A Critical Hypertext

Analysis of Social Media

The True Colours of Facebook
Volker Eisenlauer

Though Facebook is a rather recent phenomenon of the Web 2.0 era,

many members have grown so accustomed to it that it appears almost natural
to them to perform actions of friendship via the electronic platform. As the
software environment directs users in giving shape and coherence to friendship
discourses in particular ways, we can regard Facebook as an ideological setting. P 9
Generating and distributing all kinds of personal data with the help of pre-set
templates, Internet users have been transformed into empowered hypertext
authors. At the same time, Web 2.0 users increasingly regard the Internet as a
social space, where one can meet new people, hang out with friends and pursue
all kinds of leisure activities. P 12
From the end of the 1990s onward, Weblogs mushroomed on the
Web and introduced fresh voices into the national discourse on various topics,
which helped to build communities of interest (Bowman and Willis 2003).
Collaboratively written online encyclopaedias (such as Wikipedia) emerged
to rival professional online and offline encyclopaedias, while video and photo sharing Websites
(such as YouTube or Flickr) prompted the upload and
dispersion of more or less personal data. Accounting for the miscellaneous
social and technological innovations associated with such genuine interactivity,
various expressions emerged in the early years of the new millennium, among
them ‘Web 2.0’, ‘Social Media’, and ‘Personal Publishing’ p 13-14
Unlike the software label, the term Web 2.0 is not limited
to a mere technical update of the online medium but also covers its interrelated
phenomena on various socio-cultural levels. As a key feature and an indispensable
precondition for the emergence of new social spaces, Web 2.0 stands out
in its genuine interactivity simply because people can upload as well as download
(Fry 2007: online). This simple but profound change in the medial communication
process has lead to intense alterations in the textual habits of ordinary
web users. Most obviously, in Web 2.0 applications, like Weblogs, WikiWebs
or SNS, former hypertext recipients have undergone a transformation to
empowered hypertext authors. P 14
By
characterizing Web 2.0 as ‘[…] the philosophy of mutually maximizing collective
intelligence […]’, Hoegg et al. (2006: 24) point to social changes on a rather broad
level, while studies in information science stress commonly the emergence of a
new generation of web-related technologies and standards5 (cf. Anderson 2007).
Reflecting on the multitude of phenomena covered by the term, Richter and Koch
(2007) define Web 2.0 as a combination of new technologies (such as Ajax or
RSS), new types of applications (Weblogs, Wikis, Mashups, Social Bookmarking), new social
formations (self-representation and collaboration) and new business

1
models (Software as Service, The Long Tail). P 15
[Web 2.0] suggests that everyone can and should use new Internet technologies
to organize and share information, to interact within communities, and to
express oneself. It promises to empower creativity, to democratize media
production, and to celebrate the individual while also relishing the power of
collaboration and social networks.
Zimmer 2008: online p 15
On the broadest level, the term ‘Social Media’ refers to Web 2.0 applications,
such as WikiWebs, Weblogs or SNS, and their various interrelations
in the organization of social life. Accordingly, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010)
define Social Media as ‘a group of Internet-based applications that build on
the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the
creation and exchange of user-generated content’ (Kaplan and Haenlein 2010:
61). Social Software is often used as a synonym for Social Media. While both
terms place emphasis on online tools supporting social interaction among users,
the former term highlights the ontological quality of the environment in which
the communicative practices are embedded. Throughout this book the terms
Social Media and Social Software are used interchangibly. P 17
Users employ Social Software to connect with
other users, who share some sort of social ties. However, as boyd (2006) emphasizes,
communities formed around egocentric collections are unable to adapt to a
great variety of contexts. As a result, users draw on multiple Social Software sites
in order to keep different and/or contradicting contexts separate. In this sense, a
user might enrol in a business networking site (such as Xing) to manage her/his
job-related contacts, connect to her/his close friends via a microblogging service (such as
Twitter) and look for a new partner on a dating site (such as Match.com).
Boyd’s (2006) understanding of Social Software can be summarized as new
ways of building and deploying software that call for the users’ participation
and introduce new types of social organization. P 19
However, it has to be stressed that as a side effect of Web 2.0’s public
domain interactivity, every uploaded text, picture, audio or video file can
almost instantly be commented on, edited or deleted by other users. Related to
this, Bublitz (2008) has shown that in Web 2.0, traditional notions of bilateral
interaction gave way to a concept of multilateral interaction: ‘[…] in Web 2.0–
based media formats […] text-building actions can no longer be assigned to
individual but only to ‘multiple authors’[…]’ (Bublitz 2008: 255). P 21

Though the single text creation processes are accomplished

individually, they are based on ‘a common dialog including a number of
people’ (Hoem and Schwebs 2004: 3). Depending on the individual Social
Media application, the impact of such a ‘common dialog’ on text creation
can be more or less pronounced. As shown by the continuum presented in
Table 1.1, collaborative text-building actions stretch from simple comments
of known or unknown users in SNS and Weblogs to genuinely cooperatively
created texts in WikiWebs. At the one extreme, SNS profiles are usually
created by a single author; though they include limited possibilities for

2
befriended network members to contribute, e.g. by leaving messages on the
pin board. At the other extreme, WikiWebs trigger thoroughly collaborative
text-building actions, as they allow anyone who accesses an individual entry
to contribute or modify content. In between, Weblogs prompt single authors
or a group of authors (as in group blogs) to create and upload posts. Unlike
SNS, it is not a limited group who are entitled to comment upon entries, but
anyone who surfs by.
It follows that on the level of authorship, the term ‘Personal Publishing’
cannot be taken too literally. The genuine interactivity that is the defining feature
of Web 2.0 appears to hinder individual, self-contained text-building actions:
Any Personal Publishing text created and uploaded with the help of Web 2.0
applications (or Social Software) triggers collaborative text creation processes at least to some
degree. Even SNS that are designed for the self-representation of
one single author offer various means for befriended members to create text p21- 22
The term ‘technological determinism’ was coined by the American sociologist
and economist Thorstein Veblen and seeks to explain social and historical
phenomena in terms of one principal factor, namely technology (Chandler
1995). In other words, it raises the issue of how the tools we shape determine
our behaviour and are therefore influential on our future. P 22
As a counterpart to a technologically deterministic frame of mind,
advocates of ‘social constructionism’ assume that culture determines or affects
technology, not vice versa. Accordingly, social constructionists reflect upon
‘how cultural factors shape our use and experience of technological power’
(Lister et al. 2003: 4). A strong reading of social constructionism, represented
by Woolgar (1988) and others, holds that technologies are entirely based on
social constructs. In this sense, properties of computer-mediated texts, such as
fragmentation, interactivity and fluidity, are first and foremost social manifestations;
it is culture that decides which properties we assign to them and how
their implications are evaluated (Bolter 1997). P 23
As opposed to the strong reading of social
constructionism, technology is not neutral, nor is it the principal factor of social
change, as promoted by technological determinism. Murray (2000) emphasizes
that
[t]echnologies themselves did not cause changes such as the Reformation.
Changes result from mutually influencing social and technological factors: New
technologies like the printing press merely facilitated changes already beginning
to take place.
Murray 2000: 43
When transferring these findings to the particular focus of this book, I will
neither regard the software service and its particular properties as the basic
and primary factor for a novel conception of identity and friendship, nor will
I maintain that these changes are exclusively socially motivated and evolved independently
from technological innovations. In accordance with advocates
of the moderate version of social constructionism, I support the notion of a
mutual influence of social and technological factors. P 24
A closer look at the compound noun ‘Social Network Sites’ opens up a first idea
of what these online tools are about. By defining a ‘network’ as ‘a large system
consisting of many similar parts that are connected’ (Cambridge Advanced
3
Learner’s Dictionary 2008: 849), we can paraphrase the SNS in the broadest sense
as Internet pages focusing on systems of interconnected parts in a social context.
Another designation commonly used to refer to web applications which focus
on social communities is the term ‘Social Networking Site’ (cf. Santos et al.
2009). Using the gerund form of the verb ‘to network’, the modification of the
head ‘site’ experiences a considerable change when compared to Social Network Site: The verb
‘networking’ connotes relationship inducement among strangers,
especially within business contexts.10 Though meeting new people is possible
via such software services, it is neither the primary practice on many SNS nor
is it limited to business environments. As boyd and Ellison (2007) have shown,
in SNS participants ‘are primarily communicating with people who are already
part of their extended social network’ (2007: online). While there are also
specific services that are particularly designed for meeting new people (such
as Match.com or FriendScout24.com), the SNS under focus is primarily used
to manage and maintain contacts with people who are already known. p 25
The emergence of computer technology and the Internet was, from the very
beginning, intertwined with the rise of new social spaces. Pushed ahead by new
information technologies, in recent years the Internet has become even more
important for the development and maintenance of social ties. As has been
shown, the formation of online communities is at the very heart of all types
of Social Software. Still, in many Web 2.0 applications, people gather around
certain subjects and the individual themes play a crucial role. Less focused
on specific topics, SNS primarily stand out through the formation of social ties
and interaction among users. The users’ networks are not only the key feature
of SNS but establish its very content. P 25
In a nutshell, the authors emphasize three key characteristics of SNS:
The profile, the list of confirmed contacts and the browsing of hyperlinked
profiles. The profiles establish the backbone of every SNS as their set-up is a
necessary prerequisite to getting in touch with other users. Once registered,
SNS members are prompted to complete templates with questions that vary
greatly with respect to the individual SNS service. When these questions
are answered the profile is generated automatically and may be published
on the Internet with just a few mouse clicks. P 26
Having linked with other users, the list of a member’s confirmed
contacts is displayed on her/his individual profile. Thereby, labels designating
those connections differ depending on the particular SNS services and include
terms like ‘friends’, ‘contacts’, or ‘fans’.13 With regard to the individual privacy
settings, the social ties among users within SNS are visible to greater or lesser
degrees and can be browsed more or less extensively. P 27
However, apart from profiles, displayed connections and messaging devices, the
different SNS services may vary greatly with regard to their features as well as
to their user groups. P 27
As the authors show, some types of SNS (e.g.
Facebook) encourage the use of real names, as ‘they aspire to connect participants’
profiles to their public identities’ (2005: 72). Others seek to protect the
public identity of the participants by blurring connections to the online profile.
Pseudonymous-based dating SNS (such as Match.com) openly discourage the

