[Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?

Wed Jul 17 08:52:03 PDT 2013

Dear all,

thank you so much for your responses. Incidentally, my question was
prompted by reading one of the articles that got mentioned during the
discussion, Herring (2013), and the contents of this Handbook in general. I
am currently writing a review of it for the Linguist List, and I wanted to
see if there is a debate going on about the usefulness and coverage of the
'CMC' tem (which I am picking up on at the conferences, but haven't seen in
writing so far). I think the variety of replies itself is the best answer
to my query!

S. C. Herring, D. Stein, & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics of
computer-mediated communication. Berlin: Mouton.

~Darja
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darja Dayter, M.A.
Universität Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft
Tel. 0921/55-4644
daria.dayter at uni-bayreuth.de

Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 04:14:46 +0000
> From: Jennifer Stromer-Galley <jstromer at syr.edu>
> To: AoIR-L <air-l at listserv.aoir.org>
> Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
> Message-ID:
>         <58ACB774CD3A274A828C0A15EF7A1BE119BF8ECF at SUEX10-mbx-01.ad.syr.edu
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Bring on the navel gazing!
>
> Seriously, though, I think we need to be thoughtful about our covering
> terms. The ways of categorizing and the names of those categories shape how
> we then subsequently think of those categories and what gets included and
> excluded (as others have said; I am reminded of Lakoff's discussion of
> metaphors and the ways we use language and it uses us to shape
> understanding of our shared reality.)
>
> Anyway, for me computer-mediated communication frames and privileges the
> human communication that occurs via computer (with the help of the
> Internet, of course). But, I don?t quite know where to put mobile. The
> lineage of scholarship on mobile has not historically used CMC as a
> covering term (I think Rich noted that), because until recently mobile
> phones, while having microchips, were not the sort of processors we have in
> current smart phone technology. But, now that we have these amazing smart
> phones (heh, *smart* phones), I don't know, maybe we should apply CMC as
> the categorizing term.
>
> I noted my preference for digital media as a term. It describes a
> particular set of channels that serve as the means to communication (the
> parallel term for me is mass media). But, now Charles and others have
> forced me to think more about what gets included and what gets excluded
> with that term. I thought I knew, but now I don't!
>
> The joys of navel gazing, one's perspective shifts.
>
> ~Jenny
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org [mailto:
> air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas Bowman
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:43 PM
> To: AoIR-L; Christian Licoppe
> Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
>
> Ah!
>
> I was waiting for the debate over the over-privileging of
> technology/machine in the "C"MC definition. To be honest, I don't know if
> we've (as a field) really specified why "computer" is so important (besides
> the fact that "we are using computing technology" - to the extent that we
> have really explained 'computing' as an important feature. Is pen and
> pencil a computational task in the same way rendering a message via text
> is, for example?).
>
> Some might see this discussion as "navel-gazing" but to be honest, I like
> when we all push each other's views. I don't personally buy the
> Wittgensteinian approach and I do tend to (and, to be frank, want to)
> privilege the machine, but it is now on me to actually draft the arguments,
> right?
>
> Apologies for the exploding e-mail box. If there are any bloggers out
> there (I moderate "On Media Theory ( http://onmediatheory.blogspot.de/)..." but I haven't posted since semester break) I'd be curious to
> read/write/share thoughts on this in a more deliberate and less obtrusive
> (for those who don't want to read the spam of our conversation), permanent
> space. I'm also eager to track down the Herring et al. article references
> earlier.
>
> The original question of course was one about embedding 'mobile' in 'CMC'
> and to that I say, "sure." Darja, thanks for the discussion prompt, >>und
> 'allo aus Erfurt, Thuringen!<<.
>
>
> ~nick
>
> Nicholas David Bowman, Ph.D.
