By Crispin Thurlow
This article is about ‘net generation’s uses of mobile phone text-messaging and SMS to examine the linguistic form and communicative functions as a novel, creative means of enhancing and supporting intimate relationships and existing social networks among them.
Main interpretations and preliminary discussion;
1. message length – SMS and mobile phone have longer messages than online chat.
☞ SMS → more interactive written discourse that CMC
☞ Mobile phone text-message → ‘predictive text’
2. ‘New’ linguistic form
① shortening, contractions, G-clippping and others
② acronyms & initialism
③ letter/number homophones
④ ‘misspelling; and typos
⑤ Non-conventional spellings
⑥ Accent stylizations with capitalization(prosodic & personal style)
Primary functional orientation of each message;
1. informational-practical orientation
2. informational-relational orientation
3. practical arrangement orientation
4. social arrangement orientation
5. salutary orientation
6. friendship maintenance orientation
7. romantic orientation
8. sexual orientation
9. chain messages
From the research result, high intimacy and high relational orientation of functional categories (the number of 4,5, 6,7, and 8) occupied higher percentage portion.
SMS and mobile phone text-messaging also offer the users the other functions such as expressing humor, taboo, relative licentiousness or flame-potential and hyper-coordination & co-presence.
The communication imperative;
- Young generation prefers ‘text-messaging’ because it is the unobtrusive and relatively inexpensive mode of communication.
- Young generation’s text-messaging is becoming increasing dialogic like in online chat.
Four gratifications for young people (compared to CMC, Email)
① high transportability
② reasonable affordability(price)
③ good adaptability(voice)
④ general suitability(it is quiet, discrete)
→ need for intimacy and social intercourse; ‘technologies of sociability’
The language of SMS;
‘Re-inventing the (English) language?
;Linguistic & communicative practices of text-messages emerge from a particular combination of
① technological affordances (abilities of technology)
② contextual variables
③ interpersonal priorities
The sociolinguistic maxims of SMS
① brevity & speed
② paralinguistic restitution
③ phonological approximation
Non-standardness in SMS
① ‘new’ linguistic form → incomprehensible
② impenetrability & exclusivity of SMS language
④ quantity & manner; i. abbreviation,
ii. non-conventional spelling
iii. phonological approximation
→ The younger; ‘write it as if saying it’
They think SMS and mobile phone text-messages are intelligible and appropriate to the overall communicative function.
In conclusion
1.text-messaging → ‘folded into the warp and woof of life”
2.new linguistic practices → adaptive & addictive
3.young text-messages manipulates conventional practices with linguistic creativity and communicative competence for their intimacy and social intercourse
This article is about ‘net generation’s uses of mobile phone text-messaging and SMS to examine the linguistic form and communicative functions as a novel, creative means of enhancing and supporting intimate relationships and existing social networks among them.
Main interpretations and preliminary discussion;
1. message length – SMS and mobile phone have longer messages than online chat.
☞ SMS → more interactive written discourse that CMC
☞ Mobile phone text-message → ‘predictive text’
2. ‘New’ linguistic form
① shortening, contractions, G-clippping and others
② acronyms & initialism
③ letter/number homophones
④ ‘misspelling; and typos
⑤ Non-conventional spellings
⑥ Accent stylizations with capitalization(prosodic & personal style)
Primary functional orientation of each message;
1. informational-practical orientation
2. informational-relational orientation
3. practical arrangement orientation
4. social arrangement orientation
5. salutary orientation
6. friendship maintenance orientation
7. romantic orientation
8. sexual orientation
9. chain messages
From the research result, high intimacy and high relational orientation of functional categories (the number of 4,5, 6,7, and 8) occupied higher percentage portion.
SMS and mobile phone text-messaging also offer the users the other functions such as expressing humor, taboo, relative licentiousness or flame-potential and hyper-coordination & co-presence.
The communication imperative;
- Young generation prefers ‘text-messaging’ because it is the unobtrusive and relatively inexpensive mode of communication.
- Young generation’s text-messaging is becoming increasing dialogic like in online chat.
Four gratifications for young people (compared to CMC, Email)
① high transportability
② reasonable affordability(price)
③ good adaptability(voice)
④ general suitability(it is quiet, discrete)
→ need for intimacy and social intercourse; ‘technologies of sociability’
The language of SMS;
‘Re-inventing the (English) language?
;Linguistic & communicative practices of text-messages emerge from a particular combination of
① technological affordances (abilities of technology)
② contextual variables
③ interpersonal priorities
The sociolinguistic maxims of SMS
① brevity & speed
② paralinguistic restitution
③ phonological approximation
Non-standardness in SMS
① ‘new’ linguistic form → incomprehensible
② impenetrability & exclusivity of SMS language
④ quantity & manner; i. abbreviation,
ii. non-conventional spelling
iii. phonological approximation
→ The younger; ‘write it as if saying it’
They think SMS and mobile phone text-messages are intelligible and appropriate to the overall communicative function.
In conclusion
1.text-messaging → ‘folded into the warp and woof of life”
2.new linguistic practices → adaptive & addictive
3.young text-messages manipulates conventional practices with linguistic creativity and communicative competence for their intimacy and social intercourse
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기