4
use of real names and other personal demographic information.14 According
to Gross and Acquisti (2005), the kind of data participants reveal on SNS
centre most commonly around hobbies and interests. Apart from such rather
general information, category-based representations may specify various facets
of a user. Depending on the individual purpose of the SNS, we may obtain
information on a SNS member’s previous employers (Xing), on her or his pet
(Dogster, Catster), travel habits (Couchsurfing) as well as on her or his sexual
preferences and orientations (Nerve Personals). Contrary to the recommendations
of the individual hosting service itself, SNS participants tend to disclose
personal information rather thoughtlessly: With regard to their corpus encompassing
more than 4,000 Facebook profiles, Gross and Acquisti (2005) report
that a majority of users willingly reveal sensitive details about themselves, such
as birth date, phone number, current residence, relationship status, etc. P 28
Considering the discussed features and ideas attached to SNS, I define SNS
As Social Software-based Websites whose primary aim is establishing and
maintaining online communities by asking participants to present themselves (in
the form of public or semi-public profiles) and to connect and communicate
with other participants. P 32
As an example of a so-called ‘friend networking site’, Facebook belongs to the
most common type of SNS. The primary aim of such friend networking sites is
to articulate and/or to create, manage and maintain friendship ties. P 35
As a feature of Social Software, the deployment, launch
and relaunch of most SNS is carried out in close collaboration with its users.
Moreover, there are several online services enabling non-expert users to create
their own individual SNS platforms including their own visual designs, features
and member data (such as Ning.com, Elgg.com, mixxt.de). Consequently, the
variety of SNS types as well as their individual structural features, objectives and
communities are highly fluid and constrain any classification of the different
services. Acknowledging these limitations, it becomes clear that any attempt to
categorize SNS today may be outdated tomorrow. P 38
Facebook’s over-arching aim is the support of social ties. It is used to create,
manage and maintain ties of friendship and is an example of a so-called ‘friend
networking site’. The information Fb members disclose covers various aspects
of their personalities and gives a comprehensive, though rather general, picture
of the user. More specifically, the diverse profile templates ask for general data
that can be connected to the members’ offline identities, such as first and second
name, hometown, date of birth, favourite books/music/movies, past/current
schools and/or employers. In the same vein, the displayed connections within
the network result primarily from previously established ‘real life contacts’ as
opposed to entirely ‘virtual ties’ (see Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe 2007) p 40
The ‘online dating site’ Match.com supports the establishment of new social
ties, or more precisely the finding of a new partner. Besides rather general
information (such as age, interests, eating/drinking habits), the profile templates
provide specific details on the member’s partner of choice. Most commonly,
members of online dating sites use a pseudonym instead of their real names and
provide only superficial information on their location, job and other details. P 41

5
While the aforementioned types of SNS all aim primarily at the generation
and/or maintenance of social ties, the ‘data-sharing network’ YouTube as well
as the ‘online auction site’ eBay have different purposes, namely the exchange
of data and goods respectively. Accordingly, they do not belong to SNS in the
narrow sense. The primary purpose of YouTube is to support users in uploading
and sharing videos. In order to do so, one must subscribe to the online service
by creating a personal YouTube channel (equivalent to a Personal Profile). The
provided information varies greatly among different users. It generally includes
details on the member’s age, her/his ‘channels views’ and her/his country of
origin. Most members tend to use a pseudonym and provide no or only minor
personal information with regard to their offline identity and/or location.
Likewise, eBay members reveal hardly any information on their real identities.
Moreover, their trustworthiness is based on other members’ feedback. P 42

Facebook
Boasting over 60 million updates a day, Fb is, according
to the web information company alexa, currently in second place in terms of
worldwide traffic and visitors.26 Due to its status as Social Software, Fb excels
as a highly fluid environment: New developments and regular updates are
frequently incorporated and a structural overview always remains incomplete. P 43
At the core of Fb are the members’ accounts, which enable individual users
not only to present individual aspects of their identity but, moreover, to connect
and exchange with other members. A Fb account is structurally divided into the
Personal Profile and the Home Page. In order to elucidate the complex interlacing
of the Fb platform and the users’ semiotic practices, the following presents a brief
description of the key features of the Personal Profile and the Home Page. P43
Discussing this example in terms of Halliday’s (1964) three components of
the context of situation, i.e. field, tenor and mode, emphasizes the complexity of Kurt’s Fb-specific
performance. ‘Field’ refers to the subject matter or topic;
in this sense, the field of discourse is made up of semiotic choices or registers
that ‘[…] are classified according to the nature of the whole event of which the
language activity forms a part’ (1964: 90). In other words, the field refers to
the social action, ‘in which the language figures as some essential component’
(Halliday 1985: 12) and points to ‘what is actually taking place’ (Halliday and Martin 1993: 32). The
‘tenor’ relates to the role structure and concerns the
social relationship between the interactants in a speech situation, i.e. relations of
formality, power, and affect. On a linguistic plane, the tenor of discourse affects
the interpersonal choices of a particular utterance, mirrored i.e. in the exchange
structure, personal reference, the use of pronouns or degrees of involvement and
detachment. The ‘mode’ of discourse pertains to the symbolic organization of
the text including the channel of communication (e.g. spoken/written/pictorial)
and the social standing that it has. Kress (2003) defines mode in this sense as ‘a
culturally and socially fashioned resource for representation’ (2003: 45). – IMPORTANT – pot sa tratez acest
mediu ca fiind unul unde conditiile normale de comunicare se suspenda (schimbarea de tenor, tema, modo,
campo, etc.)
The register of Kurt’s text action that creates
the field of the focused-on discourse is determined and/or constrained by
the algorithm underlying the Like Button. From the perspective of mode, ‘Fb
accustomed users’ recognize the generated text as an algorithm-based proposition,
which is, in turn, the outcome of a user having pressed the Like Button.
Likewise, Fb newbies are familiar with algorithm-based proposition from other
CMC-contexts, such as e-cards (i.e. ‘xxx has sent you an e-card, to see it click

6
here’) or Chat rooms (i.e. ‘xxx has entered the room’), in which the interlocutor
has initiated the proposition but is not responsible for its wording. Within Fb,
the initiator of the algorithm-based proposition is frequently referred to in third
person, as in ‘Kurt Schwartz likes this’. From the point of view of tenor, Kurt’s
text action is performed to express his positive attitude regarding a text action
that was previously performed by a befriended member. Besides the fact that
Kurt and Fabian are Fb friends, the lexico-grammatical level gives no insights concerning their status
relative to each other: The agency of Kurt’s action is
partly outsourced to the designers and software engineers of the Fb platform.
The choice of the individual wording is pre-set by an algorithm underlying the
Like Button. It follows that the specific contextual and socio-cultural conditions,
for example an institutional or non-institutional frame and their respective roles
(Kurt could, for example, be Fabian’s lecturer), remain unreflected on a lexicogrammatical
level. Though the Fb environment enables and triggers interaction
among befriended members, at the same time it shapes the structure and, in
some cases, even the content of the respective discourse.
What follows from such a distillation of Fb’s key features and/or the
deconstruction of its text generation practices is that ‘presenting oneself ’ and
‘connecting with other members’ within Fb is always biased. P 49-50

Facebook as third author

As we can see, the software service is characterized by deep-rooted text
automation processes. The latter intervene in the meaning negotiation among
members and bring forward the notion of ‘Fb as a third author’. More precisely,
Fb’s text automation processes can be distinguished in
(1) First, ‘automatic text generation’ – accounting for the software-based
generation of posts, i.e. standardized evaluations (Like Button), standardized
friend requests (Add Friend Button), automatic activity records, etc.
(2) Secondly, ‘automatic text distribution’ – accounting for the standardized
re-contextualization of texts, commonly on the members’ profile Wall
layers as well as on the Home Pages of befriended members.
In traditional texts, text producers (first authors) commonly create and align
textual components. When confronted with surface texts, readers on the
reception side activate configurations of their individual background knowledge
and thus become second authors. Turning to Fb, the software service acts as a
third author, as it gradually intervenes in the communicative flow between
profile owners (first authors) and profile recipients (second authors). More precisely, the platform’s impact
on human semiotic practices can be related
to text-centred features of text (i.e. the production and reception of the text
material) as well as to more user-centred features of text, i.e. the communicative
context (see Chapter 2). As a third author, Fb shapes the structure and, in some
cases, even the content of the respective discourse. Moreover, it controls the
context in which user- and software-generated texts are presented. As a consequence,
Fb members experience a gradual loss of control over their texts (in
the form of posts, comments, photos, personal data, etc.) as well as over their
individual communicative aims and/or actions they intend to perform. P 53

Caracteristicas del lenguaje de facebook

Within the spectrum of different SNS, Fb can be identified as a ‘friend
networking site’ supporting primarily the maintenance of previously established
ties of friendship, while the creation of virtual ties is also possible. The Personal
Profiles present a comprehensive, though rather general picture of the users,
which can be commonly connected to their offline identities. It follows that
members are inclined to deduce real life personas from the online profiles, even
though the depicted person is not known from offline contexts and the disclosed
data cannot be verified. As shown, the naive trust and uncritical interpretation

