Research on SMS language

Outline

Sr. # Title
1 Introduction
1.1 Importance of texting in Modern society
2 Literature Review
2.1 SMS Discourse
2.1.1 Features of SMS Discourse
a Spoken and Written Discourse
b Language of SMS
2.2 Research on SMS
2.2.1 Areas of research
2.2.2 Attitudes towards SMS
2.2.3 Functions of SMS Text Messages
2.2.4 Linguistic Forms
2.3 SMS Text Analysis

1
 2.3.1 The mechanics of texting
2.3.2 An overview of literature
2.3.3 Cross-cultural contexts
2.3.4 International contexts
3 Methodology
3.1 Population
3.2 Sample
3.3 Data analysis technique
4 Analysis of Data
4.1 Abbreviation
4.2 Omission
4.3 Slang
4.4 Variation in style
4.5 Use of blank messages
4.6 Influence of native language
4.7 Use of emoction
4.8 Use of signs
4.9 Word order
4.10 Code switching
4.11 Code mixing
5 Conclusions
6 References
7 Appendix

2
3
 Abstract

This study was aimed at finding out the ‘language variation in text
messages’. Review of literature reveals that text messaging is a worldwide
craze and it is especially common among young generation. The arrival of
latest mobile technologies accompanied by the package explosions from
different mobile companies are also contributing in the expansion of this
text addiction. While due to lack of space text message language is very
different from common language and it is near to spoken language instead
of written form. A new and very important phenomenon observed in this
context is the use of abbreviations, reductions, omissions and shortening of
words as well as sentences. For the purpose of studying ‘language variation
in text messages’ total 10 volunteers were selected for the purpose of data
collection and each person contributed at least 200 text messages. So
originally more than 2,000 text messages were analyzed to find out the
language variation. Results of the study reveal that the most occurring
phenomenon of text messaging are code switching, code mixing, omission
of words and use of abbreviations. While the least observed phenomenon
are use of emoticon and influence of native language etc.

4
 INTRODUCTION

New technology is one of the factors that have greatly influenced human language. The mobile

telephone has been the latest way to communicate quickly since the invention of text messaging.

The terms ‘text messaging’ or just ‘texting’ refers to the brief typed messages sent using the Short

Message Service (SMS) of mobile/cell phones, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), smart-phones

or web browsers. SMS is a short message service that allows information to be passed across

from one person to another, over a network at a particular rate. SMS is used as an abbreviation

for all types of short text messaging in many parts of the world. SMS text messaging is one

medium of communication that has found its way into the system of communication over the past

few years. It is one technological device that its use is fast growing over a wide range in the whole

of Africa and even the globe. Communication through SMS is done by no other means but by the

use of words. The technical restrictions of text messaging have led to the development of

language short forms in SMS communication e.g. limited space. SMS communication allows for

a reasonable use of syntactic and lexical short forms, which save character space, or touches of

the handset keys, as compared with using the full forms of words. Text messaging is therefore

broadly defined as asynchronous text based technological mediated discourse that pursues simple

sentences structure for communication.

The mobile phone seems to have unique features that make it popular Text messaging is also

technically and practically restricted, allowing only 160 characters per message Texting thus does

not always follow the standard rules of English grammar Moreover, text messaging is a private

communication which allows users to rebel against the standard rules of English language.

Text messaging has been described as the “continuing assault of technology on formal written

English” Thurlow (2006, 2007) observes that texting impacts on literacy and standard language

5
use, especially that of young people. Linguists and educators can therefore use the debate on text

speak as a legitimate language and the breadth of its grammar, syntax and semantics to spark

academic discussion and understanding of all variations of language Ideas on text speak can be

used to promote the art of writing. Moreover, users of text speak, specifically teenagers,

demonstrate very clearly that their grammatical skills are intact and they very effectively mix it

with other types of language. Thus text messaging is a relaxed and often at times informal mode

of communication (Jansen, 2005; Thurlow, 2006). Texting reflects language change and

innovation in language. Variation within text messaging depends on the particular use of SMS

(Ong’onda, 2009). The study of SMS language can therefore tell us about sentence structure and

its variation in general The dominant features in SMS language are the use of abbreviations, slang,

syntactic reductions, asterisk emoting, emoticons, deletions of parts of speech, especially subject

pronoun, preposition, articles, copula, auxiliary or modal verbs and contractions.

In text writing we usually use short form of words and there is language variation in text writing

and normal speaking. We simply use some part of the word and that word is understood by the

receiver. Few examples are here because (bcz), you (u), have (hv), night (ni8), kesi (kc) and lot

many examples can be given. Every person has its specific way of texting and different from

other peoples and uses its specific short form of words.

