Media Linguistics: What Is Media Linguistics? Lies in the Use of Language in Actual Communi- on Mediality Cative Situations

Media Linguistics: What is Media Linguistics? lies in the use of language in actual communi- On Mediality cative situations. and Culturality f the number of published essays, anthol- The specific focus of media linguistics lies in the (Opener) ogies and introductory books are taken into account, media linguistics can be consideration of a medium-specific processing I considered as one of the most dynamic fields of signs and their semiotic materialities, as well

of applied linguistics in the German-speaking as associated institutions or non-institutiona- Martin Luginbühl lised social groups, their discursive and cultural area (which this article will focus on). This can be explained by the fact that the subject practices by means of and within these media, of analysis of media linguistics has evolved in with a strong focus on the use of linguistic signs. This article draws on recent develop- various ways with the emergence of digital ments within media linguistics, both regarding the changing objects of re- media – which can hardly be described as This implies an emphasis on the micro level search as well as crucial theoretical “new media” any longer in the second decade of media texts. However, as language use questions. Regarding the objects, an st always takes place in a situational and wider expansion can be observed, overcoming of the 21 century. This expansion has also the long-lasting limitation to journal- led to an intensified discussion on some of cultural context, media linguistic analysis istic mass media. This change is above the fundamental concepts. In what follows, I should also reflect on aspects of the meso all due to changes that came along with digital media communication permeat- will address both of these aspects. Finally, I and the macro levels. This includes questions ing our everyday lives, but also blurring will highlight some central tendencies and on intertextual relations or questions on the lines between one-to-one and one- cultural practices of social groups. to-many communication. These far- desiderata in present-day media linguistics. reaching changes also led to an intensi- The object of media linguistic analysis fied discussion of central concepts like What does Media Linguistics Study? essentially depends on the concept of the medium and mediality. As current tendencies within the field, multimodal- medium. In early media linguistic “milestone ity, c ulturality, and the triad of produc- A recent introduction on media linguistics publications” (Stöckl 2012: 16, my translation – product – reception are dis- written by Ulrich Schmitz opens as follows: tion) on “Language of the Press” [“Press- cussed. “Media linguistics studies how language is esprache”] (Lüger 1983), “Communication of the Press” [“Pressekommunikation”] (Bucher used in the media” (Schmitz 2015: 7, my translation). According to this quote, the 1986), as well as “Language of the Mass Me-

focal point of media linguistics, similar to dia” [“Sprache der Massenmedien”] (Burger conversation analysis and sociolinguistics, 1984), things used to be relatively clear: the objects of analysis were mass-media texts,

1 0 p l u s 1 10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics L I v I n g L I n g u I s t I c s Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 10 i.e. texts from newspapers, from radio and (but see e.g., Bednarek 2010; Queen 2015). ferentiation processes prompt the question from television. Authors of the texts investi- Even though the scope of the field of tradi- of what differences there are between vari- gated were mostly professional writers who tional media linguistics is wide, its delimita- ous versions and how they relate to mediali- produced texts collaboratively in an institutions are clear-cut. ty. Schwarzl (2015) and Burger & Luginbühl tionalised context. Such texts were pro- This has changed with the emergence of (2014: 487-499) show that content and form duced (i.e. printing press), duplicated, and digital communication technologies in the in such and similar cases are not the same. received (i.e. television) by technical means. mid-1990s. On the one hand, the new com- When it comes to newspapers, for instance, They were made publicly available in the municative practices that could be observed there are substantial differences in the ver- form of one-way communication to a vast in the context of these technologies have sions mentioned regarding the production, number of people. The audience remained generally increased our sensitivity to the the product itself and its reception. Nowa- anonymous. mediality of communication. On the other days, the print version is usually published Traditional mass media texts can be dis- hand, they have also blurred the lines be- once a day, the place for the written text is tinguished from other texts by a certain pe- tween individual and mass communication limited by the number of pages, only static riodicity and in general a short “validity peri- when for instance both are likely to happen pictures can be used, reactions to the texts od” [“Gültigkeitsdauer”] (Adamzik 2004: 78). on the same electronic platform or when are only possible in the form of letters to the Prototypically, they appear on a daily basis there are many different intermediate forms editor, and readers are only rarely invited to and are meant for a short-term use (see between one-to-one, one-to-many and participate in text message or online sur- Burger & Luginbühl 2014: 1f. on these prop- many-to-many communication. Further- veys. erties); many introductory books have not more, recent studies on the production and – In these respects, online newspapers taken advertising into account (but see even though still rare – on the reception differ greatly from their print versions: Typi- Schmitz 2015). Journalistic mass media are have been conducted. cally, they are updated continuously; not the object of research of ’traditional’ media Along with this new sensibility for medi- only written texts or static pictures but also linguistics, with a pronounced focus on the ality effects, reflections on the concept of videos, interactive infographics etc. can be analysis of products rather than processes. the medium itself have gained momentum. integrated. Also, the opportunity to react to Linguistic studies on the production and re- The emergence and appropriation of new the news text is important: for instance by ception of texts used to be rare; analyses of technologies has, for instance, led to the writing a comment, clicking on “like”- non-journalistic mass media (i.e. books or possibility of reading newspapers in various buttons, and sharing content onto social me- movies on DVD) are scarcely found in these ways: in print, online, on mobile phones, as dia platforms, etc. But already the very act of media linguistic works and have not yet been well as with special apps for tablets, reading an online article has an impact on in the centre of interest of media linguistics smartphones, or smartwatches. These dif-

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 11 the list of articles that are most frequently different versions? Or can we assume that communication. This can either encompass viewed. there are five distinct media because of the one-to-one communication (prototypically In addition, the individual texts of these five different versions of a newspaper, i.e. its e-mail or text messages, see the early works two newspaper versions are not simply ’the print, online, mobile, tablet, and smartphone of Günther & Wyss 1996; Baron 1998, 2000; same‘: even though large parts of the word- versions? If a technical understanding of the Androutsopoulos & Schmidt 2002; Döring ing in the printed and online version may be medium is adopted, the networked comput- 2002a & b; Elspaß 2002; Ziegler & Dür- similar or almost identical, they are charac- er would be the medium of the online news- scheid 2002; Thurlow 2003) or many-to- terised by different segmentations and con- paper. This medium, however, would not many communication (prototypically chat, textualisations. So called ‘Anreißertexte’, a only include online newspapers but also var- mailing lists, see Werry 1996; Hentschel special form of extended headline including ious other genres, such as e-mail, chat, blog, 1998; Grosch 1999; Herring 1999; Paolillo the beginning of an article, for example, are twitter, and social media platforms. Besides 1999; Schmidt 2000; Beißwenger 2001; Rin- typical of online newspapers but not in their the digitalisation of the data only few shared tel et al. 2001; Durham 2003). In these cases, printed counterparts. Due to the textual characteristics can be found. This is why a innovative language and character (in the structure and mediality of online newspa- purely technical conceptualization of the case of smileys etc.) uses were soon detected pers, these texts are actually needed in order medium does not seem to be expedient in – compared to the first online newspapers not only to find the corresponding article, media linguistics in times of technical con- that used to be “text databases for printed but to know about its very existence. In addi- vergence (and generic diversification, with newspapers” (Bucher 1998: 100, my translation, it has to be noticed that sign modes text messages, for instance, being written on tion). (language, picture, sound) are combined dif- a desktop computer or on a smartphone This development implies an enormous ferently in online versions and that online etc.): a purely technical notion of the medium expansion of the field of media linguistics texts show intra- and intermedial connec- is hardly able to account for the basic com- that nowadays does not exclusively deal tions that distinguish them from print news- municative features of the individual genres. with journalistic mass media anymore. But if paper texts. This happens for instance The increasing attention for the emer- interpersonal communication – because “it through links, reader’s comments and reader gence of new genres as well as the greater can be realised in a variety of different me- ratings, etc. The reception contexts are also awareness for the aspect of form (i.e. regard- dia” (Schmitz 2015: 12, my translation) – quite different depending on the mediality of ing text design or typography, see Antos & becomes the subject of media linguistic anal- newspapers. Spitzmüller 2007; Hagemann 2007; Spitz- ysis then every kind of communicative ex- Already at this point, the question arises müller 2013) became apparent in the con- change lends itself to media linguistic de- of what constitutes the medium. Is it the text of works on digital, written and visual ‘newspaper’ as institution that publishes communication beyond simple one-way-