7
of profile data may even result in mental and/or physical harm. P 54

In this sense, literacy acquisition in Web 2.0 environments must foster

the awareness that text actions are never performed in neutral contexts, but are
highly affected by the specific characteristics of the service in use and by the more
general features of computer-mediated communication. P 54
When participating
in Fb based communication, members are asked to match the presented
text actions against their more general linguistic knowledge and other acquired
knowledge. From a pragmatic point of view, when doing so, users analyze the
‘context of situation’ and relate it to the performed actions. In particular, the
contextual components of tenor (role structure) and mode (symbolic organization)
are affected to a large extent by the possibilities and restrictions of the
electronic Fb environment. Automatic text generation, such as clicking the
Like Button and creating the proposition ‘member name likes another member
name’s status’, relieves users of their semiotic choices and from their locutionary
acts. Thereby, the individual social relations (tenor) among the interlocutors
have no effect on the individual wording. Whatever social bindings exist
between Fb friends (e.g. relatives, colleagues, partners, casual acquaintances),
they are not reflected in the symbolic organization (mode), or, in other words,
in the lexico-grammatical form of the algorithm-based proposition. P 54

animator – author – principal

Following Goffman’s (1981) theoretical framework deconstructing
the concept of producing and receiving participants in a conversation, the
‘production role’ (Levinson 1988) involves three different jobs: ‘animator’, the one who utters, ‘author’,
the one who selects the sentiments being uttered and
drafts the wording, and ‘principal’, ‘the one who is committed to what the words
say’ (1988: 144). Of course, these three jobs are not inevitably performed by
one person. For instance, when a press relations officer announces news and
updates about his employer, he or she functions as the animator, but not necessarily
as the author of an utterance representing a whole company (principal).
We can suppose that the author(s) of the press release are the employees (or
sub-contractors) of the firm, though they might be acting behind the scenes.
Comparing this to Fb’s automatic text generation stresses how the roles of
animator and author turn into a non-figurative concept within the electronic
environment: Here, the immediate ‘agent who script the lines’ (Levinson 1988:
144) as well as the one who animated them is not manifested in a human
being, but through algorithm-based software designed and coded by software
engineers. Animator and author of an automated speech act transform into a
rather abstract entity or a kind of ‘third author’. Such a shift towards electronic
agents generating all kinds of propositions can be employed strategically by
users who perform speech acts without being responsible for what is said. P 55

Multi-layered contextualization
Any performed text action is not only spread throughout one’s personal network, but is also on one’s
profile Wall and possibly
on the profile Walls of befriended members. Comparable to offline public
conversation among two or more interlocutors in front of an audience, social
interaction within the Fb environment is observed and may be responded to
by one’s personal network of befriended members. However, while in offline
contexts the publicness of the discourse interrelates with the physical and spatial

8
aspects of the environment (i.e. the immediate presence of the audience in
unmediated discourse, broadcasting techniques, such as cameras, in mediated
discourse), the public character of the online medium is rather implicitly acknowledged
through the presence of a computer (or mobile devices) running specific
software. Creating publicness among a limited group of connected members,
Fb discourse can be grasped neither by the traditional concept of mass media,
nor by that of private media (see ‘Meso Media’). P 55-56

sefl-presentation
As can be seen, within Fb the discursive strategies supporting ‘self-presentation’
and ‘contact creation/management’ are, in many respects, affected
by the possibilities and restrictions of the electronic environment. Pre-set
templates condition a member’s choices with regard to the structure and
content(s) of her/his profile. Moreover, automated speech acts simplify, standardize
and re-contextualize the communicative interaction. P 56
I therefore define SNS as Social Software-based Websites whose primary aim is establishing and
maintaining online communities by asking participants to present themselves (in
the form of public or semi-public profiles) and to connect and communicate
with other participants with the help of pre-given templates and automated
text actions.

linearity

As opposed to the linear organization

of traditional text, electronic hypertext can present more multifaceted, ‘rhizomatic’
links between ideas. Moreover, hypertext enables readers to engage in
the actual composition by offering multiple reading paths and/or blank text
templates. P 60

Terminology

a terminological clarification of the most important notions under discussion,

i.e. text, medium, software service and genre.
MM Text is defined, at this point, in a rather broad sense as an assemblage
of signs, such as words, images, sounds and/or films, constructed and
interpreted with reference to a particular medium of communication (see
Chandler 2002). A more elaborate discussion of the term text, its core
characteristics and its production and/or perusal habits across different
media, will be addressed in Chapter 2.
MM Medium is understood as a technological means for amplifying
communication in order to transcend geographic and/or temporal barriers
(Eiselein and Topper 1976, Posner 1991, Holly 1997).
MM The SNS acts as a particular software service (or electronic environment)
between the medium, here an Internet-compatible network of computers,
and the text, here the sign-related Fb discourse. Though not tangible
like a computer or a book, the software service originates in information
technology and emerges in the contextual embedding of the text, i.e.
field, tenor and mode. As a heuristic category that surfaces exclusively in
text-external configurations, such as number of participants, temporal
embedding (synchronic/asynchronic) and/or direction of communication
(monologic/dialogic), the software service is comparable to what Holly
(1997) Dürscheid (2005), Hoffmann (2010) and Arendholz (2011) have
referred to as ‘form of communication’.
MM A genre is bound to a specific over-arching aim, while a software service
may serve a variety of functions. In this sense, the software service ‘Social

9
Network Site’ may be used for all kinds of purposes, while the genre ‘friendship SNS’ (such as Fb) is
restricted to a particular function, namely
creation and/or maintenance of friendship ties. P 59-60

Approaching Social Media Critically

In recent Web 2.0 environments, numerous (semi-)automated text generation
processes have contributed to users’ gradual loss of control over their text
actions, i.e. by automatically re-contextualizing user data (see above). P 62

Departing from the notion of media texts as social constructs that mirror
a society’s ideologies and power relations, my approach aims at shifting
emphasis to the question of how the media and its software services become
manifest in the situational context, and thus affect the content and form
of media messages as well as the corresponding literacy practices. In other
words, I hold that the decisions ‘about what to include or exclude and how to
represent reality [in media texts]’ (Kellner and Share 2005: 374) are heavily
influenced by the intrinsic characteristics of the underlying media itself. P 64

What a
mode constitutes is not easy to define, for it is much more than a type of sign.
Modes are socially and culturally shaped and are ‘governed by a common
set of rules that state how these signs can be combined to make meaning in
particular situations’ (Stöckl 2004a: 11). - my
approach is interested in how the distinct medium in use provides standardized
and (semi-)automated modes of expression that affect or even replace
authors when creating texts. As it seems, the more sophisticated the Social
Media application, the bigger the impact of the technological device on a
user’s individual multimodal choices. P 65

Media applications may even displace the users’ semiotic choices altogether.
In Fb’s automated text actions, ‘patterns of experience’ do not evolve to suit
the specific needs and interests of the sign users, but are predetermined by
the electronic environment. Pre-set templates and ready-made sets of propositions
narrow the users’ creative and analytical acts and call for a reassessment
of CAL’s key tenets: Domination and disparity, just like identity and agency,
are not only to be regarded as mere socio-political occurrences, but build on
a variety of media, software services (or forms of communication), and (text)
genres that promote and constrain the users’ discursive choices and strategies. P 65

Other approaches to CMC, e.g. Storrer (2000), Eckkrammer (2002), Huber

(2002) and Bublitz (2008), have been focusing on the subject from a more
conceptual perspective. In the tradition of text linguistics, these approaches
shed new light on the discussion about the defining criteria of text.4 Introducing
the concept of hypertext, the central issue of these models is the identification of
criteria that delineate computer-mediated texts from traditional non-electronic
texts. More specifically, such an approach seeks not only to contrast electronic
hypertext with traditional text, but aims at the same time at disclosing the continuities
between them. Though the hypertext model emphasizes the functional enhancement of electronic texts over
traditional texts, it builds heavily on the
characteristics that have been defined for traditional texts. Related to this,
Bublitz (2008) claims that hypertext ‘[…] refers to a much wider concept than
text; indeed, it incorporates text as one of its components’ (2008: 259). It must be
emphasized that both differences and continuities between text and hypertext
are strongly bound to changes and improvements in information technology.
In this sense, texts generated and distributed by state-of-the-art Web 2.0

10
technologies offer new degrees of interaction compared to texts based on earlier
information technology. P 66- 67

Without negating Androutsopoulos’ (2006) emphasis on the impact of sociocultural

discourse on language use in electronic environments, I argue that it is
also the electronic medium and/or the particular software service which affect
the user’s semiotic choices to greater or lesser extents. It follows that only a
comparison between recent online genres and equivalent non-electronic texts
lays the foundations for a sociolinguistic discussion of user-related patterns of
language use. In fact, pre-set templates and/or automated text actions may result
in a homogenization of language use in CMC environments, or turn the role of
the author to a non-figurative concept altogether. P 67

It is the very task of CHTA to disclose these complex interrelations and create
awareness that media texts and their surrounding practices are motivated not
only by dominant ideologies and socio-political power structures, but also
by the technological means that represent and amplify the communicative
contents. In order to do so, my approach follows linguistic CMC studies that
discuss language use in electronic environments from a more conceptual point
of view (i.e. Storrer 2000, Eckkrammer 2000 and Hendrich 2003, etc.) and have
brought forward the linguistic notion of hypertext. P 67

Text and hypertext in an everyday sense

Text
in an everyday sense
1. Texts combine verbal signs to create a semiotic artefact.
2. Texts have boundaries; they are self-contained and autonomic units.
3. Texts are structurally and semantically connected.
4. Texts indicate (at least) one identifiable subject.
5. Texts have (at least) one author and one recipient.
6. Texts fulfill a communicative function and bear some social signification. P 69

In an everyday sense text is associated with written language, rather than with
spoken language. P 67
traditional text - Except for the page and chapter numbers, the page comprises solely linguistic
signs forming larger units, such as words, phrases, sentences and chapters. P 68
We can assume that these units relate to each other and establish some kind of
meaning. Furthermore, the continuous side and chapter numbers give a clear
indication for a linear ordering with a fixed beginning and ending. Though
we might not be able to understand the text, we suppose that the author had a
particular intention when writing it. P 69

definition of text by Longman: ‘text’ as ‘any written

material’ or ‘the writing that forms the main part of a book, magazine etc.
rather than the pictures or notes’ p 68
def by Oxford: the written form of a speech, a play, an article, etc.’p 68

In computer-mediated contexts such steady criteria for delineating the

concept of text can no longer stand: The ‘Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English’ (2005) explains hypertext as ‘a way of writing computer documents
that makes it possible to move from one document to another by clicking on

11
words or pictures, especially on the Internet’ (2005: 800). Here, hypertext is
not delineated as a secluded cultural artefact but as the processes involved
in its production, thus stressing its interactive and dynamic characteristics.
On a representational level hypertext is not limited to mere verbal signs but
includes pictures. Due to their electronic nature, hypertexts as computer
documents result in some new form of perusal: Readers move from one piece
of text to another by clicking on words or pictures, which are commonly
known as hyperlinks. It follows that hypertexts have neither a pre-set linear
order nor a fixed beginning or end. Hypertext readers choose their individual
reading paths through a multiplicity of hyperlinked textual fragments and
thus become partly involved in the production of a text. P 69

Furthermore, hypertexts lack any traces of physical

engraving (see Storrer 2000), as they can be deleted, changed or enhanced
anytime. P 70
On a representational level, the Website combines diverse formats, such
as texts, photographs and drawings. In addition to this formal enrichment, it
stands out in its structural dynamics: Users may reassemble ready-made text
fragments into new temporal and causal orders by clicking the hyperlinks on
the left-hand side of the page, by typing in a new URL6 or by posting a comment
in the discussion board. It follows that the function, subject and social significance
of this Website depend heavily on the reader’s individual choices when
accessing pre-set text fragments. We can make no statements about the order
and the content of the text units that get aligned to each other and result in
individual perusals. P 70

As such, not only the text structure, but moreover the communicative
purpose of hypertexts is highly dynamic. Both depend strongly upon the ways
users go about ascribing meaning to large collections of hypertextual fragments. P 70

Text in an everyday sense

1. Texts combine verbal signs to create

a semiotic artefact.
2. Texts have boundaries; they are
self-contained and autonomic units.
3. Texts are structurally and
semantically connected.
4. Texts indicate (at least) one
identifiable subject.
5. Texts have (at least) one author and
one recipient.
6. Texts fulfill a communicative
function and bear some social
signification.

