PDF version http://www.wide.msu.edu/widepapers/hs_wide.pdf

ABSTRACT
With the fast development of digital networks in the age of globalization, an emerging writing practice in one locale is diffusing rapidly across the globe. Cross-cultural studies of some of these writing practices indicate that writing practices usually develop different communication patterns while responding to local cultural and rhetorical traditions and then take on different use trajectories in various locales (Straub et al, 1997; Straub, 2001; Thatcher, 2001, 2005). However, these examinations tend to focus on comparing and contrasting local differences without linking them to the impact of globalization and its digital networks across the globe. The same problem can be found in technical communication and digital writing research. As Starke-Meyerring points out, much research is interested in examining “the local situatedness of communication practices” which ignores “local-global interplay” (p.483, 2005) and fails to realize that “[m]ore is going on locally than just local practice” (Brandt & Clinton, p.343, 2002).

By comparing the use trajectories of mobile text messaging during the past six years in American and Chinese contexts and examining the dynamic interactions between the local and the global, I argue that, in this age of globalization, emerging digital writing practices are not just responses to recurrent situations within local institutions, but are part of the global “uptakes” (Freadman, 2002) forming an open, globally networked genre system with their local variations. We cannot ignore the global nature of digital writing practices, and more efforts are needed to develop a global vision and a critical view to investigate digital writing practices and understand the dynamic interactions between the local and the global embodied in digital genres.

GLOBAL DIFFUSION OF LOCAL WRITING PRACTICES

With the fast development of digital networks in the age of globalization, an emerging writing practice in one locale is diffusing rapidly across the globe. During the last two decades, we have seen new writing practices such as email, instant messaging, text messaging, blogging, and social network websites arising and acclaiming global successes. Cross-cultural studies of some of these writing practices indicate that the writing practices usually develop different communication patterns while responding to local cultural and rhetorical traditions and then take on different use trajectories in various locales (Straub et al, 1997; Straub, 2001; Thatcher, 2001, 2005). However, these examinations tend to focus on comparing and contrasting local differences without linking them to the impact of globalization and its digital networks across the globe. The same problem can be found in technical communication and digital writing research. As Starke-Meyerring points out, much research is interested in examining “the local situatedness of communication practices” which ignores “local-global interplay” (p.483, 2005) and fails to realize that “[m]ore is going on locally than just local practice” (Brandt & Clinton, p.343, 2002). Though the famous slogan of “Think globally, act locally” suggests a problem-solving heuristic that global problems can be approached and solved by considering local economic, cultural, and ecological factors and starting actions in the local context (“Think,”1994), we should not forget to think globally. We need to understand local communication practices by situating them in the local context, and at the same time we also need to examine local practices in the global context and explore the dynamic interactions between the local context and the global one. Particularly in this age of globalization, emerging digital writing practices are not just responses to recurrent situations within local institutions; instead they are part of the global “uptakes” (Freadman, 2002): a local writing practice emerges as it responds to recurrent situations in both the local context and the global context. The forming process and use trajectory of the particular writing practice is the outcome of the interactions of local and global cultural factors, and thus the local writing practice should be also investigated globally.

THE CASE OF MOBILE TEXT MESSAGING IN TWO CULTURAL CONTEXTS

Text messaging was originally used as a voice mail alerting service — a simple mechanism to inform subscribers that they have a voice mail ready for retrieval (Hill, 2004). The first text message was sent by British engineer Neil Papworth to colleagues at Vodafone, a UK mobile phone giant, on December 3, 1992 (“Texting,” 2004). Due to poor radio coverage, interoperability problems between networks, the limitations of one-way messaging, the potential for mobile text messaging was not realized until a few years later when the first recorded monthly text message total was 5.4 million in Europe in April 1998 (Text.it, 2006). The mass use of text messaging was then diffused from Europe to East Asia and North America. Text messaging was introduced in China in 2000 (Chen, 2002). Now mobile text messaging is one of the most popular forms of personal communication worldwide.