>  ( http://ndbowman.info/ )Assistant Professor of Communication Studies;
>
> Research Associate, Media and Interaction Lab West Virginia University
>
> Vice-Chair, Game Studies Interest Group
> International Communication Association
>
> Interim Social Media Director
> Eastern Communication Association
> ______________________
> Twitter @bowmanspartan
> Skype ID: nicholasdbowman
> On Media Theory... ( http://onmediatheory.blogspot.com/ )
> >>> Christian Licoppe <christian.licoppe at telecom-paristech.fr>
> 16-Jul-13 18:08 >>>
> Dear all
>
> rather than wondering under which conditions one may embed mobile
> communication in cmc one may also wonder whether there is such a thing as
> cmc (with its hint of technological determinism : "computer"-MC and whether
> it would not be more fruitful to adopt a more wittgensteinian approach, and
> focus on different "language games"
> performed in various media (including face to face, and paper media) and
> settings, and bearing a form of "family resemblance" between them
>
> Christian Licoppe
> Department of Social Science, Telecom Paristech
> 33 (0)6 87 09 99 48
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Nicholas Bowman" <Nicholas.Bowman at mail.wvu.edu>
> ?: alex at halavais.net, "AoIR-L" <air-l at listserv.aoir.org>
> Envoy?: Mardi 16 Juillet 2013 17:54:23
> Objet: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
>
> Quick response:
>
> I think we "care" for all of the reasons that you list (for better or
> worse) but really, the fourth is key. Theories are based on assumptions,
> and those assumptions are what we test when trying to understand the
> influence of, in this case, technology on the human communication process.
>
> If we literally interpret CMC as "computer-mediated communication"
> then
> we might suggest that any medium (go-between) that computationally
> handles(renders?) a message from a sender to a receiver should be
> considered. A cell phone certainly being a device that takes my original
> message, renders it into binary waves that are transmitted to another
> device and re-rendered in part (i..e, the cell phone can't render my
> non-verbals such as facial expressions, etc.) before delivered to a
> receiver. Such research tends to focus on message components that are
> altered in the rendering/re-rendering process (such as losing non-verbals).
>
> If we talk about CMC when we really mean social media, then perhaps we are
> studying the "masspersonal" nature of information, existing persistently in
> large, dynamic and semi-public series of social networks. Issues of privacy
> and negotiating identity, representation and "we are all media" and muted
> groups theory, etc.
>
> With the above examples, CMC as "rendering" and CMC as "social media"
> aren't really the same thing. Or perhaps one encompassed the other (all
> social media render messages, therefore they are CMC. But not all CMC are
> social media, because not all CMC exist in persistent, semi-public
> networks).
> I very much like Alex's comments, but I'm not too quick to dismiss the
> issue of definition (and neither is he, from the onset) - and I'm very
> happy to see others engaging the discussion as well. Definitions can be
> limiting, but they focus our theorizing on the particular phenomenon for
> which the theories are supposed to apply to. Hence, we avoid comparing
> angels to pins.
>
> Of course, after writing this I tell our original poster: "Yes, mobile
> communication is CMC." =)
>
> [Apologies: I've missed several earlier posts in here that I wasn't able
> to read before I deleted them in my filter - I saw that friend Steven
> Lovaas posted something, so I'm going to assume his comments were pretty
> smart. ;p ]
>
> >>> Alexander Halavais <halavais at gmail.com> 16-Jul-13 17:08 >>>
> Who cares?
>
> I don't mean that to be dismissive, I mean it as a real question. CMC
> isn't a "thing" without its context. Louis mentions CMC as a "field."
> And OK, but even that is awfully vague. It seems that this question is
> often raised as a "that doesn't 'count' in our field"--a label for
> excluding certain ways of doing research or thinking about it. Without that
> context, the discussion of what to call this stuff seems to me to be a bit
> like arguing about angels and pins. Who cares what it's called or how it's
> clustered?
>
> Off-hand, I can think of a few contexts in which people might care:
>
> * The purview of a journal. ("Oh, no, we can't publish that in JCMC,
> because it has to do with mobile communication!")
>
> * A curriculum. ("How could we have a CMC degree without ever having a
> course in social networks?")
>
> * A department. ("We can't hire her, she doesn't really *do* CMC.")
>
> * To apply a theory. ("While I can't make the claim that this relationship
> holds for all media, in CMC, X appears to be related to Y in the following
> Z ways.")
