Change in E-mail Style: A Multi-Dimensional Approach

1
Change in E-mail Style A Multi-Dimensional
Approach

• John C. Paolillo
• SCAN Research Group Meeting
• October 4, 2002

2
Electronic Mail

• As written communication
• Typed via keyboard
• Composed/edited like other writing
• As spoken communication
• Rapid turn-around (interactive)
• Typos are common
• Informality is favored

3
E-mail Where does it fit?

• A new register
• Crystal (2001) Netspeak
• Ferarra, Brunner and Whitmore (1991)
• Intermediate in most characteristics
• Collot and Belmore (1996)
• Yates (1996)
• A (new) force in language change
• Baron (1984, 2001)

4
Medium and Language Change

• Written media
• Standardization/homogenization
• Complexity and formality
• Spoken media
• Simplification
• Diversification

5
Investigating Change in E-mail

• Sufficient time depth now exists
• First e-mail discussion lists in 1970s
• Archives are widely available
• E-mail discussion lists
• Usenet newsgroups, etc.
• Tracking individual usage is possible

6
The Present Study

• 11-year corpus of MsgGroup
• Arpanet discussion group from 1975-1986
• 2580 messages (872 in sub-sample)
• Many important Internet developers participated
• Track individuals and group usage
• Formal and informal language features
• Compare individuals trends with overall trends

7
Our Previous Work

• Herring, Labarre and Paolillo (2001)
• Nine features 1st, 2nd, 3rd person pronouns,
  demonstratives, syntactic subordination,
  contractions, contraction sites, latinate nouns
  in -ion and -ment
• Overall, all features decreased over time (!)
• Large individual variance
• Some individuals appear to buck main trends

8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
The Multi-Dimensional Model

• More Features Biber (1988, 1995)
• Comprehensive classification of English
  genres/registers
• Historical trends observed (Biber and Finegan
  1989)
• English writing becomes more spoken-like over time

14
Adverbial Features

• Amplifiers
• Emphatics
• Hedges
• Because
• Time Adverbials
• Discourse Particles
• Prepositions
• Pied Piping

15
Verb Features

• Private Verbs
• Public Verbs
• Suasive Verbs
• Do
• Be
• Necessity Modals
• Predictive Modals
• Infinitives
• The Perfect

16
Other Features

• Analytic Negation
• Synthetic Negation
• Indefinite Pronouns
• IT

17
Factor Comparison
Factor 1 It, Be, Do Because Prepositions
(-) Indefinite Pronouns Discourse
Particles Analytic Negation Private
Verbs (hedges) Demonstratives Amplifiers Emphat
ics 1st and 2nd Person
Factor 2 Public Verbs (perfect) 3rd
Person (Synthetic Neg)
Factor 3 Time Adv. (Pied Pipe) N-ion, (N-m
ent)
Factor 4 Infinitive Pred. Mod. Necess. M. Suasive
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
Bibers Factors

• Information vs. involved production
• Narrative vs. non-narrative concerns
• Explicit vs. situation-dependent reference
• Overt expression of persuasion

21
Interpretation

• Factor 1
• Elaborated vs. unelaborated
• Factor 2
• Syntactic and conceptual complexity
• Factor 3
• Person-reference and certainty

22
(No Transcript)
23
Factor 1 by date
24
Factor 2 by date
25
Factor 3 by date
26
Changes over time

• Factor 2, syntactic/conceptual complexity
• Shows slight overall increase over time
• Decreases with the number of messages and length
  of time one has been on the list
• Factors 1 (elaborated) and 3 (person
  ref/certainty)
• Decrease with increasing number of messages on
  the the list
• Increase slightly with ones length of time on
  the list

27
Conclusions

• The factors of co-varying features identified do
  not seem to match Bibers factors well
• There do appear to be correlations between the
  factors and time (date and experience)
• Complexity/formality plays an important role
• It is still unclear if any of these changes are
  related to the medium

28
Questions?