For Italian, important studies have been conducted by Moraldo (2009) and Pistolesi (2004) who put the focus on the empirical analysis and description of Italian SMS (Pistolesi) and Twitter communication (Moraldo). Both authors refer to the fact that single forms of communication in the new media might be interwoven, Moraldo pointing out the mutual influence of Twitter and SMS communication, and Pistolesi highlighting that both informal e-mail and chat communication show traces of orality. Ursini (2008) concentrates on language varieties in her research on SMS communication when she describes the characteristics of youth language in text messages. Besides the purely linguistic oriented studies on text messaging and other forms of communication, the users’ need to ensure social closeness via CMC is in the center of interest in more sociologically and psychologically-oriented research (cf. Spagnolli/Gamberini 2007).

The most influential empirical studies for French SMS communication have been conducted by Anis (2007), Fairon/Klein/Paumier (2006), Stark (2011; 2012a; 2012b), and Stark/Dürscheid (2011; 2013). While Anis was the first to describe systematically the graphic of text messages, in particular the meaning of abbreviations that are characteristic for French SMS communication, Fairon/Klein/Paumier can be considered as the pioneers in establishing and analyzing a large corpus of French SMS. The largest and most important research project in the field of communication in the new media concerning SMS communication is certainly the international research project SMS4Science (cf. the details in the discussion of corpora building).

Stark focuses in her studies on the grammatical characteristics of (French) SMS and also takes a contrastive perspective, including Standard-German and Swiss-German text messages into her research. It is mainly syntax theory and linguistic varieties that interest her concerning language use in the new media. Desjeux (2005) compares the use of French in text messages to Polish and Chinese.

2.2Sources for research/Corpora

In the context of the discussion of the constitution of corpora for research, we focus on SMS communication. This restriction is due to the fact that the data collection of text messages is particularly difficult in contrast to other forms of communication. Furthermore, to my knowledge, there are no larger corpora or reference corpora of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. because each researcher constitutes his or her own corpus, according to his or her research interest. In general, communication in the new media is accessible to the public so that there is no need to access already established corpora. This is helpful for merely qualitative-oriented analyses, allowing the researcher to get a first view of the field. Nevertheless, edited corpora are of great use for the research community as, for example, annotations facilitate an automated analysis of a high quantity of data.

The largest data collection in the context of SMS communication has been established in the context of the international research project SMS4Science, where researchers from more than 15 countries have collected text messages in order to analyze their linguistic peculiarities. This cooperative project was started in 2006 at the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, with researchers collecting approximately 30,000 SMS that are freely accessible on the Internet. The general aim of the project is the study of spontaneous and authentic language use in SMS communication (for more details on the project cf. Fairon/Klein/Paumier 2006). Despite the large amount of data of the project SMS4Science, some particularities of the methodology underlying the data collection have to be discussed critically. Users were asked to transfer their text messages to a free phone number installed by a telecommunications operator, and in order to convince them to take part in the project, they were offered some presents in the context of a lottery. On the one hand, the research design solves the ethical problem of how to gain insight into a very private and intimate form of communication as the users were informed about the purpose of the data collection; on the other hand, the question arises whether the collected data can still be considered spontaneous and authentic. The project managers wanted to get access to SMS that have really been sent, stored in the memory of the mobile phones of the users. Nevertheless, the project set-up may have led to messages that have been written especially for that occasion, while real and authentic SMS may have been modified, corrected or not transferred. Another problematic aspect is the fact that the users were informed about the academic purpose of the data collection; knowing that their SMS communication would be analyzed subsequently can have an impact on their spontaneous speech production. To sum up, the data collection probably does not reflect real and spontaneous language use in text messages and can therefore not claim to represent the totality of forms and functions of SMS communication. During the years that followed, more partners worldwide joined the research network SMS4Science, allowing researchers to conduct contrastive oriented studies and to describe varieties of French. The state of the analysis of the data varies between the projects as the main difficulty concerns the standardization of the messages which is required for their automatic analysis.

