Self-presentation and self-positioning in text-messages: Embedded multimodality, deixis, and reference frame Agnieszka Lyons Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy April 2014 School of Languages, Linguistics & Film Queen Mary University of London Contents Acknowledgements 8 Abstract 10 1 Introduction 12 1.1 Texting: Definition and features . 16 1.2 Background and motivation . 18 1.3 Objectives of the thesis . 22 1.3.1 Methodological objectives . 23 1.3.2 Empirical objectives . 23 1.3.3 Theoretical objectives . 24 1.4 Outline of the thesis . 25 2 Data and methodology 28 2.1 Data and data-collection methods . 28 2.1.1 Obtaining consent . 30 2.1.2 Text-message choice . 31 2.1.3 Transcription error . 33 1 2.1.4 Participants and data collection . 33 2.2 Methodology . 39 2.2.1 Coding . 39 2.2.2 Anonymisation . 40 3 Theoretical framework 48 3.1 Understanding of communication . 49 3.1.1 Models of communication . 54 3.2 Meaning in communication . 68 3.2.1 Text and meaning-making . 69 3.2.2 Participants’ role in co-creating meaning . 72 3.2.3 Creating intended meaning: Pragmatics . 76 3.2.4 The role of context in EMC . 79 3.3 The role of the medium . 86 3.3.1 Mediated discourse analysis . 87 3.4 Multimodality . 88 3.4.1 Mode, modality, and medium . 89 3.4.2 Multimodality in various modes . 97 3.5 Summary . 99 4 Space, place and self-positioning 102 4.1 Places and spaces in mediated environments . 104 4.2 Presence . 107 4.3 First textual virtual spaces in MUDs and MOOs . 114 2 4.4 Performing yourself: Body in electronically mediated environments . 117 4.5 Establishing location: Deictic centre . 118 4.6 Reference frame . 121 4.7 Deictic shift . 122 5 Establishing and negotiating deictic centre in text-messages 126 5.1 Location and deictic centre . 128 5.1.1 Social location . 133 5.1.2 Location through actions . 135 5.1.3 Negative location . 137 5.2 Motion and directionality . 139 5.3 Reference frames alignment . 145 5.3.1 Own reference frame . 146 5.3.2 Deictic shift . 150 5.3.3 Reference frame negotiation . 155 5.4 Joint communicative space . 156 6 Self-presentation: Person, persona and aspects of physicality in texts163 6.1 Names, nicknames, and categories . 165 6.2 Audible persona: Phoneticons . 171 6.2.1 Sound length and emphasis . 173 6.2.2 Imitating sounds and ways of speaking . 176 6.2.3 Inaudible persona: Silence . 182 6.3 Visual persona: Emoticons . 188 3 6.4 Active persona: Expressing the self through actions . 193 6.4.1 Mediated performatives . 194 6.4.2 Kineticons . 198 7 Theoretical considerations: Moving beyond the obvious 201 7.1 Storyworld and narrativity . 203 7.2 Alterae personae . 212 7.3 Embedded multimodality in text-messages . 219 7.3.1 Grammar of embedded multimodality . 223 7.4 Standardisation . 230 7.5 Inter-modal transfer/Discursive intertextuality: case study . 233 8 Conclusions and implications for further research 236 8.1 Directions for further research . 242 A Forms 244 B Transcript and Maths Conventions 258 C Text-messages sample 259 4 List of Figures 3.1 Shannon and Weaver’s (1949) model of communication . 56 3.2 Jakobson’s (1960) communication model . 58 3.3 Schramm’s communication model . 59 3.4 Schramm’s (1954) fields of experience . 60 3.5 Cumming and Ono’s (1997) simplified model of information transfer (reproduced from Wolańska 2008, p.116) . 62 3.6 Bordewijk and Kaam’s (1986) model of communication in interactive media (reproduced from Wolańska 2008, p.121) . 67 3.7 Hall’s (1980) model of communication . 70 4.1 A graphic illustration of the relationship between physical presence, social presence, and co-presence (adapted from Ijsselsteijn et al. 2001). 114 5.1 Deictic centre through the representation of completed and intended movement in example (15) . 143 7.1 Link through pragmatic function . 213 7.2 Connectors and counterparts in mental spaces . 214 7.3 Mental spaces in example (22) . 216 7.4 Substrate transformation: Phoneticons. 221 5 7.5 Substrate transformation: Kineticons. 222 7.6 Substrate transformation: Emoticons. 223 A.1 Consent form signed by respondents . 244 A.2 Questionnaire (p.1) . 245 A.3 Questionnaire (p.2) . 246 A.4 Questionnaire (p.3) . 247 A.5 Questionnaire (p.4) . 248 A.6 Questionnaire (p.5) . 249 A.7 Questionnaire (p.6) . 250 A.8 Questionnaire (p.7) . 251 A.9 Questionnaire (p.8) . 252 A.10 Questionnaire (p.9) . 253 A.11 Questionnaire (p.10) . 254 A.12 Questionnaire (p.11) . 255 A.13 Questionnaire (p.12) . 256 A.14 Questionnaire (p.13) . 257 6 List of Tables 2.1 Participants and text-message distribution in London . 35 2.2 Contact details and replacement codes . 41 5.1 Components of a motion event (based on Talmy 1985) . 139 5.2 Parts of the Path component (based on Talmy 2000b) . 140 7.1 Narrative structure in (15) . 207 7.2 Narrative structure in (22) . 210 7.3 Language standardisation (Milroy and Milroy 1999) . 