3. Main interpretations
3. Main interpretationsThe length of individual messages was calculated using the standard Microsoft Word ‘word count’ function; this is a crude calculation since it is unable to distinguish lexical items conjoined by a punctuation mark (e.g. i’ll be there later today.what time are u coming?) but does include individual-character lexemes such as the ‘u’ in the same example. On this basis, the average length of text-messages was 14 ‘words’. Compared with the average length of turns in online chat (e.g. 6 words - Werry, 1996), the messages of participants were certainly longer which was to be expected from the kind of asynchronous interpersonal communication afforded by SMS. However, given the standard restriction imposed on the length of text-messages (i.e. usually about 160 characters, including spaces), it was also interesting to note that the average length of participants’ text-messages was only 65 characters (Md = 55, Mo = 13, 23, 39), although with quite a lot of variation (SD = 45). While much is made about the technologically imposed need for brevity in SMS, participants’ messages seldom used the available space; the length (and abbreviated linguistic forms) of messages would therefore seem instead to be a function of the needs for speed, ease of typing and, perhaps, other symbolic concerns. Indeed, as others have noted elsewhere (for Finland: Kasesniemi & Rautiainen, 2002; for Germany: Rössler & Höflich, 2002), young people appear increasingly to be employing SMS for more dialogic exchanges – especially when the costs are lower as is the case in Finland. In this sense, therefore, the language of SMS starts to look much more like the ‘interactive written discourse’ of a conventional CMC niche like IRC (Werry, 1996:48). I return to this point later.
With obvious implications for linguistic practice, it is worth noting that some mobile phones enable ‘predictive text’, meaning that users need only press once on the keypad number corresponding to the letter; as long as the desired word is already stored, the phone should recognize and complete it automatically. When asked earlier in the questionnaire by Brown (2002), however, only about half (55%) of participants reported using this facility – mainly because it was thought to be quicker and easier. On the other hand, reasons given by those 37% who said they didn’t use predictive text included, in order of priority, that it was too difficult to use, they did not actually have the facility to start with, it was annoying, it did not choose the right words, it was slower to use and did not facilitate the need for abbreviations.
Following the kind of typology offered by Tim Shortis (2001), in Table 1 (Pdf version for download) is listed every different example found in participants’ transcribed messages of what might reasonably be regarded as a non-standard orthographic and/or typographic forms, organising them into the following broad categories: (1) shortenings, contractions and G-clippings and other clippings, (2) acronyms and initialisms, (3) letter/number homophones, (4) ‘misspellings’ and typos, (5) non-conventional spellings, and (6) accent stylizations. [note 5]
Heavily abbreviated language is of course also a generic feature of interactive CMC niches like IRC’s online chat and ICQ’s instant messaging and I was not surprised to see that, in Section 1 of the questionnaire, 82% of participants reported using abbreviations in their text-messages, especially the women (F = 89%; M = 57%). However, in looking at their actual text-messages, only 1401 examples of abbreviations were found – about three per message – which meant that abbreviations in fact accounted for less than 20% (18.75%) of message content. As I discuss shortly, this finding runs counter to popular ideas about the unintelligible, highly abbreviated ‘code’ of young people’s text-messaging.
In the same vein, only 509 typographic (as opposed to alphabetic) symbols were found throughout the entire corpus – the vast majority of which were simply kisses and exclamation marks usually in multiple sets (e.g. xxxxxx and !!!!!). There were also only 39 instances of emoticons (e.g. :-) ), even though, earlier in the questionnaire by Brown (2002), just over half of the participants actually reported using emoticons, and especially the female participants (F = 56%; M = 38%). (See Table 2 - pdf file) One important limitation of the current study was that the origin of actual text-messages written down by participants was not known – for example, if they were sent or received and who they were sent by. As such, I have been unable to calculate the relative use of a range of different linguistic and typographical forms by males and females, for example. Nevertheless, these figures for the reported use of emoticons would otherwise be consistent with women’s greater use of such (para)linguistic modifiers in comparable (i.e. text-based) computer-mediated discourse (see Witmer & Katzman, 1997).
YO YO YO HESS WOZ UP IN DA HOOD?!HOW IS MAZZAS?WHEN U GOIN BACK?LOVE ME X [M1: Participant 70 / Message 3]
There were also relatively few (n = 73) examples of what are referred to here as ‘language play’, and, like many of the paralinguistic and prosodic cues found in IRC by Werry (1996), instances of language play were most commonly in the form of accent stylizations or phonological approximations such as the ‘regiolectal’ (Androutsoplouos, 2000:521) spelling novern for ‘northern’ and those in [M1] above. In addition there was a range of onomatopoeic, exclamatory spellings (e.g. haha!, arrrgh!,WOOHOO!,t’ra, Tee Hee, Oi oi savaloy!, yeah, yep, yay!, rahh, ahhh, mchwa!, eh?, and woh!) and a couple of other typographical-cum-linguistic devices for adding prosodic impact (e.g. quick quick, wakey wakey, wotcha, and yawn…). Unless used in marked isolation, it was not possible to determine if the use of capitalization such as in [M1] was used deliberately for prosodic effect or if, as I suspected here, it was the sender’s personal style preference to send all their messages in capital letters anyway (see also p.31).