Moreover texting is a private communication which allow user to rebel against the standard rules

of English language. The dominant feature in SMS language are the use of abbreviation , slang,

emoticons, deletion of parts of speech specially subject pronoun, preposition, article.

In text writing, writing is simple and there is no restriction on how to use different form of words

and sentence structure ,this is one of the reason that students are weak at their spelling because

they mostly use short form of words and they mostly spend their time in messaging so they learn

6
these form of words which are use in text writing other than correct spelling of word, as a result

they become weak at spelling.

Most of the time we use mobile for texting, it is the most likeable feature of mobile phone

peoples of all ages specially teen agers mostly use mobile phone for text writing. Keeping in view

of the popularity of text writing mobile companies have introduce different packages of different

networks which attracts the attention of youth because they provide very interesting packages

related to different networks ,different networks which are used in Pakistan are telenor

,ufone,warid and other networks and one of the basic reason why youth most of the time remain

busy in text writing are these interesting offers presented by different networks companies in

Pakistani culture. The use of mobile phone is increasing day by day. It had made communication

faster and reliable. Messages sent from one mobile phone to another make the world seem smaller

these days. In this busy life where no one have time to meet their relatives, friends and family,

they simply text them and keep in touch with them. Now a person don’t have to cover a vast

distance to send message and reach there although it is beneficial for us as it keep us in touch

with each other.

As there are positive and negative effects of everything, and text messaging appear to be very

beneficial innovation in these modern time but generally it keep people updated and informed

since they can carry a light cell phone wherever they go. So we should use technology for useful

purposes.

Importance of texting in modern society

With man’s power of the mind, innovative ideas turn out to be solutions that lead to a better, more

convenient lifestyle. We do not have to send runners to carry messages and then wait for weeks

7
for an answer. Telephones, and then cell phones, have made communication with friends,

business associates, and family simple and easy. And now with text messaging, we have the

ability to easily zip off messages right from our fingertips and receive an answer back in seconds.

These days, texting is one of the most liked features on mobile phones. People of all ages, but

especially teens, really like it. They consider it as the most convenient form of keeping in touch

with the people around them. But with the wrong kind of phone plan, sending and receiving text

messages has caused huge phone bills for many people who have mobile phone contracts! Many

parents have been astounded at phone bills that skyrocketed as their children increased text

messaging to their friends.

Because cell phone companies are understanding how important inexpensive texting is to people,

many are now including unlimited texting or at least free texting to their customers who text to

those in the same phone network.

The text messaging culture is a craze worldwide. Messages that can be sent and received from

one mobile phone to another make the world seem smaller these days. Text messaging keeps

family ties firm, crosses vast distances, saves friendships, delivers emergency information, is

used even for political campaigns, delivers advertising… and the list goes on.

LITERATURE REVIEW

New technology is one of the factors that have greatly influenced human language. The mobile

telephone has been the latest way to communicate quickly since the invention of text messaging.

The terms ‘text messaging’ or just ‘texting’ refers to the brief typed messages sent using the Short

8
Message Service (SMS) of mobile/cell phones, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), smart-phones

or web browsers. The technical restrictions of text messaging have led to the development of

language short forms in SMS communication e.g. limited space. SMS communication allows for

a reasonable use of syntactic and lexical short forms, which save character space, or touches of the

handset keys, as compared with using the full forms of words. Text messaging is therefore broadly

defined as asynchronous text based technological mediated discourse (Thurlow, 2003; Baron,

2005) that pursues simple sentences structure for communication.

2.1 SMS Discourse

Short Messaging Service (SMS), the latest mode of communication, is transforming the way

people interact with each other. There are transforming effects of new technologies. These effects

extend to the language and even possibly to the mind. More established technologies are partly

responsible for the original divergence and now potential convergence of speaking and writing.

Herring (2001) refers to SMS as a computer-mediated discourse (CMC) and Crystal (2001) heralds

this electronic discourse as ‘written speech’ – or writing that is very often read as if it were being

spoken. The characteristics of CMC have important consequences for understanding the nature of

CMC. Grinter & Eldridge (2001:219) state that mobile phones are in effect ‘mini-terminals for

text-based communication.’ Crystal (2001) and Ferrara (1991) argue that many of the expectations

and practices associated with spoken and written language no longer apply.

2.1.1. Features of SMS Discourse

(a) Spoken and Written Discourse

Spoken and written discourses are structurally different and serve different functions. Spoken

discourse is more fragmented with simpler simple sentences and coordinated words (and, but, or,

9
so). Written texts exhibit a bewildering variety of sentences of different structural forms. Brown

and Yule (1983) describe the functions of spoken and written discourse as follows:

We can use speech largely for the establishment and Maintenance of

human relationships (or we use it for interactions) whereas weuse written

language for working out and transference of information (primarily for

the purpose of transaction). However we can have written discourse that

is intended to be spoken (a speech) a spoken language that is designed to

be read (an informal letter).

