Digital Interaction in the History of English

doi:10.1017/9781009205870.007

4 - Digital Interaction in the History of English

from Part I - The Transmission of English

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 October 2025

Caroline Tagg and

Mel Evans

Edited by

Joan C. Beal

Show author details

Joan C. Beal: Affiliation:
University of Sheffield

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Our focus on digital interaction in the history of English foregrounds the mutually transformative relationship between language and society, with technological affordances enabling (new) forms of social interaction, whilst impeding or remediating (older) communication practices. Early internet forum users maximised meaning-making with available linguistic resources, including pre-digital typographical and respelling practices. Today, within the diversity of digital Englishes, strategies typical of early digital interaction remain, reconfigured for users’ local language ideologies and community norms and expanded to incorporate multilingual practices and new semiotic modes. This chapter explores the sociopragmatic practices of identity and belonging across the digital age, from Usenet in the 1980s and SMS in the 2000s to Twitter in the 2020s, detailing a complex interplay between new communicative opportunities and long-established sociopragmatic practices originating offline. Our analysis points to a diversification of English-using internet users and an expansion of multilingual, multimodal repertoires which prompt a revisiting of traditional sociolinguistic conceptions of English.

Keywords

multimodality identity orality SMS text messaging Twitter/X Usenet

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The New Cambridge History of the English Language
Transmission, Change and Ideology
, pp. 107 - 136

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009205870.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Al-Khatib, Mahmoud and Sabbah, Enaq H.. 2008. Language choice in mobile text messages among Jordanian university students. Sky Journal of Linguistics 21: 37–65.Google Scholar

Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2000. Non-standard spellings in media texts: the case of German fanzines. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4.4: 514–533.10.1111/1467-9481.00128CrossRef Google Scholar

Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2006. Introduction: sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10.4: 419–438.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00286.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Auxier, Brooke and Anderson, Monica. 2021. Social media use in 2021. Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/.Google Scholar

Avramenko, Alex and Nerantzi, Chrissi. 2019. Exploring the use of social media in the higher education classroom. In Rowell, Chris (ed.), Social Media in Higher Education: Case Studies, Reflections and Analysis [Online]. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, pp. 73–82.10.11647/OBP.0162.07CrossRef Google Scholar

Baker, Paul. 2001. Moral panic and alternative identity construction in Usenet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 7.1. doi.10.1111/j.1083–6101.2001.tb00136.x.Google Scholar

Baron, Naomi. 1998. History lessons: telegraph, telephone, and email as modalities for social discourse. International Association for Dialogue Analysis, 2–3 April, Erlangen, Germany.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bastick, Zach. 2021. Would you notice if fake news changed your behavior? An experiment on the unconscious effects of disinformation. Computers in Human Behavior 116: 106633.Google Scholar

Bateman, John. 2021. What are digital media? Discourse, Context and Media 41: 100502.10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100502CrossRef Google Scholar

Baym, Nancy K. 1995. The performance of humor in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 1.2. doi.10.1111/j.1083-6101.1995.tb00327.x.Google Scholar

Bednarek, Monica. 2016. Investigating evaluation and news values in news items that are shared through social media. Corpora 11.2: 227–257.Google Scholar

Benwell, Bethan and Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2006. Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748626533CrossRef Google Scholar

Berners-Lee, Tim and Fischetti, Mark. 1999. Weaving the Web: The Past, Present and Future of the World Wide Web by Its Inventor. London: Orion Business.Google Scholar

Bhatia, Aditi. 2020. Vlogging and the discursive co‐construction of ethnicity and beauty. World Englishes 39.1: 7–21.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blommaert, Jan. 2011. Supervernaculars and their dialects. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies. Paper 81. https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/files/30332143/TPCS_9_Blommaert.pdf.Google Scholar

Blommaert, Jan. 2019. Formatting online actions: #justsaying on Twitter. International Journal of Multilingualism 16.2: 112–126.Google Scholar

BNC Consortium, The British National Corpus, XML Edition, 2007, Oxford Text Archive. www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/corpus/index.xml?ID=consortium.Google Scholar