230 7.4 Development of grammar of embedded multimodality . 231 7 Acknowledgements Many people deserve thanks for their contributions to this thesis. First, thank you to my excellent supervisor, Colleen Cotter (and her fine-tooth comb), for her guidance, understanding, flexibility, and warmth; and to Jenny Cheshire, my second supervisor, for her valuable feedback on my work. Thanks also to the rest of the Linguistics department, for their advice and helpful comments along the way. My fellow LingLabbers, past and present, have been brilliant colleagues and true friends. Thank you all for your input and support, but also for the chats, the endless cups of tea/coffee, the pub nights, and for always making me feel at home. Special thanks to Fryni, Eva, Dave, Fangfang, Maria, Barb, Philippa, James, Ollie, Ahmad, John, Rachelle, and Ruth for their continuous friendship and encouragement. A massive thank you also to Jad, for persuading me to convert to LaTeX. This thesis wouldn’t have happened also without Fryni and Abigael, who helped me tidy up my .tex file and always being there when I struggled with the code. And from outside Queen Mary, I’m greatly indebted to Guy and Nathan, who stuck by me when things got too much. My family have helped immensely. Mamusiu, dziękuję, że zawsze wierzyłaś, że skończę to, co zaczęłam (czasem bardziej niż ja sama) i za nieustające zaproszenie do domu, do Sosnowca, gdzie “na pewno będzie mi się lepiej pracowało”, a potem wypełni- anie całego mojego czasu zakupami i głębokimi rozmowami o wszystkim (poza ling- wistyką)! Fader, dziękuję za mailowe nagabywanie mnie “Jak tam doktorat?” oraz 8 wsparcie organizacyjne w wiadomej kwestii, które pozwoliło mi skoncentrować się na pracy doktorskiej. Paweł, Agnieszka, Bartuś i Wojtuś, and all the rest of the family in Kryry, Biała, Oświęcim, and elsewhere in Poland have constantly reminded me of what’s really important in life. I’m really grateful for all the precious family time. A simple thank you would not be enough to express my gratitude to Babcia Marysia, who was always a great inspiration but sadly passed away while the thesis was being written. Not a day goes by when I don’t think about or miss her. Babciu, this thesis is dedicated to you. Finally, the one person who has supported me the most in the last couple of years was my dearest fiancé, Bernard. Thank you for all your moral and practical support, pushing me to get my priorities right, and having lovely dinners waiting for me when I lost track of time at the Lab. I love you. Oh! and thank you to Mishka, our cat, who stayed up with me when everyone else at home was already fast asleep. Although she is yet to show any interest whatsoever in embedded multimodality...Ehh... 9 Abstract Texting has often been treated as verbally minimalist, notionally transactional, and, consequently, expressively impaired due to its text-only (mono-modal) character. De- spite this, even with the development of new modes of electronically mediated com- munication (EMC) which made available a wide range of rich (multi-modal) com- municative possibilities, texting has maintained its well-established position. This thesis approaches texting as communicatively rich and explores its expressive possi- bilities in the context of establishing texters’ deictic centres and representing aspects of physicality. Based on the analysis of nearly two thousand text-messages written by British and Polish native speakers and subsequent semi-formal interviews with the senders, I ar- gue that senders position themselves discursively at one of four locations: their own physical deictic centre, the deictic centre of their communicative partner, a mutually agreed space distinct from either of their deictic centres, or a joint (virtual) commu- nicative location with the recipient. I recognise the existence of social location and negative location, as well as location expressed through actions and motion. Additionally, I establish that physicality and body are represented through a variety of enacted (rather than described) sensory information, including auditory, visual, and kinaesthetic. Through the employment of these discursive tools, which follow certain presentation rules, texters create their alterae personae through which actions are performed in virtual space. I argue that text-messages should not be treated as mono- modal, but as characterised by embedded multimodality, a term which I introduce. Methodologically, I draw on interactional sociolinguistics (e.g., Gumperz 1982; Tan- nen 1989), performativity and speech act theory (e.g., Austin 1962; Searle 1975, 1979), 10 semantics (e.g., Lyons 1977; Talmy 1985; Fauconnier 1985), text-grammar (Nunberg 1990), mediated discourse analysis (e.g., Scollon and Levine 2004), and multimodal discourse analysis (e.g., Norris 2004).