Hypertext
in an everyday sense
1. Hypertexts excel in combining
verbal signs with other diverse
representational formats.
2. Hypertexts have no beginning or
ending.
3. Hypertexts display a dynamic
structure multiplying the text’s
possible meanings.
4. The subjects of Hypertexts result

12
from a function of the readers’
individual choices.
5. Hypertext readers are (at least)
partially involved in the production
of the text; readers are transformed
to ‘users’.
6. Hypertext functions arise from the
individual reassembling of pre-set
text fragments. P 71

Processing hypertexts embraces all kinds of representational

formats. In opposition to literacy practices bound to traditional
texts, there is no pre-set body text at hand to be interpreted by readers. When
users browse through a network of texts by clicking links or conducting search
engines, the very structure of the text itself arises as a function of the users’
hypertextual literacy practices. P 72

The linguistic perception of text and hypertext

Hypertext: - Storrer: correlates hypertextual reading and writing with a text model that originates in
non-electronic texts p 72
she describes hypertext as a computer-based collection of nodes that result
from individual ‘text creation performances’ following a particular purpose
and subject. P 72
- Tim Berners-Lee: an ‘abstract (imaginary) space of information’ (...)the ontological
basis of hypertexts is a binary system of ones and zeroes. Such an abstract and virtual understanding of
hypertext evades, however, any linguistic analysis. P 72 - contrast intre cele doua viziuni

Storrer:
Besides describing hypertext as a computer controlled
object, Storrer (2008) highlights its non-linear organization as its key feature.
More precisely, the author distinguishes between ‘medial (non-)linearity’ and
‘conceptual (non-)linearity’. The former is defined as a property of the medium and encompasses linear
media (cf. a film reel storing and emitting its data
in a linear order) and non-linear media, such as books, records or electronic
hypertext, which enable the recipient to decide in which order to access the data. The latter concerns the
decision of the text producer when arranging the
information. In texts with a linear conception, the text producer aligns the
information into a consecutive sequence, whereas in texts with a non-linear
conception, he/she splits up the information into various self-contained units. P 73

diferenta hypertext – e-text, facuta de Storrer

While hypertexts are based on a set of hyperlinked
nodes and excel in a non-linear text structure, E-texts lack such a non-linear
organization, though they may be accessed via the Internet. E-texts encompass
online publications of scientific articles or monographs, digital versions of literary works, such as the
‘Gutenberg Project’ (which aims to digitize and
archive famous and important cultural works), or any other electronic version
of conventional texts. Unlike hypertext users, E-text recipients cannot choose
and link their individual reading paths. P 73
hypertext types

Closed hypertexts are static products based on a set structure and a

fixed number of links. As a defining feature, closed hypertexts are finite and can
be converted into non-electronic printed texts without any loss of information. P 73

Open hypertexts exhibit the peculiar novelty of electronic text. They are
based on a variable number of nodes and result in a highly dynamic text

13
structure. Also referred to as ‘self-selected types of hypertext’ by Bublitz (2005),
open hypertexts and their ‘available options leave room for the creation of a
highly individual path, [thus] users can turn authors and build new, possibly original messages, for whose
coherence they alone are responsible […]’ (Bublitz
2005: 315). P 74

four constitutive hypertext criteriea of the author (Voljer Eisenlauer)

Multilinearity
Hypertexts are combined in multilinear ways rather than in one single linear,
causal and temporal order. It follows that hypertexts are highly selective:
Users can choose their own reading paths from pre-established trajectories. Hypertextual artefacts, such as
homepages, Weblogs, WikiWebs, search engines
or SNS, may follow a hierarchical structure and predetermine the multilinear
choices in some way (‘pre-established multilinearity’). P 75

Fragmentation
Fragmentation concerns the text clusters which are
inter-connectable into meaningful wholes. It can be divided into intranodal and
internodal fragmentation. The former refers to the fragmentary text arrangement
within one node, while the latter applies to the fragmentation across different nodes. P 75

Interaction
Interaction refers to the ways users may engage in the composition of text
units and can be described on three different levels: First, on a cognitive level,
users interface with the hypertext in terms of their individual background
knowledge. Just as traditional texts, hypertexts are seen as the output of the user’s interpretation, as
opposed to isolated, self-contained and static objects.
Secondly, on a structural level, users manipulate the online texts by clicking
hyperlinks, by typing in Website addresses manually or by using search
engines. (...)Thirdly, on a productive level users may create,
comment and extend the text and thus participate in the generation of text
content. Since the advent of Social Media, people increaslingly interact with the text on a productive level,
thus turning users to authors in the primary
sense of the word. P 75
Multimodality
refers to the combination of diverse representational
formats or modes, such as text, pictures, audio or film. Although not a unique
feature of electronic hypertexts, computer-mediated texts are technologically more convenient for storing,
accessing, retrieving and copying pictures and
photographs in online texts. As opposed to traditional, paper-based texts,
electronic texts may further incorporate video and audio files. P 76
Conclusion
Hypertexts are combined in multilinear ways rather than in one single linear,
causal and temporal order. As a result of their fragmentary organization, single
independent text clusters can be connected into meaningful wholes. Such a
re-assembling is built on the users’ interaction with the text that encompasses
not only a manipulation of textual structures, but, moreover, its cognitive
processing as well as the users’ active participation in the production of text content. Hypertexts combine multimodal
representational formats, such as text,
pictures, audio or film, into cohesive and coherent textual artefacts. P 76

Beaugrande and Dressler (1981). A key aspect

14
of their text model is the question how texts are utilized in social activity.
In detail, Beaugrande and Dressler’s so-called ‘procedural approach’ interrelates
syntactic, semantic and pragamtic levels of description to ask how texts
function in human interaction. Hence, Beaugrande and Dressler direct the
focus on both text-centred and user-centred features of text. The former capture
the structural organization as well as the immediate and evaluative reception
of the text material. Such characteristics emerge in the two textuality standards
cohesion and coherence. The latter concern the activity of textual communication
at large (by both authors and recipients) and are accounted for in the
textuality standards intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality and
intertextuality. P 77 - Renkema
(2004) has shown that the standards of intentionality, acceptabilty and informativity
are highly dependent on the subjective evaluations of the individual
authors and recipients. P 77

Cohesion in text and hypertext

It follows that the language system of syntax imposes not only organizational
structures on the surface text, but signals at the same time relations among
surface elements. P 78
We can maintain that grammatical dependencies (as identified by Beaugrande
and Dressler) apply only partially to cohesion in hypertexts. Moreover, relations
among surface elements in hypertexts are indicated by electronic textual ties,
commonly known as hyperlinks,11 within one node (intranodal cohesion),
within one hypertextual database (internodal cohesion) or across different
hypertextual databases (extranodal cohesion). P 82

Coherence in text and hypertext

The second standard will be called coherence and concerns the ways in which
the components of the textual world, i.e. the configuration of concepts and
relations which underlie the surface text, are mutually accessible and relevant.
Beaugrande and Dressler 1981: 4 p 82

In traditional texts, there are authors creating and aligning textual components
on the production side, and, correspondingly, readers on the reception
side who are confronted with surface texts activating configurations of their
individual background knowledge. However, in hypertext such a dyadic role
split can no longer be taken for granted. As shown, hypertexts excel in enhanced
levels of ‘interactivity’, thus turning users into authors, who engage in the
combination of individual perusals (structural interactivity) and/or participate
in the generation of text content (participatory interactivity). P 86

To come back to Winograd (1975), in hypertext

users constantly need to integrate their declarative knowledge, facts or beliefs that
get activated when processing hypertext nodes with their procedural knowledge
about proceeding through hypertext, e.g. about clicking hyperlinks or using search
engines. To ensure topic continuity, users are required to plan their next ‘click’
carefully, after having processed the surface texts of the present node. P 86
(multe detalii daca am nevoie; e super complicat)

Intentionality and acceptability in text and hypertext – p 89

For something to become ‘a text’, it is not enough for textual components
to fit together and to make sense. A text, as such, is obliged to be intended by
an author and accepted by a recipient within a particular communicative interaction.
Beaugrande and Dressler introduce intentionality (author-bound) and
acceptability (reader-bound) as their third and fourth standards of textuality p 89