Bolter, Jay D. and Grusin, Richard. 2000. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

boyd, danah and Ellison, Nicole. 2008. Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13: 210–230.10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Bucholtz, Mary. 2003. Sociolinguistic nostalgia and the authentication of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7.3: 398–416.10.1111/1467-9481.00232CrossRef Google Scholar

Bucholtz, Mary and Hall, Kira. 2005. Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7.4–5: 585–614.Google Scholar

Burnett, Gary and Bonnici, Laurie. 2003. Beyond the FAQ: explicit and implicit norms in Usenet newsgroups. Library and Information Science Research 25: 333–351.Google Scholar

Caple, Helen. 2019. ‘Lucy says today she is a labordoodle’: how the dogs-of-Instagram reveal voter preferences. Social Semiotics 29.4: 427–447.Google Scholar

Caple, Helen, Bednarek, Monika and Anthony, Laurence. 2018. Using kaleidographic to visualize multimodal relations within and across texts. Visual Communication 17.4: 461–474.10.1177/1470357218789287CrossRef Google Scholar

Carey, James W. 1989. Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, Michael. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace and Tannen, Deborah. 1987. The relation between written and spoken language. Annual Review of Anthropology 16: 383–407.10.1146/annurev.an.16.100187.002123CrossRef Google Scholar

Chiluwa, Innocent. 2008. Assessing the Nigerianness of SMS text-messages in English. English Today 24.1: 51–56.Google Scholar

Cohen, Leor. 2015. World attending in interaction: multitasking, spatializing, narrativizing with mobile devices and Tinder. Discourse, Context and Media 9: 46–54.Google Scholar

Crystal, David. 2001. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139164771CrossRef Google Scholar

Crystal, David and Davy, Derek. 1969. Investigating English Style. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Danet, Brenda and Herring, Susan C. (eds.). 2007. The Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture and Communication Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Danet, Brenda, Ruedenberg-Wright, Lucia and Rosenbaum-Tamari, Yehudit. 1997. ‘Hmmm … where’s that smoke coming from?’ Writing, play and performance on internet relay chat. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2.4. doi:10.1111/j.1083–6101.1997.tb00195.x.Google Scholar

Desjardins, Renee. 2019. Translation, pragmatics and social media. In Tipton, Rebecca and Desilla, Louisa (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 375–393.Google Scholar

Deumert, Ana and Oscar Masinyana, Sibabalwe. 2008. Mobile language choices: the use of English and isiXhosa in text messages (SMS) – evidence from a bilingual South African sample. English World-Wide 29.2: 117–147.10.1075/eww.29.2.02deuCrossRef Google Scholar

Douglas, Jane Y. 1998. Will the most reflexive relativist please stand up: hypertext, argument and relativism. In Snyder, Ilana (ed.), Page to Screen: Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 144–162.Google Scholar

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. 1980. The emergence of print culture in the West. Journal of Communication 30.1: 99–106.Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Ferrara, Kathleen, Brunner, Hans and Whittemore, Greg. 1991. Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication 8.1: 8–34.10.1177/0741088391008001002CrossRef Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2020. Reflections on historicity, technology and the implications for method in (historical) pragmatics. In Tagg, Caroline and Evans, Mel (eds.), Message and Medium: English Language Practices across Old and New Media. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 80–84.Google Scholar

Flaxman, Seth, Goel, Sharad and Rao, Justin M.. 2016. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly 80.S1: 298–320.10.1093/poq/nfw006CrossRef Google Scholar

Fuchs, Christian. 2017. From digital positivism and administrative big data analytics towards critical digital and social media research. European Journal of Communication 32.1: 37–49.10.1177/0267323116682804CrossRef Google Scholar

Gains, Jonathan. 1999. Electronic mail: a new style of communication or just a new medium? – an investigation into the text features of e-mail. English for Specific Purposes 18: 81–100.10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00051-3CrossRef Google Scholar

Garcia, Angela C. and Jacobs, Jennifer B.. 1999. The eyes of the beholder: understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction 32: 337–367.10.1207/S15327973rls3204_2CrossRef Google Scholar

Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. 2015. Introduction: communicating time and place on digital media – multi-layered temporalities and (re)localizations. Discourse, Context and Media 9: 1–4.10.1016/j.dcm.2015.08.002CrossRef Google Scholar