A cross-cultural study of text messaging use in American and Chinese contexts (Sun, 2004) finds that the local uses of mobile text messaging take on different genre patterns. At the American site, participants were interested in sending fun messages to express their feelings and share moment-by-moment experiences. Their chats were usually short. A majority of messages can be regarded as small talk in which participants had quick exchanges updating each other about their statuses (e.g., “watching TV”) and other minute life details. In contrast, Chinese participants liked to stay in contact with friends via text messaging and sent more messages to inform. Long chats exchanged between friends were very common in Chinese message logs, and participants usually had more in-depth conversations over various topics. Text messaging was accepted as a formal genre, and a bride invited friends to her wedding banquet via text messaging. Two years later, the use trajectories in these two cultural contexts continue to develop along their own paths. In the U.S., while more attempts of formal use have been noticed— e.g., NCAA coaches, who were restricted in the number of phone calls they can make to high school seniors, used text messaging to circumvent this constraint (Fittipaldo, 2005); text messaging service was developed to urge young people to register to vote in San Francisco (Mobile voter, 2006) — text messaging seems to still remain as a personal writing practice and an informal genre among friends and relatives. In the Chinese context, text messaging has entered the public discourse as a formal genre: The Beijing mayor sent all Beijingese a text message of Happy New Year on the eve of the Spring Festival in 2006 (SINA, 2006); more and more journalists conduct interviews via text messaging (Xinhua Net, 2006); listeners text-in to join the live discussions of radio programs instead of call-in (personal observation).

Why do text messaging practices take different paths in these two contexts after they were diffused from the UK? Why does text messaging remain as an informal genre in American context while having entered the Chinese public discourse as a formal genre?

To answer these questions, we need to look at local cultural conditions and technological infrastructures. The difference of generic patterns can be explained with different local cultural values. A large number of chats between Chinese participants and their friends and the higher percentage of informing-oriented communication can be related to the collectivist culture at the Chinese site. In a collectivist culture, relationships are relatively long lasting, and individuals feel a deep personal involvement with each other. This long-term relationship orientation is mediated nicely with the unobtrusive nature of mobile messaging that allows people to stay in touch. In comparison, American culture is an individualist culture that does not have a strong orientation towards long-term relationships. The cultural value of individualism shapes the use in another direction. The unobtrusive nature of mobile messaging was used to support communication practices of fun and amusement for individuals, and thus mobile messaging was primarily regarded as a means for quick exchanges between peers and close friends.

Genre theory suggests a new genre usually evolves from an old genre, or its predecessor. The use difference at two sites is also due to different predecessors in two local contexts. At the American site, the predecessor for mobile text messaging was instant messaging. With the user model of instant messaging in mind, participants regarded mobile text messaging as casual conversation which was not appropriate for formal communication. At the Chinese site, instant messaging was not the predecessor of mobile text messaging as many participants adopted these two technologies almost at the same time. With a strong written tradition in China, Chinese participants interpreted text messaging as a written genre which could have a formal status. Thus the literacy practice of text messaging was interpreted differently in two cultures. One American participant commented this way, “text messaging is a conversation carried with my hands,” while a Chinese participant claimed, “the presentation is totally different when you say the same thing in the written form. You could use more effective words to describe what you experienced, and the receiver will be impressed by what you wrote. The verbal conversation is blander.”

The local IT infrastructure also affected the use of mobile messaging. The research found most American participants had a wide range of communication technologies available to them: computers, the Internet, email, and instant messaging. For quick communication, American participants had a choice of which media to select, accomplishing the same purpose without having to bang away on a phone keypad. In contrast, the technologies that were available to most Chinese participants were mobile messaging and wireless phones. In that situation, participants often chose mobile messaging to initiate actions and inform other people to coordinate and manage their daily tasks. Since text messaging has a high penetration rate at the Chinese site, it was more convenient for participants to use text messaging to contact people for various work and personal activities. The notion of genre implies a relationship between the artifact and its surrounding rules. These generic patterns can also be conceived as textual reproduction of social structures, or social rules. Drawing from Gidden’s structuration theory (1984), Orlikowski illustrates the duality feature of the technology. She suggests that technology use in an organizational context is not only socially constructed in human interpretive actions “through the different meanings they attach to it and the various features they emphasize and use” but also “part of the objective, structural properties of the organization.” The emerging genre of text messages presents the “duality feature of the technology” in both the individual context and the social context as this literacy practice enforces local cultural habits and social norms. The local variations of text messaging are not isolated, but they form an open, globally networked genre system: local genres share similar technological affordances and some of the textual features; the technological affordances might evolve at the same time (e.g., the development of multimedia messaging and mobile blogging); local use patterns will influence each other (e.g., the use of text-to-vote has been a common strategy for popular TV programs in UK, US, and China); and a successful use for a particular task in one locale — the successful response to one situation—is expected to be reproduced in another locale (e.g., American wireless carriers are eager to introduce more business services via text messaging to their customers like their counterparts in Korean, Japan, and UK).