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 12 scription.1 Consequently, it seems less im- understanding of medium as technical appa- the production, transmission and/or storage portant to ask about the subject (in terms of ratus, does not meet the requirements of of signs. Such conceptualisations of the me- the analysed object) of media linguistics, but media linguistic description of contemporary dium focus on the aspect of sign transmis- it rather is the specific perspective taken on communication. sion; media communication is in this case that subject that becomes relevant. every kind of communication that makes use In the beginning of CMC studies in the What is a Medium? of technical devices (in a rather broad sense, late 1990s (Androutsopoulos 2006: 420 including e.g., paper as transmission medi- speaks of a “first wave of linguistic CMC As mentioned above, the question now aris- um). Consequently, face-to-face communica- studies”), new forms of language use were es of what constitutes the medium when tion needs to be classified as non-medial and described in a more or less decontextualised analysing media texts: Is it the technical ap- somehow direct communication. Based on way and were often labelled as “netspeak” paratus that gives material shape to the this conceptualisation of the medium and the (Crystal 2006) as the result of rather impre- transmitted signs (e.g., a printing press or a media under analysis, the question arises of cise generalisations. Today’s studies reflect TV camera)? Is it the sign carrier (e.g., a what modes (like language, image, sound see on different sub-genres (e.g. corporate blogs, printed newspaper) or the receiver device Kress & van Leeuwen 2006) can be realised academic blogs, personal blogs and so on, (e.g., a TV set)? Or do we refer to an institu- in what kinds of material shape, in what local see Puschmann 2010; Fritz 2013: ch. 11; tion when talking about the newspaper or and temporal relations the transmission Schildhauer 2014), diverse situational and television – and therefore to a social group takes place (e.g. simultaneous or delayed cultural contexts (see, e.g., Kerschner in this producing the texts with certain routines, transmission), as well as the question of issue; Ylönen 2007; DeAndrea et al. 2010; within a certain society and for a certain me- whether the medium allows, for instance, Luginbühl & Hauser 2010; Luginbühl 2014 a dia market? The research questions that one-way-communication only (see Holly & b; Theodoropoulou 2015) and contextuali- need to be formulated depend greatly on 2011). This conceptualisation seems valua- sations (see, e.g., van Dijck 2013; Bastian et how we answer these questions. ble at first since it is quite homogenous com- al. 2014; Locher et al. 2015; Klemm & Michel A lot of media linguistic studies define pared to much broader conceptualisations in this issue, Pflaeging in this issue). This the medium as technical device (e.g., defini- that can be found in media philosophy or shows, in my opinion, that a purely technical tions given in Schmitz 2015: 8 or in Marx & media sociology (which include e.g. money, conceptualisation of mediality alone, i.e. an Weidacher 2014: 84), extending this defini- shoes or power as media, see Krotz 2012: tion though by introducing additional as- 34; Klemm & Michel 2013). Understanding media as technical devices also draws atten- 1 pects. In these works, the core meaning of Except oral face-to-face communication if a technical tion to the crucial fact that technical devices understanding of the concept medium is adopted, medium is that of a technical device, serving see below. always enable (or prevent) realisations of

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 13 certain modes, and thus have an influence on chats, dating chats) etc. Both communication not something that is due to the apparatus). the repertoire of genres that can be realised forms are realised by means of a computer Nevertheless, the concept is problematic in in a certain medium (see Habscheid 2000). (although thereby neglecting differences some ways as Schneider (i.pr.) points out. It Studies relying on a technical conceptu- between desktop computers, smartphones separates the material aspect of communica- alisation of the medium distinguish another and tablets), but they do differ with respect tion i.e. the modes used from the procedural analytical level next to medium and genre in to communicative constellations (e.g. regard- side, i.e. the communicative practices. This order to discern different communicative ing simultaneity, one-way or two-way com- way, the medium (understood as technical constellations within a technical medium. munication etc.). The ways of sign processing device) is reduced to the repertoires and These works distinguish between ‘medium’ – in e-mails or chat, respectively, are different combinations of semiotic modes and their ‘communication form’ – ‘text type’ (Stöckl regarding communicative structures to such transmission; aspects of sign processing are 2012: 19 uses “Kommunikat” instead of ‘text a degree that they cannot be grasped with a related to communication forms and text type’; Holly 1997; Schmitz 2015: 8-11). technical conceptualisation of the medium types alone. These communication forms encompass as- and this is where the intermediate concept Thus, this conceptualisation has some pects of the technical medium on the one of communication form comes in. These dif- major disadvantages. It is not the case – hand (e.g., the communication form ‘TV ferences between communicative structures which has already been acknowledged in show’ is described as “non-permanent” “one- become very clear in the age of convergent works on traditional communication models way-communication”, see Schmitz 2015: 9, media: A smartphone can be used to make – that technical transmission media simply my translations), and specifics of the com- phone calls or to send voice messages, to transmit signs in a neutral way and that they municative situation (Schmitz 2015: 8) on write e-mails or text messages etc. Very dif- only determine the modes that can be used the other hand (e.g., the TV show can be cur- ferent communication forms can be realised (e.g. sound in the case of radio) and aspects rent or not, it can make use of written lan- with one technical device. This situation was of communicative structure (like one-way- guage or not). Holly places the notion com- different in the age of analogue media as the communication). Rather it is the case that munication form right in between technical communication forms of the traditional mass there are very complex relations between possibilities and a communicative-pragmatic media (newspaper, radio, TV) used different different medialities (including oral and writ- design, describing it as “media-based cultural technical devices for transmission. ten communication, which are in the case of practices” (Holly 2011: 155, my translation). The concept of communication form al- TV intertwined anyway) and therefore also Examples of communication forms lows discerning specific communicative con- between different media (in the sense of would be e-mail communication (with text stellations with regards to different ways of technical devices) on the one hand and types such as business e-mail or private e- sign processing that emerge when using communicative practices on the other hand. mail), chat communication (with e.g. expert technical devices (which is a cultural process,