Georgakopoulou, Alexandra and Spilioti, Tereza (eds.). 2015. The Routledge Handbook of Digital Communication. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315694344CrossRef Google Scholar

Gershon, Ilana and Bell, Alan. 2013. Introduction: the newness of new media. Culture, Theory and Critique 54.3: 259–264.10.1080/14735784.2013.852732CrossRef Google Scholar

Gevisa, La Rocca. 2020. Possible selves of a hashtag: moving from the theory of speech acts to cultural objects to interpret hashtags. International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 12.1: 1–9.10.5897/IJSA2019.0833CrossRef Google Scholar

Graddol, David. 2005. English Next. London: British Council.Google Scholar

Härd af Segerstad, Ylva. 2002. Use and adaptation of the written language to the conditions of computer-mediated communication. PhD thesis, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar

Hassan, Norizah and Hashim, Azirah. 2009. Electronic English in Malaysia: features and language in use. English Today 25.4: 39–46.Google Scholar

Hauben, Michael and Huaben, Ronda. 1997. Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar

Herring, Susan C. 2018. The coevolution of computer-mediated communication and computer-mediated discourse analysis. In Bou-Franch, Patricia and Blitvich, Pilar Garcés-Conejos (eds.), Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions. London: Palgrave, pp. 25–67.Google Scholar

Herring, Susan C. and Dainas, Ashley R.. 2020. Gender and age influences on interpretation of emoji functions. ACM Transactions on Social Computing 3.2: 1–26.10.1145/3375629CrossRef Google Scholar

Herring, Susan C., Job-Sluder, Kirk, Sheckler, Rebecca and Barab, Sasha. 2002. Searching for safety online: managing ‘trolling’ in a feminist forum. The Information Society 18: 371–384.Google Scholar

Herring, Susan C. and Paolillo, John C.. 2006. Gender and genre variation in weblogs. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10.4: 439–459.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00287.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Hou, Mingyi. 2019. Social media celebrity and the institutionalization of YouTube. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 25.3: 534–553.10.1177/1354856517750368CrossRef Google Scholar

Hurley, Zoe. 2019. Imagined affordances of Instagram and the fantastical authenticity of female Gulf-Arab social media influencers. Social Media + Society 5.1: 205630511881924.10.1177/2056305118819241CrossRef Google Scholar

Internet World Stats. 2021. Internet world stats: usage and population statistics. www.internetworldstats.com/.Google Scholar

Ito, Mizuko and Okabe, Daisuke. 2005. Technosocial situations: emergent structurings of mobile email use. In Ito, Mizuko, Okabe, Daisuke and Matsuda, Misa (eds.), Personal, Portable, Intimate: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 257–276.Google Scholar

Jochnowitz, George. 1982. Everybody likes pizza, doesn’t he or she? American Speech 57.3: 198–203.Google Scholar

Jovanovic, Danica and Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2018. Multimodal dialogue on social media. Social Semiotics 28.5: 683–699.10.1080/10350330.2018.1504732CrossRef Google Scholar

Katsuno, Hirofumi and Yano, Christine R.. 2002. Face to face: on-line subjectivity in contemporary Japan. Asian Studies Review 26.2: 205–231.10.1080/10357820208713341CrossRef Google Scholar

Katz, James and Aakhus, Mark. 2002. Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511489471CrossRef Google Scholar

Kirschenbaum, Matthew G. 2016. Track Changes: A Literary History of Word Processing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kperogi, Farooq. A. 2022. Social media and the demotic turn in Africa’s media ecology. History Compass 20.2.Google Scholar

Kress, Gunther. 2004. Reading images: multimodality, representation and new media. Information Design Journal 12.2: 110–119.Google Scholar

Kress, Gunther and van Leeuwen, Theo. 1996/2006. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lee, Carmen. 2007. Affordances and text-making practices in online instant messaging. Written Communication 24.3: 223–249.Google Scholar

Licoppe, Christian. 2004. ‘Connected presence’: the emergence of a new repertoire for managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22.1: 135–156.Google Scholar