Rentel established in 2005 a multilingual corpus containing 800,000 private and informal SMS in different languages – the majority in German and English – in order to get access to authentic language use in SMS communication. A German telecommunications operator recorded, during a lapse of time of 24 hours, the text messages that the customers composed at their computer and sent them to the mobile phone of their receiver via the platform. As the users were not informed about the scientific aims of the data collection, one can assume that the language used in the messages is free from any personal bias. One disadvantage of the corpus is the fact that it does not provide any demographic information concerning the persons who sent the SMS. Furthermore, one has to discuss the question of research ethics, as SMS communication is strictly private and confidential. The telecommunications operator demanded the written and signed affirmation that the data will be anonymized for publication and used only for scientific purposes.

Concerning the distribution of different languages in the corpus, 658,640 (82.3%) of the text messages are written in German, followed by English (29,484; 3.7%), Italian (11,105; 1.4%), French (1,780; 0.22%), Spanish (1,229; 0.15%), and other languages (98,075; 2.25%). For more details on the corpus, cf. Rentel (2013, 131).

One last difference between the two corpora concerns the modalities of their redaction. While in the Rentel corpus the messages have been composed with the help of a computer keyboard, offering graphic resources differing from the keyboard of a mobile phone, the SMS in the project sms4science have been written directly on mobile phones. This difference has an impact on the form of the messages (cf. Frehner 2008, 28). One could argue that a text message should in any case be sent from a mobile phone; research should nevertheless take into account other forms of composing SMS, in order to describe the characteristics of this form of communication in its totality. Even if the form of the messages may vary considerably, the communicative context and the purpose of the messages sent from a computer and from a mobile phone are comparable. SMS written on a computer are rather a subgenre of SMS communication in general whose differences as well as the similarities have to be described by linguists.

2.3Established and new research methods

While the first studies on language use in the media were mainly qualitatively oriented, with selected examples serving to illustrate particular linguistic phenomena, newer analyses are based on larger corpora and/or computer linguistic approaches. The use of special analysis software allows linguists to analyze large volumes of data, making it possible to combine qualitative with quantitative research questions and thus reducing the personal bias.

The bibliographic research on communication in the new media shows furthermore that the formal and typographic characteristics of new forms of communication are relatively well described while the functional-pragmatic perspective only has been taken into account in newer studies. It is still a desideratum to describe the functions of different forms of CMC because a systematic classification has to be based on functional considerations.

Another development from established to newer research methods concerns the shift from purely text linguistic approaches to the consideration of the multimodal character of texts in the media. As many other semiotically complex texts, e. g., advertisements, texts in the media constitute verbal and non-verbal codes, and in order to understand the message as a whole, all semiotic codes have to be taken into account.

2.4Important findings

Studies show that for all forms of communication in CMC, the shortness of the texts is not in the first place due to technical restrictions, but can be explained by the users’ need to communicate under specific conditions and in a creative way. It is therefore a sign of progress in linguistic research that not only the formal characteristics of new forms of communication are taken into consideration, but that a growing number of studies focus on their pragmatics. This “pragmatic shift” in the context of the analysis of new forms of communication allows us to understand for which communicative purposes users choose a certain way to communicate.

Studies reveal that for most forms of communication, users do not employ completely new linguistic strategies, but that certain linguistic means occur more (or less) frequently than in “traditional” texts (e. g., missing greetings at the beginning or at the end of a text message can be explained by the dialogic character of the communication). On the other hand, we find linguistic strategies that are well known from these “traditional” texts. Some linguistic means may have different communicative functions in new forms of communication. The use of insults in text messages is one example. While in informal face-to-face communication, where speaker and hearer know each other well, insulting language may serve as a means of creating social cohesion and of expressing positive emotions, this specific function may also be observed in SMS communication. In contrast, insulting the other in a newsgroup with a low degree of familiarity would violate the communicative norms. The function a linguistic strategy may have in new forms of communication thus strongly depends on the communicative parameters, concerning to a special extent politeness strategies.

The empirical analysis of new forms of communication also shows that, from a functional perspective, they are not strictly separated from each other, but that users often shift between different forms, starting a communication with a text message and continuing on Facebook. Researchers call this phenomenon mode switching.

Studies on communication in the new media come to the result that the specific communicative parameters (e. g., anonymity and multiple audience) lead to a new definition of identity. As the real and the virtual identity of a person may differ, the identity of a user is constructed mutually by communicating and using specific linguistic strategies. Thus, personal branding and identity management play an important role.