Finally, as one quick reposte to journalist John Humphreys (see above), there were in fact 192 apostrophes used across the 544 messages (e.g. we’re, she’s, can’t, I’m, it’s); this is about one in every three messages (or 35% of them) which otherwise seems surprising given the technological imperative for speed and ease of ‘typing’. Without anything to compare it with, however, it is hard to make any claims for this figure, except to say that, as far as the supposedly solecisitic participants in the current study were concerned, it does not appear that the apostrophe is dead just yet!
Language is always multifunctional and always dependent on context for its meaning. As such, it was not always possible to be certain of the meaning of some participants' messages and even less so the communicative intent with which they were sent. In looking to code their text-messages, however, messages were coded in terms of their primary content-themes; on this basis, individual messages were assigned to nine broad categories. The multifunctionality of the messages was retained to some extent by coding messages in terms of more than one category where relevant (some 121 messages in all, i.e. 22%). In order to render this process of categorization as explicit as possible, examplars for each category are given here, with original messages indicated in a different font and tagged with participant and message numbers according to the transcription protocol. (All messages used in this paper have been numbered in sequence for ease of reference.)
Where's sardinia?Answer me quick hun! xx [M2: Participant 78, Message 1]
Put money in ur account [M3: Participant 99, Message 5]
I Passed [M4: Participant 29, Message 1]
I'm not feeling v well can you get the lecture notes for me please [M5: Participant 31, Message 3]
Where shall i meet you tonite?what time?See u soon love me x [M6: Participant 155, Message 1]
Wanna come to tesco? [M7: Participant 149, Message 5]
R WE DOIN LUNCH THIS WK?CHE [M8: Participant 22, Message 2]
Hello.Me and laura want2go2jive2moro.Does u want us 2 buy tickets [M9: Participant 103, Message 5]
Yo man whats de goss [M10: Participant 39, Message 2]
morning,how are you today?love you xxjtxx [M11: Participant 118, Message 4]
Happy Birthday, i hope you are having a good one,see you in a few days.Love Duncan x x x x [M12: Participant 14, Message 1]
Don't worry bout exam!Just had hair cut & look like a ginger medussa!Arrgh! [M13: Participant 18, Message 4]
R u bak already khevwine?!i am not comin 4 anuva 2 wks,but khevwine, u r the sexiest thing since sliced bread!c & sexia then sliced bread!oh my luv.I miss u so!x [M14: Participant 38, Message 1]
Each time ur name appears on my phone i smile like this :) [M15: Participant 97, Message 2]
Read ur email-thought waz gonna burst so horny xxxxxx [M16: Participant 1, Message 5]
Your wish is my command!I promise to be a better hostage next time.Sweet dreams princess.xxx [M17: Participant 103, Message 4]
I believe friends are like quiet angels who lift our feet when our wings forget how to fly!send to 4 friends and sont send back and see what happens in 4 days [M18: Participant 133, Message 1]
sex is good,sex is fine,doggy style or 69,screwin 4 free or getting paid,everyone loves getting laid,so spread ur legs,lay on ur back,lick ur lips & text me back! [M19: Participant 153, Message 3]
In Figure 1 (Pdf version for download), all the messages are shown distributed in terms of these primary thematic categories. Even though, theoretically speaking, it is impossible to separate ‘doing sociability’ from information exchange (Jaworski, 2000:113), and as Thurlow (2001a) has shown, for analytical convenience it can be revealing to compare the relative weighting of 'relational' and 'informational' dimensions of communication in participant responses. With the 'transactional' or 'interactional' orientation of text-messages tending to be either foregrounded or backgrounded, it was possible to locate each of the principle content themes along a continuum according to the relative degree of intimacy expressed by each as in Figure 2 (Pdf version for download).
On this basis, and relying on the Informational-Relational category as some notional midway point, initial content analyses of participants' 544 messages revealed that at least two thirds of participants' messages were explicitly relational in their orientation, ranging from making social arrangements, phatic communion, friendship maintenance, to romantic, flirtatious and openly sexual exchanges. In fact, recognising the possibility that chain messages too have a relational orientation (see below) and that many of the messages dubbed 'practical arrangements' may well represent a more implicit social arrangement, the amount of explicitly transactional messaging was relatively small – as little as 15% of all the message codings.
In addition to their predominantly relational orientation, other initial impressions of the general tone and content of participants’ messages are noted briefly in the following sections.
Within the general category of friendship maintenance, were found a range of messages of apology, thanks and support (e.g. M12 and M13 above). I have also identified a number of instances where text-messages were being used by friends to stay in touch while apart and also as means of resolving (e.g. M20) – and, possibly, instigating (e.g. M21) conflict:
u stupid girl,why ru upset & worried?i'm not in a mood or stressed so u shouldn't be + def don't b scared of me-i'm a softy!cu in a bit x [M20: Participant 64 / Message 4]
Olly's brought up the house again!Wanker!He's said he reckons you + him'll "come to blows" by the end of the year.He'll fucking die! [M21: Participant 71 / Message 2]
It is these types of messages which most clearly indicate the way in which participants appeared to rely on text-messaging to facilitate relational maintenance and social intercourse, and to complement their face-to-face interactions.