>
> The first three of these seem to me to be largely questions of setting up
> borders for defending academic silos: again, the sort of "psychiatry isn't
> a science!" border policing that lets people defend turf. To me, those
> questions end up being pretty wasteful of time and energy. Isn't it about
> time for another Crisis in the Field (name your
> field) special issue?
>
> The last of these might have some merit, but requires that the range be
> provisionally and explicitly defined. I can say that what I am writing
> about extends to social media, but I need to be clear about what I mean
> when I say it, and whether it includes telephones (or newspapers, or only
> Facebook, etc.).
>
> I recognize that shorthand may be useful ("This is CMC; these are the
> important theorists to the field; these are the journals that count; these
> are the places where it is studied") but ultimately I suspect that it's a
> lot of work to set up boundaries that have little hope of holding and can
> do as much injury as good.
>
> - Alex
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:05 AM,  <Richard.Ling at telenor.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am interested that CMC is now (perhaps?) being applied to mobile
> comm. There is a long tradition (on the side of mobile research) of simply
> calling it mobile communication. My sense is that this has been common for
> the last decade. Clearly there are exceptions, but there is a legacy along
> these lines. There is a strong flavor of one-to-one interaction, mediated
> through telecom networks using mobile phones.
> >
> > More recently there has been the rise of smart phones that combine
> the more traditional mobile communication (that is one-to-one
> interaction) with more SNS type of quasi-broadcast mode. Again, there are
> many shades of this discussion.
> >
> > There are computers involved in all of this so in a broad sense
> "computer mediated" is applicable. However, it seems as though folding
> social networking into the mobile handset has given the discussion a turn
> in the direction of internet or PC-based nomenclature.
> >
> > Rich L.
> >
> > Sent from IPhone
> >
> > On 16. juli 2013, at 15:47, "Lois Scheidt" <lscheidt at indiana.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Susan Herring has an article that addresses state of the field in
> CMC at:
> >> Herring, S. C., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T., Eds. (2013).
> Introduction
> to the
> >> pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Handbook of
> pragmatics of
> >> computer-mediated communication (pp. 3-31). Berlin: Mouton.
> Prepublication
> >> version:
> >>
>
> http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/CMC.pragmatics.intro.herring.et.al.pdf
> >>
> >> She also has an article that tackles the nomenclature issue but I'm
> not
> >> putting my hands on it at the moment. I've cc'd her so maybe she
> can
> >> contribute that information or one of the other readers may have it
> as well.
> >>
> >> Lois
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Pask-Hughes, Alexander <
> >> a.pask-hughes at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> I did reply off list to suggest Caroline Tagg's book about the
> discourse
> >>> of text messaging, though in retrospect I'm not sure that really
> answers
> >>> Darja's question.
> >>>
> >>> One problem, which has been alluded to, is that the term CMC
> presupposes
> >>> that the thing doing the mediating (the "computer"), is what
> defines the
> >>> communication in some way. And it might be, but I think it might
> be
> >>> dangerous to presuppose this.
> >>>
> >>> The other issue is what CMC is contrasted with. Are we saying that
> >>> "computer-mediated communication" is somehow different from
> "face-to-face
> >>> communication"? What about those contexts where face-to-face
> communication
> >>> is computer-mediated in a less obvious way? For example, when I go
> into a
> >>> coffee shop and am speaking to the cashier, is this
> "computer-mediated
> >>> communication"? Well, yes, in the sense that the "computer" (the
> "till" or
> >>> "cash register") is mediating our interaction. And if we're
> extending the
> >>> term to account for practices such as these, does the term start
> to
> lose
> >>> it's usefulness?
> >>>
> >>> From this perspective, I have a feeling that some of the Scollon's
> work
> >>> (e.g. Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice [2001] or Nexus
> Analysis:
> >>> Discourse and the Emerging Internet [2004]) or work in Literacy
> Studies
> >>> (e.g. by David Barton, Michele Knobel, Colin Lankshear, Guy
> Merchant) may
> >>> be useful for you.
