Linguistic and critical analysis of computer-mediated communication: Some ethical and scholarly considerations

Information Society

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 153-168

  Herring, Susan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC); Ethics; Guidelines; Linguistics; Pseudonyms; Scholarship; Social Criticism

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030491942     PISSN: 01972243     EISSN: 10876537     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/911232343     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Adams, P., Towns, A., and Gavey, N. 1995. Dominance and entitlement: The rhetoric men use to discuss their violence towards women. Discourse and Society 6(3):387-406.
2. Cameron, D. 1992. “Respect, please!”: Investigating race, power, and language. In Researching language: Issues of power and method, eds. D. Cameron, E. Frazer, P. Harvey, M. B. H. Rampton, and K. Richardson, pp. 113-130. London: Routledge.
3. Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, M. B. H., and Richardson, K., eds. 1992. Researching language: Issues of power and method. London: Routledge.
4. Cavazos, E. A. 1994. Intellectual property in cyberspace: Copyright law in a new world. In Cyberspace and the law: Your rights and duties in the on-line world, eds. E. Cavazos and Gavino Morin, pp. 44-66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Chafe, W. L. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Collot, M., and Belmore, N. 1993. Electronic language: A new variety of English. In English language corpora: Design, analysis and exploitation, eds. J. Aarts, P. de Haan and N. Oostdijk, pp. 41-56. Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
7. Ferrara, K., Brunner, H., and Whittemore, G. 1991. Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Commun. 8(l):8-34.
8. Fillmore, C. 1974. Pragmatics and the decription of discourse. Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics 1. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley Department of Linguistics.
9. Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-77, ed. C. Gordon. Brighton: Harvester.
10. Gurak, L. J. 1996. The multi-faceted and novel nature of using cyber-texts as research data. In Computer networking and scholarship in the 21st century university, eds. T. M. Harrison and T. D. Stephen. Albany: SUNY Press.
11. Harvey, P. 1992. Bilingualism in the Peruvian Andes. In Researching language: Issues of power and method, eds. D. Cameron, E. Frazer, P. Harvey, M. B. H. Rampton, and K. Richardson, pp. 65-89. London: Routledge.
12. Herring, S. 1993. Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic J. Commun. 3(2), special issue on computer-mediated communication, ed. T. Benson. Available from comserve@rpitsvm.bitnet. Reprinted in R. Kling, ed. (1996). Computerization and con-troversy, 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.
13. Herring, S. 1994. Politeness in computer culture: Why women thank and men flame. In Cultural Performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference, eds. M. Bucholtz, A. Liang, L. Sutton, and C. Hines, pp. 278-294. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
14. Herring, S. 1995. Freedom of speech or freedom of harassment? The College (magazine published by the University of Texas at Arlington College of Liberal Arts) 1(1):8-9.
15. Herring, S. 1996. Posting in a different voice: Gender and ethics in computer-mediated communication. In Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication, ed. C. Ess, pp. 115-145. Albany: SUNY Press.
16. Herring, S. In press a. Two variants of an electronic message schema. In Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives, ed. S. Herring, pp. 81-105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
17. Herring, S., ed. In press b. Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18. Herring, S., Johnson, D., and DiBenedetto, T. 1995. “This discussion is going too far!” Male resistance to female participation on the Internet. In Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self, eds. M. Bucholtz and K. Hall, pp. 67-96. New York: Routledge.
19. Kantrowitz, B. 1994. Men, women and computers. Newsweek 16 May:48-55.
20. Kiesler, S., Zubrow, D., Moses, A. M., and Geller, V. 1985. Affect in computer mediated communication. Hum. Comput. Interact. 1:77-104.
21. Kim, M.-S., and Raja, N. S. 1990. Verbal Aggression and Self-Disclosure on Computer Bulletin Boards. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, document ED334-620.
22. Labov, W. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
23. Rheingold, H. 1993. The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
24. Steiner, L. 1989. Feminist theorizing and communication ethics. Communication 12:157-173.
25. van Dijk, T. 1988. News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. Werry, C. In press. Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives, ed. S. Herring, pp. 47-63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
27. Yates, S. J. 1993. The Textuality of Computer-Mediated Communication: Speech, Writing and Genre in CMC Discourse. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.
28. Yates, S. In press. Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. In Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives, ed. S. Herring, pp. 29-46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29. Zimmerman, D. H., and West, C. 1975. Sex roles, interruptions, and silences in conversations. In Language and sex: difference and dominance, eds. B. Thome and N. Henley, pp. 105-129. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.