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 14

Technical transmission devices (or, more ances, lots of short utterances are realised but a neutral, non-medial form of communi- generally, the mediality chosen) have an im- (so called “chunks”, see Spitzmüller 2005: cation. Like any other communicative event, pact on the way we use language, they take 12; Beißwenger 2007: 246-253 speaks of it is shaped by the specific materialisation part in the constitution of sign processing. “splitting”) in order to cover much of the and processing of the respective signs. And it Media therefore co-create and not merely space; and smileys are used in order to com- is for that reason that a technical conceptu- transmit meaning (sensu Krämer 1998: 74: municate moods and attitudes, e.g. to mark alisation of media remains problematic. [“sinnmiterzeugende und nicht bloß eine an utterance as ironic. At the same time technical transmission sinntransportierende Kraft“]). They leave an All these examples show that the influ- media do not completely determine lan- “unintended trace” of meaning in processes ence of a medium (in the example above: the guage use: to a certain extent we always of meaning-making (Krämer 1998: 73, my chat-specific processing of writing) goes way have the possibility to choose – and it is this translation), because every medium favours beyond modal choices (e.g., written lan- aspect of choice that allows realising cultural and demands a specific processing of com- guage). Thus, media play their part in shaping positionings through diverse and constantly munication. As a consequence of the tech- utterances from the very beginning, they not changing communicative practices (see Lin- nical framework, people communicating in only determine which signs we use but they ke 2011; Luginbühl 2014a & b). If, for exam- online-chats, for instance, are not able to also have an influence on how we use them.2 ple, journalistic texts are compared, different interrupt each other; they cannot prevent In short: Media offer a frame that, in the pro- designs of the role of journalists can be iden- others from taking part in communication by cess of utterance production already, has an tified (e.g., supposedly neutral disseminators producing long utterances and they cannot influence on how we design the utterance, of information vs. disseminators of values; signal on the level of nonverbal communica- how we process signs (see Habscheid 2000: detached reporters vs. entertainers). Usually tion whether they agree with someone else’s 137; see also the “medium factors” discussed almost all semiotic modes are involved in the utterance. This is due to the specific mediali- in Herring 2007; Schneider i. pr.). realisation of these roles – for instance in the ty of chat communication that is character- This is, however, also true for oral communi- case of television the chosen formulations ised by another kind of interactivity, of sign cation. Face-to-face conversation is anything are involved as well as the staging of the processing and multimodality compared to journalists in the footage (i.e. correspond- oral communication in face-to-face conver- 2 Smileys are a case in point: They do not just replace ents that are ‘live on the spot’, even though sation. The mediality of chat also influences non-verbal communication, as we are forced in face- they are actually standing in front of a green to-face conversation to always behave nonverbally, the design of communicative practices. Thus, while we can use smileys very selectively in chat screen) or the prosodic design of speech (see in chat communication, instead of interrupt- communication. We cannot use them simultaneous Luginbühl 2011). Or, to give another exam- ing, continuity markers are ignored (Storrer to verbal communication though but only sequential- ple, there are (still) bloggers who refrain ised, i.e. before, in the middle or after a verbal utter- 2001: 16); instead of long continuous utterance (see also Hinz in this issue). from posting pictures, although the medium

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 15 would allow to do so (see Schildhauer 2014: keywords (e.g., the hashtag #schlandkette, a that mark elementary formative forces in 318). clipping of ‘Deutschlandkette’, a necklace in communication. These medially conditioned Due to these communicative potentials the colours of the German flag that was cultural practices can also be referred to as that media always create, they show a cul- worn by German chancellor Angela Merkel ‘dispositives’ according to Holly (2011) and tural “fitting” [“Zurichtung”] (Linke 2008: during the television debate 2013). Technol- Jäger (2010), which “gradually developed 118) that results from respective media uses ogy initially offers a potential – crucial for and modified on the basis of available tech- that at the same time influences them. For communication is always the users’ behav- nical possibilities and social requirements” instance, quite fundamental uses of technical iour. Technical means are no media, but they (Holly 2011: 155, my translation).3 transmission resources can be subject to this have been transformed into media through Generally speaking, we can assume that cultural fitting (e.g., telephones were origi- communicative action (Krotz 2012: 35, 45). communicative needs influence the devel- nally also used for the transmission of con- In sum, it can be pointed out that the opment and especially the large-scale im- certs and therefore for one-way communica- concept of the medium has various intercon- plementation of technical media and vice tion, see Holly 1997: 74; text messages were nected aspects that are relevant for media versa allow the development of new media initially only intended for the communication linguistics. First, there is the technical aspect techniques, new cultural production pat- between operators and customers, see An- that concerns the production, the transmis- terns as well as new reception patterns. As droutsopoulos & Schmidt 2002: 2; Krotz sion and the reception of signs. The second the relation between media technology, 2012: 46). But this cultural fitting especially aspect is semiotic in nature and relates to mode and design as well as cultural practice affects the individual genres that are func- the choice, combination and processing of is accordingly complex and interdependent tionalised through stylistic variation in the different modes such as language, image or (see Holly 2011: 155), the relation between use of signs. We, for instance, notice differ- sound. Finally, there is the pragmatic aspect, production, product and reception is not ences in articles in tabloid newspapers in which focuses on the cultural practices modelled as a simple cycle anymore, but as comparison to articles in subscription news- based on changing communicative needs of network with a multitude of flows, resulting papers. Another example would be a private an institution or of other social groups, in- in complex communicative connectivities as opposed to public use of new digital gen- cluding different practices regarding produc- (see Hepp 2006). This is even more neces- res. This cultural fitting can also lead to tion and reception. These practices lead to sary as new media such as tablets, changes in the technical transmission device. the fitting of technical media and even up to smartphones and smartwatches result in the In the case of Twitter for example, a twitter- their modification. As the media influence media increasingly permeating our lives, in er made a suggestion that led to the imple- the way we use signs as well as our cultural mentation of the hashtag function (#; see practices influence the way we use media, it 3 Elsewhere Holly also links mediality to oral commu- Moraldo 2009: 206). This allows labelling is the notions of mediality and culturality nication (Holly 2011: 149f.).

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 16 which we easily switch between writing and on perception and therefore also on a per- ly expand communication, are involved (in reading, between producing and receiving. ceptible materialisation: “all forms of human terms of “extension”, see Schulz 2004: 88). Furthermore the web 2.0 gives us the possi- interaction are mediated in one way or an- Thus, the limitations of the media linguistic bility to make our text publicly available in a other” (Livingstone & Lunt 2014: 717). Thus, subjects of investigation can be described very easy way. A related concept is mediati- every linguistic expression, either spoken or based on the use of technical tools. This can zation, which tries to describe the complex written, is materialised and mediated, be- be done, however, without having to put relations between the media, communica- cause it somehow has to be processed these tools on the same level as media. tion and society (see Androutsopoulos 2014; through the choice of materialisation. Fur- Hepp 2014; Lundby 2014; Strömbäck & Es- thermore, it has to be noticed that communi- Current Tendencies ser 2014). cation cannot take place without materiali- For a long time, media linguistics has focused If we consider the three aspects of pro- sation. Media linguitics, then, defines itself on the use of language in journalistic prod- duction, product and reception in a multidi- through a specific perspective, namely on ucts. Current media linguistic tendencies mensional media linguistic understanding of media as a force co-creating meaning and on expand this focus in different directions. I the term medium, we can conceptualise me- cultural linguistic practices. These can be would like to single out three of these direc- dia according to Schneider (2008, i. pr.) as understood as processes of sign use, which tions: the expansion on non-linguistic or par- specific “socially-constituted procedures” are processurally, semiotically and pragma- alinguistic signs (multimodality), the expan- (my translation) of sign processing. Accord- culturally characterised as well as character- sion of a cultural dimension (culturality) and ing to this theory, a medium is a way and ising. However it can be mentioned that me- the expansion on the whole communicative manner of communication processing that dia linguistics for a long time restricted itself process (including the production and recep- encompasses the production, distribution to journalistic mass media and on interper- tion). The current media linguistic expansion and reception, it takes part in the transmis- sonal communication, in which technical on interpersonal communication in digital sion and constitution of sign processing. This tools are employed. media has previously been mentioned. Due concept of media can, depending on the re- Face-to-face communication as the orig- to lack of space, a few references to current search interest, be understood as rather inal form of communication shows important publications will have to suffice: Thurlow & wide (spoken language, Internet, see Marx & differences to communication that uses Mroczek (2011), Siever & Schlobinski (2012), Weidacher 2014: 71-90) or narrow (mobile technical tools. In face-to-face communica- Herring et al. (2013), Bedjis et al. (2014), phone calls). tion, neither a third party as for instance Marx & Weidacher (2014), Schildhauer If one accepts this view of medium, then distributors/sales partners or operators (in- (2014), Locher et al. (2015), Tagg (2015); see there is no non-medial communication be- terpreters are an exception here), nor any also Pflaeging, Kerschensteiner in this issue. cause communication is always dependent device, which would temporarily and spatial-