IMPLICATIONS

As we expect to see “the increasing interdependence and integration of social, cultural, political, and economic processes across local, national, regional, and global levels” (Starke-Meyerring, p. 470, 2005), more local writing practices will be diffused to other locales and contexts and take on new generic patterns. What does this phenomenon mean to technical communicators who are engaged in knowledge work in the age of globalization? The case of mobile text messaging suggests that developing an in-depth understanding of local literacy practice is not sufficient. If we had only examined the text messaging use in the Chinese context or that in the American context, we would not have been able to notice the dynamic interactions between the local and the global, and we might not have been able to understand why text messaging entered the Chinese public discourse at all but only regarding that as a peculiar digital writing phenomenon. Furthermore, the cross-cultural comparison of different communication practices is not sufficient, either. We need to develop a critical view to study those local uptakes to global discourse, investigate the linking points, and explore the dynamic interactions. This also addresses another issue of the importance of cross-cultural communication in technical communication research. The current rationales justifying cross-cultural communication research in the field of technical communication usually consist of either business incentives from the industry in global competitions (Weiss, 1998), instrumental goals of teaching students to understand audience analysis in composition (Grobman, 1999), or epistemological aims of developing intercultural awareness and increasing powers of observation (Hass & Funk, 1989). It is clear that the digital writing practice just cannot be local any more in this age, and every local writing practice is a local uptake to the global discourse as “an aspect of globalization” (Robertson, as quoted from Starke-Meyerring, p. 481, 2005).

REFERENCES

[1] BBC News (Dec.3, 2002) Hppy bthdy txt! Retrieved from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2538083.stm

[2] Brandt, D. & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337-356.

[3] Chen, K. (2002). Yi dong duan xin zai zhong guo de fa zhan (The Development of SMS in China), from http://www.bjx.com.cn/files/wx%5Czlk%5C20030529%5C1.htm

[4] Fittipaldo, R. (2005) Coaches' new tool: texting recruits NCAA restricts phone calls, but not writing. Retrieved from: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05294/592447.stm

[5] Freadman, A. (2002). Uptake. In The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for stability and change. (eds) by Coe, R., Lingard, L., & Teslenko, T. 39-53. New Jersey: Hampton Press.

[6] Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[7] Grobman, L. (1999). Beyond internationalization: Multicultural education in the professional writing contact zone. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13(4), 427-448.

[8] Hass, C. & Funk, J. (1989). “Shared Information”: Some observations of communication in technical settings. Technical Communication, 36, 386-387.

[9] Hill, T. (2004). New revenue alert from SMS. Telecommunications International, 38, 43-44.

[10] Mobile Voter: http://www.mobilevoter.org/about.html [11] Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.

[12] SINA. (Jan.28, 2006). Beijing shiwei shizhengfu tongguo duanxin xiong shimin bainian (Beijing city government sent text message greetings to citizen), retrieved from: http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2006-01-28/02088098887s.shtml

[13] Starke-Meyerring, D. (2005). Meeting the challenges of globalization: A framework for cultural literacies in professional communication program. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19(4), 468-499.

[14] Straub, D. (1994). The effect of culture on IT diffusion: Email and fax in Japan and the U.S. Information Systems Research, 5(1), 23-47.

[15] Straub, D., Keil, M., & Brenner, W. (1997). Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study. Information & Management, 31(1), 1-11.

[16] Sun, H. (2004). Expanding the scope of localization: A cultural usability perspective on mobile text messaging use in American and Chinese contexts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

[17] Texting: the (near) silent revolution. (2004). from http://www.science.ie/scopetv/content/content.asp?section_id=665#links

[18] Text.it. (2006) Facts and Figures. Retrieved from: http://www.text.it/mediacentre/facts_figures.cfm

[19] Thatcher, B. (2001). Issues of validity in intercultural professional communication research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15, 458-489.

[20] Thatcher, B. (2005). Situating L2 writing in global communication technologies. Computers and Compositions, 22, 279-295.

[21] Think globally, act locally. (1994). Retrieved from: http://capita.wustl.edu/ME567_Informatics/concepts/global.html

[22] Weiss, E. (1998). Technical communication across cultures: Five philosophical questions. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 12(2), 253-269.

[23] Xinhua Net. (Mar.20, 2006). Yin Mingshan duanxin qing shengli (Yin Mingshan celebrates victory with text messaging), retrieved from http://www.xinhuanet.com/chinanews/2006-03/20/content_6511670.htm.