SMS text message can be considered a marginal discourse as it is a hybrid of both the spoken and

written discourse, exhibiting features of both. Furthermore SMS text messaging is used for both

the interactional and transactional.

(b) Language of SMS

Herring (2001) notes that language will necessarily be affected by technological (or medium)

variables such as synchronicity, granulaty (length of text) multi modality (for example whether

graphic or audio are included) as well as other non-linguistic variables such as participants’

relationships, expectations and levels of motivation. So the language of SMS may be broadly

defined as asynchronous (delayed time) text-based. However text messaging can be asynchronous

or synchronous (real time) depending on if the receiver and the sender are both available to use

his/her mobile phone to reply and thus resemble mobile chat.

Since most SMS communication is interpersonal communication between people who know each

other, messages may be brief and because of shared knowledge. Furthermore, the character limit

of the message and the cumbersome text input makes this otherwise rude behavior acceptable

(Grinter & Eldridge, 2001, Döring, N., 2002). On the other hand people are willing to invest time

10
and effort in creating their messages despite the fleeting nature of the communication as they are

aware that their messages may be deleted soon after.

The challenge of the small screen size and its limited character space (160 characters) as well as

the small key pad has motivated the evolution of an even more abbreviated language than emerged

in chat-groups in virtual worlds (Crystal, D., 2001:229). The texters of the SMS messages are

experimenting with written language manipulating it to fit the technological limitations of space

and style. SMS text messages like the internet, strips written language to the most fundamental

properties because of time limitations and lack of para-lingualistic signs that exist in face-to-face

communication. Millard (1996), a professor of communication at Oxford refers to it as ‘meta-

communicative minimalism’. ‘Phatic or metacomunicatve cues, the linguistic and paralinguistic

signs that maintain cognizence of social relation between the sender and the receiver of a message

are drastically reduced in this medium.’ The messages are actually an amalgam of actual words

and acronyms, abbreviations and short forms which are feature characteristic of the language in

SMS text messaging. ‘They are shortened through a process of truncation, omission of letters or

substitution of consecutive letters in a word with a shorter chunk of consecutive characters that are

phonetically equivalent’ (Shortis,T., 2001). Shortis has listed all possible abbreviations and short

forms in his typology which forms the basis for the analysis of the SMS text messages of the Deaf

participants in this study.

2.2 Research on SMS

2.2.1 Areas of research

Research into SMS is currently being conducted in sociology, psychology, communication, media

and language studies as well as market research. Initially, research was mainly survey research

commissioned by Telecommunication companies to gauge market penetration and mobile phone

11
and texting usage. Only much later was the research in this field more qualitative, studying teenage

use of text messaging (for example Thurlow’ 2003, Kasesniemi & Rautiaiene 2002, Ling & Yttri

2002). The methods used also vary: field studies in cafes and restaurants

(Plant, S. 2002), interviews or questionnaire studies at schools and universities (Höflich & Rössler,

2002, Schlobinski, 2001) and text analysis of authentic text messages (Androutsopoulos &

Schmidt, 2001; Döring, 2002) Text analyses of SMS communication have investigated their

linguistic forms (shortening strategies, colloquial features and creative use of language) as well as

the communicative functions of the text messages.

2.2.2 Attitudes towards SMS

It is inevitable that any new innovation is not readily accepted from the onset but rather viewed

with some suspicion initially. Thus SMS was not ‘welcomed with open arms’ and pessimism about

SMS is echoed in mobile phone communication studies by Williams (1983), Cooper (2001) and

Lobert- Moris(2003). They concluded that SMS causes a ‘detached presence’ and a general loss

of human connectivity.

Contrary to the above findings of human alienation as a result of mobile phone communication,

are studies on youth text messaging practices in Asia such as those conducted in Japan (Ito &

Daisuke, 2003), Taiwan ( Yeh, 2004) and Hong Kong ( Lim, A., 2004), which end on an optimistic

note, about the positive uses of SMS by young people, for promoting human connectivity. The

young people use SMS text messaging to stay in frequent touch with good friends, classmates and

boyfriends/girlfriends. The heavy users feel that SMS plays an important role in strengthening

relationships.

2.2.3 Functions of SMS Text Messages

12
Perhaps the most important function of communication technologies like the mobile phone is to

enable people to maintain connections with those from whom they are distanced physically. This

function is most obviously achieved through the interpersonal messaging capabilities that this

technology supports. One of the prominent themes in the mobile phone communication is that

SMS text communication strengthens social networks ties. Ling & Yttri ‘s (2002) study found that

sending a text message may be more important for building and maintaining social relationships

than for coordinating practical arrangements. In Thurlow’s (2003) recent study of undergraduate

text messages, only about one third of the messages accomplished functional or practical goals –

the remainder fulfilled a combination phatic, friendship maintenance, romantic and social

functions associated with highly intimate and relational concerns. Text messaging therefore seems

to provide an opportunity for intimate personal contact whilst at the same offering the detachment

necessary to manage self presentation and involvement.