15
Before the individual propositions, functions and effects of a specific text can
evolve, it has to be accepted as such by the recipient. In other words, text recipients
are required to acknowledge a succession of linguistic signs as a cohesive
and coherent communicative artefact in order to extract its specific and highly
individual communicative relevance. P 92
Obviously, acceptability is highly
dependent on the recipient’s individual knowledge of conventional patterns of text
genres: Provided that recipients are familiar with the Japanese genre ‘Haiku’, the
following lines would be acceptable as texts; otherwise one might suppose that
this is about a random sequence of word fragments. P 92
Applied to the concept of hypertext a reflection of Beaugrande and Dressler’s
textuality standards of ‘intentionality’ and ‘acceptability’ highlights how
the digital context contributes to the performance of a user’s individual
communicative aims. Software engineers design and implement hypertextual
environments that have great affect on users’ choices and performances when
operating the services (‘pre-established multilinearity’). On the other hand,
users are free to traverse the networked nodes in highly individual ways (‘loose
multilinearity’). When browsing through the Internet, users are constantly
required to ponder their particular intentions of accessing and aligning text
sequences to each other. At the same time, it is vital for users to recognize and
accept the text(s) as such. As a matter of fact, the versatility of information, the
vast array of linked nodes as well as the sophisticated processes initiated by a
simple mouse click may result in more or less unintentionally produced texts
on the user’s behalf.p 93
In hypertexts, the distinction between ‘intentionality’ and ‘acceptability’ is no
longer relevant: Users deliberately access and align hypertextual fragments to
individual perusals, while adopting the attitude that the set of textual modules
should at least have some relevance or use for them. Further, hypertext
automation processes may easily result in unintentionally produced texts. P 93

Informativity in text and hypertext

The fifth standard of textuality is called informativity and concerns the extent
to which the occurrences of the presented text are expected vs. unexpected or
known vs. unknown/certain.
Beaugrande and Dressler 1981: 8 p 94

Turning to hypertext, informativity is heavily bound to the individual text

actions of the user. Before we can make a statement about the information
value of the presently accessed nodes, we have to survey the way the user called
up these individual sites, for example by (knowing and) typing in the relevant
URL, by following a hyperlink or by using a search engine. (...) Though the information on these sites
is very likely to be unexpected, the information can only arise if the user dwells on the site and scans it for
relevant information. As Huber (2002) has shown, the
reception of hypertexts tends to be highly selective. To this end, browsers and
Website applications, such as built-in search engines or structural overviews,
support well-directed forms of perusal and may assist users in a systematic
search for new information. In the same vein, hypertexts as fluid media can be
changed, deleted or enhanced anytime, thus updating and enhancing the informational
value of the occurrences. In recent hypertextual Websites so-called ‘web
feed formats’ serve to syndicate new information. P 95-96
The extent to which hypertextual artefacts provide new information is heavily
bound to online-specific literacy practices. Due to the vast array of information
on the Internet, the reception of hypertexts is highly selective and is supported
by various software services and applications, such as online portals, search
engines or web feed formats. Further, it is conditioned by the fluidity of the
electronic texture.

16
Situationality in text and hypertext
To assess a text appropriately, it is crucial to know where and in what situation it
was used. As shown, statements such as ‘the bull is in the field’ (see Intentionality)
may perform various speech acts (cf. warning, apology, complaint, etc.), as
their particular communicative purposes arise from the particular situational
embedding. P 96

As Halliday and Hasan (1976) have shown, within the ‘context of situation’
(see Chapter 1) ‘situation monitoring’ is supported through the use of pro-forms
within the mode or symbolic organization of a text. More precisely, such
pro-forms are about exophoric references that give information on the context
of situation, e.g. the environment in which the text is being produced. By
nature, the first and second person pronoun are expohoric, pointing to the text
producer and receiver. By means of third person pronouns and deictics such as
‘here’ and ‘now’, exophoric references may further designate other participants
and provide information about the spatio-temporal embedding. P 97
The situationality of hypertexts is, most basically, marked by the fact that their
generation as well as their reception is tied to computer media. Disregarding
individual ‘knowledge of contexts’ activated by the hypertextual content, an
indispensable situation of every single node is subjection to algorithmic manipulation.
As subsumed by the fundamental hypertext quality of ‘ontology’, every
text fragment generated by means of a computer originates in a binary code. P 97
Hence, when applying the textuality standard of situationality to hypertext, we
have to distinguish between real object situationality and virtual situationality.
The former adheres to the hypertextual world (see Coherence) and involves
socially motivated and individually obtained knowledge of contexts. On this
level, users interpret and situate texts within contexts of utterances, schemas, frames, etc. and negotiate
personal goals, values and attitudes. ‘Virtual situationality’
regards the hypertext’s algorithmic constitution and engages the computer’s
data organization. P 97 – 98

Intertextuality in text and hypertext

In other words, the
extent of mediation mirrors the degree one’s individual knowledge of earlier
read texts contributes to the understanding of the text at hand. Accordingly,
Beaugrande and Dressler distinguish three different grades of intertextuality:
First, intertextuality regarding text types, secondly, text allusion and, thirdly,
intertextuality in conversation. P 100

Text allusion highlights the implicit and explicit ways participants refer to
well-known texts and/or their specific structural patterns in order to attain
their particular communicative goals, e.g. by quoting the contents and/or forms
of famous speeches or works of literature. Thereby, the success of an allusion
depends highly on the recipients’ ability to recognize it as such. If the text
producer omits any further information indicating the allusion as such, recipients
are required to know the ‘pretext’ that the author alludes to. P 100

Discussing the concept of intertextuality for hypertexts highlights the

dissolving of fixed medial boundaries. Obviously, hypertexts may, just like traditional
texts, relate to knowledge about previously encountered (hyper-)texts. It is,
however, unresolved where to draw the textual boundaries, or to put it differently,
where a hypertext begins and where it ends (see Chapter 2). As a result of their
hyperlinked and multilinear organization, it is the user who may decide, where
to embark on and where to end her or his individual perusal. As a consequence,
a clear-cut distinction between ‘text’ and ‘context’ appears to dissolve p 101

17
Intertextual knowledge of previously encountered hypertexts accounts for the
dissolving of fixed text boundaries. The infinite linkage of textual networks
suspends a clear-cut distinction between text and context. On the other hand,
hypertext producers may harness hyperlink technology to illuminate the
intertextual relations of their works. Moreover, multimodal hypertexts embrace
diverse representational formats as intertextual entities. P 103

The theoretical framework of Critical Hypertext

Analysis (CHTA)
Therefore, the CHTA framework sets text
and hypertext not only in opposition, but also in continuity to each other: The
impact of the electronic media emerges not only by emphasizing enhancement
over traditional texts, but, moreover, by integrating and discussing identified
patterns of traditional text communication practice. In fact, the hypertext
model builds heavily on characteristics that have been developed for traditional
non-electronic texts. In this sense, the peculiar novelty of hypertext surfaces
in the variations of the seven standards of classic textuality (Beaugrande and
Dressler 1981). P 106
Table 2.8: Seven standards of hypertextuality
Seven standards of hypertextuality
Cohesion Grammatical dependencies (as identified by B&D) apply only
partially to cohesion in hypertexts. Moreover, relations among
surface elements in hypertexts are indicated by electronic textual
ties, commonly known as hyperlinks, within one node (intranodal
cohesion), within one hypertextual database (internodal cohesion)
or across different hypertextual databases (extranodal cohesion).
Coherence The formation of a mental model within a hypertextual
environment goes hand in hand with the retrieval and arrangement
of the text surface. Thus hypertext users must persistently integrate
their declarative knowledge with their procedural knowledge
about proceeding through hypertext. Intranodal and internodal
coherence-building processes are typically based on a common
reference frame, while extranodal coherence building encompasses
a variety of reference frames, thus suppressing the set-up of shared
knowledge systems among authors and readers.
Intentionality
and
Acceptability
In hypertexts, the distinction between ‘intentionality’ and
‘acceptability’ is no longer relevant: Users deliberately access and
align hypertextual fragments to individual perusals, while adopting
the attitude that the set of textual modules should at least have some
relevance or use for them. Further, hypertext automation processes
may easily result in unintentionally produced texts.
Informativity The extent to which hypertextual artefacts provide new information
is heavily bound to online-specific literacy practices. Due to the vast
array of information on the Internet, the reception of hypertexts is
highly selective and is supported by various software services and
applications, such as online portals, search engines or web feed
formats. Further, it is conditioned by the fluidity of the electronic
texture.
Situationality The situationality of hypertexts is marked by the fact that their
generation as well as their reception is tied to computer media.
‘Virtual situationality’ regards a hypertext’s algorithmic constitution.
‘Real object situationality’ adheres to the modelling of the world
itself and involves socially motivated and individually obtained
knowledge of contexts. In fact, virtual situationality informs real
object situationality and vice versa.
Intertextuality Intertextual knowledge of previously encountered hypertexts
accounts for the dissolving of fixed text boundaries. The infinite

18
linkage of textual networks suspends a clear cut distinction between
text and context. On the other hand, hypertext producers may
harness hyperlink technology to illuminate the intertextual relations
of their works. Moreover, multimodal hypertexts embrace diverse
representational formats as intertextual entities.

A Critical Hypertext Analysis of the Software

Service Facebook
‘software service’ and more or less synonymously used concepts, i.e.
‘electronic platform’, ‘electronic environment’ and ‘web application’

In addition to SNS, recent software services

encompass, among others, WikiWebs, Weblogs, Chats and Message Boards
as well as Video and Photo Sharing Platforms. As a characteristic feature, all
these software services involve typical temporal embeddings as well as distinct
author/recipient configurations, reaching from ‘many-to-many’ in WikiWebs
to ‘one-to-one’ in private Chats. Software services can be further categorized in
specific service types (or genres) that support particular communicative aims,
among them private Weblogs being directed at self-presentation or friendship
SNS aiming at exchange among friends. While software services commonly
implement a wide variety of technical features, their backbone consists of default
templates that enable users to upload and distribute text data (and other representational
formats). Though used more or less synonymously, the term ‘electronic
platform’ highlights a software service’s interface that allows users to interact
with the service’s individual functional and communicative properties. P 111
I define a software service as Website that provides a variety of pre-set
templates allowing for the creation and upload of user-generated texts. When
following individual communicative aims, users interact with a software
service’s electronic platform. As an electronic environment, a software service
involves distinct spatial, temporal and social settings. P 111

Approaching Facebook from a hypertext model

Ontology - Technical knowledge (such as HTML,
xml or any other code) has become unnecessary for filling in and uploading the
provided Fb templates. Such open and simplified access facilitates the distortion
of ‘Fb as virtual entity’. Moreover, the pre-set and categorized profile templates
of the software service encompass important issues regarding social life (i.e.
personal details and friends). Such authentic presentations of real life personas
promote the transformation of ‘abstract binary codes’ into highly relevant mechanisms
for documenting and maintaining social relations. P 112
In summary, Fb’s Personal Publishing techniques and the intuitive design of its
platform that rests upon complex intertextual relations as well as the presented
content that concerns important issues of social life promote the perception
of Fb as a ‘real object entity’. Awareness of Fb as a virtual object is developed
in situations of defective or insufficient transmission, such as the erroneous
display of profiles or pictures. P 113