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 17

Multimodality texts (such as Straßner 2002; Stöckl 2004; However, if we acknowledge the fact that Jewitt 2014; Zantides 2014), but also a language is always dependent on materiali- Media linguistic analyses have considered broad range of individual analyses (see con- sation, then ‘pure language’ cannot exist (see images next to verbal text for a long time, tributions in anthologies Fix & Wellmann Holly 2011, 2013). Therefore, aspects such especially in the cases of television (see 2000; Eckkrammer & Held 2006; Spitzmüller as typography or colouring and potentially Ballstaedt 1976; Muckenhaupt 1986), or & Roth 2007; Deppermann & Linke 2010; also lines, bars, colour patches etc. also play advertisement (see Schöberle 1984; Stöckl Dieckmannshenke et al. 2011; Schneider & an important role as far as verbal texts are 1997). However, when it comes to television Stöckl 2011; see Kilchör, Domke, Siefkes, concerned. Texts as interwoven products texts, the relation between language and and Pflaeging in this volume). This im- are never purely verbal. So if a semiotic no- images has almost always been approached portance of a multimodal analysis of media tion of text is taken into consideration, indi- from a logocentric perspective (see Holly texts derives from the meaning potentials vidual modes still have to be analysed by 2005). that are generated through the integration means of specific analytical grids. Even in Since the end of the 20th century, how- of different semiotic modes (e.g., language, “pictorial linguistics” [“Bildlinguistik”] the ever, non-linguistic and para-linguistic signs image and sound) as well as through their fact that semiotically images function differ- have been taken into account to an increas- interaction. What is relevant here is that ently than language is uncontested. This re- ing extent. Such innovative perspectives on modes can be materialised in various ways sults in the claim that individual modes first media texts were prompted by visible inno- (for instance as spoken or written language, have to be analytically separated and then vations in their design, especially the grow- a photograph or a painting, music or noises scrutinised according to a mode-specific ing importance of images in online and print etc.) and that text designs can also be ar- analytical framework – without neglecting newspapers (see for instance Bucher 1995 ranged differently. Thus, compared to previ- the fact that meaning is realised through the on text design in press reports or Schmitz ous media linguistic studies multimodal combination of all modes involved (see, e.g., 2001 on online newspapers). The concept of analyses focus less on language alone but Bateman 2014). multimodality that has been developed with- they usually shift their focus to media semiot- in the field of “social semiotics” (van Leeu- ic studies. Accordingly, we could ask if we Culturality wen 2005; Kress & van Leeuwen 2006; see should still use the notion of media texts – or also Ruiz 2013) is particularly productive in rather limit the notion of text to linguistic Over the past years a “culture-linguistic” media linguistics. instances. Adamzik (2004: 43) suggests the paradigm, based on studies of contrastive Nowadays, there are not only funda- notion of “Kommunikat” as an alternative for textology (Eckkrammer et al. 1999; Pöckl mental works on the multimodality of media multimodal complexes. 1999; Adamzik 2001; Fix et al. 2001; Lüger &

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 18

Lenk 2008; Hauser & Luginbühl 2012) and perspective in which the way and manner of negotiation processes. Particularly relevant on the pragmatic history of language (Sitta language use, and thereby the linguistic in this perspective are genres, which can be 1980; Linke 1996; Cherubim 1998), devel- form, becomes especially relevant. understood as established patterns of cul- oped in media linguistics (see, e.g., Tienken Whenever people solve communicative tural practices (as e.g. editorials, see 2008; Klemm & Michel 2014; Luginbühl tasks (e.g., reporting in a newspaper or acting Kerschner in this issue; or viral online gen- 2014 a & b). This paradigm also refers to as a funny person in a Facebook-update), res, see Pflaeging in this issue). sociolinguistic and ethnographic studies (see they always have the choice between vari- This approach does not follow the con- Günthner & Linke 2006; Senft 2006). “Cul- ous forms. And it is the possible variation of tent vs. form dichotomy. Instead, it under- ture-linguistics” assumes that common val- communicative forms within the same task stands form as implying meaning, thereby ues and norms from (small or large) groups that adds a cultural value to the single forms, creating links to conceptions of “style” put have to be negotiated, established, passed in other words a surplus of semiotic meaning forward by Sandig (2006) or Devitt (2009). on and changed during semiotically based potential (see Linke 2003: 42). They can ac- In contrast to classic antiquity where style interactions (see Klemm & Michel in this tually be used for social purposes of self- was seen as ornamental guise that should be issue). They actually have to be negotiated in presentation, integration or distinction. This added at the end of the production process, this context because human beings only phenomenon is central for digital communi- these approaches conceive of style holisti- have access to the world through the use and cation on social platforms, where identity cally as a “socially meaningful way of per- the mediation of symbolic forms (see Cassi- negotiations take place exclusively (or at forming an action” (Sandig 2006: 17). In this rer 2001-2002 [1923-1924]). Humans are least primarily) in a verbal way. Within the concept, form and content combine to create “symbolically mediated beings” (Krotz 2012: field of journalistic mass media, different a specific gestalt that generates meanings 39, my translation) which constitute them- forms of news coverage establish different which are more than the sum of its parts. selves through communication (see Krotz journalistic cultures (Hanitzsch 2007; Hepp This renders such conception of style partic- 2012: 39-44). et al. 2010; Brüggemann 2011; Hanitzsch et ularly useful for analyses of multimodal Consequently, this means that the se- al. 2011; Hanitzsch & Donsbach 2012). This communication. With regards to media lin- miotic and linguistic conception of the world culture has different values and norms – as guistics, this approach enables us to inter- always also to certain extents constitutes for instance a focus on citizens or on con- pret linguistic forms in terms of culture and this world. Culture is dependent on commu- sumers. Thus culture-linguistics allows relat- to account for journalistic and group-related nication and “all communication always re- ing the stylistic analysis of linguistic forms to cultures. In such an interpretive process, the lies on culture and is contextualized by cul- a macro-level of cultural values and norms. central status of media technology needs to ture” (Krotz 2012: 39, my translation). A Thereby, the linguistic form turns out to be be taken into account, as it contributes sub- cultural approach to media texts opens up a constitutive of certain aspects of cultural stantially to the shape and development of