Grinter & Eldridge’s (2001) study on teenage mobile users found that they used mobile phone

texting to arrange times to chat and to adjust arrangements already made. They also use text

messaging to coordinate with both friends and family. The ability to connect with others,

anywhere, anytime allows for a state of ‘perpetual contact’ (Katz & Aakhus, 2002). This was also

echoed in Reid’s (2004) research, where a text can often be received at any time at any place, and

people can reply covertly and discretely, and do so whilst multi-tasking. This function is most

obviously achieved through the interpersonal messaging capabilities that this technology supports.

Although his subsequent research focused on social networking as the most prevalent feature of

SMS communication as mentioned above, Ling’s earlier research (2001) asserts that micro-

coordination seems to be the backbone of mobile phone communication. It allows for interlocutors

to confirm, re-confirm and change plans and activities that previously would have been organized

13
beforehand. This is echoed in the studies by Hadden (2002) and Blinkoff & Palen (2001). Both

their findings note that SMS text messaging removes strict adherence to schedule as now the

texters can communicate to inform friends and colleagues to re-schedule appointments. It has

given rise to a new found spontaneity which enables them to change plans at the last minute –

changing venues and inviting others to join their group.

2.2.4 Linguistic Forms

The text analyses of SMS communication have investigated both the linguistic forms (shortening

stratergies, colloquial features and creativity) and communicative functions of the text messages.

The linguistic studies conducted by Ylaa Hard af Segerstard (2003), Ling (2003), Döring (2002)

and Grinter & Eldridge (2001) investigated the language use namely the grammatical and lexical

forms adapted by the SMS text interlocutors. Döring’s (2002) findings concurs with Shortis (2000)

where she notes that syntactic reductions are used even though space exists for the full version of

the words. This can be interpreted as an ‘indication of familiarity between the communicative

partners’ (2002:8). Although the acronyms appear on an ad hoc basis the users can formulate and

interpret the messages meaningfully. She also believes that the shortforms like abbreviations and

acronyms fulfill a collective identity function. In her study, Lin (2005) found that the majority of

the Hong Kong college students ‘text bilingually using both Chinese and English’ According to

her the texters did not find Chinese and English to be mutually exclusive. It appears that in practice,

people draw on a whole range of linguistic resources and include forms of code mixing in their

SMS text messages.

Research into the communicative functions of SMS text messages have been studied as single

entities and as conversational analysis. SMS communication may lead to what is known as SMS

chats when single messages are exchanged in a series like a dialogue. However this would depend

14
on if the receiver and sender are both available to use and reciprocate the message received at the

same time. Kasesniemi & Rautiainen (2002) noted that SMS text messaging can become

increasingly dialogic with conversational structures like turn taking.

Taylor & Harper (2003) identified an ‘obligation to reciprocate in adolescent SMS usage’. This

concurs with Kasesniemi & Rautianen’s findings who state that ‘leaving an SMS unanswered is

almost without exception interpreted as rudeness’.

2.3 SMS Text Analysis

2.3.1 The mechanics of texting

Texting was initially developed and released commercially in the early to mid-1990s and has since

seen a huge rise in popularity around the world following the rapid spread of mobile telephony in

general. (In 2009, the United Nations reported that more than 60% of the world’s population –

about 4.1 billion people – had access to a mobile phone. It is most often used for person-to-person

communication, text messages are also increasingly being used to interact with automated systems

(e.g. buying products, participating in television contests, recruiting voters). One interesting

‘convergence’ phenomenon is the use of short messaging services with interactive television,

which confuses the boundary between interpersonal and broadcast messaging. As is usually the

case, the technology is being continually transformed.

On this note, and in situating text messaging with reference to computer-mediated communication

more generally, it is important to recognize always the interplay between what a technology itself

allows (or affords) and what the communicator herself/himself brings to the technology. Most

obviously, in the case of text messaging, the equipment is small and, eponymously, mobile; it

therefore affords most texters an unobtrusive and relatively inexpensive means of communication.

At the same time, text messaging is also technically and practically restricted, allowing only a

15
certain number of characters per message. Moreover, like text-based CMC, it is primarily

QWERTY-driven – which is to say, reliant on the standard ‘typewriter’ keyboard (cf Anis, 2007).

Whether or not any mechanical feature of any technology presents as a communicative constraint

or opportunity, however, invariably depends on the user and on the context of use.