Fb’s degree of seclusion can be subsumed in the following ways: The online
network exhibits many features assigned to open hypertexts that involve the
creation and reception of highly dynamic and infinite texts. Entries presented on
someone’s Fb Home Page and/or Personal Profile are virtually infinite. They evolve
from their own and/or befriended member’s network actions and can be changed,
enhanced or deleted at anytime. The individual reading paths and presented
contents within the Fb network increase directly with a member’s own network
activity as well as with the quantity and individual network activity of her/his Fb

19
friends. On the other hand, the software service exhibits features that were assigned
to closed hypertexts: Fb’s structure (i.e. the division between Home Page and
Personal Profile) as well as its core features, such as News Feed, Messages, Photos and Friends, are, to a
large extent, pre-set, and thus guide and impair the creative
and analytical acts involved in producing and comprehending Fb discourse. P 113
In terms of sequencing, we typically come across various multiple reading
paths that result from the pre-given structure of the online environment. The
identified structural features of the Personal Profile and the Home Page (see
Chapter 1) facilitate and constrain the users’ multilinear options when creating
or analyzing Fb-bound texts more or less extensively. The navigational devices
mirror the relative static structuring of the software service. Profile data as well
as the Home Page entail fixed core features that involve distinct multilinear
reading paths, i.e. Wall, Info and Photos layers within the Personal Profile, the
News Feed, Messages and Events links within the Home Page. On the other
hand, some of these features can be enhanced individually to reflect the specific
interests of the profile owner. P 114

Multilinearity - From the profile owner’s point of view, template-based text generation techniques
interlace personal data into the more or less static and pre-set design of the
platform. Though profile owners have various possibilities to customize their
profiles individually, they are, all the same, bound to the pre-given structural
options of the online environment. Contrary to a person’s general conception of
her/his individuality that encompasses rather subtle and complex notions about
the self, the software service’s subject-based templates, as well as its pre-established
multilinear structure, restrict members’ options for self-presentation. 115
Moreover, when embedding external hyperlinks, Fb participants may overcome
the platform’s structural constraints. From the profile recipient’s point of view,
the software service’s pre-established multilinearity opens up many options to
experience other members’ profile data. When browsing through a network of
befriended members’ profiles, he or she will not come across a pre-conceived,
causal and temporal ordering of these ‘online identities’. They are free to select
from a pre-established multilinear set of modules containing personal details
of the profile owner.p 116

Fragmentation
As a unique feature, the
production of texts within Fb always involves intranodal and internodal fragmentation simultaneously: Any
text action a user performs is automatically
reported on her/his profile Wall and at the same time spread throughout her/
his personal network via the News Feed stream.(...) Such
text arrangements across different networks or databases can be referred to as
‘extranodal fragmentation’. In fact, integrated external hyperlinks commonly
display reduced-sized images and contents of the target node. Figure 3.2 illustrates
a profile Wall entry consisting of an external hyperlink that gives a snippet
of the specific target node, a Website on a band that plays electronic music. P 117
The software service Fb displays high degrees of fragmentation: Intranodal
fragmentation applies to the presentation of individual subjects, such as member
profiles, group sites or Home Pages. Internodal fragmentation concerns the
single nodes building the Fb environment. By integrating external contents
and hyperlinked thumbnails into the Fb environment, the users’ perception of
extranodal fragmentation (relating to data dispersed across different servers)
can be reduced. P 119

Such a merging of Fb discourse with external content transcends the fragmentation

20
resulting from different data storage locations. From an ontological
perspective, these texts are still separated, as they are stored on different servers.
From the perspective of the user, however, they are interpreted as cohesive and
coherent profile components. It follows that contents from external Websites are
contextualized as illocutions serving self-presentation and/or friendship maintenance.
The members’ perception of extranodal fragmentation can thus be reduced.
In fact, Personal Profiles tend to incorporate all kinds of external data and thus
transform into personalized windows to the vast and heterogenic contents
of the Internet. P 119

Interaction
Within Fb, members are interactively engaged in the creation and reception of
Personal Profiles and other Fb-bound texts, i.e. Home Pages, group sites or Fb
games. More precisely, such an interactive engagement with Fb-bound texts
encompasses the individual (re-)combination of textual fragments (structural
interactivity) as well as the cognitive processing thereof (cognitive interaction). P 119

Text templates as well as automatic text generation trigger the productive interaction
of members. Taking a closer look at the employed encoding practices
highlights the involved ‘physical acts’ of such a multi-layered interaction: By
pressing certain hyperlinks, such as the Like Button or the Add Friend Button,
members may perform all kinds of speech acts, while delegating the individual
semiotic choice of their locutionary acts to an abstract algorithm. 120
Within the Fb
environment the physical act of ‘clicking’ that was for years connected with more
receptive practices of perusing hypertexts, has transformed into a performative act.
It follows that Fb’s automatic text actions further the liaison between hypertext
author and reader and contribute to the blurring of productive and receptive
semiotic practices. P 120
As in other hypertexts, Fb users interact with the electronic platform on
cognitive, structural and productive levels in order to create and/or peruse Fbbound
texts. As a unique feature of the software service’s functional properties,
participants may engage in the generation of text content (productive
interaction) by simply pressing hyperlinks and thus performing some sort of
automated text action (such as adding friends, evaluating other members’ texts
or confirming invitations). P 120

Multimodality

Fb enables members to employ all kinds of representational formats, i.e. text,

audio, image and video data. The members’ multimodal acts can be divided into
two types: Genuine multimodal acts apply to the upload and distribution of
one’s own data (such as photos or videos), remixed multimodal acts apply to
the pasting of already available data (as in the integration of a YouTube video). P 121

Approaching Facebook from a traditional text model

Cohesion

Traditional cohesive devices

Recurrence:
straightforward repetition of symbols (i.e. heart, pencil, figure) signifying surface
relations among classes of displayed activities.
direct repetition of lexical elements (i.e. Kurt, Kurt Schwartz, friends, relationship,
married, etc.).
Parallelism:
reuse of layout patterns, while filling them with different content: consistent use

21
of font colour and size, consistent alignment of text boxes, uniform arrangement of
activity entries and comments.
sequences of similar, though not identical, actions are expressed in parallel
clauses:
Subject + Verb + Object
(Ind. Det. + Adj. + Noun)
Kurt added a new job.
Kurt has a new address.
Subject + Verb +Adverb + Subject Complement
(Copular) (Temporal)
Kurt and Volker Eisenlauer are now friends.
Kurt and Sonja Sydow are now friends.
Subject + Verb + Object
(Poss. Det. + Complex Noun)
Kurt edited his relationship status.
Kurt changed his Interests.
Paraphrase:
Repeated content while conveying it with different expressions
On a linguistic plane:
friends →people you may know.
employer: + entry →job.

On a multimodal plane:
Kurt Schwartz picture in an ID photo format.
Pro-forms:
Co-referring anaphora with a possessive determiner
Kurt changed his interests.
Kurt edited his Work Info.

Co-referring anaphora with a personal pronoun

Kurt changed his phone number to +491713214567. It has been added to your
Phonebook.
Tense:
Surface relations in terms of the organization of time in the textual world
Present tense
Kurt and Volker Eisenlauer are now friends.
Kurt is in an open relationship.
Kurt has a new address.
Past tense
Kurt changed his interests.
Kurt edited his Work Info.
Kurt added a new job.
Junction:
Logical relations among Kurt’s Fb actions are indicated by conjunctions:
Kurt edited his Work Info, Interests and Activities. P 123- 124

Automatically generated clauses establish

surface relations through a parallel structure, the repetition of content and
many other software-induced cohesive devices, such as paraphrases, pro-forms
and tense. Though Kurt has theoretically the option to adjust individual
profile categories and create individual text entries, the formation of surface
relationship within and beyond his Profile/Home Page is conditioned by
programmed text generation and alignment processes. P 124
Pre-set hyperlinks
organize the structure of the Fb environment and establish electronic
surface connections among Fb nodes (e.g. between the Home Page and
the Personal Profile) and profile layers (e.g. between the layers, Wall, Info
and Photos). Moreover, members have various opportunities to incorporate
individual links into their profiles and messages. P 124
As a result, we can establish that the labour of creating traditional and
hypertextual surface relations within the Fb environment is, in large part, taken

22
out of the users’ hands and transferred/delegated to the distinct functions and
properties of the software service. P 126

Coherence

Fb’s sets of defined templates elicit specific user information and draw on patterns
of semantic knowledge (or frames) that contain commonsense knowledge about
the central concepts of ‘friendship’, ‘familiarity’ and ‘social ties’. Most obviously,
the software service designates established network connections as ‘friends’ and
displays a member’s total number of friends in the lower left section of the
profile. By default, automatically generated texts refer to the inquiry of connecting
profiles within Fb as ‘friend requests’. Likewise, the action of establishing (and
documenting) contacts is reported as ‘member A and member B are now friends’
on a member’s profile Wall, while being dispersed via the News Feed stream.
Moreover, Fb applications such as ‘My Top Friends’ allow members to label
chosen network contacts as ‘top friends’. As we can see, Fb exhibits various lexical
entities that activate patterns of semantic knowledge that interrelate with friendship. P 127
Bubel (2006) promotes the notion of friendship as a prototype concept, i.e. as a fuzzy set. More
specifically, the author lists a set of
friendship attributes in Western society that are typically, but not inevitably,
present in a friendship, among them ‘equality’, ‘reciprocity’, ‘intimacy’, ‘trust’,
‘being oneself ’ and ‘voluntary interdependence’. In this sense, ‘the presence
or absence of these attributes is continually negotiated in friends’ interactions (Bubel 2006: 31). She
specifies, therefore, the concept of friendship as a
process that is continuously mediated between the friends’ positive and negative
face wants (Brown and Levinson 1987), such as connection vs. autonomy or
openness vs. closedness. P 128
Similar to Bubel (2006), Svennevig (1999) cites ‘solidarity’ and
‘familiarity’ as vital dimensions of social distance (and/or relatedness), but
points also to ‘affect’ as another crucial dimension. In his view, these three
dimensions are closely interrelated: An increase in solidarity concerning the
mutual rights and obligations will lead to an increase in familiarity (regarding
the degree of mutual knowledge of personal information) as well as in affect (i.e.
mutual liking). Obviously, different interpersonal relationships involve different degrees of solidarity,
familiarity and affect. P 128