> >>>
> >>> Alexander David Pask-Hughes
> >>>
> >>> Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University
> >>>
> >>> a.pask-hughes at lancaster.ac.uk
> >>> adpaskhughes at hotmail.co.uk
> >>>
> >>> Twitter: @adpaskhughes
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>> From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org
> [air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org]
> >>> on behalf of Lovaas,Steven [Steven.Lovaas at ColoState.EDU]
> >>> Sent: 16 July 2013 07:33
> >>> To: Charles Ess; Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list
> >>> Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
> >>>
> >>> Charles, Jenny and Darja,
> >>>
> >>> Personally, as an IT security professional, I find the notion of
> 'digital
> >>> bug spray' quite appealing :)
> >>>
> >>> But as for CMC, while the term has a certain cachet simply through
> >>> repeated use, it does seem (to me) to suggest a limit on what
> counts as a
> >>> valid instance of "communication": the transmissional model of
> >>> person-->technology-->person and back again. The computer (or a
> network
> >>> thereof) is the mediator... a mere tool; only people are
> privileged
> as
> >>> proper communicators. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we
> always
> (or
> >>> ever) have deep, meaningful relationships with our computing
> platform of
> >>> choice, but certainly we ought at least to consider that some
> non-human
> >>> elements of our vast global technological web might be considered
> valid
> >>> communication partners in their own right. If that's even vaguely
> >>> palatable, what then is the mediator in CMC?
> >>>
> >>> "ICT" seems too heavily technology-oriented, while "HCI" seems to
> ignore
> >>> the human-to-human aspect. Ought we strive for an all-encompassing
> term
> >>> that expresses something like "communication across, through,
> with,
> and
> >>> about computer technology"? Or maybe we should take a step back...
> what did
> >>> we call it before the advent of the interwebs? I believe we
> naively,
> >>> quaintly referred to it simply as Communication, understanding
> that
> it
> >>> could happen face-to-face or over a telephone line or two-way
> radio
> or even
> >>> video-phone. If it was one-way, from single producer to many
> consumers, we
> >>> might narrow it down to "Mass" comm, but it was still
> communication
> no
> >>> matter what technology was used (paper, radio waves, or whatever).
> >>> "Technical" communication had more to do with communicating
> technical
> >>> topics than with any particular medium. In fact, "medium" is the
> mediator
> >>> (if not always the message). Can I have mediated communication in
> which the
> >>> mediator is a human? Certainly. Can I similarly have direct,
> unmediated
> >>> communication with a computer artifact? I think so. And, based on
> the
> >>> wonderfully diverse papers I heard in Salford last year, we care
> about all
> >>> of those shades of meaning.
> >>>
> >>> OK, so where does that leave us? We tend to want to say things
> that
> are
> >>> fairly broadly (if not universally) true, or at least useful
> across
> >>> contexts. The internet (yes, including mobile phones) has become a
> pretty
> >>> stinkin' huge context, and some folks are wondering whether we
> need
> to be
> >>> attending to the possibilities of communicative relationships with
> >>> non-human actors. So. If the M (mediated) feels too limiting, and
> the first
> >>> C (computer) is too prescriptive, does retreating to "just"
> Communication
> >>> feel somehow unsatisfying?
> >>>
> >>> Some organizations from the early days of the internet (q.v.
> Computer
> >>> Professionals for Social Responsibility) have folded. I suspect,
> in
> part,
> >>> that the ubiquity of the internet has lessened the interest or
> impact of
> >>> groups specifically dedicated to looking at how computers have
> *changed*
> >>> traditional fields. Computers are now inextricably *part* of every
> >>> traditional field. So what does it mean to be an internet
> researcher? Is
> >>> there a name we can claim that's different from those
> organizations
> that
> >>> focus on traditional issues in Communication (though acknowledging
> internet
> >>> issues)? I suspect that, as a baseline, our organization requires
> *some*
> >>> sort of involvement with a technological element. As a newbie in
> some
> >>> senses (though an experienced internet dude in others), I'll throw
> out a
> >>> few possibilities... just to roil the waters.
> >>>
> >>> Human-Computer-Communication (HCC)
> >>> Networked Communication
> >>> Networked Human Communication
> >>> Riding the Shockwave (sorry, just had to) Network Actors,
> >>> Technologies, Communicating Humans ('natch!)