Ling, Richard and Horst, Heather A.. 2011. Mobile communication in the global south. New Media and Society 13.3: 363–374.Google Scholar

Ling, Richard and Yttri, Birgitte. 2002. Hyper-coordination via mobile phones in Norway. In Katz, and Aakhus, (eds.), pp. 139–169.Google Scholar

Machin, David. 2016. The need for a social and affordance-driven multimodal critical discourse studies. Discourse and Society 27.3: 322–334.10.1177/0957926516630903CrossRef Google Scholar

McGarty, Craig, Thomas, Emma F., Lala, Girish, Smith, Laura G. E., Bliuc, Ana-Maria. 2014. New technologies, new identities, and the growth of mass opposition in the Arab Spring. Political Psychology 35.6: 725–740.10.1111/pops.12060CrossRef Google Scholar

McLaughlin, Margaret L., Osborne, Kerry K. and Smith, Christine B.. 1995. Standards of conduct on Usenet. In Steve, G. Jones (ed.), CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 90–111.Google Scholar

Moran, Charles and Hawisher, Gail E.. 1998. The rhetorics and languages of electronic mail. In Snyder, Ilana (ed.), Page to Screen: Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 80–101.10.4324/9780203201220_chapter_4CrossRef Google Scholar

Morel, Etienne, Bucher, Claudia, Pekarek Doehler, Simona and Siebenhaar, Beat. 2014. SMS communication as plurilingual communication: hybrid language as a challenge for classical code-switching categories. In Cougnon, Louise-Amélie and Fairon, Cedric (eds.), SMS Communication: A Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 111–140.10.1075/bct.61.08morCrossRef Google Scholar

O’Reilly, Tim 2005. What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.Google Scholar

Paolillo, John C. 2007. How much multilingualism? Language diversity on the internet. In Danet, and Herring, (eds.), pp. 408–430.Google Scholar

Papacharissi, Zizi (ed.). 2011. A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Networking Sites. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pargman, Daniel and Palme, Jacob. 2004. Linguistic standardization on the internet. In Sudweeks, Fay and Ess, Charles (eds.), Proceedings of CaTaC’04: Cultural Attitudes towards Technology and Communication 2004. Murdoch, Australia: Murdoch University Press.Google Scholar

Paterson, Laura L. 2011. Epicene pronouns in UK national newspapers: a diachronic study. ICAME Journal 35: 171–184.Google Scholar

Paterson, Laura L. 2014. British Pronoun Use, Prescription and Processing: Linguistic and Social Influences Affecting ‘they’ and ‘he’. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Plester, Beverly and Wood, Clare. 2009. Exploring relationships between traditional and new media literacies: British preteen texters at school. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14: 1108–1129.Google Scholar

Rainie, Lee and Wellman, Barry. 2012. Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/8358.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electric Frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Rikitianskaia, Maria and Balbi, Gabriele. 2020. Radio studies beyond broadcasting: towards an intermedia and inter-technological radio history. Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media 18.2: 159–173.Google Scholar

Robinson, Laura and Schultz, Jeremy. 2009. New avenues for sociological inquiry: evolving forms of ethnographic practice. Sociology 43.4: 685–698.Google Scholar

Scollon, Ron and Scollon, Suzie. 2004. Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9780203694343CrossRef Google Scholar

Shane, Tommy. 2018. The semiotics of authenticity: indexicality in Donald Trump’s tweets. Social Media + Society 4.3: 205630511880031.10.1177/2056305118800315CrossRef Google Scholar

Shortis, Tim. 2007. Revoicing txt: spelling, vernacular orthography and ‘unregimented’ writing. In Posteguillo, Santiago, Esteve, María J and Gea-Valor, M. Lluïsa (eds.), The Texture of Internet: Netlinguistics in Progress. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 2–21.Google Scholar

Siebenhaar, Beat. 2006. Code choice and code-switching in Swiss-German internet relay chat rooms. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10.4: 481–506.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00289.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, Hilary A., Giacon, John and McLean, Bonnie. 2018. A community development approach using free online tools for language revival in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 39.6: 491–510.10.1080/01434632.2017.1393429CrossRef Google Scholar

