In this essay I will explore whether text based interactions can be described as a creative form of language use. The text that I will analyse is a conversation between friends: I will identify a number of features of the text, comment on their effect and whether they are creative, then discuss some of the public attitudes towards texting.
Many of the techniques used in sample have the purpose of engaging the reader; making the text more eye-catching; making the text sound colloquial (like a spoken conversation); adding to the humorous banter-like tone of the text; and injecting an expression of emotion into the writing.
One technique used in the text is including slang or words written as they are said. Some examples of this are ‘wazaap?’ (l.1); ‘Who dis?’ (l.2); ‘nah’ (l.9); ‘Waana’ (l.14); ‘Wat abat’ (l.16). The effect of these features is to make the text read like a very informal, spoken conversation between two people who know each other very well. This makes the person reading the text, feel that they can express their thoughts and feelings in a natural, open way, and creates an intimate link between them.
The text also uses non-verbal language such as: ‘whoa whoa whoa’ (l.11); tch .hh – yeh - u::h u::h (l.15); ‘Mmhm’ (l.18). The effect of these techniques is to add in spoken sounds that are never written into formal texts. These are sounds that people make when they are speaking directly to one another and are not part of language, they are known as ‘metacommunication’. They usually tell the reader about how the texter feels, for example ‘whoa whoa whoa’ suggests that the texter is excited about something, and ‘Mmhm’ is a non-verbal way of saying ‘yes’. In a similar way to the use of slang, these features bring the texter and the reader closer together, because in speech they are an informal way of communicating with people who we know very well. We don’t use these features when we talk formally.Netspeak is a form of multi-modal talk which features both elements of spoken and colloquial language. Due to better advancing technology which leads to easier communication, both through the internet and texting, the English language is rapidly evolving forming and with it, colloquial language has spread across the internet. The by online conversation between two friends because I thought it would demonstrate how different techniques are used in modal talk to communicate effectively as well as making a comparisons between spoken language and online talk. Convention used of each taking each which is used both in spoken and net speaking
The conversation starts using a phatic expression- small talk such as “hey” and “hi”. A mirrors N’s response conveying a sense of a relationship or a bond forming. Also there is an omission of capitalisation, “hi” possibly due to timing or laziness. Despite this, both “hi” and “hey” is used in spoken language. This suggests that even though the start of the conversation uses a technique, online talk still follows the conventions of spoken language.
Phonetic substitutions as well as sound representations are used by both people. “U” and “r” can also be brevity and suggests there is a relationship between the two people due to the understanding of techniques and their perceived meanings. This may also have been used for a practical and financial purpose as it stays within the character limit. This suggests that the usage of brevity as well as phonetic substitution is a device used only in multi-modal talk that doesn’t venture beyond the computer screen due to its purpose.
Intialisms are used by both people. “wuu2” and “OMG”- both words have involved through the internet. Intialisms have since become popular with the emergence of SMS in which many having to fit a character limit use Intialisms .Texting is the process of sending short messages, usually less than 160 characters, from a mobile phone. It provides a means of sending a text to anyone, no matter where they are, so long as there is signal coverage from their mobile provider. Texting is considered as the quickest and most reliable means of communication, gaining worldwide popularity with over 6.1 billion SMS messages sent, just in 2010. However is this ‘technology phenomenon‘ ruining the English language or is it broadening it? Are teenagers over using abbreviations or are they merely being blamed for the ever present illiteracy within our language? This essay will explore the varieties and attitudes to texting, specifically accessing the stereotypical view of the use of abbreviates when teenagers text.
Teens are now using texting more and more regularly with 55% of all world wide mobile users, who SMS more than once a day, being 18 years old or younger, but is this stereotypical view ‘dat all tngrs tlk lyk dis tru?’ I think not. My research shows that on a regular 78% of people ages under 24 don’t abbreviate, with a mere 22% abbreviating regularly. This figure alone could change the views of many of the public, them being able to see how infrequently abbreviations are actually used by young people. I bet that they would not think that 42% of people aged 25 or over regularly abbreviate an astonishing figure when compared to the almost half amount of younger people. Against popular belief stemmed from reports, underlining the few cases showing a negative effect that texting has on the english language, it seems that far more ‘adults’ abbreviate when texting than younger people.
When looking at the difference between younger and older people, (for the purpose of this essay I have included people aged 25+ as older because people 24 or younger are the main focus on texting illiteracy in a stereotypical view) I found that the technology had an impact upon how commonly abbreviations were used