> >>>
> >>> Yikes... time for bed.
> >>>
> >>> Steve
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ===================
> >>> Steven Lovaas
> >>> IT Security Manager
> >>> Colorado State University
> >>> steven.lovaas at colostate.edu
> >>> 970-297-3707
> >>> ===================
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>> From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org
> [air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org]
> >>> on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess at gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM
> >>> To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list
> >>> Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja -
> >>> This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an
> accurate
> (much
> >>> less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though
> not
> >>> nearly
> >>> as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main
> processing
> and
> >>> transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate
> (necessarily)
> >>> with analogue inputs and outputs.  (We remain stubbornly embodied,
> for
> >>> better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not
> digitally-based.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it
> does
> seem to
> >>> me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we
> examine
> in the
> >>> various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us
> simply
> >>> call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether
> within
> >>> mobile
> >>> devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the
> processing that
> >>> takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between
> these
> >>> devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication
> devices.
> >>> I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term
> being too
> >>> restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital
> media"
> too
> >>> restrictive?  But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for
> the sake
> >>> of discussion?  (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so
> much
> ...
> >>> Smile)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or
> two
> to
> >>> suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but
> that
> >>> mobile
> >>> communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication,
> others
> >>> mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons
> -
> >>> including
> >>>> texting and voice communication on mobile phones
> >>> certainly counts as CMC.  (Indeed, the current generation of smart
> phones
> >>> offer more computational processing power and memory than the
> >>> supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW.  Maybe we could call it
> >>> super-computer
> mediated
> >>> communication, just to gum up the works further?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Again, many thanks -
> >>> - charles
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer at syr.edu>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss
> about
> >>> these
> >>>> days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do
> with the
> >>>> Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many
> devices
> >>>> "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe
> even
> >>> quaint.
> >>>>
> >>>> The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and
> >>> communication
> >>>> technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication
> technologies'
> >>> (or
> >>>> simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my
> covering
> >>> terms,
> >>>> rather than CMC.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym
> that
> >>> makes me
> >>>> think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I
> can't
> >>> really
> >>>> articulate.
> >>>>
> >>>> I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the
> telephone and
> >>> e-mail
> >>>> are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook
> or
> >>> Twitter,
> >>>> which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as
> possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would be curious what others think about the jargon and
> covering
> terms
> >>> we
> >>>> use these days.
> >>>>
> >>>> ~Jenny
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org [mailto:
> >>> air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org]
> >>>> On Behalf Of Darja Dayter
> >>>> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM
> >>>> To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
> >>>> Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these
> days.
> >>>> Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for
> >>> instance?
> >>>> It would be great if you could point me in the direction of
> sources that
> >>> deal
> >>>> explicitly with this issue!
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks beforehand,
> >>>> Darja
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Darja Dayter, M.A.
> >>>> Universit?t Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel.
> 0921/55-4644
> >>>>
> daria.dayter at uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________
> >>>> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the
> Association
> >>> of
> >>>> Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or
> >>> unsubscribe
> >>>> at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> >>>>
> >>>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> >>>> http://www.aoir.org/
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the
> >>>> Association of Internet Researchers
> http://aoir.org
> >>>> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> >>>> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> >>>>
> >>>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> >>>> http://www.aoir.org/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the
> >>> Association of Internet Researchers
> http://aoir.org
> >>> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> >>> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> >>> http://www.aoir.org/
> >>> ===================
> >>> Steven Lovaas
> >>> IT Security Manager
> >>> Colorado State University
> >>> steven.lovaas at colostate.edu
> >>> 970-297-3707
> >>> ===================
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>> From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org
> [air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org]
> >>> on behalf of Charles Ess [charles.ess at gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:53 PM
> >>> To: Jennifer Stromer-Galley; Darja Dayter; Air list
> >>> Subject: Re: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for this, Jennifer, Darja -
> >>> This helps reinforce my sense that we don't really have an
> accurate
> (much
> >>> less sexy) term that is both broad enough and precise enough.