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 19 culture and thereby influences our action as Production – Product - Reception Concerning text production, media lin- well as our attitudes – even beyond specific guistic studies used to be limited to inter- topics. A third development concerns the expansion views with journalists that did not cover spe- Methodologically, such an approach of media linguistic investigations to cover cific cases (e.g. Straßner 1982). In this re- fundamentally relies on comparison, as the the whole communicative process of produc- gard, research has developed rapidly in re- meaning of any specific form will only be- tion – product – reception. At the beginning, cent years (for overviews refer to Cotter come apparent by comparing patterns and media linguistic studies concentrated on 2010; Catenaccio et al. 2011; Perrin 2013). their variations. With regards to methods, analysing the product as the central element Studies have not only scrutinised journalistic media linguistic studies of culture can there- of cultural meaning production.4 Based on a methods of investigation (Voßkamp 2010) fore benefit from recent developments both complex notion of media that does not re- and editorial meetings (Zampa 2015), but in text linguistics and genre studies (e.g. duce media to tools of technological trans- also for collaborative text production, e.g. by Scollon 2000; Drescher 2002; Yakhontova fer, however, processes of production and editors (Perrin 2011), as well as for individu- 2006; Berkenkotter 2008; Devitt 2009; reception have to be taken into account as al journalists’ text production (using pro- Hauser 2010; Luginbühl 2014 a & b; see also well. The analysis of production processes gression analysis, see Perrin & Ehrensberger Klemm & Michel in this volume), which con- allows for insights into specific aspects of the 2008, and subsequent case specific verbatim ceive of culture not so much in homogenous, communicative context and the way in which protocols, see Gnach 2011). However, stud- static terms (implicitly) related to a national these aspects are regarded as relevant e.g. ies on the production of media texts as part language, but as dynamic semiotic practices by journalists and thereby shape the produc- of a daily routine in journalistic practices and used by social groups of varying size (such as tion of text. Related to mass media, these in our everyday lives remain a desideratum. the editorial staff of TV shows or a girls’ contextual aspects concern the wider con- Just as investigations of production, re- clique, see Voigt 2015). Besides synchronic text of the media market, policies impacting ception studies have long been a subject of comparisons, diachronic studies of specific the media, the audience targeted, the tech- media science. Works in the field of cultural media texts can be conducted, as they would nological equipment, guidelines and pro- studies demonstrated early that recipients be especially well-suited to relate cultural cesses of the editorial staff as well as negoti- read media texts in ways that can contradict change to language change. ations concerning the structure of any spe- the intended readings of the authors (Fiske cific text in the case of collaborative writing. 1987: 62-83). A large media linguistic research project in Germany (Holly et al. 2001) analysed the communication among TV 4 The product is object of production and reception viewers and was able to show in great detail and as such combines both aspects, see Lünenborg 2005: 69-71. in which ways viewers appropriate media

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 20 texts (see also Klemm & Michel in this issue). medical communication on the web, is able be exploited –, it can and should contribute It showed in particular that viewers establish to show how media affordances facilitate the to this emerging paradigm. Thereby, media links between media texts and their own hybridization of lay as well as experts’ per- linguistics can add to our understanding of experience. Bucher (2010, 2011) or Schu- spectives with regards to medicine. This, in how digital media and the industries in its macher (2009) analyse the reception of mul- turn, leads to modifications of “claims of background change our ways of communica- timodal texts (e.g. print and online newspa- knowledge, depictions of reality and action tion, how they influence social representa- pers, ads) by means of eye-tracking studies. orientations” (Tienken 2014: 31, my translation and, thereby, address questions of pow- They have shown that recipients solve cer- tion). Such studies allow us to analyse the er and resistance, impacting our everyday tain problems of reception (like orienting or appropriation of media through usage. On life, our societies and identities. navigating) in certain phases. Furthermore, the basis of the texts, it is also possible to analyses indicate that the process of recep- investigate the way these texts are fitted in References tion depends on text design but also on us- terms of cultural practices. ers’ expectations and goals. Interpreting these observations against Adamzik, K. (2004). Textlinguistik. Eine einführende Here, the concept of affordances (Gib- the background of a rapidly changing ”matrix Darstellung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Adamzik, K. (Ed.) (2001). Kontrastive Textologie: son 1979) comes into play (see Tienken of media” (Finnemann 2014: 299) in West- Untersuchungen am Beispiel deutscher und 2014: 36f.). Affordances are an object’s pos- ern societies, a new and in my view highly französischer Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. sibilities for action, whereas these possibili- relevant field of media linguistics emerges. In Tübingen: Narr. ties have to be discovered in the use of this this field, the complex usages of digital media Androutsopoulos, J. K. (2006). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and Computer-Mediated object. They are therefore understood as by individuals and groups in everyday life are Communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics, relational phenomena which are neither re- studied (see e.g. Voigt 2015). Jansson (2014: 10.4, pp. 419-438. stricted to the object nor to the subject. 276) talks about “transmedia textures”. Androutsopoulos, J. K. (Ed.) (2014). Mediatization With regards to media texts in web 2.0, this Comparable concepts are “communicative and Sociolinguistic Change. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. idea is of particular importance: Often times, figuration” (Hepp & Hasebrink 2013) and Androutsopoulos, J. K. & Schmidt, G. (2002). texts are produced here that can be related “amalgamation” (Schulz 2004: 89). Within SMS-Kommunikation: Ethnografische to established genres. However, specific the framework of mediatization, media lin- Gattungsanalyse am Beispiel einer Kleingruppe. Zeitschrift für Angewandte uses of new technological possibilities lead guistic studies are able to investigate chang- Linguistik, 36, pp. 49-79. to modifications of established patterns (see es in the use of media. Since the discipline of Antos, G. & Spitzmüller, J. (2007). Was 'bedeutet' also Schildhauer 2014: 92 & forthc. who cap- media linguistics provides excellent methods Textdesign? Überlegungen zu einer Theorie tures these processes under the term genre and broad knowledge about how communi- typographischen Wissens. In K. S. Roth & J. Spitzmüller (Eds.), Textdesign und Textwirkung migration). Thus, Tienken (2014), studying cation in the media works – and how it can

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 21

in der massenmedialen Kommunikation (pp. 35- Praxis. In O. Jandura et al. (Eds.), Methoden der Kommunikationsformen der Massenmedien. 48). Konstanz: UVK. Journalismusforschung (pp. 47-65). Wiesbaden: Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. Ballstaedt, S.-P. (1976). Nachrichtensprache und VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Cassirer, E. (2001-2002 [1923-24]). Philosophie der Zusammenhang von Text und Bild. Bucher, H.-J. (1995). Textdesign – neues der symbolischen Formen. Hamburg: Meiner. Rundfunk und Fernsehen, 24, pp. 109-113. Zaubermittel der Verständlichkeit in der Catenaccio, P. et al. (2011). Towards a Linguistics Baron, N. S. (1998). Letters by Phone or Speech Presseberichterstattung? In B. Spillner (Ed.), of News Production. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, by Other Means: The Linguistics of Email. Sprache: Verstehen und Verständlichkeit. pp. 1843-1852. Language and Communication, 18, pp. 133-170. Frankfurt am Main. Cherubim, D. (1998). Sprachgeschichte im Baron, N. S. (2000). Alphabet to Email: How Bucher, H. J. (1986). Pressekommunikation: Zeichen einer linguistischen Pragmatik. In W. Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading. Grundstrukturen einer öffentlichen Form der Besch et al. (Ed.), Sprachgeschichte: Ein London, New York: Routledge. Kommunikation aus linguistischer Sicht. Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache Bastian, S. et al. (Eds.) (2014). Langue et identité Tübingen: Niemeyer. und ihrer Erforschung. 2nd edition (pp. 538-550). dans l'espace digital. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang. Bucher, H. J. (1998). Vom Textdesign zum Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Bateman, John A. (2014). Text and Image: A Hypertext: Gedruckte und elektronische Cotter, C. (2010). News Talk: Investigating the Critical Introduction to the Visual/verbal Divide. Zeitungen als nicht-lineare Medien. In W. Language of Journalism. Cambridge: CUP. London: Routledge. Holly & B. U. Biere (Eds.), Medien im Wandel Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet. 2nd Bedjis, K. et al. (Eds.) (2014). Facework and Social (pp. 63-102). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. edition. Cambridge: CUP. Media. Hamburg: LIT. Bucher, H. J. (2010). Multimodalität – eine DeAndrea, D. C. et al.(2010). Online Language: Bednarek, M. (2010). The Language of Fictional Universalie des Medienwandels: The Role of Culture in Self-Expression and Television: Drama and Identity. London: Conti- Problemstellungen und Theorien der Self-Construal on Facebook. Journal of Lan- nuum. Multimodalitätsforschung. In H. J. Bucher et guage and Social Psychology, 29.4, pp. 425-442. Beißwenger, M. (2007). al. (Eds.), Neue Medien – neue Formate: Deppermann, A. & Linke, A. (Eds.) (2010). Sprache Sprachhandlungskoordination in der Chat- Ausdifferenzierung und Konvergenz in der intermedial: Stimme und Schrift, Bild und Ton. Kommunikation. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Medienkommunikation (pp. 41-79). Frankfurt, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Beißwenger, M. (Ed.). (2001). Chat- New York: Campus. Devitt, A. J. (2009). Re-Fusing Form in Genre Kommunikation: Sprache, Interaktion, Sozialität Bucher, H. J. (2011). Multimodales Verstehen Study. In J. Giltrow & D. Stein (Eds.), Genres in & Identität in synchroner computervermittelter oder Rezeption als Interaktion: Theoretische the Internet (pp. 27-47). Amsterdam: Kommunikation : Perspektiven auf ein und empirische Grundlagen einer Benjamins. interdisziplinäres Forschungsfeld. Stuttgart: systematischen Analyse der Multimodalität. Diekmannshenke, H. et al. (Eds.) (2011). ibidem. In H. Diekmannshenke et al. (Eds.), Bildlinguistik: Theorien – Methoden – Berkenkotter, C. (2008). Genre Evolution? The Bildlinguistik: Theorien – Methoden – Fallbeispiele. Berlin: Schmidt. Case for a Diachronic Perspective. In V. K. Fallbeispiele (pp. 123-156). Berlin: Schmidt. Döring, N. (2002a). 1x Brot, Wurst, 5Sack Äpfel Bhatia et al. (Eds.), Advances in Discourse Stud- Burger, H. (1984). Sprache der Massenmedien. I.L.D.: Kommunikative Funktionen von ies (pp. 178-191). London: Routledge. Berlin: de Gruyter. Kurzmitteilungen (SMS). Zeitschrift für Brüggemann, M. (2011). Journalistik als Burger, H. & Luginbühl, M. (2014). Mediensprache: Medienpsychologie, 14.3, pp. 118-128. Kulturanalyse: Redaktionskulturen als Eine Einführung in Sprache und Döring, N. (2002b). "Kurzm. wird gesendet": Schlüssel zur Erforschung journalistischer Abkürzungen und Akronyme in der SMS-