Various formalstructural
and functional properties of the software environment embrace the
aforementioned understanding of friendship as a process involving a variety of
dimensions. Evidently, the fluidity of the electronic texture allows for frequent updates
of personal information while providing various means for communication among
friends (cf. Status Updates, personal messages, Wall posts, comments, automatic
text actions, etc.). Just as ties of friendship, Personal Profiles and their documented
social relations are in a constant state of flux. P 128
The above-mentioned discussion of coherence has revealed that the formation of
a mental model of Fb discourse is based on, among other knowledge structures,
the cognitive concept of ‘friendship as process’. Its attributes are mirrored and
likewise conditioned by various formal, structural and functional properties of
the software environment, such as pre-set templates and software-generated
texts. When processing Fb discourse, members need to integrate activated
factual knowledge with their know-how in handling the electronic environment.
Extranodal coherence-building processes draw on the same global reference
frames as intranodal and internodal coherence-building processes, i.e. selfpresentation
and friendship. P 131

Intentionality and Acceptabilty

Within Fb, members peruse befriended members profiles, Status Updates,

23
photos and other data in multilinear and highly individual ways and thus easily
change into author-readers or users. P 131
Moreover, with the help of the software
service’s various kinds of templates, users may create, upload and disperse
more or less personal data. Thereby, the semiotic choice of these texts is not
inevitably accomplished by the users themselves. In line with Postman’s (1992)
notion of an ‘agentic shift’ that accounts for ‘the process whereby humans
transfer the responsibility for an outcome of themselves to a more abstract
agent’ (Postman 1992: 114), Fb users gradually relinquish control to the
software when initiating the creation and/or dispersion of software-generated
texts, such as ‘member A likes this’ or ‘member A and member B are now
friends’. In fact, such automatic text actions not only elevate Fb text recipients
to productive authors, but are, at the same time, instrumental in fulfilling the
user’s individual intentions. P 131
From the perspective of speech act theory, ‘initiating automatic text actions’
can be described in the following way: First, Fb members let go of their
locutionary act to varying degrees. In some cases, such as commenting on a
profile Wall entry, the locutionary act is still performed by a distinct user within
a distinct virtual environment. Due to Fb’s standardized automation properties,
the propositions are, by default, replicated and re-contextualized in new virtual environments, such as the
News Feed streams of befriended Fb members’ Home
Pages (see also ‘Secondary Text Actions’ in Chapter 4). In other cases, such
as pressing the Like or the Add Friend Button, Fb is largely in control of the
locutionary act, as users delegate the discursive choice and the presentation of
the text to the platform’s text automation processes. Likewise, the illocutionary
act of Fb-bound text actions is gradually biased by the electronic environment.
In this sense, individually performed actions, such as ‘confirming a friendship
request’ or ‘liking other members’ comments’, result in the generation of texts
that are automatically linked to individual Fb profiles. P 131 – 132
Due to the multilinear persusal as well as to automatically generated and
dispersed texts, the distinction between intentionality on the production side
and acceptability on the reception side dissolves. As a result of automatic
text generation/dispersion processes, Fb-bound text actions experience an
‘agentic shift’. Such an agentic shift supports users in or relieves users of the
locutionary acts and has, at the same time, great impact on the illocutionary and
perlocutionary acts. P 133

Informativity

Reflecting the kind of information Fb members disclose, we can divide it

into ‘first hand-’ and ‘second hand user information’, which both contribute
to the creation and presentation of a member’s self in the SNS environment.
‘First hand user information’ results from text actions that were authored,
animated and performed by Fb participants and encompass, among others,
filling in the profile templates, writing Status Updates and posting Wall entries
and comments. ‘Second hand user information’ emerges from the software’s
automation processes that support, replicate or take over the creative semiotic
practices of the user: In re-contextualized text actions, it is still the Fb participant
who is responsible for the individual wording of the text, though the individual propositions are
automatically pasted into new virtual environments. p 133
In summary, the extent to which presented text materials within Fb are new
and relevant for individual users varies according to their individual semiotic
practices and world knowledge/beliefs. At the same time, it is due to various
automation processes that detect recently updated content by design, aggregate
text from many different profiles into a member’s individual News Feed
stream and highlight particularly relevant information. Regarding the kind of

24
information, we can divide it into ‘first hand’ and ‘second hand user information’,
with the former referring to data created and uploaded by the user and the latter
relating to automatically generated data on the user. P 135

Situationality

When Fb members harness the functional properties of the software service to

present themselves and connect with their Fb friends, they constantly integrate
‘virtual situationality’ with ‘real object situationality’ As such, Wall entries,
Comments, Status Updates and other Fb-related texts can be accessed individually
by Fb members and are thus constantly put in novel situational contexts.
Moreover, the fluidity of texts imposed by Fb’s text automation properties and
emerging from its virtual situationality results in a highly dynamic real object
situationality. In other words, Fb members interpret and situate texts within
contexts of utterances, schemes and frames provided by constantly changing
‘virtual environments’ within or outside Fb. However, at the same time, the
cognitive modelling of Fb is due to the situational embedding of the ‘physical
environment’ in which Fb-related literacy practices are taking place. P 135
For me, I use Facebook while I do homework, surf the Web, watch TV, and
listen to music. I also access Facebook from my phone when I’m bored and I
don’t see how using this and multitasking could be for people who generally
have lower GPAs [Grade Point Average ].2
Taking a closer look, we come across co-occurring actions taking place in
the physical environment, such as listening to music, as well as co-occurring
actions performed in a virtual environment, such as surfing the Web.3
Both environments constitute the situationality of Fb and affect, to varying
degrees, its form and content. Accordingly, the examples below entail information
about both situational contexts, i.e. the physical environment in
which the text was being produced and the virtual environment in which the
text is presented. P 136
With hyperlinked textual fragments
and the incorporation of external content into the Fb environment, the distinct
properties of the software service blur the division in text (Fb environment) and
virtual contexts. P 136

Intertextuality

The dissolving of fixed text boundaries in hypertextual environments bears

various consequences for Fb’s intertextuality. (...)On the other hand, intertextual relations within and across
Fb may become manifest in the formal–structural level of the texts: Posts,
comments and other personal data frequently illuminate their intertextual
relations through the purposeful integration of hyperlinks. P 137

The author of the post explicitly quotes the headlines of an Internet

magazine article and, moreover, creates a hyperlink connecting to this very
article. Thereby, the contents of the target node are displayed in a reduced
size below the post. When clicked, one is led to the Internet magazine article.
Though the purposeful implementation of hypertext technology may establish
a surface connection between two related texts (see cohesion), intertextuality
as a mere cognitive category still depends on the text participants’ individual
knowledge. P 138
If we ask for references and influences to and/or from other software services,
we find that Fb intermeshes and recombines textual and contextual patterns
of various other template-based environments, among them Weblog, Instant
Messaging Service and Chat. A common feature that all these services share is
that none of them can be captured by the traditional concept of mass media nor
by that of private media. Similar to Weblogs, the software service Fb displays text
entries in a reverse chronological order and allows recipients to add comments. P 138

25
However, Fb’s intertextual, or rather intermedial relations, not only become
manifest through implicit textual and contextual bonds between the Fb
environment and other software services and/or service types, but in fact, the Fb
environment stands out through the straightforward integration of a variety of
established services, such as Chat, Video Platform, Online Advertising or e-mail.
p 139

The software service Fb supports the illumination of a text’s intertextual

relations by enabling members to implement hyperlinks. Moreover, the Fb
environment stands out through the straightforward integration of a variety of
established software services. As such, Fb generates new ways in which older
software services and service types are produced, distributed and consumed.
When doing so, electronic platforms with related technical properties as well as
service types with related communicative aims feed, to varying degrees, into a
Fb participant’s literacy practices. P 141

Summary

Though there is an ongoing debate in the humanities concerning postmodern

identities corresponding with the multilinear structure of hypertextual environments
(see Landow 1999, Hayles 2005), we have to keep in mind that software
services, such as Fb, leave participants no other choice than to present facets of
their self images in a multilinear and hyperlinked structure. P 143
More precisely, the implementation of data stored on external Websites (such
as films on YouTube) into a Fb participant’s profile turns external data into illocutions
for self-presentation and/or friendship maintenance. The hypertext feature
of ‘interactivity’ spotlights the Fb participants’ productive literacy practices.
Text actions that contribute to self-presentation and/or friendship maintenance
can be performed by a single click on Fb’s diverse functional devices, such as the
Add Friend, the Like or the Share Button. P 144
From the perspective of ‘cohesion’, the
labour of creating traditional and hypertextual surface relations within the Fb
environment is largely taken out of the users’ hands and delegated to the distinct
functions and properties of the software service. Concerning ‘coherence’, the
software service exhibits various lexical entities that activate patterns of semantic
knowledge that interrelate with ‘friendship’. More precisely, the formation of a
mental model of Fb discourse is based, among other concepts, on the cognitive Beyond cohesion and
coherence directed at the ‘usergenerated
text material’, the ‘communicative context of user-generated texts’ is
shaped in various ways by Fb’s distinct properties and can be specified with the
help of the (hyper)textuality standards of ‘intentionality/acceptability’, ‘informativity’,
‘situationality’ and ‘intertextuality’:
MMOn the level of ‘intentionality/acceptability’, my analysis revealed how Fb’s
automatic text actions support and/or relieve users from their locutionary acts and
have, at the same time, great impact on the illocutionary and perlocutionary act.
MMBy design, the software service identifies recently updated content and
disperses it automatically within the network (‘informativity’).
MMHyperlinked textual fragments and the incorporation of external content
blur the distinction between text and virtual contexts (‘situationality’).
MMThe straightforward integration of a variety of established software services
into the Fb platform generates new ways in which older software servicservices
and genres are produced, distributed and consumed (‘intertextuality’). P 145