> >>>
> >>> I've been objecting to "digital" media for some time now - though
> not
> >>> nearly
> >>> as long as Brian Massumi (2002) - because while the main
> processing
> and
> >>> transmission technologies are certainly digital, they operate
> (necessarily)
> >>> with analogue inputs and outputs.  (We remain stubbornly embodied,
> for
> >>> better and for worse, and our senses are analogue, not
> digitally-based.)
> >>>
> >>> While CMC admittedly seems quaint (I'm sure I do too ...) - it
> does
> seem to
> >>> me to be accurate: so far as I can tell, everything that we
> examine
> in the
> >>> various foci and topoi characteristic of AoIR and what some of us
> simply
> >>> call Internet Studies, depends on computer processing, whether
> within
> >>> mobile
> >>> devices or laptop/desktop computers, along with all of the
> processing that
> >>> takes place in order to facilitate networked communication between
> these
> >>> devices and ultimately those of us using them as communication
> devices.
> >>> I have a vague hunch as to what Jennifer might mean by the term
> being too
> >>> restrictive - perhaps along the lines of my finding "digital
> media"
> too
> >>> restrictive?  But perhaps you could spell that out a bit just for
> the sake
> >>> of discussion?  (For the record: "quaint" doesn't bother me so
> much
> ...
> >>> Smile)
> >>>
> >>> In any event, while I don't have a handy scholarly reference or
> two
> to
> >>> suggest as documentation, I don't think there's any question but
> that
> >>> mobile
> >>> communication - what some call mobile and mobility communication,
> others
> >>> mobile and locative communication, and so on, all for good reasons
> -
> >>> including
> >>>> texting and voice communication on mobile phones
> >>> certainly counts as CMC.  (Indeed, the current generation of smart
> phones
> >>> offer more computational processing power and memory than the
> >>> supercomputers of the 1970s, FWIW.  Maybe we could call it
> >>> super-computer
> mediated
> >>> communication, just to gum up the works further?)
> >>>
> >>> Again, many thanks -
> >>> - charles
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 16.07.13 04:38, "Jennifer Stromer-Galley" <jstromer at syr.edu>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This is a great question. I ponder a lot the terminology we toss
> about
> >>> these
> >>>> days related to the phenomena we study that has something to do
> with the
> >>>> Internet, but now that the Internet is accessed through so many
> devices
> >>>> "computer-mediated" communication seems too restrictive, maybe
> even
> >>> quaint.
> >>>>
> >>>> The shift to reference the technologies, such as information and
> >>> communication
> >>>> technologies, or my made-up phrase 'digital communication
> technologies'
> >>> (or
> >>>> simply digital media) are what I have shifted to using as my
> covering
> >>> terms,
> >>>> rather than CMC.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't find those satisfying either. DCT is an unsexy acronym
> that
> >>> makes me
> >>>> think of bug spray, but I liked it better than ICT for reasons I
> can't
> >>> really
> >>>> articulate.
> >>>>
> >>>> I personally find 'social media' objectionable, since the
> telephone and
> >>> e-mail
> >>>> are also social media (strictly speaking), but most mean Facebook
> or
> >>> Twitter,
> >>>> which is too limiting, so I avoid that phrase as much as
> possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would be curious what others think about the jargon and
> covering
> terms
> >>> we
> >>>> use these days.
> >>>>
> >>>> ~Jenny
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org [mailto:
> >>> air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org]
> >>>> On Behalf Of Darja Dayter
> >>>> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:24 AM
> >>>> To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
> >>>> Subject: [Air-L] CMC - mobile phones included?
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am wondering what exactly is included into the term 'CMC' these
> days.
> >>>> Does texting and voice communication on mobile phones count, for
> >>> instance?
> >>>> It would be great if you could point me in the direction of
> sources that
> >>> deal
> >>>> explicitly with this issue!
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks beforehand,
> >>>> Darja
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Darja Dayter, M.A.
> >>>> Universit?t Bayreuth, Englische Sprachwissenschaft Tel.
> 0921/55-4644
> >>>>
> daria.dayter at uni-bayreuth.de_______________________________________________
>
>