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 22

Kommunikation. Muttersprache, 112.2, pp. 97- and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology Hanitzsch, T. (2007). Deconstructing Journalism 114. (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Culture: Towards a Universal Theory. Drescher, M. (2002). Theoretische und Gnach, A. (2011). "Und dann kam das Digitale …": Communication Theory, 17.4, pp. 367-385. methodische Aspekte einer kontrastiven Reflexion und Variation sprachlicher Muster Hanitzsch, T. & Donsbach, W. (2012). Comparing Textsortenbeschreibung am Beispiel in der Produktion deutsch- und Journalism Cultures. In F. Esser & T. Hanitzsch französischer und spanischer Todesanzeigen. französischsprachiger Fernsehnachrichten in (Eds.), The Handbook of Comparative In M. Drescher (Ed.), Textsorten im der Schweiz. In M. Luginbühl & D. Perrin Communication Research (pp. 262-275). romanischen Sprachvergleich (pp. 41-62). (Eds.), Muster und Variation: Medienlinguistische London: Routledge. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Perspektiven auf Textproduktion und Text (pp. Hanitzsch, T. et al. (2011). Mapping Journalism Durham, M. (2003). Language Choice on a Swiss 253-287). Bern: Peter Lang. Cultures Across Nations. Journalism Studies, Mailing List. Journal of Computer-Mediated Grosch, Y. (1999). Turn-Verteilung in synchroner 12.3, pp. 273-293. Communication, 9.9. Retrieved from computervermittelter Kommunikation: eine Hauser, S. (2010). Zum Problem des Vergleichens http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j. Frage der medialen Rahmenbedingungen von Medientexten aus kulturkontrastiver 1083-6101.2003.tb00359.x/abstract. oder der sozialen Regulierung? In B. Naumann Perspektive: Methodologische Überlegungen Eckkrammer, E. M. & Held, G. (Eds.) (2006). (Ed.), Dialogue Analysis and the Mass Media: und exemplarische Analyse. In M. Luginbühl & Textsemiotik: Studien zu multimodalen Texten. Proceedings of the International Conference S. Hauser (Eds.), MedienTextKultur: Frankfurt a. Main: Lang. Erlangen, April 2-3, 1998 (pp. 101-112). Linguistische Beiträge zur kontrastiven Eckkrammer, E. M. et al. (Eds.) (1999). Kontrastive Tübingen: Niemeyer. Medienanalyse (pp. 149-178). Landau: Verlag Textologie. Wien. Günther, U. & Wyss, E.-L. (1996). E-Mail-Briefe: Empirische Pädagogik. Elspaß, S. (2002). Alter Wein und neue eine neue Textsorte zwischen Mündlichkeit Hauser, S. & Luginbühl, M. (Eds.) (2012). Schläuche? Briefe der Wende zum 20. und Schriftlichkeit. In E. W. B. Hess-Lüttich et Contrastive Media Analysis: Approaches to Jahrhundert und Texte der neuen Medien – al. (Eds.), Textstrukturen im Medienwandel (pp. Linguistc and Cultural Aspects of Mass Media ein Vergleich. In U. Schmitz & E.-L. Wyss 61-86). Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Eds.), Briefkultur im 20. Jahrhundert (pp. 7-31). Günthner, S. & Linke, A. (2006). Einleitung: Hentschel, E. (1998). Communication on IRC. Oldenburg: Gilles & Francke. Linguistik und Kulturanalyse. Ansichten eines Linguistik online, 1.1. Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture: popular symbiotischen Verhältnisses. Zeitschrift für Hepp, A. (2006). Konnektivität, Netzwerk und pleasures and politics. London, New York: Germanistische Linguistik, 2, 1-27. Fluss: Perspektiven einer an den Cultural Stu- Methuen. Habscheid, S. (2000). 'Medium' in der Pragmatik: dies orientierten Medien- und Kommunikati- Fix, U. et al. (Eds.) (2001). Zur Kulturspezifik von Eine kritische Bestandesaufnahme. Deutsche onsfoschung. In A. Hepp & R. Winter (Eds.), Textsorten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Sprache, 2, 126-143. Kultur – Medien – Macht: Cultural Studies und Fix, U. & Wellmann, H. (Eds.) (2000). Bild im Text – Hagemann, J. (2007). Typographie und logisches Medienanalyse. 3rd edition (pp. 155-174). Text und Bild. Heidelberg: Winter. Textdesign. In K. S. Roth & J. Spitzmüller Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaf- Fritz, G. (2013). Dynamische Texttheorie. Gießen: (Eds.), Textdesign und Textwirkung in der ten. Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek. massenmedialen Kommunikation (pp. 247-266). Hepp, A. (2014). Mediatization: A Panorama of Gibson, J. (1977). The Theory of Affordances. In J. Konstanz: UVK. Media and Communication Research. In J. Bransford & R. Shaw (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, Androutsopoulos (Ed.), Mediatization and