Facebook’s Impact on User Text Actions –

A Case Study – p 152
26
Common approaches in qualitative linguistic research
Narrative inquiry Narrative inquires are based on the notion that people
employ narratives to make sense of their individual
worlds (i.e. what they experience and who they are). It
uses “first-person accounts of life experiences as data,
mostly gathered through interviews” (Croker 2009: 14).
Case study Case studies use manifold data sources in order to
deliver a detailed description and interpretation of one
or a small number of cases.
Ethnography Ethnography commonly focuses on groups that share
the same culture and seeks to disclose the underlying
customs of this culture, such as shared beliefs, practices,
artefacts, behaviour and knowledge.
Action research Action research explores problems in teaching/
learning contexts and aims “more often [at] a change
in understanding and behaviour than some form of a
published report […]” (Croker 2009: 15).
Mixed methods approach The mixed methods approach is defined through the
combination of qualitative and quantitative research
methods. When accounting for quantitative and
qualitative data equally or giving one type more
prominence, the mixed methods approach aims to attain
an in-depth understanding of the issue(s) under focus. P 153

Insights from the pragmatic concepts of ‘intentionality’ and ‘action’ have created
awareness of the complexity of Fb-bound text actions. Doing things with Fb
involves a multifaceted interplay among a Fb member’s individual intentions
and a large array of semiotic forms that are more or less pre-arranged by the
software service. This gradual transfer of (text) actions to electronic agents can
be specified by discussing different levels of creative operations for Fb-bound
texts. As Searle (1969) has shown, when people employ semiotic forms to attain
individual communicative aims, they commonly perform four interrelated
layers of action. Accordingly, he divided a speech act into
(1) the utterance act that refers to the uttering (animation) of the semiotic
forms
(2) the propositional act that refers to the selection of a text’s proposition
(3) the illocutionary act that alludes to the individual communicative aims
(4) the perlocutionary act that involves the consequential effects of the speech
act (text action) upon feelings, thoughts or actions of the participants. P 157
I have revealed throughout this book that Fb members may delegate some
of these actions to abstract electronic agents, i.e. the software service. This
relates to selecting propositions (propositional act) as well as to the action of
converting propositions into semiotic forms (utterance act). However, when
reflecting text creation actions in Fb, we can assume that – in the most cases
– the software supports Fb members in performing individual illocutionary
Acts p 157

Patterns of actions in Facebook-bound texts

While Creative Text Actions (CTAs) involve a human agent (user) who selects
individual propositions, Automated Text Actions (ATAs) stand out through
electronic agents that generate standardized propositions when activated. More
directly, CTAs are user-authored; here the performance of the propositional act
and (to some degree) also the performance of the utterance act is controlled by
a human agent. In contrast, ATAs are software-authored, as the performance of
the utterance act, as well as the performance of the propositional act, is largely
controlled by the software service. From a practical point of view, CTAs are
supported through ‘blank text templates’ – these are empty text boxes such

27
as the ‘Status Update box’, the ‘comment box’ or other templates that can be
filled in individually and support the display, dispersion and performance of
individual text actions. In contrast, ATAs are based on pre-set propositions that
can be activated by clicking links (such as the Like, the Poke or the Add Friend
Button). As such, they set up more or less distinct actions in advance for the
users to perform. However, when it comes to the display of the text material,
both CTAs and ATAs are largely predetermined by the software. Though
members may create and/or upload individual propositions (CTAs), they have no or only minor control
over questions of design and the arrangement of
their texts: Profile Wall entries are, for example, always presented in reverse chronological order. Likewise,
profile pictures appear, by design, in the upperleft
corner and fonts, background colours and text arrangement are largely
pre-set. While in non-electronic texts as well as in first-generation hypertexts,
decisions concerning the text display, the text propositions and the text distribution
were exclusively made by ‘human agents’, in Web 2.0 based software
services, such as Fb, users gradually delegate such creative choices to ‘electronic
agents’. P 158 – 159

Outsourced identities
As opposed to traditional concepts of identity that relate individuals
to multiple memberships in social categories, such as class, gender or age, Le
Page’s (1978, 1984 in Auer 2007) model highlights identities as being projected
by individuals. In this sense, individual acts of identity precondition the features
and categories that individuals ascribe to themselves and to their conversational
partners. Similar to Le Page (1978, 1984 in Auer 2007), Claire Kramsch (2001)
introduces the concept of ‘voice’ that captures how social actors construct,
maintain or modify institutional roles and/or identities through the discursive
choices they make.5 In this sense, a linguistic ‘act of identity’ or an individual’s
‘voice’ can be described as a motivated choice of semiotic signs that index an individual’s affiliation (or
disaffiliation) to particular social groups (see also
Auer 2007). Turning back to Fb, we find that the array of potential semiotic signs which
members can choose from is gradually controlled by the software. In particular,
ATAs cut an individual member short and reduce the individual freedom of
semiotic choice to a binary decision: When Fb members perform ATAs, such
as ‘member A likes this’, they can, at most, decide to delete the text and/or not
initiate the action at all – they have no possibility of modulating the individual
wording. It follows that not only Fb members’ texts but also their individual
voices and thus their identities are to some degree standardized and pre-set by
Fb. On the other hand, Fb members always have the possibility of commenting
on pre-set software-generated texts and thus may give information on how
their textual performance ought to be read. p 166
Departing from an interactional
view of identity construction, recent studies investigate the dialectical
relationship and discursive practice of positioning oneself and being positioned.
In line with Davies and Harré (1990), Lucius-Hoene and Deppermann (2000)
delineate ‘positioning’ as those parts of speech acts that identify conversational
partners as persons by providing information on their individual attributes.
The authors distinguish between ‘self-positioning’ and ‘other-positioning’. The
former relates to conversational acts that indicate how a speaker would like to
be seen by others; the latter gives information on how a speaker sees her/his
conversational partners. In fact, discursive acts of self- and other-positioning
are heavily interrelated: By speakers claiming particular aspects of identity for
themselves, they inevitably assign particular attributes to their conversational
partners. P 168
Acts of positioning cannot be reduced to distinct speech act categories (cf. Searle

28
1969) and may be performed directly or indirectly. In other words, personal
characteristics, social identities or moral attributes may be ascribed explicitly to
selves and others, as in ‘I’m a fan of FC Bayern’, or may evolve rather implicitly
and depend more on the interpretation of the conversational partners, as in
‘FC Bayern has won 47 national and 8 international titles’. Straightforward acts
of positioning always run the risk of threatening the interlocutors’ individual
face wants (see Brown and Levinson 1987), while overly vague identity claims
might not be recognized as such by conversational partners. As Lucius-Hoene
and Deppermann (2000) show, when positioning self and other, it is a matter of
rhetorical knowledge to evoke the desired attributes without being accused of
self-praise or blunt critique. P 168

The software service as an ideological tool

Progress in technology is intertwined in various ways with innovations
in people’s social and communicative practices. From the very beginning the Internet was perceived as a
social space. In the 1990s, Internet users
not only sought for information online, but chatted with people, met new
friends or discussed whatever popped into their mind (Ebersbach et al. 2008).
Further enhanced technologies correlated with an increase in the user’s active
involvement in creating and distributing online texts, which marked the era
of ‘Web 2.0’. However, the social spaces allocated by Internet and/or Web 2.0
technologies are by no means ‘neutral environments’, but are occupied with
the ideas and visions of a given society. In this sense, Web 2.0–based software
services are commonly associated with democracy and creativity as they
provide not only access to information, but enable users, among others, to
take part in policy-making discussions, elections or in the development of new
online tools (Zimmer 2005). P 219
When generating texts within Web 2.0 environments, a
user’s individual decisions concerning the arrangement, the fonts and the length
of a text are largely pre-set by the individual templates of the service. In more
elaborate software services, we even come across fixed textual contents that
users may animate when operating the platform, i.e. by clicking Fb’s Like Button. P 219
We can see that Web 2.0
and its software services trigger not only text creation, collaboration and information
sharing (Lewis, Pea and Rosen 2010), but also give shape and coherence
to users’ text creation and processing practices. In the case of Fb, the software
service enables the formation and maintenance of social relations among users,
while at the same time standardizing the underlying communicative actions. P 219
It is generally believed that ‘we cannot merely “use” technology without
also, to some extent, being influenced or “used by” it’ (Chandler 1995: online)
and a variety of scholars have reflected on the ideological bias of technology.
Habermas (1989) has pointed out that technologies become ideological tools
when entering the communicative sphere. Through the ‘technization of the
lifeworld’ people recurrently experience that they are nonautonomous beings
dependent on technological tools and their creators. Weizenbaum (1976) has
shown that ‘a tool gains its power from the fact that it permits certain actions
and not others’ (1976: 37). In his view, the power of tools emerges from simultaneously
reducing and extending human action and experience. With the
introduction of new technologies – or in our case software services – people
acquire not only novel sets of practices, but also new perspectives on and
new understandings of social reality. There are various approaches that reflect
on such interrelations between progress in communication technologies and
the emergence of new social practices on a theoretical level. P 220
When utilizing complex text automation

29
tools, Fb members gradually hand over control of their actions to the software
service. A systematic set of pre-given lexical chains (i.e. ‘friends’, ‘friend request’, ‘top friends’, ‘people
you know from your hometown’) interrelates with
certain friendship-related knowledge structures. At the same time, the software
service’s structural and functional properties (i.e. frequent updates of personal
information) promote ‘familiarity’, ‘affect’ and ‘solidarity’ among members. In
this sense, the software service Fb promotes and/or allocates sets of discourses
that reframe communicative patterns among Internet users and/or friends. P 221
While
authorship in non-electronic texts involves most likely one or more human text
producers, who choose, create and align textual components to each other, text creation
in Web 2.0 environments can – at least to some degree – be transferred to softwarebased
text automation processes. Fb-specific text automation can be distinguished
in ‘automatic text generation’ and ‘automatic text distribution’ (Chapter 1). Both
have great impact on Fb members’ text practices. We can therefore establish that
Fb acts as a kind of author: By facilitating and/or allocating distinct sets of discourse
patterns Fb intervenes in the communication between profile owner (first author)
and profile recipient (second author). As a third author, it shapes the structure and/
or contents of the respective discourses and, moreover, controls the contexts in which
the texts are presented. P 223

30