The Impact of Language Variety and Expertise on Perceptions of Online Political Discussions

A literature review

A literature review is a compilation of what is previously known about the research issue. It is related to data reported in prior studies by other academics. The purpose of a literature review is to set the study issue in the context that is previously understood. Using this knowledge, gaps are identified, highlighting the importance of the current task.

Definitions of terms

Many terms are defined in this study. The degree to which the reader considers the originator as unknown or indeterminate is portrayed as anonymity. Languages of high and low diversity are also defined. High variety one is the language that is not natively spoken, but it can be learned, while low variety is the dialects of the same language in different regions. Tan, Swee, Lim, Detenber, & Alsagoff (2007) portray English as the High Variety Language while Singlish falls into the low variety language category.

Hypotheses

Tan et al. (2007) have used four hypotheses for their research. In the first hypothesis, they compare users of Singlish and Standard English. They suggest that Singlish users are inferior as they are perceived as being (a) less informative; (b) lack the ability to persuade the audience or readers and even their (c) credibility is questioned. The second hypothesis dwells on the status cues of discussants where they are grouped as either experts or novices. Based on this, they are of the opinion that novice discussants are seen as having (b) a low convincing power, are also (a) less informative and their (c) source of credibility is also lower in comparison to those with the ’expert’ status. In Singapore, the permission to use Singlish attracts more participants to an online discussion in contrast to low participation observed where only Standard English is permitted. The last hypothesis follows the assumption that participation will be influenced by the status cue of the overs of an online discussion. With novices, low participation is anticipated while the opposite is expected with experts (Tan et al., 2007).

Research methodology

The research methodology appears right after the literature review before the results. Tan et al. (2007) have broken down this section into several subsections including the participants, research design, procedure, attributes that would be measured, and method of analysis. Through email advertisement, a total of eighty participants with an average age of twenty-one years were recruited. There were thirty-eight men and forty-two women, all of them were undergraduate students. A $10 incentive was promised and given at the end of the study to encourage participation to the end. Screening was done to remove non-Singaporean students whose unfamiliarity with local issues could act as confounding factors (Tan et al., 2007).

Results

Only components of hypothesis one and two were partially supported by the analysis of the collected data. Hypothesis 1c that claimed Singlish users to be of low source credibility was partially supported. Tan et al. (2007) found that for English users, novices posted a source credibility score higher than the experts. However, among Singlish users, experts showed higher source credibility at a mean of 4.42 while 4.04 was registered by novices. Hypothesis 2c was also supported. This twist was due to the impact that language was found to have on the input of authoritativeness. English users were found to be more authoritative.

Figure 1: Results for Hypothesis 1c and 2c (Tan et al., 2007)

Other hypotheses

The other hypotheses were not supported. Hypothesis 1a and 2a that proposed that informativeness was affected by language (Singlish vs. Standard English) and expertise (Experts vs. Novices) were disputed as the ANOVA analysis showed that these attributes had no significant effects on informativeness. On persuasiveness, the study found that neither expertise nor language use significantly influenced the persuasiveness of individuals. These results lead to the rejection hypothesis 1b and 2b which suggested that Singlish users and novices respectively had low persuasive abilities. Hypotheses three and four were also not supported by the data as results confirmed that willingness to participate in online discussions was neither swayed by the language used nor by the level of expertise (Tan et al., 2007).

Discussion and conclusions

The researchers have not included an independent conclusions section. However, in the discussion, they give their thoughts as to why the results turned out as they did and from this, some conclusions may be drawn. Tan et al., (2007) say that the way expertise cues are mentally processed in computer-mediated communication differs from the processing in one on one conversation. In the online platform, the significance of the status cue is not straightforward as opposed to face to face situations. Apparently, the use of prestigious title does not spell out the specialization, competence, and experience of a person. Internet communication forgives and also allows deviation from standard grammatical requirements.

Analysis

From the study, the Internet has been praised as a platform that could enhance political democracy without discriminating against social status, education, or gender. Contrastingly, in the same weight as it is beneficial, it could also be used to perpetrate wrongs by spreading rumors and violating privacy of online users. The internet confers anonymity to its users, but then certain aspects in the user communication may reveal attributes, such as gender and native language. This paper identifies that in Singapore, status can be identified through the language variety used in online communication. Use of Singlish or Standard English may influence the opinions of the audience about the writer. From the results, the language used in online forums does not attract negative opinions such as being less informative, unable to persuade, and low source credibility. Also, the use of titles that designate one as an expert or a novice does not necessarily favor the judgment readers have on the writer. Evaluation is based on the information disseminated. Contrary to expectations, novices who use English receive positive criticism as opposed to those using Singlish. Experts neither benefit nor are they ruined by this language. Expertise and the setting of a recommended language do not deter people from participating in online political discussions (Tan et al., 2007).

Study design

The study by Tan et al., (2007) was well-designed. The format of presentation was standard except for the absence of the conclusion section. In the literature review, the information gathered demonstrates the gap in knowledge highlighting the relevance of the current study. The scholars used an appropriate number of participants and they also have controlled for possible confounding variables. The design allowed for controlling of the study and using their procedure, the research can be replicated.

References

Tan, K.W.P., Swee, D., Lim, C., Detenber, B.H., & Alsagoff, L. (2007). The Impact of Language Variety and Expertise on Perceptions of Online Political Discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 76-99.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00387.x