2.3.2 SMS Text Analysis: An overview of the literature

For a technology that only really went ‘live’ in the mid-1990s, it took scholars a while to attend to

texting. Since the early 2000s, however, research from a range of disciplines and a number of

countries has been growing. While much of this work falls beyond the immediate interests of

language scholars, it does reveal the increasing importance and application of texting in both

scholarly and public contexts. This research also demonstrates how much scholarly writing focuses

on the transactional and often commercial uses of texting rather than the relational function which,

as we will suggest, sits at the heart of most everyday texting. Representing a veritable ‘shopping

list’, texting research spans a wide range of disciplines and topics. From medicine, studies include

the use of texting for patient reminders (e.g. Downer, et al. 2006; Leong, et al. 2006) and for

aftercare treatment (e.g. Robinson, et al. 2006; Weitzel, et al. 2007). In academics, studies include

texting as library support (Herman 2007; Hill, Hill and Sherman 2007), as a research methodology

(Bosnjak, et al. 2008; Cheung 2008; Steeh, Buskirk and Callegaro 2007), as a pedagogical tool

(Dürscheid 2002a; Naismith 2007), as a recruitment strategy (Maher 2007), and as a means for

reducing school truancy (Allison 2004). Research in environmental development has examined

how texting assists Bangladeshi villagers to locate clean water sources (Opar 2006). Texting

research extends to business and commercial uses (e.g., Bamba and Barnes 2007; Hsu, Wang and

Wen 2006; Mahatanankoon 2007), political campaigning (Prete 2007) and media broadcasting

(Enli 2007). Closer to human communication research, psychologists have looked at compulsive

16
texting (Rutland, Sheets and Young 2007) and so-called cyber-bullying (e.g. Raskauskas and Stoltz

2007; Smith, et al. 2008). What is apparent from this research is how often the purely informational

uses of texting are often privileged. A lot of other research does address the role of texting as a

social-communicative resource in people’s daily lives. Take these examples: thirty-two percent of

adult texters in Malaysia cannot use their mobile phones without texting (Tanakinjal, et al. 2007);

texting is a status symbol with Hong Kong college students, with texters being predominantly male

and having a high household income (Leung 2007); young adults with lower social skills in Hong

Kong (Leung 2007) and Japan (Ishii 2006) prefer texting to voice communication; Filipino

mothers in the U.S. with children overseas use texting to maintain real-time relationships with their

children (Uy-Tioco 2007); and subtle gender relations are negotiated via texting in Taiwan (Lin

and Tong 2007). Lists like this illustrate nicely the ways in which texting is typically embedded in

people’s daily lives. In terms of language and communication in particular, scholarly interest has

been a little slower still to establish itself, and texting continues to be a relatively under-examined

area of research (compared, say, with other modes of CMC). This too has been changing, however,

and a growing body of properly sociolinguistic and discourse analytic research attends to texting

in English and other national languages. Our quick overview of the literature here, for example,

covers work done in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy,

South Africa, Nigeria, New Zealand, Kuwait, Malaysia, Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan and Hong

Kong, as well as the UK and USA. Pragmatically-oriented studies meanwhile have begun to

address, amongst other things, turn-taking, code-switching, openings and closings, and general

communicative intent. They have also considered, explicitly or not, the pragmatic implications of

message length, textual complexity, grammar and punctuation, spelling and orthography, and the

use of emoticons. In every case, studies typically situate pragmalinguistic phenomena with a view

17
to broad cultural and interactional variations, which has important implications for any gross

generalizations about the uniform nature of texting – a point we return to below.

2.3.3 Cross-cultural contexts

Speaking of variation, cross-cultural research on texting typically focuses on ‘lingua-cultural’

(Agar 1994) and gendered differences. A small handful of studies consider age differences.

Perhaps not surprisingly, young people and older people have been found to use texting in different

ways (Kim, et al. 2007). Teenagers and young adults are typically the most avid texters in a range

of cross-cultural settings (Kasesniemi 2003; Ling 2005; Spagnolli and Gamberini 2007) which is

not to say that it is exclusive to, or has relevance only for, young people. In reviewing the literature

briefly, we find very little research that focuses on adult texters; the vast majority attends to

children and young people. As with popular media coverage, therefore, the broader demographics

of texters in largely overlooked.

In terms of gendered differences in texting, research has again been done in a number of countries.