Another strong impression formed throughout my reading of the messages was an overriding jocularity or teasing tone. Although humour is generally very difficult to discern by third parties – not least given that it is intensely context-dependent – there were nonetheless numerous instances where the messager's intent was very clearly humorous.
Simon said you didn't come home last nite.U dirty stop out [M22: Participant 101 / Message 4]
You are a drunken fool with a bad memory [M23: Participant 52 / Message 1]
We believe that this once again helps to fulfil the generally phatic (cf. Malinowski, 1923) function of text-messaging by which an almost steady flow of banter is used in order to maintain an atmosphere of intimacy and perpetual social contact. In this sense, text-messaging is small-talk par excellence – none of which is to say that it is either peripheral or unimportant (see Coupland, 2000).
Beyond their notable sexual content, the chain messages might also be regarded as a form of ‘gifting’ (Ling & Yttri, 2002:159), whereby messagers – especially so amongst younger teenagers – forward these stock sentiments and saucy jokes not only to communicate some desired aspect of identity, but also as means of social bonding through (potentially) shared humour and taboo breaking. As such, although apparently transactional in content, chain messages are clearly more relational in function. Although there were only a handful altogether in the current data-set, what sexual jokes were found were almost always reported by male participants which would not be atypical of the often (hetero-)sexualized nature of young men’s conversational discourse (Edley & Wetherell, 1997; Cameron, 1997).
Allowing also for the sexual tone of many of the chain messages, a striking number of the messages oriented around romantic and, occasionally, sexual themes – either as subject matter (M24 below) or interactional goal (M17 above).
HAD SEX! [M24: Participant 12 / Message 2]
It is in this way, that SMS shows itself to offer an interesting mix of intimacy and distance not unlike various other CMC niches such as IRC, IM and, to an extent, email. The technical rapidity and ephemerality of SMS seem to bring with them a relative anonymity even though, unlike the CMC of much online chat, the sender and receiver are invariably revealed to each other through caller/number display. Nevertheless, it is this kind of ‘recognised anonymity’ which might explain the relative licentiousness or flame-potential of some of the messages reported by participants (see O’Sullivan & Flanagin, 2000, for a discussion these issues in internet CMC). In fact, in the first part of the questionnaire as many as 52% of participants had already reported sending a text-message to say something they wouldn’t ordinarily say face-to-face.
Within the general message category ‘Practical Arrangement’ were an important sub-grouping of messages which exemplify precisely the kind of interpersonal co-ordination discussed by Ling & Yttri (2002) and which they refer to as ‘hyper-coordination’. What is meant by this is the type of mundane, micro-level coordination involved in redirecting trips already started (e.g. 'I need to pick up some milk; can we meet at the store instead?'), letting people know that you're going to be late (e.g. 'I'm held up in traffic but will be there in ten minutes hopefully') or confirming exact timing and location (e.g. 'I'm walking up the high street right now – are you still waiting in front of the post office?'). From the current data-set, examples included:
C u in 5 min x [M25: Participant 11 / Message 5]
LATE [M26: Participant 22 / Message 1]
Where r u?We r by the bar at the back on the left. [M27: Participant 52 / Message 2]
It is this finely-tuned arrangement-making which demonstrates one of the clearest instances of mobile telephony’s shaping a new, distinctive style of social interaction; Ling & Yttri (2002:144) propose that this type of mundane, micro-level organising allows for both the ‘structuring and rationalization of interaction’. Certainly, it would seem from the data that a high premium is placed by young people/adults on such continual accessibility and connectivity – or what Katz & Aakhus (2002) characterise as ‘perpetual contact’ – and that, once again, this is done primarily in the service of social intercourse.
Related to this sense of perpetual contact, and as another example of how text-messagers capitalize on technological affordances (more on this point below), participants had messages revealed contact which was so continual to the extent of being actually co-present:
Who the girls your with is it one of your adoring fans? [M28: Participant 130 / Message 1]
Have you had a shower today as i'm sure I can smell u from here!(Teehee) [M29: Participant 63 / Message 1]
In both these instances, where sender and receiver are apparently within viewing distance of each other, they are able to interact covertly, enabling an immediate, and potentially very intimate, form of communication. The subversive potential in this kind of secret messaging is seen even more clearly in M30, another co-present text-message, where sender and receiver appear to be sitting in the same lecture but are able to contravene interactional norms undetected. [note 6]
How r u sweetie?Why am I doing this subject?It's just so boring!cu soon xxx [M30: Participant 53 / Message 3]
It is this ‘culture of concealed use’ (Ling & Yttri, 2002:164) which again makes apparent how and why text-messaging has come to be stitched so seemlessly into the social fabric of young people’s lives; by no means necessarily replacing face-to-face interaction, mobile phones and SMS enhance communication in ways which allow for multiple (or even parallel) communication events, offering an attractive combination of mobility, discretion, intimacy and, indeed, fun – illicit or otherwise.