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 23

Sociolinguistic Change (pp. 49-66). Berlin: de Holly, W. et al. (Eds.) (2001). Der sprechende Linke, A. (1996). Sprachkultur und Bürgertum: Zur Gruyter. Zuschauer: Wie wir uns Fernsehen kommunikativ Mentalitätsgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Hepp, A. et al. (Eds.) (2010). Medienkultur im aneignen. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Stuttgart: Metzler. Wandel. Konstanz: UVK. Jäger, L. (2010). Intermedialität – Intramedialität Linke, A. (2003). Begriffsgeschichte – Herring, S. (1999). Interactional Coherence in – Transkriptivität: Überlegungen zu einigen Diskursgeschichte – CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Prinzipien der kulturellen Semiosis. In A. Sprachgebrauchsgeschichte. In C. Dutt (Ed.), Communication, 4.4. Retrieved from Deppermann & A. Linke (Eds.), Sprache Herausforderungen der Begriffsgeschichte (pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083- intermedial: Stimme und Schrift, Bild und Ton 39-49). Heidelberg: Winter. 6101.1999.tb00106.x. (pp. 299-324). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Linke, A. (2008). Zur Kulturalität und Historizität Herring, S. C. (2007). A Faceted Classification Jewitt, C. (Ed.) (2014). The Routledge Handbook of von Gesprächen und Gesprächsforschung. Scheme for Computer-Mediated Discourse. Multimodal Analysis. 2nd edition. London: Gesprächsforschung, 9, pp. 115-128. Language@Internet, 4. Retrieved from Routledge. Linke, A. (2011). Signifikante Muster – http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2 Klemm, M. & Michel, S. (2014). Perspektiven einer kulturanalytischen 007/761. Medienkulturlinguistik: Plädoyer für eine Linguistik. In E. Wåghäll Nivre et al. (Eds.), Herring, S. C. et al. (Eds.) (2013). Pragmatics of holistische Analyse von (multimodaler) Begegnungen: Das VIII. Nordisch-Baltische Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin, Medienkommunikation. In N. Benitt et al. Germanistentreffen in Sigtuna vom 11. bis zum New York: de Gruyter. (Eds.), Kommunikation – Korpus – Kultur: 13. 6. 2009 (pp. 23-44). Stockholm: Acta Holly, W. (1997). Zur Rolle von Sprache in Ansätze und Konzepte einer Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Medien: Semiotische und kulturwissenschaftlichen Linguistik (pp. 183- Livingstone, S. & Lunt, P. (2014). Mediatization: kommunikationsstrukturelle Grundlagen. 215). Trier: WVT. an Emerging Paradigm for Media and Muttersprache, 107, pp. 64-75. Krämer, S. (1998). Das Medium als Spur und als Communication Research? In K. Lundby (Ed.), Holly, W. (2005). Audiovisualität und Apparat. In S. Krämer (Ed.), Medien Computer Mediatization of Communication (pp. 703-723). Politikvermittlung in der Demokratie. In J. Realität – Wirklichkeitsvorstellungen und Neue Berlin: de Gruyter. Kilian (Ed.), Sprache und Politik: Deutsch im Medien (pp. 73-94). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Locher, M. A. et al. (Eds.) (2015). Relational Work demokratischen Staat (pp. 278-293). Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading in Facebook and Discussion Boards/Fora. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Special issue of Pragmatics, 25.1. Holly, W. (2011). Medien, Routledge. Lüger, H.-H. (1983). Pressesprache. Tübingen: Kommunikationsformen, Textsortenfamilien. Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading Imag- Niemeyer. In S. Habscheid (Ed.), Textsorten, es: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd edition. Lüger, H.-H. & Lenk, H. E. H. (Eds.) (2008). Handlungsmuster, Oberflächen: Linguistische London, New York: Routledge. Kontrastive Medienlinguistik. Landau: Typologien der Kommunikation (pp. 144-163). Krotz, F. (2012). Von der Entdeckung der Empirische Pädagogik. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Zentralperspektive zur Augmented Reality: Luginbühl, M. (2011). Die Stimme(n) der Holly, W. (2013). Textualität – Visualität. Wie Mediatisierung funktioniert. In F. Krotz & Tagesschau: Prosodie der Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 41.1, A. Hepp (Eds.), Mediatisierte Welten: Fernsehnachrichten-Präsentation als pp. 1-7. Forschungsfelder und Beschreibungsansätze (pp. kulturelle Performanz. In I. Bose & D. 27-55). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Schwiesau (Eds.), Nachrichten schreiben, sprechen, hören. Forschung zur

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 24

Hörverständlichkeit von Radionachrichten (pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083- in the Work of Gunther Kress. London: 353-373). Berlin: Frank & Timme. 6101.1999.tb00109.x. Routledge. Luginbühl, M. (2014a). Medienkultur und Perrin, D. (2011). “There are two different stories Sandig, B. (2006). Textstilistik des Deutschen. Medienlinguistik: Komparative to tell here’’: TV Journalists’ Collaborative Berlin: de Gruyter. Textsortengeschichte(n) der amerikanischen Text-Picture Production Strategies. Schildhauer, P. (2014). Textsorten im Internet zwi- "CBS Evening News" und der Schweizer Pragmatics, 43.7, pp. 1865–1875. schen Wandel und Konstanz: Eine diachrone Un- "Tagesschau". Bern: Lang. Perrin, D. (2013). The Linguistics of Newswriting. tersuchung der Textsorte Personal Weblog (PhD Luginbühl, M. (2014b). News Genres as Cultural Amsterdam: Benjamins. Thesis). Martin-Luther-University, Halle- Forms. Anglistik, 25.2, pp. 51-79. Perrin, D. & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2008). Wittenberg. Retrieved from Luginbühl, M. & Hauser, S. (Eds.) (2010). Medien- Progression Analysis: Tracing Journalistic http://tinyurl.com/schild2014. TextKultur: Linguistische Beiträge zur kontrasti- Language Awareness. In M. Burger (Ed.), Schildhauer, P. (forthc.). Genre Migration as Ana- ven Medienanalyse. Landau: Verlag Empirische L'analyse linguistique des discours médiatiques : logical Extension: Genre Ancestry of the Per- Pädagogik. Entre sciences du langage et sciences de la sonal Weblog. In C. Haase & A. Schröder Lundby, K. (Ed.) (2014). Mediatization of communication (pp. 155-182). Québec: Nota (Eds.), Analogy, Copy, and Representation: Inter- Communication. Berlin: de Gruyter. Bene. disciplinary Perspectives. Lünenborg, M. (2005). Journalismus als kultureller Puschmann, C. (2010). The Corporate Blog as an Schmidt, G. (2000). Chat-Kommunikation im Prozess: Zur Bedeutung von Journalismus in der Emerging Genre of Computer-Mediated Commu- Internet: eine kommunikative Gattung? Mediengesellschaft. Ein Entwurf. Wiesbaden: VS nication: Features, Constraints, Discourse Situa- Soziales im Netz: Sprache, Beziehungen und Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. tion. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen. Kommunikationskullturen im Internet (pp. 109- Marx, K. & Weidacher, G. (2014). Pöckl, W. (1999). Kontrastive Textologie. In E. M. 130). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Internetlinguistik: Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch. Eckkrammer et al. (Eds.), Kontrastive Textologie Schmitz, U. (2001). Optische Labyrinthe im Tübingen: Narr. (pp. 13-46). Wien: Edition Praesens. digitalen Journalismus: Text-Bild- Moraldo, S. M. (2009). Twitter: Queen, R. (2015). Vox Popular: The Surprising Life Beziehungen in Online-Zeitungen. In H. J. Kommunikationsplattorm zwischen of Language in the Media. Hoboken: Wiley- Bucher & U. Püschel (Eds.), Die Zeitung Nachrichtendienst, Small Talk und SMS. In S. Blackwell. zwischen Print und Digitalisierung (pp. 207- M. Moraldo (Ed.), Internet.kom: Neue Sprach- Rintel, E. S. et al. (2001). First Things First: 232). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. und Kommunikationsformen im WorldWideWeb Internet Relay Chat Openings. Journal of Schmitz, U. (2015). Einführung in die (pp. 245-281). Rom: Aracne. Computer-Mediated Communication, 6.3. Medienlinguistik. Darmstadt: Muckenhaupt, M. (1986). Text und Bild: Retrieved from Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Grundfragen der Beschreibung von Text-Bild- http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083- Schneider, J. G. (2008). Spielräume der Medialität: Kommunikation aus sprachwissenschaftlicher 6101.2001.tb00125.x. Linguistische Gegenstandskonstitution aus Sicht. Tübingen: Narr. Roth, K. S. & Spitzmüller, J. (Eds.) (2007). medientheoretischer und pragmatischer Paolillo, J. (1999). The Virtual Speech Textdesign und Textwirkung in der Perspektive. Berlin: de Gruyter. Community: Social Network and Language massenmedialen Kommunikation. Konstanz: Schneider, J. G. (i. Dr.). Nähe, Distanz und Variation on IRC. Journal of Computer- UVK. Medientheorie. In H. Feilke & J. Hennig (Eds.), Mediated Communication, 4.4. Retrieved from Ruiz, N. (2013). Multimodality and Social Semiosis: Zur Karriere von Nähe und Distanz. Communication, Meaning-Making, and Learning