In Norway, for example, female teenagers and young adults text most frequently, with more than

40% of young women texting daily (Ling 2005). Compared with young Norwegian men, these

young women also send a greater number of longer and more syntactically complex messages,

with 52% containing complex sentence structures compared with 15% of boys’ messages. They

also use capitalization and punctuation more prescriptively, are more adroit at innovating new

forms, prefer to coordinate events in the immediate future (as opposed to the middle future as do

boys), and are more likely to use texting for managing emotionally ‘loaded’ communication (Ling

2005). These broad difference between girls/women and boys/men are commonly reported; see,

for example, also Höflich and Gebhardt (2005) and Schmidt and

18
Androutsopoulos (2004) in Germany; Herring and Zelenkauslaite (2009) in Italy; and Deumert

and Masinyana (2008) in South Africa. In Finland meanwhile, Kasesniemi (2003) too found that

teenage girls are heavy texters, often placing greater emphasis on providing emotional exchanges,

contemplating reasons behind interpersonal incidents, and discussing how incidents have affected

them. Finnish boys, however, typically place greater emphasis on speed; their messages tend to be

brief, informative, practical, often single-word or question-answer texts in a single sentence, and

are about the facts of events. That gender differences emerge in young people’s preferred

communication styles is hardly surprising (Thurlow 2001); these findings do however reiterate the

variability that exists between texters and the messages they send.

Other cross-cultural research has also shown variable and Gamberini 2007), France (Rivière and

Licoppe 2005), Korea (Kim, et al. 2007) and young people in Japan (Ishii 2006) communicate

predominantly with family or those in their innermost social circles. A study of older Japanese

texters meanwhile found texting used more with those in extended social and even professional

circles in order to preserve respect for the receiver by not risking interrupting their affairs (Rivière

and Licoppe 2005). In studying Kuwaiti texters, Haggan

(2007) notes the transcription of Arabic texts into English and a tendency towards formality and

eloquence which, she argues, may arise from their value more generally. Spagnolli and Gamberini

(2007) meanwhile comment on the way that some Italians send lengthy, elaborate refusals to

invitations, which, the authors argue, again reflects particular local norms. Of course, in all these

cases, it is not clear how generalizable findings are to the rest of the country. Related to this point,

and although there are steps in the right direction (e.g. Nickerson, Isaac and Mak 2008; also see

below: Bieswanger, 2008; Plester et al. 2009a; Spilioti, 2009), we were unable to find anyone

pulling together a large multinational comparative study which might offer a more

19
systematic perspective on these types of lingua-cultural differences.

2.3.4 Interactional contexts

The use of texting in building and maintaining relationships has been a key aspect of research,

which goes a long way to confirming the essentially social function of the technology. For

example, texting can assist in establishing new relationships (Ling 2008; see also Thompson and

Cupples’ (2008) study of young New Zealanders) or, as in Japan, in maintaining and reinforcing

existing ones (Ishii 2006). Young Japanese people also rated their relationships as more intimate

when texting was an aspect of the relationship (Igarashi, Takai and Yoshida 2005). Scholars have

also remarked on the ritualistic role of texting in defining social boundaries through shared

linguistic codes (e.g. Ling 2008; Androutsopoulos and Schmidt, 2002; Spilioti, 2009), and

demonstrated how speech styles constitute different types of social relationships, with style

shifting providing a contextual cue for relationship maintenance and conflict management

(Schmidt and Androutsopoulos 2004). The role of texting in maintaining an ‘absent presence’ in

Japanese relationships is highlighted by Ito and Okabe (2005) as a key interactional function of

texting – what they call ambient virtual co-presence. French texters, too, have been found to use

texting for maintaining an absent presence among close friends (Rivière and Licoppe 2005). This

research demonstrates nicely the deeply embedded nature of texting in people’s lives and its key

role in relational escalation and maintenance.

Privacy considerations in texting have also been explored; for example, Weilenmann and

Larsson (2002) found that texting may be a collective, public practice, with young Swedes

sometimes reading and composing aloud with co-present friends. French texters, however, have

been found to appreciate the ability to engage in private communications in public places, as

texting permits senders to freely express emotion absent inhibitions and modesties (Anis 2007;

20
Rivière and Licoppe 2005). The privacy afforded by texting also enables young people to

communicate more freely (e.g. without adults’ surveillance), which shores up young people’s

communities (Thompson and Cupples 2008). Conversely, in China, the traditional social order as

governed by the State is perceived to be under threat where texting facilitates a more or less

Habermasian ‘public sphere’ (Latham 2007). Whether approved of or not, texting is clearly aiding

sociality in interesting and, to some extent, novel ways.