Soffer, Oren. 2010. ‘Silent orality’: toward a conceptualization of the digital oral features in CMC and SMS texts. Communication Theory 20.4: 387–404.10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01368.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Spilioti, Tereza. 2011. Beyond genre: closings and relational work in text messaging. In Thurlow, Crispin and Mroczek, Kristine (eds.), Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 67–85.Google Scholar

Squires, Lauren. 2010. Enregistering internet language. Language in Society 39.4: 457–492.Google Scholar

Statista. 2022a. Number of smartphone subscriptions worldwide from 2016 to 2027. www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/.Google Scholar

Statista. 2022b. Most popular social networks as of January 2022, ranked by number of monthly active users. www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/.Google Scholar

Tagg, Caroline. 2009. A corpus linguistics study of SMS text messaging. PhD thesis, Department of English, University of Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar

Tagg, Caroline. 2012. The Discourse of Text Messaging. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Tagg, Caroline and Evans, Mel. 2020. Spelling in context: a transhistorical pragmatic perspective on orthographic practices in English. In Tagg, Caroline and Evans, Mel (eds.), Message and Medium: English Language Practices across Old and New Media. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 55–79.10.1515/9783110670837-005CrossRef Google Scholar

Tepper, Michele. 1997. Usenet communities and the cultural politics of information. In Porter, David (ed.), Internet Culture. New York: Routledge, pp. 9–54.Google Scholar

The Jargon File. 2003. The Jargon File, version 4.4.7. http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/.Google Scholar

Thurlow, Crispin. 2006. From statistical panic to moral panic: the metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11: 667–701.10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00031.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Thurlow, Crispin and Brown, Alex. 2003. Generation txt? Exposing the sociolinguistics of young people’s text-messaging. Discourse Analysis Online 1.1.Google Scholar

Thurlow, Crispin, Lengel, Laura and Tomic, Alice. 2004. Computer Mediated Communication: Social Interaction and the Internet. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Trager, George L. 1964. Paralanguage: a first approximation. In Hymes, Dell (ed.), Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row, pp. 274–288.Google Scholar

Tseliga, Theodora. 2007. ‘It’s all Greeklish to me!’ Linguistic and sociocultural perspectives on Roman-alphabeted Greek in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. In Danet, and Herring, (eds.), pp. 116–141.Google Scholar

Turkle, Sherry. 2008. Always-on/always-on-you: the tethered self. In James, E. Katz (ed.), Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 121–138.Google Scholar

Turner, Thomas and Brackbill, Lisa. 1998. Rising to the top: evaluating the use of the HTML META tag to improve retrieval of world wide web documents through internet search engines. Library Resources and Technical Services 42.4: 258–271.Google Scholar

Vaisman, Carmel. 2011. Performing girlhood through typographic play in Hebrew blogs. In Thurlow, Crispin and Mroczek, Kristine (eds.), Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 177–196.Google Scholar

Van Deursen, Alexander J. A. M., van der Zeeuw, Alex, de Boer, Pia, Jansen, Giedo and van Rompay, Thomas. 2021. Digital inequalities in the internet of things: differences in attitudes, material access, skills, and usage. Information, Communication and Society 24.2: 258–276.Google Scholar

Van Leeuwen, Theo. 1996. The representation of social actors. In Carmen, R. Caldas-Coulthard and Coulthard, Malcolm (eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 32–70.Google Scholar

Vasquéz, Camilla. 2014. The Discourse of Online Reviews. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Wajcman, Judith. 1991. Feminism Confronts Technology. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Wikström, Peter. 2014. ‘And she was like “O-O”’: animation of reported speech on Twitter. Nordic Journal of English Studies 13.3: 83–111.Google Scholar

Zappavigna, Michele. 2011. Ambient affiliation: a linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media and Society 13.5: 788–806.10.1177/1461444810385097CrossRef Google Scholar

Zhao, Sumin. 2019. Social media, video data and heritage language learning: researching the transnational literacy practices of young children from immigrant families. In Kucirkova, Natalia, Rowsell, Jennifer and Falloon, Garry (eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Learning with Technology in Early Childhood. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 107–126.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.