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 25

Schneider, J. G. & Stöckl, H. (Eds.) (2011). Spitzmüller, J. (2005). Spricht da jemand? Strömbäck, J. & Esser, F. (2014). Introduction: Medientheorien und Multimodalität: Ein TV- Repräsentation und Konzeption in virtuellen Making Sense of the Mediatization of Politics. Werbespot – Sieben methodische Räumen. In G. Kramorenko (Ed.), Aktualnije Journalism Studies, 15.3, pp. 243-255. Beschreibungsansätze. Köln: Halem. problemi germanistiki i romanistiki 9/I (pp. 33- Tagg, C. (2015). Exploring Digital Communication: Schöberle, W. (1984). Argumentieren – Bewerten – 56). Smolensk: SGPU. Language in Action. London: Routledge. Manipulieren: Eine Untersuchung in Spitzmüller, J. (2013). Graphische Variation als Theodoropoulou, I. (2015). Politeness on Face- linguistischer Kommunikationstheorie am soziale Praxis: Eine soziokulturelle Theorie book: The Case of Greek Birthday Wishes. Beispiel von Texten und von Text-Bild- skripturaler 'Sichtbarkeit'. Berlin: de Gruyter. Pragmatics 25.1, pp. 23-45. Zusammenhängen aus der britischen Stöckl, H. (1997). Werbung in Wort und Bild: Thurlow, C. (2003). Generation Txt? The Fernsehwerbung. Heidelberg: Groos. Textstil und Semiotik englischsprachiger Sociolinguistics of Young People’s Text- Schumacher, P. (2009). Rezeption als Interaktion: Anzeigenwerbung. Frankfurt am Main. Messaging. Discourse Analysis Online, 1.1. Wahrnehmung und Nutzung multimodaler Stöckl, H. (2004). Die Sprache im Bild – Das Bild in Retrieved from Darstellungsformen im Online-Journalismus. der Sprache: Zur Verknüpfung von Sprache und http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3 Baden-Baden: Nomos. Bild im massenmedialen Text. Berlin, New York: /thurlow2002003.html. Schwarzl, A. (2015). Print – Online – App – Mobil: de Gruyter. Thurlow, C. & Mroczek, K. R. (Eds.) (2011). Digital Die Ausdifferenzierung des Zeitungsberichts Stöckl, H. (2012). Medienlinguistik: Zu Status und Discourse: Language in the New Media. Oxford: am Beispiel der Salzburger Nachrichten. In S. Methodik eines (noch) emergenten Oxford University Press. Hauser & M. Luginbühl (Eds.), Hybridisierung Forschungsfeldes. In C. Grösslinger et al. Tienken, S. (2008). Alltagsgattungen und der Ort und Differenzierung: Kontrastive Perspektiven (Eds.), Pressetextsorten jenseits der 'News' (pp. von Kultur: Sprachwissenschaftliche und linguistischer Medienanalyse (pp. 367-390). 13-34). Frankfurt a. M.: Lang. kulturanalytische Studien anhand von Bern: Lang. Storrer, A. (2001). Sprachliche Besonderheiten Milchverpackungen in Deutschland und Scollon, R. (2000). Generic Variability in News getippter Gespräche: Sprecherwechsel und Schweden. Stockholm: Stockholm University. Stories in Chinese and English: a Contrastive sprachliches Zeigen in der Chat- Tienken, S. (2015). Neue Medien, neue Formate? Discourse Study of Five Days´ Newspapers. Kommunikation. In M. Beisswenger (Ed.), Hybridisierung als Aspekt sozialen Wandels. Journal of Pragmatics, 32.6, pp. 761-791. Chat-Kommunikation: Sprache, Interaktion, In S. Hauser & M. Luginbühl (Eds.), Senft, G. (2009). Introduction. In G. Senft et al. Sozialität & Identität in synchroner Hybridisierung und Differenzierung: Kontrastive (Eds.), Culture and Language Use (pp. 1-17). computervermittelter Perspektiven linguistischer Medienanalyse (pp. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kommunikation : Perspektiven auf ein 41-56). Bern: Lang. Siever, T. & Schlobinski, P. (Eds.) (2012). interdisziplinäres Forschungsfeld (pp. 3-24). van Dijck, J. (2013). ‘You have one identity’: Per- Entwicklungen im Web 2.0: Ergebnisse des III. Stuttgart: ibidem. forming the Self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Workshops zur Linguistischen Internetforschung. Straßner, E. (1982). Fernsehnachrichten: Eine Media, Culture & Society, 35, pp. 199-215. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang. Produktions-, Produkt- und Rezeptionsanalyse. van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing Social Sitta, H. (1980). Pragmatisches Sprachverstehen Tübingen: Niemeyer. Semiotics. London: Routledge. und pragmatikorientierte Sprachgeschichte. Straßner, E. (2002). Text-Bild-Kommunikation, Voigt, M. (2015). Mädchenfreundschaften unter In H. Sitta (Ed.), Ansätze zu einer pragmatischen Bild-Text-Kommunikation. Tübingen: dem Einfluss von Social Media: Eine Sprachgeschichte (pp. 23-33). Tübingen: Niemeyer. soziolinguistische Untersuchung. Frankfurt a. Niemeyer. M.: Lang.

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics Martin Luginbühl | Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality 26

Voßkamp, P. (2010). Sprechen, um zu schreiben: Mündliche Kommunikation im Lokaljournalismus. Duisburg: UVRR Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr. Werry, C. C. (1996). Linguistic and Interactional Features of Internet Relay Chat. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistics, Social and Cross- Cultural Perspectives. (pp. 47-63). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Yakhontova, T. (2006). Cultural and Disciplinary Variation in Academic Discourse: The Issue of Influencing Factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5.2, pp. 95-170. Ylönen, S. (2007). Culture Specific Differences in Business Communication with New Media? In J. Murath & Á. Oláh-Hubai (Eds.), Inter- disziplinäre Aspekte des Übersetzens und Dol- metschens/Interdisciplinary Aspects of Transla- tion and Interpreting (pp. 337-366). Wien: Praesens Zampa, M. (2015). News Values as Endoxa of Newsmaking: An Investigation of Newsmaking Practices in the Newsroom. (PhD Thesis). Università della Svizzera italiana. Zantides, E. (Ed.) (2014). Semiotics and Visual Communication: Concepts and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Ziegler, A. & Dürscheid, C. (Eds.) (2002). Kommunikationsform E-Mail. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

10plus1: Living Linguistics | Issue 1 | 2015 | Media Linguistics