Another area of research that speaks to the interactional contexts of texting – and that has received

considerable scholarly attention – is the thematic content or functional orientation of people’s text

messages. Chiluwa (2008), for example, classified Nigerian texters’ messages into three

categories: economic (business and commerce), social (religion, politics, education, and patterns

between social/demographic groups within countries. For example, texters in Germany (Dürscheid

2002b), Italy (Spagnolli

other social concerns) and personal (greetings, feelings, prayers, etc.), and found that 60% of text

messages fell into this last category. Other researchers have similarly found the overall purpose of

texting to be primarily affective (Androutsopoulos and Schmidt 2002; Kasesniemi 2003; Ling

2005; Rivière and Licoppe 2005), phatic, and socio-coordinative (Androutsopoulos and Schmidt

2002; Ling 2005; Rivière and Licoppe 2005). The socio-coordinative function might entail, for

example, the sending of ‘gifts’ (akin to greeting cards) or a good-night message (Harper 2002;

Laursen 2005; Ling 2005), managing a romantic relationship (Harper 2002), or the exchange of

jokes and other word-play games (Rivière and Licoppe 2005). Content is also sometimes created

together with co-present friends (Harper 2002; Weilenmann and Larsson 2002), and because

texting is most often used to fill gaps in the day when texters are without direct, face-to-face

21
interpersonal contact, it invariably takes on a chatty tone (Ito and Okabe 2005). This body of

research further illuminates the range of different social functions texting plays in people’s lives.

METHODOLOGY

This study was aimed at finding out the language variation in text messages

3.1 Population

All the individuals using mobile phones for text messaging were the population of the study.

3.2 Sample

10 persons were selected for the purpose of data collection in order to study the language

variation in text messages. The persons who voluntarily agreed to give the data needed for the

22
study were taken as the sample of the study. At least 200 text messages from each individual

were taken and analyzed. So sample consisted of 2,000 text messages from 10 respondents.

Demographic characteristics and their fictitious names are shown in the table.

Sr. # Fictitious Occupation and location

Name

1 Hadia University student from Jhang

2 Wqas University student from Sargodha

3 Faiza Unviersity student from Gujranwala

4 Shaista Unviersity student from Gujranwala

5 Shairyar University student from Shahpur

6 Noman University student from Islamabad

7 Komal University student from Sargodha

8 Saba College student from Sargodha

9 Raiha University student from Sargodha

10 Asma University student from Sargodha

If we try to summarize this sample we find out following information

Gender Male 2 (20 %)

Female 8 (80 %)

Location Gujranwala 2 (20 %)

Islamabad 1 (10 %)

23
 Jhang 1 (10 %)

Sargodha 5 (50 %)

Profession Student 10 (100%)

So this table shows the characteristics of the study sample. Now the next step is to move

towards the data analysis.

Data Analysis Technique

Data will be analyzed by Content Analysis.

DATA ANALYSIS

Data was analyzed by means of content analysis. Different language characteristics which were

observed in the data are given as following.

4.1 Abbreviation

24
The use of abbreviations in sentences also indicated language variation. Abbreviations are

easily understood by SMS members thus fulfilling a collective identity function. People create

abbreviations by using only the first letter of each word. Few text messages had abbreviated

phrases. People mostly use abbreviation of Asslam`0`Alikum in this way “A.A.” For example:

 Komal used ‘uni’ abbreviation of university, when she was chatting to her friend Sara.

“ mry pas khan sy aya m to uni prhti hon”

 And used another abbreviation ‘t.c by’( take care bye).

Raeha also used abbreviations chatting to her brother in this way.

 ‘R u busy’ and ‘ contct wid me’.

(are you busy) and (contact with me)

 “I w8”

(I wait)

4.2 Omission

In the analysis of data collected through text messages of different people, many omissions in the

syntax are found.

For example: Light after omission is written as li8 or l8. You is written as U and Please is written

as Plz. There are also many more examples could be found as thanks written as thanx/tnx/thankx.

Medicine as Medicn. Biscuits as biscot.

 Acha btao r ghr me sb kia kr ra hain?

( Acha btao aur ghar main sub kia kar rhy hain?)

 Han bht zada bht acha lgta hai pehna hua!

( han bohat ziada acha lagta hai pehna hua!)

 M comin

25
(I am coming.)

 Whats up bt kro na

(What’s going on bat karo na)

 “ class m ami ko txt kr rhai the”

(“e” is omitted in “txt” )

There is high level of repetition present of these omissions in every type of data collected.

4.3 Slang

Slang is the use of informal words and expressions that are not considered standard in the

speaker’s language or dialect but considered more accepted when used socially.

Use of slang is highly observed in text messaging when people are talking to their friends. For

example in Faiza and Shariyar, both uses the slang, “O kameni ye to buri bat he”

“ Kaminy to b wapis ho jaldi” respectively with their friends.

Similarly the use of “Yar/Yr” can be observed excessively in every person’s text messages. Shit

is also one of tose examples.

There is another example of using slang word. Saba use slang word ‘stupid’ with her cousin Amir.

 “how funy…stupid”

4.4 Variation in Style

Style of Messaging varies person to person and it changes majorly due to relationship with that

person to whom the message is being conveyed. In all the data collected it is deeply observed that

while talking to friend every person becomes more and more informal while talking to our

siblings or other relatives we become a little bit formal. But variation also exists in different level

of friendships.