3.1Short resume

The discussion shows that there are numerous studies in different languages, each adopting a specific theoretical approach and focusing, for the empirical research, on different forms of communication, but what is still lacking is a comprehensive classification model for CMC. Nevertheless, some researchers put this interest of establishing a functional classification model in the center of their research, going back to classification criteria of text linguistics and extending the catalogue with regard to the characteristics of CMC. In order to establish a classification model, researchers identify differences and similarities between selected forms of communication (e. g., between e-mails and SMS or between Twitter and SMS communication). When analyzing the theoretical-methodological approaches coming from different academic traditions in different languages, we note that they stand in a strong relation of interdependency, with some differences both on the level of designation and concerning the definition of central terms.

A large part of the (text linguistic) studies describe selected formal characteristics such as abbreviations, syntactic characteristics and typography and interpret their use in matters of creative language use. Most of the newer studies go beyond purely formal characteristics of CMC and focus, in the context of a “pragmatic shift”, on the function of communication processes in the media. Traditional text linguistic analyses are completed by semiotic approaches based on an enlarged notion of “text”, allowing taking into consideration the multimodal character of CMC, and by discourse-analytic approaches, aiming at describing its dialogic character. A central topic in many of the theoretical as well as the empirical studies concerning CMC in different languages is the interdependency of orality and literacy. In contrast, only a few studies highlight the occurrence of language variation in CMC and the function of the use of different language varieties.

Concerning the empirical analysis of forms of communication in the new media, most researchers constitute their own corpora, with CMC in general being easily accessible on the Internet. To my knowledge, and with the exception of the corpus SMS4Science, there are no “reference corpora” for the Romance languages. Nevertheless, linguistic studies on new forms of communication should go beyond purely qualitative approaches and be based on large corpora. The need for empirical studies concerns to a special extent text messaging for which the access to spontaneous speech production is difficult.

In the context of a globalized world, differences between languages and cultures manifest themselves on all levels of a text. Computer-mediated communication is to a special extent affected by intercultural communication. Linguistic analyses of new forms of communication therefore have to describe language- and culture-specific characteristics of the communication in the new media. Those contrastive-oriented studies may help us to find an answer to the question whether there are differences between languages or whether we have to deal with a leveling of divergences. Concerning this contrastive-oriented approach, we want to highlight not only the considerable research activities of Lüger/Lenk (2008), but as well the research network Kontrastive Medienlinguistik [‘Contrastive Media Linguistics’], associating different research perspectives in the domain of the contrastive analysis of communication in the (traditional and new) media. The activities of the research network are published on the website <www.kontrastive-medienlinguistik.net>.

Research questions coming up in the present concern could be, to mention a few, the relationship between the real and the virtual world, and the function of identity management via CMC. It is important to continue research in this domain because not only the textual function always has an impact on the linguistic form of a message, but communicative needs can lead to the emergence of new forms of communication.

3.2Future prospects for research on the topic

Linguistics still lacks both theoretical-methodological and empirical studies in order to describe and to classify forms of communication in the new media. While older forms of communication such as e-mail and chat communication are relatively well described, we still need research focusing on communication processes in social networks. Furthermore, new and innovative forms of communication emerge regularly, enhanced by the possibilities that the mobile Internet and the use of smartphones offer to customers. These innovations have to be analyzed in relation to existing forms of communication, by highlighting functional and formal differences. To give an example, in order to complete the linguistic discussion about text messaging, a growing number of people communicating via smartphones choose WhatsApp for their spontaneous communication. Due to the possibility to constitute groups, to post a status message, and to add images (enhancing the multimodal character of the communication), WhatsApp shows some characteristics of communication in social networks.

Apart from the need of more theory-oriented and empirical research of forms of communication in different languages, studies should adopt a contrastive oriented perspective. Despite the fact that there are some analyses contrasting languages and cultures, this has to be realized systematically for the totality of the existing forms of communication.

It is furthermore obvious that a restriction to purely text linguistic approaches cannot lead to significant results in the context of the description of communication processes in the new media. Throughout this article, the strong interdependence of text linguistic, semiotic and pragmatic approaches (as well as of discourse-analytic approaches) has been pointed out. From the author’s point of view, a description model should be multifaceted and take into account different methodological approaches.

To close the discussion of prospects for future research, linguistics has to focus on the phenomena of medium convergence and hybridization (e. g., an e-mail sent from a smartphone may have characteristics of a text message), in order to take into consideration the correlation of function, technical device and form in the time of the mobile Internet.