26
As Shariyar to one of his friends:

 Ap khan pr ho

And with other one:

 Dafa ho m pohnch gya ho sgd

Noman with his friend ( Nabela):

 “Hey kasi ho?”

And with his sister ( Naila):

 “Salam behna kesi hain?”

However some people maintain their style. For example in Waqas’s chat there are no observable

variations.

4.5 Use of Blank Messages:

Use of blank messages can be observed in almost every person’s chat especially in Faiza’s and

Noman’s chat. It is either sent in case of anger or in case of no reply. However some use of blank

messages is also apparent in Raeha’s chat.

4.6 Influence of Native Language:

Native language is the first language which a person has learned from birth. In text messaging

mostly National language is being used to have a more clear reception of the msg. But very few

people are in the habit of using native language.

For example in one of Shaista’s message Punjabi is used as:

 Nae parh parh k anni hn di an. Phr bt krty hn. Oky na!

27
4.7 Use of Emoticon

A smiley or smiley face is a stylized representation of a smiling humanoid face, commonly

occurring in popular culture. As we see there is very low influence of native language on text

messaging. Similarly the trend of using emoticons is decreasing day by day. In the data collected

from 10 persons very fewer smileys can be observed as in Shaita’s chat with her friend Kiran:

“Shaista piaz chaeay:-(:-( or in Noman’s message with his friend: “I love u baby love u so

much!!!! ”

4.8 Use of Signs:

Signs are used to creative emotions in messages. Most of the people are in habit of using sign of

exclamation, question mark and also the full stop sign. But some of people don’t use them. For

example in Hadia’s chat no signs are used. Either full stop are not used while in Asma’s chat

every message have a sign. As given below:

 Han musebat dal li hai apne galay bs thik e hai!!!

 Asa ni socha kro allah sb bhtr kry ga tm agy parho gi???

4.9 Word order:

People also changed the word order of language which led to syntactic variation. Urdu is a

Subject object verb (SVO) language. However, one may change the word order if one wants to

emphasize a certain point or vary the writing style. The auxiliary verb, preposition or adverb may

therefore come first. People changed their sentence structure in text message. For example,

Shariyar changed sentence structure and omitted auxiliary verb in this sentence:_

 “jani free kb hona”.

(kab free hona hy jani?)

Reha also changed sentence structure, when she was chatting to her brother waqas.

28
  “mosam kysa hy whan ka”

(whan ka mosam kysa hy).

4.10 Code switching:-

Code switching phenomena is oftenly used in text messages. In the text messages, people

switch one language into another language. It happens when speakers are multilingual or

bilingual. When the speakers have command over many languages than it is the choice of

speaker that he uses which language in order to convey his message to others clearly.

For example: Raeha’s switches as follows from one language to other.

 A.A ksy hain ap kya kr rhay thy?

 Contect wid me

4.11 Code Mixing:

Code mixing refers to the mixing of two or more languages or language varieties in speech.

While observing the data we can see that the phenomenon of code mixing is used used largely.

For example:Amir uses Punjabi with mixing Urdu

 “Te hor ki. . . itny kam”

REFERENCES

Farina, F., & Lyddy, F. (2011). The Language of Text Messaging: “Linguistic Ruin” or Resource?

The Irish Psychologist, 37(6). Retrieved June 27, 2012 from

http://eprints.nuim.ie/2681/1/FF_Text_Messaging.pdf

29
Hearing impaired SMS communication. (n. d.) Retreieved June 27, 2012 from

http://dspace.fsktm.um.edu.my/bitstream/1812/413/7/Vijayalechumi%20Nagalingam_Chapt

er%202%20%28Literature%20Review%29.pdf

Oladayo O. (2011). Syntactic and lexico-semantic analyses of selected SMS text messages among

the University of Ilorin students. Retrieved June 27, 2012 from

http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/studproj/arts/0715CD134.pdf

Ong’onda N. A., Matu P. M., & Oloo P. A. (2011). Syntactic Aspects in Text Messaging. World

Journal of English Language 1 (1). Retrieved June 27, 2012 from

www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/wjel/article/download/197/83

Rafi, M. S. (n. d.) SMS Text Analysis: Language, Gender and Current Practices. Retrieved June

27, 2012 from http://www.tesol-france.org/Documents/Colloque07/SMS%20Text

%20Analysis%20Language%20Gender%20and%20Current%20Practice%20_1_.pdf

SMS language. (2012). Retrieved June 27, 2012 from ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_language

Thurlow, C., & Poff, M. (2011). Text Messaging. In Herring, S. C., Stein D., & Virtanen T. (eds.),

Handbook of the Pragmatics of CMC. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Retrieved June

27, 2012 from http://faculty.washington.edu/thurlow/papers/thurlow&poff%282010%29.pdf

30